My argument against

Originally posted by Mindship
As the saying goes (in reference to missing something, like first place in a race), an inch is as good as a mile. Both "likelihoods" are still in no-man's land. Plus, the "balance" improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof (yes, I copied this from your thread cuz I was too lazy to retype/restate it here 😛 )? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic (again).

Fence-sitters go to hell 😈.

Whom?

{edit...ok I get it}

The point is to tear the fence down and get as many to fall on your side as you can...

Or we cna just play Germany and Belgium.

Also Alliance, I should point out that Atheism directly opposes Theism, not just the Christian POV as Mindship said earlier. Theism simply means that a god is responsible for the creation of the universe, it doesnt go into heaven, hell and all that ridiculous nonsense. The plain Theistic view is much more likely to be true, especially considering the problems that would be resolved if a higher intelligence was indeed responsible for the universe. Can you completely deny Theism with any sense of honesty? I cant. Which is why I suggested that Agnosticism is the correct path.

You cant strip down religion to what you want it to be. Every religion comments on creation and the afterlife. They're archaic mechanisms of explination of natural phenomena taken by govenrments and individuals and transformed into a battery of myths, societal instructions, and communal ritual.

I have said this repeatedly in many threads.

There is no ABSOLUTE evidence either way.

There is imo overwhelming evidence in one direction and the chace of a god existing is so darn low its insignificant. The concept of a god is completely illogical and I've observed that people I know who use your argument often have a hard time letting go of a concept they were raised on.

A parody on your argument:
I think it is logical that one day the clouds were green and fiery. You can't prove I'm right or wrong. There is no absolute proof, but my claim is so rediculous you are correct to believe that I am a nutcase.

Originally posted by Alliance
You cant strip down religion to what you want it to be. Every religion comments on creation and the afterlife. They're archaic mechanisms of explination of natural phenomena taken by govenrments and individuals and transformed into a battery of myths, societal instructions, and communal ritual.

I have said this repeatedly in many threads.

There is no ABSOLUTE evidence either way.

There is imo overwhelming evidence in one direction and the chace of a god existing is so darn low its insignificant. The concept of a god is completely illogical and I've observed that people I know who use your argument often have a hard time letting go of a concept they were raised on.

A parody on your argument:
I think it is logical that one day the clouds were green and fiery. You can't prove I'm right or wrong. There is no absolute proof, but my claim is so rediculous you are correct to believe that I am a nutcase.

Atheism is the direct opposite to theism. Im not stripping down anything, theists by definition dont need any religious dogma, they just need to believe that a god is responsible for creation.

There is no *absolute* evidence for anything, but that isnt what this thread is about. Objective evidence is all that I require, and you being a scientist I would suspect you would think along the same lines.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
The plain Theistic view is much more likely to be true

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Basis?

Less dogma to muddle things. That a higher intelligence created the universe is a very reasonable stance to take, considering the perfection and harmony we live in. When you add for instance the Christian POV then it becomes less likely(but still not impossible).

Perfection and harmony... ok... 🙂

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Perfection and harmony... ok... 🙂

Do I detect....sarcasm?

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Atheism is the direct opposite to theism. Im not stripping down anything, theists by definition dont need any religious dogma, they just need to believe that a god is responsible for creation.

There is no *absolute* evidence for anything, but that isnt what this thread is about. Objective evidence is all that I require, and you being a scientist I would suspect you would think along the same lines.

Almost nothing in the world is ever directly proven to be true in all cases. You get enough eveidence in one direction, and when all other possibilities seem mpossible unlikely, it becomes accepted "fact"

My stance is similar to modern scientific thinking. THat why I gave the sky example. There my be one longshot, but there is no evidence supporting why it'd be different than anyhting else. its not going to be considered ture.

Simply saying "we can never know, so agnocticism is the only rational option" is entirelly missing the point that divine being are not supported by evidence. They only exist in holes in knowledge as filler. Divine bings are irrational, illogical, and have been consistantly invented thorught history. This is not a thumbs up thumbs down scenrio. You;re just arguing whether or not the thumb is exactly vertical or 0.001 degrees off. To some, including me, using modern scientific logic, thats a distinction without a difference.

I have to get off Alliance. We can continue this some other time. Good debating with you.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Do I detect....sarcasm?

quit smiling then......... 😉

I know about you xmark......lol

Debbie's clones will come get you.

I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, but I think that this should be thought through. To anyone who doesn't believe a god exists, it is taught in soem religions that there wil be punishment for people who don't believe in god. Whether this is a scare tactic or not, why not try to find soem kidn of a faith in a religion? Why disregard the chance that god exists? Your life won't have less purpose, you may learn how to better yourself, and if you die, but don't go to soem kidn of afterlife, who cares. You'll be wrong, but what does it matter. You might as well try and believe something so that if there is an afterlife, you wont be condemned to a crappy one. Christians are taught that God is so great that he defies physics and science so theres no way you can prove or disprove him in that sense. I agree that if things could be logically explained, that logic supercedes belief, however, this is beyond logic and therefore cannot be disregarded with lack of proof.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, but I think that this should be thought through. To anyone who doesn't believe a god exists, it is taught in soem religions that there wil be punishment for people who don't believe in god. Whether this is a scare tactic or not, why not try to find soem kidn of a faith in a religion? Why disregard the chance that god exists? Your life won't have less purpose, you may learn how to better yourself, and if you die, but don't go to soem kidn of afterlife, who cares. You'll be wrong, but what does it matter. You might as well try and believe something so that if there is an afterlife, you wont be condemned to a crappy one. Christians are taught that God is so great that he defies physics and science so theres no way you can prove or disprove him in that sense. I agree that if things could be logically explained, that logic supercedes belief, however, this is beyond logic and therefore cannot be disregarded with lack of proof.

Life is important, mythology is not. It is better to live life to its fullest then to cower to a possible future. If there is a God, then I am here because of that God. I am part of that God just like a child is part of the parents. If I am in the family, then I do not have to join the family. There is nothing to be saved from, fear is the enemy. I cannot be separated from God because God is everything including me, and I cannot be separated from everything.

God is beyond understanding, so why do Christians think they understand God? Why do they say “God wants you to be saved”? If God wants, then God is not complete and if God is not complete then God is not everything. If God is not everything, then there is something greater then God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life is important, mythology is not. It is better to live life to its fullest then to cower to a possible future. If there is a God, then I am here because of that God. I am part of that God just like a child is part of the parents. If I am in the family, then I do not have to join the family. There is nothing to be saved from, fear is the enemy. I cannot be separated from God because God is everything including me, and I cannot be separated from everything.

God is beyond understanding, so why do Christians think they understand God? Why do they say “God wants you to be saved”? If God wants, then God is not complete and if God is not complete then God is not everything. If God is not everything, then there is something greater then God.

I appreciate your views on God, Shaky. They are very interesting and well thought out I think. Given that, I feel the family metaphor is apropos. Now, do parents need to guide their children for them to achieve the greatest possible future? I believe they do. This imo is similar to the relationship we have with God.

God is beyond understanding. This statement I believe is taken too literally. Aspects of God are entirely within our grasp. The totality of God is beyond understanding, but our relationship with God is not.

If God wants, then god is not complete, and if God is not complete then God is not everything. I think this is based in a difference as to our opinions of the nature of God, at least between you and I, I cannot speak for those that do not believe as you or I do. If we are God's children then it is only logical that he would want the best for us. Given my belief as to the nature, and purpose, of this mortal existence God has limited the amount of interaction he will have with us.

If God is not everything, then there is something greater than God. If the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and we are separate in some way from God, then yes there must be something greater than God. If the parts are greater in some way than the whole, then there would not be. I don't typically concern myself with deep consideration on this type of topic as it is even farther from our understanding than God is.

Originally posted by Regret
I appreciate your views on God, Shaky. They are very interesting and well thought out I think. Given that, I feel the family metaphor is apropos. Now, do parents need to guide their children for them to achieve the greatest possible future? I believe they do. This imo is similar to the relationship we have with God.

Thank you.
My metaphor, like all metaphors, has its limits. I was only talking about the “You need to be saved” crowd. I believe that God has taken care of us; that is why we are alive.

Originally posted by Regret
God is beyond understanding. This statement I believe is taken too literally. Aspects of God are entirely within our grasp. The totality of God is beyond understanding, but our relationship with God is not.

But you can only understand your relationship with God, you cannot understand mine. And I believe that when Jesus said that only through me can you enter the kingdom; that is taken too literally.

Originally posted by Regret
If God wants, then god is not complete, and if God is not complete then God is not everything. I think this is based in a difference as to our opinions of the nature of God, at least between you and I, I cannot speak for those that do not believe as you or I do. If we are God's children then it is only logical that he would want the best for us. Given my belief as to the nature, and purpose, of this mortal existence God has limited the amount of interaction he will have with us.

I do not believe that God is separate from us or we from God.

Originally posted by Regret
If God is not everything, then there is something greater than God. If the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and we are separate in some way from God, then yes there must be something greater than God. If the parts are greater in some way than the whole, then there would not be. I don't typically concern myself with deep consideration on this type of topic as it is even farther from our understanding than God is.

Often times, in the art world, the sum of the parts being greater then the hole are a reflection of genius. I would say that a flower in hole is greater then the sum of the parts, and a flower, IMO, reflects God.