Atheists can't explain existence.

[Puzuzzu]

Have you seen the centre of the earth? No?

But you believe it exists? (right?)

seeing != believing, you don't see god, why do you believe (just following your logic).

 

[belamy]

The intellectual position of the atheist is exactly as crappy as that of a religious fundamentalist, basically because both are based on obstinate faith in personal beliefs which can't be grounded on any argument beyond personal experience.
They are the specular reflection of each other, but only a third can see that.
But maybe the atheist is even more dishonest, since at least the very conception of "God" in a believer makes room for something beyond an individual's fundamentalist religious prejudice, while the atheist's foundation is, unlike that of an agnostic, the mere negation of the believer and his beliefs, that is, he makes only sense as long as he refers to something else, hence the sense is always on the side of the believer, even if he can't or won't make any sense.

 

[belamy]

^ And the third is...?

The third is someone who is not defined as believing or not believing, even if he happens to believe. The problem is not realizing that you will never solve rational a conflict derived from dogmatic bipartisanism if what you propose is a third dogmatic solution yourself which perpetuates the conflict under a new name.

My point is to make the difference between what you say and your argumentations, on the one side, and on the other pretending that something is so just because you believe it, which is the position of those who try to convince people or simply talk as if they knew better than anyone and were more reasonable.
I believe in God as a possibility, as someone once said, as a "bet", because we can be as sure of a life after death as can be sure of utter destruction after life. It's not that believing in God and another life is more flattering, but simply that it maintains the continuity of possiblities and evolution and change we find in life; so I may not believe in all the mythologies surrounding God, from HIS beard to the dramatic setting of reward and punishment, and Heaven and Hell and winged goodies and baddies, and I'm sure that can asimilate me to atheists or agnostics at one point to the eyes of the fundamentalists, but from a purely rational point of view all I can say is that it's a possibility I can not "prove" or pretend to "prove" either FOR or AGAINST.

So, like all those who don't take sides in a bipartisan battle, I'm most likely to be crushed by both sides because the problem with those discussions is that they don't really deal with the abstract subject in itself, which would be harmless like all mere abstractions, but with the social implications derived from both positions, namely, atheists don't oppose the concept of God so much as the despotism of those who use the word "God" to sedate and opress people, while the fightful rather than faithful believers are basically against those who can find a way to escape their control and even destroy their possibility of controlling people's minds.
So the atheists' only way to oppose the idea of God is by being even more irrational than fundamentalist believers, and that's why I personally dislike them even more because, for all their claims, they are paving the way of old or even more strict relgious fundamentalism, as opposed to their own (atheist) meaningless fundamentalism.
But, like I say, this whole subject is not about God or about rationality, it's against the redneck Bible Belt's all over the world and the urban enlightened all over the world.

 

[belamy]

Because we exists that is evidence for SOMETHING not Nothing.

What I meant to say, in a nutshell..

 

[levenshulme31]

Andrew, you admitted in your last random creation vs atheism thread that your brain can't cope with the concept of things happening over the course of many billions of years. Therein lies the problem.

The evidence for evolution of the universe and life on Earth over billions of years is becoming more and more accepted and understood as more and more discoveries are made.

It may be a mindfuck to think in such vast spans of time but that doesn't make it any less real.

To say God did it because you don't understand how something works is a cop-out.

Do some research (and not at the Creation Museum). You may discover that a little knowledge is a wonderful thing.

 

[gotdimples77]

Actually, you dont need a proof for the cause of existence. The only thing to prove with regards to existence is that it does in fact, well, exist. A cause for existence implies that there is something that exists before it exists which either means that the idea is a blatant contradiction or that there is some spiritual realm in which something can exist and not exist at the same time. You can do this of course, but then you have to be willing to accept that apples can be oranges at the same time too, that evil can be good at the same time, that twinks can be bears, etc. I think it is simpler and more convenient to simply agree that something exists and that if something doesnt exist then it doesnt exist, so unless nothing exists, something exists. The only gray area i see between something existing or not is probably in ideas, like santa clause or super man and probably god too, but here again these things don't have an existence outside the mind of human beings. Wipe out all the human beings and these ideas wont arise (barring some similar intelligence elsewhere in the universe.)

 

[TX-Beau]

Why do we have to exsist for "some reason"

?

but but, Becasue we do!!!

No we don't

 

[TX-Beau]

"Atheism is based on faith" = silly proposition advanced by religious poeple who are threatened by athiests using arguments they created out of whole cloth.

 

[gotdimples77]

I think the fact that I exist is only evidence of the fact that my parents had sex in Canada. We do not see willfull causation in the universe hardly at all, even in the areas of human activities. In most cases effects are not the result of willful action but the result of forces in tension balancing each other. Conscious action, if that is even what we are doing and not deceiving ourselves, is simply the means by which we have developed to keep ourselves from getting squished by a big cold uncaring universe. It seems to be, so far, pretty particularly human. But having such a strategy of course, is not. Rabbits have speed and the ability to propagate like, well, rabbits. tortoises have big shells, twinks have long smooth muscley bodies that everybody likes too take care of...

 

[evilest]

Perhaps to aetheists it's more acceptable to believe evolutionary principles than a big bad in the sky reported by men who used this 'information' to control and influence civilisations for hundreds of years?

 

[TX-Beau]

Reason......

You planning on addressing the point, or are we to be treated to a dictionary definition of "point."

 

[gsdx]

You planning on addressing the point, or are we to be treated to a dictionary definition of "point."

Don't hold your breath. He never does.

 

[TX-Beau]

Does the existence of France rest on the perceptions of these two eskimos?

No it rests on the millions of real people who you can ask, who can go there, live there, have been there none of whom require fantastic, highly improbable fables to define themselves.

 

[TX-Beau]

Don't hold your breath. He never does.

Pointless Conversation?

 

[gsdx]

^ As pointless as it gets. He's not looking for conversation or debate. He's looking only for affirmation of his beliefs.

 

[gotdimples77]

How can you prove that something doesn't exist?

An eskimo may never have heard of France. So to that Eskimo France doesn't exist.

So Eskimo 1 says to Eskimo 2 " Do you believe in France"

Eskimo 2 says "No what are you on about"

Eskimo 1 " Is it likely that another country exists"

Eskimo 2 "that is irrelevant to me"

Does the existence of France rest on the perceptions of these two eskimos?

lol...you can't but then again you don't really need to either!! You only have to prove that something DOES exist. The existence of France DOES NOT rest on the perception of two eskimos ( althought their ideas of France should rest on their perceptions of France). If we take your eskimos as an example, what possible reason would they have to even speculate about the possibility of France? French whalers coming and killing all their wales, polar bears, narwales, etc right? Untill some direct contact with the phenomenon of France why should they even worry about it? Why should France give a shit about two eskimos either for that matter?
Now, what does it matter if the eskimos believe in France? Can you think of a good reason why it matters if the eskimos believe in France or not? About the only reason I can think of to encourage the eskimos to contemplate the existence of France is some sort of epistemological completeness fetish that human beings have. Now, we know there are basically two ways that humn beings have of discovering new things. One is imagination: there is evil alien empire out there with bad breath and a fetish for women in tight corsettes that use wailbones and so we must be wary. Or some form of experimentation and observation: We should try to encounter these new people as much as possible in differnt situations and try to determine which reactions by them seem to be the most consistent.
Unfortunately if we use imagination, my idea of an evil empire is all you have to go on. You are free, of course, to speculate that France is actually the Father of Modern European political stabillity, culture and style, but we have no way of making a determination.
If we compare actual experiences of France, each of which may reflect our imaginings we can ultimately go to France and SHOW to each other the sources of our differnt experiences. And homepfully come to an undersstanding of at elast why whe thing the things we do if not change our minds one way or the other. The nice thing about experiences and experimentation guided inferences is that they are in most cases reproducible. Barring the fact that all of a reagent is used up in an experiment, but then it wont really effect other things at that point either.

 

[belamy]

So, for brevity's sake, the third is agnosticism?

As a "third" dogmatic position, yes, that's what I said; but, like I also said, I'm sticking to the mere rational arguments. My rational position is a mere statement, not a belief: from what I said I could choose either the agnostic or the religious postion, but, again, I talking about arguments, not trying to build with them a set of beliefs to which blindly adhere or think that are fully well grounded.

In short, my personal position is that it's meaningless to establish a strong position for, against or even doubtful as is the case of agnosticism. Discussing about God is like devoting your whole life to decide when you are going to die without comitting suicide, or like trying to convince some cheerleader that she is not better than the rest of girls in the world.

 

[rareboy]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Look everyone.

A brand new topic from Andrew.

Oops. Wait a minute.

Same old shit just dumped in a different location.

Atheists can explain existence just as well as the theists in the world.

It is the wilfully ignorant, like Andrew who don't seem to have an explanation for the meaning of life.

But, anything to keep your tenuous hold on connecting with other human beings and feeling superior in the middle of your one room bedsit.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

If posts like this provide actual caloric intake, then AndrewD must be seriously in need of exercise...Please, continue feeding the troll...

RG

 

[gsdx]

Allstate insurance has proof.

A recent claim was denied due to an "act of God"

I was going to offer this as proof:

. . . but then I saw the same people had Eric Estrada as well, so the Jesus thing began to look a little suspicious: