Yeah, well, defending an ideal you don't believe in is not the most honorable thing to do... but that's what lawyers do ! The difference is that they do it for money...

---

"Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo"
I will f*** you in the ass and mouth
Catullus, XVI

Things do sound more profound in Latin...

Not really arguing for the sake of arguing, I felt rather strongly that someone should be arguing for God, it isn't sporting to make a thread about arguing the existence of God and then everybody choosing the "atheist" side.

 

Nah, God is all-powerful, he can argue by himself !

No, seriously, why did you put the word atheist between quotes ? Are you suggesting someone around here is pretending to be a Non-believer ?

---

"Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo"
I will f*** you in the ass and mouth
Catullus, XVI

Things do sound more profound in Latin...

No...

Actually, for all I know, God was arguing here. Believers will tell you that one of the most common paths of God interacting with the world is through us...

 

... ... ...nah. If it were God, he would have won the argument.

Believers will tell you that everything is God's will.

If good things happen, it was because God willed it, and he is so great and mighty and benevolent.

If bad things happen, well, God works in mysterious ways, and it is not for us to know why He does what He does.

It's so...self-fulfilling.

---

Come, see Neko Girl Jessica's Place, a haven for RPers everywhere!

Whee! Self-fulfillment!

 

... ... ... that sounds, suddenly, very, very, wrong.

Whoa people, *looks around at the fallout* what the hell happened last night? Looking back:

Woodtopian, I think you said something like 'Athiests=impossible to convince', well this isn't a thread to convert people.

Terra, why must it be up to religion to prove god exists and not for us to disprove it? The fact is, we'll never know.

Also, this thread wasn't actually about debating the existence of god (even so, WR was right about the need for a believer in the debate), I don't mind it going a little off topic, but try not to get so worked up about it.

Because you cannot prove that something does not exist. It is not possible to prove things don't exist.

If you don't believe me, then prove that leprechauns don't exist. Go ahead. Prove it.

It is not the responsibility of the disbeliever to prove it isn't there. It is the responsibility of the believer to prove it is, because only that can be proven.

There is no proof of non-existance. Only the lack of proof of existence.

---

Come, see Neko Girl Jessica's Place, a haven for RPers everywhere!

Hmm, you're right. It seems a bit unfair on the believers though.

I was thinking today: How did it all start? What came first, the religious hatred or the organised religions?

It's not unfair at all. It's the way it should be. Scientific method. If it wasn't, people would be really gullible.

The believers are the ones coming around saying, "I know it doesn't seem right, but we have found the truth! Now, it may seem unfeasable, but this is how it works." They're the ones with the hypothesis and it's their responsibility to test it and try to find evidence to support it.

---

Come, see Neko Girl Jessica's Place, a haven for RPers everywhere!

And how does science work? It works because of examples we see in everyday life. But these examples are based on the general underlying scientific theories about the world. Religion is no different.

I actually work in a laboratory, and there seems to be a misconception about science, and that is that the scientific method is purely rational and objective. In fact, science is a philosophy, a way to assess and describe natural phenomena. Before the advent of scientific thinking, knowledge was heavily based on cultural and religious beliefs, whereas the whole point of science is to assess reality in an objective, unbiased manner.

That's the theory, and it works well with simple phenomena that all can agree on, but it gets hairy when we're dealing with more complex issues. A philosophy is basically a frame in which to place reality to make it accessible, and a guideline for understanding that reality. In science, as in other philosophies, people often disagree on the interpretation of a same observation, and there are schools of thought and dogmas. So yes, I agree that in many aspects religion & science share similarities.

---

Beauty In Diversity

One thing that I'm getting a little tired of is this characature of atheists and secular thinkers as if we're all a bunch of smarmy poindexters out to destroy Christianity by coming up with non-supernatural theories with the intent to piss-off religious people. Look, I don't profess to know how the universe started or what triggered life, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to pick the easiest answer possible and say "God did it." That's a major cop-out.
However, what I find offensive about Christians trying to assert God's hand in the creation of the universe is that they're expecting me to accept that a supernatural being somehow precluded the universe and made everything, but not one of them has ever been able to explain to be what a supernatural being even is. There is nothing about supernaturalism that points to a reality. It's always the mysterious and the unknown. "God is mysterious." How convenient.
On the other hand, when science makes an observation that doesn't line up with the Bible, fundamentalists go on a tear. They're always bashing on evolution, although, to be perfectly honest, evolution is the least of their worries. They've got much more to worry about from astronomers and geologists, who've pretty much used their fields to trounce all over young Earth and flood stories based out of the Bible.

There's a distinct difference between science and religious faith. Science is a study of the known. Science takes what it observes, forms a hypothesis, tests it, and makes a conclusion. Faith, on the other hand, is a form of agnosticism. There's nothing to observe with faith; just belief.
Faith, by definition, is the lack of knowledge, because if you knew something to be true, then you wouldn't need to call it faith.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

I find it rather interesting that atheists think that christians are blind to the truth and Christians believe that atheists are blind to the truth. By the way, if you choose to out and out disbelieve everything in the bible, then there is nothing left. We can't intelligently argue because the only argument between organized religion and organized atheists can come when either accepts the other's source material, and if that ever happens, then the argument will already be over.

Because the bible and the primordial soup cancel each other out, and we can't out and out prove that either happened, (yet) because there was nobody to observe the soup from which life sprung, and the only records of people whom observed God and his major doings are frankly dismissed by non-believers.

As to organized religion, I'm not a big fan of it. Everything a christian needs to know is in the bible. All the pastor can do is give you his/her interpretations of the passages, which you'd probably be better off doing alone.

with all due respect to believing people, i think "God" is a way of cowardry, i mean, instead of trying to resolve your problems yourself, with willpower, you try to use god's will, yes, i know some people really need it, but that's not really an excuse, if you look it from an angle, religion is a conzolation prize for life, "yeah, the world sucks, but....you get to live in a cool place after that!, but you, uh, can't do this bunch of things here, those neither, and those tell you to do the things you couldn't do before, yeah...."

in teh end, i think we are all better living and letting live, and trying to keep a balance into our lifes, as in the only religion i think is quite acceptable, karma is a good way of life, not really a religion.

that's about it.