[atmowasia]

if i told u i saw a pig fly just now, would u believe me?
no.
no u would not.
and if u did, i would find you and slap u for thinking so.

so to make sense of what i just said:

do i believe that u encountered a demon: no.

[Quality4Qty]

This has nothing to do with the debate, but why don't I see you around anymore?

I've been a little busy since starting University, and most of my spare time has been gobbled watching youtube videos and the first two seasons of Dexter! Add into that the fact that I've not played a game of yugioh for at least 12 weeks.

Don't worry, though! I still love ya'!

[ethigSmimbine]

I don't have the time right now to try to reply to all of the posts, but I will leave what I can.

Off the top of my head, there's only one thing I can think of to add to this debate to make you guy's say "Hmm?". Do any of you find it odd that so many people now seem to be believing in ghost's, demon's, possession's, etc.? I've noticed that it seem's to be some new craze going around or somehting and most people don't seem to have a problem with it. I know there have even been a couple of people on this forum talking about it.

Anyway, my point is, so many people seem to be believing in demons and possessions, but discredit the existence of God? At the same time, it seem's to me that most of those same people who talk about the formentioned, are the same ones that don't believe in God. Would anyone care to address why they think this is? Why is it so many people talk about thing's like that all of the time but are unwilling to try to believe in the existence of God? If there truly are such thing's as demon's and possession's in this world, then why not believe in God? Sorry to get a little off topic, just soemthing's that's been nagging me for awhile.

[StampNews]

Off the top of my head, there's only one thing I can think of to add to this debate to make you guy's say "Hmm?". Do any of you find it odd that so many people now seem to be believing in ghost's, demon's, possession's, etc.? I've noticed that it seem's to be some new craze going around or somehting and most people don't seem to have a problem with it. I know there have even been a couple of people on this forum talking about it.

Anyway, my point is, so many people seem to be believing in demons and possessions, but discredit the existence of God? At the same time, it seem's to me that most of those same people who talk about the formentioned, are the same ones that don't believe in God. Would anyone care to address why they think this is? Why is it so many people talk about thing's like that all of the time but are unwilling to try to believe in the existence of God? If there truly are such thing's as demon's and possession's in this world, then why not believe in God? Sorry to get a little off topic, just soemthing's that's been nagging me for awhile.

I can't really talk about anyone other than myself, but I'm sure there is no reason to believe in the existence of ghosts, demons and possessions... in addition to any god(s). I'd have said that there is probably a lower percentage of atheists that believe in other supernatural things than in theists, simply because the reasoning behind rejecting these ideas are often the same for rejecting the evidence of any god(s). As for reasons an atheist might believe in supernatural things could be because of a vacuum that theism usually fills - our need for explanation, our fear of death.

[cingularring]

I've been a little busy since starting University, and most of my spare time has been gobbled watching youtube videos and the first two seasons of Dexter! Add into that the fact that I've not played a game of yugioh for at least 12 weeks.

Don't worry, though! I still love ya'!

Oh my goodness, Dexter is such an amazing show.
I've been watching the Season 5 episodes as they air.

Hope to have you back soon.
I miss having a fellow openly gay member around.

[Anakattawl]

Oh my goodness, Dexter is such an amazing show.
I've been watching the Season 5 episodes as they air.

Hope to have you back soon.
I miss having a fellow openly gay member around.

Of course you do! We could do gay things together... like talk about how Michael C. Hall is such a babe!

[User-Luser]

Of course you do! We could do gay things together... like talk about how Michael C. Hall is such a babe!

I would love that!
But for now, let's get back on topic.

[QHdy5Z3A]

So yesterday before work I had the TV on and the 700 Club was on (Its a very Christian-based news show). Between brushing my teeth and combing my hair they were showing some statistics. It turns out that atheists and agnostics actually had the most knowledge about religions than any other religiously-based denomination, with Catholics with the lowest percentage. They started talking about how biblical illiteracy may be destroying the church from the inside. That most Christians never really sit down and read the Bible, even though they have an average of three per household.

This made me think of why I'm not a Christian. Accompanying my parents to church as a kid never really sat well with me. Over time I started questioning religion, and learning more about the other religions. It suddenly occurred to me that believing in something isn't a which is better than the other concept. I figured most people who choose a religion subconciously think that the reason why they chose the one they have is because it sounded more believable to them than any other religion presented to them. This should not be the reason to adopt any kind of religion. Using this mindset, I started thinking about the existence of God, not pertaining to any religion, but merely what I thought made sense. As for the Christian God, I refuse to acknowledge any idea of a god that would refer to a group of people as "abominations" simply because of their sexual orientation, and would also allow slavery of any kind. (Yes, there is a passage in the Bible that allows slavery, I looked it up myself in the copy I have on my shelf)

So yeah, basically I do believe in a God, but not the Christian God, because I sincerely doubt that one such being would be so cruel as to allow such things as the above.

[zzbust]

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell[/ame]

This is the best thing I've read to prove the existence of God to me. I still don't believe he exists due to many reasons, which I will address at a later date as I don't have time, but this is my view, and the fact I've posted here will remind me to give greater input later on.

I'm having this argument right now, about Christian Atheism.

YJ

---------- Post added November 30th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ----------

Anyway, my point is, so many people seem to be believing in demons and possessions, but discredit the existence of God? At the same time, it seem's to me that most of those same people who talk about the formentioned, are the same ones that don't believe in God. Would anyone care to address why they think this is? Why is it so many people talk about thing's like that all of the time but are unwilling to try to believe in the existence of God? If there truly are such thing's as demon's and possession's in this world, then why not believe in God? Sorry to get a little off topic, just soemthing's that's been nagging me for awhile.

I believe it is because people are trying to find a reason for the afterlife.

Also, anyone who says they believe in demons but not God is a liar. Demons are hell-spawn. If you believe in the Devil, you must believe in God. Ghosts are the possibility that your spirit/soul linger on into the afterlife. It is a representation of Karma. You must reach a neutral Karma to move on, or you must ensure that karma is brought about upon your killer, depending on your beliefs.

I personally disagree. I don't believe there is an afterlife, or a purpose. I believe that our purpose is to continue the species until time ends. Some species are succeeding, others aren't/haven't. I know that my life will have very little impact on the longevity of my species, so I enjoy my life. If there is nothing before or after it, you might as well. Especially if your life does flash before your eyes as you die. I'd like it to be a pleasant experience.

YJ

[Frjrbefd]

STEP FOUR: ABSOLUTE MORAL LAWS

I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave. Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.
So, do you beleive in absolute moral laws?

If you do, then continue to step five. If not, then please read the following. The following is intended only for those of you who believe absolute moral laws do not exist.

4a.)
I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Please keep in mind, I am asking what YOU believe, not what you think anyone else believes.

If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become manmade objections. The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him? What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a proposition is possible.

You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference.

STEP FIVE: THE NATURE OF LAWS (A)
By reaching this point you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next i will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things? The following is for those of you who believe these law's are made of matter. If you believe these law's are just that, law's and nothing more, continue to step six please.

5a.) If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are made of matter, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them? Rather than have you produce a material, physical law I will narrow down the field for you... just show me the number '3' somewhere in nature. Not 'three things,' not a written representation of the number 3 but the real physical, material number 3.

STEP SIX: THE NATURE OF LAWS (B)
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law? The following is for those of you who believe the laws of nature are not universal. If you do believe they are universal, then please continue to step seven.

6a.)
If you believe that the immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are up to the individual, then it would be perfectly alright for anyone to come up with their own laws in these matters. Not only would these alternate laws be common, they would have to be 'right' since there would be no universal standard to evaluate their correctness. Not only could no conflict ever be resolved, there would be no conflicts since everyone would be right.
We know however that this is simply not the case. In base ten mathematics, when you add 2 + 2, you expect the correct answer to be 4, and would not accept a different answer as being correct from someone who lived down the street, or in Bangkok. You would not accept that child molestation would be right anywhere in the universe. You would not accept a logical contradiction as being acceptable no matter where or when you were confronted with one.
You deny that laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality, are universal yet you base your life on their universality.

Through my daily wanderings I found this post in one of my favourite blogs:
http://12tuesday.com/measure-me-some...tive-morality/

It essentially states what I was originally thinking about what is wrong about the moral argument. Which could probably be summarised as simply as:

The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it. (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).

The near perfect circularity of your argument is amazing.
And for those among us that don't accept the bible as self authenticating?

[Nemerov]

Wow, I see some great replies have been posted since my last visit! It look's like this has turned into a real debate instead of the flame war I was afraid it might be; I'm glad. Anyway, sorry I'm not replying to anything but I just got off work a couple of hours ago, I've got a cold, and I'm really tired. I just wanted to drop by and see what's been written since I came here last....about four day's ago I think, lol.

I'll come back here tommorow to reply to everything and share my view with the rest of you. Didn't want you to think I was leaving this place or something.

[ExelePlavisseu]

Alright *cracks knuckles* Let me give my two cents here, now that I'm rested up. Just hope I don't make myself look like a complete ass.

Fair warning, it took me over an hour to write all of this, so put your reading specs on.
Spoiler:

You have to assume the existence of god to argue against it is not a true statement.

Why not? If you didn't assume the existence of God then what would you be arguing against? Just because I stated that you have to "assume" a God, doesn't mean I'm saying you have to believe in a God.

Also, using biblical scripture to support your argument is also invalid. While the bible may be "the word of God", it was in fact hand written by man, who is according to that same scriptural doctrine adhered to by Christians, imperfect by nature.

Okay, I'll give you that one. Mabye I shouldn't have used scripture to back my argument. I'll clarify what I see as proof at the bottom of this reply.

1.) God is faith. You believe he exists or you don't. No amount of poking and prodding will force those with faith to give it up. 2.) That's why the entire premise of the crusades was so successful for England. Come fight for us. Nothing but pain and despair awaits. But what's this? with every subscription, you get a free pass to a blissful eternity!

1.) Well, I'm just trying to debate the option that someone with faith CAN base their belief's on fact. Again, see the bottom to see more clarification on this subject.
2.) Why is it that so many people alway's reffer to the Crusades? Like I said earlier in the thread, the Crusades were started by people who abused the use of the bible for their own benefit. I think a fictional movie released not so long ago called "The Book of Eli" depict's this greatly. The bible is an instrument of good but can be a horrible thing in the wrong person's hand's. I believe God allow's such thing's because he allow's natural order in this world. I would go on futher but it would take up too much space. If you want to argue that statement then I'm willing to explain myself futher later.

I believe there are two types of Christians. I don't believe this applies to all, but most.

1. Inherited faith by family. Since childhood, you have been indoctrinated with Christian beliefs and values so much that there is no other way of life for you. A man walking in a cave all of his life wouldn't actually know what light was, let alone another way to live.

2. Those who use faith as a means to explain their existence. You see many people convert due to personal tragedy, as a means to explain the unexplicable. "Why did my little sister die?" "Well, God has a plan for us all". Impossible that a seeming number of minute and coincidental events resulted in a negatively perceived effect. People like to rationalize, even if the rationalization isn't rational at all.

I believe you left out one.

3.) Inherited faith by family but lost it completely due to extraordinary circumstances. Decided there was no God, hated all religions, and looked for the real truth. Looked at the world, realized it was too complicated to have all the thing's we love and care about around us in it without some sort of outside, supernatural influence. Looked back to religion. Decided Christianity made the most sense. Went back to that.

No one just wakes up one day and decides "You know what? Jesus is cool. I'm gonna go with that.". It just doesn't happen.

Well, some might. But I think you need to look into what it is you believe to discover WHY it is you believe what you believe.

It turns out that atheists and agnostics actually had the most knowledge about religions than any other religiously-based denomination

I'd have to agree with that. Most people base their fiath solely on what they've been told. I think few actually try to look into their religion to discover why they believe what they believe. Atheists and Agnostics have alway's looked into religions to discover the history of them all. I believe it is this reason alone that makes most arguments of theists look so foolish. I'm attempting to try to correct that here, to the best of my ability.

I refuse to acknowledge any idea of a god that would refer to a group of people as "abominations" simply because of their sexual orientation, and would also allow slavery of any kind. (Yes, there is a passage in the Bible that allows slavery, I looked it up myself in the copy I have on my shelf)

I'm not familiar with the slavery comment, care to share the passage? As far as acknowledging homosexuals as abominations....all I can say is that there are some passages in the bible that make me go . I personally don't agree with homosexuality but I'm not gonna slander anyone that is. That's their life and their choice.

So yeah, basically I do believe in a God, but not the Christian God, because I sincerely doubt that one such being would be so cruel as to allow such things as the above.

Hmm, that statement makes me curious to see just how many people here believe in any religion. I think I'll add a poll to this to see the percentage.

I don't believe there is an afterlife, or a purpose. I believe that our purpose is to continue the species until time ends.
YJ

Isn't that an awfully depressing way to view life though?

The reason people believe morality is objective is because they feel that their moral beliefs are true. It is a strong emotion in most of us that tells us that we should behave in certain ways, and when someone doesn’t behave in that way, they are going against a set of unwritten, but true rules. This is where the argument from emotion comes into play.
Our emotions do not get us to the truth. I could say to you that if morality isn’t objective, that means that if I say torturing children for fun is good, I would be right. That immediately brings out an emotional response. You don’t believe it’s true, because it clashes with your view on the matter, but you are using your morality to judge whether my morality is right or wrong. If you are looking for objective truth, and the question is whether or not your morality is subjective, you certainly can’t use your morality to decide if that statement is objectively true.

Wow...now that's deep. I honestly had to read this a few times before I was able to come up with a reply for it. Let me give this a shot.

The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.

Most people in most cases certainly act as though they believe that truth is objective, independent of them, their beliefs, and the working of their minds. People assume that the clothes will still be in their closet in the morning, even though they stopped thinking about them during the night. People assume that their keys may really be in the kitchen, even if they don’t actively believe this and instead believe that their keys are in the hallway.

Why adopt such a position? Well, most of our experiences would appear to validate it. We do find out clothes in the closet in the morning. Sometimes our keys do end up being in the kitchen, not in the hallway like we thought. Wherever we go, things happen regardless of what we believe. There doesn’t appear to be any real evidence of things occurring just because we wished really hard that they would. If it did, the world would be chaotic and unpredictable because everyone would be wishing for different things.
The issue of prediction is important, and it is for that reason that scientific research assumes the existence of objective, independent truths. In science, determining the validity of a theory is accomplished through making predictions and then devising tests to see if those predictions come true. If they do, then the theory gains support; but if they don’t, then the theory now has evidence against it.

This process depends upon the principles that the tests will either succeed or fail regardless of what the researchers believe. Assuming that the tests are designed and conducted properly, it doesn’t matter how many of those involved believe that it will work — there is always the possibility that it will instead fail. If this possibility didn’t exist, then there simply wouldn’t be any point in conducting the tests, would there? Whatever people came up with would be “true” and that would be the end of it.

Obviously that is utter nonsense. The world does not and cannot function like that; if it did, we wouldn’t be able to function in it. Everything we do relies upon the idea that there are things which are true objectively and independently of us; therefore, truth must in fact be objective. Right?
Even if there are some some very good logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, is that enough to say that we know that truth is objective? It may be if you are a pragmatist, but not everyone is. So we must inquire as to whether our conclusions here are really valid after all; and, it seems, there are some reasons for doubt.

Originally Posted by The 86th Samurai The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it. (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).

The near perfect circularity of your argument is amazing.
And for those among us that don't accept the bible as self authenticating? Again, I apologize for using scripture to back my argument. Allow me to close this reply by quoting myself from another thread to clarify what I view as proof of existence.

Originally Posted by Red Religion on the other hand, is based entirely on belief in something despite the fact there is no proof of it...

Just so you all know, at one point in my life, I could have considered myself an atheist. Some thing's happened that led me to question my own religion, and all religion's for that matter. I looked for answer's and was very, very lost for a long time. But one day, after reading several books and talking to many people, I started doing something I never did before. I started looking at the world. I started looking at everything around us and all that's in our lives; and I started asking myself something. "How the hell can all of this exist if it just created itself?" Could all of this exist....the complexity of our lives and the feelings that we share everyday...without a higher power than us? I find it very hard to believe. Think about it, life as we know it takes so many different thing's to function, correct? It's a balanced harmony of many different element's all combined together to create the world that is our's. Can something so complex really exist solely upon itself without any outside influence what-so-ever? The odd's of that would have to be astronomically high wouldn't they? So astronomically high in fact, that in my own opinion, believe it is impossible.

Everyone states that we evolved from lower organisms and many of the same people claim that disproves the existence of God. Does it really? To me, in just proves that God has been planning this universe for a LONG time. Heh, I've alway's gotten a kick out of thinking..."Mabye God was in a trial run mode before he made it to us. Mabye he was working out the basic function's of the universe before deciding to give us his spirit?".

The point I'm trying to make is this; Red claim's that religion is based solely on the belief in something despite the fact there is no proof of it. I argue that there is proof of God, the proof of God is life itself.

[Doncarlito]

"Isn't that an awfully depressing way to view life though?"

How is it depressing? We may one day rule the universe if we are successful.

You asked for views, not fictional stories of prosperity. Reality isn't romantic. It is brutal, boring, and pointless. Why should we believe in anything else?

YJ

[isogeople]

Most people in most cases certainly act as though they believe that truth is objective, independent of them, their beliefs, and the working of their minds. People assume that the clothes will still be in their closet in the morning, even though they stopped thinking about them during the night. People assume that their keys may really be in the kitchen, even if they don’t actively believe this and instead believe that their keys are in the hallway.

I treat my morals as I would my opinion on art, my opinion - I don't believe my opinions exist independent of my brain. I can let anyone that questions whether or not my keys exist in my brain by handing them my keys, providing they're not solipsist they can ascertain my keys are a physical object and not subjective.

When we ask the same of morals, we can't establish their origins in anything other than the brain, and so we don't have any justification in claiming it's mind/brain independent, however much we wish it was.

[PhillipHer]

I don't currently have the copy with me as I am not home, and cannot quote it word for word, but I'll try to do some internet searches for it to see if anything comes up. I do know which section the subject of slavery is on though, its Leviticus.

Here we go, here is what I read.

45: Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46: And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Spoiler: Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...&division=div1

[AntonioMQ]

I argue that there is proof of God, the proof of God is life itself. This is your idea of not using scripture to back up your claims?
Nice try.

[Adfcvkdg]

Originally Posted by YamiJoey
I don't believe there is an afterlife, or a purpose. I believe that our purpose is to continue the species until time ends.
YJ
Isn't that an awfully depressing way to view life though?

its an honest way to live life.
how can you believe theres an after life if u honestly feel like there is none.
u cant just lie to yourself.

infact, if there is no after life, doesnt that make living much MUCH more important?

i dont believe its depressing at all.

[Appenianags]

I treat my morals as I would my opinion on art, my opinion

If you don't believe your opinion is a fact, you don't believe in your own opinion. You believe it is "Just an opinion" and actually it doesn't count for much.

That, in turn, warps your morals. It is the same kind of morals that would let the Nazi's into power. My morals promote serial killers.

Sort of depends on where you're coming from. Serial Killers > Genocide.

YJ

---------- Post added December 6th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ----------

"infact, if there is no after life, doesnt that make living much MUCH more important?"

Reading this post was painful, but I agree, either way.

YJ

[buchmausar]

If you don't believe your opinion is a fact, you don't believe in your own opinion. You believe it is "Just an opinion" and actually it doesn't count for much.

That, in turn, warps your morals. It is the same kind of morals that would let the Nazi's into power. My morals promote serial killers.

Sort of depends on where you're coming from. Serial Killers > Genocide.

YJ

I do believe in my own opinion, I just don't believe it exists independent of me. I would let the Nazi's into power? I don't agree with them so, no. I'd like to think the majority of people would agree genocide is wrong.

[Indinehon]

God is real IMO.