Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?

[Castiel]

Jesus Christ, never did I say that, you're imagining it and pestering me about it. I have said many times that I never meant that, I confirmed that I never meant that yet STILL you feel that way. If this is not immature and rude then I do not know what is.

I have also asked you to rephrase the question to clarify, and admitted that there may be some misunderstanding and have offered an apology if that was the case...instead of that you continue to simply call me a liar and immature etc.....

Clarify or simply stop posting.....if you feel I am really being rude to you and treating you poorly then you can add me to your ignore list, I would not be offended in any way.

 

[Nerusy]

I have already explained why I thought this. In my previous post which you quoted no less..I even gave you another opportunity to rephrase and clarify.



You continue to insult me..I am not insulting you, in fact quite the contrary I have explained and given you the opportunity to do likewise...Increasingly it appears your motives in continuing this are not all they seem, apologies if I am mistaken.



That is easy...quit calling me names and stop posting.

I am not calling you names, I am pointing out to you your bad behavior. You cast the first stone where I was nothing but nice to you and when I pointed out that I never wanted you to conform you ignored that and further implied that I am trying to force something on to you.

There is not need for rephrase as in comments after you false accusations we reached the answer that I was looking from you.

I was upset that you kept pushing fals accusations and pointed out hat ignoring my point that those accusations are false is childish. You have not been nice to me and if you can't see that (which I am sure you can't, if you could read coherently this conversation would have been over an houe ago), then I have nothing to say to you but to leave me alone.

 

[Castiel]

I am not calling you names, I am pointing out to you your bad behavior. You cast the first stone where I was nothing but nice to you and when I pointed out that I never wanted you to conform you ignored that and further implied that I am trying to force something on to you.

There is not need for rephrase as in comments after you false accusations we reached the answer that I was looking from you.

I was upset that you kept pushing fals accusations and pointed out hat ignoring my point that those accusations are false is childish. You have not been nice to me and if you can't see that (which I am sure you can't, if you could read coherently this conversation would have been over an houe ago), then I have nothing to say to you but to leave me alone.

I do not feel I have treated you unfairly or conducted myself in a bad way....I have been open and honest with you, I did not ignore you or the complaints you made, i did not want to get into a quote v quote discussion but the question you asked which i felt was asking me to conform to a particular binary position is this one:

Can you apply your reason and knowledge to tell if Muslim/Christian God has equal 50% chance to exist and 50% chance not to exist?

I explained that I favour no particular bias, that I do not accept that we need assign values to unknowns, I felt that the question did not allow for my position, but illustrated your own regarding mine being biased somehow...I felt that the nature of the question and the narrow parameters that it allowed was indeed asking me to conform to one position or another (as there were only two choices)....I am sorry you are offended by this, but I gave you ample opportunity to clarify long before you say you got your answers, and I answered your questions fairly and fully. I disagree with you regarding an inherent unfairness in not taking a binary view of the question, and I certainly did not intent to offend you, I asked why you could not accept that I could not give a definitive answer to a binary choice...you took this as being defensive and making false accusations...which led to the maturity issue and accusations that I cannot see any other point of view etc...I responded thusly:

I see and respect your point, I accept your perspective, but you are asking me to commit to something as well as agree that my position is something I dont agree it is......if you are not asking such then what are you asking?

I was polite, amicable and asked for clarity if I had misunderstood....I also said:

As for calling me immature...if that is the way you wish to debate then I an no longer interested in continuing, you have already said I made false accusations, of what I do not know, and now I am immature because I disagree with you that my view is biased toward one particular position. I think it is best if we simply leave it there.

I made it clear I was unsure as to the accusation being laid to me, I also said it was best to leave it if this was the nature the debate was going to take....I was again treating you fairly and giving you an opportunity to clarify.

You continued in your next post with further accusations, when clarification was all that was needed. I continued to try to engage fairly and without rancour and continued to reiterate that I held you in esteem and respect and was not trying to undermine or insult you...I used apologetic language and attempted to answer your questions as best I could...I am sorry if you think otherwise.

Now I have explained myself....again....I have offered you several apologies for any misunderstanding on my part, as well as opportunities to clarify why you feel the way you do or why you thought it necessary to accuse me of the things you have, all which you have ignored and I have nothing pertinent further to add and feel this should be the end of it.

 

[Nerusy]

I do not feel I have treated you unfairly or conducted myself in a bad way....I have been open and honest with you, I did not ignore you or the complaints you made, i did not want to get into a quote v quote discussion but the question you asked which i felt was asking me to conform to a particular binary position is this one:



I explained that I favour no particular bias, that I do not accept that we need assign values to unknowns, I felt that the question did not allow for my position, but illustrated your own regarding mine being biased somehow...I felt that the nature of the question and the narrow parameters that it allowed was indeed asking me to conform to one position or another (as there were on,y two choices)....I am sorry you are offended by this, but I gave you ample opportunity to clarify, and I answered your questions fairly and fully. I disagree with you regarding an inherent unfairness in not taking a binary view of the question, and I certainly did not intent to offend you, I asked why you could not accept that I could not give a definitive answer to a binary choice...you took this as being defensive and making false accusations...which led to the maturity issue and accusations that I cannot see any other point of view etc...I responded thusly:



I was polite and asked for clarity if I had misunderstood....I also said:



I made it clear I was unsure as to the accusation being laid to me, I also said it was best to leave it if this was the nature the debate was going to take....

You continued with further accusations, when clarification was all that was needed.

Now I have explained myself, again....I have offered you several apologies for any misunderstanding on my part, and I have nothing pertinent further to add. You can accept my position or you can retort further, the choice is yours.

I have explained to you your accusations many times, I even summed them up in post 405.

When you falsely misunderstood the nature of my question I clarified I do not want you to conform to my view which you swiftly ignored and by the looks of it you ignored post 405 too because you asking questions which I have already answered.

You keep saying all you needed was clarification but clarification was provided straight after your first accusation, which you, again, ignored.

I have explained myself to you once again, what I wrote right now was already written before.

You continued with further accusations, when clarification was all that was needed.

That is a lie, I clarified why I felt your conduct was less than respectable, many many times, you ignored them all. It is you who threw your toys out the pram and accused me of calling you immature because we supposedly in disagreement (which as I explained before never happened).

You keep asking me why, and I keep replying and explaining myself but you don't seem to read any of my posts, either read them or leave me alone, this is extremely pointless if I am the only one reading comments.

 

[Biohazard]

This sort of **** makes these threads unbearable, I wholly participate like for like at times only for I am never wrong. Thus I should probably really say it's the people who are of wrong who ruin these ******* boards.

I'll leave now.

 

[Castiel]

snip.

I feel I have adequately explained myself and offered sufficient apologies and clarification throughout for any perceived offence you may have taken. I do not agree that the accusations you made are entirely fair or equitable, but I offered and continue to offer the courtesy regardless. Any further issues I leave to the moderation team.

I bid you goodnight and good will.

 

[Nerusy]

I feel I have adequately explained myself and offered sufficient apologies and clarification throughout for any perceived offence you may have taken. I do not agree that the accusations you made are entirely fair or equitable, but I offered and continue to offer the courtesy regardless. Any further issues I leave to the moderation team.

I bid you goodnight and good will.

My accusations have factual proof that I quoted many times thank you very much.

As for rest, likewise, glad it's finally over.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'm not taking a definitive view, simply rejecting the assertion.

You don't have to know the opposite for certain to reject another persons assertion.

And you're welcome to reject any assertion whatsoever and say it doesn't convince you but that's a different point and might be a value judgement rather than an argument about absolute truth (should such a thing exist).

I don't know, few atheists claim to know - just that we reject somebody else's assertion due to lack of evidence.

I agree on the last part, but few atheists boldly claim that no gods exist to counter.

And some atheists absolutely do choose to state that there is no god - they are taking a faith based position. It is not your position but that some people do take a definitive position seems clear. We could argue about percentages but what I'm trying to point out is that for some atheism shares many characteristics of a faith based position - although they'll often claim that it is purely a logical one and get very defensive if challenged on it. I'll say it again in case it gets lost but there's nothing wrong with a faith based position, my only caveat is that it's worth recognising it when you've taken one.

If a man came up-to me & said "Big-foot exists" - I'd ask for evidence.

I would reject his assertion of an unproven entity due to lack of evidence if he had none.

Nobody would say, "I would take a faith based position that big-foot doesn't exist" - they would simply reject the others persons assertion due to lack of evidence.

It's not quite the same thing in that Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Abominable Snowmen are essentially entities of this World were they to exist and therefore theoretically at least a falsifiable test for them would be possible. Common conceptions of god (with acknowledgement to the argument that we have no clear universal definition) include that they are omniscient, omnipotent etc and do not share either a temporal or physical plane with life of Earth - you can't test for that sort of thing using science as the supernatural is outwith what it deals with.

I understand the point so let's say there is a pink invisible Bigfoot who teleports (don't ask why they're pink and invisible but it seems to fit) then we're speaking on more comparable terms. However it's something that I am agnostic about - until and unless said Bigfoot makes a difference to my life then I am content to let people believe in it or not as they choose.

Snipped the rest for space...
I propose the following,

What viewpoint would people on here have if a man came up-to them & stated they are able to speak with the dead.

You don't have access to their mind, neither can you know for certain - for it to be true requires the suspension of our known laws of physics.

Do you reject their assertion due to lack of evidence?, do you hold an equally valid 'faith based view' they are wrong? - or do you assume they are mentally ill?.

What viewpoint would people have or what viewpoint would I have? I suspect they're different. My view is that I'm agnostic about their assertion, I'm perfectly prepared to put their assertion aside from my laymans diagnosis about their mental state unless it's supported by something else. At present there is no real reason for me to care about their claim. I'd be interested to see it tested but at the same time I'm aware that there is unlikely to be a test that is objectively valid for the claim.

I'm agnostic as I believe theres too many unknowns to give a definitive answer but I believe you're being a tad unfair to atheist if you claim their beliefs are faith based.

I'm not claiming all atheists have faith based beliefs but if your atheism is the strong or explicit type then it is a faith based position because you would have taken a firm standpoint on a question with an answer that cannot be known (at least presently and perhaps indefinitely).

In the absence of evidence that any god exists the most logical answer is atheism until proven otherwise. This is no more faith based than the faith you have in mavity or the faith you have that dragons do not exist.

I'd have a slight quibble if you're stating that no evidence exists, there's no evidence that you accept which is a somewhat different proposition. For that matter it might be evidence that I don't accept either but that's not really the point.

Also I'd be wary of confusing falsifiable positions with those that are non-falsifiable such as the proposition that (a) god exists.

Being without doubt is something I find interesting but it's not unreasonable to treat our best guess as fact for the purposes of discussion. As it is we never really know anything for sure, but thats how science is done.

Of course the primary difference between the science based and the faith based believe is that science is always happy to accept it was wrong when proven otherwise.

I agree that we've often got to take a best guess and proceed on that basis but taking a pragmatic view to advance a situation and to state that something is absolutely true aren't the same thing. Using mavity for the example the commonly accepted 9.8m/s isn't quite right but it's close enough to be a useful approximation in most situations.

 

[yasen78]

Hi guys,

there is no point to argue about christianity. Anyone who never believed, was thinking that he belives, was just a religious person, even putting the label born again on him/her - they never knew God. I am saing that based on the experience trully saved people. I do not claim that this group of people, described above, which is most of the humas, will never see the truth that God is willing to reveal to everyone really. But you do not see it, have not even tasted it probably, or do not understand it. I am not blaming anyone for that. May God help you get there.

People are saying that they were this and that, but they never walked with God really. They just saw the religion, thought that that is the God from the Bible, got bored (cause religion is boring) and moved forward with their lifes. You never saw God really. And I seriously doubt that here is anyone who got the revelation of Jesus Chris and denied it, only because there are only few of them in the whole world.

 

[aln]

I'm not claiming all atheists have faith based beliefs but if your atheism is the strong or explicit type then it is a faith based position because you would have taken a firm standpoint on a question with an answer that cannot be known (at least presently and perhaps indefinitely).

People also take words and text far too literally. I could happily say there is no god with the undertone that nobody really knows. Here, this would be jumped on with several people taking my words literally when in reality nobody I know actually talks like that.

I'd have a slight quibble if you're stating that no evidence exists, there's no evidence that you accept which is a somewhat different proposition. For that matter it might be evidence that I don't accept either but that's not really the point.

I'm happy to factually state literally no evidence exists. Some people accept scripture as evidence but I personally believe thats setting the bar pretty low. Those that accept this as evidence rarely actually debate these issues with anything approaching logic or reason.

Now if you want to debate whether Jesus was a real person, you could make a case. You can make this case because there is the possibility of evidence coming from disinterested parties. However proving the man existed doesn't mean he was what some people believe him to be. I'm not debating evidence of men that walked the earth, just the man in the sky.

There is no evidence to prove the man in the sky, you can quibble about it all you want but until you bring something to me that doesn't sound like a sermon (i.e. someone preaching facts without actually proving facts) I'm not going to deviate from this position.

Also I'd be wary of confusing falsifiable positions with those that are non-falsifiable such as the proposition that (a) god exists.

If you take that stance you can basically disprove nothing. So again, dragons are real. They're just invisible to you because you don't believe in them. That is of course a very childish way to view the world.

The way I see it though, if you're giving credence to Christianity you should do the same for Scientology. Realistically there is no great difference other than one scam has been running for much longer than the other.

If you want to debate this, feel free, but don't quote a bible or similar religious text telling me to accept facts I know to be true in my heart or other such tosh that every other person who has ever debated the issue with me has done. I didn't buy it then, I won't now.

I agree that we've often got to take a best guess and proceed on that basis but taking a pragmatic view to advance a situation and to state that something is absolutely true aren't the same thing. Using mavity for the example the commonly accepted 9.8m/s isn't quite right but it's close enough to be a useful approximation in most situations.

Science is pragmatic and atheism is the natural belief of using such a system. Of course there are many scientists who accept a god but their reasoning for doing that has more to do with being human than scientists.

I don't think the mavity example is really pertinent, not unless you want to argue that mavity does not exists because it's our best guess. For everyone who thinks like that, I invite them to jump out a window.

 

[ringo747]

Science is pragmatic and atheism is the natural belief of using such a system. Of course there are many scientists who accept a god but their reasoning for doing that has more to do with being human than scientists.

I don't think the mavity example is really pertinent, not unless you want to argue that mavity does not exists because it's our best guess. For everyone who thinks like that, I invite them to jump out a window.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it seems that you are suggesting that science is "owned" by atheism? I doubt this is really what you mean. Would you suggest science and theism are at odds?

I have watched many debates where theist scientists have used scientific evidence to support their claims, rather than evidence based on the fact of their humanity.

 

[aln]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it seems that you are suggesting that science is "owned" by atheism? I doubt this is really what you mean.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was only suggesting that atheism is a conclusion that generally comes from scientific thinking. As in given what we can prove, this is the most logical explanation but should our knowledge change or grow, we're willing to accept something else.

Would you suggest science and theism are at odds?

To a degree, yes, but not wholly. I was suggesting they don't come from the same place, as in they aren't both backed by logic and reason.

So when you want to deny evolution, the big bang theory, or the age of the earth and you are doing this based on nothing but faith, then your faith is at odds with science.

On the other hand it's perfectly sane for someone to believe in science and let religion fill in the gaps if and when they really need them filled it. But these gaps are filled by ego, fear and faith, not by good science.

I have watched many debates where theist scientists have used scientific evidence to support their claims, rather than evidence based on the fact of their humanity.

I haven't really seen any scientific evidence that supports their claims. I have seen debates where a scientist reaches the limit of their knowledge, has no further explanation and thus professes it must be the work of god.

I'm sure we're all seen the video where Neil deGrasse Tyson points our numerous scientific geniuses turning to faith when they reach the height of their knowledge only to be outdone by some upstart kid who figures out what could only be figured out by god. If you haven't seen it, you should watch it. The above is essentially how I reason this behavior.

 

[yasen78]

I have a question.

How can you convince apostol Peter that God does not exists? He will have to deny everything that happend in front of him!!!

At the same time it was difficult to convince every Jew at that point of time that Jesus is God.

Without experiencing what Peter and other people have seen, you prooblay will be like the rest of the Jews - rejecting Jesus. In our days - rejecting God existance at all.

 

[ringo747]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was only suggesting that atheism is a conclusion that generally comes from scientific thinking. As in given what we can prove, this is the most logical explanation but should our knowledge change or grow, we're willing to accept something else.

Atheism is to do with the rejection of a belief in a deity. What can science tell us about a deity anyway? Given that a deity is supposed to be non-physical I can't see how it follows that science should support one side more than the other.

To a degree, yes, but not wholly. I was suggesting they don't come from the same place, as in they aren't both backed by logic and reason.

So when you want to deny evolution, the big bang theory, or the age of the earth and you are doing this based on nothing but faith, then your faith is at odds with science.

On the other hand it's perfectly sane for someone to believe in science and let religion fill in the gaps if and when they really need them filled it. But these gaps are filled by ego, fear and faith, not by good science.

I struggle to see how you can say categorically that both are not backed by reason and logic. Without knowing how someone comes to hold a belief, you cannot determine whether a given conclusion has been reached rationally or not. If a theist were to come to hold his belief purely on scientific reasons would you say it is rational or not? Similarly, if an atheist were to come to hold his view for reasons other than science would you count it irrational?

There are many theists who fully accept evolution, big bang cosmology theory and the likes. I think you are confusing the fact that all theists are not young earth creationists.

In view of the above, I think it is only fair to suggest that the real conflict is between naturalism and theism. Science is purely about that which is physical so why should it be at odds with anything else that doesn't fall into the physical realm. Trying to answer metaphysical questions with science is simply using the wrong tools for the job.

 

[aln]

Atheism is to do with the rejection of a belief in a deity. What can science tell us about a deity anyway? Given that a deity is supposed to be non-physical I can't see how it follows that science should support one side more than the other.

Science is about coming to conclusions based on what you can observe. If you cannot observe it or cannot observe something that'll make you believe its there, then it doesn't exist until. Feel free to prove otherwise but please don't postulate that us existing is proof, thats an idiotic argument.

I struggle to see how you can say categorically that both are not backed by reason and logic. Without knowing how someone comes to hold a belief, you cannot determine whether a given conclusion has been reached rationally or not. If a theist were to come to hold his belief purely on scientific reasons would you say it is rational or not? Similarly, if an atheist were to come to hold his view for reasons other than science would you count it irrational?

Because listening to preachings and reading materials containing stories largely from non-primary sources significant lengths of times after the fact which you have basically no basis to validate isn't how you do logic and reason.

What else do you have to validate your beliefs in a real debate? The onus is on the one making the claims to bring something to the table.

There are many theists who fully accept evolution, big bang cosmology theory and the likes. I think you are confusing the fact that all theists are not young earth creationists.

You're clearly misrepresenting what I said. Read the last paragraph you quoted, it's at odds with your accusation.

In view of the above, I think it is only fair to suggest that the real conflict is between naturalism and theism. Science is purely about that which is physical so why should it be at odds with anything else that doesn't fall into the physical realm. Trying to answer metaphysical questions with science is simply using the wrong tools for the job.

You're basically largely agreeing with me. Science is the wrong tool for the job for coming to the conclusion that you believe stuff that is made up. We can both agree on that.

What we might not agree on is whether the following most probably made up stuff exists: Vampires, werewolves, big foot, nessie and god. You bring something to the table that doesn't need to be backed by faith, then you win. Until you do, you lose.

 

[semi-pro waster]

People also take words and text far too literally. I could happily say there is no god with the undertone that nobody really knows. Here, this would be jumped on with several people taking my words literally when in reality nobody I know actually talks like that.

It's a natural "failing" of a text based communication, if you don't make explicit what you mean then it shouldn't come as a complete surprise if people misinterpret your words. It's annoying certainly but not completely unexpected.

I'm happy to factually state literally no evidence exists. Some people accept scripture as evidence but I personally believe thats setting the bar pretty low. Those that accept this as evidence rarely actually debate these issues with anything approaching logic or reason.

Now if you want to debate whether Jesus was a real person, you could make a case. You can make this case because there is the possibility of evidence coming from disinterested parties. However proving the man existed doesn't mean he was what some people believe him to be. I'm not debating evidence of men that walked the earth, just the man in the sky.

There is no evidence to prove the man in the sky, you can quibble about it all you want but until you bring something to me that doesn't sound like a sermon (i.e. someone preaching facts without actually proving facts) I'm not going to deviate from this position.

I'm not asking you to deviate from your position and nor did I expect you to. I'm merely noting that what appears to be evidence to you is not evidence to others or vice versa. It's perfectly possible to draw different conclusions that are partially or wholly valid from the same information.

If you take that stance you can basically disprove nothing. So again, dragons are real. They're just invisible to you because you don't believe in them. That is of course a very childish way to view the world.

The way I see it though, if you're giving credence to Christianity you should do the same for Scientology. Realistically there is no great difference other than one scam has been running for much longer than the other.

If you want to debate this, feel free, but don't quote a bible or similar religious text telling me to accept facts I know to be true in my heart or other such tosh that every other person who has ever debated the issue with me has done. I didn't buy it then, I won't now.

Ok - you've asserted dragons are real again. I can quite happily not care whether you choose to believe that or not - bring the claim back when it impacts on me in any discernable way and I'll have to evaluate the evidence properly.

Scientology and Christianity aren't directly comparable in that Scientology was founded by a man who once propounded a belief that "if you want to get rich then start a religion" (excuse the clumsy paraphrase if that isn't quite what he said) and to the best of my knowledge we don't have any similar evidence or claims for Christianity. However that aside if people want to believe in Scientology and it's not doing harm to them or to others then I've got no real issues with it.

Science is pragmatic and atheism is the natural belief of using such a system. Of course there are many scientists who accept a god but their reasoning for doing that has more to do with being human than scientists.

I don't think the mavity example is really pertinent, not unless you want to argue that mavity does not exists because it's our best guess. For everyone who thinks like that, I invite them to jump out a window.

The mavity example is simply to point out that we're using an approximation - a very close one in almost all instances but an approximation none the less. It was essentially an agreement with you that we will often advance further by accepting something as "fact" when it offers a reasonable explanation for what occurs and it is predictively accurate - it might not be correct in 100% of cases but it's close enough.

I'd still say agnosticism is the more logical position on the question of god than atheism but you could easily be atheist regarding specific gods and agnostic regarding the question in an absolute sense. It depends how you choose to define it and what assumptions you make though.

 

[aln]

It's a natural "failing" of a text based communication, if you don't make explicit what you mean then it shouldn't come as a complete surprise if people misinterpret your words. It's annoying certainly but not completely unexpected.

Except, of course, when you add cultre to it. We like to pretend it doesn't exist so we can act like smart **** on the Internet though. I've been there, done that, got over myself.

I'm not asking you to deviate from your position and nor did I expect you to. I'm merely noting that what appears to be evidence to you is not evidence to others or vice versa. It's perfectly possible to draw different conclusions that are partially or wholly valid from the same information.

You can accept finding the text god is real on toliet paper as definitive proof, but I don't think you'll convince many people. Of course it's entirly possible to look at real evidence and come to different conclusions, but lets at least accept some sort of minimum standard for what we consider as valid evidence.

Ok - you've asserted dragons are real again. I can quite happily not care whether you choose to believe that or not - bring the claim back when it impacts on me in any discernible way and I'll have to evaluate the evidence properly.

You can't evaluate the evidence properly because the entire concept behind the belief is you can't disprove a negative. The entire point was to construct a ridiculous statement to show why the onus is on proving the existence rather than disproving it. It's just an exercise in attributing your logic to another situation to help you understand your folly. Many people seemingly can't do it.

Scientology and Christianity aren't directly comparable in that Scientology was founded by a man who once propounded a belief that "if you want to get rich then start a religion" (excuse the clumsy paraphrase if that isn't quite what he said) and to the best of my knowledge we don't have any similar evidence or claims for Christianity. However that aside if people want to believe in Scientology and it's not doing harm to them or to others then I've got no real issues with it.

Again, you can't prove that isn't the reasoning behind Christianity, thus using Christian logic I can happily claim thats true and apparently the onus is on you to prove something that's impossible to really prove. Of course I'm being ridiculous but no more or less than anyone arguing against me right now.

Though if we look at history, we can definitely argue that Christianity involved stupid amounts of money, power and corruption, so whilst it is impossible to suggest you really know what the creator was thinking, we can see where that argument comes from even if it's a fairly poor one.

The mavity example is simply to point out that we're using an approximation - a very close one in almost all instances but an approximation none the less. It was essentially an agreement with you that we will often advance further by accepting something as "fact" when it offers a reasonable explanation for what occurs and it is predictively accurate - it might not be correct in 100% of cases but it's close enough.

Alrighty. I get your point now.

I'd still say agnosticism is the more logical position on the question of god than atheism but you could easily be atheist regarding specific gods and agnostic regarding the question in an absolute sense. It depends how you choose to define it and what assumptions you make though.

I'm atheist when it comes to any organized religion and agnostic when it comes to spirituality on a whole. However as previously stated I believe backing the atheist view point is the logicigal decision, you generally understand me on this.

I'll make this debate short for you and everyone else though ( no offense but I get frustrated with claims of evidence when none surface ) if you want to argue that I'm wrong and that there is evidence suggesting god exists, come back to me with evidence and I'll either accept that I was wrong or I'll thoughtfully explain* why I do not believe it is a legitimate example of evidence. Until that point, I really have nothing else to add to this discussion and I'm really fed up of people claiming there is logic and reason behind the view point without actually bringing any to the table.

* Bring the best pieces though because I'm not going to spend my entire life arguing this case and even if I did (and did a fantastic job at it) it wouldn't change anyones mind.

 

[ringo747]

Science is about coming to conclusions based on what you can observe. If you cannot observe it or cannot observe something that'll make you believe its there, then it doesn't exist until. Feel free to prove otherwise but please don't postulate that us existing is proof, thats an idiotic argument.

Are you suggesting that unless something can be verified scientifically then it cannot exist? Do you believe that the existence of a deity outside of our observable universe is therefore impossible?

Because listening to preachings and reading materials containing stories largely from non-primary sources significant lengths of times after the fact which you have basically no basis to validate isn't how you do logic and reason.

What else do you have to validate your beliefs in a real debate? The onus is on the one making the claims to bring something to the table.

Very few debates that I have watched actually involve theists quote scripture to back up the supporting evidence they provide for their views. I suggested in my previous response that theists do provide scientific evidence in support of their views. That's why I was questioning whether you thought science was limited to use by atheists only.

Additionally, your interpretation of these stories may lead you to conclude that the evidence is unreliable. This doesn't mean that other people cannot rationally believe in a deity due to what is stated in any scripture. An example being that some biblical scholars date resurrection evidence to within 2 years of the event occurring. Your view is different, however, it is possible that both sides can hold their view rationally.

I could accuse you of holding an irrational view but it doesn't mean you are wrong. For example, I could say your conclusion is irrational due to rejecting evidence due to the length of time between the evidence and the actual event. This approach may render most of our historical records invalid!

My point is that unless you know exactly how someone comes to hold their belief, you cannot simply brand it as irrational or defying reason.

You're basically largely agreeing with me. Science is the wrong tool for the job for coming to the conclusion that you believe stuff that is made up. We can both agree on that.

What we might not agree on is whether the following most probably made up stuff exists: Vampires, werewolves, big foot, nessie and god. You bring something to the table that doesn't need to be backed by faith, then you win. Until you do, you lose.

Exactly, science will never tell us whether "God" definitely exists or not. Science can however provide supporting evidence for either side.

Can I assume from the above statement (bold) that you think faith in general is irrational? You seem to hold the concept of faith in a negative light. Please correct me if that is a false assumption.

 

[aln]

Are you suggesting that unless something can be verified scientifically then it cannot exist? Do you believe that the existence of a deity outside of our observable universe is therefore impossible?

Not cannot but for the purposes of discussion my default view point is that it does not until we have enough reason to believe it does.

Very few debates that I have watched actually involve theists quote scripture to back up the supporting evidence they provide for their views. I suggested in my previous response that theists do provide scientific evidence in support of their views. That's why I was questioning whether you thought science was limited to use by atheists only.

Additionally, your interpretation of these stories may lead you to conclude that the evidence is unreliable. This doesn't mean that other people cannot rationally believe in a deity due to what is stated in any scripture. An example being that some biblical scholars date resurrection evidence to within 2 years of the event occurring. Your view is different, however, it is possible that both sides can hold their view rationally.

I could accuse you of holding an irrational view but it doesn't mean you are wrong. For example, I could say your conclusion is irrational due to rejecting evidence due to the length of time between the evidence and the actual event. This approach may render most of our historical records invalid!

My point is that unless you know exactly how someone comes to hold their belief, you cannot simply brand it as irrational or defying reason.

I'm not a historian but my layman understanding tells me a historian would consider a second handed source written long after the event to be unreliable the same as I have. I believe they construct their opinions based on many sources while trying to take the affects of propaganda into account.

Despite this you still get awesome quotes such as "history is written by the winners" which largely explains it's not an exact science despite being a very useful tool in telling us what went on in the past.

Now as I said, we disagree on the basic concept that theists give scientific evidence to support their views (beyond I don't understand this, so there must be a god) so if you'd like to continue this discussion you're going to need to bring something to the table.

Exactly, science will never tell us whether "God" definitely exists or not. Science can however provide supporting evidence for either side.

Can I assume from the above statement (bold) that you think faith in general is irrational? You seem to hold the concept of faith in a negative light. Please correct me if that is a false assumption.

Yes, I do think it's irrational but how irrational depends on the specifics.

You want to live and let live, have your faith and you'll rationally accept whats in front of you? No problems. If your faith makes you feel better about what we don't and cannot know, have at it. This is even a fairly rational way to behave despite your faith generally having nothing to do with logic and reason.

You want to judge me? That's not OK. I hold anyone who judges me in contempt. If you want to tell me something I do is immoral then you're going to need to base it on something more than a book. You want to tell me homosexuals are evil for doing something that simply doesn't affect you? I think doing that is closer to an evil act. You want to act like this, you're going to need to bring substance to the table.

 

[doofer]

If god did exist, he'd disable the multi-quote button in religious Threads.