Do you believe in god(s)? Poll #5

[Sentinel]

Two years have passed again, so it's for a new poll on this. Do you believe a God, or perhaps several gods? Vote!

See also the previous polls, which ran from 2004 to 2006 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t17856/index.html?t=17856&highlight=poll), 2006 to 2008 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t46875/index.html), 2008 to 2010 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t72955/index.html?t=72955) and 2010-2012 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t131150/index.html).

Totally 484 users voted in the last poll. Results: 'No' 318 (67,5%), 'Yes' 99 (22,45%), 'Uncertain' 67 (13,84%).

Feel free to continue discussions from the previous thread here.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Uncertain, but no.
There is no way to know, but we will all find out one day

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I wonder why so many leftists are atheists.

There are many religions, many with diferent views about what a god is, for example, there is one religion that considers that the universe is god, and other that considers that god is the universe. (these are very diferent from one another)
Usually when people criticize religion they criticize only monotheistic religions, like catholicism and islamism, and ignore other religions such as paganism and buddhism.

I will vote uncertain because this poll is only adequate for monotheistic religions.

[Goblin]

No. But i have been kinda interested in hinduism lately.

[Sentinel]

I am an atheist and voted no. See my blog for my views on religion.



I will vote uncertain because this poll is only adequate for monotheistic religions.


No; also polytheists, such as hinduists and buddhists etc, can vote as the question is do you believe in god(s). I guess it is true that it doesn't cover non-theistic religions though, but perhaps those can be discussed in another thread.

It's interesting to compare the results between the polls from different years, if they are consistent with each other.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

No; also polytheists, such as hinduists and buddhists etc, can vote as the question is do you believe in god(s).


As I said, many religions such as paganism see god as something diferent form the christian God. Not an omnipotent benevolent being.

[Sentinel]

As I said, many religions such as paganism see god as something diferent form the christian God. Not an omnipotent benevolent being.


True enough, I guess Odin wasn't that benevolent (not that Jehovah or what his name is sounds that nice either, in the old testament etc). Iirc, it was only in one of the polls -- the last one -- that the OP was formulated that way though, as I made an attempt to be funny.

There isn't much to do about that now, but yeah these polls are meant to be for polytheists too as the poll question indicates.

[The Cheshire Cat]

No. There is no proof whatsoever. If I start believing in a god without any evidence of him, I might as well start believing in an invisible three-legged pink elephant. The odds that they exist are the same. At least, that is what I believe.

edit: On a second thought, the odds of an elephant mutating into an invisible three-legged pink elephant may be slightly higher than the existence of any god.

[Deicide]

I believe in unicorns.

In all seriousness, which God? There's around 3000+ different deities that have been made up and worshipped by our species within its relatively short existence.

If you ask someone ''how did you think humanity got here?'', and whether their answer is 1) the scientific explanation (i.e. correct explanation) or 2) the religious explanation (i.e. false explanation), that instantly tells me something about that person, and if they positively affirmed number 2, that ''something'' I learn about that person is not positive.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes I do. There's not really much else that needs to be said.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Nope.

[harte.beest]

I wonder why so many leftists are atheists.

There are many religions, many with diferent views about what a god is, for example, there is one religion that considers that the universe is god, and other that considers that god is the universe. (these are very diferent from one another)
Usually when people criticize religion they criticize only monotheistic religions, like catholicism and islamism, and ignore other religions such as paganism and buddhism.

I will vote uncertain because this poll is only adequate for monotheistic religions.

There are many religions and they're all made up. Every civilization in world history, no matter how stone aged, created a version of god(s) to worship. This is proof that God is just yourself.

Or as some say "God is Tyler Durden"

[Zostrianos]

I find the concept of God to be very useful if one is interested in following a spiritual path. My conception of God is based on that of the inexpressible All or the Monad of Hermetism, Neoplatonism and late philosophical Paganism, which manifests as various Gods and Goddesses at the lower levels. I also find these various Deities useful, as they reflect important psychological archetypes.
*
When I reflect on the Universe I get a strange feeling, like there’s more behind it than its chaotic, purely physical components. Whether this feeling is genuine, or simply my fallible human pattern-seeking brain seeing something where there’s nothing, doesn’t really matter to me – beliefs can be a means to an end. Spirituality is useful (have a look at scientific studies on meditation, you’ll see what I mean), and so I embrace it wholeheartedly.

[Red Rabbit]

I always adhered to the philosophy that if someone believes in a god (truly, not jokingly like "LOL FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER"), then that makes that god real, even if he/she/it doesn't manifest itself in the way that the person would believe.

Example; the God of Abraham (known to most as the God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is real simply because people believe and worship him. However, I don't believe he would have the powers that are often attested to him by his believers, but simply exists in a kind of Deist sense.

So in a way, I believe in many and all gods and goddesses.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No.

[Mista Commie]

Nope.

[Comrade Mitja]

Believing in god is like the four headed, man-eating haddock fish beast of Aberdeen.

You want to know why:

because it does not exist

[Book O'Dead]

Like I said, when I'm up to my neck in shit I pray more fervently than the Pope; when I'm doing okay and nothing alis me I'm practically a disciple of Satan.

[Revolution starts with U]

When someone posts a "like if you love Jesus, Keep scrollin if you love Satan"


I keep scrollin :cool:

[X5N]

Agnostic-atheist-apatheist with a completely scientific mentality.

Though, I wouldn't mind being a Heathen. Praise Odin!

[eric922]

I put yes, but I don't believe in any actual gods, but I just think there is something more than we know. I guess my views are more similar to Buddhism or occultism mysticism than mainstream religion.

[Savant]

I vote yes. Despite me being raised a Catholic, I no longer practice the religion, however I do believe in a God, or higher power if you will. I see God as more like a force, something along those lines.

[The Cheshire Cat]

but I just think there is something more than we know.

Why?

[Ostrinski]

No gods for me.

[pastradamus]

No Gods No Masters.

[eric922]

Why?

Honestly, this quote from Einstein sums up my views far more eloquently than I could:



"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

[MuscularTophFan]

I don't believe in any kind of god/gods/afterlife/ghosts/etc. I guess to a certain extent I'm open to the concept of reincarnation. Humans are nothing more than chemicals. When our brain dies out so does our consciousness. When we die that's it. We become nothingness just like what it was before we were born. Religion was only a evolutionary trait that humans created in order to try to understand the world around them. We don't need religion anymore. We as human species need to evolve beyond the simpleness of organized religion and place all of humanities hopes in science and technology. It's the only way we will survive as a species and colonize the universe.

I consider myself an atheist, anti-theist, anti-religious, etc.

[Comrades Unite!]

Yes I do believe in God, Hate all you want but the truth is I am a christian and I am not ashamed(Que backround music)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No. And if there were, i'd dislike them.

[Positivist]

Yes I do believe in God, Hate all you want but the truth is I am a christian and I am not ashamed(Que backround music)

So just for clarification, you are a Maoist in the Socialist Party of Ireland (Trotskyist) who believes in God?

[RedHammer]

I voted uncertain. I'm agnostic.

Religions, in general, are cultural phenomena. But the overall concept of a "higher power" is not something I find ludicrous or ridiculous; and I can't really tell one way or the other, I don't really know in the end.

I'm agnostic. But whether or not there is a higher power has no bearing on my life right here, right now; it has no bearing on the real material conditions.

[cynicles]

No, fairys don't exist, gods don't exist.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So just for clarification, you are a Maoist in the Socialist Party of Ireland (Trotskyist) who believes in God?

Yeah, I was confused by all that as well, but from my discussion with him in another thread he is dropping the Maoism (sorry if this is wrong, Comrades Unite!, this is just my understanding).

[Comrades Unite!]

So just for clarification, you are a Maoist in the Socialist Party of Ireland (Trotskyist) who believes in God?

First off, I am not a Maoist nor a Trotskyist, merely a Marxist.

[The Jay]

Honestly, this quote from Einstein sums up my views far more eloquently than I could:

That quote says nothing. Einstein did not believe in any god that theists do. If anything he believed in the fact that there was an over-arching order to the universe and called that god. I don't know why he resorted to those word games, but I wonder if you knew that was what he was doing. In short, Einstein was no deist or theist. He was merely acknowledging that he was not in possession of the entirety of scientific knowledge and understanding. This does not mean that he believed in Jehova nor that such a thing was likely to exist. In clarification, unless one says that they actually hold that a certain deity exists they are atheists. Under that definition Einstein was certainly an atheist and that is the very definition that we are using in this thread.

[eric922]

That quote says nothing. Einstein did not believe in any god that theists do. If anything he believed in the fact that there was an over-arching order to the universe and called that god. I don't know why he resorted to those word games, but I wonder if you knew that was what he was doing. In short, Einstein was no deist or theist. He was merely acknowledging that he was not in possession of the entirety of scientific knowledge and understanding. This does not mean that he believed in Jehova nor that such a thing was likely to exist. In clarification, unless one says that they actually hold that a certain deity exists they are atheists. Under that definition Einstein was certainly an atheist and that is the very definition that we are using in this thread.

I don't believe in any gods. I said that in my post.I certainly don't believe in Jehovah or any of the stories of the Bible.


However,lets return to Einstein's views. it seems the quote I quoted was an incomplete verison. There is a first sentence that goes:
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe...

Furthermore in a letter he wrote the following:
]My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.[/B] I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment

So, I don't think it is accurate to call him an atheist, he in fact wasn't too fond of the term himself and said in another letter:
[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres. He also refused to combat religious beliefs because he felt
"such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

Note: These quotes are taken from Wikipedia, but they are all sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[teflon_john]

"I pray to God and the Devil in church, I'ma worship whoever help me first."

[Fourth Internationalist]

@people talking about Einstein

He was a deist.

[Caj]

@people talking about Einstein

He was a deist.

No, he was an atheist and a metaphorical pantheist.

[Galileo]

I have been an atheist for several years, and I not only find the idea of an all-knowing god to be illogical, but also to be unsettling. Religion is quite frankly a horribly disgraceful idea to me. Some of the richest organisations in the world are religious and while they may argue they are doing so much good for the world, the fact of the matter is that they are using their position of influence to hold back other nations because of their beliefs in what is right and wrong. They drive home from their good work in their fancy cars to their large houses full of expenseve posessions. How is that fair?

Personally I don't mind if people believe in a god or not. The belief doesn't hurt anyone and should be a private thing between a person and that god, but once you form religion and start praying on other people, then it's just wrong.

[Orange Juche]

I see God as more like a force, something along those lines.

That's no moon.

[lookup]

Yes - simple as that

[Taverner]

This is one of the few times Nietzsche was right

[Milad]

I believe in God. I prefer to believe in God and know he doesn't exist after death rather Not to believe in him and find out he exists. You see believing in a religion is like following driving rules when you drive. It makes the world safer for everyone. I'm a Muslim, God in Quran says, Never tell lies, Never misbehave someone from other religion, respect them because they are free to chose, always be happy for what you have and try to get more and live with hope like you're going to live for ever but never take something from someone that is not yours because one day you are going to be responsible for that.
I understand that Muslims and more specifically Islam is thought to be a tough religion with tough rules. Well that's because It's changed during ages. It's been affected by politic and different societies. There are a lot of versions of made up Islam out there in the world. But something is very special about it. The Quran, It stayed pure and untouched for over 1400 years. So don't judge about Islam when you see some crazy people put bombs on their belt and blow an airplane and they call themselves Muslims. If you have any question about it just go for Quran. So I believe in God and respect other religions and their followers cause after all almost all of them believe in one unique and powerful God.

[Juche]

Idk and don't really care.
I'm not sure if I believe or not. Probably not but due to all the different explanations of what god is or is not it makes it hard to tell what people are talking about.

Even if God exists, he doesn't do ANY thing to effect our lives one way or another unless you can count religion.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

There are many religions and they're all made up. Every civilization in world history, no matter how stone aged, created a version of god(s) to worship. This is proof that God is just yourself.

Politics are made up too, every person in this forum beleives in some political theory.
You see, societies are made up too, they are just people playing at societies, but then they took it too seriously and we are now stuck in an eternal play.

Saying there are no gods is like saying a political theory is false. All political theories are correct, the question is are they the best for us.

Following your logic politics are just reflections of your beliefs about society.

[Goblin]

3 months ago, my answer was no. Not anymore:)

[Capitalist Octopus]

What happened? Did the Hinduism work out?

[Althusser]

I always adhered to the philosophy that if someone believes in a god (truly, not jokingly like "LOL FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER"), then that makes that god real, even if he/she/it doesn't manifest itself in the way that the person would believe.

Example; the God of Abraham (known to most as the God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is real simply because people believe and worship him. However, I don't believe he would have the powers that are often attested to him by his believers, but simply exists in a kind of Deist sense.

So in a way, I believe in many and all gods and goddesses.

I don't understand.

[Ele'ill]

I still believe in the nine divine

[Sanja]

My answer is no :) I just can't find a reason to believe in one.
But if other people believe in god (or gods).... Well, that's cool with me.... :cool:

[leftistman]

Hell no.

[bifo_161]

agnostic who leans towards pantheism ala spinoza

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Proud Atheist - since 2011
G.O.D = GOLD, OIL, DRUGS.

[jstrodel]

I know that God is real. God saved my life. I have been pulled out of a living hell world of punk rock, drugs and, eventually, the occult. God delivered me. I have seen miracles. Once I prayed and ask someone if I should change my name from Jay to Joseph and someone who didn't know my name or anything about me said "your name is Joseph". I have had many, many supernatural confirmations. I have seen the presence of the holy spirit and saw ever single even in my whole life before my eyes.

I was an atheist for many years of my life but I know that God is real, happy to discuss it with anyone if they personal message me.

[Goblin]

Yes. And i would go as far as to say that it has made my life better.

[Rafiq]

I still believe in the nine divine

You mean the eight, filthy heretic. Any faithful citizen of the empire knows worship of the false god talos is strictly prohibited.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[jstrodel]

Idk and don't really care.
I'm not sure if I believe or not. Probably not but due to all the different explanations of what god is or is not it makes it hard to tell what people are talking about.

Even if God exists, he doesn't do ANY thing to effect our lives one way or another unless you can count religion.


This is not true. God is absolute real, and when you put your trust in him. It changes your entire life. I have seen so many miracles, seen the holy spirit do so many things. I prayed once and ask God if I could get a car and 2 days later someone gave me a car. God is real, I have seen him do so much.

[MaximMK]

You mean the eight, filthy heretic. Any faithful citizen of the empire knows worship of the false god talos is strictly prohibited.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Weaklings my lords will feast on your souls in oblivion.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

I don't know... Or care.

[Geiseric]

I'm a pagan, I worship Donar, Wotan, and Freyja on a regular basis. Stacking rocks and skewering heads on pikes and such.

[Kindness]

I'm an atheist, so no, I don't believe in any gods. In fact, I'd go further and say that I believe no gods exist.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Life would positively blow if there were a god.

[DasFapital]

I am an atheist but I refer to myself as a humanist, because I prefer to identify myself with what I do believe in rather than what I do not believe in.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I am an atheist but I refer to myself as a humanist, because I prefer to identify myself with what I do believe in rather than what I do not believe in.

Why not just refer to yourself as an atheist? Semantics like this are a bit dumb.

[LeonJWilliams]

No way, stupid concept.

[Philo]

I'm an atheist, I think talk of "God" is metaphysical nonsense.

I still have more in common with a religious leftist (someone supporting revolutionary socialism and queer rights and women's liberation and the whole shebang) than a reactionary atheist, however.

[Romanophile]

I used to be a casual Christian, then I became an agnostic theist, and when I was exposed to atheist viewpoints, my faith went downhill.

I disbelieve in deities ; everything that exists is material.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I wonder why so many leftists are atheists.
Because religion is superstition?

[DasFapital]

Why not just refer to yourself as an atheist? Semantics like this are a bit dumb.
Because the term atheist doesn't really tell people much other than "I don't believe in god".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have as much reason to conclude the the good lord God, or any of his peers, exists as I have to conclude that there exists a teapot in Earth's orbit; and the teapot at least does not have a long history of being used as a magical explanation and being supplanted by materialist science. No, I do not believe in gods.

[Arakir]

No. I am an atheist, and somewhat of an antitheist. As Marx said, religion is the opium of the people.

[Chris]

Sort-of. I'm a follower of the old customs (norse mythology), albeit leaning more towards the pantheist side of it.

[Althusser]

I'm a materialist. Bourgeois idealist Dala Llama bollocks and new age hippy transcendentalist nonsense doesn't interest me. (It shouldn't interest you either!)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Because the term atheist doesn't really tell people much other than "I don't believe in god".

Why do you need to tell people more than that?

[Althusser]

Why do you need to tell people more than that?

I was thinking the same thing. I think maybe because in many parts of the world and parts of the US, the term atheist has really negative connotations. (Some people I've talked to think atheists pray to Satan) I think he adds to it to clarify that he's a good person. It's really not necessary though.

[Zostrianos]

(Some people I've talked to think atheists pray to Satan)

They do a lot worse actually :D
LbfFAYn8bgc

[TomHPMc]

No.

What irks me about most God concepts is that they are human. Most are take a human/humanoid image and display human traits. Take the Abrahamic God, he is presented (atleast in the older texts) as vengeful, jelous and egotistical.

To me it almost looks like the Gods are projections of the human, with the earlier belief systems it is to have empathetic understanding of the world around them. With Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, whose ancestors suffered constant persecution, the God figure can be seen as the superego. Belief in him/it reaffirms their ideas of right and wrong and can also punish those who disobey.

The pantheistic notion of God is far more beautiful, but if God is everything, why call it 'God'?

[Pelarys]

I wonder why so many people on revleft are religious.
Been an atheist as far as I remember, way before becoming a leftist.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

As I see many other people here are, I am an atheist and voted accordingly. I have been so since at least the age of 12. I can remember having serious doubts as far back as age 8 and getting into arguments with Sunday school teachers and the priest around age 10 or so (though with the priest it was one on one after church when my parents had him try to "convert" me). As might be inferred, my parents are not/were not the most understanding and I thus continued to go to church until a couple of months ago when I reached adulthood.

[xcore777]

No. Religion is the opium of the people. I am both an atheist and anti-theist.

[Red Nightmare]

No, I'm an atheist. My main reason for not believing in God is basically that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a God and in any other subject other than religion it is considered absurd to believe things without evidence yet many people seem hesitant to examine religion in a skeptical way. I find the idea of God to be novel but silly, synonymous with magic.

[Deity]

Do you think my luck would turn around if I started praying to the old Greek gods?:confused: I'm sure they're a bit upset about being forgotten all this time!

Zeus be with you

[sixdollarchampagne]

I am still a believer, owing to some personal experiences. Briefly, once as I was crossing a big intersection at night, I got hit by a car being driven on the pedestrian crosswalk under a red light (the driver wanted to change direction). I walked away from that encounter, with just a scratch under my knee. Another time, a driver some distance away from where I was crossing a street sped up, and his car jumped the curb and landed on the grass next to me, close enough to leave dirt from the the car's tire on my pants leg. (For that encounter, I have witnesses, three atheist friends of mine, since we were all walking home from town, together.) Once, on a beautiful spring afternoon, with a light rain, lightning hit the sidewalk some yards in front of me. If I had been in a hurry, I would have been struck by the lightning.

When I was younger, just after college, I did military service for nearly four years, during wartime, without getting so much as a scratch.

In all those cases, if the circumstances had been a little different, I would not be here now, so yes, I firmly believe we are not alone in the universe. I would have to deny my own life experience, in order not to be a believer.

That said, I have to admit that I have no explanation for innocent suffering, which we see all around us. There must be some chaos in the universe, I guess.

[DDR]

No, but if I have to belive in any god it would be Diego Armando Maradona :P

[sixdollarchampagne]

It may be of some interest that the total in the "Atheist Census" is currently 189,955. This census is sponsored by Atheist Alliance International.

For the sake of comparison, the Southern Baptist Convention represents over 16 million Christians in the US. That's a single denomination, in one country. So, I guess one could say that non-belief still has a ways to go, to catch up with religion.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Do you think my luck would turn around if I started praying to the old Greek gods?:confused: I'm sure they're a bit upset about being forgotten all this time! ...

Since they don't exist, I doubt they feel anything. To expand on that just a bit, I do believe that history has shown, conclusively, that the old deities of pagan antiquity were imaginary. I am as sure of that, as I am of the truth of monotheism. Of course, kázhdomy svahyó, "to each, his own."

[Red Nightmare]

It may be of some interest that the total in the "Atheist Census" is currently 189,955. This census is sponsored by Atheist Alliance International.

For the sake of comparison, the Southern Baptist Convention represents over 16 million Christians in the US. That's a single denomination, in one country. So, I guess one could say that non-belief still has a ways to go, to catch up with religion.

The truth is still true even if nobody believes it, a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

[one10]

I wonder why so many leftists are atheists.

There are many religions, many with diferent views about what a god is, for example, there is one religion that considers that the universe is god, and other that considers that god is the universe. (these are very diferent from one another)
Usually when people criticize religion they criticize only monotheistic religions, like catholicism and islamism, and ignore other religions such as paganism and buddhism.

I will vote uncertain because this poll is only adequate for monotheistic religions.

Any religion that considers god to be the universe and vice versa deserves to be stripped of all credibility.

For one, the definition of a god is the personification of a supernatural being/deity that is to be worshipped. There is nothing supernatural about the universe, it is very much natural as there is nothing supernatural about the evident existence of planets, stars, space, matter, and energy. If one wants to worship the universe, that's fine with me (although I find it entirely pointless), but to say you believe in god because the Universe is god or vice versa just sounds plain stupid.

I don't believe in any gods and find religion to be both counter-revolutionary and detrimental to humanity.

Buddhism included. Buddhist societies are not void of the sex scandals and cover ups that plague the religions of the world, the hierarchy of Buddhism has a gender bias in favor of males, and worst of all, Buddhism dehumanizes suffering, leading to the acceptance of "unavoidable" evil.

[Tenka]

...
There must be some chaos in the universe, I guess.

Chaos if chaos be understood as merely a lack of purposeful order, there is. You appear to have narrowly evaded death many times, so that it seems uncanny, and that perhaps a benevolent God was looking out for you. But why you, of all people? And what was God saving you from if not that which He put in your life? Or was it He...? On the same evidence we could surmise that, just maybe, there are several Gods who enjoy fighting over the lives of mortals, one throwing you a bolt of lightning, another making that one miss, etc.

On a more earnest note, I will say that I believe in a vulgar and indifferent Creator (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/).

[VDS]

I personally believe in a God. That's really all I have to say. I don't force it on anyone, I don't let it affect my judgement as to what is right or wrong, and I don't give a good goddamn about what anyone else believes.

[Dropdead]

No, I do not.

[Djoko]

It's obvius that there's no god and that all religions are lies

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm an agnostic. Mostly because of my scientist-thinking: when there is no evidence, how can you know?
Oh, and i don't believe in dialectical-reasoning. So...

[Rusakov]

No, I do not believe. If anything, I am incapable of that kind of belief and, in the case of some gods, wonder why anyone would want them to exist at all.

[Vercingetorix]

There is never only one of anything. Nothing is so scarce.

If a diety exists, multiple dieties exist.

The idea of a single, all knowing, all loving diety does not square with the things I have observed. The idea of multiple dieties is possible, and I'll confess I have more of a draw to the polytheistic gods of my ancestors, and to their decentralized religious dogma, than I ever had to the modern authoritarian religions of this world, and the dead gods that they worship.

[The Vox Populi]

Yes. I have seen much evidence for both sides of the argument. But I look at how the universe works, how the world works, biology. Everything that I see has a design, nothing that a chance explosion could kick start. I see a case for a creator. I believe while it is hard to believe a god created our entire reality from exnihilo, it's equally hard to believe that random gases pulled together in a zero g environment and then spontaneously explode creating life forms with utmost precision.

No matter what, it takes faith to believe either.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Yes. I have seen much evidence for both sides of the argument. But I look at how the universe works, how the world works, biology. Everything that I see has a design, nothing that a chance explosion could kick start. I see a case for a creator. I believe while it is hard to believe a god created our entire reality from exnihilo, it's equally hard to believe that random gases pulled together in a zero g environment and then spontaneously explode creating life forms with utmost precision.

No matter what, it takes faith to believe either.

You have evidence of both sides? How interresting! Please share them for i have no evidence for either side. (hence my agnosticism)

[Bardo]

No.

Although I'm not as militant as I used to be about my atheism. I'm not really interested in proving religion wrong or debating religion.

I'd prefer it if people weren't preoccupied with religious stuff, but to each their own.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The question never posed itself to me. I never saw a reason to take the abstract notion of a "God" seriously.

[baz]

yes. it is though my religion that i became convinced in the inherent morality of a collectivist approach to to life. not gonna beat your over the head with it though.

[UncleLenin]

I voted 'uncertain' because I am more of an agnostic.

[CarolinianFire]

I am a Strong Agnostic in that I do not claim to know whether or not god(s) exist, and I do not believe it is possible to know if god(s) exist. The concept of a god as we currently know it makes it impossible to prove one's existence as the only type of "evidence" that can be presented is a subjective experience.

[RedMoslem]

Yes, I do.

[Unumundisto]

I'm a communist, but I'm not an Atheist, and I'm not a Materialist.

(I don't capitalize "communist", because, in the U.S., capitalized "Communist" would be likely to be interpreted more specifically, as reference to the CPUSA.)

I don't perceive religion as something to promote to people who aren't interested or who prefer to believe otherwise. It can come up naturally in discussions, circumstances or experience, but there's no reason to assert on that topic, make an argument about it, or promote about it.

I don't perceive religion as a public debate-issue.

Nearly all here seem to be in agreement on that, both the Atheists and those who aren't Atheists.

But, while we're on the subject:

There was a line in some play (Shakespeare?) that said:

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

We shouldn't be quick to assume that our philosophy is complete. In metaphysics, a sure way to be wrong is to be sure that you're completely right.

Unumundisto

[Tolstoy]

Wish I could change my answer to NO, ive abandoned both pantheism and theism once I came to terms with my PTSD and realized I dont need a 2000 year old zombie to be happy

[TheFalseprophet]

I'm a deist and that means I believe in a god that created the universe and left it alone but I don't believe in the evil christian god who murder Egyptian babies.

[Comrade Jacob]

By most people's definition of 'God' I am most certainly an atheist.

[Rosa Partizan]

I used to be a deist, meaning I believed in kind of a non-personal god that's not involved in our lives. However, I became more and more uncertain about his existence in general, wondering why he should be there at all if he's not interested in "us". Now I find myself in agnosticism.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I believe that before anything existed, there existed consciousness, which spontaneously created the universe and is simply following the rule of creating more and more order. As in, complex systems. Basically, WE are the universe experiencing itself subjectively, so WE are god. And when we die, I believe in reincarnation until we escape the cycle.

I know people are going to make fun of that, but it's what I think makes the most sense.

[Comrade Jacob]

I believe that before anything existed, there existed consciousness, which spontaneously created the universe and is simply following the rule of creating more and more order. As in, complex systems. Basically, WE are the universe experiencing itself subjectively, so WE are god. And when we die, I believe in reincarnation until we escape the cycle.

I know people are going to make fun of that, but it's what I think makes the most sense.

I won't make fun of that, I think it's an interesting philosophy and is plausible and may well be probable. But is subjective to what you want to define 'god' as.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I won't make fun of that, I think it's an interesting philosophy and is plausible and may well be probable. But is subjective to what you want to define 'god' as.

I think this mainly because I find it is a similar belief in the core of every religion. Siddhartha Guatama, Jesus (his actual teachings taken from early Christian sects), certain Native American beliefs, etc.

Also, Tom Campbell's my big theory of everything is interesting. He's a quantum physicist.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

no, but I do not claim to have any objective knowledge that this is the case and I acknowledge the possibility that a god could exist (albeit one with motivations and thought processes apparently entirely opaque to the human mind)

[Marshal of the People]

No I don't, I only believe in things which I know exist.

[Primagen]

I'd say I'm a theistic agnostic. A lot of what I believe is based on Buddhism, with some elements of Judaism. Karma is very important it to me, and I regard being a helpful, charitable person as being more important than doing any rituals or following lists of do-nots. I don't start theology debates with people because I know my religious beliefs aren't any more veritably true than theirs. I am a secularist, though, so politically I might as well be an atheist. Anyway, I'm not too concerned with having the right theology, because I believe we'll be "judged" more on our character than on our beliefs.

[CPN]

God doesn't exist and i'm glad to say that.

[Multiaccounting]

Yes, as a Roman Catholic I do believe in God.

[Atsumari]

I am a secular Jew and I do not believe in God. The reason why Judaism appeals to me so much was largely their conception of justice which is largely about humanity's collective responsibility to fix the world. I never liked Christianity because it seemed to discourage change in the real world prepare you for Heaven without giving a damn what happens elsewhere.

[Multiaccounting]

I never liked Christianity because it seemed to discourage change in the real world prepare you for Heaven without giving a damn what happens elsewhere.

I can see how you might get that impression from the Bible and other Christian books, which tend to focus heavily on the spiritual. But in my experience Christians are called to go make a difference in the world. To "bring God into the world" as I heard it put once. Just my perspective on it.

[Christian Insurrectionist]

God is dead, and God is love

(in other words, yes)

[Comrade Jacob]

By most people's definition of 'God' I am most certainly an atheist.

In other words: NO.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

"Uncertain" should count as "no." Lack of belief is not the same as an active disbelief. It may be simply due to a failure of persuasion. So, one who is uncertain, does not actively believe. So while it falls short of "I believe there are no gods," such a person does not believe in gods.

Anyway, I am convinced that there is nothing supernatural in the universe. It's all made from the same kinds of stuff and a failure to understand it is not an invitation to invoke a supernatural explanation. Saying something is supernatural is just another way of saying, "I have no idea, but do not want to admit that."

[keine_zukunft]

agnostic. no one can know either way. so chill out and find out when you die. could go to heaven or nothing could happen.

[4thInter]

No, tine cant exist without a universe which there was no, nothing existed so therefore god existed. Secondly god can't be proven with the scientific theory.;)
Hawking made a very profound state my on the subject.

[GalickyH]

No, there is no reason to believe in god(s).

[[email protected]]

for example, there is one religion that considers that the universe is god, and other that considers that god is the universe. (these are very diferent from one another)


What is the former? It sounds pretty much congruent with my own beliefs and I didn't know there was a name for that.

[Rafiq]

I think while we can recognize of course there are no gods, once we overlook our atheist insecurities it is important to recognize the real implications of belief in a god, and what they mean in different context. And of coarse here I mean Robespierre's cult of the supreme being. Robespierre claimed that atheism was aristocratic, and that the idea of a god that watches over the oppressed, defends them and so on is inherently popular. Though if we look at this closer, within the context of the development of revolutionary-radical bourgeois ideology I think there is a grain of truth to this, I would even go as far as saying it is relevant to Communism. Of coarse there is no god, of coarse it's nonsense, but the point is not that there is some conscious being which the Jacobins devoted themselves to, rather this conscious being was the absolute legitimization of their real revolutionary ideas: That their cause is not only legitimate on Earth, but is legitimate by right of divine providence. That the enemies of the "oppressed" could hide nowhere, the universe itself was on the side of the 'people' (against the aristocrats) I think in this sense the Communists too are distinguished from traditional atheism in that we are post-atheists. Because we understand the nature of things, as materialists (as a result of the development of what became modern science in the 19th century) we do not have a 'supreme being' rather our legitimization is derived from such science itself, humans and their social relationships to each other, our divine providence is instead replaced with our understanding of the existing order and the nature of power. Whole truth must necessarily be synonymous with Communist ideology, and the Jacobins, the revolutionary bourgeoisie had taken truth for themselves by appropriating from the previous ruling ideology the idea of a 'god' - the Communists then take truth for themselves by appropriating from the ruling ideology the scientific method and the present standards of reason, truth. Thus reason itself is on the side of the damned, the exploited, the legitimization of their own power (the bourgeoisie) turns on itself, and becomes a weapon of the exploited classes (And look how today, hegemonic ideology more and more embeds itself with mysticism and vulgar politics, turning on its own intial presumptions, just as the feudal aristocracy had turned on their own presumptions by swathing themselves in corruption and hedonistic decadence, the concept of a 'god' and all that was previously holy now belonged the revolutionary bourgeoisie and they legitimized themselves as such). Marx spoke ill of bourgeois atheists not because he believed religion and idealism was attacked to heavily, rather he spoke ill of them because they were in effect further legitimizing the existing order (like New atheists do today). We already know there are no gods, (just as we congratulate and recognize the achievements in technology, and so on, as we are not reactionaries) the time for dealing with existing conditions, the class struggle and the struggle against bourgeois rationalism, for Marx, was of primary importance.

Of coarse today it is much more complicated and a lot different: Today the defense of atheism is all the more important with reactionary developments in bourgeois ideology (religious revival, new age spiritualism, and so on). Religion today is not a phenomena fading away with the triumph of capital doing away with old superstitions, rather capital has reached a desperate and vicious point where it will eat away its first children: Capital today legitimizes itself with mysticism and religion, turning against enlightenment values of bourgeois rationalism, even of civic values, democracy, and so on. The progressive legacy of capitalism is thus handed down to those who will do away with capitalism: the revolutionary proletariat. They do not replicate these old ideas, rather they must remind us that they can no longer coincide with the interests of capital, that for everyone the only choice that remains is Communism or barbarism. The future of civilization itself thus depends on the revival of the proletarian movement and a new Communism.

[consuming negativity]

What is the former? It sounds pretty much congruent with my own beliefs and I didn't know there was a name for that.

Pantheism is the concept that the universe and divinity are the same thing (the former), whereas panentheism is the concept that the universe is a part of god. You might also want to look into the concept of monism, which is the idea that everything is made from the same underlying essence.

[The Undecided]

Uncertain. I believe that the existence of a deity (or multiple deities), as of right now, can't be proven or disproven. I do, however, sometimes believe that a deity (or multiple deities) exists. I'm unsure if I believe or not.

[Red Eagle]

No there has been countless of God's ahich are used to explain how things worked. Marxism gives a materialist analysis of history and how the universe functions and from what we have seen through modern science there is no need or place for god. Every supernatural thing that has been attributed to god have been disproven. Also religions are used to control the masses and keep people idle and ingorant. Religion also teaches metaphysical ideas that distract people from their material conditions which in turn is juxtaposed to revolution.

[The Disillusionist]

I consider myself ignostic. I think that there might be some kind of force or something, but unless that can be determined, it's not worth worrying about. I also really think that all this trendy militant atheism that's been going around is counterproductive, because the existence of a deity is ultimately rather irrelevant to reality. What we should really worry about, and what we should really question people about, are the more basic things that so many people take for granted. Are society's ideas about gender and race legitimate? Are rights real? Etc, etc, etc...

[RedKobra]

No, I don't believe a god exists. A god could exist, potentially, but that really isn't the issue. Plenty of things could be true but without a body of evidence behind it it remains beyond our understanding. The question should be 'Is it reasonable and justifiable to believe that a god exists?' and to that I say absolutely not. If a god does exist it certainly isn't evident from the evidence that I've been presented with. Miracles, scripture, personal religious experiences, mythic tales, religious wisdom, philosophical apologetics & pseudo-science have so far left me substantially underwhelmed.

Also, to really answer the question with any kind of precision its important to know what exactly is meant by god because at times it can feel like an ever moving target, always just out of reach. God is Jesus, God is the universe, God is love, God is nature, God is our conscience, God is the master, God is the creator, God is the destroyer, God is...God is...God is...

One of the reasons I'm so distrustful of religious claims is that the arguments that I'm supposed to weigh are so unforensic. God is specific until cornered and then becomes nebulous. Give me a claim and I will consider it but don't give me a claim that is not at the very least a supporting pillar of your argument. I want to hear the best arguments a Theist/Deist can offer but then if I am unconvinced and can justify it your argument falls and takes your god with it.

Ultimately its all pretty academic. Now, back to the politics...:grin:

[contracycle]

If agnostics say they believe that the existence of god cannot, categorically cannot, be proven, then they must also believe that every person who has claimed divine contact and insight must have lied (or been deluded). In which case, what grounds are there for even considering the possibility of god, since the only reason we have for it at all are claims passed down to us by those same liars?

Arguments about the origin of the universe, while not exactly meaningless, are nevertheless useless. It's an unanswerable question, however unsatisfying that may be. The claim that the universe must have come from something, therefore it came from god, only begs the question where god came from; that is, it doesn't even actually answer the question at all.

And this isn't even the worst of it. The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite arguably makes even less sense. And on top of that there is the 'ancestor simulation' problem...

We may not understand reality very well, or even much, but none of these problems are made more sensible by adding god to them.

[Subversive]

If agnostics say they believe that the existence of god cannot, categorically cannot, be proven, then they must also believe that every person who has claimed divine contact and insight must have lied (or been deluded). In which case, what grounds are there for even considering the possibility of god, since the only reason we have for it at all are claims passed down to us by those same liars?
By definition an agnostic should not be convinced that others who suggest they have had divine contact, or etc, are liars or deluded.
By definition the agnostic position must be that no one can know, therefore they cannot know whether the act was divine or delusion and must not make a conclusion. Furthermore, they must also believe that the individual who experienced the event cannot know it either.
If they are to make the assumption that the individual is a liar or is deluded then they are foregoing the agnostic position and accepting atheism, the position that there are no gods.

So the agnostic position must be, and forever must remain, that no one can know the truth, unless evidence to prove one way or the other is demonstrable. If they are to accept anything but this position it is nothing more than hypocrisy unless they also accept they are no longer agnostic.

If it helps, think of belief as a line with two extremes on each end.
On one end is belief in dieties, on the other is belief there are no dieties.
Agnostics are the ones who put themselves in the middle, neither believing or disbelieving.



Arguments about the origin of the universe, while not exactly meaningless, are nevertheless useless. It's an unanswerable question, however unsatisfying that may be. The claim that the universe must have come from something, therefore it came from god, only begs the question where god came from; that is, it doesn't even actually answer the question at all.
Depends on your definition of "god".
If "god" is the origin of all things, then it is fair to say that the universe comes from god. It is another way of saying 'the universe comes from the origin of all things'.
And it is true that almost all monotheistic religions pose that god is the origin of all things. Therefore their beliefs are a little less redundant or circular than they might appear.

It is when a religious doctrine introduces other elements of god wherein it might become a problem. The question becomes 'Why?' and then 'How do we know?', the course of which the answer ultimately comes down to either "faith" (the forfeiture of logic) or experience (subjective truth).

I will also point out that the agnostic and atheistic positions both also resort to either faith and experience. No position yet provides an "objective" truth which can be known - or else we would already have our answers.

My point being that religion is not nearly as circular or illogical as you might believe it to be. All positions require assumptions about reality, and almost all require assumptions about the origin of the universe (again, including atheism).
The very nature of human existence requires assumptions about reality - our mind cannot exist without them. To attempt to eliminate them would drive us insane. They are a fundamental part of thought itself.



And this isn't even the worst of it. The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite arguably makes even less sense. And on top of that there is the 'ancestor simulation' problem...
Why does this not make sense?
There is no question about it - the universe is finite. We know this, scientifically. We have detected the Cosmic Background Radiation and can see that the amount of energy in the universe is finite, limited.

However, we also know that the universe is expanding, and many believe it to be expanding into infinity.
So it can only be called "infinite" in terms of totality - and this has also yet to be proven and may never be proven.



We may not understand reality very well, or even much, but none of these problems are made more sensible by adding god to them.
Once again, it depends on your definition of "god".
It also depends on your experiences and your knowledge.

Perhaps it is true for you that nothing is made more sensible by adding "god", but to another human being: It is the only thing that makes sense.

I thought that this would perhaps help some of you to understand religion a bit better.

[RedKobra]

So the agnostic position must be, and forever must remain, that no one can know the truth, unless evidence to prove one way or the other is demonstrable. If they are to accept anything but this position it is nothing more than hypocrisy unless they also accept they are no longer agnostic.
If it helps, think of belief as a line with two extremes on each end.
On one end is belief in dieties, on the other is belief there are no dieties.
Agnostics are the ones who put themselves in the middle, neither believing or disbelieving.

I'm not sure a gradiated god/not god dichotomy is adequate.

I am not innately aware that a god exists, so I am reliant on persuasion (inc. but not limited to evidence). The case for a god likely existing can either be met or not but even if it was not met a lesser case could be made for the coherence, at the very least, of the proposition. For example someone could fail to persued me that the existence for god was more likely than not but they could succeed in at least convincing me that the hypothesis is credible. This, to date, has not been met. I reject that the case for god has been made and that the hypothesis is a remotely credible explanation of any phenomenon or philosophical question.

So where do I belong on this line? I don't claim "god", whatever that means, does not exist. I don't claim "god", could not exist. There are people who profess that kind of hard Atheism so clearly I don't belong with them. I also don't claim that nobody knows whether god exists, if god does exist and is a being worth knowing then there is every likelihood someone would know. I don't agree with "Agnostics" that we can never know. That's an absurd claim. Clearly if a god demonstrated beyond all doubt to all people that it existed then we would know. So I am not an Agnostic. But Agnosticism is ridiculous anyway, its predicated on a totally abnormal standard. We don't only assess propositions that can be proven, categorically. That's almost Positivism. We asses propositions on their probability of being the case. The standard will differ depending on the claim but all we have to do is establish on the balance of probability that a proposition is true. Absolute knowledge is a red herring anyway. There is precious little beyond mathematics that we know absolutely. Agnosticism is just dodging the question.

So, again, I don't know where exactly I would go on a line between Atheism at one end and Theism at the other.



Depends on your definition of "god".
If "god" is the origin of all things, then it is fair to say that the universe comes from god. It is another way of saying 'the universe comes from the origin of all things'.
And it is true that almost all monotheistic religions pose that god is the origin of all things. Therefore their beliefs are a little less redundant or circular than they might appear.

God would need to be clearly defined otherwise you're just playing semantics, substituting "god" for "unknown cause of the universe". There really is no need. God violates Ocham's razor as it smuggles in bundles of other implications and assumptions. "unknown cause of the universe" doesn't, it is an accurate and exact statement. For the record, in physics terms "cause of the universe" is a touch contentious. The universe encompasses time and space, "cause" implies precedence and action upon. Clearly when you're talking about an as yet un-thing temporally and spatially it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about anything preceding it or acting upon it.



It is when a religious doctrine introduces other elements of god wherein it might become a problem. The question becomes 'Why?' and then 'How do we know?', the course of which the answer ultimately comes down to either "faith" (the forfeiture of logic) or experience (subjective truth).

I will also point out that the agnostic and atheistic positions both also resort to either faith and experience. No position yet provides an "objective" truth which can be known - or else we would already have our answers.

Atheism, if that is what someone like me is, doesn't rely on faith in the slightest. I would say faith is the sustaining of belief through hope and expectation, not necessarily in the absence of solid reason but at least when solid reason is not strong enough. If you know something to be the case then it would hardly require faith would it? If we define it this way then I fail to see in what way an Atheist has faith. To begin with I do not have said belief, let alone am I sustaining it and thus I do not require hope and expectation. I don't hope there is no god, I am ambivalent and I only don't have the expectation that there isn't a god in the same sense that I don't have an expectation that my MiG Fighter Jet will get stolen from my garage. (I don't own a jet fighter, or for that matter have a garage)


My point being that religion is not nearly as circular or illogical as you might believe it to be. All positions require assumptions about reality, and almost all require assumptions about the origin of the universe (again, including atheism).
The very nature of human existence requires assumptions about reality - our mind cannot exist without them. To attempt to eliminate them would drive us insane. They are a fundamental part of thought itself.

I would say that it was circular and almost definitionally illogical. Logic being the study of reason. Reason rests on our ability to weigh propositions and evidence, to examine the soundness of an argument and to apply probabilities to various outcomes. Religion rests on supernaturalism, which suggests that what we see is not real and what is real we do not see. The problems stack up for religion however because the moment something becomes material and tangible it is detectable and if it is detectable then we can measure it and unfortunately for religion we have never measured something that did not obey the laws of nature. So, Religion retreats back to its supernaturalism but once again now we have a phenomenon that is intangible and undetectable. In what sense is this to be distinguished from the actually not existing?

The only presumptions Atheism should make is that all things are known provisionally and rest on solid argument. The reason Athiests are Athiests is because they reject the arguments for god as weak, not because they have dogmatic commitments to disbelief.



Why does this not make sense?
There is no question about it - the universe is finite. We know this, scientifically. We have detected the Cosmic Background Radiation and can see that the amount of energy in the universe is finite, limited.

However, we also know that the universe is expanding, and many believe it to be expanding into infinity.
So it can only be called "infinite" in terms of totality - and this has also yet to be proven and may never be proven.


Once again, it depends on your definition of "god".
It also depends on your experiences and your knowledge.

Perhaps it is true for you that nothing is made more sensible by adding "god", but to another human being: It is the only thing that makes sense.

I thought that this would perhaps help some of you to understand religion a bit better.

The universe is finite in terms of energy, yes, but the cosmic background radiation only validates the theory of the big bang. That in itself does not imply the universe began to exist or was caused. The universe is expanding and will drift apart and cool and die. Infinity is a mindf*ck, not even gonna touch that one.

Something making sense to someone doesn't in anyway lend credence to something. There are people for whom the only explenation that makes any sense is that 9/11 was an inside job. Nothing else makes any sense or offers any closure. There are peope who believe the Illuminati are behind everything and its the only thing that makes sense. Its objectively true that they think this. Does that validate either theory? not a chance.

[cobrawolf_meiji]

I believe in God, even through I am Communist.

[Rudolf]

No gods for me, it seems way too much like people looking into the darkness and seeing in there a reflection of themselves only enlarged and deified.

Oh and i dislike agnosticism, eternal fence-sitting is bullshit. "Oh but you can't prove eitherway" So? You could say that about an untold number of magical beings but no one fence-sits when it comes to whether there's magic rat-people living in my cupboard only god(s) precisely because there are people who believe it. Thats not a principled stand against making claims without evidence that's just humouring people.

[Guardia Rossa]

Skeptical atheist, apatheist.
So No.

Cientifism is also a religion. "All praise Einstein, our good Lord"

[Subversive]

I'm not sure a gradiated god/not god dichotomy is adequate.
Why not? Are 'belief' and 'not belief' not opposing ideologies? Would everyone's beliefs not fall along this line somewhere?



I am not innately aware that a god exists, so I am reliant on persuasion (inc. but not limited to evidence). The case for a god likely existing can either be met or not but even if it was not met a lesser case could be made for the coherence, at the very least, of the proposition.
And I explained some of this "coherence" in my last post. Are you denying it? Why? You are not providing argument or reasoning - you are only rejecting.


For example someone could fail to persued me that the existence for god was more likely than not but they could succeed in at least convincing me that the hypothesis is credible. This, to date, has not been met. I reject that the case for god has been made and that the hypothesis is a remotely credible explanation of any phenomenon or philosophical question.
This is merely just a representation of your own bias, without explanation or reasoning so that I could clarify the issue for you. Without you providing any depth into why you do not find god/religion/etc. to be "remotely credible" I can not take a position other than the one I have previously already indicated.
You must provide reasoning or explanation - otherwise you seem to intend only to say "I wish to remain ignorant of the argument for religion". And if that is the case then by all means feel free, so long as you recognize ignorance for ignorance and do not mistake it for knowledge.



So where do I belong on this line? I don't claim "god", whatever that means, does not exist. I don't claim "god", could not exist. There are people who profess that kind of hard Atheism so clearly I don't belong with them.
You would belong, on the scale I indicated earlier, somewhere between the middle (Pure Agnosticism) and the farthest side (Pure Atheism). Thus making you an 'Agnostic Atheist'.

Some utilize a two-scale chart, rather than a line. One axis resolving degree of belief, the other axis regarding degree of stated knowledge. Though I personally do not find the extra scale to be beneficial or meaningful.
Here is an example of such a chart: http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/files/2012/09/gnosticism_graph.png
Though I personally feel something like this would be more meaningful than an actual chart if we were to use it:
http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/files/2013/08/nb2mO.jpg

Though both include a misleading term, "Gnostic", which is also the name for a specific type of Christianity that is mostly extinct now due to persecution by other Christians. It also disregards 'Pure Agnosticism' as a position, which I personally know actually does exist. And, of course, also introduces an unnecessary axis which is only adding confusion to a very simple issue.



I also don't claim that nobody knows whether god exists, if god does exist and is a being worth knowing then there is every likelihood someone would know.
If you do not claim that nobody knows, then why is it you reject others' claims that they know? As well, why do you think it is that you personally do not know?
Are you merely suggesting that they might know but you have not been able to talk to anyone who could successfully explain it to you?
Furthermore, do you think it possible that this may be because you have not honestly attempted to listen to such?



I don't agree with "Agnostics" that we can never know. That's an absurd claim.
The position of Agnosticism is not only that no one can know, but also includes anyone who believes they do not know, as well as including those who believe that know one currently knows but may know someday in the future.
Agnosticism does not simply hold one single definition, like most religious terms.


Clearly if a god demonstrated beyond all doubt to all people that it existed then we would know.
Yet, of course, no one believes this will ever happen except for, maybe, a few crazy cults.
So this is merely a redundant statement, an equivalent to stating: 'If the truth proves itself to everyone then everyone would know the truth.'
It is also purely a theoretical situation, as well. No honest person, religious or otherwise, would ever count on such an event to form a conclusion.



So I am not an Agnostic.
If you do not believe that you know enough to say whether god(s) exist or not, then you are agnostic.
If you find it probable that god(s) exist, but cannot confirm it, you are an agnostic theist.
If you find it probable that god(s) do not exist, but cannot confirm it, you are an agnostic atheist.
If you believe strongly one way or the other about god(s) existence, you are a theist or an atheist.

As stated above, I believe you fit under the term 'agnostic atheist' from what I gather of your statements.



But Agnosticism is ridiculous anyway, its predicated on a totally abnormal standard. We don't only assess propositions that can be proven, categorically. That's almost Positivism. We asses propositions on their probability of being the case. The standard will differ depending on the claim but all we have to do is establish on the balance of probability that a proposition is true. Absolute knowledge is a red herring anyway. There is precious little beyond mathematics that we know absolutely. Agnosticism is just dodging the question.
To be fair, you are actually arguing FOR agnosticism in this case.
You are merely stating: 'We can never possess true knowledge, therefore nothing is truly knowable.'
Yet at the same time you are disregarding the exact same position which holds this belief. A true irony.

I will also note that, in general, this position is called 'epistemological nihilism': Meaning the belief that true knowledge does not really exist and that all knowledge is subjective. You may waver on the issue of mathematics, but if we really got into this discussion then I have no doubt that, if it were my prerogative, I could convince you otherwise on that issue as well. Mathematics is actually extremely easy to dismiss as "Truth", since it is a purely theoretical concept and only tied to reality abstractly.

Though, I will note, it is not my intention to convince you to dismiss all knowledge. Rather, I want you to embrace it. Therefore I reject your position that knowledge is unobtainable. I see a chair, I know a chair. I see a sky, I know a sky. Thus knowledge is obtained. I need no more proof than this.


So, again, I don't know where exactly I would go on a line between Atheism at one end and Theism at the other.
I already stated where, but to express the methodology: It depends on the strength of your belief, of course. It is a scale with only one axis, it is quite simple if you simply measure that one scale. You have obviously indicated you profess some belief against, but not fully, therefore you lean on the side of Atheism. I cannot state exactly where, as the scale is relative, as well as that I do not know enough about you to say.



God would need to be clearly defined otherwise you're just playing semantics, substituting "god" for "unknown cause of the universe". There really is no need. God violates Ocham's razor as it smuggles in bundles of other implications and assumptions. "unknown cause of the universe" doesn't, it is an accurate and exact statement.
Most religions define "God" by other means. You are overlooking my point. I was merely indicating but one trait they apply.

As for the Occham's Razor thing: That is a very Atheistic argument. I have heard it so many times.
To get straight to the point: Occam's Razor is extremely subject, as well as logically incomplete.

First, Occam's Razor states nothing about truth. It does not define or indicate truth - it is merely a tool that has been used to search for truth. A 'path of least resistance', if you will. It, alone, guarantee's absolutely nothing. No truth can be gathered from Occam's Razor except that it is the most feasible and realistic approach to scientifically seeking knowledge.
It has no logical completeness in its own worth. It would be logically invalid to assume it a law or that the first conclusion is always the right conclusion - a mistake that many people often make when referencing it.
There is no mistaking this point - It is a very important one.

Second, Occam's Razor is actually violated upon subjectivity. If one user holds subjective experience that allows them to make one conclusion, meanwhile another user holds a different subjective experience (sometimes being the lack thereof), they will come to different conclusions, yet both use Occam's Razor.
If it is assumed that all conclusions by all people must be the same when utilizing the Razor - then you have yet to actually understand what razor really is.
One thing indicative of this trait is that Occam's Razor also states: 'All other things being the same'. Thus meaning, all users must experience the same events to successfully form the same conclusion. Otherwise meaning, there can be no subjectivity in the formation of a conclusion.

And, if referring back to my first point because it is so important, the conclusions made from a successful use of Occam's Razor (if all other things are allowed to be the same) are not necessarily true - it only gives you somewhere to start searching for that truth. Again, it is not a law or anything as such. To mistake it as one would be very illogical.

So if you wish to speak about violating Occam's Razor then you may first want to fully understand what this actually means.



For the record, in physics terms "cause of the universe" is a touch contentious. The universe encompasses time and space, "cause" implies precedence and action upon. Clearly when you're talking about an as yet un-thing temporally and spatially it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about anything preceding it or acting upon it.
Sure, if you want to talk semantics.
However, I will also point out that I actually used the term "origin of all things and not "cause of the universe".

I will also note that I hate arguing over semantics, so I see no point in such a discussion. If you wish to discuss them then it would be best if you did this with someone else. Concepts, meanings, and understandings is what is important - not the words used to express them.

Furthermore, I will also note that I am very aware of the subjects I speak of. I feel that explanations are unnecessary unless you are trying to make a real point with them, a point other than mere semantics.



Atheism, if that is what someone like me is, doesn't rely on faith in the slightest.
It depends how you are defining 'Atheism', but I would argue that no matter your definition: You are clearly wrong.

As I indicated before, all people require assumptions about reality just to think, it is a natural attribute of thought.
You must, for example, believe that what you observe, everything you believe, the things you feel, and etc. are all "real". You can only assume this because there is no proof that these things are real - proof would require a system independent of observable reality for comparison, but obviously there is no such thing you could detect - because the act of detecting it would make it an observable reality.
The alternative to these assumptions is to believe either all or some things you perceive are not real, and that you cannot know one from the other - a concept that would literally drive you insane.

And what is faith but a number of assumptions someone believes are necessary?

Therefore, if you accept this basic premise - then you should accept that all positions regarding reality, regardless of type, are at least partially faith-based. And if you do not accept it, then I would argue that you are denying the reality of your situation. There is no argument against this if you are to be truly honest.

So you will have to admit that all positions regarding reality must accept some faith. This includes Atheism.
But Atheism is not exceptional in the fact that it assumes nothing else - it is the position that assumes that god(s) do not exist. But what proof does anyone hold that god(s) do not exist?

Atheists often argue that Atheism is not the position of belief that god(s) do not exist, but the disbelief or rejection of belief in the existence of god(s) - yet this is merely a rubbish semantics argument. There is no true distinction to be found.
This semantics argument is used to split assumptions about reality from non-assumptions about reality - yet again there is clearly no distinction here because all positions regarding reality are assumptions, they are all faith-based. It is meaningless semantics.

So you are indeed wrong. Atheism holds faith just as Theists hold faith. The only distinction to be held there is whether they are Theist or Atheist. The basis of faith is the same.

And before you attempt to split 'Theism' from it's whole, attempting to suggest that things like Fundamentalism are completely faith-based while Atheism supposes only minimal faith, then you are attempting to compare a specific group of individuals with a generalized umbrella term, an obvious logical error. There are indeed many Atheists who are extreme in their position - believing completely in faith that god(s) do not exist, some going so far as to suggest 'all religion should be destroyed'. Sound familiar? It is the same position extremist-conservative religious people take: that all other religious positions should be abolished.

So I must reject the entirety of you claim: Atheism is by all means a faith-based position. The problem here is very simple, really. Atheism is simply posed as a position that reject a certain type of faith and therefore superficially appears to be without faith entirely. The way it is natural to think of this even makes it seem this way. Yet, in reality, it is merely the position of a different kind of faith. A conversion of one type of faith to another.


I would say faith is the sustaining of belief through hope and expectation, not necessarily in the absence of solid reason but at least when solid reason is not strong enough.
Faith, by definition, is a belief held without proof, most often defined as a belief that is held only on trust or confidence.

For example: Faith that your wife will never cheat on you.
This kind of faith is based on trust, based on the belief that you know this person well. It is not based on proof because such proof would require knowing the future, an impossibility. Yet, I don't think there are many people on Earth who would not agree that trust is very important.
It is merely when you introduce this concept of trust/faith into touchy issues, like religion, it becomes an issue. And a meaningful issue - because in the wrong hands, the 'trust' or faith in religion or religious people has known to be deadly, bloody, violent.

So how do we objectify this situation? Simply - faith itself is not the problem. It is the faith combined with a lack of reason and an inability to control emotions, such as anger, that leads to all of our social problems regarding religion.
Religion itself, faith or not, is not necessarily harmful. A religion can be reasonable, it can even be logical. In fact, the entire philosophy of Theology is the study of Religion using logic. The harmful nature of religion only results from that which is already destructive: unreasonable or emotional people.

One might argue that religion is able to brainwash, to create ignorance: But is it not these same unreasonable and emotional people who are stating the religion-as-truth who are the ones brainwashing people, causing the ignorance? It is these people, and their want and desire for power, and their inability to rationalize, whom are the issue.
These people are not always religious - many times they are political. Some are even Atheists. I'd even argue that Richard Dawkins, one of the most famed-Atheists, is not a truly rational person. He understands logic - but only uses it as far as his emotions aren't getting in the way. He is, essentially, like a Church-leader for the irrational Atheists of the world.


If you know something to be the case then it would hardly require faith would it?
Exactly.
But the true question being: Where does knowledge come from? And if you are earnest in answering that question, I believe you will find that everything I have said is true.


If we define it this way then I fail to see in what way an Atheist has faith.
Then you do not ask the right questions to yourself, and you're merely tripping up on semantics by attempting to redefine things that already have definitions. I see no reason for any of this. We can use basic definitions, like ones in dictionaries and such. Let us not confuse ourselves with silly semantic arguments.

Let me help you understand the issue.
Imagine that you are completely blind and have been since birth. You have no understanding of colors, they are a foreign concept to you. If you ask me one day "What color is the sky?" and I tell you "It is blue".
Is this 'knowledge'? Is it 'faith'? Is it some combination inbetween?
More importantly, do you now truly know that 'The sky is blue'? Or is this still a foreign concept to you?
Think about this very carefully - what does 'knowing' mean to you?

Let me expound with another example:
In school you probably learned that there were two World Wars. One of them began because of a guy named "Hitler" who was a truly awful person.
Well, how do you "know" these events happened? Were you there? Certainly I do not assume that was the case, so I deduce that your knowledge, these facts that you know, are based in faith. You trust the sources.

At some point you must realize: Almost all knowledge is founded on the basis of faith.

But knowledge is still very much knowledge, as you are probably now thinking. And very much so. As I said earlier, look at the sky and it is blue. Look at a chair and it is a chair. I have no reason to believe otherwise, nor do you. No one does.
Knowledge can therefore be defined as a totality of ones' faith and experiences. What one 'knows' is partially subjective, partially true, and partially false. Knowledge is an incomplete view of reality - it is a perspective.

This is, of course, why 'reason' and 'logic' come in. To combine knowledge to determine 'Truth'.
Reason being the methodology of someone's obtainment of knowledge, and logic being a tool to reduce and remove improper reasoning.

However, the argument you have made is basically this: 'Religious belief is without good reasoning, and is therefore without logic.'
But truthfully, do you really believe this? That religious believers of all kinds have absolutely no legitimate reasons for belief? That they are incapable of logically evaluating their beliefs?

If this is truly what you believe then you must explain why. As well, I would like you to explain the existence of Theology, the study of Religion through logic, if such logic does not exist, and why this study would not have ultimately debunked all religion long ago.
And if this is not what you believe, then why do you suggest that religious belief has no "strong reasons" and that Atheism somehow does? That all religious believers are merely "hopeful"? I believe you are overlooking the real facts due to a significant bias.

I'll also note, for reasons that this seems to confuse a lot of Atheists, that Judeo-Christian religions are not the only religions in the world. There are obviously many other religions - and you cannot simply lump every 'believer' together as if they were a Christian. For example, suggesting that every believer is merely "hopeful". Hopeful of what? Heaven? Not all religions even contain a religion. Not all religions with god(s) do they even care about humanity.


To begin with I do not have said belief, let alone am I sustaining it and thus I do not require hope and expectation.
You reject god(s) on your own beliefs. The beliefs that others are mistaken, or without "strong reasons" for their own beliefs. This is your belief, one you do maintain.
The "hope and expectation" are merely superfluous things you tacked on to the definition of "faith". They were unnecessary to begin with and it would be easy enough to prove there are a great number of religious believers who are not 'hopeful' or 'expecting' anything. This would even include many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
Hope and Expectation is not necessarily part of religion and it would be extremely easy to argue that religion, as a whole, does not require faith either, according to your definition of faith. So, again, it is an unnecessary redefining of a term that is already defined.

So I will assume at this point you have dropped the unnecessary additions to the definition.



I would say that it was circular and almost definitionally illogical.
In case this needs to be cited later: I made a point earlier that you believe religious belief is without "strong reason" and therefore illogical. Here you basically do claim that religion is illogical.


Logic being the study of reason. Reason rests on our ability to weigh propositions and evidence, to examine the soundness of an argument and to apply probabilities to various outcomes.
Sure.
And I have thus far been explaining: Religion (in general) can be logical. I'd also argue that it often is logic.


Religion rests on supernaturalism, which suggests that what we see is not real and what is real we do not see.
Utter nonsense.
This concept of "supernaturalism" is nothing but a strawman argument for those who do not understand religion.
The definition you provide it, that things that 'we see are not real and what is real we do not see' is even more ridiculous than the traditional strawman proposed in such arguments.

Religions do not argue that what we see is not real. They also do not argue that what is real is stuff we do not see.
If you disagree you would need to provide some evidence that "Religion rests on supernaturalism", and especially defined the way you define it. I have no means to argue against it otherwise, and no reason to do so.



The problems stack up for religion however because the moment something becomes material and tangible it is detectable and if it is detectable then we can measure it and unfortunately for religion we have never measured something that did not obey the laws of nature.
Why do you suppose that Religion assumes something will not obey the laws of nature?
This is merely the traditional "supernaturalism" argument unfolding. One that is a careless straw man and generally proves when one does not actually understand religious beliefs.



So, Religion retreats back to its supernaturalism but once again now we have a phenomenon that is intangible and undetectable. In what sense is this to be distinguished from the actually not existing?
Or, it is more the Atheist who retreats back to supernatural arguments, arguments that are both existent and non-existent, only because he does not wish to actually understand religion before attacking it.

Let us be fair here - if you are going to argue that religion, as a whole, proposes that things which cannot be detected are detected, then you must realize it is only your own argument which is illogical.
There are indeed illogical religious believers, I will not argue against that, just as there are illogical Atheists. However, any religion, as a whole, does not mistakenly believe in illogical premises where something so inherently contradictory is overlooked and not otherwise explained. This is, again, what Theology is for.
And, again, why you should not overlook the fact that "Religion" contains many religious beliefs of all types, and many religious groups of all types. It is easy to misstep there, if you are not careful, and mistake one religion for religion as a whole. Just as it is easy to mistake one Christian as representative of all Christianity.

So if you wish to pinpoint issues and specific examples to make argument easier, feel free. It simplifies and clarifies the discourse.



The only presumptions Atheism should make is that all things are known provisionally and rest on solid argument. The reason Athiests are Athiests is because they reject the arguments for god as weak, not because they have dogmatic commitments to disbelief.
Atheism, like the term "Religion", is an umbrella term. It holds under its wings a large number of varying beliefs.
Many of these people completely reject religion - on only the basis of faith. They are not as "rational" or "logical" as you suggest the whole to be.
There are even Atheists who regularly meet, sometimes weekly, to collectively talk about things pertaining to their (non-)religious beliefs. Under any other religious belief, this would just be known as 'going to Church' or whatnot.

So if we are talking about Atheists as individuals, then no, you are completely wrong. Many are extremely dogmatic and committed to their beliefs. I've met more than a few of these people myself.

And if we're talking about Atheism as a whole, you cannot fairly assume that they all hold one specific set of beliefs, or that they are all somehow rational people. This is simply an unrealistic view and the label would ultimately apply to, likely, no one.

Just as in other religious groups - there will be the crazy, irrational people, and then there will be the logical, educated people. Atheism is no different in this respect.

So if we are to speak of groups, fine. If we are to speak of individuals, fine.
If we are to speak of ideologies, fine - but let's be very clear not to confuse this with the two other things. It is very easy to do and extremely caustic to the discussion if so.



Something making sense to someone doesn't in anyway lend credence to something. There are people for whom the only explenation that makes any sense is that 9/11 was an inside job. Nothing else makes any sense or offers any closure. There are peope who believe the Illuminati are behind everything and its the only thing that makes sense. Its objectively true that they think this. Does that validate either theory? not a chance.
True - which is why someone's Atheism is not necessarily logical.
Simply rejecting a premise does not lend credence to it. The position must have evidence, reason, logic - and Atheism (as a whole) has just about as much evidence, reason, and logic that Religion (as a whole) does.

You may not agree with this, but it is true and I'd love to see anyone argue otherwise.

I have been studying and arguing Philosophy and Religion for a very long time. Generally the result I always seem to find is that both sides argue past each other - refusing to understand the others' position. It summarizes 99% of all religious arguments.

[RedKobra]

Subversive, there is so much wrong with literally everything you just took an age typing up. The truth is I look at the length of your post and I ask myself, can I really be bothered? I've had these debates before, many of them, over a significant period of time. I'm generally not interested in doing it again. If you want you can interpret this is me crumbling under the "weight" of your argument but in truth I just can't be arsed.

[Subversive]

Subversive, there is so much wrong with literally everything you just took an age typing up.
A claim unproven is a completely worthless one.



The truth is I look at the length of your post and I ask myself, can I really be bothered?
That is indeed the truth of it.

However, you decided to not be wholly truthful and instead make a claim you are unwilling to support before stating the truth that you are simply unwilling to bother yourself with reading and understanding my post.
Instead, you choose to be a coward and simply say: 'Everything you said is wrong, now goodbye.'

The truth speaks for itself.


I've had these debates before, many of them, over a significant period of time. I'm generally not interested in doing it again.
It is completely fine if you do not wish to argue anymore. Just do not confuse "I don't want to argue anymore" with "I am right". It is pointless and extremely ignorant.

I will also note that while you may have had debates about religion before, you did in fact introduce your argument to my earlier post meaning that you did in fact feel it necessary to argue some amount. Furthermore, I will point out that you have never argued with me before, and I'll even argue that you have likely never argued with someone like me before because the position I hold is very unique and I personally have yet to ever meet someone else with beliefs similar to my own, and as I said before, I have studied and argued this subject for many years.

But you are free to remain in ignorance of my arguments if you choose.
There was never need to argue.
Though I will point out that the argument need not be extremely lengthy if you did reply. You can merely address the main points, and so could I. I know that the length of an argument like this can be very burdensome if extended indefinitely.

The only reason I go in depth is because when there is much to be corrected I feel that all of it needs to be corrected or else discussion will continue based on a false presumption or definition.
As I have previously shown, you meaninglessly attempted to redefine terms outside of their normal definitions as well as drew many straw man arguments and generally did not support your more outrageous claims.

It is apparent to me, from the backing out of the argument you started so quickly, that you simply do not wish to accept your errors. If anything you would have at least acknowledged some things instead of just cowardly stating that I was the one being wrong.


If you want you can interpret this is me crumbling under the "weight" of your argument but in truth I just can't be arsed.
I'll accept it for what it really is - cowardice.

Until such a time that you can either be honest and not pose false claims without supporting them, or actually take it upon yourself to finish what you started, then I will have no other option but to consider it as such.

Now, just to make you aware: I was not defending religion. I would not really even call myself "religious". (Though I would not label myself as "irreligious" either.)
I was not attempting to force you to believe in religion. Nor was I attempting to make Atheism look foolish. I regularly argue against many ignorant Theists, as well. It is the ignorance that I seek to dismiss, not the beliefs.
I was merely explaining why people believe in religion to someone who obviously did not care enough to take a moment to actually understand someone else's point of view. And it is clear from backing out of this argument that you still do not want to understand.
I would have been more than happy to have listened to your own side of things and perhaps to have learned something new.

This has nothing to do with bombarding you with arguments. This has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. This has everything to do with an opportunity to communicate on a subject that you introduced yourself to, wished to argue, and then backed out of immediately upon counter-argument.

You can then call everything I said "wrong", but that is no more meaningful than telling me that invisible unicorns live in your backyard.

And just because:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
- Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

What do you think this means? Are you one of those many people who foolishly believes that Marx was implying religion is like a drug that addicts people and makes them weak? Ridiculous. Read it as it is, not for what you see in it.

Good day.

[RedKobra]

haha, when I said you can claim victory if you wanted I never imagined you'd buy yourself a trophy and organise a victory parade. Well, done, no seriously, well done. You are the most open minded, knowledgeable and humble person I've debated. :rolleyes:

[Subversive]

haha, when I said you can claim victory if you wanted I never imagined you'd buy yourself a trophy and organise a victory parade. Well, done, no seriously, well done. You are the most open minded, knowledgeable and humble person I've debated. :rolleyes:
Oh, so now you don't have the time to waste for a meaningful argument, but you have plenty of time to spend lulling about the forums to mock people who completely destroyed your naive arguments?
As opposed to your foolish ignorance, I do not seek to win victories in argument. Arguments are to learn. I have learned nothing from you other than what I already know: Fools are cowards.
Knowledge is my victory, so I receive no victory from scaring a coward. What then would be my prize? Loneliness? Congratulations to me then, I have bested a fool.

[RedKobra]

Did I say I didn't have time? I said I couldn't be bothered, there's a difference. Who knows maybe later I'll consider responding to your utter mind rot but for now I'm relaxing watching Cambridge Utd vs Man Utd on the telly. And believe it or not its far more interesting than you.

[Subversive]

Did I say I didn't have time? I said I couldn't be bothered, there's a difference. Who knows maybe later I'll consider responding to your utter mind rot but for now I'm relaxing watching Cambridge Utd vs Man Utd on the telly. And believe it or not its far more interesting than you.
Yet more untruths spoken by someone unwilling to support anything they say.
Nice job at proving everything I say true.

Perhaps maybe you should try to get some followers to believe the things you say. You know, form your own cult since you're obviously very good at brainwashing yourself.

I said, Good Day. :)

[RedKobra]

I'm going to try to make this very simple for you. Go, now, and have a look at the size of your post. Go on, I'll wait...

...You back? Good. Right, try and imagine how long it would take me to unpack what you posted, formulate my responses and type it out. Go on, for me, try and have a think. Despite you thinking you've posted this ultra original, magnus opus of a high-philosophical, Atheist slaying refutation...in actual fact I've heard Theists say everything you've said before. Everything. It coloured me radically unconvinced then, and quelle surprise, it has done so again.

I can see that you're fairly pleased with your work, good on you, but you seem to have very much got the wrong end of the stick in regard to my not giving two fucks about trying to respond to any of it.

And on that rather tedious note, au revoir to you and your "god".

[Subversive]

I'm going to try to make this very simple for you. Go, now, and have a look at the size of your post. Go on, I'll wait...

...You back? Good. Right, try and imagine how long it would take me to unpack what you posted, formulate my responses and type it out. Go on, for me, try and have a think. Despite you thinking you've posted this ultra original, magnus opus of a high-philosophical, Atheist slaying refutation...in actual fact I've heard Theists say everything you've said before. Everything. It coloured me radically unconvinced then, and quelle surprise, it has done so again.
Don't lie. I really despise liars. It is obvious you didn't even take the time to read my post. Your reply to it even strongly implies this.

And your delusional escapade to attack me on the post, to depict me as having stated my post was anything even resembling "ultra original", a "magnus opus of high-philosophical, Atheist slaying refutation". Your attempts to depict me as an egotist? The sheer ignorance required in your disgusting series of ad hominem posts is nothing short of pure arrogance and egotism on your part.

If you had even bothered to read any of my post, in truth, you'd see I do not argue 'against' Atheism. I do not attempt to 'refute' Atheism. I merely address the misunderstandings that many people hold regarding religious beliefs, including their own beliefs and the social and mental trappings binding them from understanding other people's beliefs. This includes, but is not limited to, Atheism.

Your naive judgments and careless attitude towards craving your own inward bias is what allows you to be so wrong.

If you had not been so reckless in you abandonment of logic and reason perhaps you might have taken a moment to realize you need to actually read and understand posts if you wish to properly reply to them and not be called out for the sham that you try to twist them into when you haphazardly ignore them.



I can see that you're fairly pleased with your work, good on you, but you seem to have very much got the wrong end of the stick in regard to my not giving two fucks about trying to respond to any of it.
Oh, yes? Well, I can see, very, very clearly, that you are exceptionally pleased with your own willful ignorance of the world and reality.
So simply caught up in your own delusions that you are truly unable to see what is right in front of you.

It is, once again, clearly obvious that you do indeed care. You care quite a bit.
You care enough to not only have began this discussion, but also to come back about, was it 5 times now, to make truly ignorant remarks containing only straw men and ad hominem fallacies; absolutely nothing more than fallacies.
Furthermore, you still have yet to face any truth, whether it be the fact you didn't actually read my post, or it be the fact that you are completely ignorant of the subject of religion, entirely.

Whether it is that you truly believe you don't care, or that you're merely pretending you don't care and believe this charade game will actually pass off as a credible argument, you are still very wrong.



And on that rather tedious note, au revoir to you and your "god".
Just further emphasizing the fact you really didn't read anything I said to you - implying that I was ever talking about myself, personally, and not simply just trying to get you to understand a general religious perspective.

What foolish and naive assumptions.

Now there is no point in continuing a childish discussion like this. You should find something better to do than to spout fallacies out into what was otherwise civil discussion.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is highly improbable that god exists.

[Subversive]

It is highly improbable that god exists.
I am curious, from what do you base this conclusion?

And how do you define "god"? Which "god" are you talking about?
There are many different religions with many different gods. Some religions define the existence of their gods much differently than how others define theirs. So clarification on such a topic is usually necessary.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Are you a 'new atheist' subversive?

[The Feral Underclass]

I am curious, from what do you base this conclusion?

And how do you define "god"? Which "god" are you talking about?
There are many different religions with many different gods. Some religions define the existence of their gods much differently than how others define theirs. So clarification on such a topic is usually necessary.

I haven't defined god, the poll did. I assumed it meant an omnipotent, omnipresent deity or deities from which we gain moral understandings and who created and/or rules the universe.

I have come to that conclusion because -- all things considered -- there is absolutely no basis in which to think otherwise.

[Subversive]

Are you a 'new atheist' subversive?
What would give you that idea?
If you look back to my earlier posts, I was defending the religious perspective from 'new atheist'-like criticism.
Personally I find the 'New Atheist' movement rather revolting. Rather than being based in anything like reason, logic, or rationale (ironically, the very ideals it supposedly wishes to uphold) it is based mainly on emotions and destitute ethics.
I understand the reason, and perhaps even the 'need' for the movement, but I do not and can not agree with it due to its hypocritical nature of existence. It is a movement that does not yet recognize its own identity, something which we have far too many of these days.

That said, I would very much not like to be lumped in with "religious" groups, either.
I agree with 'some' of the New Atheist movements core tenets. Things like secularism and the elimination of indoctrination are absolutely necessary. It is merely their own reversed-persecution of religion which I disagree with - the hypocrisy, irony, and ignorance within their movement.

In fact, one of my personal positions agrees strongly with one of the most educated "leaders" (read: aka, "Four Horsemen") of the New Atheist movement: Daniel Dennett. If you do not know of him, then just know that he is an extremely educated Philosopher and one of the main voices of the New Atheist movement. More relevantly: he advocates that religions and Religion should be studied in schools, at a young age, and that all people should be made aware of religion.

However, we disagree on intent. He believes that they should do this because he believes awareness of the things that have been done in the name of religion, as well as the "lack of evidence" supporting it, will inevitably eliminate it through education.
I believe, conversely, that religion should be taught because it will give all people the knowledge to rightfully choose their own way in life. It will give them "freedom of Religion", but not in the way New Atheists believe. It will not educate the masses to all become Atheists, it will instead only bring 'true religion' out from the crevasse and rocks of which is the culture-of-Religion; which is, currently, dissolved into the Capitalist system and modern society.
This 'freedom of Religion' is what the New Atheist movement hopes to achieve- but does not really understand or realize. They are caught up in their struggle and focus too narrowly on current-events and local problems, like most movements, like most people.

Though, honestly, Dan may in fact understand this identity and it merely gets lost in other things, like the Movement. I know he is a very educated man and I also know a friend of his and I've heard he is actually an incredibly nice man. I think he is merely swept up in a movement, to which he only agrees with to an extent. Though maybe I'm wrong, I am not him so I really cannot say. Either way I agree with some of his philosophies, but likely not all.

Furthermore, I will also add that I believe that 'Philosophy' and 'World Culture' classes should be core to elementary education, equal in nature to things such as Math, Science, and the Arts. I believe that with the proper education of Philosophy, world Culture, Religion (as a subset of Philosophy), the Arts, Math, and Science - our children will be able to free themselves from the social delusions that have gripped humanity since their very beginning. (Understandably, I only mean this possible after the overthrow of Capitalism.)

So no, I am not a 'New Atheist'. I reject New Atheism and propose a new movement, one which understands its own identity.
Maybe I should call it the "New Religion" movement? Ha! ;)


I haven't defined god, the poll did. I assumed it meant an omnipotent, omnipresent deity or deities from which we gain moral understandings and who created and/or rules the universe.

I have come to that conclusion because -- all things considered -- there is absolutely no basis in which to think otherwise.
I didn't know what you mean by "the poll did". I had to go back and look at previous polls this one had linked to. Only one of them, two polls back, had actually provided a definition - a definition that was obviously biased towards Atheism mentioning an "invisible" being, and such silly things.

In any case, I assume you mean that there is no basis for 'you' to think otherwise? Because there are plenty of people on Earth who seem to disagree with you there. In fact, these people seem to be in the majority.
So if you mean to say 'for you', then why do you believe there to be such a distinction between you and the majority? What do they have that you do not, or vice versa?
And if you mean to say that there is no basis for belief - at all - then please fill me in on what basis you have for believing that. There must, of course, be a basis for believing that others have no basis for their beliefs. Everyone has their reasons.

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't know what you mean by "the poll did". I had to go back and look at previous polls this one had linked to. Only one of them, two polls back, had actually provided a definition - a definition that was obviously biased towards Atheism mentioning an "invisible" being, and such silly things.

Erm, the poll asks "do you believe in god(s)?" so presumably it means any thing that constitutes a god or gods. This isn't complicated.


In any case, I assume you mean that there is no basis for 'you' to think otherwise? Because there are plenty of people on Earth who seem to disagree with you there. In fact, these people seem to be in the majority.
So if you mean to say 'for you', then why do you believe there to be such a distinction between you and the majority? What do they have that you do not, or vice versa?

No, I don't mean just for me, I mean for everyone. What people choose to believe in has nothing to do with what is probable.


And if you mean to say that there is no basis for belief - at all - then please fill me in on what basis you have for believing that. There must, of course, be a basis for believing that others have no basis for their beliefs. Everyone has their reasons.

I can't provide a basis for the non-existence of something that has no evidence in existing. I can't prove to you that purple munchkins dressed as sharks don't control the Earth's wind patterns, but since there is no basis for that claim, why would I believe it? With the absence of evidence the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim, not the other way around.

And let's be absolutely clear here: The belief in god is not quantitatively different to believing in shark costumed purple munchkins and their dominance over our weather.

[Invader Zim]

I believe in one less god than the vast majority of theists.

[Subversive]

Erm, the poll asks "do you believe in god(s)?" so presumably it means any thing that constitutes a god or gods. This isn't complicated.
I suppose. But I asked how you were defining your use. The poll itself left the term undefined.



No, I don't mean for me, I mean for everyone. What people choose to believe in has nothing to do with what is probable.
However, likewise, what you choose to believe in has nothing to do with what is probable.
It is a double-edged sword that you use to defend this position.



I can't provide a basis for the non-existence of something that has no evidence in existing.
What you're describing here is a logical fallacy.
Have you ever heard the old expression "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Your claim is that absolutely no one, as quoted to phrases above, holds evidence or basis for belief in a, rather large, range of god(s) (as defined by the definition you gave last post). You presuppose that you have full-knowledge on the issue.

You are now making the claim that your earlier claim does not need evidence to support because it is the claim that evidence does not exist.
Yet, if you are unable to prove that evidence does not exist - how are you to support either claim?

More on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Here's a good one from the "Rational Wiki":

A common saying in pseudologic is "You can't prove a negative." That saying is not true. An absence of something can be proved in various ways, e.g., by a reductio ad absurdum or by proving something else that is inconsistent with the presence of that something (a very useful approach known in mathematics as proof by contradiction[wp]). For example, in law, a party may have the burden of proving nonreceipt of certain correspondence and may bear that burden of proof (at least by a preponderance of the evidence) by introducing into evidence a docket record in which the correspondence would have been noted.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof



I can't prove to you that purple munchkins dressed as sharks don't control the Earth's wind patterns, but since there is no basis for that claim, why would I believe it?
I'm not arguing with your beliefs. I am arguing with your claim that others have basis for their beliefs.

To make this analogy fair, you are stating that no one who believes munchkins dressed as sharks control the Earth's wind patterns has any basis for their beliefs. And then when asked "How do you know?" You simply argue that you don't need to and can't prove anything.

That is not a reason for dismissing an argument, that is only reason to not (personally) believe it.

And you, and thousands of other Atheists, may wish to depict the concept of "god" as some sort of munchkins in shark-skins, or as a toga-wearing bearded old man riding a cloud, or as some mystical cloud of energy - none of these things are equivalent to what believers actually believe or how they define their "god(s)".
So your analogy is nothing more than a ruse to stray away from the logical fallacy you use to debunk these straw men. The truth behind this being that you claim to possess full-knowledge about a subject that obviously no one has full-knowledge on.

In true honesty: You know only that 'you' don't have any basis for believing in god(s), and speaking for anyone else is simply assuming you know more than you really do.
Unless, of course, you actually do come up with a legitimate defense.


With the absence of evidence the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim, not the other way around.
My claim? Silly nonsense. I made no claim, except maybe the one about the majority of people being believers, of which I highly doubt you disagree.

I simply asked you to support your claim as an unbiased third party. This means the burden of proof is on you because your claim is the only one being discussed.

Now, you could fairly point out that you would not make such a claim if so-and-so in your past had ever provided you any evidence when requested, but that is neither here nor there. The problem with relying on that argument is that it is not logically valid support for the claim you make now. It does not, in any way, explain the logical validity of your own claim.
And obviously I was only addressing your own claim.

In other words, it is another logical fallacy. It is an irrelevancy fallacy.

To make sure you understand my point: If someone came in and had made a claim equal but opposite to your own ("It is highly probable that god exists") then I would have questioned them exactly the same way. This is because I am not questioning the truth-value of the claim. Rather, I am questioning the reasoning behind it.

I have had heard enough nonsensical discussions in my time in trying to determine the truth-value of religious claims, from both sides of religion and atheism. It goes absolutely nowhere. I find that exploring the reasoning behind the claims is much easier, straight-forward, and interesting.



And let's be absolutely clear here: The belief in god is not quantitatively different to believing in shark costumed purple munchkins and their dominance over our weather.
Prove it. ;)

I'd appreciate it if you all stopped making claims you cannot support.
I am only interested in claims that can be supported.
I don't think anyone but the ignorant are interested in ones that cannot be supported - which, if you'll take a moment to reflect on this, is likely the actual position you were 'attempting to' hold when you made the claim to begin with.

And for those in this topic I have argued with so far, I apologize if I come across as offensive. I do not mean to offend anyone. I only wish to point out the logical inconsistencies in beliefs and try to demonstrate why there needs to be more understanding on every angle of this subject, from every party involved.
Without understanding - it's merely the blind leading the blind.

[The Feral Underclass]

However, likewise, what you choose to believe in has nothing to do with what is probable.
It is a double-edged sword that you use to defend this position.

No, evidence does and since there is no evidence for the existence of god, we can determine what is probable. The probable existence of something requires objects you can observable and interact that supports the claim.


What you're describing here is a logical fallacy.

No I'm not.


Have you ever heard the old expression "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Your claim is that absolutely no one, as quoted to phrases above, holds evidence or basis for belief in a, rather large, range of god(s) (as defined by the definition you gave last post). You presuppose that you have full-knowledge on the issue.

You are now making the claim that your earlier claim does not need evidence to support because it is the claim that evidence does not exist.
Yet, if you are unable to prove that evidence does not exist - how are you to support either claim?

More on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Here's a good one from the "Rational Wiki":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Yes, this is a very well rehearsed response, but since I never claimed that the absence of proof is evidence of absence you're polished speech is meaningless.

I suggest you look up the word "improbable" in a dictionary.


I'm not arguing with your beliefs. I am arguing with your claim that others have basis for their beliefs.

To make this analogy fair, you are stating that no one who believes munchkins dressed as sharks control the Earth's wind patterns has any basis for their beliefs. And then when asked "How do you know?" You simply argue that you don't need to and can't prove anything.

That is not a reason for dismissing an argument, that is only reason to not (personally) believe it.

Can you explain to me how someone can prove that a thing does not exist? When you have done that, perhaps I will be able to better answer your question.


And you, and thousands of other Atheists, may wish to depict the concept of "god" as some sort of munchkins in shark-skins, or as a toga-wearing bearded old man riding a cloud, or as some mystical cloud of energy - none of these things are equivalent to what believers actually believe or how they define their "god(s)".
So your analogy is nothing more than a ruse to stray away from the logical fallacy you use to debunk these straw men. The truth behind this being that you claim to possess full-knowledge about a subject that obviously no one has full-knowledge on.

Again, your stock response seems to have run away with itself. I have never claimed that I have full knowledge of anything. The word "improbable" is used specifically to indicate that.


In true honesty: You know only that 'you' don't have any basis for believing in god(s), and speaking for anyone else is simply assuming you know more than you really do.
Unless, of course, you actually do come up with a legitimate defense.

The only things that can be proven to exist are things you can observe and interact with. Since you cannot observe or interact with god then there is no basis for its existence.

If you want to claim that things can exist without having to observe or interact with them, then that is of course up to you.


My claim? Silly nonsense. I made no claim, except maybe the one about the majority of people being believers, of which I highly doubt you disagree.

I simply asked you to support your claim as an unbiased third party. This means the burden of proof is on you because your claim is the only one being discussed.

Now, you could fairly point out that you would not make such a claim if so-and-so in your past had ever provided you any evidence when requested, but that is neither here nor there. The problem with relying on that argument is that it is not logically valid support for the claim you make now. It does not, in any way, explain the logical validity of your own claim.
And obviously I was only addressing your own claim.

In other words, it is another logical fallacy. It is an irrelevancy fallacy.

Truth can only be found through the observance and interaction of objects. I cannot prove to you that something does not exist, since the very nature of a thing being non-existence is dependent on it not being. Something cannot be if it is not.


To make sure you understand my point: If someone came in and had made a claim equal but opposite to your own ("It is highly probable that god exists") then I would have questioned them exactly the same way. This is because I am not questioning the truth-value of the claim. Rather, I am questioning the reasoning behind it

The probability of their claim would be based on them providing evidence and since there is no evidence how could they claim probability? If someone wants to claim that something exists then it is necessary for them to provide evidence you can observe and interact with. The claim that there is no evidence that you can observe and interact with is proven by the fact that there is none.

I can say, "here is an orange" and to prove that someone can look at a small round, orange coloured piece of fruit and observe and interact with it confirming that an orange actually is here. I can also say "here is an orange" and point to an empty space. How then do I confirm that there is an orange? Well, I can't prove beyond a doubt that there is no orange, but since I cannot observe or interact with an orange, the probability of it being here is remote. This leads me to conclude that "it is highly improbable that there is an orange here."


Prove it. ;)

The evidence to support both claims are precisely the same: None existent.


I'd appreciate it if you all stopped making claims you cannot support.
I am only interested in claims that can be supported.
I don't think anyone but the ignorant are interested in ones that cannot be supported - which, if you'll take a moment to reflect on this, is likely the actual position you were 'attempting to' hold when you made the claim to begin with.

I'd appreciate it if faux theologians and philosophers who think they're clever would fuck off, but we can't all have what we want, can we?


And for those in this topic I have argued with so far, I apologize if I come across as offensive. I do not mean to offend anyone. I only wish to point out the logical inconsistencies in beliefs and try to demonstrate why there needs to be more understanding on every angle of this subject, from every party involved.
Without understanding - it's merely the blind leading the blind.

Your wish appears to have gone unfulfilled.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

truly, if there was a kind and powerful god we wouldn't have to go through the miserable process of arguing about it

[Subversive]

No, evidence does and since there is no evidence for the existence of god, we can determine what is probable. The probable existence of something requires objects you can observable and interact that supports the claim.
But it is merely a claim that "there is no evidence for the existence of god".
It is a claim you have not yet supported.

So until you can support that claim I can dismiss your claim for the same reason that you believe you can dismiss religion. You are missing the irony here.



No I'm not.
Sure. And 1=2?



Yes, this is a very well rehearsed response, but since I never claimed that the absence of proof is evidence of absence you're polished speech is meaningless.
"rehearsed"? "polished"?
Well I will admit I have argued against these same arguments numerous times in the past, I would not say that my arguments are "rehearsed", just 'experienced'. I create them all in-the-moment and I do not really 'rehearse' them anymore than you might call a butcher's butchering of meat to be a "rehearsal" for his next butchering. But thank you, I'm flattered.

However, I will still have to disagree with your point.
You stated that you don't need a basis for believing that there is no basis for belief in gods.

This means that either:
1. You are using an 'absence of evidence' fallacious argument, or...
2. You are intentionally ignoring, or ignorant of, the fact that all claims need valid support to be logically valid.

If you look back, I actually argued against both of these since I was aware there were only two possible courses, neither of which had any grounds in reality; Either way it was a fallacy.
I may not have gotten which one it was correct, but either way I only need to note that it was not a logically valid position. And I will stand my ground that you were indeed, ultimately, using this argument even if subconsciously. I have argued against the same general argument you used enough times to know what it ultimately comes down to.

I'll also note that earlier you invalidly claimed that you did not need to provide support for your claim because you don't hold the burden of proof, another fallacy.



I suggest you look up the word "improbable" in a dictionary.
I do not think that is the issue here. I have made you aware of logical errors in the lack of support for your claims, not semantics. This has nothing to do with semantics.


Can you explain to me how someone can prove that a thing does not exist? When you have done that, perhaps I will be able to better answer your question.
Well, other than stating tautology, or the sites I already linked you to, I would assume what you want is something like an example. So that is no problem.

Some examples:
- You claim that bigfoot lives in your backyard. I visit your backyard: No bigfoot.
I show you that there is no bigfoot in your backyard. I have therefore proven to you that what you claim does not exist. I have proven a negative.

- You claim sasquatch lives in the forest next to your home. This forest is 1 acre. I then place cameras on trees overlooking every single area in the forest and film for 24 hours. I have now enough proof to demolish your entire argument into nothingness forever.
Likewise, I could have just filmed a large part of the forest for a longer period of time, or sent a large hunting party, to gather enough evidence to successfully deduce that there is very low probability sasquatch exists in that forest. The fewer steps I take to debunk your claim the less evidence I have.

- Of course, in this case it's also logically valid to dismiss this individual as having nothing to support their claim. My argument is logically valid - I don't need evidence to dismiss one guys' silly claims.
However, let's say you show me a tuft of hair. This is when things get interesting.
So now I have two options: Debunk your claim by searching the forest, or: Debunk the tuft of hair you provide therefore destroying your evidence (at the cost of supporting proving your claim).
So I take this tuft of hair for analysis: Two possible outcomes:
1. It comes back as a different animals' hair. I debunked your evidence therefore I demonstrate you are a non-credible liar and I dismiss you and your claims for simply not being worth my time.
2. It comes back as unknown - giving some weight to your argument and giving me reasons to explore further into the truth.

- Things get really tricky when some evidence supports one side but some evidence also supports the other. This is usually the case for most things and why basic observation is usually never enough to argue against a claim.
In these cases the trick is simply to investigate as deep as feasible and then later evaluate what side the evidence favors, if any. Possibly this might even mean that other explanations are necessary and more fully explain the situation, so the evidence weighs in favor of these new explanations. Then we test more and so on and so on until most people are generally happy with the results.

So, have I answered your question? I gave several examples of proving a negative, as well briefly discussed arguing claims in general.



Again, your stock response seems to have run away with itself. I have never claimed that I have full knowledge of anything. The word "improbable" is used specifically to indicate that.
So now my "polished speech" is a "stock response". Pity. It is obvious that you're simply looking for something to attack, something that is not really there.

In any case, obviously you don't need to actually make a claim that you possess full knowledge of something. Something like that is implied in a statement.

For example: Right now you are think "I am right. You are wrong. Haha, I win!"
It is obviously implied in my statement above that I can read your mind.
Is it obvious that I can't read your mind, that part need not even be stated and you might rightfully assume it in a debate. It is common knowledge to everyone.

And I'll note, it was not your "It is highly improbable that god exists." claim I am stating requires full knowledge. It was this one:

No, I don't mean for me, I mean for everyone. What people choose to believe in has nothing to do with what is probable.
Here you directly imply that you know the knowledge everyone possesses regarding religion: You believe to know, as a fact, that absolutely no one has a "basis" for their beliefs in a god.
This statement implied full-knowledge of the situation.

Furthermore, I will state that your position of 'highly improbable' does drive from this point and therefore deliver a claim which implies a significant amount of knowledge regarding the subject, knowledge you do not really possess because, again, it is based on the false-belief that you possess the knowledge of everyone else in the world.

Let us not pretend. It is very easy to see through these things.



The only things that can be proven to exist are things you can observe and interact with. Since you cannot observe or interact with god then there is no basis for its existence.
This goes back to an earlier discussion I had, before it devolved, with another user.

The error here is that this is a straw man of religious beliefs. Let me clarify.
Your definition for "god" was this:

I assumed it meant an omnipotent, omnipresent deity or deities from which we gain moral understandings and who created and/or rules the universe.
So if the being cannot be observed or interacted with, then how can anyone gain moral understandings from it?
Furthermore, is it not the general belief of the religious believers to believe that god touches their lives in some way? Whether it be through guidance, manipulation, or direct communication. There are a wide variety of beliefs regarding "god", and why I was explaining that the definition is very important to discussion of the subject. One can not just 'assume' any traits when speaking.

So, yes, you can dismiss a god which interacts with the world but does not interact with the world. The "supernatural" god. This is very easily done through logic.
However, you'll find it very hard to actually find this definition of a god in any religion. You certainly won't find it in the definition you provided, and you won't find it in 'Religion', in general, either.

So my problem is: You are either debunking a non-religion, a straw man religion, simply due to extreme bias and prejudice and therefore I find it very disrespectful and ignorant;
Or you generally misunderstand religion, possibly due to all the fanatics, ignorant believers, and general masses which know nothing about even their own theology, in which case I am merely attempting to point out that you are dismissing it without understanding it, a careless act, so that you might care to understand it a little better in the future.



If you want to claim that things can exist without having to observe or interact with them, then that is of course up to you.
I'll leave that up to the invisible pink unicorn jockeys.



Truth can only be found through the observance and interaction of objects. I cannot prove to you that something does not exist, since the very nature of a thing being non-existence is dependent on it not being. Something cannot be if it is not.
I will agree with you - but only with the stipulation were are speaking entirely within the materialist philosophy.
I would note, however, that materialism is but one of many valid perspectives of reality and that other philosophies might argue with you over your semantics.
For example, a dualistic philosophy would not accept that "objects" are the only thing which "exists", and would also argue that "Truth" is not entirely objective or dependent solely upon objects and observations.

I could make arguments regarding several of these philosophies - but I won't get into that right now. My point being, I agree with you, but I want to make it clear that you're speaking entirely from a materialistic point of view, and materialists generally have an exceedingly difficult time understanding religious perspective, since religious perspective generally denies materialism.

And I'll also note that the "materialism" of Marx and communism is entirely different than the above mentioned materialist philosophy. The above is 'existential materialism', regarding 'the material existence of everything in the universe'. These things are not to be confused.



The probability of their claim would be based on them providing evidence and since there is no evidence how could they claim probability?
Again, you claim "There is no evidence". Yet, I have not seen this evidence of absence from you.

How is it you 'know' that religious believers do not have any evidence for the existence of god? None of them at all?
This is something I don't think you could possibly "know". It is something I think you personally reject due to your own reasons, but not due to logic or evidence.
As explained before, you cannot read the minds of all people on Earth - therefore you cannot "know" that no one possesses any evidence for the existence of gods.

You pacify this logic-error with the earlier definitive tautological claim: 'god cannot act and cannot be observed'.
In other words: You define "god" in a way that cannot exist, therefore you can feel guiltless when saying he cannot exist.

Though I will qualify my statements so we don't get into this again: You did say "improbable" and didn't say 'impossible'. Not that it makes much difference in this sense, you already defined it as something which is not possible. However, I do respect that containment of the claim, no matter the reason you had for saying it that way.


If someone wants to claim that something exists then it is necessary for them to provide evidence you can observe and interact with. The claim that there is no evidence that you can observe and interact with is proven by the fact that there is none.
Please provide me with any example of a religion which asserts that their god has nothing "that you can observe and interact with".

If you could provide an example of a religion like this I would likely agree with you that their god is improbable, or rather, I would go one step further and just outright state impossible.
However, I don't know of any religions like this off the top of my head, and I know none of the mainstream ones do this. So I cannot feel satisfied with such a statement.

At the very least, most of these "god(s)" introduce one observable element to interact: The universe.
This is, of course, only the most basic one and proves nothing in and of itself. As we all know, it can be explained in other ways. Though, no one has a full solution to its origin and many religious people often find this element to be the most convincing. Surely you can, at least, partially understand their viewpoint here, even if you think it is mistaken? The only question then being: Why you believe they are mistaken.



I can say, "here is an orange" and to prove that someone can look at a small round, orange coloured piece of fruit and observe and interact with it confirming that an orange actually is here. I can also say "here is an orange" and point to an empty space. How then do I confirm that there is an orange? Well, I can't prove beyond a doubt that there is no orange, but since I cannot observe or interact with an orange, the probability of it being here is remote. This leads me to conclude that "it is highly improbable that there is an orange here."
If you point to nothingness and say there is an orange: By all definition of "an orange" it is false. There is no orange there. I do not need to qualify this with 'improbability', I can say it as a truth-statement.

The difference, of course, being as how I have already explained: If your understanding of "god" is something which does not exist, and someone points to somewhere in space-time and says "here is my god", then by your own definition you will see that which does not exist: No matter the area pointed to you will always say this "god" does not exist, due to basic definitions.

However, if the one who pointed you to the area suggested that their "god" was an awfully imaginative turnip, one which is untouchable and inedible, then it is only a matter of testing this that we might find the truth - a simple bite, a minor crunch, demolishes their claims.

Likewise, if the one who pointed you to the area raises their hands above their farm, and says "here is my god", and they mean to say that the farm is the demonstration of their gods' power, the force of which all things are planned, good or bad, and that which nature itself, the rules and laws of the universe, are guiding points surrounding each of our lives, and that this farm is the most meaningful thing in their lives - and therefore it is the representation, in their eyes, of everything that is holy and sacred.
Then are you to argue that this is not their god? They have a very, very different understanding of what "god" is then you do. The things they speak, the definitions they give, are not totally out of the range of what is 'real', what is tangible; that with which you can observe and interact. They merely do not hold this purely materialistic perspective, or use these purely materialistic terms, to describe reality.

Yes, to you this is meaningless. But to them? It is everything.
Is this "improbable"? No, I must say it is not.

There are indeed many impossible claims, and many improbably ones as well, through the definitions of mainstream religion. I won't deny this. Mainstream religion is full of thousands and thousands of years of beliefs piled one on top of each other into a crazy mess. Many inconsistencies lie within.
However, this is not what "religion" is. That is just the general root of a Church or mass, of a people. It does not express the genuine beliefs of the individual. Just as Capitalism does not express the genuine beliefs of the people, but only of the bourgeoisie; and not even representative of the bourgeois individual.

So when we, any of us here, speak of "Religion" or "god", what are we really saying? Are we speaking of the underlying beliefs and principles of the individuals, or the over-arching and rigid dogmas of the State-governed-Religion and the State-approved-and-defined-god? It is worth noting who and what we speak of.

More importantly, it is worth noting prior to trying to analyze these things, simply to avoid mistaking one for the other in our understandings and therefore erroneously dismissing all due to only one.



The evidence to support both claims are precisely the same: None existent.
Again: Prove it!

I claim that your brain is made up of butterflies. If I keep saying this maybe you'll eventually believe me. This is the same tactic you're using, so it must work, right?

Don't be silly. Stop repeating claims: demonstrate them. There is no point to repeating a claim, eventually it becomes this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion



I'd appreciate it if faux theologians and philosophers who think they're clever would fuck off, but we can't all have what we want, can we?
Say what you really want to say. Do not be coy.



Your wish appears to have gone unfulfilled.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
I have definitely pointed out your logical errors. Your ability to accept them or not is entirely irrelevant to the success of this.

[Habbash]

It seems like a very outdated mode of thinking. I'd say 'no'.

[Rafiq]

It is merely their own reversed-persecution of religion which I disagree with - the hypocrisy, irony, and ignorance within their movement.

In fact, one of my personal positions agrees strongly with one of the most educated "leaders" (read: aka, "Four Horsemen") of the New Atheist movement: Daniel Dennett. If you do not know of him, then just know that he is an extremely educated Philosopher and one of the main voices of the New Atheist movement. More relevantly: he advocates that religions and Religion should be studied in schools, at a young age, and that all people should be made aware of religion.

Oh, isn't this cute - the "reversed" persecution of religion is hypocritical. Why? Because any attempt to alter the beliefs of others is somehow an "infringement" on the sacredness of personal libety. Because, as we all know, the conditions from which religious ideas are derived are man utilizing his "free will", i.e. religious ideas are merely just that - 'ideas' or a preference for looking at the world.

Subversive, an apologist for ignorance and darkness - meekly advocating we ought to find a "middle ground" and be "tolerant" of the battle cry of the worldly legitimizations of present conditions of exploitation. The reasoning is simple: People ought to be able to "choose" which beliefs they should or should not have. They should be exposed to an external ideological universe for what it is - as though we are supposed to take it seiroulsy. The error of course lies in the notion that our opposition to religion is grounded in mere disagreement with the outwardly, obviously false empirical claims of religious texts. Absolutely no one gives a fuck about this - and any moron can understand that these religions, which sprung about thousands of years ago and whose continual perpetuation lies in their service to the perpetuation of the present order - in an outwardly, self-conscious sense have absolutely no bearing in reality. This is incontestable. There can be no argument about whether a god exists or not - this argument has long been over. People do not believe in gods because they are "empirically" convinced of its existence - they believe in a god because it serves a social purpose. A means to breath life, meaning and legitimacy to the world within the ideological context of ruling ideas - to prattle of "religion" in its current form as having been trans-historical would be nothing short of ridiculous. Any moron can see that something like Christianity, or Islam for that matter have changed drastically over the past 2,000 years in accordance with different historic epochs - the 'content', so to speak may be the same but the form has changed so much so to the point where to speak of "Christianity" during the time of the Roman Empire's collapse, and to speak of it now would be utterly erroneous.

For the philistine Subversive, this apparently is not enough to completely destroy the notion of a god and destroy religion. His arguments are not based on any honest desire for truth - but to defend his meek sensitivities for ignorance. And it is precisely that. Subersive claims that the basis for belief for the majority of people across the globe somehow has to exist - i.e. is rationally explicable. IT would be stupid to argue otherwise - but does this mean that this basis of belief is the ultimate, carefully refined employment of the combination of reason and knowledge? No. It is a cliche banality, the fact that religious fervor coincides with pure ignorance. Evidence? More education, and better quality of education almost always correlate with a lack of religious belief and (postmodern) atheism. Apparently, however for Subversive, religious belief's mere prominence which we ought to treat with "tolerance" and "sensitivity", is an indication that there has to be some kind of "empirical" truth in religion.

Well then! Certainly we can understand there is truth in religion. There is absolute truth vested in all relative truths, Fascism included. The truth in religion does not have its basis in what religion will outwardly tell you - but the fact that religion represents a real, rationally explicable force - it DOES exist for a reason but that reason has nothing to do with an informed populace neutrally coming to the conclusion that there is a god, or that the tenets of their according religions are "true". Speaking from personal experience - Muslims for example do not really care that much about the outwardly tenets of their "religion" - it is the fact that it has cultural significance and a social utility, i.e. it binds them, their norms, their whole community together and vests in them a sense of identity. Muslims, like Jews, can be a part of this without consciously actually believing what the Koran or Torah claims is true.

But to argue about whether they are true in the first place alone is an affront to our standards of reason - we do not argue about the empirical validity of the Hellenistic gods, so why is this utter bullshit even brought up by Philistines like Subversive? Because these religions are prominent, and significant. This white-knight of ignorance literally thinks like a barbarian. Forms of ideological reaction manifest themselves historically and globally - who the FUCK are you to grant them legitimacy based on popularity? Was their somehow "truth" in German anti-semitism because it became so prominent? Was there somehow "truth" in Eugenics because so many prominent scientists actually bought into it? The prominence and significance of religion is NOT an indication that these religions, or that there is a possibility that 'god' is real, but that religions serve a real social purpose in the perpetuation of existing conditions and relations of power. Religions are derived from real circumstances and their prominence is rationally explicable - religoins all undergo a process of natural selection whereby their prominence is directly correlated with their compatibility with present conditions of life.

This, however is not enough. Speaking within the context of a world whereby our standards of reason have become degenerate for the past thirty years, where religious reaction and fervor has grown exponentially globally as a result of the developments of globalization and neoliberalism as a part of capitalist degeneracy - Subversive would dare speak of condemning and opposing religion militantly as "just the opposite" of the religious reaction? Well, what an honor he bestows upon us! We would certainly love to be the opposite of ignorance, we Marxists want to be fanatical, militant and uncompromising in our struggle against ignorance and reaction.

The first mistake Subversive makes is assuming that religion is opposed because it is powerful and forceful. Absolutely no one should concern themselves with such petty notions of "infringement" on independence of thought. To speak of independence of thought alone is ridiculous. No one cares about this: The problem rests in what is being infringed upon, what thoughts are being suppressed and which ones are being directed. Are these thoughts merely "neutral", innocent observations of the objective world? For the philistine mind so comfortable and content in our present condition, certainly. The fact of the matter is that no truth or claim to it can divorce itself from the conditions of the historic class struggle religion is articulated not only as manifesting pure ignorance and reaction (The bourgeoisie had already established this well two hundred years ago) but that it is a weapon of the class enemy which discombobulates, dulls, and weakens the revolutionary sentiments of the exploited. Religion vests in the worker hesitance and uncertainty - a quiet and vicious desire to retain the present world, god's world. The abrupt and cataclysmic tides of revolution are articulated by the religious as utmost affronts to their god - because they are - they are affronts to the conditions from which their god reigns supreme, a destruction of god's holy kingdom.

So unfaithful, haughtily unconvinced is Subversive of the notion of a real class struggle grounded in the land of the living that we would dare assume that our rabid hatred towards the toadies of religion and the high priests of darkness and filth is grounded in an insecure uncertainty or sheer arrogance of the "affirmative idea" that there is no god which apparently has to be empirically justified all the same as the opposite. Our hatred of religion manifests our hatred of the present conditions of domination, exploitation and oppression. As a degenerate ideologue, he cannot possibly fathom the notion that it is precisely the notion of a god, precisely religion which is affirmative - the "struggling" atheist only struggles insofar as he resists structures and forces which convey power, not truth. Ought the slave struggling for freedom have to "justify" himself in terms of his bondage? Is the slave struggling just as "bad" as his master in his intensity and forecefulness? This assumes that people actually give a shit about fulfilling Subversive's twisted and sick moral platitudes - that whomever is "too passionate" or "too forceful" of their ideas is wrong, likewise, whomever is "too violent" and "too powerful" in their real actions is wrong, and so on. The bourgeois pathology is clear - it assumes that points of conflict do not actually exist - that the real axiom of struggle is between being "balanced" and "extreme". A false dichotomy, nay, a scoundrel whom assumes the allegiance of the highest bidder: what constitutes as "balanced" if not hegemonic ideas which do not require any degree of mindful forcefulness to be sustained, with their power being grounded in the state above all things - casually in the background?

We aim at the unconditional destruction of religion in coincidence with the destruction of conditions which necessitate it. We don't give a fuck if you think that this is "just as bad" as the religious - we do not care if it offends your bankrupt and dishonest moral sensitivities. Power and force are "not the same" universally - it is not the sword that counts but who wields the sword and why. The same ignorance which breaths life into religion is the same ignorance which allows Subversive to go on thinking we are a society devoid of real social antagonism, whereby all disagreement is a matter of misunderstanding. Real struggle can only ever be real insofar as both opponents understand each other perfectly well - lest it is a tragedy.


I believe, conversely, that religion should be taught because it will give all people the knowledge to rightfully choose their own way in life. It will give them "freedom of Religion", but not in the way New Atheists believe. It will not educate the masses to all become Atheists, it will instead only bring 'true religion' out from the crevasse and rocks of which is the culture-of-Religion; which is, currently, dissolved into the Capitalist system and modern society.

What a disgusting and utterly hypocritical form of reasoning. As though relative truths, ideology can be taught under the backdrop of a "neutral" teaching of it. This alone would render it not ideological but an empty category of a wider ideological (or "religious) universe. Let's ignore the fact that under present conditions of bourgeois society, education most usually entails atheism (Even though "atheism" is not directly taught in schools - literally an informed understanding of the world prompts people to ditch religion). What would be Subversive's magical, sentimentally pathetic plan to "allow people to choose their way of life"?

That we allow clerics from all religious backgrounds to teach the young religion. An utter waste of time and most likely resources. The only way in which "religion" at face value can be honestly taught (i.e. in the sense that you are directly fathoming the ideological universe of religion) is if people from those according backgrounds are teaching the hypothetical classes. But let's assume this would ever even happen - what an utterly schizophrenic proposition! Children do not think with their heads up their asses - even if clerics from all sorts of religious degenerate filth are going to try and fill their heads with poison, they will assume an ideological background to which all teachings from all classes will be subject to - whereby the Christian priest who teaches the class about "what Christianity is"'s ramblings will be categorized through reason and reduced to a wider, stronger absolute truth.

If children are immediately taught religion at a young age with no understanding of "atheistic" biology and physics, psychology or sociology, then they will certainly grow up to be schizophrenics. If all of these multitudes of relative truth fill their heads without a semblance of a logical background from which they can be codified, and understood (ONLY Marxism can do this), they will be filled with contradictory, inconsistent beliefs which I would most certainly bet would be overall incredibly harmful on their neurological development. "Which" beliefs would be better and which ones would not? The answer of course is all of them. All religious ideas are equally as potent, powerful and "true"- it has nothing to do with their empirical validity but their contextual place in the existing order. If the conditions from which religion is derived, solely the "dissolving" relative societies be they capitalist or feudal are destroyed it has no context to even exist. Religious power stems from the real power of productive relations, religious power stems from its ability derive legitimacy from social realities.

Where will it end? Since capitalism will hereby be a previous epoch, not only in Subversive's mind should children "directly" be taught religion by forces of reaction and ignorance, Christian clerics, Muslim sheikhs, among a plethora of other scum, but also the high priests of ancient despotic South American societies, of ancient Egypt and the high priests of Hellenistic gods among the first forms of religion which ever existed since the neolithic revolution. Because ultimately what they all have in common is that these were ideas which derived from social epochs and mode(s) of production which simply no longer exist. In order to be consistent and honest, Subversive must agree to this or yield that his initial argument was beyond fucking stupid.


What would be the solution for a consistent radical? To the horror of the reactionary philistine, children should be taught religion from an atheistic perspective only for it is only a materialist understanding of the world which can codify and conceptualize all religions in all of their relative power into an absolute system of consistency. It is only an understanding of a world which recognizes that the world exists independently of human consciousness, which had preceded our existence as a species, that can understand religion. For Subversive, "religious ideas" should be "chosen" to conform to the logic of ideological consumerism - as though it's all a matter of our unique individual choices. Completely ignorant of the conditions which designate WHY religion is chosen in the first place - it has nothing to do with informed individuals coming to these stupid fucking conclusions on their own - it is power, cultural pressures and so on.

In Subversive's petty idealist mind, children from birth should be taught that women are inferior to men, that unbelievers, i.e. pagans should be killed and so on. It stems from the infantile idea that humans somehow are predisposed or equipped with understanding truth - that children growing up will just filter out these multitudes of ideas and choose which ones are acceptable based on some kind of innate aversion to disgusting reactionary filth. Like how the FUCK would you organize this subversive? Which interpretations would necessarily be allowed to teach children, and which ones wouldn't? Who decides this, and by deciding how does this not contradict your pathetic plea for "unbiased" pluralism?

Should children undergo separate classes which would teach them revolutionary, Communist discipline? Why end it with religion though? Why not teach children Fascism, Libertarianism, conspiracy theories and so on directly too without any bias except for the spokesperson's of these? After all, Fascism was 'Significant', all political currents are "significant" - why not, instead of teaching children the conditions from which Fascism was derived, from a "biased" and "intolerant" Marxist perspective, actually have people like Don Black or Marine Le Pen teach courses to children? Tell me how this argument doesn't consistently work, Subversive: Why should religion be taught in the way you are describing, but not other forms of reactionary ideas like anti-semitism? Who the FUCK are you to decide?


I believe that with the proper education of Philosophy, world Culture, Religion (as a subset of Philosophy), the Arts, Math, and Science - our children will be able to free themselves from the social delusions that have gripped humanity since their very beginning. (Understandably, I only mean this possible after the overthrow of Capitalism.)


Oh isn't this fucking grand - religion as a "subset" of philosophy. Absolutely no one cares what "you" believe. Religion in this sense could only ever be taught if one were teaching the HISTORY of philosophy, but again, an affirmative, "biased" background of philosophical truth would HAVE to be presumed and pre-supposed in order for religion to be truly taught. Religious philosophy could only ever be taught in the past tense - not in the present tense. If it were taught in the present tense, the actual "core" of its illuminating meaning would be lost to the biased perspective of someone who may or may not actually posses these beliefs. You cannot teach something "neutrally", and doing so in a post-capitalist society would equate to teaching it in a Marxist sense - self-consciousness necessarily would equate to Marxism today in a classless society.

Religion SHOULD be taught in school - as an overall teaching of the history of ideas - in the same way we are presently taught of the religious practices of older societies in a historicist sense. To argue for anything else would be hypocritical and dishonest.


And if you mean to say that there is no basis for belief - at all - then please fill me in on what basis you have for believing that. There must, of course, be a basis for believing that others have no basis for their beliefs. Everyone has their reasons.

Everyone has their reasons, but that DOES NOT make them equally "empirically" or scientifically true, it does not make them "equally" valid insofar as a real, self-conscious understanding of the world goes. Would you prattle the same logic to Copernicus with his understanding of Heliocentricism - "everyone" certainly does have their reasons for believing in geocentricism - does this make the two perspectives equal because we "all have our opinions"? No! Then you will tell me that there are plenty of educated, informed people who are religious - certainly - but they are not religious BECAUSE they are educated or informed. They are religious for external reasons, grounded in real conditions of production and present social realities. These people you speak of simply have struggled to MAKE COMPATIBLE their education with religion, not the other way around. They may find whatever fancified, dishonest and sickening ways in which they can try to "logically" justify their filth, but ultimately, this doesn't constitute the basis for their belief - the basis for their belief is not grounded in "pure reason" but ideology to which they attempt to find means through reason to justify.


I could make arguments regarding several of these philosophies - but I won't get into that right now. My point being, I agree with you, but I want to make it clear that you're speaking entirely from a materialistic point of view, and materialists generally have an exceedingly difficult time understanding religious perspective, since religious perspective generally denies materialism.


Several of these philosophies? Cack! Within the context of what you are speaking of there are only TWO possible means by which the world could be understood - through a materialist, or idealist perspective. This is the only possible dichotomy as far as your pseudo-metaphysical philosophy goes - there can be different shades of both, but ultimately, the only possible dichotomy is between materialism and idealism. As such, only through materialism can a "religious perspective" be properly understood. But what does it mean to understand? Does it mean to presume their foundations as true and ACTUALLY believe them? Can BEING the engaged subject only ever designate a real understanding of it? No, on the contrary, the opposite is true. Being the engaged subject as far as religion designates ONESELF as not understanding their own perspective consistently. But go on, "get into this right now" - you make the error of assuming Feral's pseudo-positivism actually constitutes materialism.


How is it you 'know' that religious believers do not have any evidence for the existence of god? None of them at all?


Tell me something Subversive - is there a "god gene" after all, are we ACTUALLY born predispoed to believing in a god? Do you deny that the notion of a god is an affirmative claim? As such, it is a claim made without an iota of evidence to it - how can there be evidence for such a thing (oh excuse me, the religious-ecstasy and the passioned experiences of the subject constitute "evidence". Fuck off with that)? The fact of the matter is that the conditions from which religion was derived preceded the scientific method by hundreds and hundreds of years. To say that there is no evidence a god exists is not enough: Rather, there is already real evidence that there is no god at all. Reason alone dictates this: The notion of a god conforms a universe which exists independently of us as a species to our consciousness, the notion of a being that can will, that can do, and that can be is entirely a projection of our consciousness on a cosmic scale. If a god "does not will or do" and truly - we are only capable of understanding it in this sense because we can't possibly fathom it (Do you know how ridiculous this sounds?) - then why call it a god at all? I will tell you why: Because of the necessity to conform our standards of reason and logic in order to justify already innately held beliefs which were not formed AS A RESULT of the former.

The religious are opportunists - they look for ANY SEMBLANCE of an excuse not to confirm, but to allow themselves to SUSTAIN their ideas. But this is stupid anyway: it is clear that all the gods of all religions are entirely anthropomorphic. What's left is a stupid form of deism, a last vestige of metaphysical idealism. There should be no mercy upon the religious predators - those who "could" know better but continue to spread ignorance and filth among the oppressed and ignorant should be met without an iota of tolerance, mercy or compromise.

Reason dictates the impossibility of a god - with our present understanding of the origins of the human species, the nature of our beliefs and ideas, the fact that we lack even an iota of a cosmic perspective and so on. What makes such arguments hypocritical is that they work in two ways:

1) That there is a god, but our puny human brains can't fathom it. In other words, we lack a proper cosmic perspective because we aren't special enough.

2) That we are so special as people, that god made us in his image, i.e. our consciousness IS so special that we can project it and conform the entirety of the universe, which we are not even equipped to fathom sensuously (hence Quantum mechanics) to our consciousness. This is utterly contradictory.

This is the paradox of all the arguments for the notion of a god (I.e. we already know that a god does not exist - that is a given - what we have to deal with now are petty abuses of logic in order to "hypothetically" sustain the notion) - the notion of a god presumes that our consciousness is somehow significant or special (rather than, say, the consciousness of a hare) while at the same time making claims that we "cannot" properly fathom the logical cosmic extent of our consciousness. It is a form of non-conscious anthropomorphism so ignorant of itself it cannot even see a human hand in the universe for what it is. This "barrier", this desert of non-understanding constitutes itself as not the precarious nature of human knowledge in understanding this godly universe, but a means of our infinite alienation from beliefs which are ALREADY existent and held in knowledge. An alienation from our very world.


This is, of course, only the most basic one and proves nothing in and of itself. As we all know, it can be explained in other ways. Though, no one has a full solution to its origin and many religious people often find this element to be the most convincing. Surely you can, at least, partially understand their viewpoint here, even if you think it is mistaken? The only question then being: Why you believe they are mistaken.


This is meaningless - we can substitute the universe for my shit and it would make no difference. It still relies on the presumption that the universe, and my own shit, can be accounted for by a god.

The fact of the matter Subversive is that you arrogantly and hypocritically attempt to make claims to "objectivity" by prattling of a "materialist" perspective as though by merit of being a perspective alone it is wrong. This pathetic relativist postmodern game is entirely hypocritical - an "idealist" perspective to you is perceived as equally true BECAUSE it is a perspective held by humans. Heliocentricism and geocentricism were BOTH perspectives and in a certain age, were both equally as empirically verifiable as far as the extent of knowledge of the solar system went. That does not make them equal - truth is by nature ONE SIDED, subjectivity does not make a "perspective" not reflective of objective reality in some way.

And in the background, you presume a wider dogma of truth which can prattle of "materialist" perspectives and "idealist" perspectives. The only means by which you consistently codify these "perspectives" is through a WIDER form of idealism whereby truth is reducible only to "perspectives". Do you see the game you're playing now, Subversive?

[Rafiq]

You cannot divorce religious power from the power of the clergy. To destroy religion as an institution designates the destruction of religious ideas themselves. The Bolshevik "persecution" of religion was just that - the liquidation of the clergy. This may strike one as puzzling within our postmodern age of "unique" individual beliefs, but these beliefs are false and subject to an innate wider ideological belief. These creative ideas a la Subversive are parts of an expressed conscious IDENTITY, not ACTUAL belief. One can refine and creatively express religious sentiments however they want in conformation to their consumerist identity, even by attacking the clergy in thought - it does not invalidate that it is an expression of their power or the power of our present condition.

If some say philosophy is an abstraction of "ordinary language" by creative means, so too are these multitudes of "creative" belief, agnosticism and so on abstractions from ordinary belief.

Our attacks on the New atheist have nothing to do with their "intolerance" of religious ideas. If anything, they are TOO tolerant and too weak in their petty atheism. We attack them for their chauvinism, their idealism and their philosophic philistinism. We attack orange faced scumfuck pieces of shit like Sam Harris not because they are too "close minded" to the religious but because they attempt to level a criticism of religion in terms of theoretically bankrupt spectacle driven ignorance. We attack them for their inability to grasp the foundations of religion and their attempt to reconcile the world from which religion was derived with a conscious, "politically correct" absence of religion. What is "new" about these atheists? They are infantile atheists rather, completely ignorant of old atheism. They are new insofar as their attacks coincide with new religious developments, without being mindful or articulating the anti-religious sentiments of the past.

[RedKobra]

If I was down with the kids I'd probably say something like - Pwn3d Muthaf*cka!

[The Feral Underclass]

If I was down with the kids I'd probably say something like - Pwn3d Muthaf*cka!


Who are you speaking to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedKobra]

Who are you speaking to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not you mate, I was speaking to Subversive or whatever his name is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not you mate, I was speaking to Subversive or whatever his name is.


I thought so, I just wasn't sure :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Subversive]

Oh, isn't this cute - the "reversed" persecution of religion is hypocritical. Why? Because any attempt to alter the beliefs of others is somehow an "infringement" on the sacredness of personal libety.

The 'New Athiest' movement is not just an attempt to alter beliefs of others, it is directly the persecution of those beliefs; An attempt by force.
Certainly Atheists have suffered this persecution themselves, but that is exactly the point - where the hypocrisy is introduced.

It would be like the Jews aligning themselves under a flag and gathering Germans to gas simply because it was the Germans who allows the Nazi's to rule. Can you not see the massive hypocrisy in such an act?
And yes, I did just throw Nazi's into this argument. I don't care. Godwin's Law for the win.

Now you may wish to remain willfully ignorant of this fact, but to attempt to justify it? This is abominable. You are foolish to overlook this.


Subversive, an apologist for ignorance and darkness
LOL

All discussion stops when the ignorance of your post reaches the threshold of becoming pure stupidity. This was that point - only one sentence beyond the opening of your post.

Now I'm not sure how you managed to reach this threshold so fast since you literally just introduced yourself to this discussion only a sentence ago, but it is obvious you do not want to take anything seriously. So obviously this means I will not take you seriously, either. And as such, do not expect me to give you a serious reply as I might have given to others who were more respectable than yourself.


meekly advocating we ought to find a "middle ground" and be "tolerant" of the battle cry of the worldly legitimizations of present conditions of exploitation.
Quote me on where I advocate this. Go ahead. I can wait.
You are extremely foolish to suggest I ever advocated anything even similar to this.


Any moron can see that something like Christianity, or Islam for that matter have changed drastically over the past 2,000 years in accordance with different historic epochs - the 'content', so to speak may be the same but the form has changed so much so to the point where to speak of "Christianity" during the time of the Roman Empire's collapse, and to speak of it now would be utterly erroneous.
True. I am glad you're not a complete moron, then. Just one who likes to jump into discussions with ignorance on their breath and smelling afoul of lies and slander.
But do go on with your tireless little rant that does not actually make an actual point, or with the thoughtless point you so lost in extreme egotism.



For the philistine Subversive, this apparently is not enough to completely destroy the notion of a god and destroy religion.
Yes, hup! hup! *smokes gentlemanly pipe* That barbarian, how dare he suggest something that.... *whispers* What was your point again? Oh, that's right, you really didn't have one. It's a silly little game to you.



His arguments are not based on any honest desire for truth
^ The greatest irony of this monstrous and superficial post.


but to defend his meek sensitivities for ignorance.
Yes, because I am so very meek and sensitive. It just flows out of my every pore. ;)

This is a truly hilarious game you play, but one more thing before I completely denounce your complete stupdity and ignorance:


Where will it end? Since capitalism will hereby be a previous epoch, not only in Subversive's mind should children "directly" be taught religion by forces of reaction and ignorance, Christian clerics, Muslim sheikhs, among a plethora of other scum, but also the high priests of ancient despotic South American societies, of ancient Egypt and the high priests of Hellenistic gods among the first forms of religion which ever existed since the neolithic revolution. Because ultimately what they all have in common is that these were ideas which derived from social epochs and mode(s) of production which simply no longer exist. In order to be consistent and honest, Subversive must agree to this or yield that his initial argument was beyond fucking stupid.
For any rational person who is reading this dredge of nonsense that Rafiq deemed a post.... I, in no way, have said any of these things that Rafiq suggests that I have said.
He completely misunderstood everything I said, entirely, and to the point that it merely became a complete delusion of his own creation. An absolutely laughable mockery of common sense and reading ability.

The above, the 'big statement' he made, has nothing to do with anything I said at all. He has twisted everything I talked about into this obscure little fantasy to mock and degrade all of my arguments, for whatever petty reason and motive that he has.
To make it clear: I have never once implied, stated, assumed, believed, or otherwise held or communicated the belief that anyone, children or not, should ever be 'directly taught' by blind, dogmatic, or ignorant people of any sort, religious "clerics", "priests", and others included.

I could tirelessly point out every other mistake Rafiq made, but the list would just go on and on and on pointlessly. That would be an utter waste of time. The simple fact is: There is not a single valid premise to his post other than what I replied to above and was not obviously mocking due to its outrageous misconception and idiocy. A number of points that is a whole of two. One being the initial opening of his post which I properly explained to him was mistaken by him, and the second being a completely irrelevant but true point that I agreed with.

It is only in Rafiq's seemingly very deranged mind where anyone ever said any of these thing. He has completely misunderstood this discussion, entirely, from even the most basic and fundamental elements.
His arguments are so full of straw men fallacies that, if real, I would assume would also be drenched in gasoline so that even the slightest spark of anyone's lighter would set it ablaze. It is truly that ridiculous and far-fetched. He did not listen to even a single word that I said.

He took every quotation out of context in attempts to belittle me.
He took every opportunity to mock and ridicule me meanwhile having just now come into this discussion and not even having understood it at all.
He rants, incessantly, unable to get to a point or make a coherent case that I have actually done any of these things.

He seems to believe that just because this is the opposing ideologies section, and just because I have defended religious perspective, that I am both a non-revolutionary and also a dogmatic religious person. He has therefore read everything I have said in the extremely foolish and prejudiced premise that everything I have said to others was an attempt to justify everything religious, entirely.
He is very, very mistaken on everything. Nothing he says is true, nothing he says is relevant, nothing he says is even worth reading. It is general stupidity due to his inability to fairly read and understand context.

In essence, he has only done one thing: Made himself look so incredibly ignorant that even I, someone who tolerates quite a bit and still tries to respond to every point being made, choose to ignore him.
RedKobra only supporting him because I, previously and recently, destroyed his arguments and he obviously did not take that so well at all.

Now, Rafiq, if you'll excuse me I have better things to do then reject complete and utter nonsense. I thought me and Feral were having a rather good debate until you interrupted with your putrid, disgusting filth of a post.

Now, if anyone would like to have, or continue, a 'mature' discussion then I am here. I would certainly enjoy discussing the subject with someone who takes it seriously and wishes to understand the deeper relationship between Communism and Religion. More specifically, what effects Communism would have on Religion, according to Marx. Despite what most Leftist, New Age Atheists would try to have you believe, Marx, Lenin, and others were not opposed to Religion entirely. There is more to be understood in that relationship.

[RedKobra]

Okay I'm pretty sure you're a troll. No one is as actually as dense as this in real life. Three people in a row have now tried to explain that what you take for a sophisticated take down of Atheism is actually a bunch of tired old canards that have been dragged out of their rotten old coffin by every second rate apologist since 1900. We have heard this all before and it hasn't got any more compelling since the last time we heard it.

And, oh, did I hear you use the classic semantic trick of conflating the actual persecution of the Jews and other such groups with the "persecution" of Theists because Atheists aren't very polite to them any more? You really are beyond help.

[The Feral Underclass]

If I was down with the kids I'd probably say something like - Pwn3d Muthaf*cka!


Did Rafiq post something? I have it blocked and in tapatalk it removes blocked people's existence all together. If he did that would make your comment make more sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedKobra]

Correctamundo. 'Rafiq, our friendly neighbourhood hypergraph.'

[Subversive]

Okay I'm pretty sure you're a troll. No one is as actually as dense as this in real life. Three people in a row have now tried to explain that what you take for a sophisticated take down of Atheism is [...]
I am a troll? This coming from the guy who literally just started trolling me after a very short argument, refusing to argue back and just plain insulting me for no reason!
Do you really not see the irony in this?

Once again, I have to spell it out to you: I am not trying to "take down Atheism". This is pure stupidity at its finest.
I am not against Atheism in any way. I have had many Atheist friends in my life who I have agreed with very much, including on their Philosophies and beliefs.
Some could even call me an "Atheist". I have probably been called that before and don't even care to remember it since it is, like your own posts, simple ignorance. I, personally, do not associate myself with religious labels of any kind.

I am only against ignorance and hypocrisy. Of which, your own arguments are a prime example of this sort of (dis)intellectual apathy.

I am tired of being nice to people so rude and willfully ignorant.
Get it right or just plain shut up from now on. I can only correct you so many times before you, as a person, become a waste of time for me.


Did Rafiq post something? I have it blocked and in tapatalk it removes blocked people's existence all together. If he did that would make your comment make more sense
Yes, one of the most pitiful excuses for a post I have ever seen in my life... And I have seen A LOT of really pathetic stuff on the internet in my years!

Maybe I should block him, too. He does not seem like a very reasonable or tolerable person. I do not generally block people, though, no matter how ignorant or rude they behave. RedKobra is seeking a place alongside him, it seems.

[Rafiq]

It would be like the Jews aligning themselves under a flag and gathering Germans to gas simply because it was the Germans who allows the Nazi's to rule. Can you not see the massive hypocrisy in such an act?


I don't give a shit about playing semantic games with you - replace alter with destroy and it makes no difference to me. I fail to see any on a linguistic level, actually.

An utterly moronic allegory. Why? The dichotomy between Jews and Germans is a false one solely inherent to the ideological pathology of the Fascist. The argument would only work if we assume that we were arguing as reverse-Christians who actually identify as satanic heretics or whatever you want. To articulate the struggle as one between two nations, would already be playing their game. Conversely, as Communists we recognize the struggle against religion to be a real one. Not as a matter of spite, not as an act of vengeance or revenge - but an active struggle against manifestations of ignorance and reaction which - unlike the poor Germans who lost the war - are more alive today than ever. As a philistine, Subversive again assumes that our quarrel with religion is that it "forces" a view upon people, or "disallows" people to think about alternative perspectives. It is not the act of "forcing" views upon people which is the problem, but which specific views and what they mean. Do you give a shit if someone were to force the view upon you that the sun is the center of our solar system? To say so quite some time ago would be an act of heresy. To say so today too would be an act of logical heresy - you would be met with ridicule and scrutiny. The notion that the Earth is the center of the solar system has absolutely no platform at all today in our society.

Are heliocentricsts "just as bad" by putting forward such an idea? Is this "hypocritical" in your ignorant, philistine mind? Certainly it should be. According to Subversive, the postmodern relativist, by merit of there being "different perspectives" they are all equally wrong or true insofar as they reflect a form of subjectivity. And hear me now: Absolutely no one cares about whether you directly said this or not. It is the only conclusion we can draw from your post. Again the pathology of an idealist - whereby truth can only be deduced from the self-conscious declarations of the subject. As though we are presented with a statement - i.e. "God made the universe in 7 days" and articulate it ONLY in terms of empirical validity. The hallmark of a philosophic philistine.

The fact of the matter is that the dichotomy between atheism in religion is NOT between "two equal perspectives", it is a dichotomy which can only ever be grounded in real struggle. The struggle between Jew and German is a false one - if we thought otherwise, if we saw the Germans the same way as we see the clergy, we wouldn't mind seeing them all slaughtered. Your pathetic, worthless pluralistic argument only works if we pre-suppose that religion and atheism rest on the same foundations - they do not.

We do not condemn the terror of the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks, though the oppressed and damned certainly suffered terror at the hands of both the French kings and the Tsars. To call this hypocritical assumes that the conflict isn't real to begin with and simply consists of different agents, actors acting upon different ideas. But this is not the case to the slightest.

But all is rational indeed. The religious reactionaries suppress truth in the name of the existing, or a previous order - we seek to destroy the religious reactionaries in the name of a higher civilization. Are we ashamed to admit this? Certainly not. The struggle between the exploiters and exploited does NOT consistent of equal subjects - but represents real processes of objectively existing conflict. We have, however, already been over this. The philistine dolt you are, I have already addressed all of this - you have simply decided to ignore my post almost in its entirety and repeat the same shit. That's not how an argument works.

If you can't respond to my post - if you want to "ignore it" then shut the fuck up and get out. Don't keep talking shit, indirectly responding in order to preserve a sense of self-worth when you can't address the points at hand. You either ignore me or you don't.



Quote me on where I advocate this. Go ahead. I can wait.
You are extremely foolish to suggest I ever advocated anything even similar to this.


Do you think I'm going to directly ask Subversive about the ideological pathology behind Subversive's arguments? Try again. I don't have to ask Marine Le Pen about whether she is a reactionary or not. The fact of the matter is that religions are worldly legitimizations of present conditions of exploitation - whether you like to acknowledge this or not.


To make it clear: I have never once implied, stated, assumed, believed, or otherwise held or communicated the belief that anyone, children or not, should ever be 'directly taught' by blind, dogmatic, or ignorant people of any sort, religious "clerics", "priests", and others included.


You tire me - you are literally intellectually worthless. You indirectly implied this by saying that children should be taught religion in school so they can "choose" their lifestyles. I then went on to point out that being taught religion outwardly, "for what it is" is going to be impossible unless it is under the backdrop of a wider, atheist background of truth. I then said the only way in which this could be avoided, i.e. to avoid a historicist account of religion in a post-capitalist society would be through actually having religious people teach. You failed to even come close to addressing this. And listen here, Subversive: You guise your inability to confront me with your bullshit about how "stupid" I am but the fact of the matter is that you're picking and choosing what you think you're confident enough to respond to. This alone demonstrates your utter dishonesty and weakness - it demonstrates that you don't know shit about what you're talking about and claims that you're holding back are nothing short of a cowardly bluff.

Here is the problem - you are meet my post with such hostility and surprise because you refuse to outwardly identify with my accusations against you. "I never said I defend ignorance! Ridiculous, I don't like ignorance!" - that's not a fucking argument. That's you being insecure about your own worthless ideas. If you want to actually debate with someone, you're going to have to take into account several factors: The reasoning behind their arguments, why this reasoning is wrong, and so on. You haven't even touched this - you have simply hid behind your ego, your identity and refuse to identify with the accusations leveled against you. It's a straw man - I did not SAY that you admit you're ignorant, that you're a philistine, that you defend them - not to the slightest degree. I simply conclude this logically as a result of a careful articulation of your points and arguments. Your postmodern garbage is absolutely sickening. The very thought that religious reactionary scum should be tolerated to any degree on an academic level is vomit inducing. The spiritual mouthpieces of the class enemy deserve no platform and should be met with no mercy.


He seems to believe that just because this is the opposing ideologies section, and just because I have defended religious perspective, that I am both a non-revolutionary and also a dogmatic religious person. He has therefore read everything I have said in the extremely foolish and prejudiced premise that everything I have said to others was an attempt to justify everything religious, entirely.

The fact of the matter is that I could care less about whether you personally identify with "everything" religious, I highly doubt most Neo-Nazis today will tell you that they "fully" agree with everything the Nazis did during the second world war. The basis for your arguments to begin with stem from the fact that you're a bourgeois ideologue who perceives "extremes" or impassioned beliefs in whatever variety as off-putting, you might be able to muster enough gut to say that you don't agree with the religious on everything - but you're scared to death of an affirmative force which would destroy religion entirety. You want to identify yourself as "balanced" and "reasonable" - in doing so you parasitically rely on the hegemony of religion.


Now, Rafiq, if you'll excuse me I have better things to do then reject complete and utter nonsense. I thought me and Feral were having a rather good debate until you interrupted with your putrid, disgusting filth of a post.


Why don't you shut the fuck up then? If you have better things to do, then why do you even bother posting and replying to me? Because again, you invest your sense of self worth on an online discussion forum. I called you out for your utter bullshit and now the only thing you have left is to express your disagreement without any further elaboration. You make empty declarations without any elaboration whatsoever - any idiot who reads my post can see I never did this.


Marx, Lenin, and others were not opposed to Religion entirely. There is more to be understood in that relationship.

You yet again talk out of your ass: Marx and Lenin were not only opposed to religion entirely, they actively sought the complete destruction of religion. What they recognized was that religion's prominence did not simply stem from processes of pure thought - but real and present conditions of life. Lenin's political tolerance of religion (i.e. the Muslims of the Caucasus, Christian religious minorities) was strategic, it had nothing to do with any inherent sympathy to religion in any form. I will delete my post and never post again if you provide me with a single iota of evidence which would even remotely suggest that Marx and Lenin were not completely opposed to religion.

[Rafiq]

This infantile form of ass covering "I never said this!" is meaningless. A true argument is able to articulate the REASONING behind an attack and further address it. The fact that my accusations against you are an affront to your worthless intellectual identity means nothing to anyone. That you don't want to accept that this is the logical conclusion drawn from your argument has nothing to do the validity of this conclusion. I see the pathology behind your posts, because it is phrased in such a banal and cliche way that it fits perfectly within an identifiable paradigm of thought

I'll use one example Subversive so pathetically tried to utilize as well:

I believe, conversely, that religion should be taught because it will give all people the knowledge to rightfully choose their own way in life. It will give them "freedom of Religion", but not in the way New Atheists believe. It will not educate the masses to all become Atheists, it will instead only bring 'true religion' out from the crevasse and rocks of which is the culture-of-Religion; which is, currently, dissolved into the Capitalist system and modern society.


How would it NOT educate the masses to become Atheists? Who would regulate this religious education and how would it work? How would all of these "religious perspectives" be taught? From WHAT background of truth would be pre-supposed in teaching religion? It assumes that religion derives from processes of pure thought rather than our social realities - it is not a potential "contender" to truth like some kind of fucking competing theory of quantum physics. I covered this already.

What a disgusting and utterly hypocritical form of reasoning. As though relative truths, ideology can be taught under the backdrop of a "neutral" teaching of it. This alone would render it not ideological but an empty category of a wider ideological (or "religious) universe. Let's ignore the fact that under present conditions of bourgeois society, education most usually entails atheism (Even though "atheism" is not directly taught in schools - literally an informed understanding of the world prompts people to ditch religion). What would be Subversive's magical, sentimentally pathetic plan to "allow people to choose their way of life"?

That we allow clerics from all religious backgrounds to teach the young religion. An utter waste of time and most likely resources. The only way in which "religion" at face value can be honestly taught (i.e. in the sense that you are directly fathoming the ideological universe of religion) is if people from those according backgrounds are teaching the hypothetical classes. But let's assume this would ever even happen - what an utterly schizophrenic proposition! Children do not think with their heads up their asses - even if clerics from all sorts of religious degenerate filth are going to try and fill their heads with poison, they will assume an ideological background to which all teachings from all classes will be subject to - whereby the Christian priest who teaches the class about "what Christianity is"'s ramblings will be categorized through reason and reduced to a wider, stronger absolute truth.

If children are immediately taught religion at a young age with no understanding of "atheistic" biology and physics, psychology or sociology, then they will certainly grow up to be schizophrenics. If all of these multitudes of relative truth fill their heads without a semblance of a logical background from which they can be codified, and understood (ONLY Marxism can do this), they will be filled with contradictory, inconsistent beliefs which I would most certainly bet would be overall incredibly harmful on their neurological development. "Which" beliefs would be better and which ones would not? The answer of course is all of them. All religious ideas are equally as potent, powerful and "true"- it has nothing to do with their empirical validity but their contextual place in the existing order. If the conditions from which religion is derived, solely the "dissolving" relative societies be they capitalist or feudal are destroyed it has no context to even exist. Religious power stems from the real power of productive relations, religious power stems from its ability derive legitimacy from social realities.

Where will it end? Since capitalism will hereby be a previous epoch, not only in Subversive's mind should children "directly" be taught religion by forces of reaction and ignorance, Christian clerics, Muslim sheikhs, among a plethora of other scum, but also the high priests of ancient despotic South American societies, of ancient Egypt and the high priests of Hellenistic gods among the first forms of religion which ever existed since the neolithic revolution. Because ultimately what they all have in common is that these were ideas which derived from social epochs and mode(s) of production which simply no longer exist. In order to be consistent and honest, Subversive must agree to this or yield that his initial argument was beyond fucking stupid.


Even in present bourgeois society, religious education is NOT "naturally" compatible with things like biology and physics. Further elaborations and impositions are necessary in order to achieve this. Here in the United States, there is a political dichotomy between "atheistic" education which teaches natural selection as real and 'creationism'. By teaching children the basics of biology, this would already be contradicting the teachings of most religions in an "empirical" sense. So how in your mind would religion be taught, and why shouldn't Fascism among other reactionary ideological currents be taught using the SAME logic? Can you answer this basic fucking question? No? Then fuck off.

[RedKobra]

:lol: Rafiq, you go girl!

In all seriousness though, Subversive, I stand by calling you a troll. There's so much wrong with the politics that seem to underpin your philosophy that my spidey senses are tingling all over the place. Such reactionary and spineless drivel is unlikely to come from a revolutionary leftist. Rafiq may have taken the long way round to say it but ultimately he's exposed the fact that your "moderate" posturing is just that posturing. If I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong but something feels off about you. And as far as I'm concerned it wasn't him that entered the thread and started throwing insults around, it was you. Your initial response to me was dripping in condescension which given the vapidity of your argument, I will admit, pissed me off. From that point on you've seemed to be trying just a bit too hard to get a reaction.

Oh and block who you like, personally I don't block anyone.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am a troll? This coming from the guy who literally just started trolling me after a very short argument, refusing to argue back and just plain insulting me for no reason!
Do you really not see the irony in this?

Once again, I have to spell it out to you: I am not trying to "take down Atheism". This is pure stupidity at its finest.
I am not against Atheism in any way. I have had many Atheist friends in my life who I have agreed with very much, including on their Philosophies and beliefs.
Some could even call me an "Atheist". I have probably been called that before and don't even care to remember it since it is, like your own posts, simple ignorance. I, personally, do not associate myself with religious labels of any kind.

I am only against ignorance and hypocrisy. Of which, your own arguments are a prime example of this sort of (dis)intellectual apathy.

I am tired of being nice to people so rude and willfully ignorant.
Get it right or just plain shut up from now on. I can only correct you so many times before you, as a person, become a waste of time for me.


Yes, one of the most pitiful excuses for a post I have ever seen in my life... And I have seen A LOT of really pathetic stuff on the internet in my years!

Maybe I should block him, too. He does not seem like a very reasonable or tolerable person. I do not generally block people, though, no matter how ignorant or rude they behave. RedKobra is seeking a place alongside him, it seems.


Compared to you, Rafiq is a shining light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BIXX]

Erm, the poll asks "do you believe in god(s)?" so presumably it means any thing that constitutes a god or gods. This isn't complicated.



No, I don't mean just for me, I mean for everyone. What people choose to believe in has nothing to do with what is probable.



I can't provide a basis for the non-existence of something that has no evidence in existing. I can't prove to you that purple munchkins dressed as sharks don't control the Earth's wind patterns, but since there is no basis for that claim, why would I believe it? With the absence of evidence the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim, not the other way around.

And let's be absolutely clear here: The belief in god is not quantitatively different to believing in shark costumed purple munchkins and their dominance over our weather.

Wait


So you're telling me that purple munchkins dressed as sharks don't control the weather?

Motherfucking damnit, gotta rethink some shit

[Subversive]

I see that none of you wish to have a mature discussion and that this is a hopeless endeavor. None of you speaking to(about) me are participating in the discussion seriously. I was hoping for something more on an intellectual level, myself. I guess I expected too much. Nothing I have gotten in this topic even resembles common sense, let alone real discussion. It is simply pathetic.
Enjoy your ignorance; holding on to that hypocritical ignorance exactly as that of the religions you so criticize.

[Rafiq]

I see that none of you are worth talking to and do not wish to have a mature discussion. I was hoping for something more on an intellectual level, myself. I guess I expected too much.


No one cares about pretenses to intellect or maturity. If you cannot address my points, if you cannot demonstrate how my points are "stupid" then stop talking and fuck off.

[Subversive]

No one cares about pretenses to intellect or maturity. If you cannot address my points, if you cannot demonstrate how my points are "stupid" then stop talking and fuck off.
Hilarious! Your hypocrisy, arrogance, and stupidity is on unexpected levels.

You began attacking me not by addressing any of my points but by directly attacking a straw man argument meanwhile insulting me with ad hominem fallacies, nothing of which even resembled my arguments in even the most general sort of way..... Yet you're telling me if I can't properly respond to your points I am the one who needs to leave?

Grow up and stop trolling, kid. You are deeply delusional.

[RedKobra]

Good god are you still wittering on? Your points were platitudinous drivel not arguments. At this stage your fishing for drama is becoming increasingly obvious for what it is.

[Rafiq]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2818270&postcount=172

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why does this not make sense?
There is no question about it - the universe is finite. We know this, scientifically. We have detected the Cosmic Background Radiation and can see that the amount of energy in the universe is finite, limited.

This is simply not the case. In fact current measurements strongly support the notion that the large-scale geometry of the universe is flat - and therefore that the universe is infinite (it would be finite but unbounded if it had a positive curvature).

Of course at any point the amount of energy within our cosmological horizon is finite. That doesn't mean that the universe beyond our cosmological horizon doesn't exist.

The rest of the argument seems to be a horrible glut resting on a blatant misuse of the term faith - something most of us have seen a million times by now. It's not original, and it's not interesting. You can call giraffes helicopters, if you're alright with being misunderstood every time you speak. What you can't do is make them fly.

[Subversive]

This is simply not the case. In fact current measurements strongly support the notion that the large-scale geometry of the universe is flat - and therefore that the universe is infinite (it would be finite but unbounded if it had a positive curvature).

Of course at any point the amount of energy within our cosmological horizon is finite. That doesn't mean that the universe beyond our cosmological horizon doesn't exist.
Hmm, I think you're right on that.
I don't know what "current measurements" suggest, nor do I care much to know at the moment, but it's true that there are supported theories which suppose an infinite universe, and that there may be an infinite amount of energy outside of our discoverable range.

However, it should be indicated that semantics is somewhat obscure here.
When someone says "universe" do they mean the whole of all things entirely, or just the whole of everything we know exists?
For example, if we do not know what exists outside of the "known universe" then it could perhaps be nothing at all.

Is it not the Atheist argument that if something cannot be proven to exist, and cannot be known to exist, then it is more easily assumed not to exist at all? This could easily apply to the universe outside of the 'knowable' scope of the universe, which is everything outside of our visibility.
It could be any manner of speculation which presumes otherwise, but it will remain as speculation until proven. In which case, there can be arguments supporting both sides.
I'm sure the trolls here love my new analogy.

In any case, my point being: The "known universe" does indeed have a finite amount of energy in it, because it is a currently finite amount of space. We do not know what exists outside of this known universe, therefore all else is speculative.
Though, I will agree that this is a limited equivocation. I cannot speak of what I do not know, and therefore cannot truly say the whole-universe, including all that we do not know, is finite. I apologize for my mistake.



The rest of the argument seems to be a horrible glut resting on a blatant misuse of the term faith - something most of us have seen a million times by now. It's not original, and it's not interesting. You can call giraffes helicopters, if you're alright with being misunderstood every time you speak. What you can't do is make them fly.
My explanations may not make sense to some of you, but this is not to mean they aren't perfectly valid.
You can explain color to a blind man but that does not mean he will ever understand you. Likewise, if he is merely blind because he refuses to open his eyes then the fault lies with him.

I would argue that in this case the fault lies not in my semantics but within the faults of others, apparently including yourself.

As I stated before, I have friends who are actually very close to this issue. One of my friends is a former Philosophy professor and is also an Athiest.
Another of my friends is a leader in his field and is friends himself with both Dan Dennett, as I talked about earlier, and Richard Dawkins. He has personally discussed both religion and philosophy with them multiple times and communicated some of those things to me. I do not mean to make this seem like I am leveraging a celebrity-appeal, but I mean only to state I have probably more information, more resources, and more study on this topic than the vastest majority of people.
Again, I do not disagree with any of these people about everything. I discuss these issues with them and with others on a serious, mature, and intellectual level. I have, myself, studied Philosophy and Religion for many years, as well as knowing Marx's thoughts on Religion and can quote him very well on the subject, as well as also understanding the general "Marxist" thoughts on Religion of which I would argue are somewhat different than those held by Marx himself.

To repeat what I've already clearly stated: I have never once attempted to destroy, debunk, or defeat Atheism or any other such general belief system. This is a pointless and honestly stupid thing to do - which is exactly the problem I was speaking of if anyone had cared to actually listen, rather than just judge or assume.

Now, I believe I have defined my terms within my posts - if anyone cares to actually read them. I am willing to give anyone another chance to discuss this if they simply wish to do so on a serious and mature level, rather than this ridiculous trolling nonsense. I honestly don't care to discuss subjects that children would not understand with children. It is pointless.
All one would need to do, if they did not understand my terms, explanations, or arguments is merely to state this and I will gladly clarify.
However, I would be more than glad to also destroy any fallacies that many will lie out my feet due to their ignorant protests against their own stupidity.

Now, if anyone here believes they are not a child, I'm certainly more than willing to listen to reason. You'll find I am a very reasonable person if given the proper chance.
However, if not given the chance? Obviously you will see what you want to see - like all other delusional people in the world.

Now the reason I came into this topic was not to stir up trouble with the locals, but because I believed that the 'revolutionary leftist' community would hopefully enlighten me with an interesting perspective, since I am not much acquainted with people who actually share my own 'political beliefs', if you can so call them that.
Instead, what I have received is simple ignorance and foolishness; trolling. You have all let me down significantly. I, obviously, suspected I would get a number of naive adult-children with inferiority complexes and authority-issues, but I hoped for at least one interesting discussion with at least one educated member.
I certainly have not seen anything even resembling an educated discussion since I came in, nor mature, nor reasonable. I am deeply disappointed.

So I hope some of you might take it upon yourselves to come out of your bridge-dwelling habits and perhaps discuss some things you thought you might never discuss, in ways you may never have imagined they might be discussed. It couldn't hurt you to try.

Though, not everyone in life is worth my time. If there is nothing to be found here then there is simply nothing to be found here. I pick up and I move on, as I have always done before. There is no loss to me. I learn from every mistake that I make.

Good day to all of you.