Do you believe in God?

[Hun200kmh]

Epic fail. The atheist does not say "There is no god", rather, they simply do not believe in god(s), because there is no good reason.

Read what I quoted and commented saying "That is a belief"

And your not collecting stamps is a hobby of yours, right?


AAAaaaaagggggghhhh!!!!!!

You really should improve your metaphores. That one is about actions performed or not, can hardly be of service here. Stick to the ones about unproven realities. "I don't believe in the existence of aliens" is a good start. Again, rational thinking FTW 👍

However , it is nice to see that there are always people in the World who are still learning about what is and is not a baseless assertion . 👍

Indeed.

 

[Hun200kmh]

EDIT - Sorry, accidental DP, please delete.

 

[huskeR32]

@ HuskeR32: They fail according to you, and last time I checked you weren't the "truth" impersonated. I think you fail, greatly, at trying to say I'm not in that disputed place. Because I know a belief when I see it.

What fails according to me? I don't follow you here.(EDIT: figured this part out.) Also, when did I say I was the "truth impersonated?" I simply spoke about using logical deductions to form my own opinions about how things likely are. Your immature projection onto me of claiming to be the "truth impersonated" shows your inability to argue this on any real merits. Also, it would be "truth personified," but whatever.

I know kids discussions of
- Is
- Is not
- Is
- Is not

Find one time where I've said, unequivocally, that there is no god. I'm not going to wait, because you won't find it, but go ahead and look anyways. Have I said that I don't believe that god exists? Absolutely. As my statement is not unequivocal, it shows that I'm open to any evidence to the contrary. Just haven't seen any is all.

And frankly I find it funny that you guys fail at recognizing your own "denial of belief" as a belief itself. And, I'll add, there's nothing rational about such a way of thinking.

Frankly, one of the most ludicrous things I've read in this thread. Choosing not to believe something without evidence may as well be the definition of rational thinking.

And where do I begin with the "denial of belief" phrase? It's not that I believe that I don't believe in god, I know that I don't believe in god. In other words, I'm well aware of a fact about myself, the exact opposite of denial.

Let's clear up the whole "atheism is a belief" thing once and for all. Go back four paragraphs. If I said "there is no god," you could call that a belief. Again though, I don't say that, and for the most part, people in this thread haven't either.

By saying "I don't believe in god," the verifiable part of that statement is specific to me and my thoughts. Me not believing in god is a FACT. The only proof needed is that I SAID IT. Done.

You're basically trying to say that atheists say "I believe that I don't believe in god." That's obviously a stupid statement. Again, me not believing in god is a FACT. Atheism is a factual thing, not a belief.

Please, please, please, please try and wrap your head around this in some way. It's really not difficult.

 

[Hun200kmh]

What fails according to me? I don't follow you here.(EDIT: figured this part out.) Also, when did I say I was the "truth impersonated?" I simply spoke about using logical deductions to form my own opinions about how things likely are. Your immature projection onto me of claiming to be the "truth impersonated" shows your inability to argue this on any real merits. Also, it would be "truth personified," but whatever.


Find one time where I've said, unequivocally, that there is no god. I'm not going to wait, because you won't find it, but go ahead and look anyways. Have I said that I don't believe that god exists? Absolutely. As my statement is not unequivocal, it shows that I'm open to any evidence to the contrary. Just haven't seen any is all.



Frankly, one of the most ludicrous things I've read in this thread. Choosing not to believe something without evidence may as well be the definition of rational thinking.

And where do I begin with the "denial of belief" phrase? It's not that I believe that I don't believe in god, I know that I don't believe in god. In other words, I'm well aware of a fact about myself, the exact opposite of denial.

Let's clear up the whole "atheism is a belief" thing once and for all. Go back four paragraphs. If I said "there is no god," you could call that a belief. Again though, I don't say that, and for the most part, people in this thread haven't either.

By saying "I don't believe in god," the verifiable part of that statement is specific to me and my thoughts. Me not believing in god is a FACT. The only proof needed is that I SAID IT. Done.

You're basically trying to say that atheists say "I believe that I don't believe in god." That's obviously a stupid statement. Again, me not believing in god is a FACT. Atheism is a factual thing, not a belief.

Please, please, please, please try and wrap your head around this in some way. It's really not difficult.

Again ... you are not being rational. I will repeat what caused the last few posts. It was nothing written by you:

God has never been in the material world as he is an imaginary fictional character . 👍

That is a belief.

Correct. He's all in your head.

That is a belief.

God , or indeed the characterisation of such a thing , is a man made creation .

That is a belief.


You want me to add more of this? It's all over this thread. But ... maybe I should leave this antagonistic game and just direct you to outside sources you may want to consider, like this paragraph from the wikipedia page on atheism:

Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[42] and Michael Martin,[36] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.[43] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[42] and in Catholic apologetics.[44] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[36] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[45] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[46] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[47] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[48] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[49] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[50]

Please, please, please, please try and wrap your head around what's written in this paragraph in some way. It's really not difficult.


Disclaimer:I ended my post in the same condescending tone that you used towards me. But I'd like it to be noted that I didn't call you immature or labeled as ludicrous what you wrote. I am old enough, wise enough, experienced enough and educated enough to know better, even when I am arguing a sensitive subject using a language that is foreign to me. It is my choice to do it, and I do like the fact that I am able to do it. Of course there's this risk of a native English speaker using against me my own poor knowledge of his language, but I guess that's almost unavoidable and I know from time to time it will happen. Truth Personified, won't forget that one.

 

[huskeR32]

Again ... you are not being rational

Please tell me what I said that was not rational. I believe I have clearly and adequately explained each of my views. If I'm wrong, I would love for everybody reading this to let me know.

Disclaimer:I ended my post in the same condescending tone that you used towards me. But I'd like it to be noted that I didn't call you immature or labeled as ludicrous what you wrote. I am old enough, wise enough, experienced enough and educated enough to know better, even when I am arguing a sensitive subject using a language that is foreign to me. It is my choice to do it, and I do like the fact that I am able to do it. Of course there's this risk of a native English speaker using against me my own poor knowledge of his language, but I guess that's almost unavoidable and I know from time to time it will happen. Truth Personified, won't forget that one.

I would grant you this point, that I could maybe be a little more sensitive in my wording, except I can't let you get away with your hypocrisy. You:
-Welcomed us all to "rational thought" as if you were the only one displaying it
-Said that TJC_69's "blindness is amazing"
-Told us all that we were in denial

Any of these things can also be construed as "condescending" in nature. I'm so tired of theists/deists crying disrespect, condescension, etc. on this thread, when they give it right back. Get real.

Finally, I have no idea what your native language is, so I apologize if I offended on that front. I love the diversity of cultures on this site, and I certainly don't want to make anybody feel unwelcome due to language barriers. I sincerely apologize about picking on your word choice. I'll try not to let it happen again.

 

[Villain]

Read what I quoted and commented saying "That is a belief"

Why does it matter to you that atheism should be considered a belief?

 

[Tic Tach]

Why does it matter to you that atheism is considered a belief?

Yes, I find this perplexing. Christians are often heard saying: "Atheism is just another religion." To which I say: "Then you must think it's a good thing."

Or they'll say: "As an atheist, you have more faith than I do, believing that this all came from nothing!" To which I say: "Well, given how much regard and status you place on having faith, I guess I'm in pretty good standing."

 

[Joey D]

Any of these things can also be construed as "condescending" in nature. I'm so tired of theists/deists crying disrespect, condescension, etc. on this thread, when they give it right back. Get real.

If you give it out, you can respect it in return. Many atheists in this thread have been incredibly disrespectful and showed zero tact while arguing their points. If you can't see it then you are intentionally being biased for your own cause. This is not to say there aren't theist doing the same thing, but the thread is dominated by atheists overall so it shows more.

I still haven't the slightest clue why people are attacking the person instead of their argument. Calling someone an idiot or stupid doesn't really help one's case, or even telling them they are in denial.

Can't we have a civilised discussion about religion?

*This is directed at you huske or anyone in particular, just an overall view of everything going on.

====

This continues to reaffirm my decision to examine my beliefs. The anger that comes out of organized religion led me away from them and the anger atheist show towards theist (which I still fail to understand) led me to the path of exploration and eventually believing in a deity.

 

[TankAss95]

Something did not come from nothing. It takes something or someone who is greater that nothing for something to happen. Zero is nothing, multiplying something to zero is nothing, but adding something to zero changes the zero to something, then multiplying. God Almighty is the something that can take nothing and add something.

 

[Tic Tach]

The anger that comes out of organized religion led me away from them, and the anger atheists show towards theists (which I still fail to understand) led me to the path of exploration and eventually believing in a deity.

I suggest then, that your reasons for belief or disbelief are terrible, for they are based upon how nice or not nice one particular group might be. rather than evidence and reason.

I suggest that any apparent anger displayed by atheists on discussion forums is due to the disrespectful and intellectually dishonest games that see us play on a continuing basis. Instead of saying: "Hmmmm, that's interesting, I guess I really don't have any evidence for my assertions, perhaps they are wrong." No, instead we see the continued rationalizations and excuses, and regular trips into the twilight zone of special pleading.

 

[MustangCobra95]

How do I get this thread out of my current threads on the GT Planet app? I'm sick of seeing this thread pop up.

 

[Azuremen]

Any of these things can also be construed as "condescending" in nature. I'm so tired of theists/deists crying disrespect, condescension, etc. on this thread, when they give it right back. Get real.

As a none theist, I'm going to tell you this in the most subtle, tactful way possible.

You come across as being a dick when you talk to those that are religious.

Well, more precisely, a clever, know-it-all, "look at me I have science" dick. Which really discourages them from actually caring about anything you say, because you are just insulting them from behind a thin curtain of "logic and science."

So, take a step down from your soap box and perhaps put yourself on the same level as everyone. Minus Tankass, he seems to be insistent on posting nonsense.

 

[TankAss95]

So, take a step down from your soap box and perhaps put yourself on the same level as everyone. Minus Tankass, he seems to be insistent on posting nonsense.

 

[Joey D]

I suggest then, that your reasons for belief or disbelief are terrible, for they are based upon how nice or not nice one particular group might be.

I suggest that any apparent anger displayed by atheists on discussion forums is due to the disrespectful and intellectually dishonest games that see us play on a continuing basis. Instead of saying: "Hmmmm, that's interesting, I guess I really don't have any evidence for my assertions, perhaps they are wrong." No, instead we see the continued rationalizations and excuses, and regular trips into the twilight zone of special pleading.

My beliefs have no bearing on how nice a group is or not. I've stated time and time again that I started to question being an atheist because I felt myself becoming angry over nothing. I figured I owed it to myself to research and explore what's out there and see where my beliefs were. I also figured I needed to be open minded about the world around me and the only way I could do that was to look at what was around.

The angry atheist only led me to explore what's out there, I could have very well landed back at atheism, but I didn't it. My beliefs are based on my understanding of the given evidence.

And you have every right to question people when they give you an answer, however there is a respectful way to do so. Calling them an idiot isn't going to prove your side at all. Give a well thought out opinion on the subject and counter their points, don't attack them. The old adage "play the ball, not the man" fits well here.

*Last point Tree'd by Cody, who probably put it slightly more blunt then I did

 

[Azuremen]

Sorry, but after ctrl+c, ctrl+v the biggest pile of non-sense I've seen in a while, with no real sources beyond that link, as if it explains anything, just kind of invalidated most of whatever you've tried to say.

No one actually knows how everything started. Theists claim they know, but the reality is they believe they know, based on faith. The very definition of faith is to believe in something one does not truly know. If someone knew something 100%, for certain, it would no longer be faith.

*Last point Tree'd by Cody, who probably put it slightly more blunt then I did

Well, I was nice about it before. People don't seem to get that when you word all of your statements in a back handed fashion, it just undermines any attempt at a discussion. It also weakens your stance, as emotion is clearly playing into it. The only time you can really play the condescion card is when someone simply does not get something that is fact, and as there are no facts about the formation of the universe, either on the religious side or the academic side, there is little reason to mock each other.

Unless someone is posting pure drivel.

 

[theotherspongey]

The angry atheist only led me to explore what's out there, I could have very well landed back at atheism, but I didn't it. My beliefs are based on my understanding of the given evidence.

You can't have evidence for something that doesn't exist!

 

[Tic Tach]

My beliefs have no bearing on how nice a group is or not.

Whassatt? You said this:

"The anger that comes out of organized religion led me away from them, and the anger atheists show towards theists (which I still fail to understand) led me to the path of exploration and eventually believing in a deity."

Should I have some secret decoder ring when I read that?

 

[Joey D]

You can't have evidence for something that doesn't exist!

Just evidence that's out there in general, evolution, creation of the universe, physics, and so-on. I'm not saying by any means there is definitive evidence that a deity exists, I'm say that based on what's out there currently I believe there is a deity of some sort.

Whassatt? You said this:

"The anger that comes out of organized religion led me away from them, and the anger atheists show towards theists (which I still fail to understand) led me to the path of exploration and eventually believing in a deity."

Should I have some secret decoder ring when I read that?

Errr, I'll just highlight it for you in your post.

Led me to path of exploration, not made me believe in God.

 

[TankAss95]

If you give it out, you can respect it in return. Many atheists in this thread have been incredibly disrespectful and showed zero tact while arguing their points. If you can't see it then you are intentionally being biased for your own cause. This is not to say there aren't theist doing the same thing, but the thread is dominated by atheists overall so it shows more.

I still haven't the slightest clue why people are attacking the person instead of their argument. Calling someone an idiot or stupid doesn't really help one's case, or even telling them they are in denial.

Can't we have a civilised discussion about religion?

*This is directed at you huske or anyone in particular, just an overall view of everything going on.

====

This continues to reaffirm my decision to examine my beliefs. The anger that comes out of organized religion led me away from them and the anger atheist show towards theist (which I still fail to understand) led me to the path of exploration and eventually believing in a deity.

Isn't the belief in a deist God the belief in a non-personal God, but a God that made the dimension and mathematics of the universe? If that is true then do you believe in this:

Something did not come from nothing. It takes something or someone who is greater that nothing for something to happen. Zero is nothing, multiplying something to zero is nothing, but adding something to zero changes the zero to something, then multiplying. God Almighty is the something that can take nothing and add something.

?

 

[Azuremen]

You can't have evidence for something that doesn't exist!

You can have evidence of something that doesn't exist. Cause in point being a medium in which light travels between stars and space - it was long though that ether, or something else fancy, was a medium for light waves. It took finding the equally odd aspect of particle-wave duality to explain how light was transmitted in space.

 

[Joey D]

Isn't the belief in a deist God the belief in a non-personal God, but a God that made the dimension and mathematics of the universe? If that is true then do you believe in this:

?

I really don't know what you mean, sorry.

 

[Azuremen]

Isn't the belief in a deist God the belief in a non-personal God, but a God that made the dimension and mathematics of the universe? If that is true then do you believe in this:

Something did not come from nothing. It takes something or someone who is greater that nothing for something to happen. Zero is nothing, multiplying something to zero is nothing, but adding something to zero changes the zero to something, then multiplying. God Almighty is the something that can take nothing and add something.

?

What?

I really don't know what you mean, sorry.

I'm with you on this one. It is just kind of like, well, lets play with a bunch of words to make something sound a lot deeper than it is.

I think it just is 0 + x = x, and God is needed to get the x.

 

[TankAss95]

I really don't know what you mean, sorry.

I feel the need to use this:
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
...in this thread a lot.
I fail.

 

[TankAss95]

?

think it just is 0 + x = x, and God is needed to get the x.[/QUOTE]

Bingo!
The universe needs something (>0) to be in existence. At the beginning of the universe, there must have been something to add matter to the zero amount of matter that the universe held. God is something that can make >0 from 0.

 

[Tic Tach]

The anger that comes out of organized religion led me away from them, and the anger atheists show towards theists led me to the path of exploration and eventually believing in a deity

I still fail to understand how you conveniently separate the two, however I'll put that aside for now. So what good evidence or reason did you come across which led you to believe in a deity. For without good reason or evidence, one is on shaky ground to actually believe something.


It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (W. K. Clifford)

 

[Azuremen]

think it just is 0 + x = x, and God is needed to get the x.

Bingo!
The universe needs something (>0) to be in existence. At the beginning of the universe, there must have been something to add matter to the zero amount of matter that the universe held. God is something that can make >0 from 0.

You are assuming there was nothing to begin with. That doesn't have to be the case.

Einstein proposed a constant and static universe, which was effectively eternal. While the static element was dismissed by Hubble's discover of Andromeda and the red-shift phenomena, which lead to the idea of an expanding universe, there is no reason to say something wasn't always there to begin with.

I still fail to understand how you conveniently separate the two, however I'll put that aside for now. So what good evidence or reason did you come across which led you to believe in a deity. For without good reason or evidence, one is on shaky ground to actually believe something.


It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (W. K. Clifford)

Take a look at what I posted. And that is just a bit of philosophy you are quoting, as insufficient evidence is relative.

Further, given the fact that the origin of the universe isn't well understood, along with our own lack of understanding of expand dimensionality, "more powerful" beings are certainly possible. Proving something does not exist can be, and is often more, difficult than proving it does.

 

[TankAss95]

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (W. K. Clifford)

Rubbish, honestly.
Hypothesis?
A belief for something is the very thing you strive to prove. Beliefs are the very substance that have fed science through the ages.

 

[Tic Tach]

You are assuming there was nothing to begin with. That doesn't have to be the case.

Yes, I find it interesting how the theist has no problem with eternity, or eternal life, but their mind pops a fuse when considering time in the other direction.

 

[Azuremen]

Yes, I find it interesting how the theist has no problem with eternity, or eternal life, but their mind pops a fuse when considering time in the other direction.

What is this other direction? And you've yet to offer anything more than philosophical masturbation about why your position is above theirs.

 

[Akira AC]

I feel the need to use this:
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
...in this thread a lot.
I fail.

The problem with what you say(rather post) basically refers to the existence of a god under the basis that everyone believes in a superior being, and that is not the case.

As I have said a couple of times before, science is not a religion, there is fundamental basis (proven and studied to be true) that complements the knowledge to understand how things work, finding the origin of the things and how they work is a task that science takes.

Religion however has fixed basis over everything, and most of this stuff has been actually proven false by science, what your posts do is contradict the very basis of the atheism, simply because atheists don't believe in a superior being, showing them that there is a presumed existence of a superior being that contradicts the very same reasons of why they don't believe in god, will make them against towards those ideas.

Saying I don't believe doesn't equal to dismissal or aggression, is just a concept that is alienated by the believers. God exists in people's minds, and by that I mean it doesn't actually exist, is just an idea and nothing more.