Con_Alma;1198083 wrote:In His time, not ours.

Very creepy of you con.


I've just put off the whole idea for now. No use even worrying about something like that at the moment. When I've got money, and no cares in the world, i'll smoke a big blunt and come back to the idea and see if my mind has changed.

jmog;1198271 wrote:Including Atheism correct?

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It does not need any evidence. It is not a belief.

jmog;1198285 wrote:Technically Agnosticism is 'non-belief' or really 'not knowing' atheism is 'knowing' there is no deity. So, by 'knowing' or 'believing' there is no deity and not being able to prove that, that is by definition a 'faith'.

That is all in simplest terms obviously.

Equating atheism as a faith is asinine and is an attempt by believers to circumvent proof by making the other "side" seem like a position of faith.

Pretty sad.

sportchampps;1198299 wrote:I am 28 and believe in god. I believe someone had to start everything in the beginning. I am also strongly opposed to organized religion for myself. Organized religion serves it's purpose for charity and often helps people recover from problems in their life, or even provides friendship to some. I don't need these things in my life at this point. This said I think the bible Koran or any other religious beliefs are based on really good non fiction stories.

I think most of the hatred of belief system are religious belief systems. Simply put, they are a cult designed to influence and extract finances from the masses. Nothing more, nothing less.

sleeper;1198315 wrote:Equating atheism as a faith is asinine and is an attempt by believers to circumvent proof by making the other "side" seem like a position of faith.

Pretty sad.

Webster's dictionary must be sad.

Atheism-The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown.

Yeah, seems like my description is correct and your's is wrong.

Atheism is just as much a belief system/faith as any religion.

I agree with jmog, atheism is a belief system.

jmog;1198340 wrote:Webster's dictionary must be sad.

Atheism-The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown.

Yeah, seems like my description is correct and your's is wrong.

Atheism is just as much a belief system/faith as any religion.

Do you have faith in gravity jmog?

sleeper;1198349 wrote:Do you have faith in gravity jmog?

What's the matter, get proven wrong and you move the goal posts to a different question that has nothing to do with the discussion?

jmog;1198353 wrote:What's the matter, get proven wrong and you move the goal posts to a different question that has nothing to do with the discussion?

I'm not moving any goal posts, I'm about to absolutely destroy your logic once again. Now answer the question.

sportchampps;1198299 wrote:I believe someone had to start everything in the beginning

There can't be a beginning if something already existed.

Atheism is the belief that a god doesn't exist. It cannot be proven, just as the belief in a god cannot be proven.

For the record, I think the Webster definition of atheism is broken and obviously has some inherent bias built in.

WebFire;1198363 wrote:There can't be a beginning if something already existed.

Seriously, you're killing me. Luckily I am at work reading this and not high.

sleeper;1198355 wrote:I'm not moving any goal posts, I'm about to absolutely destroy your logic once again. Now answer the question.

What you are trying to prove will fall flat when you forget to talk about the DOCTRINE part of the discussion.

However, I'll play along just to get a laugh.

Since the definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" and you chose the word faith for an obvious reason, I will say no. I do not have "faith" in gravity since gravity has been proven (aka Newton's gravitational LAWS).

However, if you are talking about do I have faith in how gravity works (aka the theory of gravity) like gravitons, etc then sure, I have 'faith' that the theory of how gravity works is correct even though it hasn't been proven.

sleeper;1198371 wrote:For the record, I think the Webster definition of atheism is broken and obviously has some inherent bias built in.

You can't be serious now sleeper.

justincredible;1198372 wrote:Seriously, you're killing me. Luckily I am at work reading this and not high.

IF you were high...

sleeper;1198371 wrote:For the record, I think the Webster definition of atheism is broken and obviously has some inherent bias built in.

Nah, I highly doubt that. I knew some of the people in charge of the words/definitions from my time at the spelling bee.

DeyDurkie5;1198376 wrote:IF you were high...

Seriously. I'd probably go jump off my roof or something. Total mind fuck.

I always thought that sleeper considered himself the Almighty, so does this mean he doesnt believe in himself?

Okay. Her goes. I'm gonna have to break this up, as I'm sure it's going to be longer than 10,000 characters.

sleeper;1197530 wrote:No doubt that this has to do with information being more readily available and people are able to see the obvious BS promoted by religious institutions.

A tad presumptuous, wouldn't you say? Based on what I saw in college (not that long ago), most students seem to have an apathy toward self-education. Couple that with the fact that few students take any classes with much on metaphysical worldviews, it stands to reason that most college students would give it little thought, and those that do likely glean most of their knowledge on the subject by the talking heads and sound bites they find in media sources.

What this DOES give them a knowledge of is the popular, contemporary manifestation of said metaphysical worldviews. However, the merit of the worldviews themselves cannot be necessarily judged by those who hold them, but instead only by the ideas, thoughts, and beliefs that spawn them. It's really no different than judging ANY worldview by a few talking points by a selection of random knuckleheads that hold it. The larger the worldview, the more knuckleheads there are from which to choose, and the ratio is even likely to be higher, because the popularity of the worldview causes many to adopt it without much consideration, other than "a lot of people do."

As such, I believe there is MUCH doubt to be had as to the occurrence of this phenomenon. The human cultural dynamic is far too complex to pigeonhole, AT LEAST at such an early junction.

sleeper;1197530 wrote:Information cures ignorance and when you think about religion nothing could be more ignorant.

Conclusions are never ignorant. It is the thought process by which that conclusion is obtained that can be.

sleeper;1197563 wrote:The human race.

The human race, being a large collection of beings, each comprised of an accidental collocation of atoms reacting with the genetics of the being and its environment, would not seem to be capable of making choices, or at the very least, would have its choice-making ability extremely fixed. As such, thanking the human race, under your worldview, would be like thanking a flower for blooming because of its genetic code and environmental factors.

sleeper;1197649 wrote:It certainly made me happy since I don't know any young people that actually believe in god. This correlates well with my belief that religion is on its way out.

I would encourage you to rub shoulders with young people that believe in God. Given that 68% still don't even question the existence of God, it is likely that there are still others who believe, but have indeed questioned said existence. As such, there are plenty out there, and to avoid "intellectual incest," it is best to interact with people of vastly differing worldviews.

If you're ever in town, I'll buy you a beer, and we can hash over it. Probably won't change anyone's mind, but that's not always the point of engaging conversation of differing views.

I Wear Pants;1197844 wrote:Still 68% of young people never even doubting the existence of a god. That's way too damn high.

Worded that way, I actually agree. I believe EVERYTHING should be questioned. In the words of Dr. J. P. Moreland (my favorite author), "If Christianity is true, we ought to live as though it is true. If it is false, we ought to live as though it is false. What we oughtn't do is believe it or reject it without consideration."

sleeper;1197914 wrote:Evolution isn't really disputed by any credible scientist anymore ...

Nor by the Bible.

jmog;1198131 wrote:So anyone who questions the current 'modus operandi' in the scientific community 'skipped all of their science classes'?

I'm sure you don't feel that way about Capernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and even Darwin are all scientists who went against the current scientific 'consensus' and developed science that the scientific community now view as fact.

Einstein was so bothered by the fact that his theory of relativity and quantum mechanics is all about probability (not exact locations/speeds like Newtonian Physics was) that he spent years trying to 'fix' his theory as he was once quoted as saying "God doesn't play dice with the Universe".

The current scientific consensus of Einstein's day was so entrenched in him that it took him a VERY long time to even believe his own conclusions.

So, by design, science is to gain knowledge and truth about how the universe works, there are times when you have to balk at the current dogma/beliefs. And yes, I do mean both scientific AND religious 'dogmas'.

Well-put.

WebFire;1198136 wrote:But who's to say that is even the case?

Given that we have no such KNOWN example of this phenomenon (no beginning) happening anywhere else in nature (the closest case I've heard made would be energy), it would be odd for one to believe such a possibility, as it seems to exist completely outside what we can empirically test.

WebFire;1198136 wrote:Which came first, the chicken or the egg? These questions will NEVER be answered.

Depends. If we're asking about ANY kind of egg, then the egg most certainly came first. If we're asking which came first between the CHICKEN egg and the chicken, well then I may agree with you.

sleeper;1198210 wrote:The egg came first. It was simply an advantageous mutation of another species over millions of years that allowed the "chicken" to be created. This species had the correct adaptations to survive in its environment.

This depends on whether or not we're referring to a chicken egg. Based on how minute the evolutionary adaptations would have to have been, the "thing" that laid what we know of as a chicken egg could have been close enough in species variation to be called a "chicken." It certainly could have mated with a chicken.

sleeper;1198210 wrote:The only thing evolution has trouble with is explaining the first species and how life started.

I still have my questions about the evolutionary process. Make no mistake, I am an evolutionary creationist, but I don't hold to that belief in the evolutionary process of species variation as resolutely as I hold to something that I've known to be tested, replicated, and verified in a laboratory. While mutations have certainly shown to be possible through intentional manipulation of genetics, I've yet to hear of an observation of it happening without intentional intervention where it thrived and caused a fully-new species.

However, I admit that I'm not acutely involved in the scientific community, so if I am wrong ... well ... mea culpa.

sleeper;1198210 wrote:Then again, no one knows, and no scientist will claim that he does know. Billions of people know though, just ask a believer, they know without a doubt and live their entire lives based on that knowledge.

People don't base their lives on the origins of life, at least none of which I know. Most people I know base their lives on what they believe to be true of an entire worldview. Speaking of Christians, I don't think most of their worldviews hinge on the theory of origins.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:This will never happen. Although I've stated before there are only two ways to ever believe in God.

This is a false dichotomy, with not only real examples to serve as defeaters, but it lacks a rational construct to suggest it as a truth claim.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:The first and most common way is childhood indoctrination.

Careful with this, as parents and school teachers teach children a lot of other things in the same way.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:You build into a child's mind a certain belief system and make sure to notify them that are religions are wrong and infidels; as well as all atheists being terrorists and the devil's people.

C'mon, sleeper. You're smarter than that. That's quite the strawman, nevermind that it's even predominantly untrue. The "wrong" part ... okay, that's pretty accurate. The "infidels" part, though ... unless we're specifically talking ONLY militant worldviews, that's vastly incorrect.

As for the part about atheists ... most religions don't mind atheists at all, and I can't think of a single worldview that predominantly views atheism in the vein you just described. Maybe if we're speaking of Jack Chick's tracts back in the '70s, you might find a noticeable group of people who believe that way, but I daresay you'd be hard-pressed to find a collective metaphysical worldview where that is adopted by anything close to even half of its individuals.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:That is the advantage of that method. The disadvantage of that method is that when/if the person finds out that the entire thing was absolute bullshit, you create a militant atheist help bent on destroying everything and anything about religion.

Possibly in part, but not as a rule, necessarily. Suppose I blindly follow everything someone tells me. Let’s make it a professor at the Ohio State University. I hang onto his every word, and I hold it as unquestionable truth.

Now, suppose I come to find out later that one small nugget … let’s say 2% of everything he has taught me … is absolutely false. Should that small nugget cause me to instantly reject the other 98%? Of course not. It should cause me to engage the other 98% for myself, with an open, but critically thinking, mind.

Does that mean nobody WILL instantly reject the other 98%? No. It would certainly be easier, and if a person is given over to rebellion for the sake of rebellion, it would even be preferable. It just wouldn’t be intellectually honest.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:The second method involves a mid life crises.

This can’t even be based on personal experience (though I’m willing to bet the first one mirrors a personal anecdote of yours), so I’m curious by what means you’ve concluded this.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:When you are unable to resist the emotional swings of life its comforting to "know" that someone is up there and has a plan for you and will take care of you for eternity.

I would actually suggest that this one is applicable to teenagers more than “mid-lifers.” At that age, the emotional swings seem to be worst, culturally. It would make logical sense for such a demographic to be looking for something stable that ascribes meaning to their existences.

However, many people like myself live a certain way out of nothing more than the belief that it’s how humanity was designed to live. Heaven, hell, or annihilation is irrelevant. Any grandness of purpose is irrelevant.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:This comfort comes with a cost though, or at least it should. The first is monetary. You waste your money not only on the church but other religious marketed themes because remember you are a good person and you want to go to heaven.

This should be a cost?

This is another strawman. A metaphysical worldview doesn’t necessitate financial obligation. Moreover, by your reference to “the church,” it would appear that you’re referencing Christianity with specificity. Most Christians are not financially obligated by the church. Any giving is done without such obligation, and if one is to reference the Bible, the only financial obligation tied to morality is that of helping the poor … something I daresay is seen as noble among the religious and non-religious alike.

Secondly, simply because religion has been used as a marketing niche and is fed by a particular religious subculture does not mean that it is necessary for the spirituality of anyone within that subculture. More succinctly, Christianity does not suggest that giving money to the church and buying Christian-themed things makes you a “good person” or more likely to get to heaven.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:The second and more important is you break any form of credibility and intellect.

Attacking the intellectual validity of a conclusion instead of attacking the logical construct that forms it is a logical fallacy.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:No one takes people seriously who actually believe that a flood occurred 5000 years ago and that there was a talking snake and that a man(he was a man, since its never been proven that he was anything but a simple man) turned water into wine. There are numerous biblical stories that are a freaking joke, and there are numerous religions that have similar stories.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. “No one takes people seriously who actually believe” is a pretty clear start to such a fallacy.

Remember, not so long ago, that no one would have taken someone seriously for saying that there was anything smaller than an atom.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:Anyways, until enough evidence correlates highly with the belief in a god, can one person start trying to prove that "their" god is the correct god.

Empirical evidence demanded to prove the existence of a non-empirical being.

Such a demand is equitable to me demanding that someone prove to me that the square root of 9 is 3 when I only accept colors as evidence.

sleeper;1198219 wrote:As of 2012, zero evidence exists for any belief system. Zero. Embarrassing.

Zero empirical evidence, indeed. Nobody would contend that, I don’t think (except maybe the Answers In Genesis crowd … eh &#8230.

sleeper;1198221 wrote:I disagree. I think we will know eventually. But you are correct, we do NOT know.

Based on what scientific construct do you believe we will know one day?

justincredible;1198222 wrote:I agree. I cannot fathom any scenario that didn't have a beginning. The bolded part is really fucking with my head right now. Thanks for that.

I always liked that part. Makes me feel like I’ll never stop having things to try to figure out.

Interesting that you apply a belief in gravity since you have seen highly correlated evidence of its existence and which no one disputes. You were born with no knowledge of gravity, what it is, how it works, etc; but you now believe it based on what you have seen.

Using this, you were also born an atheist. You had no knowledge of a god or gods and have to be moved with highly correlated evidence to move you from the position of atheist. An atheist is someone who has no seen enough evidence or any evidence to move from said default position.

Is someone who is born in the jungles of Madagascar not believe in gravity? Is not believing in gravity a position of faith? No it isn't. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is the default position, it does not require proof, it does not need evidence.

Equating as such is a terrible way to setup your logic system and is why repeatedly I harp on believers for having a "broken mind". Setting up your mind this way, you are also an atheist. You don't believe in polytheism or the greek gods or thor, etc. Welcome to the club.

jmog;1198375 wrote:You can't be serious now sleeper.

It is something that I have written to Webster trying to convince them that their definition is broken.

Like everything else that many people do ... they take the easy way and less resistance path ....so be it your life. </SPAN>
But don&#8217;t tell me that at some point in your existence you haven&#8217;t asked for that Spiritual Being that you so adamantly reject. </SPAN>
I can tell you if this has not happen yet it will and when that time comes you and your resistance is what you need to rethink. </SPAN>

Belly35;1198388 wrote:Like everything else that many people do ... they take the easy way and less resistance path ....so be it your life.
But don&#8217;t tell me that at some point in your existence you haven&#8217;t asked for that Spiritual Being that you so adamantly reject.
I can tell you if this has not happen yet it will and when that time comes you and your resistance is what you need to rethink.

oh shut up belly.