Political Crossfire Forums

Omega1 · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 456

Quote: Really? i didnt know that. teach me those magic tricks while ur at it Rolling Eyes
Your argument is still weak buddy

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e0919793-81aa-4029-9c1b-ca4b1afa40c8&k=8943
:lol:

Quote: Yes, but did any of the hindus ever claim to WITNESS these miracles being performed by their gods? And also, did the hindus have anything to gain (i.e power) by making these claims? if so, that explains a lot.

There are innumerable cases of miracles in Hinduism from the ancient times right to the present day.

http://milkmiracle.com/

Quote: The muslim empire lied about that for power. they wanted to control their followers to continue their imperial conquest. the muslims had everything to gain from making people follow their false religion.

Many in Mecca were angered by Muhammad's preaching and persecuted him and his followers. What did they have to gain?

Quote: Maybe because the people who wrote the bible were constantly persecuted, put in jail, and ridiculed for their beliefs at first.

More gnostics gambled their lives to preach Doceticism than the deaths of Christians risking their's.

Quote: they had absolutely nothing to gain from fabricating lies like that as it went against jewish beliefs at the time and again, was the source of ridicule.

What did the suicide bombers have to gain from 9/11?

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2900

dtwizzy2k5 wrote: It proves that the atheist explanation for how this universe came about is just as much a leap of faith as belief in God

What explanation? I just said "I don't know". All evidence points towards the Big Bang occuring, that's no leap of faith. I don't know claim to know why that happened, so there's no leap of faith involved.

Quote: Haha the difference between plumbing/candy is that SOMEBODY out there does know how plumbing works or how they get caramel inside Caramilk (wtf is that) bars Somebody sure does, but I don't. Therefore, by your lights, God must be responsible for such things.

Quote: NOBODY knows how the universe was created Somebody might. We may know in 10 or 50 or 1000 years. Just because nobody knows how something happened doesn't mean God did it. [Quote]So if you dont have a better explanation than God, just stop arguing[/b]

No. I'm an atheist, I was invited here by the person who started this thread. Besides, I think it's should you who ought to stop. If your argument boils down to "we don't know it, therefore God is real", consider your argument made.

Quote: Yeah, so you expect me to believe that this cloud of dust came out of nowhere and coincidentally happens to create an earth and a sun and all the planets, as well as the marvels of nature such as DNA coding, Phi, etc.

No. I expect you to believe an invisible superfriend wished the universe into existence. I would be pleasantly surprised if convincing you otherwise had turned out that easy.

Quote: Please, use your damn head and realize that there must have been an intelligent being behind all of this who designed it all and it couldn't possibly have been a matter of mere coincidence and happening.

Why would I want to do such a thing? As I said in my first post, a deity is neither evident nor necessary but absent: not only is there no evidence of a god, there's no evidence that there should be a god.

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2900

Sataere wrote: The atheist side has evidence that the big bang occurred, such as the current expansion of our universe, and the fact that alike elements exist all over. That's a one 'evidence point' for the atheist side.

Not really. Deism is compatible with science. It's entirely possible to believe that God wrote the laws of physics and to spend one's scientific career attempting to "know the mind of God" as Stephen Hawking puts it. What's not compatible with science is fundamentalism or biblical literalism. No, one can't fit two of every animal in a boat. Even if one could, it wouldn't do one any good because there isn't enough genetic diversity in a single breeding pair to propagate species. It should go without saying that the biblical version of creation is nonsense too.

sLiPpY · Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 10094

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Sataere wrote: The atheist side has evidence that the big bang occurred, such as the current expansion of our universe, and the fact that alike elements exist all over. That's a one 'evidence point' for the atheist side.

Not really. Deism is compatible with science. It's entirely possible to believe that God wrote the laws of physics and to spend one's scientific career attempting to "know the mind of God" as Stephen Hawking puts it. What's not compatible with science is fundamentalism or biblical literalism. No, one can't fit two of every animal in a boat. Even if one could, it wouldn't do one any good because there isn't enough genetic diversity in a single breeding pair to propagate species. It should go without saying that the biblical version of creation is nonsense too.

:gmo: But we need the fundi's...err they make life much more err...

Well, maybe we don't need them at tal. :-|

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9392

dtwizzy2k5 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: My dad once told me a story about a man in a red suit who came down my fireplace once a year and left presents under a tree. Guess that means that it must be true, right?

Ok obviously God and Santa Claus are two completely different things. The difference is that when my dad told me about santa claus, he didnt honestly believe he existed. But he does honestly believe God exists when he told me that. Why? Becuase his father told him, and so did his father, and so on all the way up to the people who actually witnessed jesus perform miracles and whatnot. Man i swear some of you guys on this forum are really dense. Well, there's the pot calling the kettle black.

The point is that both the story of Jesus's miracles and Santa Claus are based on oral traditions. Ever played the game "telephone?" One person whispers a sentence in your ear. You then whisper that same sentence to the person next to you, who whispers to the person next to them, and so on down the line. Often, when you reach the final person on the line, you are left with a completely different sentence than you started with.

So, which are you putting your stock in concerning Jesus' miracles; a 2000 year-old oral tradition subject to constant reinterpretations and omissions by each generation, or a book with stories that can not be validated by any other source?

Either way, you are left with overwhelming room for error.

In addition, belief doesn't equate to fact. Sure, you, your dad, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, etc, may believe wholeheartedly that Jesus performed miracles. But, that does not make it fact. Did you witness the miracles? No, I am willing to bet you didn't. Therefore, all you have is faith that they happened.

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2900

Gryff1nd0r wrote: True atheism is a religion, because truth claims are made that cannot be verified. They claim the non-existence of something that is hardly definable and cannot be shown to exist or not exist.

That's not a very good definition of a religion. A religion can be centered around something that is certainly definable and/or can be shown to exist. Primitive tribes have been known to form religions around modern artifacts that happen to find their way into these primitive tribal villages; they're called cargo cults. Shrines dedicated to airplanes which could only have been seen overhead have also been discovered. The objects of worship can most certainly be shown to exist. Also, The Greek and the Roman gods were very well defined, down to their soap-opera sex lives.

If atheism is to be considered a religion by your definition, then so is a lack of belief in UFO sightings.

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2900

sLiPpY wrote: But we need the fundi's...err they make life much more err...

Well, maybe we don't need them at tal.

Mennonites and Hutterites grow some damned fine crops. And you have to admit that despite the Church's tyrannical attitude during the dark ages, the advances in art and architecture it spawned make it worth it (I can say that because I didn't have to live through those times). And speaking of the dark ages, who do you think was preserving all that wonderful Greco-Roman literature and philosophy and mathematics and engineering and astronomy and chemistry and mettallurgy and history and so on while our European ancestors - or mine anyway, you're purebred Australian aboriginee for all I know - were forgetting how dumb it was to dig the well next to the outhouse?

The Muslims, that's who.

So on the whole I have a lot of respect for the world's religions even if I don't share their beliefs. And to shun those who hold those beliefs would mean shunning my own family, who suffer from varying degrees of French Catholicism.

I can do without the Christian Right brand of American fundamentalism that seems to be gaining popularity, though. They aren't contributing much the way the Muslims or the Christians did, and they don't seem to be displaying the spirit of Christian goodness as it was taught to me.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5506 Location: Taxatraz

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Why is it that individually you do not believe in God? What is the strongest argument for tossing the idea of (a) God out the window that you can throw at me?

Don't you think that the burden of proof is on the side that says there is God?
I'm not looking for proof; just persuasive atheistic arguments.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5506 Location: Taxatraz

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Science is not irrefutable; there are plenty of assumptions previously made in science that have been later shown to be false.

Most science(if you'd even call it that) in the old days was just as dogmatic as religion. However, the twentieth century brought about a conventional scientific pursuit that was, for the first time, without dogmatic belief. Science was, for the first time, based on fact. It still is, and now it is unlocking the secrets of the universe. This theocratic backlash we are witnessing now is the product of religion loosing tangible influence on the lives of rational, logically minded people. This is because everyone knows on some level that scientists are no longer liars and magicians.
What is perfect about modern science? Science cannot answer the question of what happened 13.7+ billion years ago; heck, science cannot even fully understand something as basic as gravity.

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Religion, facts aside, does have redeeming qualities.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I'm sure you don't. :roll:

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5506 Location: Taxatraz

Sataere wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Why is it that individually you do not believe in God? What is the strongest argument for tossing the idea of (a) God out the window that you can throw at me?

You can't prove or show evidence that he does exist, so there is no reason for anyone to believe that he does.
Ok, let's try this:

A family of three lives in an area where the weather frequently changes. The family often spends a few hours in a separate area of the house that has no windows and is soundproof. One afternoon, the first member of the family, who has often told the truth, but has before been caught in some nasty lies, claims that the sky was without clouds when he entered the house ten minutes ago. The second member of the family, who is often jealous and spiteful of the special treatment the first member of the house receives, claims that it was flooding when he entered the house five minutes ago. The third member of the family, who has not been outside of the room since much earlier in the day, declares that even if both of the first two family members are telling the truth, it is impossible for him to know what the weather is outside without leaving the room.

So, what is the moral of the story? Absolutely nothing at all. :roll:

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

aLienaTeD wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Why is it that individually you do not believe in God? What is the strongest argument for tossing the idea of (a) God out the window that you can throw at me?

Don't you think that the burden of proof is on the side that says there is God?
I'm not looking for proof; just persuasive atheistic arguments.

...and the best argument is this; the burden of proof. if there is no evidence to support the existance of something, then the rational conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

Gryff1nd0r wrote: True atheism is a religion, because truth claims are made that cannot be verified. They claim the non-existence of something that is hardly definable and cannot be shown to exist or not exist.

first of all, you obviously have no idea what atheism or religion is. secondly, there are many different kinds of atheism.

atheists doesn't claim anything; we just reject the claim put forward by theists. there is a significant difference there. just like you probably reject the existance of the tooth fairy, santa claus, yellow leprachauns living under your house, pink elephants ruling the moon etc etc. the burden of proof is at those making the claim.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: True atheism is a religion, because truth claims are made that cannot be verified. They claim the non-existence of something that is hardly definable and cannot be shown to exist or not exist.

That's not a very good definition of a religion. A religion can be centered around something that is certainly definable and/or can be shown to exist. Primitive tribes have been known to form religions around modern artifacts that happen to find their way into these primitive tribal villages; they're called cargo cults. Shrines dedicated to airplanes which could only have been seen overhead have also been discovered. The objects of worship can most certainly be shown to exist. Also, The Greek and the Roman gods were very well defined, down to their soap-opera sex lives.

If atheism is to be considered a religion by your definition, then so is a lack of belief in UFO sightings.

Do you consider Buddhism a religion? Most people do. But there is not exactly a defined "God" in Buddhism, they basically "describe" God as being utterly indescribable, and they do not personalize "God" whatsoever. God is a foreign entity that cannot be understood, explained, or described... it just IS... and they believe that thier meditation can bring them to a state (and it is a real physical state) of God-likeness, nirvana. The concept of God is more symbolic, and it is certainly not worshipped or prayed to, and they don't literally believe that they become "God" when they meditate. God is just a term ascribed to a unknown state of being acheived through meditation, that is utterly different from what we experience daily as reality.

If Buddhism is a religion, then so is atheism. They are philosophies more than anything, they do not require an object of worship, but they require unverifiable beliefs in the nature of reality and the purpose (or non-purpose) of life.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

Random Evil Guy wrote:

first of all, you obviously have no idea what atheism or religion is.

They are not well defined, and their definitions are constant works in progress. They change as the beliefs of people change. Atheism has consistently been ascribed to anybody who rejects the current common conception of "God", even if they believed in a sort of spirituality. Historically, "atheists" have often been the beginners in a new religious trend.

I have defined atheism and religion in this thread for the purpose of debate, so please do not get caught up in semantics. I could start a thread on the composition of the tenth planet, and you could attack me for the fact that Pluto and the "tenth planet" do not scientifically count as planets and I have no idea what a "planet" is... I really don't care, that has nothing to do with the planet's composition. I have defined those words for the sake of this thread, so get over it.

Random Evil Guy wrote: secondly, there are many different kinds of atheism.

Yes, I have said that many times (I don't know if I did in this particular thread).

Random Evil Guy wrote: atheists doesn't claim anything; we just reject the claim put forward by theists. there is a significant difference there. just like you probably reject the existance of the tooth fairy, santa claus, yellow leprachauns living under your house, pink elephants ruling the moon etc etc. the burden of proof is at those making the claim.

Many atheists do make claims, and those are the kind of atheists I refer to: those atheists who claim that all that exists is knowable and discoverable by the scientific method. That may not be the common atheist you pick off the street, but it is the kind of atheist you meet in academia, the scientific community, and university professors. I think that it is a reasonable point of view, but it is not verifiable. The scientific method doesn't stand up to its own scrutiny, you must take its truthfulness and accuracy on faith (and you must also take on faith that there is nothing discoverable that the scientific method CANNOT discover).

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
They are not well defined

atheism is the absence of theism; hence the 'a-theism'...

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
Atheism has consistently been ascribed to anybody who rejects the current common conception of "God", even if they believed in a sort of spirituality.

atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in god(s). that's all it is.

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
Many atheists do make claims, and those are the kind of atheists I refer to: those atheists who claim that all that exists is knowable and discoverable by the scientific method.

first of all, that has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. it's a (strong) naturalistic view of the world. don't confuse the terms here. second, i think you mean strong atheism. which is the position that no deity exists, period.

like i said. you don't know what atheism is. not only are you confusing it with naturalism, but you don't seem to understand the different types of atheism...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=dictionary&va=religion
atheism doesn't fit into any of the definitions of religion.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5506 Location: Taxatraz

Refrozen Seabass wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Why is it that individually you do not believe in God? What is the strongest argument for tossing the idea of (a) God out the window that you can throw at me?

God is not in evidence, nor does anything in nature imply that a God is necessary. I'm quite comfortable knowing there are many, many natural phenomenon I don't understand. I don't see a need to introduce a deity in order to force an explanation that suits me personally, but doesn't make any real sense.
How can you say that you don't understand nature at the same time that you say that nothing in nature implies the need for (a) God?

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5506 Location: Taxatraz

Gryff1nd0r wrote: Refrozen Seabass wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: Science, reason, atheism, whatever you want to call it... it is a religion of sorts, and ultimatly, all religions have the goal of knowing the TRUTH (although theistic religions are different because they tend to count on the truth affirming human purpose and meaning, while atheistic religions can accept that the truth affirms human existence to be purposless, meaningless, and directionless).

eh, atheism is not a religion. that would be like saying 'not playing golf' is a hobby...

Hah! Well put. I've been told that atheism is religion before. Your rebuttal is as succinct as any I've seen.

True atheism is a religion, because truth claims are made that cannot be verified. They claim the non-existence of something that is hardly definable and cannot be shown to exist or not exist.
Not only that, but some atheists can be just as bigoted as people of other religions. This behavior of blatantly insulting people who believe in God is the same type of pomposity that we commonly see from staunch supporters of organized religions.

THEXRATED · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2866 Location: Tuonelan Virrat

Quote: True atheism is a religion, because truth claims are made that cannot be verified. They claim the non-existence of something that is
hardly definable and cannot be shown to exist or not exist.

It is still not a religion. It seems that you do not fathom what the very word means.

Quote: Not only that, but some atheists can be just as bigoted as people of other religions. This behavior of blatantly insulting people who believe in God is the same type of pomposity that we commonly see from staunch supporters of organized religions.

People disagree, some more strongly than others whereas some prefer to avoid confrontations. This got more to do with your personality than your world view in my opinion.

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2900

aLienaTeD wrote: How can you say that you don't understand nature at the same time that you say that nothing in nature implies the need for (a) God?

Exactly the same way I can say with complete confidence that while I don't understand how magic tricks work I am certain they do not involve actually sawing ladies in half or creating rabbits out of thin air. I do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain away what I do not understand, it's as simple as that.

sparsely · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: Passamaquoddy

Refrozen Seabass wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: How can you say that you don't understand nature at the same time that you say that nothing in nature implies the need for (a) God?

Exactly the same way I can say with complete confidence that while I don't understand how magic tricks work I am certain they do not involve actually sawing ladies in half or creating rabbits out of thin air. I do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain away what I do not understand, it's as simple as that.

8:)