God.. self centered, power happy asshole? [Archive]

Dr Mindbender

20th January 2007, 12:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:02 am
I was talking to my aunt about the whole god thing. and she said God created us so that we could love him and believe in him. and in return he would give us paradise, all we gotta do is not sin, and repent and follow his commandments. right? that's cake... plus he is only willing to forgive. then there is hell and all.. eternal burning and suffering.. YIKES..

so Im just wondering. where the fuck does he come off as "the boss" why does he set the rules? and why weren't the commandments democratically created.. just one guy or spirti came up with them? and we are supposed to follow them? what makes him the judge of all people? and have the say who is a sinner, what is a sin and whats not.. hmm
Really depends what your personal theology is. Personally Ive never understood why being an atheist is a prerequisite to being a revolutionary. In scientific and logical terms, we cant determine one way or the other wether or not God exists, only that most content of the book of Genisis is probably wrong. Marx only condemned institutionalised religion, not religion per se. As for the God question, I find it vile that personal conviction should influence ones politics. I hate those that draw racist and homophobic ideas from religious doctrine. Ive always argued that even in a post revolution situation churches, mosques etc should be allowed to stand because otherwise it gives moral ground to the theists and reactionaries and all the others who want to defend the pro-capitalist status quo.

EwokUtopia

20th January 2007, 14:35

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
-Richard Dawkins

Pow R. Toc H.

20th January 2007, 15:40

Dr Mindbender

20th January 2007, 15:59

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 20, 2007 03:40 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 20, 2007 03:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 09:02 am
I was talking to my aunt about the whole god thing. and she said God created us so that we could love him and believe in him. and in return he would give us paradise, all we gotta do is not sin, and repent and follow his commandments. right? that's cake... plus he is only willing to forgive. then there is hell and all.. eternal burning and suffering.. YIKES..

so Im just wondering. where the fuck does he come off as "the boss" why does he set the rules? and why weren't the commandments democratically created.. just one guy or spirti came up with them? and we are supposed to follow them? what makes him the judge of all people? and have the say who is a sinner, what is a sin and whats not.. hmm
The only way "god" would ever become "the boss" is if you gave up all of your free will and became just another powerless object along with the other billions of people who believe in him. Even if there was that infinitely small possiblity that god did exist, he is still fucking bourgeoisie scum. [/b]
lol the orthodox theists would probably argue that since class disparity and political contention are by definition inventions of god then he can bend the rules to make himself otherwise, ie there will be no inequality in heaven.
What makes me the laugh the most is that most mainstream theists champion capitalism and reactionary politics in this life yet the more they talk of their heaven the more it sounds like the socialist reality we would strive towards.
Then theres the argument, if heaven is going to be full of gay bashing right wing killjoys would you really want to go there anyway?

cormacobear

20th January 2007, 17:27

the religion sub-forum is above.

Pow R. Toc H.

20th January 2007, 18:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:27 pm
the religion sub-forum is above.
Yeah I'm curious why, isnt this in Religion and Theology?

Forward Union

20th January 2007, 18:17

it is ;)

Pow R. Toc H.

20th January 2007, 18:25

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 20, 2007 03:59 pm
if heaven is going to be full of gay bashing right wing killjoys would you really want to go there anyway?
Fuck no. To me heaven sounds more like capitol hill.

Wozza

21st January 2007, 11:54

Religion has been used to control the masses, heaven and hell were made up purely to keep people inline. now a days we have more people realising this, or atleast the obscene way that "god" is preached

Cyanide Suicide

21st January 2007, 18:57

Yeah, this is typically one of my arguments against Christians.

"So, let's say God exists. Why would you want to play into his little game of life, where we're basically his pawns, and he is the tyrannical dictator of humankind. Why would you want to be in the presence of one who "punishes" people who disagree with him by burning them in a fire for eternity."

R_P_A_S

21st January 2007, 20:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:57 pm
Yeah, this is typically one of my arguments against Christians.

"So, let's say God exists. Why would you want to play into his little game of life, where we're basically his pawns, and he is the tyrannical dictator of humankind. Why would you want to be in the presence of one who "punishes" people who disagree with him by burning them in a fire for eternity."
why cant we vote for a god? lol im tired of this one

Cyanide Suicide

21st January 2007, 21:01

Seriously. Anyone who demands "praise and worship" isn't for me.

Also, I hear that the Bible says all people do in heaven is worship God? Can anyone confirm this?

The Feral Underclass

21st January 2007, 21:27

Originally posted by R P A S
God.. self centered, power happy asshole?
God doesn't exist.

Demogorgon

22nd January 2007, 00:00

What next? Are we going tog et pissed off that the tooth fairy forgets some people?

Cyanide Suicide

22nd January 2007, 00:13

How does one know whether a god exists or not?

I agree it's not likely, but I could never say that one definitely does not exist.

R_P_A_S

22nd January 2007, 00:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:13 am
How does one know whether a god exists or not?
maybe just having faith in "god" makes him exist for those particular people..

The Feral Underclass

22nd January 2007, 11:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:13 am
How does one know whether a god exists or not?
Materialism and reason...The basis of truth.

I could never say that one definitely does not exist.

Why not?

The Feral Underclass

22nd January 2007, 11:55

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+January 22, 2007 01:15 am--> (R_P_A_S @ January 22, 2007 01:15 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 12:13 am
How does one know whether a god exists or not?
maybe just having faith in "god" makes him exist for those particular people.. [/b]
No it doesn't.

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 14:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:02 am
I was talking to my aunt about the whole god thing. and she said God created us so that we could love him and believe in him. and in return he would give us paradise, all we gotta do is not sin, and repent and follow his commandments. right? that's cake... plus he is only willing to forgive. then there is hell and all.. eternal burning and suffering.. YIKES..

so Im just wondering. where the fuck does he come off as "the boss" why does he set the rules? and why weren't the commandments democratically created.. just one guy or spirti came up with them? and we are supposed to follow them? what makes him the judge of all people? and have the say who is a sinner, what is a sin and whats not.. hmm
Well, theoretically, that's kind of how it works. If he's omnipotent and created you for his purposes, then it's entirely up to him to set the ground rules, isn't it? I mean he could have let us all create the 10 commandments by democratic means if he wanted to, but apparently he didn't, so you've got to deal with it.

That's, you know, if you think he exists or did any of this at all. If you don't, then the question becomes, "Why do you waste time caring?"

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 16:25

without trying to sound reactionary, the lack of irrefutable proof either way to god's existence was my main reason for turning to agnostism ( I went through a buddhist phase too) as opposed to atheism. I used to be atheist, but the absence of conclusive proof to his non existence made me realise i was as arrogant as the christians i claimed to despise. Sure, there are sound theoligical arguments that suggest he doesnt exist, and if he does exist he's probably a power hungry right-wing jerk but its beside the point that he could be there.
Im going to end now cause i'm not constructive this post is and i dont want to end up constricted to OP.

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 16:27

( I went through a buddhist phase too)

I'm still in mine.

the absence of conclusive proof to his non existence made me realise i was as arrogant as the christians i claimed to despise.

A major step not yet taken by most folks here.

Im going to end now cause i'm not constructive this post is and i dont want to end up constricted to OP.

Freedom in action!

:D

RevMARKSman

22nd January 2007, 16:42

but the absence of conclusive proof to his non existence made me realise i was as arrogant as the christians i claimed to despise.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/

If logic isn't proof, what is?

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 16:45

There isnt any proof that ghosts dont exist or that the lochness monster doesnt exist or big foot or goblins or.

The "there isnt any proof that god doesnt exist" is such a bullshit arguement. You could make the same arguement for a million other things that are just as illogical as believing in god.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 16:46

There isnt any proof that ghosts dont exist or that the lochness monster doesnt exist or big foot or goblins.

The "there isnt any proof that god doesnt exist" is such a bullshit arguement. You could make the same arguement for a million other things that are just as illogical as believing in god.

Comrade J

22nd January 2007, 16:59

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 22, 2007 04:25 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 22, 2007 04:25 pm)without trying to sound reactionary, the lack of irrefutable proof either way to god's existence was my main reason for turning to agnostism ( I went through a buddhist phase too) as opposed to atheism. I used to be atheist, but the absence of conclusive proof to his non existence made me realise i was as arrogant as the christians i claimed to despise. Sure, there are sound theoligical arguments that suggest he doesnt exist, and if he does exist he's probably a power hungry right-wing jerk but its beside the point that he could be there.
Im going to end now cause i'm not constructive this post is and i dont want to end up constricted to OP.[/b]
Are you agnostic to the existence of a violent snail called Borris who lives on Saturn and will torture you for all eternity if you don't worship him? Because there is exactly the same amount of evidence for his existence as there is for God's.
If you're going to be agnostic about God, then surely you ought to be agnostic about any other ridiculous belief?

Bertrand Russell's example is probably the most famous.

Originally posted by Bertrand [email protected]
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Richard Dawkins
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 17:02

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 22, 2007 04:46 pm
The "there isnt any proof that god doesnt exist" is such a bullshit arguement. You could make the same arguement for a million other things that are just as illogical as believing in god.
Then don't. It's your choice, isn't it?

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:04

Originally posted by Comrade J+January 22, 2007 04:59 pm--> (Comrade J @ January 22, 2007 04:59 pm) Bertrand Russell's example is probably the most famous.

Originally posted by Bertrand [email protected]
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Richard Dawkins
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. [/b]
That was exactly my point.

Are you reading "The God Dillusion"?

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by Comrade J+January 22, 2007 04:59 pm--> (Comrade J @ January 22, 2007 04:59 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 04:25 pm
Are you agnostic to the existence of a violent snail called Borris who lives on Saturn and will torture you for all eternity if you don't worship him? Because there is exactly the same amount of evidence for his existence as there is for God's.
If you're going to be agnostic about God, then surely you ought to be agnostic about any other ridiculous belief?

[/b]

You're probably right and i agree with you but the remoteness of possibility, and regardless of how ludricous the idea seems to you does not excuse the principle of any legitimacy it may hold. To me its down to personal interpretation.
One idea ive read is the idea that god is a concept like 'love' or 'hate' as opposed to a sentient being. For example, we all know the number '22' exists but we cant get in a car and physically go to it.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:07

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 05:02 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 05:02 pm)
Pow R. Toc [email protected] 22, 2007 04:46 pm
The "there isnt any proof that god doesnt exist" is such a bullshit arguement. You could make the same arguement for a million other things that are just as illogical as believing in god.
Then don't. It's your choice, isn't it? [/b]
It is, but my point was that it is an extremely weak arguement for being an agnostic.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:13

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 05:06 pm
You're probably right and i agree with you but the remoteness of possibility, and regardless of how ludricous the idea seems to you does not excuse the principle of any legitimacy it may hold. To me its down to personal interpretation.
One idea ive read is the idea that god is a concept like 'love' or 'hate' as opposed to a sentient being. For example, we all know the number '22' exists but we cant get in a car and physically go to it.
What the fuck makes the belief in god legitimate? Im curious, what?

The number 22? There is proof that the number 22 exists. It comes between 21 and 23 its 2x11 2.2x10 and Im pretty sure people dont pray to the number 22 or the concept of love or the concept of hate, so it would seem just as ludicrous to pray to the concept of god.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:13

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 22, 2007 05:07 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 22, 2007 05:07 pm)
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 05:02 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 05:02 pm)
Pow R. Toc [email protected] 22, 2007 04:46 pm
The "there isnt any proof that god doesnt exist" is such a bullshit arguement. You could make the same arguement for a million other things that are just as illogical as believing in god.
Then don't. It's your choice, isn't it? [/b]
It is, but my point was that it is an extremely weak arguement for being an agnostic. [/b]
The same could be said about you for being an atheist. I remember seeing on TV a long time ago they used to ridicule explorers who brought back tall tales of gorillas, crocodiles and other 'exotic beasts' To say anything is for 100% certain without having conclusive knowledge or proof makes you just as arrogant as a christian who says he 'knows' for 100% certainty there is a 'god'.

Pow R. Toc H

The number 22? There is proof that the number 22 exists. It comes between 21 and 23 its 2x11 2.2x10 and Im pretty sure people dont pray to the number 22 or the concept of love or the concept of hate, so it would seem just as ludicrous to pray to the concept of god
Im not disputing it would be ludricous to pray to the number 22, but im not in favour of taking away people's right to do so. In any case it's beside the point. Believing there could be a 'god' does not automatically instigate a desire to worship it or him or her anyway.

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 17:17

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 22, 2007 05:07 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 22, 2007 05:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm

Pow R. Toc [email protected] 22, 2007 04:46 pm
The "there isnt any proof that god doesnt exist" is such a bullshit arguement. You could make the same arguement for a million other things that are just as illogical as believing in god.
Then don't. It's your choice, isn't it?
It is, [/b]
Then why not leave it at that.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:24

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 05:13 pm
The same could be said about you for being an atheist. I remember seeing on TV a long time ago they used to ridicule explorers who brought back tall tales of gorillas, crocodiles and other 'exotic beasts' To say anything is for 100% certain without having conclusive knowledge or proof makes you just as arrogant as a christian who says he 'knows' for 100% certainty there is a 'god'.

Im not disputing it would be ludricous to pray to the number 22, but im not in favour of taking away people's right to do so. In any case it's beside the point. Believing there could be a 'god' does not automatically instigate a desire to worship it or him or her anyway.
So, according to you unless I have doubt in science and logic and all other rational thought, Im like a christian, someone who has no reasoning for believing in a god. I am an atheist because science tells me god didnt create the universe. Im an atheist because the believe in a giant bearded man who controlls all your actions and thoughts is completely fucking illogical. Any kind of belief in an omni-present being is completely fucking illogical. I am a materialist. All your prooving in your weak arguement is that your semi-dillusional and others that dont share your dillusion are just as dillusional as fucking christians.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:17 pm

It is, [/QUOTE]
Then why not leave it at that. [/quote]
Ok, I will because your right.

It is fucking pointless to argue with illogical theists.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:30

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 22, 2007 05:24 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 22, 2007 05:24 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 05:13 pm
The same could be said about you for being an atheist. I remember seeing on TV a long time ago they used to ridicule explorers who brought back tall tales of gorillas, crocodiles and other 'exotic beasts' To say anything is for 100% certain without having conclusive knowledge or proof makes you just as arrogant as a christian who says he 'knows' for 100% certainty there is a 'god'.

Im not disputing it would be ludricous to pray to the number 22, but im not in favour of taking away people's right to do so. In any case it's beside the point. Believing there could be a 'god' does not automatically instigate a desire to worship it or him or her anyway.
So, according to you unless I have doubt in science and logic and all other rational thought, Im like a christian, someone who has no reasoning for believing in a god. I am an atheist because science tells me god didnt create the universe. Im an atheist because the believe in a giant bearded man who controlls all your actions and thoughts is completely fucking illogical. Any kind of belief in an omni-present being is completely fucking illogical. I am a materialist. All your prooving in your weak arguement is that your semi-dillusional and others that dont share your dillusion are just as dillusional as fucking christians. [/b]
Profanity doesnt add anymore substance to your argument. It may amaze you to learn Albert Einstein wasnt an atheist and he was possibly the most logical man to walk the earth.
The point is there isnt any CONCLUSIVE proof either way. I grant you, the evidence and odds are against it, but there is no one alive with absolute certain knowledge.
When you have absolute, airtight evidence that proves with 100% certainty there is no devine entity, god or messiah then come back to me.

Otherwise STFU.

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:30

To say anything is for 100% certain without having conclusive knowledge or proof makes you just as arrogant as a christian who says he 'knows' for 100% certainty there is a 'god'.

And that is precisely why you won't find many atheists saying that they are 100% certain that there is no supernatural entity.

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:32

It may amaze you to learn Albert Einstein wasnt an atheist and he was possibly the most logical man to walk the earth.

Yes he was an atheist.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:30 pm

To say anything is for 100% certain without having conclusive knowledge or proof makes you just as arrogant as a christian who says he 'knows' for 100% certainty there is a 'god'.

And that is precisely why you won't find many atheists saying that they are 100% certain that there is no supernatural entity.
then theyre not atheist, theyre fucking agnostic cause they dont know but dont have the balls to admit it.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:32 pm

It may amaze you to learn Albert Einstein wasnt an atheist and he was possibly the most logical man to walk the earth.

Yes he was an atheist.
''God does not play dice with the universe'' -Albert Einstein.

So why does he talk in him in the tense that he does exist?

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:36

The point is there isnt any CONCLUSIVE proof either way.

Nor is there any conclusive proof that you're not a complex computer simulation. That doesn't mean you shouldn't ignore the small likelihood of that being the case (unless that theory predicts some observation that the theory of you just being a carbon based life form does not predict).

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 17:37

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 22, 2007 05:27 pm

It is,
Then why not leave it at that. [/QUOTE]
Ok, I will because your right.

It is fucking pointless to argue with illogical theists. [/quote]
It's pointless to have this argument at all.

Religion is about belief, which is subjective. Nobody is "right" and everyone needs to shut up and deal with it.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:36 pm

The point is there isnt any CONCLUSIVE proof either way.

Nor is there any conclusive proof that you're not a complex computer simulation. That doesn't mean you shouldn't ignore the small likelihood of that being the case (unless that theory predicts some observation that the theory of you just being a carbon based life form does not predict).
i havent ignored it. The matrix is my favourite film, and i dont ridicule people who think its real. Nor do i ridicule people who want to believe in God/Jesus etc, mainly because i dont have airtight absolute 100% proof that i can use to disprove their beliefs.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:38

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 05:30 pm
Profanity doesnt add anymore substance to your argument. It may amaze you to learn Albert Einstein wasnt an atheist and he was possibly the most logical man to walk the earth.
The point is there isnt any CONCLUSIVE proof either way. I grant you, the evidence and odds are against it, but there is no one alive with absolute certain knowledge.
When you have absolute, airtight evidence that proves with 100% certainty there is no devine entity, god or messiah then come back to me.

Otherwise STFU.
Actually Einstein was an atheist. If you look at his work more closely he says many time that he does not believe in god. Einstein was one of the most logical men in history, so indeed he was an atheist. Im sure the next thing your going to say is Stephen Hawkins is a religous man, where again you would be wrong.

But Im not going to argue with you anymore. You can keep your illogical dillusions of a giant bearded space pixie. Im ok with that.

Oh and no profanity doesnt help my arguement, but i like the word fuck so ill fucking use if as much as i fucking want to.

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:42

then theyre not atheist, theyre fucking agnostic cause they dont know but dont have the balls to admit it.

No, they're not agnostic. Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods. This should not be confused with believing that there is not one.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:44

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H+--> (Pow R. Toc H)Actually Einstein was an atheist. If you look at his work more closely he says many time that he does not believe in god. Einstein was one of the most logical men in history, so indeed he was an atheist.[/b] The 2 arent co-dependent.

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H+--> (Pow R. Toc H)
Im sure the next thing your going to say is Stephen Hawkins is a religous man, where again you would be wrong.[/b]
Oh no youre embaressing yourself :wacko:
Religion and agnostism arent the same thing.
n00b.

Pow R. Toc [email protected]

But Im not going to argue with you anymore. You can keep your illogical dillusions of a giant bearded space pixie. Im ok with that.
WTF?
Someone quote me once where i said i believe in a 'giant space pixie'?

Pow R. Toc H

Oh and no profanity doesnt help my arguement, but i like the word fuck so ill fucking use if as much as i fucking want to.
Okay, time for your medication now...

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:44

Religion is about belief, which is subjective. Nobody is "right" and everyone needs to shut up and deal with it.

I disagree. The existence of a god or gods is a fact about the universe. Clearly, atheists and theists disagree on this fact. One group must be right and one must be wrong.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:42 pm

then theyre not atheist, theyre fucking agnostic cause they dont know but dont have the balls to admit it.

No, they're not agnostic. Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods. This should not be confused with believing that there is not one.
Atheism ='knowing' with absolute certainty there is no god

Agnostism=Not knowing either way

Prove I'm wrong.

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:48

Nor do i ridicule people who want to believe in God/Jesus etc, mainly because i dont have airtight absolute 100% proof that i can use to disprove their beliefs.

Would you not ridicule someone who believed that rubbing his penis on a cactus would cure AIDS because you don't have 100% proof that it isn't true?

Atheism ='knowing' with absolute certainty there is no god

Agnostism=Not knowing either way

Prove I'm wrong.

By your definition, yes, atheism would be just as bad as theism. However, your definition is rejected by nearly everyone. Atheism as defined by atheists: lack of a belief in a god.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd January 2007, 17:53

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 22, 2007 05:44 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 22, 2007 05:44 pm)
Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H+--> (Pow R. Toc H)Actually Einstein was an atheist. If you look at his work more closely he says many time that he does not believe in god. Einstein was one of the most logical men in history, so indeed he was an atheist.[/b] The 2 arent co-dependent.

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H

Im sure the next thing your going to say is Stephen Hawkins is a religous man, where again you would be wrong.
Oh no youre embaressing yourself :wacko:
Religion and agnostism arent the same thing.
n00b.

Pow R. Toc [email protected]

But Im not going to argue with you anymore. You can keep your illogical dillusions of a giant bearded space pixie. Im ok with that.
WTF?
Someone quote me once where i said i believe in a 'giant space pixie'?

Pow R. Toc H

Oh and no profanity doesnt help my arguement, but i like the word fuck so ill fucking use if as much as i fucking want to.
Okay, time for your medication now... [/b]
Stephen Hawkings was not agnostic, he too was an atheist, you fucking idiot, and I dont know when the last time you looked up religion but, the definition is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies Your belief in a god or any god constitutes as religion.

Your god might as well be a space pixie.

Oh and the medication insult was very poor and you probably did a better job insulting others that take medication than someone who doesnt.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 17:53

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 22, 2007 05:48 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ January 22, 2007 05:48 pm)
Nor do i ridicule people who want to believe in God/Jesus etc, mainly because i dont have airtight absolute 100% proof that i can use to disprove their beliefs.

Would you not ridicule someone who believed that rubbing his penis on a cactus would cure AIDS because you don't have 100% proof that it isn't true?.[/b]

its his cock, what he does with it is his affair.

[email protected] 22, 2007 05:48 pm

By your definition, yes, atheism would be just as bad as theism. However, your definition is rejected by nearly everyone. Atheism as defined by atheists: lack of a belief in a god.
If theism is bad on the grounds that theists say they 'know' there is a god, then by definition has to be of the same extremity because they 'lack' belief in equal measure to the extent that the theists 'have it'.
I think youre contradicting yourself now.

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 17:55

its his cock, what he does with it is his affair.

I don't think anyone is denying that. The point is that the very idea is ludicrous and worthy of ridicule.

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 18:02

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+--> (Pow R. Toc H.)
Stephen Hawkings was not agnostic, he too was an atheist, you fucking idiot, and I dont know when the last time you looked up religion but, the definition is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies Your belief in a god or any god constitutes as religion. [/b]
Then i apologise, i didnt realise i was debating with someone who is privvy to the precise religious (or lack of) habits of Prof Hawking.
oh and where did i say I BELIEVE in a god? You atheists and theists are as arrogant as each other.

Pow R. Toc H.

Oh and the medication insult was very poor and you probably did a better job insulting others that take medication than someone who doesnt.
What, fucking cough medicine? Am I supposed to feel guilty now or something?

Comrade J

22nd January 2007, 20:57

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 22, 2007 05:04 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 22, 2007 05:04 pm)
Originally posted by Comrade J+January 22, 2007 04:59 pm--> (Comrade J @ January 22, 2007 04:59 pm) Bertrand Russell's example is probably the most famous.

Bertrand [email protected]
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Richard Dawkins
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. [/b]
That was exactly my point.

Are you reading "The God Dillusion"? [/b]
No, but I have read it. However, I do A2 Study of Religion and Philosophy, so we covered Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy last year, which is where I first heard of it.

Comrade J

22nd January 2007, 21:08

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 22, 2007 05:48 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 22, 2007 05:48 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:42 pm

then theyre not atheist, theyre fucking agnostic cause they dont know but dont have the balls to admit it.

No, they're not agnostic. Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods. This should not be confused with believing that there is not one.
Atheism ='knowing' with absolute certainty there is no god

Agnostism=Not knowing either way

Prove I'm wrong. [/b]
Well are you agnostic about the existence of Zeus? Brahman? Ganesh? Ra? Anubis? The flying spaghetti monster?

Technically, we are ALL agnostic about everything. However, it would make it practically impossible to determine what anybody's beliefs were.
Therefore we use the definitions as follows: atheism means you have no beliefs in a God, agnosticism means you're really not sure at all (ie - you don't feel firmly in favour of either) and theism is a belief in a God or gods.

This is why I am atheist. Sure, I don't KNOW there isn't a God, but then I don't KNOW if pixies wank me off in my sleep, but I live my life as though this is not the case, as it is very fucking unlikely.

You would really benefit from reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Oh, and as many people have said already, Einstein was indeed an atheist. As Dawkins illustrates in the aforementioned book The God Delusion, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, when he referred to God he simply meant the laws of the universe as we know them, not an invisible bloke who sits there watching everything.

Cyanide Suicide

22nd January 2007, 21:17

Sorry if I missed someone already talk about this in this topic, but I was wondering what atheists believe started the universe. What was before the big bang? Singularity? What was before that? Some sort of higher force (not necessarily a god) could have been involved. But then it gets into "well who created the higher force" and infinite questions follow. I admitedly do not know much about theories of the beginning so if someone could enlighten me.

Dr Mindbender

23rd January 2007, 17:15

Originally posted by Comrade J+--> (Comrade J)Well are you agnostic about the existence of Zeus? Brahman? Ganesh? Ra? Anubis? The flying spaghetti monster?[/b]
Absolutely, but since we're talking in the context of the God of abraham, the above mentioned arent really relevant. I dont know if there IS a God, I dont know if there ISN't, I think its a waste of time trying to win people over to one side of the fence or the other as its so contentious, and more often than not counter-productive. Hence why Im sceptical of Dawkin's book. I have a pagan mate who believes in the Norse Goddess Freya for fucks sake, he prays to her and everything. I respect his right to do so, but i certainly dont ridicule him for it either.

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected]

we use the definitions as follows: atheism means you have no beliefs in a God, agnosticism means you're really not sure at all (ie - you don't feel firmly in favour of either) and theism is a belief in a God or gods.
its all a bit too greyscale and between the lines for me. Just make your mind up FFS, theres only 3 possibilities, either you believe in god, you dont, or you dont know (like me). Just come out and admit it instead of hiding behind words.

Comrade J

Oh, and as many people have said already, Einstein was indeed an atheist. As Dawkins illustrates in the aforementioned book The God Delusion, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, when he referred to God he simply meant the laws of the universe as we know them, not an invisible bloke who sits there watching everything.
Like i said before, I read in a theological book called the 'puzzle of god' some subscribe to the idea that God is a 'concept' as opposed to a sentient being. Wether or not you believe either, doesnt automatically eliminate the possibility that you either believe in a god per se,or you dont know there is one in that you believe in the same sense that god is a physical being like you or i.

Dr Mindbender

23rd January 2007, 17:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:17 pm
Sorry if I missed someone already talk about this in this topic, but I was wondering what atheists believe started the universe. What was before the big bang? Singularity? What was before that? Some sort of higher force (not necessarily a god) could have been involved. But then it gets into "well who created the higher force" and infinite questions follow. I admitedly do not know much about theories of the beginning so if someone could enlighten me.
Personally I believe in the 'big crunch' theory, that we're part of an infinite cycle of ever expanding and collapsing universes. Read 'brief history of time' by hawking if you havent done so already and it'll give you some idea.

Pow R. Toc H.

23rd January 2007, 22:46

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 06:02 pm
Then i apologise, i didnt realise i was debating with someone who is privvy to the precise religious (or lack of) habits of Prof Hawking.
oh and where did i say I BELIEVE in a god? You atheists and theists are as arrogant as each other.

If your an agnostic than you believe in a god. You may not worship him or pray to him, but you acknowledge his presence. It sounds to me that you are more arrogant or actually ignorant than myself.

agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Oh and Im not privvy, whatever the fuck that means, to Hawkings precise religous beliefs, Im just aware that he isnt an agnostic or a theist.

Cyanide Suicide

23rd January 2007, 22:50

What?

Unless I've been mislead for years, then an agnostic is one who doesn't know whether a god exists or not. One that believes it's possible for there to be a god, but is not sure. Not one who believes in god just doesn't worship him.

freakazoid

24th January 2007, 04:02

Einstine was not an athiest, it made alot of his fellow scientests mad that he wasn't. I will post more on this later, I don't have the magizine with me.

Oh and Im not privvy, whatever the fuck that means,

Then how do you know that you are not privvy if you don't know what it means? And what is with the cussing?

If your an agnostic than you believe in a god. You may not worship him or pray to him, but you acknowledge his presence. It sounds to me that you are more arrogant or actually ignorant than myself.

You have no idea what it means to be agnostic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Pow R. Toc H.

24th January 2007, 05:03

I posted the fucking definition and thats what it said. Damn. This arguement is getting pretty fucking pointless. So yeah, whatever.

Cyanide Suicide

24th January 2007, 11:50

But you contradicted that definition when you said in your first paragraph of that post, "If you're agnostic then you believe in a god."

MrDoom

24th January 2007, 13:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:17 pm
What was before the big bang?
'Before' is a term in relation of one event to another in time.

Because the big bang was the expansion of space-time itself, asking what was 'before the big bang' is a pointless question, like asking what's north of the north pole, or what's greater than infinity.

Jazzratt

24th January 2007, 14:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:02 am
Einstine was not an athiest, it made alot of his fellow scientests mad that he wasn't. I will post more on this later, I don't have the magizine with me.
So your source is a magazine it best be fairly impressive and not some silly tat like Christ Weekly or whatever it is you read- then no one but other delusional jamtwats will take you seriously.

t_wolves_fan

24th January 2007, 14:26

Self-centered and power-happy?

Might that describe people who think they need to correct others for their own good so that we can "advance" in a direction entirely of their choosing?

Nah....

:lol:

LuÃs Henrique

24th January 2007, 14:50

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 23, 2007 10:46 pm
If your an agnostic than you believe in a god.
No. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in God, but thinks it is not possible (or that it is not worth the pain, or that it doesn't even make sence) to prove whether God(s) actually exist(s).

You may not worship him or pray to him, but you acknowledge his presence. It sounds to me that you are more arrogant or actually ignorant than myself.

That position is called deism, not agnosticism.

agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Yes, that is true, and as you can see, it is directly opposed to what you said before.

Just that you don't lose your temper at me, I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist. I believe agnostics are right on the onthologic aspects of the issue, but wrong in their understandment that the issue is primarily onthological - I believe it is an ethical issue first place.

Luís Henrique

gilhyle

24th January 2007, 16:27

What is agnosticism ? It is sometimes described as a 'dont know' or 'no belief either eway' stance. But what is that ? That is a refusal to participate in the debate. It is really saying, I dont need to take a stance on this. Now if you do that as a responsible revolutionary, what you are surely doing is saying this matter is not of sufficient political importance to take a stance on it.

Clearly the atheist position is a matter of probability. But the agnostic refuses to adopt that probability-based stance and most politicaly active agnostics tend to the view that the matter is not of political significance.

I think it is of political significance unless we are speaking about the most boring concept of an uninvolved deity.

So agnostics need to be clear about which God they are neutral about. If you are neutral about the Christian God, that is a strange position rationally since the concept cant even be articulated without internal contradiction (as Aquinas for one would have admitted by admitting that 'mysteries' lay at the heart of this concept). Politically, it is surely irresponsible since believing in that God will tend to lead a person to adhere to a Christian Church and/or to adopt authoritative rules of behaviour which will constrain that person's ability to act as an effective agent of his/her class in political action.

That is true also of most other Gods....Frankly, noone cares if you are silly enough to assert your neutrality on the possibility of the existence of a God who has no impact on reality. It is neutrality on the idea of a providential or ethically authoritative God that is politically indefensible for a Marxist.

So what world-impacting God are you agnostic about - specify the significance for us humans of the being on whose existence you consider it appropriate to be neutral.

Pow R. Toc H.

24th January 2007, 16:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:50 am
But you contradicted that definition when you said in your first paragraph of that post, "If you're agnostic then you believe in a god."
I did indeed. My appologies.

Comrade J

24th January 2007, 17:26

Well are you agnostic about the existence of Zeus? Brahman? Ganesh? Ra? Anubis? The flying spaghetti monster?
Absolutely, but since we're talking in the context of the God of abraham, the above mentioned arent really relevant.

Well they most certainly are, my point was if you are agnostic about the existence of the God of Abraham, then it would be absurd to consider Zeus, Anubis etc. in a different manner - there is simply no evidence for any of them, and they are all the work of human imagination, so Zeus is as likely to exist as Yahweh, and Anubis is as likely to exist as Frank the Magical Tiger from Planet Fuckingridiculous, who sees and knows all.
It seemed as though you agreed with this until...

I have a pagan mate who believes in the Norse Goddess Freya for fucks sake, he prays to her and everything. I respect his right to do so, but i certainly dont ridicule him for it either.

"For fucks sake" - are you suggesting that the Norse Goddess Freya is somehow less likely than Yahweh or Jehovah or Allah or whatever fictitious name you care to attribute to God? :o
You don't ridicule him for it? Well why would you, isn't it just as likely as anything else? It appears you think not.

Originally posted by Comrade J+--> (Comrade J)
we use the definitions as follows: atheism means you have no beliefs in a God, agnosticism means you're really not sure at all (ie - you don't feel firmly in favour of either) and theism is a belief in a God or gods.
its all a bit too greyscale and between the lines for me. Just make your mind up FFS, theres only 3 possibilities, either you believe in god, you dont, or you dont know (like me). Just come out and admit it instead of hiding behind words.[/b]
Well that's pretty much exactly how I just described it... :huh:
I'd hardly call being an "athiest" hiding behind words. It simply means you do not believe in God, it's just a short way of saying it.

Comrade J

Oh, and as many people have said already, Einstein was indeed an atheist. As Dawkins illustrates in the aforementioned book The God Delusion, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, when he referred to God he simply meant the laws of the universe as we know them, not an invisible bloke who sits there watching everything.
Like i said before, I read in a theological book called the 'puzzle of god' some subscribe to the idea that God is a 'concept' as opposed to a sentient being. Wether or not you believe either, doesnt automatically eliminate the possibility that you either believe in a god per se,or you dont know there is one in that you believe in the same sense that god is a physical being like you or i.

Well it all comes down to semantics.
However, when one hears the term 'God' you usually assume the person is referring to a metaphysical being, probably omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc.
In this sense, Einstein did not believe in a God, as much as religious people would love to believe. In referring to God, Einstein meant the laws of the universe that we are bound by, nothing more. If I were to say my concept of God is trees, then I too believe in God, but not in the sense that most people would associate with that term.
This is why Christians get all excited when they see that at least one rational person in the world mentions God, and they practically shit articles out at the speed of light, to spread the word that Einstein was religious, despite it not being true. Then there are further fabrications and ridiculous interpretations of other things he has said, resulting in idiots still to this day claiming he was a theist.
Odd, is it not, that certain Christians apparently don't care what Science proves to be wrong with religion, but as soon as a scientist says or finds something potentially in their favour, they're all fucking over it. Hypocrites.

Question everything

26th January 2007, 19:37

I was talking to my aunt about the whole god thing. and she said God created us so that we could love him and believe in him. and in return he would give us paradise, all we gotta do is not sin, and repent and follow his commandments. right? that's cake... plus he is only willing to forgive. then there is hell and all.. eternal burning and suffering.. YIKES..

so Im just wondering. where the fuck does he come off as "the boss" why does he set the rules? and why weren't the commandments democratically created.. just one guy or spirti came up with them? and we are supposed to follow them? what makes him the judge of all people? and have the say who is a sinner, what is a sin and whats not.. hmm

I remeber thinking the exact same thing, thats what really started me thinking about God and even the world as whole... my advice man, none of these bible bashers know what they are talking about... just step back and think about God, not what some guy thought God wanted 3000 years ago... also there are tonnes of times where God "sins" (you'd think the guy who made up the rules would at least abide by them) and how does it work out that we should not judge others (and when we do it is considered a sin), yet God can...

and I put it forward to you that perhaps the Buddists are right god is not an entity but rather Karma... he created this Universe, he will destroy it, he created this earth, and the bible bashers will destroy it (close enough if you ask me)...

so look at God with an Open mind