[QUOTE=gufu;19047728]In the world of writing essays, one will say that it is still a quote, not a direct one, but it restates the information behind it. It is highly unlikely for someone of such age (nor mine) to be able to use such a language without understanding the meaning behind it.[/QUOTE]
Dude, I wrote this in like five minutes off the top of my head, sorry if it's not perfect.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19047720]Does my opinion become meaningless because I am 15 and an atheist? I don't base my atheist off of religion, I base it off of science, logic and factual evidence. /offended.[/QUOTE]
You took that the wrong way.
Half. Not particularly including you. Although you should explain why you think ignorance is bad, rather than just saying it's bad.
Hope you're not offended now.
Oh and you spelled atheism wrong.
we're all idiots deal w/ it
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19047729]so you're going to tell me that you're a more logical person, than, say: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Milton]John Milton[/url]?
also, no one is "always logical". The only things that are always logical are computers.[/QUOTE]
It isn't a fair comparison as he did not have access to the knowledge we have at this time.
I'm not agnostic, but there's some serious ignorance in this thread.
Agnostic IS NOT "I dun care bout religion".
Agnostic IS "It's impossible to know for certain."
You can be both atheist AND agnostic: "I don't personally believe in a god, however I also say it is impossible for humans to know concretely whether or not my belief is absolutely true."
I have actually met some theist agnostics who say: "I personally believe in a god, however I also admit it is impossible to know for sure whether or not my belief is a universal truth." me to these people: :butt: :respek: :butt:
(Basically if you are agnostic AND a/theist, you are admitting your beliefs are based on faith?)
A straight up atheist: "I believe in no gods, and this is something that can be known for certain."
[QUOTE=FLoggin Moffins;19047742]Dude, I wrote this in like five minutes off the top of my head, sorry if it's not perfect.[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't you take your time and write an informative thread, instead? Get sources, get support. Don't jump out there without a support for an argument. That is how it works.
Troll harder, man.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19047749]It isn't a fair comparison as he did not have access to the knowledge we have at this time.[/QUOTE]
But you're saying that there's no proof of god, and that, therefore, you shouldn't believe in him. Was there more evidence for god 300 years ago?
[QUOTE=Panda.;19047652]It doesn't work because if you assume that there is a God, then surely because it is omniscient then it would know your true motives for "believing" in it. So it's rendered useless. Simple.[/QUOTE]
And who are you to judge the what a "true" motive is? You can't possibly know how God would see the situation.
[QUOTE=b4nny;19047751]I'm not agnostic, but there's some serious ignorance in this thread.
Agnostic IS NOT "I dun care bout religion".
Agnostic IS "It's impossible to know for certain."
You can be both atheist AND agnostic: "I don't personally believe in a god, however I also say it is impossible for humans to know concretely whether or not my belief is absolutely true."
I have actually met some theist agnostics who say: "I personally believe in a god, however I also admit it is impossible to know for sure whether or not my belief is a universal truth." me to these people: :butt: :respek: :butt:
(Basically if you are agnostic AND a/theist, you are admitting your beliefs are based on faith?)
A straight up atheist: "I believe in no gods, and this is something that can be known for certain."[/QUOTE]
Agnostic is "I can't make up my mind. I want to cover my ass because I'm afraid of what might happen when I die.
There's no smart reason to be agnostic.
[QUOTE=gufu;19047728]In the world of writing essays, one will say that it is still a quote, not a direct one, but it restates the information behind it. It is highly unlikely for someone of such age (nor mine) to be able to use such a language without understanding the meaning behind it.
Everything or nothing? Oh, now you are simply limiting yourself to two theories. All accounts of afterlife in religions and mythology differ, with a wild, hard to aprehend median.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I should have said anything, no matter it's in the past.
[QUOTE=arn0ld;19047773]And who are you to judge the what a "true" motive is? You can't possibly know how God would see the situation.[/QUOTE]
Thus no religion nor belief has a right to claim and identify god in any way.
[QUOTE=FLoggin Moffins;19047341]Yes, but those assumptions are of that which can be assumed, unlike the afterlife; of which must be experienced to be assumed, not assumed to be experienced.[/QUOTE]
Oh excuse me, well how exactly can we experience the interior of our sun, or the area around a black hole? So gathering data from sensors and experiments is fine, but people having near-death experience or dying for several minutes before being recessitated and recounting remarkably similar stories about being in heaven should just be ignored? They experienced it, did they not?
Or should they just be ignored and their testimony be shrugged off as a dream they were having as their brain was shutting down, but we should accept things like dark energy when the only real evidence of it existing is literally "Well our model using only gravity doesn't work, plus it kinda fits into our math".
The Large Hadron Collider was built partially to try to find the Higgs Boson, a [I]a theoretical particle that some math equations said should probably exist![/I]
HOW is building something like the LHC any different than believing in a God? No evidence of God or the Higgs Boson really exists, but scientists went ahead and built it anyway. The only difference is if the Higgs gets found, the whole world will know. But if you find out heaven exists, you can't tell anyone, cause you're kind of dead.
And btw some scientists who worked on the LHC died before it was completed, so they went to their graves believing that the Higgs was real and it would be found. Give me a break, there are assumptions all over the scientific world, no different than assumptions in an afterlife.
[QUOTE=ImBill;19047379]quarks and electrons can be detected with equipment such as ATLAS
[url]http://www.atlas.ch/[/url][/QUOTE]
Yes I know, but he said he only believed what he could "see and hear". With any device or sensor, you are assuming it's working correctly and it's detecting what you want it to detect. And besides, there are still some things that we assume work a certain way (such as magnetism), even though we don't quite understand what it really [B]is.[/B]
[QUOTE=gufu;19047758]Why wouldn't you take your time and write an informative thread, instead? Get sources, get support. Don't jump out there without a support for an argument. That is how it works.
Troll harder, man.[/QUOTE]
Not a troll thread, more so poetry that I wrote off the top of my head, and wanted to see people's reception toward it; so far it hasn't been disappointing.
[QUOTE=Dr Nick;19047776]Agnostic is "I can't make up my mind. I want to cover my ass because I'm afraid of what might happen when I die.
There's no smart reason to be agnostic.[/QUOTE]
You are wrong. But some ignorant people may say they are agnostic because they get this wrong idea too.
Let's play pretend for a moment:
If there is an afterlife, who's to say it's good or bad, or that there are seperate after-lives for good and bad people?
[QUOTE=Dr Nick;19047745]You took that the wrong way.
Half. Not particularly including you. Although you should explain why you thing [B]ignorance is bad,[/B] rather than just saying it's bad.
Hope you're not offended now.[/QUOTE]
I believe that ignorance is bad because it doesn't solve anything. It's just sticking your head in the sand and pretending all the bad stuff doesn't exist. It may solve somethings, temporarily, but it's no where near as effective as actively working toward a fix for something. For example, Faith, faith is an ignorant belief based on belief without any evidence. It is pretty much worshiping ignorance. What good does faith do? It's a comfort, a simple comfort. What does it solve? Nothing. You still die. Now without a faith comfort your death, you'd be more driven to not die, thus more things would be cured etc etc...
[QUOTE=Dr Nick;19047776]Agnostic is "I can't make up my mind. I want to cover my ass because I'm afraid of what might happen when I die.
There's no smart reason to be agnostic.[/QUOTE]
I sort of agree with you there, although some might claim to be agnostic because they say there's a chance of a "Higher" entity existing, just not the metaphysical abstract faith based "God". For instance a higher dimensional being having created our 3D brane*.
*I believe that's the term.
[QUOTE=gufu;19047781]Thus no religion nor belief has a right to claim and identify god in any way.[/QUOTE]
Yet the wager is still valid.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19047814]I believe that ignorance is bad because it doesn't solve anything. It's just sticking your head in the sand and pretending all the bad stuff doesn't exist. It may solve somethings, temporarily, but it's no where near as effective as actively working toward a fix for something. For example, Faith, faith is an ignorant belief based on belief without any evidence. It is pretty much worshiping ignorance. What good does faith do? It's a comfort, a simple comfort. What does it solve? Nothing. You still die. Now without a faith comfort your death, you'd be more driven to not die, thus more things would be cured etc etc...[/QUOTE]
overpopulationohno
Good.
[QUOTE=arn0ld;19047821]Yet the wager is still valid.[/QUOTE]
Then this "God" isn't omniscient, as most religions profess him to be.
[QUOTE=b4nny;19047751]I'm not agnostic, but there's some serious ignorance in this thread.
Agnostic IS NOT "I dun care bout religion".
Agnostic IS "It's impossible to know for certain."
You can be both atheist AND agnostic: "I don't personally believe in a god, however I also say it is impossible for humans to know concretely whether or not my belief is absolutely true."
I have actually met some theist agnostics who say: "I personally believe in a god, however I also admit it is impossible to know for sure whether or not my belief is a universal truth." me to these people: :butt: :respek: :butt:
(Basically if you are agnostic AND a/theist, you are admitting your beliefs are based on faith?)
A straight up atheist: "I believe in no gods, and this is something that can be known for certain."[/QUOTE]
Okay. I am anti-theist. I believe people who believe in a god are stupid. That being said, I know it is impossible to know for certain. However, that's because it is impossible to disprove a negative.
You don't need to know that something that isn't true, isn't true. Why can't you comprehend this? Do you need to prove that there isn't a bullet about to punch through your skull? Do you need to prove that your house isn't going to collapse right now (Given that you have no evidence pointing to something that may lead to structural failure, like an earth quake or whatever)? Do you need to prove that a god that has no evidence for his existence, doesn't exist?
The default logical stance on something is that it does not exist until there is evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence for anything supernatural existing. I agree that we do not KNOW, but, the issue with that, is that it's impossible to disprove a negative, think Salem Witch Trials. Can you prove you're not a witch? (Assuming that witches don't exist.)
[editline]01:06AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rowsdower;19047783]Oh excuse me, well how exactly can we experience the interior of our sun, or the area around a black hole? So gathering data from sensors and experiments is fine, but people having near-death experience or dying for several minutes before being recessitated and recounting remarkably similar stories about being in heaven should just be ignored? They experienced it, did they not?
Or should they just be ignored and their testimony be shrugged off as a dream they were having as their brain was shutting down, but we should accept things like dark energy when the only real evidence of it existing is literally "Well our model using only gravity doesn't work, plus it kinda fits into our math".
The Large Hadron Collider was built partially to try to find the Higgs Boson, a [I]a theoretical particle that some math equations said should probably exist![/I]
HOW is building something like the LHC any different than believing in a God? No evidence of God or the Higgs Boson really exists, but scientists went ahead and built it anyway. The only difference is if the Higgs gets found, the whole world will know. But if you find out heaven exists, you can't tell anyone, cause you're kind of dead.
And btw some scientists who worked on the LHC died before it was completed, so they went to their graves believing that the Higgs was real and it would be found. Give me a break, there are assumptions all over the scientific world, no different than assumptions in an afterlife.
Yes I know, but he said he only believed what he could "see and hear". With any device or sensor, you are assuming it's working correctly and it's detecting what you want it to detect. And besides, there are still some things that we assume work a certain way (such as magnetism), even though we don't quite understand what it really [B]is.[/B][/QUOTE]
We built the LHC to test for the existence of the Higgs. What can you build to test the existence of a god?
[QUOTE=FLoggin Moffins;19047143]Do you really think that you know more about the afterlife than I?[/QUOTE]
What makes [I]you[/I] think [I]you[/I] know more than [I]I[/I] do?
Religion is stupid.
[QUOTE=Rowsdower;19047783]Oh excuse me, well how exactly can we experience the interior of our sun, or the area around a black hole? So gathering data from sensors and experiments is fine, but people having near-death experience or dying for several minutes before being recessitated and recounting remarkably similar stories about being in heaven should just be ignored? They experienced it, did they not?
[/quote]
Most of those people believed in the same religious wave. Damage to brain cells also causes hallucination and spasmatic retrieval of information in hopes to restore it.
[quote]
Or should they just be ignored and their testimony be shrugged off as a dream they were having as their brain was shutting down, but we should accept things like dark energy when the only real evidence of it existing is literally "Well our model using only gravity doesn't work, plus it kinda fits into our math".
[/quote]
Make me a model of god...
[quote]
The Large Hadron Collider was built partially to try to find the Higgs Boson, a [I]a theoretical particle that some math equations said should probably exist![/I]
[/quote]
Match is the only true constant, as everything else may be an illusion.
[quote]
HOW is building something like the LHC any different than believing in a God? No evidence of God or the Higgs Boson really exists, but scientists went ahead and built it anyway. The only difference is if the Higgs gets found, the whole world will know. But if you find out heaven exists, you can't tell anyone, cause you're kind of dead.
[/quote]
Then there is no point to argue about afterlife, since it doesn't affect your normal life and therefore, the arguing is useless and pointless.
[quote]
And btw some scientists who worked on the LHC died before it was completed, so they went to their graves believing that the Higgs was real and it would be found. Give me a break, there are assumptions all over the scientific world, no different than assumptions in an afterlife.
[/quote]
Science allows for any theory to exist, just as long as it has any proof behind it, be it practical or of mathematical source.
[quote]
Yes I know, but he said he only believed what he could "see and hear". With any device or sensor, you are assuming it's working correctly and it's detecting what you want it to detect. And besides, there are still some things that we assume work a certain way (such as magnetism), even though we don't quite understand what it really [B]is.[/B][/QUOTE]
That is why you continuously research such things, to find and research other things. That is how science works. It is logical due to perception of the object or something else pointed its existence, out.
Bah, BRB in 30 minutes, don't close the thread, yet!
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19047762]But you're saying that there's no proof of god, and that, therefore, you shouldn't believe in him. Was there more evidence for god 300 years ago?[/QUOTE]
People back then didn't know any better, they didn't have an explanation for a lot of things in the world. Now that we know how "the magic happens" we can better see that there is no need for the existence of a deity. Logically, back then, you still shouldn't have believed in him if you took all the "evidence" for a god and put it to some actual scientific scrutiny, but you couldn't because that science wasn't around back then.
[QUOTE=arn0ld;19047773]And who are you to judge the what a "true" motive is? You can't possibly know how God would see the situation.[/QUOTE]
This argument can be applied to the wager itself and the notion that god wants us to be virtuous or that he has some eternal reward for us if we're good girls and boys. The wager is invalid.
I say there's a god that will reward you eternally for killing as many people as possible before you die. Are you going to go for it on the off chance that I'm right? Pascal's wager is a weak attempt at justifying a conclusion already made.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19047838]Okay. I am anti-theist. I believe people who believe in a god are stupid. That being said, I know it is impossible to know for certain. However, that's because it is impossible to disprove a negative.
You don't need to know that something that isn't true, isn't true. Why can't you comprehend this? Do you need to prove that there isn't a bullet about to punch through your skull? Do you need to prove that your house isn't going to collapse right now (Given that you have no evidence pointing to something that may lead to structural failure, like an earth quake or whatever)? Do you need to prove that a god that has no evidence for his existence, doesn't exist?
The default logical stance on something is that it does not exist until there is evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence for anything supernatural existing. I agree that we do not KNOW, but, the issue with that, is that it's impossible to disprove a negative, think Salem Witch Trials. Can you prove you're not a witch? (Assuming that witches don't exist.)
[editline]01:06AM[/editline]
We built the LHC to test for the existence of the Higgs. What can you build to test the existence of a god?[/QUOTE]
I agree. Why should I need to disprove that there's a giant meteor about to kill me if you're the one who brought that idea out of nowhere in the first place?
[QUOTE=WhiteBrow;19047858]What makes [I]you[/I] think [I]you[/I] know more than [I]I[/I] do?[/QUOTE]
I'm not stating that I know more, rather that you and I are on the same foot.
[QUOTE=Panda.;19047835]Then this "God" isn't omniscient, as most religions profess him to be.[/QUOTE]
Proof?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.