FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Death of the Author (God)






God exists
False
100%
 100%  [ 6 ]
True (prove it?)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 6

The-Nisk
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?
To solve this argument we are going to use logic, a statement is either true or false.
There are two sides to this argument.
God either exists or he doesn't.
One side is true and one side is false.
Pick a side.

Now here's how this is going to work:
1. If you are taking part in the argument, you must pick a side.
2. You must put forward a logical argument and be able to prove it using logic.
3. This is not an english essay, no refferences (bible etc) and keep it short.
4. There is no wrong or right, only true or false.
5. Don't say stupid things like "if god was proven to exist it would no longer be faith", this is an argument, the correct argument is always logical.
6. This is an argument to establish the truth value for the existance of god,
not if some religion is true or false. keep religion out of it. This is logic.
7.Keep you beliefs out of the argument, prove it using logic.
8.Anyone is free to challenge the logic of the opposing team .
9.If you are unable to prove you argument or defend it using logic, it will be rendered invalid.
10. There is a 7 days (for the irony) limit for this debate.
11. The side with the most logical arguments wins, the existence of god will then be determined as true or false (rational vs. irrational).
12.To participate you MUST agree to all of the above.

Notes:
*I would suggest for everyone to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins before participating, as it would eliminate the need for us to to disprove stupid arguments people make (it would also educate the masses).
*Ultimately we can determine the logic of the common person who believes in the existence of god, no matter if this idea succeeds or fails.

and now here's my entry:

Statement:
Existence of God = FALSE.

Reasoning:
There is no scientific proof for the existence of god. (T)
There is no scientific proof for the existence of unicorns. (T)
God and unicorns have essentialy the same truth value. (T)

I think this logic is flawed, i laughed too hard to take it seriously. But feel free to offer more serious examples, destroy mine etc. I shall check back tommorow, and I'll probably offer a proper logical argument. Have fun savaging this thread. Razz
Xanatos
One does not need to try and prove that god does not exist. The burden of proof falls on those who believe in the existence of god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

However, for the sake of arguement...

Proof by contradiction:
1. If God were to exist there would be some evidence of him/her/it.
2. There is no evidence for god
3. God does not exist.

This is the greatest arguement one can use against anyone who believes in any God.
I am interested to hear the other side though. This thread is aboout to become a warzone.

On the other hand since there are no logical arguements for the existence of god....
ocalhoun
Xanatos wrote:

Proof by contradiction:
1. If God were to exist there would be some evidence of him/her/it.
2. There is no evidence for god
3. God does not exist.

But both 1 and 2 are highly questionable.
1: Perhaps there is a god who likes to remain secret for some reason, and carefully avoids leaving proof-providing evidence, and removes it when it is left.
2: I know in my life, on two occasions, I have seen very convincing evidence that something answers prayers. The evidence is circumstantial, and less believable to others because they aren't experiencing it first-hand though.
The-Nisk
ocalhoun wrote:
Xanatos wrote:

Proof by contradiction:
1. If God were to exist there would be some evidence of him/her/it.
2. There is no evidence for god
3. God does not exist.

But both 1 and 2 are highly questionable.
1: Perhaps there is a god who likes to remain secret for some reason, and carefully avoids leaving proof-providing evidence, and removes it when it is left.
2: I know in my life, on two occasions, I have seen very convincing evidence that something answers prayers. The evidence is circumstantial, and less believable to others because they aren't experiencing it first-hand though.


This thread challenges people to prove god using logic.
Your "personal experience" and your post, lacks that, and thus is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

And I thought i mentioned the word "logic" too many times in the start of the topic...
ocalhoun
The-Nisk wrote:


This thread challenges people to prove god using logic.
Your "personal experience" and your post, lacks that, and thus is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

And I thought i mentioned the word "logic" too many times in the start of the topic...

For classical logic to work when applied to the real world, you must start with true assumptions.

For #1, you just seem to pull this statement out of thin air. Any reason why any god who exists must leave evidence?

For #2, you need to qualify the statement more. There is evidence for god, which I mentioned examples of, but perhaps you meant "There is no confirmed evidence for god that cannot possibly be explained any other way."

The pure logic of your 'All X's produce A and there is no A, therefore there is no X' is indeed perfect, but your starting assumptions are the weak point.

(And, in a somewhat unrelated point, there is no reason logic cannot be applied to personal experiences.)
Xanatos
ocalhoun wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:


This thread challenges people to prove god using logic.
Your "personal experience" and your post, lacks that, and thus is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

And I thought i mentioned the word "logic" too many times in the start of the topic...

For classical logic to work when applied to the real world, you must start with true assumptions.

For #1, you just seem to pull this statement out of thin air. Any reason why any god who exists must leave evidence?

For #2, you need to qualify the statement more. There is evidence for god, which I mentioned examples of, but perhaps you meant "There is no confirmed evidence for god that cannot possibly be explained any other way."

The pure logic of your 'All X's produce A and there is no A, therefore there is no X' is indeed perfect, but your starting assumptions are the weak point.

(And, in a somewhat unrelated point, there is no reason logic cannot be applied to personal experiences.)


Hehe that arguement was really just as a joke. My real arguement is my statement about the burden of proof. You know the first line.

As to there being evidence for God... these personal statements cannot be validated and don't say anything to me other than I see God in the trees etc.

Futhermore for God to leave no evidence of his existence he must not interact with our universe in anyway. Therefore he either does not exist or he doesn't really matter as he doesn't interact with us and has no bearing on our lives whatsoever.
deanhills
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?


How can you prove something scientifically according to your rules, when it does not exist scientifically? That is the problem here. God exists in belief, faith, all the things that are invisible and cannot be proven scientifically.
deanhills
[quote="deanhills"]
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?


How can you prove something scientifically according to your rules, when it does not exist scientifically? That is the problem here. God exists in belief, faith, all the things that are invisible and cannot be proven scientifically. That does not say God does not exist. Just that his existence cannot be proven scientifically.
Xanatos
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?


How can you prove something scientifically according to your rules, when it does not exist scientifically? That is the problem here. God exists in belief, faith, all the things that are invisible and cannot be proven scientifically.


If something does not exist scientifically then it does not exist. "existing" is not existing. That is the same as saying that your imaginary friend exists because you believe in him. He does not exist in the sense that he is not real. By your definition then God does not exist either.
The-Nisk
ocalhoun wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:


This thread challenges people to prove god using logic.
Your "personal experience" and your post, lacks that, and thus is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

And I thought i mentioned the word "logic" too many times in the start of the topic...

For classical logic to work when applied to the real world, you must start with true assumptions.

For #1, you just seem to pull this statement out of thin air. Any reason why any god who exists must leave evidence?

For #2, you need to qualify the statement more. There is evidence for god, which I mentioned examples of, but perhaps you meant "There is no confirmed evidence for god that cannot possibly be explained any other way."

The pure logic of your 'All X's produce A and there is no A, therefore there is no X' is indeed perfect, but your starting assumptions are the weak point.



First off, that wasn't my statement, so I can't argue for or against it (rule number 8 of this thread) since the person who produced it is on my side of the argument.

Logic operates on truth values, my argument against the existance of god is perfectly valid.
That is, since there is no proof that god exists the whole 'god' concept has the same truth value as any other fiction.

What examples? all you did was to say that you believe that there is something that answers your prayers. A teenager druged out on LSD can say that he believes there's a leprechaun living in his closet that grants him wishes. If that be the case both of you have essentialy the same "evidence" of the existance of that god/leprechaun, that is "personal experience".

Quote:
(And, in a somewhat unrelated point, there is no reason logic cannot be applied to personal experiences.)

Sure, go ahead and give us even one example.

deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?


How can you prove something scientifically according to your rules, when it does not exist scientifically? That is the problem here. God exists in belief, faith, all the things that are invisible and cannot be proven scientifically.


so, god is in all aspects like a unicorn? Confused

what Xanatos said.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?


How can you prove something scientifically according to your rules, when it does not exist scientifically? That is the problem here. God exists in belief, faith, all the things that are invisible and cannot be proven scientifically.


If something does not exist scientifically then it does not exist. "existing" is not existing. That is the same as saying that your imaginary friend exists because you believe in him. He does not exist in the sense that he is not real. By your definition then God does not exist either.


You cannot prove scientifically that my imaginary friend does not exist. You can also not prove scientifically that God does not exist. As simple as that. Maybe you can say that my imaginary friend probably does not exist. Or God probably does not exist. You don't really know, how can you?
The-Nisk
deanhills wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm getting sick and tired of reading topics which often (too often) boil down to the question of wheither or not god exists. So lets settle this once and for all shall we?


How can you prove something scientifically according to your rules, when it does not exist scientifically? That is the problem here. God exists in belief, faith, all the things that are invisible and cannot be proven scientifically.


If something does not exist scientifically then it does not exist. "existing" is not existing. That is the same as saying that your imaginary friend exists because you believe in him. He does not exist in the sense that he is not real. By your definition then God does not exist either.


You cannot prove scientifically that my imaginary friend does not exist. You can also not prove scientifically that God does not exist. As simple as that. Maybe you can say that my imaginary friend probably does not exist. Or God probably does not exist. You don't really know, how can you?


I don't have to, you admited your friend was imaginary (not real), hence he doesn't exist in the real world (the one outside your imagination), talk about logic.

I'm not the one agruing that something irrational exists. You are.
So you're the one who has to prove(using logic) anything.
Good Luck Cool
ocalhoun
Xanatos wrote:

Futhermore for God to leave no evidence of his existence he must not interact with our universe in anyway. Therefore he either does not exist or he doesn't really matter as he doesn't interact with us and has no bearing on our lives whatsoever.

He doesn't need to leave absolutely no evidence. He only needs to avoid leaving conclusive proof. And an omnipotent and omniscient being would have no problem removing any evidence left behind that was too convincing, or arranging other explanations for the effects of intervention.

And my intention here is not to prove that god does exist, but that god might exist.

I do apologize for assuming that both previous posts were by the same author though... That was a mistake on my part.


And, I'd like to add that it would probably better to start the discussion with definitions of 'god' and 'exist'.

A better refutation:
Xanatos wrote:

Proof by contradiction:
1. If God were to exist there would be some evidence of him/her/it. (False: Some gods might not produce evidence, either by being isolationist or by erasing and invalidating any evidence left.)
2. There is no evidence for god (Unknown: Just because you haven't found any yet does not mean that no evidence ever will be found. We don't have sufficient information to label this as true, but I will also concede that we don't have enough high quality information to label it as false either.)
3. God does not exist. (False: 3 can only be true if 1 and 2 are both true, which is not so because of 1's falsehood. Note that this does not mean that the opposite of 3 is true either: It merely means that in this case the statement 'God does not exist' cannot be relied upon as true based on this argument.)
The-Nisk
ocalhoun wrote:
Xanatos wrote:

Futhermore for God to leave no evidence of his existence he must not interact with our universe in anyway. Therefore he either does not exist or he doesn't really matter as he doesn't interact with us and has no bearing on our lives whatsoever.

He doesn't need to leave absolutely no evidence. He only needs to avoid leaving conclusive proof. And an omnipotent and omniscient being would have no problem removing any evidence left behind that was too convincing, or arranging other explanations for the effects of intervention.

And my intention here is not to prove that god does exist, but that god might exist.

I do apologize for assuming that both previous posts were by the same author though... That was a mistake on my part.


And, I'd like to add that it would probably better to start the discussion with definitions of 'god' and 'exist'.

A better refutation:
Xanatos wrote:

Proof by contradiction:
1. If God were to exist there would be some evidence of him/her/it. (False: Some gods might not produce evidence, either by being isolationist or by erasing and invalidating any evidence left.)
2. There is no evidence for god (Unknown: Just because you haven't found any yet does not mean that no evidence ever will be found. We don't have sufficient information to label this as true, but I will also concede that we don't have enough high quality information to label it as false either.)
3. God does not exist. (False: 3 can only be true if 1 and 2 are both true, which is not so because of 1's falsehood. Note that this does not mean that the opposite of 3 is true either: It merely means that in this case the statement 'God does not exist' cannot be relied upon as true based on this argument.)


How can you prove that something might exist?
Okay then, prove us using logic that something might exist, go on...

I think we should really start the conversation by comparing the inteligence between the believers and non-believers, that would offer a real insight.

It is obvious you failed to read the simple guideline in the very start of this thread.
Unless you can come up with a logical argument for the existence of god, i will not debate this with you any further.
Afaceinthematrix
The-Nisk wrote:
How can you prove that something might exist?
Okay then, prove us using logic that something might exist, go on...

I think we should really start the conversation by comparing the inteligence between the believers and non-believers, that would offer a real insight.

It is obvious you failed to read the simple guideline in the very start of this thread.
Unless you can come up with a logical argument for the existence of god, i will not debate this with you any further.


I fail to see the point of comparing the average intelligence of believers and non-believers. Unless you think that the average theist is less intelligent than the average atheist or that the average atheist is less intelligent than the average theist (and both statements would be a little rude; I know pretty smart theists - one of the greatest mathematicians that I have ever met was a Christian - and pretty smart atheists) that comparison would be useless.

That does little to add to this argument. I have stayed out this argument so far because I do not believe that any evidence exists for the existence of God, and it's trivial (and time consuming) to post pages and pages of evidence against God's existence. I usually only jump in when someone is saying something completely scientifically illiterate, because I hate to see the very practice (science) that has bettered my life (and everyone here; if it wasn't for science, we wouldn't even have the computers to be having this discussion. We would probably be hunting and gathering right now) in every way imaginable to be made a complete mockery. However, I decided to jump in after your last post.

You do not have to use logic to prove that something "might exist." You can easily say that something might exist by the mere fact that you cannot prove that it doesn't exist. You cannot prove that Gandolf from Lord of the Rings doesn't exist because that would require you to be at every place at once (omnipotence) to ensure that he isn't there. That still wouldn't cut it, though. You still wouldn't be considering every planet, every galaxy, ever dimension, etc. This may sound irrational (because it is), but still, prove to me that Gandolf doesn't exist. You cannot do it, therefore I can say (however irrational it may sound), that Gandolf may exist.

Likewise, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You can provide enough evidence (which I personally believe has already been done) to show that believing in God is irrational (although I'm not calling theists irrational as a whole - I just believe that they have one irrational aspect of their life and that overall, theists can be just as smart and rational as atheists), but you still cannot prove that God does not exist. All the evidence may point towards God's nonexistence, but the thing that many theists will tell you is that God wants you to believe in him based off of faith. God doesn't want you to have to search for clues and evidence of his existence. Therefore, you must consider the possibility that God destroys any evidence of his existence so that he can sort out the true believers from the psuedo-believers. This is just one of the infinite amount of possibilities that exists. Could there be evidence for God that we simply have not found? I'm an open-minded rational person, so I'll say "yes." There could be evidence for his existence, I just have not found any and I personally do not believe evidence exists. However, if someone (or even God himself) was able to provide me with reasonable evidence, I would re-access my views and quite possible turn from an atheist to a theist.
The-Nisk
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
How can you prove that something might exist?
Okay then, prove us using logic that something might exist, go on...

I think we should really start the conversation by comparing the inteligence between the believers and non-believers, that would offer a real insight.

It is obvious you failed to read the simple guideline in the very start of this thread.
Unless you can come up with a logical argument for the existence of god, i will not debate this with you any further.


I fail to see the point of comparing the average intelligence of believers and non-believers. Unless you think that the average theist is less intelligent than the average atheist or that the average atheist is less intelligent than the average theist (and both statements would be a little rude; I know pretty smart theists - one of the greatest mathematicians that I have ever met was a Christian - and pretty smart atheists) that comparison would be useless.


Well that is the point precisely. An average atheist is more intelligent than an average theist. And it shouldn't be considered as rude to say someone is more intelligent than the next person, it's a fact of life, to get into college you have to prove a certain level of intelligence, and if you get offended over how intelligent you are, you have the full capacity to educate yourself. Your example is invalid, i can say that the greatest mathematician I've met is an atheist (which is true actualy). Also, if you are inteligent you should be well able to defend any of your beliefs, unless of course they are absurd (but then would you be an intelligent person to have them?).

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

That does little to add to this argument. I have stayed out this argument so far because I do not believe that any evidence exists for the existence of God, and it's trivial (and time consuming) to post pages and pages of evidence against God's existence. I usually only jump in when someone is saying something completely scientifically illiterate, because I hate to see the very practice (science) that has bettered my life (and everyone here; if it wasn't for science, we wouldn't even have the computers to be having this discussion. We would probably be hunting and gathering right now) in every way imaginable to be made a complete mockery. However, I decided to jump in after your last post.


It is hopeless to post arguments against the existence of god (frankly the list is endless), which is why I challenged people to give us an argument(logical) for his existance, which we can then easily dissprove. Since it is impossible to make a logical argument for the existence of god, the belief in his/hers existence is deemed irrational (and it seems you agree with me that believing in god is irrational).

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

You do not have to use logic to prove that something "might exist." You can easily say that something might exist by the mere fact that you cannot prove that it doesn't exist. You cannot prove that Gandolf from Lord of the Rings doesn't exist because that would require you to be at every place at once (omnipotence) to ensure that he isn't there. That still wouldn't cut it, though. You still wouldn't be considering every planet, every galaxy, ever dimension, etc.


Which is why the burden of proof rest with the believer. The science that you are soo fond of builds theories upon evidence and then proves them true or false by experimentation. You can't make up a theory and then search for evidence, because then an infinite number of theories can be made by anyone, all bearing the truth value of 0 until evidence is found to support that theory. Again, the burden of proof rests with the believer. Now, who's "saying something completely scientifically illiterate"?

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

This may sound irrational (because it is), but still, prove to me that Gandolf doesn't exist. You cannot do it, therefore I can say (however irrational it may sound), that Gandolf may exist.


You want me to prove that something irrational(you said it) is false? Okay.
Quote:

if it's irrational(A) then it's false(B).


Proof by contrapossitive:
if A then B = if Not B then Not A.


if it's irrational(A) then it's false(B) = if it's true(Not B) then it's rational(Not A).




Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Likewise, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You can provide enough evidence (which I personally believe has already been done) to show that believing in God is irrational (although I'm not calling theists irrational as a whole - I just believe that they have one irrational aspect of their life and that overall, theists can be just as smart and rational as atheists), but you still cannot prove that God does not exist. All the evidence may point towards God's nonexistence, but the thing that many theists will tell you is that God wants you to believe in him based off of faith. God doesn't want you to have to search for clues and evidence of his existence. Therefore, you must consider the possibility that God destroys any evidence of his existence so that he can sort out the true believers from the psuedo-believers. This is just one of the infinite amount of possibilities that exists. Could there be evidence for God that we simply have not found? I'm an open-minded rational person, so I'll say "yes." There could be evidence for his existence, I just have not found any and I personally do not believe evidence exists. However, if someone (or even God himself) was able to provide me with reasonable evidence, I would re-access my views and quite possible turn from an atheist to a theist.


So basicly the belief in gods existence is a full-proof belief based on nothing? I have to say, i believe a lot of people got locked up in the asylum, who had similar "evidence" for their beliefs, with the only difference that theirs beliefs weren't as far spread.
Afaceinthematrix
The-Nisk wrote:
Well that is the point precisely. An average atheist is more intelligent than an average theist. And it shouldn't be considered as rude to say someone is more intelligent than the next person, it's a fact of life, to get into college you have to prove a certain level of intelligence, and if you get offended over how intelligent you are, you have the full capacity to educate yourself. Your example is invalid, i can say that the greatest mathematician I've met is an atheist (which is true actualy). Also, if you are inteligent you should be well able to defend any of your beliefs, unless of course they are absurd (but then would you be an intelligent person to have them?).


I believe that saying that is a rude generalization. I've met some really intelligent Christians. Most (well actually all) are not the typical "Young Earth Creationist." They all have the idea that God pretty much "kicked started" the universe, or perhaps was the initial energy present during the Big Bang. Unless you had actual statistics showing that theists tend to do worse on a variety of tests (testing a variety of skills), making that type of generalization isn't right (in my opinion). How do you define intelligence, anyways? I define it as a ability to think through problems. I already mentioned that I know two great theist mathematicians (and mathematics truly shows the ability to think through problems). I've known many Christians that were talented at mathematics. Logic problems (and logic games - such as chess) also show intelligence. I have known many Christians that are good at chess and logic problems. So I really don't see a correlation and I would have to see statistics.

Quote:
It is hopeless to post arguments against the existence of god (frankly the list is endless), which is why I challenged people to give us an argument(logical) for his existance, which we can then easily dissprove. Since it is impossible to make a logical argument for the existence of god, the belief in his/hers existence is deemed irrational (and it seems you agree with me that believing in god is irrational).


I would not call it impossible to provide evidence. It is possible, it is just highly unlikely that it will ever happen because I am pretty sure that God doesn't exist.

Quote:
Which is why the burden of proof rest with the believer. The science that you are soo fond of builds theories upon evidence and then proves them true or false by experimentation. You can't make up a theory and then search for evidence, because then an infinite number of theories can be made by anyone, all bearing the truth value of 0 until evidence is found to support that theory. Again, the burden of proof rests with the believer. Now, who's "saying something completely scientifically illiterate"?


Of course the burden of proof is on the believer. I never implied otherwise. I've always agreed with that. I was in a debate one time and someone told me, "You can't just declare that God doesn't exist with out having proof." The Hell I can! I responded with, "Okay... using your logic... I believe that an invisible pink unicorn created the world. Prove me wrong." That's silly, of course. The Creationist didn't understand, though. He still insisted that I must prove that God doesn't exist. Debating a Creationist can be annoying.

Quote:
You want me to prove that something irrational(you said it) is false? Okay.


Of course not. Don't be silly. I was making a point. You said:
Quote:
How can you prove that something might exist?
Okay then, prove us using logic that something might exist, go on...


And so I was telling you that since you cannot prove that God doesn't exist (which is the same as saying you cannot prove that Gandolf doesn't exist), then by definition, God might exist.

Quote:
So basicly the belief in gods existence is a full-proof belief based on nothing? I have to say, i believe a lot of people got locked up in the asylum, who had similar "evidence" for their beliefs, with the only difference that theirs beliefs weren't as far spread.


I guess so. I'm not the one who believes in God here. The entire point of my post was to counter your two points (1. How can you prove something might exist and 2. Atheists are smarter than theists).
Bikerman
Well, at the risk of indulging in crass generalisations, there is good evidence that religiosity correlates inversely to intelligence in large sample sizes.
For example:
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Now, that does not mean, of course, that individual conclusions can be drawn from this - of course there are very intelligent very religious people.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Well, at the risk of indulging in crass generalisations, there is good evidence that religiosity correlates inversely to intelligence in large sample sizes.
For example:
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Now, that does not mean, of course, that individual conclusions can be drawn from this - of course there are very intelligent very religious people.

Which has no real meaning in the debate as to whether god exists or not.
If you think it does, we might as well compare IQ scores now, and declare that the one with the higher IQ automatically wins the argument.

I propose to you that insisting that god does not exist is also irrational. In the absence of evidence for either case, the only acceptable answer is "maybe god does exist, maybe god does not exist". You need more information to prove one or the other.

Supposing you had never heard of this 'god' thing, and thought by logic alone: Someone tells you about god. Naturally, being purely logical, you ask for proof. None is provided. However, you have no reason that it cannot be true either. So, your response should probably be: "That might be true... but I don't see any evidence for it, so I doubt it." And then you go along your way.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:

I propose to you that insisting that god does not exist is also irrational. In the absence of evidence for either case, the only acceptable answer is "maybe god does exist, maybe god does not exist". You need more information to prove one or the other.


Well said for me too Ocalhoun. Maybe one can use the intelligence standard for the reverse argument too? Viz intelligence of people who insist God does not exist without evidence to back that up with. Perhaps it will be some of the same?
Arnie
The-Nisk wrote:
To solve this argument we are going to use logic, a statement is either true or false.
Not all logic systems hold that. Twisted Evil
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
Well, at the risk of indulging in crass generalisations, there is good evidence that religiosity correlates inversely to intelligence in large sample sizes.
For example:
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Now, that does not mean, of course, that individual conclusions can be drawn from this - of course there are very intelligent very religious people.



Well then I guess there are some statistics (which is what I was asking for) relating intelligence and religion. However, I still do not think that it is necessary to look at those. My reasoning for that is this: civilized debating is more than saying, "I'm smarter than you; therefore I must be correct." While you can make some conclusions about being more intelligent than someone, making those comparison has no place in a debate. That's why I originally responded to The-Nisk's post saying that I didn't see the point of making the comparison and that it was a little rude, because even if the average atheist is smarter than the average theist, it still doesn't affect the debate.
{name here}
I detect a possible non-sequitor in this argument but I'm sure that much more will be found at fault as many of you have several times more experience in dialectic than I do.

1. We live in a natural world. All of our senses, when functioning correctly, detect things existing within this natural world, and we are also bound by the natural physical laws of this world.
2a. Gods, who supposedly created this universe, had to create some sort of energy in the beginning
2b. The creation of energy is not allowed by our current understanding of physics.
2c. Gods are not bound to our physical laws and do not exist in our naturalistic world, but must live in a supernatualistic one.
3. Therefore, since gods are not bound by our physical limitations, they do not exist in our universe, and cannot really be tested, we cannot prove their existence though we can distort them to any whim we desire.
4. Since there is no means of testing whether they exist and obtainig proper evidence, we must assume that their existence is false until proven otherwise.
ocalhoun
{name here} wrote:

2b. The creation of energy is not allowed by our current understanding of physics.

Yes, but this god might have a better understanding of physics than us.
{name here} wrote:

2c. Gods are not bound to our physical laws and do not exist in our naturalistic world, but must live in a supernatualistic one.

Not bound to natural laws therefore doesn't exist in our naturalistic world...
I'm not sure why that must be true. I don't know why something that wasn't bound by physical laws would require an entirely different world to live in.
{name here} wrote:

4. Since there is no means of testing whether they exist and obtainig proper evidence, we must assume that their existence is false until proven otherwise.

In the absence of proof, making a working assumption of whichever case you think is more likely, and hoping everything works out is acceptable, but by no means does this disprove the existence of god.



We are all here sitting in a darkened room arguing about the color of the walls. The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't know what color the walls are until we have light to see them with.
The-Nisk
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
Well that is the point precisely. An average atheist is more intelligent than an average theist. And it shouldn't be considered as rude to say someone is more intelligent than the next person, it's a fact of life, to get into college you have to prove a certain level of intelligence, and if you get offended over how intelligent you are, you have the full capacity to educate yourself. Your example is invalid, i can say that the greatest mathematician I've met is an atheist (which is true actualy). Also, if you are inteligent you should be well able to defend any of your beliefs, unless of course they are absurd (but then would you be an intelligent person to have them?).


I believe that saying that is a rude generalization. I've met some really intelligent Christians. Most (well actually all) are not the typical "Young Earth Creationist." They all have the idea that God pretty much "kicked started" the universe, or perhaps was the initial energy present during the Big Bang. Unless you had actual statistics showing that theists tend to do worse on a variety of tests (testing a variety of skills), making that type of generalization isn't right (in my opinion). How do you define intelligence, anyways? I define it as a ability to think through problems. I already mentioned that I know two great theist mathematicians (and mathematics truly shows the ability to think through problems). I've known many Christians that were talented at mathematics. Logic problems (and logic games - such as chess) also show intelligence. I have known many Christians that are good at chess and logic problems. So I really don't see a correlation and I would have to see statistics.


I believe somebody generously provided some statistics for that point. And yes it is a generalization, and it's a damn good one. Of course there will be people who don't fit under these statistics. But all you did was say you know great theist mathematicians, for all we know there could be no truth behind those words. Also, there's a difference between being able to solve problems and inteligence, yes solving problem requires a little of it, but there are people out there who are great at mathematics and yet are pretty damn stupid. They pretty much learn one thing and then just apply it, a process which can become a habit that requires no thinking.
And I'd say physics is better than maths in testing intelligence.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
It is hopeless to post arguments against the existence of god (frankly the list is endless), which is why I challenged people to give us an argument(logical) for his existance, which we can then easily dissprove. Since it is impossible to make a logical argument for the existence of god, the belief in his/hers existence is deemed irrational (and it seems you agree with me that believing in god is irrational).


I would not call it impossible to provide evidence. It is possible, it is just highly unlikely that it will ever happen because I am pretty sure that God doesn't exist.


If it's not impossible to provide evidence for an immaterial belief, please do so.
You failed to understand that if something has no evidence, we say it doesn't exist.
Full stop, if you want to argue with that, go educate yourself.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
Which is why the burden of proof rest with the believer. The science that you are soo fond of builds theories upon evidence and then proves them true or false by experimentation. You can't make up a theory and then search for evidence, because then an infinite number of theories can be made by anyone, all bearing the truth value of 0 until evidence is found to support that theory. Again, the burden of proof rests with the believer. Now, who's "saying something completely scientifically illiterate"?


Of course the burden of proof is on the believer. I never implied otherwise. I've always agreed with that. I was in a debate one time and someone told me, "You can't just declare that God doesn't exist with out having proof." The Hell I can! I responded with, "Okay... using your logic... I believe that an invisible pink unicorn created the world. Prove me wrong." That's silly, of course. The Creationist didn't understand, though. He still insisted that I must prove that God doesn't exist. Debating a Creationist can be annoying.


You just contradicted yourself. If there is no evidence for something to exist, we say it doesn't. that's how science works. Also, my original point was that the existence of god has the same truth value as the existence of your pink unicorn (or my, normal unicorn).

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
You want me to prove that something irrational(you said it) is false? Okay.


Of course not. Don't be silly. I was making a point. You said:
Quote:
How can you prove that something might exist?
Okay then, prove us using logic that something might exist, go on...


And so I was telling you that since you cannot prove that God doesn't exist (which is the same as saying you cannot prove that Gandolf doesn't exist), then by definition, God might exist.


No. If there is no evidence, it doesn't exist. Prove me (and science) wrong, and yes I'm not the one who has to prove anything, that rests with the believer (not you neccesaraly).

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
So basicly the belief in gods existence is a full-proof belief based on nothing? I have to say, i believe a lot of people got locked up in the asylum, who had similar "evidence" for their beliefs, with the only difference that theirs beliefs weren't as far spread.


I guess so. I'm not the one who believes in God here. The entire point of my post was to counter your two points (1. How can you prove something might exist and 2. Atheists are smarter than theists).


You failed at both.

ocalhoun wrote:

Which has no real meaning in the debate as to whether god exists or not.
If you think it does, we might as well compare IQ scores now, and declare that the one with the higher IQ automatically wins the argument.


Yes it does, it sums up the argument, it's generaly smart people arguing against idiots (and hence the reason we can't win, the idiots won't admit they are idiots and give up the non-sense).
Okay, i don't mind, but I'd prefer to compare our physics/chemistry/maths knowledge instead.

ocalhoun wrote:

I propose to you that insisting that god does not exist is also irrational. In the absence of evidence for either case, the only acceptable answer is "maybe god does exist, maybe god does not exist". You need more information to prove one or the other.


No. We don't have to disprove myths. And it's far from irrational, it's the opposite in fact, i already argued that point in this thread, read it. There's no maybe, no evidence = doesn't exist.

ocalhoun wrote:

Supposing you had never heard of this 'god' thing, and thought by logic alone: Someone tells you about god. Naturally, being purely logical, you ask for proof. None is provided. However, you have no reason that it cannot be true either. So, your response should probably be: "That might be true... but I don't see any evidence for it, so I doubt it." And then you go along your way.


Again, no. There is no 'might', again I already argued that. no evidence = doesn't exist.
And if you think that statement is wrong, I challege your intelligence to disprove it. You might just disprove my point about atheists being more intelligent than theists while you're at it.

Arnie wrote:


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Death of the Author (God)
The-Nisk wrote:
To solve this argument we are going to use logic, a statement is either true or false.
Not all logic systems hold that. Twisted Evil


Really? please shed some light on my ignorance. I won't claim my knowledge of logic is complete, but i was deeply unaware of this.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Well then I guess there are some statistics (which is what I was asking for) relating intelligence and religion. However, I still do not think that it is necessary to look at those. My reasoning for that is this: civilized debating is more than saying, "I'm smarter than you; therefore I must be correct." While you can make some conclusions about being more intelligent than someone, making those comparison has no place in a debate. That's why I originally responded to The-Nisk's post saying that I didn't see the point of making the comparison and that it was a little rude, because even if the average atheist is smarter than the average theist, it still doesn't affect the debate.


I believe I already addressed this.

{name here} wrote:


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:27 am Post subject:
I detect a possible non-sequitor in this argument but I'm sure that much more will be found at fault as many of you have several times more experience in dialectic than I do.

1. We live in a natural world. All of our senses, when functioning correctly, detect things existing within this natural world, and we are also bound by the natural physical laws of this world.
2a. Gods, who supposedly created this universe, had to create some sort of energy in the beginning
2b. The creation of energy is not allowed by our current understanding of physics.
2c. Gods are not bound to our physical laws and do not exist in our naturalistic world, but must live in a supernatualistic one.
3. Therefore, since gods are not bound by our physical limitations, they do not exist in our universe, and cannot really be tested, we cannot prove their existence though we can distort them to any whim we desire.
4. Since there is no means of testing whether they exist and obtainig proper evidence, we must assume that their existence is false until proven otherwise.


Yes! Very Happy

ocalhoun wrote:

{name here} wrote:

2b. The creation of energy is not allowed by our current understanding of physics.

Yes, but this god might have a better understanding of physics than us.


Theists like to use the word 'might' a lot to counter logic. It might be that a pink unicorn created the universe by pure magic. What you said, and the previous sentence have innitialy the same truth value.

ocalhoun wrote:

Not bound to natural laws therefore doesn't exist in our naturalistic world...
I'm not sure why that must be true. I don't know why something that wasn't bound by physical laws would require an entirely different world to live in.


Well basicly if something is not bound by the laws of the universe means it doesn't exist there.

ocalhoun wrote:

{name here} wrote:

4. Since there is no means of testing whether they exist and obtainig proper evidence, we must assume that their existence is false until proven otherwise.

In the absence of proof, making a working assumption of whichever case you think is more likely, and hoping everything works out is acceptable, but by no means does this disprove the existence of god.


We don't have to disprove it. There's no evidence to presume he/she exists. Any argument against that is non-sense/irrational.

ocalhoun wrote:

We are all here sitting in a darkened room arguing about the color of the walls. The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't know what color the walls are until we have light to see them with.


If going by this example it's so dark we can't see the colour of the walls, we then can't asume there are walls to begin with.
However, if they do or not not, is irrelevant to us. Because after all, we are still all sitting in the same space and time, and it is dark. Existence(lack of) of God is irrelevant to all of us.
Afaceinthematrix
The-Nisk wrote:
I believe somebody generously provided some statistics for that point. And yes it is a generalization, and it's a damn good one. Of course there will be people who don't fit under these statistics. But all you did was say you know great theist mathematicians, for all we know there could be no truth behind those words. Also, there's a difference between being able to solve problems and inteligence, yes solving problem requires a little of it, but there are people out there who are great at mathematics and yet are pretty damn stupid. They pretty much learn one thing and then just apply it, a process which can become a habit that requires no thinking.
And I'd say physics is better than maths in testing intelligence.


I know that somebody did provide some statistics showing that people who place religion as a high priority tend to be less intelligent that people who don't and I accepted that. That is still beside the point. I specifically mentioned the point. Comparing intelligence in any civilized debate is pointless. It adds nothing to the debate. All you did was say, "Oh let's just compare intelligence so that we can see who is right!" That is so incredibly stupid and is not the point of debating. Why the Hell should we even debate? Let's just go and all take IQ tests so that we can compare intelligence and see who is right. That's literally what you were saying. You literally said that we shouldn't even be debating; we should just see who's smarter and say the smartest wins.

Edit: Also, I guarantee that I am not lying about knowing two great theist mathematicians... but even if I was, then so what? That would make no change on my argument because that would not change the fact that smart theists exist. In mathematics, you can't just "learn one thing and then apply it..." That may work in basic math up to calculus (which one could argue is the first real upper level math class, although it's still very basic in the grand scheme of mathematics), but it won't cut it when you get deeper into studying mathematics. It especially wouldn't cut it for a mathematician.

Quote:
If it's not impossible to provide evidence for an immaterial belief, please do so.
You failed to understand that if something has no evidence, we say it doesn't exist.
Full stop, if you want to argue with that, go educate yourself.


So now you're just adding insults (I do have an education) to your own stupidity? Nice. So 1000 years ago, when there was no evidence that Pluto existed, it simply didn't exist? What? What in the hell is a discovery? Something exists before a discovery, it just isn't known. All I said was that there may be some evidence that God exists. If what you said was true, then we should never even bother trying to discover anything because nothing out there that currently has no data or evidence actually exists. Really... that's literally what you said.

Quote:
You just contradicted yourself. If there is no evidence for something to exist, we say it doesn't. that's how science works. Also, my original point was that the existence of god has the same truth value as the existence of your pink unicorn (or my, normal unicorn).


No. I didn't just contradict myself... at all. Again, just because evidence has not been found doesn't mean that the evidence cannot exist. That's why scientists are constantly conducting research.

Quote:
No. If there is no evidence, it doesn't exist. Prove me (and science) wrong, and yes I'm not the one who has to prove anything, that rests with the believer (not you neccesaraly).


I think I've just covered that wild assumption that discoveries are impossible twice, so I won't bother doing it again.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
So basicly the belief in gods existence is a full-proof belief based on nothing? I have to say, i believe a lot of people got locked up in the asylum, who had similar "evidence" for their beliefs, with the only difference that theirs beliefs weren't as far spread.


I guess so. I'm not the one who believes in God here. The entire point of my post was to counter your two points (1. How can you prove something might exist and 2. Atheists are smarter than theists).


Quote:
You failed at both.


Really? I failed at both? Wow... well let's analyze this.
1) You can prove that something might exist simply because it's impossible to prove that it doesn't exist. If you cannot prove to me that something doesn't exist, then it might exist. Therefore, I could (but I won't because I'm not irrational) say that Gandolf might exist. But let me choose a more rational topic. Currently, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being repaired. When it's finished being repaired, scientists at CERN will conduct many experiments. One of them may provide proof for the existence of the hypothesized Higgs Boson. Does the Higgs Boson exist? I don't know. It's hypothesized that it may, and at this point we do not know. Therefore, it MIGHT EXIST.

2) While the statistics show that atheists tend to be smarter than theists (which I accepted after seeing the statistics - I wasn't willing to accept it when you decided that you were just going to assert that claim as a cop out for real debating and an excuse to say, "Oh I'm smarter so I automatically win"), you still cannot say that all atheists are smarter than theists. Furthermore, making that statement in a civilized debate about the existence of God has no value.



I think I covered all of the stuff directed towards me. The rest, I believe, was directed towards other people.
Arnie
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I think I covered all of the stuff directed towards me. The rest, I believe, was directed towards other people.
Are you sure? My browser's Ctrl+F gives an error popup saying TL;DR so I cannot verify if there's anything directed towards me. Sad

Back on-topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic
Xanatos
ocalhoun wrote:
We are all here sitting in a darkened room arguing about the color of the walls. The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't know what color the walls are until we have light to see them with.


The color of the walls is black in a room with no light.
Arnie
LOL physics'd.
Quote:
We are all here sitting in a darkened room arguing about the absorption spectrum of the walls. The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't know what frequencies of light the walls would absorb until we have light to conduct an experiment.
Xanatos
Arnie wrote:
LOL physics'd.
Quote:
We are all here sitting in a darkened room arguing about the absorption spectrum of the walls. The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't know what frequencies of light the walls would absorb until we have light to conduct an experiment.


Unless we had prior knowledge of the elements in the wall and had extensive knowledge of the absortion spectra of different elements/molecules.
Arnie
LOL physics'd again.

Yes, of course. Wink Or if we had a good cluster for quantum chemical calculations!
The-Nisk
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
I believe somebody generously provided some statistics for that point. And yes it is a generalization, and it's a damn good one. Of course there will be people who don't fit under these statistics. But all you did was say you know great theist mathematicians, for all we know there could be no truth behind those words. Also, there's a difference between being able to solve problems and inteligence, yes solving problem requires a little of it, but there are people out there who are great at mathematics and yet are pretty damn stupid. They pretty much learn one thing and then just apply it, a process which can become a habit that requires no thinking.
And I'd say physics is better than maths in testing intelligence.


I know that somebody did provide some statistics showing that people who place religion as a high priority tend to be less intelligent that people who don't and I accepted that. That is still beside the point. I specifically mentioned the point. Comparing intelligence in any civilized debate is pointless. It adds nothing to the debate. All you did was say, "Oh let's just compare intelligence so that we can see who is right!" That is so incredibly stupid and is not the point of debating. Why the Hell should we even debate? Let's just go and all take IQ tests so that we can compare intelligence and see who is right. That's literally what you were saying. You literally said that we shouldn't even be debating; we should just see who's smarter and say the smartest wins.

Edit: Also, I guarantee that I am not lying about knowing two great theist mathematicians... but even if I was, then so what? That would make no change on my argument because that would not change the fact that smart theists exist. In mathematics, you can't just "learn one thing and then apply it..." That may work in basic math up to calculus (which one could argue is the first real upper level math class, although it's still very basic in the grand scheme of mathematics), but it won't cut it when you get deeper into studying mathematics. It especially wouldn't cut it for a mathematician.

Quote:
If it's not impossible to provide evidence for an immaterial belief, please do so.
You failed to understand that if something has no evidence, we say it doesn't exist.
Full stop, if you want to argue with that, go educate yourself.


So now you're just adding insults (I do have an education) to your own stupidity? Nice. So 1000 years ago, when there was no evidence that Pluto existed, it simply didn't exist? What? What in the hell is a discovery? Something exists before a discovery, it just isn't known. All I said was that there may be some evidence that God exists. If what you said was true, then we should never even bother trying to discover anything because nothing out there that currently has no data or evidence actually exists. Really... that's literally what you said.

Quote:
You just contradicted yourself. If there is no evidence for something to exist, we say it doesn't. that's how science works. Also, my original point was that the existence of god has the same truth value as the existence of your pink unicorn (or my, normal unicorn).


No. I didn't just contradict myself... at all. Again, just because evidence has not been found doesn't mean that the evidence cannot exist. That's why scientists are constantly conducting research.

Quote:
No. If there is no evidence, it doesn't exist. Prove me (and science) wrong, and yes I'm not the one who has to prove anything, that rests with the believer (not you neccesaraly).


I think I've just covered that wild assumption that discoveries are impossible twice, so I won't bother doing it again.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
So basicly the belief in gods existence is a full-proof belief based on nothing? I have to say, i believe a lot of people got locked up in the asylum, who had similar "evidence" for their beliefs, with the only difference that theirs beliefs weren't as far spread.


I guess so. I'm not the one who believes in God here. The entire point of my post was to counter your two points (1. How can you prove something might exist and 2. Atheists are smarter than theists).


Quote:
You failed at both.


Really? I failed at both? Wow... well let's analyze this.
1) You can prove that something might exist simply because it's impossible to prove that it doesn't exist. If you cannot prove to me that something doesn't exist, then it might exist. Therefore, I could (but I won't because I'm not irrational) say that Gandolf might exist. But let me choose a more rational topic. Currently, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being repaired. When it's finished being repaired, scientists at CERN will conduct many experiments. One of them may provide proof for the existence of the hypothesized Higgs Boson. Does the Higgs Boson exist? I don't know. It's hypothesized that it may, and at this point we do not know. Therefore, it MIGHT EXIST.

2) While the statistics show that atheists tend to be smarter than theists (which I accepted after seeing the statistics - I wasn't willing to accept it when you decided that you were just going to assert that claim as a cop out for real debating and an excuse to say, "Oh I'm smarter so I automatically win"), you still cannot say that all atheists are smarter than theists. Furthermore, making that statement in a civilized debate about the existence of God has no value.



I think I covered all of the stuff directed towards me. The rest, I believe, was directed towards other people.


I'm short on time, so here goes:

Inteligence = ability to spot patterns. And how can intelgence not matter in a debate? The main problem is, that in the god debate, that the opposition is too dumb to realise they were proven wrong, hence me and my side can't win. It does matter, but this isn't the purpose of this thread, if you wish to discuss it, please poste a new thread.

You my friend seem to remain neutral in this debate, however your theories that evidence "might" exist is ridicilous. Your Argument for deductive thinking is old fashioned, and scientifically speaking long dead. Science has adopted inductive thinking for a good while now, we don't attempt to cramp new facts into the old shoes. As for the word "might", great example of base-less wishful thinking.
If you like to endulge in deductive thinking, go ahead, but leave please refrain from bringing it into modern debates.

As for your example with Higgs Bosson, a great example for my argument, it is a product of inductive thinking. People noticed something didn't add up in the model of the universe, they then derived a theory and tried (are trying) to prove it. Not the other way around, where someone dreamed up the existance of a particle and then tried to franticly prove it.

And I see no one saw the logic in my original post after all, well at least they remained silent about it if they did, although if they were theists that was a good move.
Afaceinthematrix
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm short on time, so here goes:

Inteligence = ability to spot patterns. And how can intelgence not matter in a debate? The main problem is, that in the god debate, that the opposition is too dumb to realise they were proven wrong, hence me and my side can't win. It does matter, but this isn't the purpose of this thread, if you wish to discuss it, please poste a new thread.


No. I'm not going to create a new thread for this. You brought it up here; I'm finishing it here. I will say it again. Bringing up intelligence in a debate for the purpose that you did is useless. Having intelligence definitely matters in a debate (and I never claimed otherwise). Bringing it up, however, is useless. I'll say it again. What you literally said was, "I'm smarter than you, therefore I win." That is bullshit to the last degree. Intelligence doesn't win debates. The strength of your argument wins a debate. That's all. I don't care how smart you are, if your argument is weaker than someone else's argument, you lose the debate. That's it.

Quote:
You my friend seem to remain neutral in this debate, however your theories that evidence "might" exist is ridicilous.


What the Hell is up with you thinking that evidence won't exist if it's not already found? You never did answer my question. Did Pluto exist before it was discovered? You literally said that if it has no evidence it doesn't exist. When research is done, evidence is often found. That's how it works. I don't have a "theory" that evidence might exist. Evidence might exist. Period! There's no freakin' way around that! I know, I hate it too. I wish people would give up on the whole God delusion (people should read more Dawkins) religion nonsense; it would probably make the world a better place. But the fact of the matter remains that there may be evidence that we have not simply found yet. Just like there was un-found evidence 10,000 years ago that Pluto existed; it just had not been found yet (because the modern technology didn't exist yet). I highly doubt evidence supporting God's existence will ever be found because God probably doesn't exist, but I won't rule the slim-as-hell possibility out. If evidence was ever found, I'd probably have to re-access my position and I would probably become a theist.


Quote:
Your Argument for deductive thinking is old fashioned, and scientifically speaking long dead. Science has adopted inductive thinking for a good while now, we don't attempt to cramp new facts into the old shoes. As for the word "might", great example of base-less wishful thinking.
If you like to endulge in deductive thinking, go ahead, but leave please refrain from bringing it into modern debates.



Ummmm... inductive and deductive reasoning has nothing to do with realizing that we don't know everything (which is really what this comes down to).

Quote:
As for your example with Higgs Bosson, a great example for my argument, it is a product of inductive thinking. People noticed something didn't add up in the model of the universe, they then derived a theory and tried (are trying) to prove it. Not the other way around, where someone dreamed up the existance of a particle and then tried to franticly prove it.


It still remains unproven, therefore it just might exist. That's what I said from the freakin' beginning.

Quote:
And I see no one saw the logic in my original post after all, well at least they remained silent about it if they did, although if they were theists that was a good move.


To be honest, I don't even remember what was in your original post because I had no intention in participating in this conversation. It didn't interest me enough. I only responded when you said that we should just compare intelligence instead of debating. That's such a cop out and I don't see how you cannot see that. That's pretty low; that's actually Young Earth Creationist low. Young Earth Creationists will tend to use tactics like "You weren't there billions of years ago, therefore your argument must be wrong" instead of actually trying to provide evidence (legitimate) for an Earth that's 6,000 years old. You basically said, "I'm smarter than you so I automatically win" instead of posting your argument.

You told me my thinking was uneducated and outdated (even though I thought open-mindedness for possibilities was pretty contemporary) in science. Well.... I'm sorry dude. This actually has nothing to do with science. I'd be happy to debate science with you, but this is not the time, place, debate, or argument. We'd probably be around the same page, anyways (which doesn't provide much room for debating, if both people agree on the science). This is a "Philosophy and Religion" forum, you know? This argument had more to do with debating than science. You cannot just compare IQ's and then declare a winner; you have to actually debate and then compare arguments. Furthermore, if something has no evidence it does not mean that it doesn't exist; it just means that it currently has no evidence and unless proven wrong (which you technically cannot do in science - but you can to a certain degree in philosophy), may exist. Although most rational people will only "believe" in something if it has enough evidence...

In conclusion, based on these and other posts that you have made, you seem to be in a little arrogant world of your own where every theist is stupid by definition and an embarrassment to humanity (considering you did say in another thread that humans worshiping God was humiliating) and where we already know everything and the possibility of ever finding evidence for anything unknown is just silly (I still want to know how scientists managed to find Pluto in the 1930's considering there was previously no evidence for it and anything that has no evidence, by your logic, doesn't exist).
The-Nisk
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm short on time, so here goes:

Inteligence = ability to spot patterns. And how can intelgence not matter in a debate? The main problem is, that in the god debate, that the opposition is too dumb to realise they were proven wrong, hence me and my side can't win. It does matter, but this isn't the purpose of this thread, if you wish to discuss it, please poste a new thread.


No. I'm not going to create a new thread for this. You brought it up here; I'm finishing it here. I will say it again. Bringing up intelligence in a debate for the purpose that you did is useless. Having intelligence definitely matters in a debate (and I never claimed otherwise). Bringing it up, however, is useless. I'll say it again. What you literally said was, "I'm smarter than you, therefore I win." That is bullshit to the last degree. Intelligence doesn't win debates. The strength of your argument wins a debate. That's all. I don't care how smart you are, if your argument is weaker than someone else's argument, you lose the debate. That's it.


You have my word, that if I could avoid bringing up intelligence in this debate, I would, however when you provide a full-proof counter argument and the opposition fails to see the inteligence behind it, what are you to do then but point out their stupidity? That is what I meant, not "I'm smarter than you, therefore I win", you trust your presumptions too much, I would advise to read the whole sentance (or the full topic in this case) rather than taking things out of their original context and making accusations. And technically speaking, I never directly said that I am intelligent, I can admit my ignorance of being ignorant, you assumed I implied otherwise.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
You my friend seem to remain neutral in this debate, however your theories that evidence "might" exist is ridicilous.


What the Hell is up with you thinking that evidence won't exist if it's not already found? You never did answer my question. Did Pluto exist before it was discovered? You literally said that if it has no evidence it doesn't exist. When research is done, evidence is often found. That's how it works. I don't have a "theory" that evidence might exist. Evidence might exist. Period! There's no freakin' way around that! I know, I hate it too. I wish people would give up on the whole God delusion (people should read more Dawkins) religion nonsense; it would probably make the world a better place. But the fact of the matter remains that there may be evidence that we have not simply found yet. Just like there was un-found evidence 10,000 years ago that Pluto existed; it just had not been found yet (because the modern technology didn't exist yet). I highly doubt evidence supporting God's existence will ever be found because God probably doesn't exist, but I won't rule the slim-as-hell possibility out. If evidence was ever found, I'd probably have to re-access my position and I would probably become a theist.


Okay, I hope you are familiar with general relativity, it's universal implication is that if an event (the existance of Pluto) happens, somewhere, it would be some time before it affects the observer (us). Judging from previous posts, it looks like I will have to be painfuly clear in what I mean:
We had no knowledge of existance of Pluto all those years ago, and while it might have physicaly existed, in our frame of refference it didn't, because we didn't know about it back then. This is as simple as I can put it. And as for the discovery of Pluto, it was discovered because astronomers noticed that the orbit of Uranus was affected by some celestial object other than Neptune.
It is an example of inductive thinking, evidence was found, then the theory was derived and then it was proven true.


Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
Your Argument for deductive thinking is old fashioned, and scientifically speaking long dead. Science has adopted inductive thinking for a good while now, we don't attempt to cramp new facts into the old shoes. As for the word "might", great example of base-less wishful thinking.
If you like to endulge in deductive thinking, go ahead, but leave please refrain from bringing it into modern debates.



Ummmm... inductive and deductive reasoning has nothing to do with realizing that we don't know everything (which is really what this comes down to).


No, you said there is a possibility god "might" exist, I said that "might" is irrelevant to our frame of reference, because we are a culture of inductive thinking, we do not asume something exists until there is any shard of evidence. I started this as a logical debate about something which I consider irrational, there is no room here for wishful thinking. You are the one who reminds me all to much of a creationist, with all the 'might's & 'maybe's you used in you argument. There is no "might" in logic, only 'true', 'false' and a 'paradox'.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
As for your example with Higgs Bosson, a great example for my argument, it is a product of inductive thinking. People noticed something didn't add up in the model of the universe, they then derived a theory and tried (are trying) to prove it. Not the other way around, where someone dreamed up the existance of a particle and then tried to franticly prove it.


It still remains unproven, therefore it just might exist. That's what I said from the freakin' beginning.


There is an obvious difference, their "might" (it's more of a theory by now) is based on evidence, your "might" is unbased.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
And I see no one saw the logic in my original post after all, well at least they remained silent about it if they did, although if they were theists that was a good move.


To be honest, I don't even remember what was in your original post because I had no intention in participating in this conversation. It didn't interest me enough. I only responded when you said that we should just compare intelligence instead of debating. That's such a cop out and I don't see how you cannot see that. That's pretty low; that's actually Young Earth Creationist low. Young Earth Creationists will tend to use tactics like "You weren't there billions of years ago, therefore your argument must be wrong" instead of actually trying to provide evidence (legitimate) for an Earth that's 6,000 years old. You basically said, "I'm smarter than you so I automatically win" instead of posting your argument.


I'm afraid you are the one who's the most like creationist not me, I don't use the word "might" in my arguments, and I already addressed all the points you tried to make, above.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

You told me my thinking was uneducated and outdated (even though I thought open-mindedness for possibilities was pretty contemporary) in science. Well.... I'm sorry dude. This actually has nothing to do with science. I'd be happy to debate science with you, but this is not the time, place, debate, or argument. We'd probably be around the same page, anyways (which doesn't provide much room for debating, if both people agree on the science). This is a "Philosophy and Religion" forum, you know? This argument had more to do with debating than science. You cannot just compare IQ's and then declare a winner; you have to actually debate and then compare arguments. Furthermore, if something has no evidence it does not mean that it doesn't exist; it just means that it currently has no evidence and unless proven wrong (which you technically cannot do in science - but you can to a certain degree in philosophy), may exist. Although most rational people will only "believe" in something if it has enough evidence...


I'm afraid part of that is true, you argued for deductive thinking, I only said that approach was dumped long ago for good reasons. And yes this is a debate, and i can bring all the science i want when arguing against god/religion/etc. to support my point, because I'm participating in the 'Religion' side of this forum, it was a distinction i had to make in order to make this debate finite.
And how else can one win a debate if the opposing side repeatedly fails to see the strength of their opposition? I cannot win a debate against fools without pointing it out, a fool will always believe he is right. I am willing to disregard my argument if it is proven wrong. However, you seem to fail to see that it is not proven wrong, yours is.
And if something is proven, there is no need to use that delusional term "believe", it becomes a fact.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

In conclusion, based on these and other posts that you have made, you seem to be in a little arrogant world of your own where every theist is stupid by definition and an embarrassment to humanity (considering you did say in another thread that humans worshiping God was humiliating) and where we already know everything and the possibility of ever finding evidence for anything unknown is just silly (I still want to know how scientists managed to find Pluto in the 1930's considering there was previously no evidence for it and anything that has no evidence, by your logic, doesn't exist).


Well I have the full right to have whatever views I want, I can defend them, but that's beside the point, the point is: all the points i made in my posts are valid.
I have no wish to insult you, but as far as I'm concerned my debate with you is finished.
Afaceinthematrix
The-Nisk wrote:
You have my word, that if I could avoid bringing up intelligence in this debate, I would, however when you provide a full-proof counter argument and the opposition fails to see the inteligence behind it, what are you to do then but point out their stupidity? That is what I meant, not "I'm smarter than you, therefore I win", you trust your presumptions too much, I would advise to read the whole sentance (or the full topic in this case) rather than taking things out of their original context and making accusations. And technically speaking, I never directly said that I am intelligent, I can admit my ignorance of being ignorant, you assumed I implied otherwise.


That's why you just shouldn't debate people who are extremely closed-minded. One of the principles in debating is that both sides have to be willing to change their views if enough evidence is brought up. So it's still useless to bring up intelligence. Bring up arguments and let the moderator, audience, or whoever read them.

Quote:
Okay, I hope you are familiar with general relativity, it's universal implication is that if an event (the existance of Pluto) happens, somewhere, it would be some time before it affects the observer (us). Judging from previous posts, it looks like I will have to be painfuly clear in what I mean:
We had no knowledge of existance of Pluto all those years ago, and while it might have physicaly existed, in our frame of refference it didn't, because we didn't know about it back then. This is as simple as I can put it. And as for the discovery of Pluto, it was discovered because astronomers noticed that the orbit of Uranus was affected by some celestial object other than Neptune.
It is an example of inductive thinking, evidence was found, then the theory was derived and then it was proven true.


I understand. That's not what you said, though. You said that if there is no evidence for it, it does not exist. You could have said, "It's unreasonable to believe in things with no evidence" or even "It's unrational to come up with a hypothesis before gathering evidence." I would have agreed with both. But you said, "If it has no evidence then it does not exist." That may have been a semantic error on your part; I don't know. But the point is that you said something that was wrong and I pointed it out.

Quote:
No, you said there is a possibility god "might" exist, I said that "might" is irrelevant to our frame of reference, because we are a culture of inductive thinking, we do not asume something exists until there is any shard of evidence. I started this as a logical debate about something which I consider irrational, there is no room here for wishful thinking. You are the one who reminds me all to much of a creationist, with all the 'might's & 'maybe's you used in you argument. There is no "might" in logic, only 'true', 'false' and a 'paradox'.


Bullshit. When debating someone who believes in God, you have to be in the mindset that there may be a god, even if you highly doubt it. Remember what I said about debating? You have to be willing to change your mind if presented with sufficient evidence. Even Richard Dawkins says things like, "There is almost certainly no chance that God exist." You need to leave a small amount of certainty present in case you're provided with evidence that probably won't ever come up.


Quote:
There is an obvious difference, their "might" (it's more of a theory by now) is based on evidence, your "might" is unbased.


Bullshit again. It's still a hypothesis (although it may move more towards a theory level after the LHC is completed). My "might" is not unbased. My might is based on the fact that if you cannot disprove something, it might exist. That's about as simple as I can put it.

Quote:
I'm afraid you are the one who's the most like creationist not me, I don't use the word "might" in my arguments, and I already addressed all the points you tried to make, above.


No, no, no... You were the one using cop outs instead of debating. That's Creationist level.

Quote:
I'm afraid part of that is true, you argued for deductive thinking, I only said that approach was dumped long ago for good reasons. And yes this is a debate, and i can bring all the science i want when arguing against god/religion/etc. to support my point, because I'm participating in the 'Religion' side of this forum, it was a distinction i had to make in order to make this debate finite.
And how else can one win a debate if the opposing side repeatedly fails to see the strength of their opposition? I cannot win a debate against fools without pointing it out, a fool will always believe he is right. I am willing to disregard my argument if it is proven wrong. However, you seem to fail to see that it is not proven wrong, yours is.
And if something is proven, there is no need to use that delusional term "believe", it becomes a fact.


This isn't much of a debate - it's more of an argument. You don't need to bring up science because there's nothing scientifically based here. You should bring up science when debating theology. We're simply arguing about how a proper debate should be ran and semantic issues. I agree that debating Creationists can get annoying because when their arguments are shown to be silly, they cling on to them even harder. You can not disprove that God exists, so they're left playing the faith card often.... but this has nothing to do with our argument. God might exist, although it's a slim-as-hell chance and comparing intelligence ("I think we should really start the conversation by comparing the inteligence between the believers and non-believers, that would offer a real insight.") is not proper debating.


Quote:
Well I have the full right to have whatever views I want, I can defend them, but that's beside the point, the point is: all the points i made in my posts are valid.
I have no wish to insult you, but as far as I'm concerned my debate with you is finished.


Of course you have the right to your views - I love freedom of speech. If you consider the "debate" over, then bye. I'll probably not visit this topic again because it had little interest to me from the beginning.
The-Nisk
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
You have my word, that if I could avoid bringing up intelligence in this debate, I would, however when you provide a full-proof counter argument and the opposition fails to see the inteligence behind it, what are you to do then but point out their stupidity? That is what I meant, not "I'm smarter than you, therefore I win", you trust your presumptions too much, I would advise to read the whole sentance (or the full topic in this case) rather than taking things out of their original context and making accusations. And technically speaking, I never directly said that I am intelligent, I can admit my ignorance of being ignorant, you assumed I implied otherwise.


That's why you just shouldn't debate people who are extremely closed-minded. One of the principles in debating is that both sides have to be willing to change their views if enough evidence is brought up. So it's still useless to bring up intelligence. Bring up arguments and let the moderator, audience, or whoever read them.


I don't see how I could have implied that only idiots believe in god, without mentioning inteligence.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
Okay, I hope you are familiar with general relativity, it's universal implication is that if an event (the existance of Pluto) happens, somewhere, it would be some time before it affects the observer (us). Judging from previous posts, it looks like I will have to be painfuly clear in what I mean:
We had no knowledge of existance of Pluto all those years ago, and while it might have physicaly existed, in our frame of refference it didn't, because we didn't know about it back then. This is as simple as I can put it. And as for the discovery of Pluto, it was discovered because astronomers noticed that the orbit of Uranus was affected by some celestial object other than Neptune.
It is an example of inductive thinking, evidence was found, then the theory was derived and then it was proven true.


I understand. That's not what you said, though. You said that if there is no evidence for it, it does not exist. You could have said, "It's unreasonable to believe in things with no evidence" or even "It's unrational to come up with a hypothesis before gathering evidence." I would have agreed with both. But you said, "If it has no evidence then it does not exist." That may have been a semantic error on your part; I don't know. But the point is that you said something that was wrong and I pointed it out.


I didn't say anything that was wrong. In our frame of refference, if there's no evidence for something it doesn't exist. Go on and prove that statement wrong using logic.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
No, you said there is a possibility god "might" exist, I said that "might" is irrelevant to our frame of reference, because we are a culture of inductive thinking, we do not asume something exists until there is any shard of evidence. I started this as a logical debate about something which I consider irrational, there is no room here for wishful thinking. You are the one who reminds me all to much of a creationist, with all the 'might's & 'maybe's you used in you argument. There is no "might" in logic, only 'true', 'false' and a 'paradox'.


Bullshit. When debating someone who believes in God, you have to be in the mindset that there may be a god, even if you highly doubt it. Remember what I said about debating? You have to be willing to change your mind if presented with sufficient evidence. Even Richard Dawkins says things like, "There is almost certainly no chance that God exist." You need to leave a small amount of certainty present in case you're provided with evidence that probably won't ever come up.


No, because in my view god is not an all powerful figure who magicaly created the universe, but a figment of human imagination, who are too weak to deal with their own problems (and hence have the need of a 'guide') or if they are simply afraid to face the fact that they will die and that is the end of them. I will not be open minded about mass delusion. There is no evidence right now (im sure there never will be), therefore god doesn't exist in our frame of refference.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
There is an obvious difference, their "might" (it's more of a theory by now) is based on evidence, your "might" is unbased.


Bullshit again. It's still a hypothesis (although it may move more towards a theory level after the LHC is completed). My "might" is not unbased. My might is based on the fact that if you cannot disprove something, it might exist. That's about as simple as I can put it.


No you are the one who has verbal diarrhea, no your "might" is based on the inability of science to disprove something so completely ridicilous. Their might is based on evidence, which is the missing link in the nuclear physics. Research it.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
I'm afraid you are the one who's the most like creationist not me, I don't use the word "might" in my arguments, and I already addressed all the points you tried to make, above.


No, no, no... You were the one using cop outs instead of debating. That's Creationist level.


And "it might exist" is not a 'cop out'? right...

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
I'm afraid part of that is true, you argued for deductive thinking, I only said that approach was dumped long ago for good reasons. And yes this is a debate, and i can bring all the science i want when arguing against god/religion/etc. to support my point, because I'm participating in the 'Religion' side of this forum, it was a distinction i had to make in order to make this debate finite.
And how else can one win a debate if the opposing side repeatedly fails to see the strength of their opposition? I cannot win a debate against fools without pointing it out, a fool will always believe he is right. I am willing to disregard my argument if it is proven wrong. However, you seem to fail to see that it is not proven wrong, yours is.
And if something is proven, there is no need to use that delusional term "believe", it becomes a fact.


This isn't much of a debate - it's more of an argument. You don't need to bring up science because there's nothing scientifically based here. You should bring up science when debating theology. We're simply arguing about how a proper debate should be ran and semantic issues. I agree that debating Creationists can get annoying because when their arguments are shown to be silly, they cling on to them even harder. You can not disprove that God exists, so they're left playing the faith card often.... but this has nothing to do with our argument. God might exist, although it's a slim-as-hell chance and comparing intelligence ("I think we should really start the conversation by comparing the inteligence between the believers and non-believers, that would offer a real insight.") is not proper debating.


Well if you read the very first post in this thread you'd know that I started it in order to challenge people to prove their unbassed beliefs using logic, so you can't avoid bringing in science. As for my bringing in inteligence, if say I'm more inteligent than the person I'm having a debate with, and it irrelevant in who is going to win the debate, then my apponent should just ignore my remark since according to you it is irrelevant? Actualy, I'm going to start a thread about this, just for the laugh of it.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Quote:
Well I have the full right to have whatever views I want, I can defend them, but that's beside the point, the point is: all the points i made in my posts are valid.
I have no wish to insult you, but as far as I'm concerned my debate with you is finished.


Of course you have the right to your views - I love freedom of speech. If you consider the "debate" over, then bye. I'll probably not visit this topic again because it had little interest to me from the beginning.


well i do hope you can join me in the one our debate inspired.
deanhills
The-Nisk wrote:
No, because in my view god is not an all powerful figure who magicaly created the universe, but a figment of human imagination, who are too weak to deal with their own problems (and hence have the need of a 'guide') or if they are simply afraid to face the fact that they will die and that is the end of them. I will not be open minded about mass delusion. There is no evidence right now (im sure there never will be), therefore god doesn't exist in our frame of refference.


So do you think the crusaders of the middle ages were too weak to deal with their own problems? Do you think they were afraid they would die? How about suicide missions in the name of God? You think people like that are weak? Who are you really talking about here? As perhaps there is more to religion than meets your eye? You may be so blind about your own perception of religion, that you have been missing a number of points.

I think one can really only have a good debate about religion if you have made a very thorough study of all religion (as for example Chris and Indi have done), and then at the end of it you may come up with: There is probably not a God. But you would know enough NOT to say: There is no God. You cannot prove there isn't a God, you cannot prove there is a God. From a debating point of view it would therefore be immature to claim there is no God as in absence of proof it would express more of your own limitations than the ones you think you are addressing.
The-Nisk
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
No, because in my view god is not an all powerful figure who magicaly created the universe, but a figment of human imagination, who are too weak to deal with their own problems (and hence have the need of a 'guide') or if they are simply afraid to face the fact that they will die and that is the end of them. I will not be open minded about mass delusion. There is no evidence right now (im sure there never will be), therefore god doesn't exist in our frame of refference.


So do you think the crusaders of the middle ages were too weak to deal with their own problems? Do you think they were afraid they would die? How about suicide missions in the name of God? You think people like that are weak?


No, frankly I think people like that are idiots.Very Happy
However, you said "suicide missions in the name of God", this implies they readily gave their lives for something "True" and "Great", right? But what happens if we take god out of the equasion, we have a bunch of people who have the need of something "True" and "Great" to give their tiny lives to. And they weren't afraid to die because they convinced themselves that they will have an eternal life in "heaven", that is cowardice. Bravery is knowing you might die, which means the end of you, no after-lifes, and still have the courage to protect what's dear to you with your life. They, the crusaders, didnt even have anything dear to protect, that's why they were inclined to believe in god - who's suposed to be all loving and all the similar fairy tales rubish. Also they were afraid of damnation (non-eternal life/hell), which is how Christianity manipulates people.
So yes, people like that are weak, insecure, cowardly and pathetic.
But hey, that's just my belief, bassed on logic, no offence:D

deanhills wrote:

I think one can really only have a good debate about religion if you have made a very thorough study of all religion (as for example Chris and Indi have done), and then at the end of it you may come up with: There is probably not a God. But you would know enough NOT to say: There is no God. You cannot prove there isn't a God, you cannot prove there is a God. From a debating point of view it would therefore be immature to claim there is no God as in absence of proof it would express more of your own limitations than the ones you think you are addressing.


My intention was never to debate religion, well unless you call giving volunteers a chance to rationaly defend their irrational beliefs that. I can admit to that mischief Razz
And no it wouldn't be immature! It's how science works (inductive thinking)! You sure you want to call science immature?
The one deed of man that doesn't preach ignorance and the belief in the irrational like religion does?
My limitations? Because I'm intolerant of religion on the basis of science I have limitations?
My only limitations are the unwillful ignorance of the things I am ignorant of, because I do all I can to learn all I can.
It is people who believe in god that are limited in their perception of the world, not me. I already argued this somewhere I believe.
And as for study of religion, why would I waste my time? There's soo much better works of fiction out there. If you think about it, let's say God exists and erasses all traces of his presence (evidence), as was argued by you I believe, doesn't that mean that he/she thinks his/hers existence is irrelevant to our daily lives? So for all intends and purposes he/she doesn't exist for us?
Could that mean God is on my side in this argument? Laughing

I have to say, I'm somewhat surprised so few theists took up the chalenge to prove the impossible in this thread. Rolling Eyes Laughing
Arnie
The-Nisk wrote:
why would I waste my time?
Ask yourself that question again while looking at this topic, the length of your posts and what it all led to.

P.S. I have to say, I'm not surprised by the amount of emoticons in your post.
The-Nisk
Arnie wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
why would I waste my time?
Ask yourself that question again while looking at this topic, the length of your posts and what it all led to.

P.S. I have to say, I'm not surprised by the amount of emoticons in your post.


I believe I implied that I consider religion to be a work bassed on fiction and that there are better works of fiction out there. Stop taking things out of their original context, it doesn't do any favours in showing your intellect.

Neither do small print meta-physical insults, do any favours in showing your bravery.
deanhills
The-Nisk wrote:
However, you said "suicide missions in the name of God", this implies they readily gave their lives for something "True" and "Great", right?
The True and Great were your conclusions, not mine.

The-Nisk wrote:

So yes, people like that are weak, insecure, cowardly and pathetic.
But hey, that's just my belief, bassed on logic, no offence:D
I don't see the logic here. Only subjective judgment.

The-Nisk wrote:

You sure you want to call science immature?
Again, your words, your conclusions, not mine.

The-Nisk wrote:
My only limitations are the unwillful ignorance of the things I am ignorant of, because I do all I can to learn all I can.
It is people who believe in god that are limited in their perception of the world, not me. I already argued this somewhere I believe.
Right. Everywhere.
The-Nisk wrote:
And as for study of religion, why would I waste my time? There's soo much better works of fiction out there.
Think this conflicts with your previous statement.
The-Nisk
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
However, you said "suicide missions in the name of God", this implies they readily gave their lives for something "True" and "Great", right?
The True and Great were your conclusions, not mine.

They are not conclusions, that is what the y believed in particular.

deanhills wrote:

The-Nisk wrote:

So yes, people like that are weak, insecure, cowardly and pathetic.
But hey, that's just my belief, bassed on logic, no offence:D
I don't see the logic here. Only subjective judgment.


well I did say "my belief" Smile And I don't see logic in killing yourself and perpahs other people for a figment of your imagination, so really I'm not the one who has to prove logic here, it was your example.

deanhills wrote:

The-Nisk wrote:

You sure you want to call science immature?
Again, your words, your conclusions, not mine.

Well you are calling me imature (on what right/basis exactly?), I use inductive thinking the same as any other science person, so the connection seems quite obvious and valid.

deanhills wrote:

The-Nisk wrote:
And as for study of religion, why would I waste my time? There's soo much better works of fiction out there.
Think this conflicts with your previous statement.

Does it really? I don't believe I've ever expressed a view that religion is something good or worthwhile.
deanhills
Quote:
The-Nisk wrote:
And as for study of religion, why would I waste my time? There's soo much better works of fiction out there.
Think this conflicts with your previous statement.
The-Nisk wrote:
Does it really? I don't believe I've ever expressed a view that religion is something good or worthwhile.


How can you be critical of something that you do not want to study? Aren't you guilty of the same thing that you are accusing religious people off? Lack of facts? How can you have a mature discussion about religion if you have no interest in the subject matter? I don't see the logic in that.
The-Nisk
deanhills wrote:
Quote:
The-Nisk wrote:
And as for study of religion, why would I waste my time? There's soo much better works of fiction out there.
Think this conflicts with your previous statement.
The-Nisk wrote:
Does it really? I don't believe I've ever expressed a view that religion is something good or worthwhile.


How can you be critical of something that you do not want to study? Aren't you guilty of the same thing that you are accusing religious people off? Lack of facts? How can you have a mature discussion about religion if you have no interest in the subject matter? I don't see the logic in that.


Lack of facts? There are no facts in religion. My interest lies entirely in disproving religion.
What facts is it i need to know to have a "mature" discussion? Bible, for example, is writen in the same way horoscopes are - you can make anything you want out of it. For the sake of expression bibble is the ****** of interpretations. I'd like nothing more than to see them all burn, along with Quaran, what a waste of paper! Do you see logic in believing in magic?
deanhills
The-Nisk wrote:
Lack of facts? There are no facts in religion. My interest lies entirely in disproving religion. Do you see logic in believing in magic?
I don't see logic in you trying to disprove religion without studying it. To disprove it, you need to do these with facts. So you will need to read up on those facts. If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them, and for that you will have to go and read it up. Otherwise you are an ignoramus, and not much different from the people you claim to be completely stupid for being religious.
The-Nisk
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
Lack of facts? There are no facts in religion. My interest lies entirely in disproving religion. Do you see logic in believing in magic?
I don't see logic in you trying to disprove religion without studying it. To disprove it, you need to do these with facts. So you will need to read up on those facts. If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them, and for that you will have to go and read it up. Otherwise you are an ignoramus, and not much different from the people you claim to be completely stupid for being religious.


First of, there are no scientific facts in religion, what you just said is riddicilous.

Second, you have no right or basis for calling me an ignoramus, I did read some of the bible when I was a child (as an example), and I built up a lot of secondary knowledge by following up religious debates on this forums and in real life, also I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkings, I also have sufficient knowledge of science and history to agrue against religion. Incidentaly the actions of its followers often speak loud enough to settle the debate of usefulness of religion.

Quote:
If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them


'lol'.

And also, who are you to call me ignorant? What achievements have you to be able to judge others?
deanhills
The-Nisk wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
Lack of facts? There are no facts in religion. My interest lies entirely in disproving religion. Do you see logic in believing in magic?
I don't see logic in you trying to disprove religion without studying it. To disprove it, you need to do these with facts. So you will need to read up on those facts. If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them, and for that you will have to go and read it up. Otherwise you are an ignoramus, and not much different from the people you claim to be completely stupid for being religious.


First of, there are no scientific facts in religion, what you just said is riddicilous.

Second, you have no right or basis for calling me an ignoramus, I did read some of the bible when I was a child (as an example), and I built up a lot of secondary knowledge by following up religious debates on this forums and in real life, also I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkings, I also have sufficient knowledge of science and history to agrue against religion. Incidentaly the actions of its followers often speak loud enough to settle the debate of usefulness of religion.

Quote:
If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them


'lol'.

And also, who are you to call me ignorant? What achievements have you to be able to judge others?


If you want to prove anything as unscientific, you still need to study the scientific facts. To disprove religious theories, you still need to do that on the basis of scientific facts. There are no shortcuts here.

Perhaps you also need to read postings better. I said that if you did not study the facts, then you could be an ignoramus. Note "Otherwise" at the start of my sentence. I did not accuse you of being an ignoramus. That was your interpretation.

Regarding your last sentence about people not having the right to judge others without having achievements, is that not exactly what you are doing in this thread? You are judging religion without any interest in studying what it is about. What achievements do you have to judge religion?
The-Nisk
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
Lack of facts? There are no facts in religion. My interest lies entirely in disproving religion. Do you see logic in believing in magic?
I don't see logic in you trying to disprove religion without studying it. To disprove it, you need to do these with facts. So you will need to read up on those facts. If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them, and for that you will have to go and read it up. Otherwise you are an ignoramus, and not much different from the people you claim to be completely stupid for being religious.


First of, there are no scientific facts in religion, what you just said is riddicilous.

Second, you have no right or basis for calling me an ignoramus, I did read some of the bible when I was a child (as an example), and I built up a lot of secondary knowledge by following up religious debates on this forums and in real life, also I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkings, I also have sufficient knowledge of science and history to agrue against religion. Incidentaly the actions of its followers often speak loud enough to settle the debate of usefulness of religion.

Quote:
If you want to throw religion out, you at least need to build an arsenal of scientific theories by studying them


'lol'.

And also, who are you to call me ignorant? What achievements have you to be able to judge others?


If you want to prove anything as unscientific, you still need to study the scientific facts. To disprove religious theories, you still need to do that on the basis of scientific facts. There are no shortcuts here.


eh hello? That's what I did!?

deanhills wrote:

Perhaps you also need to read postings better. I said that if you did not study the facts, then you could be an ignoramus. Note "Otherwise" at the start of my sentence. I did not accuse you of being an ignoramus. That was your interpretation.


No, judging by the claim you made before this one, you are the one who needs to read postings better, I would also advise taking in the meaning behind the words being read. No, you said my argument lacks scientific facts(even though my whole thread was on science dissproving god), then you said anyone who tries to disprove religion without scientific facts is an Ignoramus. you Further said:
Quote:

and not much different from the people you calim to be completely stupid for being religious

notice the "you" I highlighted in bold???
You directed that at me and at least have the courage to stand up and admit it (come on, it's only the internet after all), because face it you didn't phrase it in a manner to be able to claim that you didnt make the accusation, I also doubt you'd be able to support it or pull it off anyway.

deanhills wrote:

Regarding your last sentence about people not having the right to judge others without having achievements, is that not exactly what you are doing in this thread? You are judging religion without any interest in studying what it is about. What achievements do you have to judge religion?


The word "right" was not used by me. Therefore I am not bound to address the accusation you (fail to)make.
Incidentaly, to compare a religion to a person makes you one of the people I do not wish to speak to, since I detest such (lack of) moral values. Also, what achievements have I for judging religion?
Well I merely had to pass middle school, that is sufficient.

But let me ask you, what achievements have you got to acuse me of scientific ignorance (even though I used science as the absolute basis of my argument)? What achievements do you have to even be able to justify the accusation of my argument? Laughing

To the moderators:
I would like to request this topic be locked, since I do not see any good coming out of it's continued existence, in fact i see the opposite. Thank you.
Bikerman
It does seem to have degenerated into a spat rather than a debate on the original point. I will therefore lock the thread, but, as usual, I will leave it open to anyone who feels strongly it should be re-opened to pm me.

Bikerman
Related topics
F. Nietzsche
Thrash Metal
Bible Verses: Do Disbelievers Go To Hell?
Shingami
Nietzsche and the search for God
questions for Christians
What or Who Created God? Any ideas?
why do christians make prophet jesus as a god?
Nihlism and Atheism
blue screen of death 0x8E
Is death something to be feared?
Things happen for a reason? what the hell
New girlfriend
Is it a duty to reproduce in god's name?
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.