any arguments?

[Necrosis]

yes i am a poor writer perhaps i should concentrate on the writing and less on the science. ill respond to the dna post tommorrow as im tired of thinking. i understand that theories are built on testable reproducible phenomenon in which assumptions are proved wrong. however, i dont see what testible predictions evolution makes, and especially punctuated equilibrium for that matter. ill expand later though.

[logical?]

you should read some of my epic debates with usmokepole in this section. Every time I would fluster him with a counter-objection, he would either change subjects or use the excuse that our discussion has become boring.

Yeah, I completely agree. Eg, post 18 in this thread is a complete straw man- I never raised so-called objection '1'.

He postulates objections people might raise and then argues against them. But once he's arguing against objections that people actually do raise, he's out of his book-preparation and high and dry.

[Necrosis]

again your misinterpreting what im saying logical. i didnt say you objected i outlined my argument again as you said it didnt hold water. and again you came up with no arguments. i even went back and refuted your same arguments. i dont see what your saying at all.

[logical?]

again your misinterpreting what im saying logical. i didnt say you objected i outlined my argument again as you said it didnt hold water. and again you came up with no arguments. i even went back and refuted your same arguments. i dont see what your saying at all.

Dude, you haven't refuted any of my arguments, you don't even know what my arguments are 

[ToxicAvenger]

does any athiest actually have any good arguments for the non-exsistence of a higher being ie god. ive yet to see one argument against a creator. anyone got any?

here is one...


FUCK YOU GOD....GOD YOU R A COWARD AND A PUSSY...SHOW YOURSELF..REVEL YOURSELF...I'M GLAD JESUS GOT NAILED TO A CROSS...HELL I WISH I WS THERE TO SEE IT AND MOHAMMED AND IBRAHIM CAN BOTH GO EAT SATAN COCK...


hmmmm


nothing...



.thought so...


and you're gonna say.."god is 2 important to stoop to my level"


and i'm gonna say..

"riiiiight"



and if he does exist..mang he is suuuch a fucking puss...he DOES NOT DESERVE MY ATTENTION

hope this helps..

[NeoSeminole]

Yeah, I completely agree. Eg, post 18 in this thread is a complete straw man- I never raised so-called objection '1'.

He postulates objections people might raise and then argues against them. But once he's arguing against objections that people actually do raise, he's out of his book-preparation and high and dry.

to be fair to usmokepole, that post was addressed to me. He quoted my objections from another thread. I will respond to him when I'm not so lazy. Keep up with the good work logical. I do enjoy reading your posts.

[ToxicAvenger]

gravity isnt a model, it is not merely a describtion of how bodies interact it can be verified by mathematics and by predictions based on objective science and by something called math. gravity is a theory, like the theory of general relativity which describes gravity, ring a bell. evolution offers no testable predictions.  it is a model, and by definition a model is a description. have you even read and gould, punctuated equilibria is only a description it doesnt offer prescriptions as to when a species will pop into exsistence for example. it looks at historical records(fossils) which is not accetable in natural sciences and makes the observation that evolution happens in short bursts based on the fossils(how ingeneous). im not totally against evolution, i beleive somewhat in self organizing complexity models and auto-catalytic sets. but fundamental darwinian evolution is wrong.

fine..


more proof for gravity than god me man...



look..i'm NOt falling up!

[Necrosis]

Dude, you haven't refuted any of my arguments, you don't even know what my arguments are 

so copy and pasting your last arguments from the thread we were arguing in isnt your arguments. your getting so upset about it, im just arguing with you about something. its fine to grill neo, i think he likes it . i respect both of you for at least giving me something worth thinking about and being logical. arguments get heated but in the end i dont really care all that much.

id hate to break it to you but god doesnt answer and for good reason. if god controlled intervened then there would be no point to life no purpose, we wouldnt have free will. the only way for true love and purpose to exist is for seperation to exist. he chooses not to do anything because intervening would make existence obsolete.

the only way he exists is if he doesnt intervene.your rant was actually an argument in itself. another one would be why evil.

but here is the best one.
finite cannot know infinite
therefore i cannot know gods mind
therefore i have faith in god
faith by definition is irrational
therefore beleif in god is irrational by defintion

this slides for any faith but it just points out that trying to reason about everything god does or why is beyond our grasp IF he exists. i still think you can give plausible explanations, but like ive said its not proof. knowing everything is impossible, thus knowing, by what it means to know is impossible with god.

[doison]

Atheists are no different than devote followers of any religion. 
Both claim to know things that cannot be proven. 

agnosticism is the path to righteousness

[NeoSeminole]

Atheists are no different than devote followers of any religion. 
Both claim to know things that cannot be proven. 

agnosticism is the path to righteousness

I disagree. An atheist is simply anyone who doesn't believe in god(s). There are some atheists who take it one step further and claim there is no god. These individuals are sometimes refered to as strong atheists. It's unfair to lump all atheists under this category. If you want to get technical, we cannot be sure 100% of anything. However, it would be silly to just throw up our hands and say we are agnostic about everything, from invisible pink unicorns to the flying spaghetti monster. I don't believe in something unless it's been proven. In my opinion, to suspend belief in a deity until evidence is brought forth is the only rational choice. Agnosticism is the cowardly way out.

[Tre]

look..i'm NOt falling up!

Actually, you are.

It's just that everything else is falling up at the exact same rate of speed, so no one notices. 

[Necrosis]

I disagree. An atheist is simply anyone who doesn't believe in god(s). There are some atheists who take it one step further and claim there is no god. These individuals are sometimes refered to as strong atheists. It's unfair to lump all atheists under this category. If you want to get technical, we cannot be sure 100% of anything. However, it would be silly to just throw up our hands and say we are agnostic about everything, from invisible pink unicorns to the flying spaghetti monster. I don't believe in something unless it's been proven. In my opinion, to suspend belief in a deity until evidence is brought forth is the only rational choice. Agnosticism is the cowardly way out.

i agree with this but like ive already said you wont ever find hard proof of god. i just think you havent even looked at all seriously. did you read the DNA argument i posted. it uses nothing but information theory, to show how dna had to come from intelligence. im not ragging im just saying i think there is evidence that makes it plausible, for some reason do you not see these arguments as plausible?. i mean what is your take on how the universe got here and why change? and all the other questions i asked. i think god is the most pluasible answer, for meta-physical questions. have you read anything besides intelligent design folks, i agree they are off their rockers on some shit.

[Tre]

i agree with this but like ive already said you wont ever find hard proof of god.

When I see mountains or small chidren, I do believe in the existence of god.

But I do not believe that it's the same 'god' referred to in religious texts.  The Christian god is a mass murderer, so in many ways, he's the supposedly 'Benevolent Boogeyman'. 

[Necrosis]

i beleive in a god, not the christian god and i see no point in looking in texts to find proof of god. buddists have the right idea with enlightenment, but in  a theistic sense i think you can find god within. when you ponder life, and why are we even here, or why is there even a universe at all, you do get a sense of spirituality, well at least i do.

[doison]

I disagree. An atheist is simply anyone who doesn't believe in god(s). There are some atheists who take it one step further and claim there is no god. These individuals are sometimes refered to as strong atheists. It's unfair to lump all atheists under this category. If you want to get technical, we cannot be sure 100% of anything. However, it would be silly to just throw up our hands and say we are agnostic about everything, from invisible pink unicorns to the flying spaghetti monster. I don't believe in something unless it's been proven. In my opinion, to suspend belief in a deity until evidence is brought forth is the only rational choice. Agnosticism is the cowardly way out.

I disagree.  Atheism is the cowardly way out, it is also the easy way. 
Atheism is the assertion that deities do not exist, which is essentially no difference than being devoted to religion. 

You say you don't believe in something unless it has been proven.  By claiming status as an atheist, you're believing in the absence of a deity, which hasn't been proven. 
Unless you can get Webster's to change the definition of Atheism, you've just stated that you're also agnostic. 

Of course, you'll respond that I'm just arguing semantics, which is exactly what you were doing to my post.

[doison]

When I see mountains or small chidren, I do believe in the existence of god.

But I do not believe that it's the same 'god' referred to in religious texts.  The Christian god is a mass murderer, so in many ways, he's the supposedly 'Benevolent Boogeyman'. 

That is the problem.  "God" is pretty much singularly defined as the old Testament Yahweh.  And of course, Jesus is super god, as he is God's son, the son of man, God re-born, etc., etc. 

So, we're never allowed to search for what a Deity may be. 
Using science as a tool to understand the origins of the universe, we can trace it back to the Plank epoch, which is 10 (-43) second.  Our understanding of this epoch is very limited, and will grow as theories such as string theory, and quantum gravity, etc., grow and develop. 

Future understanding of this, and what "caused" this portion of the universe very well could prove the existence of a singular deity creating everything.  But, believing that the universe was created over 6 days about 6,000 years ago just doesn't hold water in everything science has shown to be true. 

It is my belief that many in the scientific community are so fed up with organized religion, and it's desire to fight the development of science, that they are so devoted to disproving the existence of god that they wouldn't even accept proof of the existence, even if greater scientific understanding showed it to be true.  (not the Bible's God....I don't expect science to show that to be true any time soon...)

[NeoSeminole]

I disagree.  Atheism is the cowardly way out, it is also the easy way. 
Atheism is the assertion that deities do not exist, which is essentially no difference than being devoted to religion.

how is atheism cowardly? We have nothing to gain and everything to lose. If anything, agnosticism is the easy way out. It amounts to nothing more than pussyfooting around the fence. Atheism has multiple definitions. You are using only 1 definition and applying it to all atheists. This is unfair. Furthermore, I don't see how my lack of a belief in a fictitious character requires the same leap of faith as religion. By your logic, a disbelief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is no different than being a religious zealout.

You say you don't believe in something unless it has been proven.  By claiming status as an atheist, you're believing in the absence of a deity. Unless you can get Webster's to change the definition of Atheism, you've just stated that you're also agnostic.

from Merriam-Webster online:

atheism:

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity (aka "weak atheism")
b: the doctrine that there is no deity (aka "strong atheism")

when I looked up disbelief, it said the "act of disbelieving." This gets us nowhere. So I looked up disbelieve.

disbelieve:

a: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
b: to withhold or reject belief

I'm not sure where you gathered that I'm agnostic. If you are alluding to my comment that we cannot be 100% sure of anything, then it can be said we are agnostic about everything. The word "agnosticism" would then lose its meaning.

Of course, you'll respond that I'm just arguing semantics, which is exactly what you were doing to my post.

I'm not following you. Please explain.

[doison]

I'm not following you. Please explain.

Look up semantics, then read your post.  Explaination will be complete.

[Tre]

I'm an atheist.  My wife is a devout mormon.

Our cores can never agree.   

[Necrosis]

how is atheism cowardly? We have nothing to gain and everything to lose. If anything, agnosticism is the easy way out. It amounts to nothing more than pussyfooting around the fence. Atheism has multiple definitions. You are using only 1 definition and applying it to all atheists. This is unfair. Furthermore, I don't see how my lack of a belief in a fictitious character requires the same leap of faith as religion. By your logic, a disbelief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is no different than being a religious zealout.

comparing god a deity to santa claus is a horrible comparison. i have outlined perhaps 20 plusible reasons, both logical, philosophical and scientific to think that something created everything that is. comparing this to a giant bunny rabbit that brings eggs, that has no logical, scientific or philosophical leanings whatsoever lacks argumentative substance.

could you seriously answer one question from your atheistic standpoint. how did the universe become? there are only two real options

universe is eternal
or it was created.

multiverse, cyclical blah blah just further delay the question, youd have to explain how multiverses were created, and if matter is eternal, how heat death, and entropy could be avoided. basically sweeping science under the rug.

[Necrosis]

to be honest most smart people versed in science, and philosophy etc that i have come across beleive there to be some divinity. why would change occur if some creative force did not act. say the big bang was just a eternal point even, why would it all of a sudden change?. how can stardust become conscious of itself? unless sentience was programmed from the start. we are fundamentally energy fields, how could these fields arrange(which are the same in rocks) to become self aware unless those fields are themselves self aware. intelligence or information is the substrate for life imo.

[NeoSeminole]

Look up semantics, then read your post.  Explaination will be complete.

let's see... you made a sweeping overgeneralization about atheists and refer to us cowardly. Then you say that I'm "just arguing semantics." Well, duh! You are wrong. Go into a gym and say all bodybuilders are meatheads. If someone tries to intelligently defend themself, tell them "you're just arguing semantics."

[doison]

let's see... you made a sweeping overgeneralization about atheists and refer to us cowardly. Then you say that I'm "just arguing semantics." Well, duh! You are wrong. Go into a gym and say all bodybuilders are meatheads. If someone tries to intelligently defend themself, tell them "you're just arguing semantics."

You haven't been reading this thread.   

I'll brief you. 
It was stated that agnostism is cowardly, and the easy way out.  I replied that I feel that atheism is cowardly, and the easy way out. 
I then stated that it can be argued that I am just arguing semantics, which is the same thing that you were doing. 

You come along, and repeat the same process. 
You are not intelligently defending yourself. 

Read the thread, see what others have said, and come back with some new arguments if you want to be a part of the debate.

[Tre]

Believing what your parents believe simply because you never took the time to question their beliefs is 'cowardly'.

[doison]

Believing what your parents believe simply because you never took the time to question their beliefs is 'cowardly'.

Agreed.