Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 12:26 pm
@neologist,
I already know the outcome of your intent, we are not amused.
0 Replies
 
rex-alias
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 02:15 am
I hate the word GOD.... I appreciate everyone who is an aethist...
0 Replies
 
rex-alias
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 02:17 am
How can something can exist as GOD who can not even make me beleive that he exists?
0 Replies
 
dazza 480
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 02:15 pm
@real life,
What does omniscient have to do with deciding weather something exists or not do you have to be omniscient to no the spaghetti monster doesn’t exist
0 Replies
 
dazza 480
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 02:19 pm
@youngthinker,
I think you see god in a metaphorical sense I forget the name of it though
0 Replies
 
dazza 480
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 02:20 pm
@real life,
what a stupid thing to say
dazza 480
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 02:22 pm
@John Creasy,
you dont seem to know that you abuse children by mind washing them
0 Replies
 
dazza 480
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 02:24 pm
@Arella Mae,
You are a child looking up at a parent for guidance it is rather pathetic
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 03:00 pm
@dazza 480,
dazza 480 wrote:

what a stupid thing to say


He's never said anything intelligent.
0 Replies
 
Ahsanahmed Abid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:18 am
@youngthinker,
Yes, you're right to say the disadvantages of religion.I think some people become aethist because of the superstitions of religion and I also think that there is a God in our heart.And he is not wrong.He show us the right way but the religion show us the opposite way and the religion say us that the wrong way is right and it's the order of God.So that when some people fall in that wrong way then they lose their beliefs on God and they become aethist.But it's only for the superstitions of religion........I think it.....
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:31 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

rydinearth wrote:

Quote:
How did you prove God doesn't exist? Are you omniscient?

Have you proven that Unicorns don't exist? How about fairies? Pink elephants?How about the teapot orbiting Mars? Have you proven that none of these things exist? I doubt it. But I bet you don't believe in them. If we believed in every concept that was ever introduced until we had proven beyond a doubt that it doesn't exist, we would live in a perpetual state of psychosis.


If you spend too much time trying to reason with that **********, you'll end up as fucked up as he is. That guy is the single most pathetic loser who's ever posted on a forum.


I'm not so sure. It looks to me as though you have that distinction pretty well locked up yourself Wilso.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:31 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

rydinearth wrote:

Quote:
How did you prove God doesn't exist? Are you omniscient?

Have you proven that Unicorns don't exist? How about fairies? Pink elephants?How about the teapot orbiting Mars? Have you proven that none of these things exist? I doubt it. But I bet you don't believe in them. If we believed in every concept that was ever introduced until we had proven beyond a doubt that it doesn't exist, we would live in a perpetual state of psychosis.


If you spend too much time trying to reason with that **********, you'll end up as fucked up as he is. That guy is the single most pathetic loser who's ever posted on a forum.


I'm not so sure. It looks to me as though you have that distinction pretty well locked up yourself Wilso.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:31 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

rydinearth wrote:

Quote:
How did you prove God doesn't exist? Are you omniscient?

Have you proven that Unicorns don't exist? How about fairies? Pink elephants?How about the teapot orbiting Mars? Have you proven that none of these things exist? I doubt it. But I bet you don't believe in them. If we believed in every concept that was ever introduced until we had proven beyond a doubt that it doesn't exist, we would live in a perpetual state of psychosis.


If you spend too much time trying to reason with that **********, you'll end up as fucked up as he is. That guy is the single most pathetic loser who's ever posted on a forum.


I'm not so sure. It looks to me as though you have that distinction pretty well locked up yourself Wilso.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:31 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

rydinearth wrote:

Quote:
How did you prove God doesn't exist? Are you omniscient?

Have you proven that Unicorns don't exist? How about fairies? Pink elephants?How about the teapot orbiting Mars? Have you proven that none of these things exist? I doubt it. But I bet you don't believe in them. If we believed in every concept that was ever introduced until we had proven beyond a doubt that it doesn't exist, we would live in a perpetual state of psychosis.


If you spend too much time trying to reason with that **********, you'll end up as fucked up as he is. That guy is the single most pathetic loser who's ever posted on a forum.


I'm not so sure. It looks to me as though you have that distinction pretty well locked up yourself Wilso.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:37 pm
I'm not going to elaborate on all the reasons why you're wrong. I know them, and that's all that matters. So just slither back in that hole in ground you crawled out of you worthless ****.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 10:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

There is no evidence that the world is other than just "is" and using the term, "God," injects an element not evident in a proveable way. However unconsciously intended, it's still anthropomorphism.


Actually I agree with you with respect to this statement.

However, have you considered how the world came to be? Science cannot answer that question at all. The conventional physicist's answer to the question of from what did the world or cosmos come, or in respect to a conventional model. 'what preceeded the big bang?' is to deny the validity of the question - i.e. there is, by definition, no "before" because there was no matter or space ... or time. The common metaphor here is to say asking that question is like asking what is north of the North pole.

While this may well be a satisfactory or even necessary answer with respect to the basic postulates of standard physics, it is an entirely unsatisfactory evasion in the perspective of philosophy in which no object event or thing can be its own cause.

The conundrum is that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god or a creator with human reason and science. But if one restricts himself to physics he must then accept that the question of the origin of the world is not even allowed, much less answered.

Despite this even the self proclaimed atheists here are fairly uniform in affirming a certain ethical view of life and certain transcendental principles that should govern it. These are often openly based on materialistic values - as Thomas has articulated on several occasions. Why do they do so? One can indeed make a good case for the proposition advocated by writers and philosophers from Nietzsche to Dostoevsky that "without god, everything is permitted" (Dostoevsky) or "Morality is merely the herd instinct of the individual" (Nietzsche). The truth is such materialistic foundations for ethics can (and have) rationalized terrible deeds for some distant collective benefit or good - the starvation of three million Ukranian pesants to hasten the collectivization of farms and the assumed virtues of the socialist state; the slaughter of 10-20 million landowners for similar reasons in post WWII China; etc. At least the many examples of religious intolerance, persecution, and war were accompanied by clear hypocrisy on the part of the evil doers. While they were able to rationalize their deeds by selective interpretation of their doctrines, they were usually clearly violating other fundamental principles.

What gives the nice atheists of A2k their appetite for ethics or morality? In their worldviews, on what transcendental principles can it possibly be based? What is the logical foundation for Msolga's insistent defense of whales? I'm not trying to belittle their motives or intent - only to ask on what it is based.

I believe the answer is that it reflects some enduring human appetitites affecting us all equally that themselves suggest (but don't prove) something beyond the material world - or at least something in human nature that seeks it. This, of course could be rationalized as ther product of fairly common social conditioning, however, its persistence suggests otherwise.

In any event such certainty about 'no god' is not any more possible than certainty about 'yes god", and, in addition, it involves both the denial of fairly obvious questions ("where did the universe come from") and disconnects with common elements of human nature. All together a somewhat greater leap of faith - that is unless you simply decline to think about it at all.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 12:48 am
@georgeob1,
In a nutshell: Occam's Razor indicates no requirement for a prime mover in physics, and Dawkins' "altrusism gene" is one possible explanation of "morality".

The "evidence issue" is a red herring in accounting for belief in a deity.( Hence the fallback concept of "faith"). A non-anthropocentric view (e.g. by a an alien ethnologist) might merely point out that "theistic belief" is an communicative epiphenomenon of the human species whose cognitive abilities relative to other species have allowed them a limited degree of prediction and control, and a concept of "purpose". A "deity" is evoked in order to account for "purpose" as "that which lies outside human limits".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 04:06 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
However, have you considered how the world came to be? Science cannot answer that question at all.


So what? The fact that science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean it is reasonable to substitute your imaginary friend superstition--this isn't a case of "winning" by default, because the other team didn't show.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 04:09 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
However, have you considered how the world came to be? Science cannot answer that question at all.


So what? The fact that science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean it is reasonable to substitute your imaginary friend superstition--this isn't a case of "winning" by default, because the other team didn't show.


If you are correct in that statement, then it also doesn't mean that the other side is wrong either.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2010 04:21 am
@Intrepid,
Did you mean to say the other side is wrong too?

I'm not invested in any theory of cosmic origins, Boss--i just don't care. It is not i who advances an argument from cosmic origins, and when someone else does, it's perfectly reasonable to object if it lacks plausibility. In addition, there's that old, tired and BS association of science and atheism.

Why should theists care? Why do idiots come to the door at uncivlized hours of the morning in an attempt to "save" me? Why are others so eager to tell me i'm goin' straight to hell? Religious folks are the world's worst busy-bodies.

EDIT: So, sure . . . if you wanna say "the other side" is wrong, too--knock yerself out . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I'm an aethist....
  3. » Page 19
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/19/2022 at 05:47:45