What exactly is a yes or not question? What ARE you talking about?!
I don't claim there is a God or that there isn't one. The initial idea is that the Atheist view is as valid as those of Theists, but some Atheists often attempt to use science to elevate their belief over the those of the theists.
Sciece does not care for Atheism. It does not justify or explain it, and at this point in its evolution it is not looking to do that either.
Science dispurig the parts of the Bible are not associated with the idea that science has disproved God. It has not.
Atheism is a metaphysical outlook on ''the nature of the world'' and it is as valid and as logical as that of a Theist.
Now, because certain Atheists understand the idea of God through Bible only, that is not my problem.
That is the problem of the people who's concept of God does not fly beyond Bible, Torah or Qur'an.
If you want to argue about fallability of these books, there is no need, since the religious books and their inconsistance with science has been demonstrated too many times.
So I am again not quite sure what are you talking about.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
The intial idea that there is no god is not equal to the idea that there is a God. "God" is not a "yes" or "no" question. By incorrectly simplyfying this idea down to a "do you think there is a god or no" question is not representative of the type of question we are trying to answer. The possibility that there is a god is much much smaller than the possibility that there is not. (Reasons aforementioned, clarification upon request) What I'm establishing is that the question of whether there is a god or not is not a 50-50 split "yes" or "no."
There is an INNATE probability of being wrong in EVERY question because in order to prove something, all other possibilites must be elimintated. The possibility of elimintating all possibilites is close to zero. EVERY thing that we consider "truth" is innately and possibly wrong.
Yet, we consider certain things to be "truth" all the time.
Yet, while you accept this innate probability for all other aspects of life, you criticize atheists for coming to a similar conclusion.
I have already agreed with this position and I never based my interpretation of God on science. I have always accepted this argument, and have not made a case otherwise. I've even stated that I agree with this before in this thread. So really, I don't know where you're pulling this argument from.
Science has disporved the validity of literalist interpretations of Gods. Atheism goes beyond that. Religions require the existance of a god. If a person's "god" tells us things, that turn out to be false, were we being lied to...or is it more logical that the god itself never actually existed and these stories were created to answer serious questions about human existance. Hence my position that if a god actually exists, he is not correctly described by any religion.
People feel that because they like the messages of a holy text, they must believe in its gods. Thats not a logical jump.
I feel that the only reason peole started believeing in gods was to answer questions, to feel better about themselves, and give social structure. Thanks to the Moral Crisis and Enlightenment philosophy, we can now address all those questions through non-religious means. It turns out, a god is not at all required for the function of the world. Yet, people continue to cling to the idea that there might be a god, even though it is illogical, simply because it has been hammered into their heads since birth.
My personal concept of god superceeds that of the bible. However, it is a pointless comment that carries no real weight. God is a concept, it doesnt have to be a man on a chair. I've never stated anything that remotely points to your statement. I've clearly argued against everyone's god here. Pointless slander.
I'm saying that my skepticism of religion and hance religious gods stems from blatant lies.
Dude, I was not talking to YOU, and with that I was not refering to you or your attitude or any of your posts, because I DID NOT READ ANY.
I, nor anyone else in this thread EVER put a question forward eather God exists or not.
It is not the objective of the coversation - it never was.
Ok, now pay attention -
Since I did not have any clue what the you're talking about in your post before last, my post was not asnwering any of your posts, or initiating anything you said, but was summerising the argument.
Again, what YOU believe is irrelevant to me, since I was not talking to you, because I did not READ any of your posts to begin with, so anything which you though was refering to YOU in my last post was simply - not.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Last edited by lil bitchiness on Dec 9th, 2006 at 06:50 PM
Your argument in this thread is that atheist and theists are the same.
I'm saying their not, and showing you why.
And I mention "yes or no questions" in my post and you reply immediately after with no other quoted phrase discussing "yes or no questions," Im certianly going to think you are addressing my post and me.
I'm saying that by saying athiests have an invalid true because god is never disprovable is hypocritical and therfore not incorrect. Honestly though, If you didn't read what I had to say, you're probably less concerned about discussing and more concerned about simply being "right".
I am not saying they are the same, but that their ways are. (And just like not all Theists, this does not apply to all Atheists, either).
not one is more convincing than the other. In fact, this thread had so many arguments regarding Theists and Atheists, I think the original one got lost somewhere in the 26 pages.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Yes, Atheism is more convincing. You're ignoring the fact that Atheist are people who areaware of science, probability, and generally have more common sense. In layman's terms, Atheists see the bigger picture. They know more. Atheists are those who look at God and see what it really is, and aren't convinced. Agnostics are those who were once Theist, but decided to turn away from being Theist due to lack of evidence ussually. Theists are those who believe in God because they see it as the only option. They don't see the bigger picture that Atheists see. Which is why, when given the bigger picture, Atheism is more convincing.
Your conlcusionis right, but your mechanism is wrong.
Atheists are ot necessarily aware of certain principles. As a contrived grouping I'd say they are more aware, but I know some very stupid atheists (the angsty kind). I would say that athiests have a much greater knowlegde of global religious culture and relgious history, as I feel knowing those areas promotes the destabilizaiton of faith.
That only applies to people who's idea of God does not stretch beyond holy books. Like yours, I would persume.
Atheism sees logic in that the holy books are not correct or consistant with science, or the deity which is spoken on in those holy books cannot possibly be real, not that a Deity does not exist.
There is a differance.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
I do not think Atheism or Theism have ANYTHING to do with Intelligence.
A lot of very smart people are Theists, like Dick Cheney for example. That guy is so fkn slick and clever....making millions of dollars off of this war, manipulating powerful people to work in his favor, shooting somebody in the face and getting away with it, and in the long run having all of his horrible actions get blamed on good ol' George W Bush......while he gets less attention and criticism and gets to enjoy the fruits of his work...
It has more to do with self comfort and/or rationalization.
But in general they are. I know I'm sounding arrogant here, but the fact is, Atheist have more knowledge about God than Theists. In fact, Atheists see religion as bad, all or most do. Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, me etc. Now we as people came to that by ourselves, I didn't even know of the other two when I started hating religion. The way see it, Atheism, is in a way, the truth. Because what Atheists believe, they believed by themself, no teachings at all.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 9th, 2006 03:18 PM
