If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[nalkin]

Originally Posted by zenoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My original post is to the OP trying to show that he has to do a good job supporting atheism, actually debate philosophical notions of god, or give up and become agnostic; because currently he looks like something between a troll and an idiot.

Going to say this in this thread now because, having looked it up, I have such a strong urge to correct everyone on their mistaken semantics.

Agnosticism is not a third choice instead of atheism or theism. Atheism and Theism are the only two choices as they span all possibilities. If you are "agnostic" you are still technically a theist or an atheist.

Atheism is not the belief that a god or god does not exist. Although it can be, that isn't necessarily the case.

So everyone go update your facebook pages now

[zenoo]

Ok Nalkin thanks for the semantics lesson. I guess there isn't a word in the dictionary called agnostic. People who are uncertain of their place in the universe will just have to flip a coin and take sides thanks to your enlightening post.

[zenoo]

a-theism
theism
a
Anti
theism

not theism
atheist
not theist


Uncertain does not fit with the term atheist.

[nalkin]

Originally Posted by zenoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok Nalkin thanks for the semantics lesson. I guess there isn't a word in the dictionary called agnostic. People who are uncertain of their place in the universe will just have to flip a coin and take sides thanks to your enlightening post.

Agnostic is a word, im just saying people are either atheist or theist; you can't be agnostic instead. You can be agnostic and be a theist, or you can be agnostic and be an atheist.

Again, atheism isn't the belief that god doesn't exist. It is the lack of belief in a god or gods. This is subtle (which is why so many people like you get it wrong) but there is a huge difference obv. You can lack a belief in gods (be an atheist) because you are agnostic ie, you can't know for sure whether god(s) exist.

Similarly, a theist can be agnostic by believing in a god but not knowing for sure whether god(s) exist.

Here you go,
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sNDZb0KtJDk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sNDZb0KtJDk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

P.S. - go to a better school.

[Harrison]

The definition of the word disagrees with you.

Again, atheism isn't the belief that god doesn't exist. It is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Definition:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

But hey, talk down to people that are right just to argue semantics...it's okay.

[Beauregard]

to illustrate the title of this thread i've constructed a basic chart of the grand debate.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Beauregard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

to illustrate the title of this thread i've constructed a basic chart of the grand debate.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Best part of this is that psychology is misspelled. If you're going to be a condescending dick, at least catch up on junior high vocabulary.

There are a lot of very intelligent atheists. None of them have posted in this thread.

I find it interesting that nobody will address this point: many atheists claim they do not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence of any God's existence. At the same time, many atheists do believe in extraterrestrial life. My question is why? What's the difference? There is absolutely no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life at this point in time. It's entirely theoretical. It's a belief. How can you condemn one, while subscribing to another? Do you take a scientific approach to these kind of questions, or not?

And as a side-note, the belief in God is far more logical and necessary than a belief in extraterrestrial life. As far as Man can comprehend the Universe, everything has a beginning. Everything was created, at some point or another. God is a logical extension of this. Something has to have been eternal. Whether it was a pair of atoms or a sentient Creator, it's so far beyond our grasp that it's ridiculous for any one person to act certain in one way or the other. When you talk about "all evidence" pointing against a God, you just sound ignorant. There is no evidence. On the other hand, it's very easy to imagine other planets devoid of life -- we've already found many of them. There's no evidence of life anywhere else, and there never has been. It's possible that there's life throughout the universe, but there's no scientific reason to believe there is. It'd be easy to imagine Earth as the only planet in the universe where life exists.

Now if you want to discuss religious doctrine, knock your socks off. There's plenty of evidence that points against many elements of many religions. But that's like poking holes in the movie Independence Day in order to disprove extraterrestrial life. Even if the Bible turns out to be a 2000 year old version of Beowulf, it doesn't mean you've disproven the existence of any God.

[chtulu]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are a lot of very intelligent atheists. None of them have posted in this thread.

I find it interesting that nobody will address this point: many atheists claim they do not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence of any God's existence. At the same time, many atheists do believe in extraterrestrial life. My question is why? What's the difference? There is absolutely no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life at this point in time. It's entirely theoretical. It's a belief. How can you condemn one, while subscribing to another? Do you take a scientific approach to these kind of questions, or not?

And as a side-note, the belief in God is far more logical and necessary than a belief in extraterrestrial life. As far as Man can comprehend the Universe, everything has a beginning. Everything was created, at some point or another. God is a logical extension of this. Something has to have been eternal. Whether it was a pair of atoms or a sentient Creator, it's so far beyond our grasp that it's ridiculous for any one person to act certain in one way or the other. When you talk about "all evidence" pointing against a God, you just sound ignorant. There is no evidence. On the other hand, it's very easy to imagine other planets devoid of life -- we've already found many of them. There's no evidence of life anywhere else, and there never has been. It's possible that there's life throughout the universe, but there's no scientific reason to believe there is. It'd be easy to imagine Earth as the only planet in the universe where life exists.

Now if you want to discuss religious doctrine, knock your socks off. There's plenty of evidence that points against many elements of many religions. But that's like poking holes in the movie Independence Day in order to disprove extraterrestrial life. Even if the Bible turns out to be a 2000 year old version of Beowulf, it doesn't mean you've disproven the existence of any God.

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs.

We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

Like I've said, it is not up to secularists to disprove God, it is up to people who believe in such imaginary entities to give us reasons why we SHOULD believe in their delusions.

Also, there is evidence of why Our universe does not require a God to function (aka, evidence). Newtonian Laws explain phenomenons that were only explained through metaphors and stories based on God. Physics in general as solved many mysteries that we once chalked up to just "God's work". Evolution is another huge scientific understanding that further shows that God was not required to have animals live and change. Let's not also forget genetics and astronomy that have played their roles. You don't here people explaining that the Sky is blue because it's God's favorite color, or that we have droughts because he's angry with us. No, it is explained in ways humans understand, and that require no divine intervention.

What really confuses me is that you some how equate life outside of this planet to a divine entity that is omnipotent and omission. We are proof that it is capable to have life on a planet, why would we think that life couldn't happen any where else? We have an example of why it's plausible that there can be life elsewhere, we don't, however, have an example of super natural beings that have existed to postulate the existence of other divine creatures.

But it's ok, you're just like any other typical Theist. No real argument, just ad homniems and absurd, invalid logic. But thanks for being a condescending dick.

[quellren]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find it interesting that nobody will address this point: many atheists claim they do not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence of any God's existence. At the same time, many atheists do believe in extraterrestrial life. My question is why? What's the difference? There is absolutely no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life at this point in time. It's entirely theoretical. It's a belief. How can you condemn one, while subscribing to another? Do you take a scientific approach to these kind of questions, or not?

Likely one one wants to touch this because God and aliens are two different, questions.

Science has provided a plausible (if incomplete) theory about how Earth's life evolved, and has outlined theories as to what is needed for this to happen elsewhere, even picked out other locations with the highest odds.
God has offered ZERO proof that he exists, and in fact has had claims made for his existence that were later proven impossible, or untruths.
That's the difference.

Life exists here on earth, there are other planets in our own solar system that at one time had environments that look as though they could have been similar to earth. If, for instance Mars, was at one time much like earth, with an atmosphere and liquid-state surface water, then it is probable that carbon-based life could have arisen there as well. Maybe not proliferation or much complexity, but it's plausible. Extrapolate the probability that this happened not once, but TWICE just in the same solar system across the whole of the known universe and its statistically ignorant to say that life developed NOWHERE else. It's not faith. Its fucking math. No, we don't have proof because we don't YET have the tools to observe it elsewhere. If it happened once, it CAN happen again.
If God is responsible for creating earth and all things on it, why didn't he hop next door to Mars and do it again? Doesn't it seem odd that he created this HUGE universe, and then chose a SINGLE chunk of rock to play with?

[Beauregard]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Best part of this is that psychology is misspelled. If you're going to be a condescending dick, at least catch up on junior high vocabulary.

There are a lot of very intelligent atheists. None of them have posted in this thread.

I find it interesting that nobody will address this point: many atheists claim they do not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence of any God's existence. At the same time, many atheists do believe in extraterrestrial life. My question is why? What's the difference? There is absolutely no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life at this point in time. It's entirely theoretical. It's a belief. How can you condemn one, while subscribing to another? Do you take a scientific approach to these kind of questions, or not?

And as a side-note, the belief in God is far more logical and necessary than a belief in extraterrestrial life. As far as Man can comprehend the Universe, everything has a beginning. Everything was created, at some point or another. God is a logical extension of this. Something has to have been eternal. Whether it was a pair of atoms or a sentient Creator, it's so far beyond our grasp that it's ridiculous for any one person to act certain in one way or the other. When you talk about "all evidence" pointing against a God, you just sound ignorant. There is no evidence. On the other hand, it's very easy to imagine other planets devoid of life -- we've already found many of them. There's no evidence of life anywhere else, and there never has been. It's possible that there's life throughout the universe, but there's no scientific reason to believe there is. It'd be easy to imagine Earth as the only planet in the universe where life exists.

Now if you want to discuss religious doctrine, knock your socks off. There's plenty of evidence that points against many elements of many religions. But that's like poking holes in the movie Independence Day in order to disprove extraterrestrial life. Even if the Bible turns out to be a 2000 year old version of Beowulf, it doesn't mean you've disproven the existence of any God.

Pardon my spelling error in that 5 minute made chart, I must look like some completely primitive blood cult drone.

I don't know of any atheists who believe in extraterrestrials. However given the size of the universe (billions of earth-like planets in the Milky Way alone) and capabilities of life to survive in extreme conditions, it's almost a given that there is some forms of life outside our planet. Like on Gliese 581 g. Last year Steven S Vogt, professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, said his personal view was that there is a 100% chance for primitive life forms on the planet based on his studies.

See there's evidence for panspermia, that life/bacteria can travel through space on rocks and perhaps even land on a planet in the Goldilocks zone.