Forum
»
More General Categories
»
Religion and Politics
»
fkin LMFAO @ Atheism, only retards think it’s a logical worldview.
01-09-2018, 02:02 PM
-
#61
01-09-2018, 02:28 PM
-
#62
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Reflexez⏩
meh- Since when does agnosticism correlate to a 50/50 chance of God(s) existing. If the actual probability was 98/2, you would still be an agnostic by saying you cannot know. If I roll a fair die and then immediately cover it with a box so you don't see it...you would be "agnostic" to the the question if the number showing is less than or equal to 2, even though the probability of this is 1/3.Agnostic isn't logical, it absolves you of any opinion on the matter and says you're not able to use your knowledge and experience to decide what is more likely, leaving both God(s) existing or not as having an equal chance.
Also, statements about probabilities of a deistic god existing are kinda meaningless. How can you even assign a probability number to something literally taking place outside our universe before the Big Bang?
Take an example:
A tree fell in a forest overnight, and you didn't see how. Say someone gives you possible three options how it fell (he was the only observer, and only he knows):
1. Someone cut it down
2. It was struck down by natural causes, say by lightning.
3. Green skinned aliens came in overnight and zapped the tree down with their laser gun.
Now, first, in this case, you still don't know for sure which happened. "Agnosticism" is the only option from a strictly logical perspective. You can however, say #1 and #2 are much more probable than #3, simply because nearly every tree you have seen previously that went down, went down by someone cutting it or natural causes. You are just going off of experience. Problem is....when it comes to things happening before the Big Bang, causing the Big Bang, or outside the universe...we don't have any experience to relate it to, so doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about probablitly of God existing vs not existing.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-09-2018, 02:44 PM
-
#63
- sy2502
- Registered User
-
- sy2502
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 13,396
- Rep Power: 131822
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
If there was a probability to calculate, I'd say it's getting smaller and smaller as we discover natural causes for so many things that used to be attributed to god.meh- Since when does agnosticism correlate to a 50/50 chance of God(s) existing. If the actual probability was 98/2, you would still be an agnostic by saying you cannot know. If I roll a fair die and then immediately cover it with a box so you don't see it...you would be "agnostic" to the the question if the number showing is less than or equal to 2, even though the probability of this is 1/3.
Also, statements about probabilities of a deistic god existing are kinda meaningless. How can you even assign a probability number to something literally taking place outside our universe before the Big Bang?
Take an example:
A tree fell in a forest overnight, and you didn't see how. Say someone gives you possible three options how it fell (he was the only observer, and only he knows):
1. Someone cut it down
2. It was struck down by natural causes, say by lightning.
3. Green skinned aliens came in overnight and zapped the tree down with their laser gun.
Now, first, in this case, you still don't know for sure which happened. "Agnosticism" is the only option from a strictly logical perspective. You can however, say #1 and #2 are much more probable than #3, simply because nearly every tree you have seen previously that went down, went down by someone cutting it or natural causes. You are just going off of experience. Problem is....when it comes to things happening before the Big Bang, causing the Big Bang, or outside the universe...we don't have any experience to relate it to, so doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about probablitly of God existing vs not existing.
Also, statements about probabilities of a deistic god existing are kinda meaningless. How can you even assign a probability number to something literally taking place outside our universe before the Big Bang?
Take an example:
A tree fell in a forest overnight, and you didn't see how. Say someone gives you possible three options how it fell (he was the only observer, and only he knows):
1. Someone cut it down
2. It was struck down by natural causes, say by lightning.
3. Green skinned aliens came in overnight and zapped the tree down with their laser gun.
Now, first, in this case, you still don't know for sure which happened. "Agnosticism" is the only option from a strictly logical perspective. You can however, say #1 and #2 are much more probable than #3, simply because nearly every tree you have seen previously that went down, went down by someone cutting it or natural causes. You are just going off of experience. Problem is....when it comes to things happening before the Big Bang, causing the Big Bang, or outside the universe...we don't have any experience to relate it to, so doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about probablitly of God existing vs not existing.
Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
01-09-2018, 02:58 PM
-
#64
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
-
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 16,672
- Rep Power: 150407
-
-
Originally Posted By Cleveland33⏩
Being agnostic is a statement of knowledge, a declaration you don't know. Atheism is a statement of belief, not a declaration of knowledge. Just as there is in Christianity (agnostic and gnostic). These are not mutually exclusive terms.No, you're an agnostic
I can personally state that I do not know if god actually exists (as I have a lack of evidence to make a definitive claim), while believing that he does not.
Originally Posted By OPGenesis⏩
What part of "I don't believe in god" is incoherent?Its never sounded like a coherent worldview, that is always why I've rejected it.
Originally Posted By dakensta⏩
This, most atheist can accurately be described as apatheist or practical atheist.OP, most sane atheists spend zero time thinking about God, or his non-existence, just like most people who aren't interested in football don't go about thinking about how much they don't care about football, or telling everyone they don't care about football, or calling people who do like football idiots.
Personally, I only discuss god and religion when the conversation presents itself.
01-09-2018, 02:59 PM
-
#65
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By sy2502⏩
All those things and their natural causes are taking place within the universe though. I do think it is somewhat of a step to compare reality itself, the universe, to stuff happening within reality (the universe). Anyway the original issue was, regardless of the probability (assuming it's not 0), that agnosticism does seem to be the more logical stance.If there was a probability to calculate, I'd say it's getting smaller and smaller as we discover natural causes for so many things that used to be attributed to god.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-09-2018, 03:02 PM
-
#66
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
-
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 16,672
- Rep Power: 150407
-
-
Originally Posted By Vito-C⏩
To be clear, there is a plethora of variations of particular beliefs and aspects of atheism. And you can be agnostic and atheist, the two are not mutually exclusive.. Just as many Christians are agnostic (mainstream Christians deem gnostic Christianity heresy). Let me repeat..To be clear, since most atheists ITT apparently aren't even aware of the definition of atheism, it is an (impossible) affirmation that there is no creator.
Even in thebroadestsense, an absence of belief does not equate to claiming "I don't know". It leaves zero possibility for the existence of a creator. It is literally the non-existence of belief. Atheism isnotAgnosticism. Agnostics are reasonable people.
Even in thebroadestsense, an absence of belief does not equate to claiming "I don't know". It leaves zero possibility for the existence of a creator. It is literally the non-existence of belief. Atheism isnotAgnosticism. Agnostics are reasonable people.
Claiming to be agnostic or gnostic is astatement of knowledge.
Claiming to be theist or atheist is astatement of belief.
I don't know if a higher power exists (agnostic) but don't believe any do (atheist). Though I tend to be more on the apathetic/agnostic or practical atheist side.
01-09-2018, 03:19 PM
-
#67
- Reflexez
- bad_Liberal_Man
-
- Reflexez
- bad_Liberal_Man
- Join Date: Dec 2011
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 5,292
- Rep Power: 28445
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
Okay, I'll consider it.I don't care about anything you have to say.
Don't bother quoting me ever again.
Don't bother quoting me ever again.
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Like I said before, agnostic just means you don't know enough information, it doesn't have any impact on the probability just you're saying "I don't know", which is different to your own belief.meh- Since when does agnosticism correlate to a 50/50 chance of God(s) existing. If the actual probability was 98/2, you would still be an agnostic by saying you cannot know. If I roll a fair die and then immediately cover it with a box so you don't see it...you would be "agnostic" to the the question if the number showing is less than or equal to 2, even though the probability of this is 1/3.
Also, statements about probabilities of a deistic god existing are kinda meaningless. How can you even assign a probability number to something literally taking place outside our universe before the Big Bang?
Take an example:
A tree fell in a forest overnight, and you didn't see how. Say someone gives you possible three options how it fell (he was the only observer, and only he knows):
1. Someone cut it down
2. It was struck down by natural causes, say by lightning.
3. Green skinned aliens came in overnight and zapped the tree down with their laser gun.
Now, first, in this case, you still don't know for sure which happened. "Agnosticism" is the only option from a strictly logical perspective. You can however, say #1 and #2 are much more probable than #3, simply because nearly every tree you have seen previously that went down, went down by someone cutting it or natural causes. You are just going off of experience. Problem is....when it comes to things happening before the Big Bang, causing the Big Bang, or outside the universe...we don't have any experience to relate it to, so doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about probablitly of God existing vs not existing.
Also, statements about probabilities of a deistic god existing are kinda meaningless. How can you even assign a probability number to something literally taking place outside our universe before the Big Bang?
Take an example:
A tree fell in a forest overnight, and you didn't see how. Say someone gives you possible three options how it fell (he was the only observer, and only he knows):
1. Someone cut it down
2. It was struck down by natural causes, say by lightning.
3. Green skinned aliens came in overnight and zapped the tree down with their laser gun.
Now, first, in this case, you still don't know for sure which happened. "Agnosticism" is the only option from a strictly logical perspective. You can however, say #1 and #2 are much more probable than #3, simply because nearly every tree you have seen previously that went down, went down by someone cutting it or natural causes. You are just going off of experience. Problem is....when it comes to things happening before the Big Bang, causing the Big Bang, or outside the universe...we don't have any experience to relate it to, so doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about probablitly of God existing vs not existing.
If I ask someone if they believe in God(s), them saying "I don't know" doesn't make them agnostic. It means they either haven't or are unable to evaluate the evidence they have for the existence of God(s), if they say "I think there is/isn't God(s)" then they are agnostic (a)theists, may argument is that it's not the most logical option to hold no beliefs about something, you can say there's no way to know for sure without proof but then formulate an opinion from the information you have.
In your example, there's no agnostic state, you might instantly be unaware but you'd then start to form an opinion and belief structure about what has happened, then further examination of evidence would let you restructure your belief to the point that you might not be able to know for sure but can make an informed decision. The same can be done with God(s), I ask you if you believe and you go "I'm not sure" and I say "Why do God(s) allow children to die in agony from cancer?" and you think "That's a fair point, who would allow that?" so you have shifted your belief towards atheism, it has no impact on how real any God(s) are but you've taken evidence and moved to a more likely conclusion, ergo if you truly are unable to sway one way or another you must logically believe that both outcomes are equally likely.
Current ShareBlue earnings: $103,587.99
Certified deb00nker & corrector of the record.
01-09-2018, 03:23 PM
-
#68
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By acrawlingchaos⏩
Understand what you are saying here, and obviously anyone can believe what they want. Just a thought...does it make logical sense to even have a belief about something that you don't know? (I myself dont have good answers about this, just trying to think about it a little more).I don't know if a higher power exists (agnostic) but don't believe any do (atheist).
Say I roll a fair billion-sided die (pretend one somehow exists, I realize it doesn't) and then cover it with a box. Say the probability of God existing, whatever that even is, is very low, like one certain number showing up on the die, say face #4,345,765.
The comparison would be like the atheist saying "I steadfastly don't believe the number showing on the die is #4,345,765". Sure it's not likely, but is that enough for a reason to believe that particular fact? What is belief in general determined by? If they respond that their belief is determined by something being more than 50 percent probability, change the experiment to something with probability(event A) = .6, and the probability(event B) = .4. Would they say they believe event A happened with no further information given? Probably not. What's the cut off point?
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-09-2018, 03:57 PM
-
#69
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Reflexez⏩
I disagree with the bolded. Just because you can't sway one way or the other, doesn't mean possibilities are equally likely with .5 probability.Okay, I'll consider it.
Like I said before, agnostic just means you don't know enough information, it doesn't have any impact on the probability just you're saying "I don't know", which is different to your own belief.
If I ask someone if they believe in God(s), them saying "I don't know" doesn't make them agnostic. It means they either haven't or are unable to evaluate the evidence they have for the existence of God(s), if they say "I think there is/isn't God(s)" then they are agnostic (a)theists, may argument is that it's not the most logical option to hold no beliefs about something, you can say there's no way to know for sure without proof but then formulate an opinion from the information you have.
In your example, there's no agnostic state, you might instantly be unaware but you'd then start to form an opinion and belief structure about what has happened, then further examination of evidence would let you restructure your belief to the point that you might not be able to know for sure but can make an informed decision. The same can be done with God(s), I ask you if you believe and you go "I'm not sure" and I say "Why do God(s) allow children to die in agony from cancer?" and you think "That's a fair point, who would allow that?" so you have shifted your belief towards atheism, it has no impact on how real any God(s) are but you've taken evidence and moved to a more likely conclusion, ergo if you truly are unable to sway one way or another you must logically believe that both outcomes are equally likely.
Like I said before, agnostic just means you don't know enough information, it doesn't have any impact on the probability just you're saying "I don't know", which is different to your own belief.
If I ask someone if they believe in God(s), them saying "I don't know" doesn't make them agnostic. It means they either haven't or are unable to evaluate the evidence they have for the existence of God(s), if they say "I think there is/isn't God(s)" then they are agnostic (a)theists, may argument is that it's not the most logical option to hold no beliefs about something, you can say there's no way to know for sure without proof but then formulate an opinion from the information you have.
In your example, there's no agnostic state, you might instantly be unaware but you'd then start to form an opinion and belief structure about what has happened, then further examination of evidence would let you restructure your belief to the point that you might not be able to know for sure but can make an informed decision. The same can be done with God(s), I ask you if you believe and you go "I'm not sure" and I say "Why do God(s) allow children to die in agony from cancer?" and you think "That's a fair point, who would allow that?" so you have shifted your belief towards atheism, it has no impact on how real any God(s) are but you've taken evidence and moved to a more likely conclusion, ergo if you truly are unable to sway one way or another you must logically believe that both outcomes are equally likely.
An extreme example: I have an impenetrable box, and there is a ball inside the box. It is either red or green. Absolutely no other information given. Your position is saying the probability that the ball is green is therefore 1/2 since we can't sway one way or the other. The correct mathematical position would be that it is meaningless to even assign a proabitility number to the likelihood that the ball is green. Probabilities in general are determined by there theoretically being a long series of trials to observe (say we opened such a box over and over for 100,000 times, and after all this opening, found out green came out 30,000 times....then we estimate the probability of green to be .30. But a single trial means nothing, and discussing probability doesn't make sense).
Also to the whole problem of suffering and evil in the world....I'm talking more about a deistic God here just setting things into motion. Not really referring to an omnibenevolent religious God or anything
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-09-2018, 04:00 PM
-
#70
- BrocepCurls
- Banned
-
- BrocepCurls
- Banned
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Posts: 15,180
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
you're a *******, but this post had me rollingI don't care about anything you have to say.
Don't bother quoting me ever again.
Don't bother quoting me ever again.
01-09-2018, 04:08 PM
-
#71
Much more logical to think a man rode on a flying horse with a human face and split the moon in half
"People have got to learn not to reply to trolls." - Noliberals4
"I would cut off ny right hand that Hillary is our next President." - rocker1
01-09-2018, 04:19 PM
-
#72
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
-
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 16,672
- Rep Power: 150407
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Yes. I can believe something, with having no physical evidence.Understand what you are saying here, and obviously anyone can believe what they want. Just a thought...does it make logical sense to even have a belief about something that you don't know? (I myself dont have good answers about this, just trying to think about it a little more).
Do you know if god exists?
Do you believe god exists?
The difference in the statements above should be apparent. Consider these on an X / Y axis, a sliding scale of beliefs becomes very evident. Where on that scale do you fall?
So yes. it is logical. I personally have no evidence to provide for the existence or non existence of god. Therefore agnostic. I don't believe god exists (nor do I believe it is possible to know if god exists).
Say I roll a fair billion-sided die (pretend one somehow exists, I realize it doesn't) and then cover it with a box. Say the probability of God existing, whatever that even is, is very low, like the one certain number showing up on the die, say face #4,345,765.
The comparison would be like the atheist saying "I steadfastly don't believe the number showing on the die is #4,345,765". Sure it's not likely, but is that enough for a reason to believe that particular fact? What is belief in general determined by? If they respond that their belief is determined by something being more than 50 percent probability, change the experiment to something with probability(event A) = .6, and the probability(event B) = .4. Would they say they believe event A happened with no further information given? Probably not. What's the cut off point?
Poor analogy. Even if the probability is small, it is still physically tangible and measureable.The comparison would be like the atheist saying "I steadfastly don't believe the number showing on the die is #4,345,765". Sure it's not likely, but is that enough for a reason to believe that particular fact? What is belief in general determined by? If they respond that their belief is determined by something being more than 50 percent probability, change the experiment to something with probability(event A) = .6, and the probability(event B) = .4. Would they say they believe event A happened with no further information given? Probably not. What's the cut off point?
01-09-2018, 04:20 PM
-
#73
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
-
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: In the bar
- Posts: 40,965
- Rep Power: 141991
-
-
Notice how OP constructed an argument entirely based on emotion and feelings and then complained about emotions and feelings.
Originally Posted By Skythes⏩
This. Magic Moh round around on a winged donkey and cut the moon in half. Even more miraculously he put it back together and hid the flying mule by the time he told his followers about it. My guess is half of them were credulous enough to believe him and the other half didn't want to irritate a violent and bloodthirsty warlord.Much more logical to think a man rode on a flying horse with a human face and split the moon in half
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
01-09-2018, 04:30 PM
-
#74
- BrocepCurls
- Banned
-
- BrocepCurls
- Banned
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Posts: 15,180
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By Mr
it's literal when we want it to be, metaphorical when we want it to beNotice how OP constructed an argument entirely based on emotion and feelings and then complained about emotions and feelings.
This. Magic Moh round around on a winged donkey and cut the moon in half. Even more miraculously he put it back together and hid the flying mule by the time he told his followers about it. My guess is half of them were credulous enough to believe him and the other half didn't want to irritate a violent and bloodthirsty warlord.
This. Magic Moh round around on a winged donkey and cut the moon in half. Even more miraculously he put it back together and hid the flying mule by the time he told his followers about it. My guess is half of them were credulous enough to believe him and the other half didn't want to irritate a violent and bloodthirsty warlord.
-religious people
01-09-2018, 04:32 PM
-
#75
01-09-2018, 04:34 PM
-
#76
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By acrawlingchaos⏩
This is missing the point. The point was what is thereasonfor the belief in the absence of bona fide evidence. You can make a probabilistic argument I suppose, but that runs into major problems as stated above. I'm simply saying if I make no statements at all about belief, and leave it as "we don't know", that is the slightly better stance from a purely logical standpoint.Yes. I can believe something, with having no physical evidence.
Do you know if god exists?
Do you believe god exists?
The difference in the statements above should be apparent. Consider these on an X / Y access a sliding scale of beliefs becomes very evident. Where on that scale do you fall?
Do you know if god exists?
Do you believe god exists?
The difference in the statements above should be apparent. Consider these on an X / Y access a sliding scale of beliefs becomes very evident. Where on that scale do you fall?
Poor analogy. Even if the probability is small, it is still physically tangible and measureable.
This was not the point of the analogy at all. It had nothing to do with the size of the probability- it was an illustration of the irrationality of believing something with merely chance probability.∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-09-2018, 05:25 PM
-
#77
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
-
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 16,672
- Rep Power: 150407
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
I don't think it is missing the point in the least. Sure, you can make the statement of being agnostic and leave it at that. At this point, further identification may not be needed or even necessary. The reason for belief or disbelief could be from a myriad of different reasons, and that is why there is a myriad of ways to describe non-theistic beliefs. It could be culture, upbringing, personal investigation. We all come to our conclusions in our own way. How would you differentiate between someone who isThis is missing the point. The point was what is thereasonfor the belief in the absence of bona fide evidence. You can make a probabilistic argument I suppose, but that runs into major problems as stated above. I'm simply saying if I make no statements at all about belief, and leave it as "we don't know", that is the slightly better stance from a purely logical standpoint.
A. an agnostic that is religious and believes god probably exists.
B an agnostic is irreligious and believes god probably doesn't exist.
C an agnostic that may or may not be irreligious and is completely uncertain.
Seems to be agnostic theist and agnostic atheist would be a really simple way to differentiate the two. While an agnostic on this axis would be dead center split between belief and non-belief, or a pure/true agnostic.
This was not the point of the analogy at all. It had nothing to do with the size of the probability- it was an illustration of the irrationality of believing something with merely chance probability.
You keep using probability, which I believe is a poor analogy. Belief in God isn't measured in probability (at least no one I know measures belief in that manner). Either you believe, you don't or some where in between. Otherwise, what is the probability of gods existence? And how did you obtain this equation?FWIW, I consider myself a agnostic apatheist. I really know, and I don't care about religion or god outside it's historical value or cultural intrigue.
01-09-2018, 07:09 PM
-
#78
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
^^^
was not talking about a probability of belief, was using a die roll and associated probability to discuss the rationality of any kind of belief associated with an uncertain event. I also think "probability of God's existence" is a pretty meaningless concept....but if someone can't say for certain whether God exists or not, they are loosely saying the probability God exists is not 0 and not 1....it is strictly between 0 and 1. That's the only connection with probability.
was not talking about a probability of belief, was using a die roll and associated probability to discuss the rationality of any kind of belief associated with an uncertain event. I also think "probability of God's existence" is a pretty meaningless concept....but if someone can't say for certain whether God exists or not, they are loosely saying the probability God exists is not 0 and not 1....it is strictly between 0 and 1. That's the only connection with probability.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-09-2018, 07:16 PM
-
#79
"don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'When you know for yourselvesthat, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."
"...When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....065.than.html
"...When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....065.than.html
01-09-2018, 08:15 PM
-
#80
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
-
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 16,672
- Rep Power: 150407
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Sorry, either I am failing to understand the point you're making, or you're making it unclear. I see no contradiction in being unsure of something, but still having an opinion about it.^^^
was not talking about a probability of belief, was using a die roll and associated probability to discuss the rationality of any kind of belief associated with an uncertain event. I also think "probability of God's existence" is a pretty meaningless concept....but if someone can't say for certain whether God exists or not, they are loosely saying the probability God exists is not 0 and not 1....it is strictly between 0 and 1. That's the only connection with probability.
was not talking about a probability of belief, was using a die roll and associated probability to discuss the rationality of any kind of belief associated with an uncertain event. I also think "probability of God's existence" is a pretty meaningless concept....but if someone can't say for certain whether God exists or not, they are loosely saying the probability God exists is not 0 and not 1....it is strictly between 0 and 1. That's the only connection with probability.
01-09-2018, 11:00 PM
-
#81
01-09-2018, 11:19 PM
-
#82
I would consider monotheists to be a type of atheist too. If there can be one god/deity, then there must be others too. Even believing that gods exist is different from believing that they should be worshiped. Simply saying god exists therefore we should read the bible,qur'an or other religious book is wrong, but at the same time I do believe those are historical artifacts that should not be completely dismissed as they may have value.
God is also irrelevant in some ways, I do believe the avg worshiper goes to mosque/church for social or political benefits and atheism doesn't do a good job at replacing those institutions in the same way.
God is also irrelevant in some ways, I do believe the avg worshiper goes to mosque/church for social or political benefits and atheism doesn't do a good job at replacing those institutions in the same way.
If you can't take a joke, supplement misc,female misc, teen misc ----------->
How to get mod repped: post anywhere but on the misc or just join a rep trad...I mean SEAAAAAAAAAAAAA thread ;)
http://myanimelist.net/animelist/doihavepotential
Speak your mind, be honest, be real. We're here to have fun so don't take this place to seriously (srs)
01-09-2018, 11:50 PM
-
#83
- JediRN
- I lift dead people.
-
- JediRN
- I lift dead people.
- Join Date: Sep 2013
- Location: United States
- Posts: 8,437
- Rep Power: 43859
-
-
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
lol at your misunderstanding of science and scientist. Every great discovery leads to more questions than it answers. Questions that by their nature of just being formed screams "I don't know"They’re usually the type of people that say chit like “I ****ING LOVE SCIENCE!”
Like how can you even arrive at that position? the world and existence itself don’t even make sense, why is there even existence rather than non-existence? “OOO THERE WAS NOTHING, THEN THE WORLD JUST POPPED” “OOOO THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY INFINITE” even though infinite regress is obviously logically unsound.
Cmon I respect people that say “I don’t know”, these are the intelligent people. But Atheists are just rebellious morons that don’t like religion, so they go the opposite way. They’re emotional and not rational.
Like how can you even arrive at that position? the world and existence itself don’t even make sense, why is there even existence rather than non-existence? “OOO THERE WAS NOTHING, THEN THE WORLD JUST POPPED” “OOOO THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY INFINITE” even though infinite regress is obviously logically unsound.
Cmon I respect people that say “I don’t know”, these are the intelligent people. But Atheists are just rebellious morons that don’t like religion, so they go the opposite way. They’re emotional and not rational.
Originally Posted By dakensta⏩
solid post.OP, most sane atheists spend zero time thinking about God, or his non-existence, just like most people who aren't interested in football don't go about thinking about how much they don't care about football, or telling everyone they don't care about football, or calling people who do like football idiots.
01-10-2018, 05:58 AM
-
#84
- Alchem
- Registered User
-
- Alchem
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2011
- Location: Egypt
- Age: 33
- Posts: 9,450
- Rep Power: 13784
-
-
Originally Posted By Furybox⏩
But if "I don't know" is reasonable, then (and this is my view), is it not reasonable to say:
a) humans may know much less than we think we do, and may be incapable of ever understanding the complete origins of the universe; and
b) therefore there are potentially infinite explanations and
c) therefore believing in a god which are themselves human concepts is definitely incorrect?
I.e. My view is "I don't know, but I strongly believe that there is no such thing as 'god' therefore I am atheist"
a) humans may know much less than we think we do, and may be incapable of ever understanding the complete origins of the universe; and
b) therefore there are potentially infinite explanations and
c) therefore believing in a god which are themselves human concepts is definitely incorrect?
I.e. My view is "I don't know, but I strongly believe that there is no such thing as 'god' therefore I am atheist"
Originally Posted By EmmaW4tson⏩
Because ol' religious people have a better idea? None of you religious nuts/athiests know **** but evolution is real.
Originally Posted By Tha
I never found 2 nudists taking dietary advice from a talking snake to be very logical tbh
Originally Posted By BrocepCurls⏩
b..b..but that bit was metaphorical
Originally Posted By greedyfly13⏩
ya it makes way more sense that there was just an all powerful all knowing diety that was in existence. just lol at people who study astronomy, physics and biology and ****. lol all the answers we need are in the bible. atheists are so dumb why cant they be smart like me and see that there 100% has to be one God. monotheism is the obvious truth.
Originally Posted By Irezumi⏩
No you're right... It's much more logical to follow a man who spread his beliefs through rape, sodomy, and the sword.
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
I believe Zues, God of Thunder created the universe. Is that wrong?
Originally Posted By MMJ11⏩
Then where did your God pop out from
Originally Posted By MMJ11⏩
Also if God was real why the hell is so much negative **** happening all around. Has he grown weak to let it happen or is he the crook who hurts people to make an example of how bad life can be, so we all continue to thank him that our life is not as bad as ppl suffering more than us.
To **** all such ****ty thoughts about a concept that was created by insecure humans I chose to an atheist
To **** all such ****ty thoughts about a concept that was created by insecure humans I chose to an atheist
Originally Posted By Stizzel⏩
Idk how it happened so musta been god
-People like you on lightning and thunder before science
-People like you on lightning and thunder before science
Originally Posted By EdwardTheGreat⏩
Fkin LMFAO @ the Atheists ITT proving in fact that their position is just anti-religion and not rational position.They’re usually the type of people that say chit like “I ****ING LOVE JESUS!”
Like how can you even arrive at that position? god and his existence itself don’t even make sense, why is there even existence rather than non-existence? “OOO THERE WAS NOTHING, THEN GOD JUST POPPED” “OOOO GOD IS ACTUALLY INFINITE” even though infinite regress is obviously logically unsound.
Cmon I respect people that say “I don’t know”, these are the intelligent people. But theists are just morons that don’t like the reality of dying, rotting, and being forgotten, so they go the opposite way. They’re emotional and not rational.
Like how can you even arrive at that position? god and his existence itself don’t even make sense, why is there even existence rather than non-existence? “OOO THERE WAS NOTHING, THEN GOD JUST POPPED” “OOOO GOD IS ACTUALLY INFINITE” even though infinite regress is obviously logically unsound.
Cmon I respect people that say “I don’t know”, these are the intelligent people. But theists are just morons that don’t like the reality of dying, rotting, and being forgotten, so they go the opposite way. They’re emotional and not rational.
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
I never tried to prove God at all, I'm showing that the other alternative explanations also don't make sense.This argument is terrible. Let's make two assumptions-
1. That it's impossible for anything to come from nothing.
2. That nothing can have existed forever
and apply them to everythingexceptthe very thing we are trying to prove (God). Sound indeed..
1. That it's impossible for anything to come from nothing.
2. That nothing can have existed forever
and apply them to everythingexceptthe very thing we are trying to prove (God). Sound indeed..
Either "existence" has been there forever, in which case it implies infinite regress, which is illogical, because an infinite chain of causes and effects going back to infinity can never reach the present.
or Existence just popped in being when there was nothing, by nothing I mean the absence of existence. Which also doesn't make sense.
So what I'm saying is, existence is so fking crazy and incomprehensible to us humans, it would be so arrogant and illogical to claim "God doesn't exist" or even sway that way. The logical position is to suspend belief, and be agnostic, Agnostic meaning "I can't say whether there is a God or whether there is no God, and I don't sway either way"
01-10-2018, 07:09 AM
-
#85
Originally Posted By Austanian⏩
Has nothing to do with my post.No it is saying I don't believe it... That is not the same as saying positive it doesn't exist.
You no doubt disbelieve in thousands of other deities past and present. Do you feel the need to state that you are not sure "Shiva" doesn't exist? Simply by believing in a certain creation story means by default you need to disbelieve in other creation stories.
Disbelieving in something because it seems improbable is a common fact of life.
If I said I was walking home and found 1 million dollars in a duffel bag today... You are probably going to "not believe me" that doesn't mean it is impossible you are wrong.
You no doubt disbelieve in thousands of other deities past and present. Do you feel the need to state that you are not sure "Shiva" doesn't exist? Simply by believing in a certain creation story means by default you need to disbelieve in other creation stories.
Disbelieving in something because it seems improbable is a common fact of life.
If I said I was walking home and found 1 million dollars in a duffel bag today... You are probably going to "not believe me" that doesn't mean it is impossible you are wrong.
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Definitions are... Definitions. If all definitions were "subjective" there would be no point to having a definition in the first place.Huh? Sure someone can still not believe in a creator, and yet the creator still exist. Lol. These are totally different things. I can say a red ball exists in my hand right now.....you can either not believe or believe it, but it doesn't change the fact that it might actually be in my hand. You would test statements of belief, btw, with something like a lie-detector. You would not test statements of the thing actually existing with a lie-detector.
Anyway to your point about definition....you realize definitions are in general SUBJECTIVE. If anything, "atheism" or "a-theism" means "not theism", so not(A belief in gods), so simply the lack of belief in gods. Totally different than the strong statement "gods don't exist".
Anyway to your point about definition....you realize definitions are in general SUBJECTIVE. If anything, "atheism" or "a-theism" means "not theism", so not(A belief in gods), so simply the lack of belief in gods. Totally different than the strong statement "gods don't exist".
1) A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary;
2) an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
There's nothing "subjective" anywhere in there. There is only "exact".
Originally Posted By acrawlingchaos⏩
They are very literally mutually exclusive.To be clear, there is a plethora of variations of particular beliefs and aspects of atheism. And you can be agnostic and atheist, the two are not mutually exclusive.. Just as many Christians are agnostic (mainstream Christians deem gnostic Christianity heresy). Let me repeat..
Claiming to be agnostic or gnostic is astatement of knowledge.
Claiming to be theist or atheist is astatement of belief.
I don't know if a higher power exists (agnostic) but don't believe any do (atheist). Though I tend to be more on the apathetic/agnostic or practical atheist side.
Claiming to be agnostic or gnostic is astatement of knowledge.
Claiming to be theist or atheist is astatement of belief.
I don't know if a higher power exists (agnostic) but don't believe any do (atheist). Though I tend to be more on the apathetic/agnostic or practical atheist side.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Atheist:a person who disbelievesor lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Not the same thing. One cannot simultaneously disbelieve yet not-disbelieve. You are either an Atheist or an Agnostic.
Trump/DeSantis 2024
01-10-2018, 09:57 AM
-
#86
- EpicLevelWizard
- Hiatus Wizard
-
- EpicLevelWizard
- Hiatus Wizard
- Join Date: Jul 2011
- Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States
- Posts: 8,463
- Rep Power: 49230
-
-
Religion states that stuff came from nothing, the only difference is cause, completely illogical argument you sad little troll.
Atheism doesn't state anything about creation or existence, it isn't simply the lack of belief in a deity.
Are you confusing Atheism and The Big Bang Theory or Evolution? Because then you're certainly completely illogical as neither of them connected to it.
In fact both of them were first theorized by religious people, the majority of religious people in non-backwards countries also support them.
There could be both a "God" and evolution/Big Bang, as if there were an omnipotent being, he could easily create those things right?
Your anger simply stems because they weren't listed in a Ancient Book indoctrinated into your head by parents and religious figures at a young age.
I haven't insulted anyone here, other than OP because he's a bad person and clearly trying to start a fight here, nor have I stated either side is correct, I've presented a logical argument. Will anyone attack me for this based on their beliefs?
Atheism doesn't state anything about creation or existence, it isn't simply the lack of belief in a deity.
Are you confusing Atheism and The Big Bang Theory or Evolution? Because then you're certainly completely illogical as neither of them connected to it.
In fact both of them were first theorized by religious people, the majority of religious people in non-backwards countries also support them.
There could be both a "God" and evolution/Big Bang, as if there were an omnipotent being, he could easily create those things right?
Your anger simply stems because they weren't listed in a Ancient Book indoctrinated into your head by parents and religious figures at a young age.
I haven't insulted anyone here, other than OP because he's a bad person and clearly trying to start a fight here, nor have I stated either side is correct, I've presented a logical argument. Will anyone attack me for this based on their beliefs?
"There is no reason to be alive if you cannot do deadlift!" - J.P.S.
Moist.
Taking a break from here because life is more important, see you *******s in 6 months. Srs.
01-10-2018, 10:03 AM
-
#87
- EpicLevelWizard
- Hiatus Wizard
-
- EpicLevelWizard
- Hiatus Wizard
- Join Date: Jul 2011
- Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States
- Posts: 8,463
- Rep Power: 49230
-
-
Originally Posted By sy2502⏩
Touching yourself is just part of God's planI particularly like the idea of a omnipotent god that created the universe and for some reason goes apechit if you touch yourself in the shower. How can anyone NOT believe that?
He works in mysterious ways.
He wants you to have an orgasm and little billy to die of Leukemia.
Then you both go to hell because you had some fun and Billy was an atheist.
"There is no reason to be alive if you cannot do deadlift!" - J.P.S.
Moist.
Taking a break from here because life is more important, see you *******s in 6 months. Srs.
01-10-2018, 10:09 AM
-
#88
- EpicLevelWizard
- Hiatus Wizard
-
- EpicLevelWizard
- Hiatus Wizard
- Join Date: Jul 2011
- Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States
- Posts: 8,463
- Rep Power: 49230
-
-
Originally Posted By Nihiliste⏩
You're both wrong, the universe existed before Odin, he and his brothers Vili and Ve slew the great hermaphroditic giant god Ymir and made the world from his corpse within the vast emptiness of gunungagap.You are wrong, it was Odin.
"There is no reason to be alive if you cannot do deadlift!" - J.P.S.
Moist.
Taking a break from here because life is more important, see you *******s in 6 months. Srs.
01-10-2018, 10:50 AM
-
#89
- Alchem
- Registered User
-
- Alchem
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2011
- Location: Egypt
- Age: 33
- Posts: 9,450
- Rep Power: 13784
-
-
Originally Posted By EpicLevelWizard⏩
I never said religion was right in my OP, strong comprehension skills.Religion states that stuff came from nothing, the only difference is cause, completely illogical argument you sad little troll.
Atheism doesn't state anything about creation or existence, it isn't simply the lack of belief in a deity.
Lack of belief in a deity is an illogical position, the correct position is saying "I can't know whether there is a God or not, so I will suspend any belief or lack of belief"Are you confusing Atheism and The Big Bang Theory or Evolution? Because then you're certainly completely illogical as neither of them connected to it.
I never said anything about the big bang theory or evolution, I specific about the terms I used. I said existence itself doesn't make sense, and all the explanations for it are incomprehensible.a. Existence always existed
b. Existence popped from non-existence
c. God
a b and c are all incomprehensible, so believing or lacking belief in any of them without sufficient proof is not a rational position to take.
01-10-2018, 11:10 AM
-
#90
- EdwardTheGreat
- Registered User
-
- EdwardTheGreat
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2013
- Age: 52
- Posts: 9,092
- Rep Power: 235009
-
-
So basically from OP:
1. agnostics LOL @ atheists and theists
2. atheists LOL @ theists and agnostics
3. theists LOL @ agnostics and atheists
4. no one has proof to back up their beliefs, or to discredit others beliefs
5. Much like OP's existence, this thread is pointless and will go nowhere
1. agnostics LOL @ atheists and theists
2. atheists LOL @ theists and agnostics
3. theists LOL @ agnostics and atheists
4. no one has proof to back up their beliefs, or to discredit others beliefs
5. Much like OP's existence, this thread is pointless and will go nowhere
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts