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

[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.

[chtulu]

It's also interesting that not of these theists have actually given a reasoning to why they insist on insulting me, like that some how invalidates anything I say.

I'm ignorant because?

I'm an asshole because?

I'm an idiot because?


Feel free to enlighten everyone.

[Daldolma]

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

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.

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.

1 - If you believe that any of the current theories regarding the origins and development of life on Earth provide a "deeply satisfying explanation" for everything we see and know, you're an idiot or you're ignorant -- there's no middle ground. Even evolution, the most basic and most substantiated theory for how life has developed, is very much incomplete. Read: not deeply satisfying. And that doesn't even begin to touch upon the primordial ooze origins, which is essentially guesswork. Not that it matters. What you seemingly can't wrap your head around is that there's no zero-sum argument regarding science and religion. It's perfectly acceptable for the physical laws of the universe to govern all development on Earth. The question is how were these laws created? How was the universe created? Everything observable to humanity has a beginning and an end: what was the beginning of the universe? If you say a primeval atom, as attested in the Big Bang Theory, what makes you any more certain than someone who says a sentient Creator? Answer: nothing. Any discussion of the origin of the universe is, by definition, a *highly* unproven theory based as much on guesswork as anything else. On a universal scale, we're smaller than ants. We can adequately describe the universe's origins insofar as an ant can adequately describe Earth's origins. Read: not at all.

2 - You continue to cite the disproval of old beliefs of Divine Intervention as evidence that God doesn't exist. Like I stated above, it's equivalent to someone "disproving" the existence of extraterrestrial life by showing Billy Bob that the UFO in his backyard is a firefly. You're not disproving the existence of extraterrestrial life: you're proving that the "UFO" is a firefly, and that Billy is an idiot. Nothing more, nothing less.

3 - And your last paragraph of debate just proves how in over your head you are -- even without remarking upon the difference between "omission" and "omniscient", which I assume is what you meant. You say, "We are proof that it is possible to have life on a planet. Why wouldn't we think it could happen anywhere else?" I say we are proof of the creative powers of sentient beings. Why couldn't that explain the creation of the universe? Mankind is capable of creating life -- we've done it. We're capable of creating or re-creating many of the elements and conditions of our universe. If the existence of mankind depended upon it, we could probably even create a new "planet" -- of course it would be mechanic, not organic, but that's not really the point. So who's to say that an infinitely more advanced sentient Being is not responsible for the creation of the universe as we know it? It's far from objective fact, but it's just as valid as a belief in a primeval atom. And it's just as grounded in observable evidence as the notion that "We are evidence of life on a planet, so there's life on a planet elsewhere." Hell, we can knock off both of these birds with one stone -- who's to say that this life on another planet isn't a hyper-advanced species that forged the universe, including its physical properties, while creating all life as they saw fit? There you go -- you've got sentient Creator and extraterrestrial life all wrapped up in one theory, and it's not any less absurd than the notion of a primeval atom. And it's all based on a modicum of observable evidence and a heap of guesswork.

[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?