Atheist

[Iceweasel]

Could be that God's greatest creation is not man, but the Big Bang which resulted in the creation the heavens and the earth and whole ball of wax.

Yes, I think so.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Dude, I don't think I am who you think I am. I'm an agnostic. I don't have a belief one way or the other. Read my earlier posts if you think I'm arguing that there is no God. I'm not. That was an argument you were having with someone else.

I responded to your earlier post. You said:
"I do not have faith that science is doing what it is supposed to. For me to believe that all scientists are lying about the data requires faith whereas just simply trusting them because, like me, they are curious about the universe and want to know more actually makes sense and requires no faith just trust in a fellow human being."

That makes it a either/or scenario. Not all scientists agree with one another, what data would they be lying about? And trusting people, scientists or not, does require faith.

I guess I don't understand your point. What makes what an either/or scenario?

If faith is belief without evidence, then no, it requires no faith for me to trust people because I have evidence that trusting people can be warranted.

Either way it is irrelevant because I don't believe science. I only take from science what passes a critical analysis at the time and that becomes my current operating parameter until I am exposed to more information. There is no "belief".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Could be that God's greatest creation is not man, but the Big Bang which resulted in the creation the heavens and the earth and whole ball of wax.

Yes, I think so.

Spoken like a believer, not a skeptic.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Could be that God's greatest creation is not man, but the Big Bang which resulted in the creation the heavens and the earth and whole ball of wax.

Yes, I think so.

That would be the position of a Deist.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Agnosticism is a label for those who aren't convinced that there is a supreme being or isn't. It is the only rational position because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. To go from insufficient evidence to a decision that there is or is not a supreme being requires something else and that something else is not rational. It is emotional, or delusional, or some other thing, but it is not rational. Agnostics are anti-religious, sometimes, because faith requires that one disregard logic, evidence, reason, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and sometimes even humanitarian morality. They don't tend to be anti-atheist (to mean here as one who has faith that there is no supreme being) because in one way we are united. I disapprove of beliefs that concern absolute "T"ruth. No one knows what absolute Truth is.

Intolerance for people for who they are is unjust and bigotry. Intolerance of intolerance is just.

I tolerate religious people. I will not tolerate religious people seeking official favoritism for their beliefs, usurping science in school, shaping social policy with unfounded religious beliefs such as relegating homosexuals to second class citizens or in any other way encoding their beliefs into law and thereby forcing all others, religious or not or of different religions, to conform to their religion. Christians don't want Sharia law in this country, agnostics don't want biblical law in this country. Either would violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Religious people can pray and worship wherever they want except in government because it gives the appearance of official favoritism to religion. There are no nonbeliever organizations who are attempting to do what religious organizations are: encoding discrimination into law.

Religious people in government can't pray and worship? I'm not sure what part of "congress shall make no law" refers to ground level Federal, State, Municipal etc employees practicing their religion.

The entire concept of the separation of Church and State was that the State never adopt an official religion and force it on the people. Some dude praying at work doesn't force shit on anyone. There's nothing in the Constitution that ever gave me the idea that the Founders were really just trying to make sure nonbelievers weren't -offended-. I believe oppression is what they were avoiding, and some dude praying at work doesn't equal oppression.

You're really not very tolerant.

On top of that, I'm gathering by your reference to humanitarianism that you have no problem with that religion being forced down our throats. As long as there's no God at its head, right? Then it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings, and that is of paramount importance! Moral oppression is okay as long as the moral particulars aren't offensive.

Sorry. I should've been more specific: government officials shouldn't pray in an official act. They can pray all the want unofficially.

Humanitarian-ism is a religion I've never heard of. If you mean humanism, that is just a philosophy that religious people can adopt along with their religious philosophy, if they so wished. Humanitarian morality is a term I was using that would base itself on human rights. I wouldn't think anyone is against human rights, right?

I gather that neither of things qualify under the basic definition of a religion. WHat I meant to imply is that your humanitarian morality is just as objective as any religion, so forcing Christianity down my throat or forcing humanitarianism down my throat are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from one another. After all, if I'm forced to live by a set of standards other than my own, it doesn't matter if the one forcing me calls himself God or government, the result is the same: I'm being forced to live by morals that can't be proven correct. If they can't be proven correct, why force others to abide by them?

As for your question, I suppose it depends on what you view as a human right. I'm opposed to a great many "rights" that I've heard proposed as human rights.

The "right" to housing.

The "right" to medical care.

The "right" to food.

Essentially, I oppose any "right" to have any physical object. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, these rights I agree with because they're something that everyone would have in a vacuum. Nobody else's consent is required for me to continue to be alive. Nobody else's help is required for me to act according to my own conscience.

If I am unable to provide myself a house, how could it be said that I have a right to it? If someone else would theoretically have to provide it for me, then the "right" to housing is essentially the "right" to subjugate my fellow man to give me a house. The right to force someone who is capable to provide for me.

If your human rights interfere with any individual's right to self determination, then yes, I absolutely oppose "human rights". Since most self-described humanitarians do tend to believe that people have a "right" to some physical thing or another (usually all three of those that I listed), I generally find myself opposed to humanitarians' morals.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.

Why is that?

Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?

These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.

What’s nonsense is the ignorance and hate you and others on the right exhibit toward those free from faith, and others who aren’t Christian, such as Muslims.

For those free from faith the issue has nothing to do with a ‘god,’ as it clearly doesn’t exist; it has to do with the arrogance common to a significant number of Christians.

This thread is proof of that ignorance, hate, and arrogance.

Nobody free from faith believes God clearly doesn't exist. That requires faith since it can't be proven.

I am free from faith. I don't believe there is a God. I don't believe there is no God. I don't believe shit. No faith.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I don't. I don't have a problem with it providing that it does not come into laws or what we call the public sphere as in courts or education. Furthermore, I do not want anyone attempting to convert my kid. Don't come near him with that intent until he is an adult. I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic. It is not my job to prove that a deity exists. There is no argument for me to prove that he doesn't. The onus is not on me.

Do you understand the nature of an assertion? If you say God does not exist, even though the statement is a negative, you have still made an assertion. When you make an assertion, the onus is most definitely on you to prove it.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If you're going to argue for absence, you need to provide evidence, not simply a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't prove shit either way.

Thus, only the agnostic has no assertion to prove.

BS.

There is not one shred of physical evidence on earth that a God exists or existed here. Not one. The OP is directed at atheists. He actually directed it towards organizations but attempted to wrap everyone else into it. I am an atheist. I make no bones about it.

Now, we don't have a problem until you cross the lines of the aforementioned. We don't have a problem until someone attempts to play the persecution complex. We don't have a problem until it becomes the rational for legislation. The source that is used stems from a book that is fiction. It was pulled together by a group of men seeking to control others and increase their own power.

The establishment clause means something.

None of this actually disagrees with anything in the post to which you were responding.

I never said there was one shred of evidence that God exists. I said that there's no conclusive evidence that there is no God. If you believe that there is no God without evidence that there is no God, you have faith that there is no God.

I also never mentioned who the OP was addressing, not sure why you felt it necessary to specify how accurate the OP's targeting was.

I also said nothing about whether or not anyone should have a problem with religion, legislatively or otherwise. I'm thinking I might've misunderstood what you were getting at with not having the onus on you to prove anything. If you meant that there's no onus on disbelievers to prove anything in order to keep religious types from legislating their morality, I agree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, nobody should be forced to live by the standards of anybody else, whether those standards are religious or otherwise.

If you meant that it doesn't require faith to believe that there is no God, you are flat out incorrect.

I'm still baffled by your response, though. I honestly feel like you didn't address anything that I said. Kinda wondering why you quoted me to start your post.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

It doesn't require faith. That was the point. Observational evidence.

Actually, there have been times when the Catholic church has embraced science-historically. Other times, not so much. Not sure where you are going with that.

I'm guessing you're not one of the physicists that discovered this evidence?

Have you ever seen this evidence, or are you simply willing to believe that a "scientific consensus" exists saying that this evidence exists and is verified?

No offense, but just because you can attach the word "science" to it and are willing to make the assumption that these guys are reading whatever evidence that is correctly (and I'm willing to bet that, without posting a wiki article, you probably can't tell me much about what that evidence even consists of or how it was gathered) doesn't mean that what you are spewing is knowledge and not faith.

You take on faith that this evidence you've heard of actually exists and they aren't making it up.

You take on faith that these scientists are drawing the right conclusions from this evidence.

I'm guessing you didn't administer the college courses or tests that resulted in any of these scientists' degrees, either, so you're also taking it on faith that anybody you've heard about on this topic is even qualified to assume shit about it.

You, like everyone who believes they have a handle on how the universe came to be, are a faith-based creature. Get over it.

I have evidence. You do not. Get over it. Watching you run around in circles attempting to make yourselves feel better is lame.

I love how you argue without actually backing anything up with fact.

What evidence do you have? Do you have it first hand? Are you a physicist?

Or did somebody tell you about it and you were willing to believe that they were correct?

I won't hold my breath for you to actually answer this. You'll probably find a way to tell me you're right without actually addressing my statement again. Deep down, though, you gotta know, right? Somewhere in your head you do realize that all your "evidence" is hear-say?

On a side-note, your hypocrisy is charming. In your post right before the one I'm responding to, you pointed out how the OP went ahead and lumped all atheists together. When you tell me you love watching "us" run around in circles trying to make "ourselves" feel better, you're doing the same sorta broad-brushed lumping. Worse, even, because you're lumping together all non-atheists, which is a much more diverse group than all non-theists.

Me? I'm agnostic. This argument doesn't make me feel more secure in my beliefs cuz, HOLY SHIT, I have no beliefs in this argument. I have NO dog in this fight. Nice of you to assume, though.

So actually, from my perspective, it's you who, like those of the religious folk who are insecure in their beliefs, are doing the running and trying to make yourself feel better. You've subscribed to a belief and you'll be God damned if you're gonna admit that you were wrong about something so philosophically significant. I have made no such subscription and, even if I were intellectual insecure enough to hide from the possibility of my own misconception, I have no conception to be wrong about.

You assume an awful lot.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Faith means you believe something in the absence of evidence

There is ample scientific evidence of a big bang

Have you seen this evidence first-hand, and are you able to say conclusively that it is real and that the conclusions drawn upon it are correct?

Faith doesn't have to be the -complete- absence of evidence, it's simply belief without conclusive evidence.

There is ample scientific evidence of a big bang that has not been refuted. scientific measurements are consistent across a broad spectrum.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. None

That is why you rely on faith

I don't operate on faith. I don't believe there is a God. I don't believe there is no God. I don't believe shit that I don't observe, and I don't even have faith that what I'm observing is truly "real", though I have no reason to assume otherwise and, obviously, I live according to the same observable physics as anybody else.

I am charmed that you assume I'm a believer, though.

Now, when you say there is ample scientific evidence, I take it you've seen this evidence first hand?

I take it you're a physicist yourself who is educated enough to see this evidence and properly analyze it?

Or are you just some dude who was told physicists found this evidence and analyzed it thusly? And when you were told, you went ahead and believed it because it was from a source you find to be reliable?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If in the future, you do believe, I would bet it will be because of a change within, not a change in exterior world.

Sure. I would agree. And, like you say above, albeit implying something else, I would be disregarding external reality.

Hehehe, I had a similar thought when I read that. I agree with the sentiment, because it seems way more likely that someone would have an emotional shift that makes their beliefs more pliable than it is that somewhere in your lifetime man will find some proof of God.

 

[rightwinger]

Have you seen this evidence first-hand, and are you able to say conclusively that it is real and that the conclusions drawn upon it are correct?

Faith doesn't have to be the -complete- absence of evidence, it's simply belief without conclusive evidence.

There is ample scientific evidence of a big bang that has not been refuted. scientific measurements are consistent across a broad spectrum.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. None

That is why you rely on faith

I don't operate on faith. I don't believe there is a God. I don't believe there is no God. I don't believe shit that I don't observe, and I don't even have faith that what I'm observing is truly "real", though I have no reason to assume otherwise and, obviously, I live according to the same observable physics as anybody else.

I am charmed that you assume I'm a believer, though.

Now, when you say there is ample scientific evidence, I take it you've seen this evidence first hand?

I take it you're a physicist yourself who is educated enough to see this evidence and properly analyze it?

Or are you just some dude who was told physicists found this evidence and analyzed it thusly? And when you were told, you went ahead and believed it because it was from a source you find to be reliable?

I didn't observe the sun coming up this morning, but I have ample evidence that it did

 

[Iceweasel]

I guess I don't understand your point. What makes what an either/or scenario?

If faith is belief without evidence, then no, it requires no faith for me to trust people because I have evidence that trusting people can be warranted.

Either way it is irrelevant because I don't believe science. I only take from science what passes a critical analysis at the time and that becomes my current operating parameter until I am exposed to more information. There is no "belief".

I explained what I meant. You brought up scientists as a counterpoint so you were saying we believe them or we believe in faith. For the umteenth time here, science doesn't have the answers on origins so having evidence that you can trust scientists is meaningless. No one said science is bad or wrong. No one was criticizing science or scientists.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There is ample scientific evidence of a big bang that has not been refuted. scientific measurements are consistent across a broad spectrum.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. None

That is why you rely on faith

I don't operate on faith. I don't believe there is a God. I don't believe there is no God. I don't believe shit that I don't observe, and I don't even have faith that what I'm observing is truly "real", though I have no reason to assume otherwise and, obviously, I live according to the same observable physics as anybody else.

I am charmed that you assume I'm a believer, though.

Now, when you say there is ample scientific evidence, I take it you've seen this evidence first hand?

I take it you're a physicist yourself who is educated enough to see this evidence and properly analyze it?

Or are you just some dude who was told physicists found this evidence and analyzed it thusly? And when you were told, you went ahead and believed it because it was from a source you find to be reliable?

I didn't observe the sun coming up this morning, but I have ample evidence that it did

Yeah, it's in the sky, and you've witnessed it coming up before.

Oh, shit, maybe you witnessed a different big bang, and saw how some other universe came to be?

Or maybe people can just go outside, look up in the sky, and see the evidence of the big bang? Kinda like how they can look up and see that the sun's up there in the sky, implying that it made its way up there sometime since the last time it was dark out. You can go out right now and see this for yourself. Nobody has to tell you it's there.

The fact that you would compare the available evidence for the sun having come up with the hear-say that has you convinced of the Big Bang tells me that you're simply not intelligent enough to have this discussion realistically. I won't be mad if you still don't get it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Dude, I don't think I am who you think I am. I'm an agnostic. I don't have a belief one way or the other. Read my earlier posts if you think I'm arguing that there is no God. I'm not. That was an argument you were having with someone else.

I responded to your earlier post. You said:
"I do not have faith that science is doing what it is supposed to. For me to believe that all scientists are lying about the data requires faith whereas just simply trusting them because, like me, they are curious about the universe and want to know more actually makes sense and requires no faith just trust in a fellow human being."

That makes it a either/or scenario. Not all scientists agree with one another, what data would they be lying about? And trusting people, scientists or not, does require faith.

I guess I don't understand your point. What makes what an either/or scenario?

If faith is belief without evidence, then no, it requires no faith for me to trust people because I have evidence that trusting people can be warranted.

Either way it is irrelevant because I don't believe science. I only take from science what passes a critical analysis at the time and that becomes my current operating parameter until I am exposed to more information. There is no "belief".

Your no faith to believe people argument is holy shit flawed, man.

Because you've observed that there are people who can be trusted, it doesn't require faith to believe that there are people who can be trusted.

To say that you can therefore trust any person without faith is simply silly. You're implying that, if you can trust one, you can trust 'em all. If you really believe that I pity you.

Trusting any -particular- entity requires faith, even if you have evidence that they are trustworthy. With human behavior, evidence shows you what has happened in the past and gives you an idea of what will happen in the future, but you can't say that you know for certain that -anyone- won't eventually bullshit you, given the right motives.

BTW, trust -is- faith.

 

[Disir]

There is not one shred of physical evidence on earth that a God exists or existed here. Not one. The OP is directed at atheists. He actually directed it towards organizations but attempted to wrap everyone else into it. I am an atheist. I make no bones about it.

Now, we don't have a problem until you cross the lines of the aforementioned. We don't have a problem until someone attempts to play the persecution complex. We don't have a problem until it becomes the rational for legislation. The source that is used stems from a book that is fiction. It was pulled together by a group of men seeking to control others and increase their own power.

The establishment clause means something.

Others believe the proof is everywhere. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

Evidence, not proof. This is proof:

And math.

This is a macabre little dance you are attempting. You attempt to misconstrue reason intentionally by using the colloquial faith. In reality you're a fideist. You set about attempting to make the case for intelligent design which then necessitates a designer and then want special considerations for your God. Not held to the same standards. In your second paragraph you attempt to move your God beyond science. And that religion and more importantly Christianity should not be criticized.

And then you have the audacity to claim that the atheist starts from a dishonest position.

Do you know who else is associated with that magical thinking process?

People with Schizotypal personality disorder - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, paranoia, people, used

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There is not one shred of physical evidence on earth that a God exists or existed here. Not one. The OP is directed at atheists. He actually directed it towards organizations but attempted to wrap everyone else into it. I am an atheist. I make no bones about it.

Now, we don't have a problem until you cross the lines of the aforementioned. We don't have a problem until someone attempts to play the persecution complex. We don't have a problem until it becomes the rational for legislation. The source that is used stems from a book that is fiction. It was pulled together by a group of men seeking to control others and increase their own power.

The establishment clause means something.

Others believe the proof is everywhere. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

Evidence, not proof. This is proof:

And math.

This is a macabre little dance you are attempting. You attempt to misconstrue reason intentionally by using the colloquial faith. in reality you're a fideist. You set about attempting to make the case for intelligent design which then necessitates a designer and then want special considerations for your God. Not held to the same standards. In your second paragraph you attempt to move your God beyond science. And that religion and more importantly Christianity should not be criticized.

And then you have the audacity to claim that the atheist starts from a dishonest position.

Do you know who else is associated with that magical thinking process?

People with Schizotypal personality disorder - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, paranoia, people, used

Call me crazy, but I could swear Ice Weasel, at some point in this very thread, identified himself as an agnostic, yet you're convinced he's trying to prove God.

Also, nowhere in that post to which you were responding did he say that God was beyond science. He actually said that believers admit that their belief is based upon faith.

The dishonest position of some atheists, yourself included, is that the lack of evidence -proves- the lack of existence. IT does not. In order to prove anything you need proof. In order to prove a lack you need proof of a lack. You don't have that. You simply have the absence of proof, which means that any explanation is possible.

You, in particular, are arguing from the even -more- dishonest position that the person you're arguing with is saying shit he's not even saying. Please work on your honesty or your reading comprehension, whichever it is that's led you to these obvious misconceptions about what you're arguing against.

 

[Disir]

Read it again.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Read it again.

Good argument.

Can't help but notice that you don't like to expound much. Are you able to back up your arguments with reasoning?

 

[Disir]

I'm crushed.

You are the man that thinks the religion humanitarianism is being shoved down people's throats.

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a macabre little dance you are attempting. You attempt to misconstrue reason intentionally by using the colloquial faith. In reality you're a fideist. You set about attempting to make the case for intelligent design which then necessitates a designer and then want special considerations for your God. Not held to the same standards. In your second paragraph you attempt to move your God beyond science. And that religion and more importantly Christianity should not be criticized.

And then you have the audacity to claim that the atheist starts from a dishonest position.

Do you know who else is associated with that magical thinking process?

I'm not attempting anything. I made some simple statements and offered my opinion on a few things. If you can't process it or want to pretend it's something else that's up to you but you speak for yourself. I'm not a Christian and haven't tried to promote it, you can't read. The dance is all in your head.