There is no God.

Discuss.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Atari X to All on Thu Jan 07 2010 08:41 pm

There is no God.

There is no Dog.

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: Atari X to All on Thu Jan 07 2010 08:41 pm

There is no God.

Discuss.

Yes there is. No discussion needed. You believe what you will. Simple as that.


www.freewebs.com/ralphsmole
bullishmcgee@gmail.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: God
By: Corey to Atari X on Thu Jan 07 2010 10:46 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to All on Thu Jan 07 2010 08:41 pm

There is no God.

There is no Dog.

Oh there is definitely a dog - two of them, and one of them keeps bumping my elbow with their cold wet nose wanting a scritch on the head.

Can't say the same for god.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Atari X to All on Thu Jan 07 2010 20:41:21

There is no God.
Discuss.

This topic is more-or-less undiscussable.

Those who believe in God have no proof of its existence but feel that none is necessary. The magical abstract concept called "faith" becomes the answer to every question.

Those who do not believe in God are likewise without absolute proof of such a being's existence. None of us can say for a fact that God is not out there, in some form or another, as none of us knows all that there is to be known in and about the universe.

I do not believe that there is a God, but I keep an open mind because I see no value in taking a hard-line on something when I can't possibly know all of the facts. Agnosticism is really the most logical choice. Anything else is blind arrogance.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Fri Jan 08 2010 11:34 am

I do not believe that there is a God, but I keep an open mind because I see no value in taking a hard-line on something when I can't possibly know all of the facts. Agnosticism is really the most logical choice. Anything else is blind arrogance.

Well put.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Smole to Atari X on Fri Jan 08 2010 03:38 am

There is no God.

Discuss.

Yes there is. No discussion needed. You believe what you will. Simple as tha

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Fri Jan 08 2010 11:34 am

Re: God
By: Atari X to All on Thu Jan 07 2010 20:41:21

There is no God.
Discuss.

This topic is more-or-less undiscussable.

But here you are, discussing it, nonetheless.

Those who believe in God have no proof of its existence but feel that none i necessary. The magical abstract concept called "faith" becomes the answer t every question.

But this doesn't allow us "non-believers" to shirk our side of the argument, purely because the other side is irrational and silly.

I have proof that god doesn't exist. By that statement, the only thing that can counter it is to provide proof that he does (if indeed I provide my proof).

Proof: There has never been any recorded, measured or observed evidence of a greater power, or the intervention of a greater power. If there had been any such evidence, then there would be no need for faith. Without faith, there is no proof that he exists. Voila!

Those who do not believe in God are likewise without absolute proof of such being's existence. None of us can say for a fact that God is not out there, some form or another, as none of us knows all that there is to be known in a about the universe.

I have all the proof that I need. I have never observed god firsthand, or felt his presence, or had him intervene in my life. I have prayed more times than I can count, and my prayers have thus far never been answered. I cannot observe him, measure him, study him, or sense him in any way that human beings can sense the things in their world.

And even if he DOES exist, he has never helped me, never made my life better, never solved my problems, and never kept evil people and circumstances from altering my life.

So, if he does exist, he doesn't do anything for me. I'm betting that he doesn't exist.

I do not believe that there is a God, but I keep an open mind because I see value in taking a hard-line on something when I can't possibly know all of t facts. Agnosticism is really the most logical choice. Anything else is bli arrogance.

echicken

Agnosticism is not a logical choice - it's an absence of choice. It's like being an atheist, but without any conviction. Or, equally, like being a christian without any faith.

As for blind arrogance - I will try to not to take that personally - because I believe that to go through life without conviction is a life that is wasted on meaningless philosophical masturbation.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26 am

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

Now, I agree with you on the whole God thing, but your statement is irrational.
The fundamental truth behind believing in the existance of a higher power is based solely on faith. Faith requires no evidence and cannot be disproven. It's akin to saying that you can prove that there is no luck or karma...no matter what concrete evidence you believe you may have, it's still challenging a person's beliefs, which are not based on physical evidence.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26 am

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

I can prove there is no dog, we don't own one...

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: esc to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 08:52 am

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

Now, I agree with you on the whole God thing, but your statement is irrational.
The fundamental truth behind believing in the existance of a higher power is based solely on faith. Faith requires no evidence and cannot be disproven. It's akin to saying that you can prove that there is no luck or karma...no matter what concrete evidence you believe you may have, it's still challenging a person's beliefs, which are not based on physical evidence.

In fewer words: you can't scientifically prove a negative hypothesis. =]



---
■ Synchronet ■ The Arena BBS ■ Bryan, OH ■ telnet: arena.ourhobby.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26:17

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

You can't prove that there's no god. He can't prove that god exists. That's pretty much the end of it.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:37:01

This topic is more-or-less undiscussable.

But here you are, discussing it, nonetheless.

To be clearer, I mean to say that the "discussion" will start going around in circles almost immediately. If you are the type who frequently confuses mutual pseudointellectual jerkoff sessions with actual discussion, then fine - call it a discussion.

I have proof that god doesn't exist. By that statement, the only thing that can counter it is to provide proof that he does (if indeed I provide my proo

Yes, the burden of proof is on both sides.

Proof: There has never been any recorded, measured or observed evidence of greater power, or the intervention of a greater power. If there had been an such evidence, then there would be no need for faith. Without faith, there no proof that he exists. Voila!

Many, many things were unknown to and unmeasured by human beings at one point in time. That didn't make them nonexistent - just unproven. This isn't proof that god doesn't exist - it's simply a lack of proof that he does. And that's not splitting hairs - there's a big difference between the two.

I have all the proof that I need. I have never observed god firsthand, or f his presence, or had him intervene in my life. I have prayed more times tha can count, and my prayers have thus far never been answered. I cannot obser him, measure him, study him, or sense him in any way that human beings can sense the things in their world.

I think I said something about arrogance in my previous post. This pretty much hammers it home. You're setting the sum of your experiences and knowledge up as *the* gold standard. Yes, that may be good enough for you because it's all you know and all internal to yourself, but some people are aware that there is more to the world than they know about, and accepting of that fact.

Agnosticism is not a logical choice - it's an absence of choice. It's like being an atheist, but without any conviction. Or, equally, like being a christian without any faith.

Actually I don't believe in god but have *chosen* to keep an open mind. It's a sensible way to be, and it was a conscious decision that I made at one time. It's actually extremely logical and I have no idea what you mean by saying the contrary. In fact, I laid out in my previous post exactly why it is the most sensible path. You clearly cannot read and are possibly retarded.

As for blind arrogance - I will try to not to take that personally - because believe that to go through life without conviction is a life that is wasted meaningless philosophical masturbation.

I have no passionate feelings on the subject of whether-or-not there is a god and therefore having convictions on the issue one way or the other means absolute fuck-all to me. That said, if anything I'm a fairly fervent agnostic, as you can see.

And by all means, take any of my often rude statements as personally as you like. You've shown arrogance, I've called it arrogance, do with that what you like. It's nothing personal; we simply disagree on this topic.

This is the second round of postings on this subject, and I already feel that it's going in circles. I'd bet that if this goes any further, we don't cover much if any new ground, making it, as you say, a "meaningless philosophical masturbation."

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:10 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26:17

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

You can't prove that there's no god. He can't prove that god exists. That' pretty much the end of it.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

Believe me,whether you believe in God or not, we'll ALL find out sooner or later. I'm looking forward..how 'bout you?


www.freewebs.com/ralphsmole
bullishmcgee@gmail.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:10 pm

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

yeah, there is no God, everything here just happened to popup out of the dirt, like a movie set.

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: Corey to echicken on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:39 pm

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:10 pm

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

yeah, there is no God, everything here just happened to popup out of the dirt,
like a movie set.

Not that old strawman. I wish theists would stop using the "atheists believe everything just came from nothing" argument. No atheist I've ever heard ever said they thought everything just came from nothing, and in fact, that's what THEISTS believe; god just poofed everything here from nothing.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:27 pm

Yes, the burden of proof is on both sides.

I disagree. The burden of proof is the the one(s) who is/are making the claim.

I'll use the widely used Bertrand Russell's teapot as an example:

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

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Smole to echicken on Sat Jan 09 2010 16:56:17

By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26:17

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

You can't prove that there's no god. He can't prove that god exists. Th pretty much the end of it.

Believe me,whether you believe in God or not, we'll ALL find out sooner or later. I'm looking forward..how 'bout you?

You're absolutely right that we'll all find out sooner or later. As for the latter part of your message, my answer depends on what you mean by "I'm looking forward."

I'm looking forward to finding out one way or another, but I'm in no hurry to get there. It's always great to have your questions answered, and this is bound to be the great unanswered question of my life. So if you mean "I'm looking forward to finding out" then yes, I'm with you on that.

If you mean "I'm looking forward" as in "I'm looking to the future, I'm planning ahead" then I applaud you. Faith and practise are the safest bet in this scenario. If there is a God, and if he will reward you for believing in him and following his rules, then in the end you will have done right. If you are wrong and there turns out not to be a God, your efforts will have been in vain and you will have wasted much of your now-proven-even-more-precious time on this planet in pursuit of what has turned out to be nothing. Either way, you will have taken the safest path.

Me, I'm open to the possibility that there is a God, but right now I just don't think that there is one. I feel no faith in him and don't know how to find it. Even if all that's required of me is to believe, I just can't seem to make myself do that. You're taking the safest path, but it's one that I can't truly walk myself. Unless you can tell me, in no uncertain terms, how to find faith, I just can't join you there.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Corey to echicken on Sat Jan 09 2010 17:39:01

By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:10 pm

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

yeah, there is no God, everything here just happened to popup out of the dir like a movie set.

Take care with who you quote and who you address messages to. You replied to me regarding something that I didn't say. Your message should have been addressed to Atari X.

That said, I do sort of lean toward the "stuff here popped up out of the dirt" school of thought. Even in as simple of terms as you've put it, it's no more a fairytale than the God story.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to echicken on Sat Jan 09 2010 23:25:11

Yes, the burden of proof is on both sides.

I disagree. The burden of proof is the the one(s) who is/are making the clai

I'll use the widely used Bertrand Russell's teapot as an example:

That's an excellent quote, as it shows that there is less of a burden of proof on the side of a belief system that is firmly entrenched. However as much as I'm agreeing with you all the way along in this debate, I don't think your quote proves your statement. If the side that is "making the claim" must prove itself, then wouldn't that apply to both parties? One side claims that there is a God, the other side claims that there isn't. Just because they're claiming something that is nothing doesn't mean that their claim isn't a claim.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: esc to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 08:52 am

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26 am

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

Now, I agree with you on the whole God thing, but your statement is irration
The fundamental truth behind believing in the existance of a higher power i based solely on faith. Faith requires no evidence and cannot be disproven. It's akin to saying that you can prove that there is no luck or karma...no matter what concrete evidence you believe you may have, it's still challengi a person's beliefs, which are not based on physical evidence.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

But that doesn't make my statement irrational - it is only irrational if you feel that having faith in something is a concrete reason to make life-changing choices based on whatever you have faith in. Which seems pretty irrational to me.

But my entire point is that I have yet to see anyone provide me enough reason to believe that God exists.

On a personal note, God has failed me - God has failed to answer my prayers, or enhance my life, or protect me, or do anything other than just ignore me. If God exists, then he is ignoring me and my life. So why should I alter my life to suit him?

There is no end result which says, "Gee, I should give this God thing another look."


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Corey to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 11:13 am

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26 am

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

I can prove there is no dog, we don't own one...

But I can prove that there is a dog. I have pictures.

I have no pictures of God, however.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:10 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26:17

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

You can't prove that there's no god. He can't prove that god exists. That' pretty much the end of it.

But I can prove that there's no god.

It's as simple as stacking up the evidence that he exists.

It's a small stack - in fact, there is no stack at all.

I then compare it to the stack of evidence that he doesn't exist.

The stack is pretty big.

God's very existence is completely reliant on faith.

Faith denies proof. If you have proof, then you don't need faith. In fact, if you have proof, you can't have faith anymore - you have proof. Proof eradicates faith.

If I had proof that God exists, then I don't have faith anymore. I have proof.

I hope this clears that up.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: echicken to Smole on Sun Jan 10 2010 12:44 pm

If you mean "I'm looking forward" as in "I'm looking to the future, I'm planning ahead" then I applaud you. Faith and practise are the safest bet in this scenario. If there is a God, and if he will reward you for believing in him and following his rules, then in the end you will have done right.If you are wrong and there turns out not to be a God, your efforts will have been in vain and you will have wasted much of your now-proven-even-more-precious time on this planet in pursuit of what has turned out to be nothing. Either way, you will have taken the safest path.

That's called Pascal's wager, and it doesn't work. Google it. Better yet, check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2oA9mXs9lw
as well as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czEfLn_ifIU&feature=related

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: echicken to nightcrawler on Sun Jan 10 2010 12:55 pm

That's an excellent quote, as it shows that there is less of a burden of pro on the side of a belief system that is firmly entrenched. However as much a I'm agreeing with you all the way along in this debate, I don't think your quote proves your statement. If the side that is "making the claim" must pr itself, then wouldn't that apply to both parties? One side claims that ther is a God, the other side claims that there isn't. Just because they're claiming something that is nothing doesn't mean that their claim isn't a cla

No it wouldn't apply to both. As far as I know, Atheists and Agnostics are making no claims at all, they are simply demanding evidence. Of course, if one said "I know 100% for sure there is no god" then yes, I think a burden of proof would be on him to present his evidence. Maybe that's would your talking about, since the OP made a similar claim?


Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to Corey on Sun Jan 10 2010 01:51 pm

But I can prove that there is a dog. I have pictures.
I have no pictures of God, however.

ok, I have pictures of dogs playing poker. so they really do?

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 13:56:22

You can't prove that there's no god. He can't prove that god exists. Th pretty much the end of it.

But I can prove that there's no god.
It's as simple as stacking up the evidence that he exists.
It's a small stack - in fact, there is no stack at all.
I then compare it to the stack of evidence that he doesn't exist.
The stack is pretty big.
I hope this clears that up.

This doesn't clear anything up at all, and in fact completely ignores my assertion that simply not proving that something exists does not prove that it does not exist. You've just repeated yourself. We are now going around in circles. This discussion is quickly becoming anything but.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Corey to echicken on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:39 pm

yeah, there is no God, everything here just happened to popup out of the dir like a movie set.

Where did God come from, in that case? Did God just pop up out of nowhere?

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: echicken to Corey on Sun Jan 10 2010 12:49 pm

That said, I do sort of lean toward the "stuff here popped up out of the dir school of thought. Even in as simple of terms as you've put it, it's no mor fairytale than the God story.

What's more farfetched here...a sperm and egg creating an entire human being in a mere nine months, or eons of unrecorded history taking place and finally hitting the unicellular jackpot of Life, which after millions of years has evolved into the extremely imperfect biological conundrum we have today?

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: Atari X to esc on Sun Jan 10 2010 01:50 pm

But my entire point is that I have yet to see anyone provide me enough reaso to believe that God exists.

On a personal note, God has failed me - God has failed to answer my prayers, enhance my life, or protect me, or do anything other than just ignore me. I God exists, then he is ignoring me and my life. So why should I alter my li to suit him?

This is a very poor reason for being an atheist. You are assuming if there is a god, he is some form of a theistic god, ignoring the fact that if there is
a creator, he merely could be some form of deistic one. Meaning he/it, set life in motion, but doesn't act in human affairs. (I am an agnostic, but this would make more sense to me than any thiestic god, because it is based on human self-importance.


Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Corey to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 12:50 pm

But I can prove that there is a dog. I have pictures. I have no
pictures of God, however.

ok, I have pictures of dogs playing poker. so they really do?

You're either one of two things: you are a troll, or your are stupid beyond belief. You arn't being serious are you?


Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 04:01 pm

This doesn't clear anything up at all, and in fact completely ignores my assertion that simply not proving that something exists does not prove that does not exist. You've just repeated yourself. We are now going around in circles. This discussion is quickly becoming anything but.

See my Russel's teapot post. Can anyone prove the teapot DOESN'T exist? No? Well does that mean they should believe it then? Can anyone prove that the leprachaun living up my butt-hole DOESN'T exist? No? Better assume he
does then. But I do agree, the convo can't really go much further.


Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 16:11:51

said "I know 100% for sure there is no god" then yes, I think a burden of proof would be on him to present his evidence. Maybe that's would your talki about, since the OP made a similar claim?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 16:03:22

That's called Pascal's wager, and it doesn't work. Google it. Better yet, out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2oA9mXs9lw
as well as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czEfLn_ifIU&feature=related

I hadn't heard the term before so I googled it. Looks like a lot of people have spent a lot more time thinking about this than I have. I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't work" but maybe that would become clear if I watched those videos, which I'll try to do later. Is it proven not to work when applied to other scenarios? Nobody can know for sure if it actually works in this situation, not until they die.

Now, if I actually thought it was the best bet I'd have made the wager myself, but I have not done so. I just think that for someone who believes (but is on the fence, has some doubts, whatever) it would be a safe bet, give them some peace of mind, and who knows - maybe it would work out for them. Someone making this bet would, of course, be taking the big chance that they'd chosen the best (out of many) paths to follow.

But yes, it's flawed, and like I said it's not something I could commit to without any belief whatsoever. So here I am, open minded, possibly going to hell, possibly just going to sleep. :)

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: esc to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 16:52:26

That said, I do sort of lean toward the "stuff here popped up out of the school of thought. Even in as simple of terms as you've put it, it's no fairytale than the God story.

What's more farfetched here...a sperm and egg creating an entire human being a mere nine months, or eons of unrecorded history taking place and finally hitting the unicellular jackpot of Life, which after millions of years has evolved into the extremely imperfect biological conundrum we have today?

I took Corey's "stuff here popped out of the dirt" comment as a glib reference to evolution, which I do believe in. I'm right there with you on the "imperfect biological conundrum" front - if the magical and all-knowing unicorn in the sky had designed us, wouldn't he have done a better job?

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 01:56 pm

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sat Jan 09 2010 05:10 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to Smole on Sat Jan 09 2010 03:26:17

I can prove that there's no god. Can you prove that god exists?

You can't prove that there's no god. He can't prove that god exists. Th pretty much the end of it.

But I can prove that there's no god.

It's as simple as stacking up the evidence that he exists.

It's a small stack - in fact, there is no stack at all.

I then compare it to the stack of evidence that he doesn't exist.

The stack is pretty big.

God's very existence is completely reliant on faith.

Faith denies proof. If you have proof, then you don't need faith. In fact, you have proof, you can't have faith anymore - you have proof. Proof eradicates faith.

If I had proof that God exists, then I don't have faith anymore. I have pro

I hope this clears that up.

God probably doesn't exist because I prayed that esc would step on a IED and it hasn't happened yet.

---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: esc to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 04:52 pm

That said, I do sort of lean toward the "stuff here popped up out of the school of thought. Even in as simple of terms as you've put it, it's no fairytale than the God story.

What's more farfetched here...a sperm and egg creating an entire human being a mere nine months, or eons of unrecorded history taking place and finally hitting the unicellular jackpot of Life, which after millions of years has evolved into the extremely imperfect biological conundrum we have today?

Argument from ignorance.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 18:10:01

See my Russel's teapot post. Can anyone prove the teapot DOESN'T exist? No? Well does that mean they should believe it then? Can anyone prove that the leprachaun living up my butt-hole DOESN'T exist? No? Better assume he
does then.

See, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we should believe in God because its existence hasn't been disproven, neither am I saying that we should refuse to believe in God because its existence hasn't been proven. All I am saying is that lack of proof does not equal disproof. This does not mean that you must therefore accept, wholeheartedly, whatever the alternative is.

I can choose not to believe in the teapot even though somebody has told me it's out there in orbit, but I can't say that lack of proof of its existence is proof of its nonexistence. We don't have to accept ridiculous assertions just because we have no proof to the contrary, but we're not omniscient and would be arrogant to say that just because we're not aware of a thing means that it does not exist.

Anyway, I've been given absolutely no proof that God exists, and so I don't believe in him - but I've also been given no absolute proof that he doesn't exist, so I accept that there's a tiny possibility that he's out there. I see nothing wrong with that.

But I do agree, the convo can't really go much further.

I've seen this one hash out a few times. It usually either ends within the first couple of rounds or goes around the same track over and over again.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Ihateesc to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 07:17 pm

God probably doesn't exist because I prayed that esc would step on a IED and hasn't happened yet.

Oh, it has. I survived. I suppose your God just likes me better than some weasly little pussy like you.

By the way. If you ever dared talk to me like that in real life, it would take copious amounts of plastic surgery for you to ever be recognizable again.

I debated replying to you, Ryedawg, because I know I'm just feeding a troll here...but to set the record straight, people like me exist in spite of douchebags like you, and douchebags like you will exist until the end of time. I don't wish harm upon you unless it's brought by my hand.

Also, wishing harm upon an agent of the United States Government is enough justification to be put on a watchlist. Enjoy having your personal freedoms taken away by the hands of ME, and...you're welcome! Cocksucker.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to esc on Sun Jan 10 2010 07:56 pm

What's more farfetched here...a sperm and egg creating an entire human be a mere nine months, or eons of unrecorded history taking place and finall hitting the unicellular jackpot of Life, which after millions of years ha evolved into the extremely imperfect biological conundrum we have today?

Argument from ignorance.

How? Did you read my argument? Do you actually understand what I'm saying here? I'm an atheist/agnostic/call it whatever you want arguing the case for evolution. I think you misunderstand me.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: esc to nightcrawler on Sun Jan 10 2010 09:52 pm

Argument from ignorance.

How? Did you read my argument? Do you actually understand what I'm saying here? I'm an atheist/agnostic/call it whatever you want arguing the case fo evolution. I think you misunderstand me.

I think you are corrent, I misread your post. We all make mistakes. :)

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 04:11 pm

No it wouldn't apply to both. As far as I know, Atheists and Agnostics are making no claims at all, they are simply demanding evidence. Of course, if o said "I know 100% for sure there is no god" then yes, I think a burden of proof would be on him to present his evidence. Maybe that's would your talki about, since the OP made a similar claim?

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com

I am an Atheist, and I am not demanding evidence. I am making an assertion that God doesn't exist. And he doesn't. The only thing I demand is that any who deny my assertion provide proof that I am wrong. And they can't.

Following the scientific method, god will be proven not to exist 100% of the time.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Corey to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 12:50 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to Corey on Sun Jan 10 2010 01:51 pm

But I can prove that there is a dog. I have pictures.
I have no pictures of God, however.

ok, I have pictures of dogs playing poker. so they really do?

If you are talking about the famous painting of dogs playing poker - that is a painting. You can create whatever version of reality you like in a painting.

If you have a picture (photograph) of dogs sitting around with poker cards stuck to their paws, then you have a picture of dogs sitting around with poker cards stuck to their paws. Not a picture of dogs playing poker.

Please, try an argument next time, instead of silliness.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 04:01 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 13:56:22

This doesn't clear anything up at all, and in fact completely ignores my assertion that simply not proving that something exists does not prove that does not exist. You've just repeated yourself. We are now going around in circles. This discussion is quickly becoming anything but.

echicken

echicken,

You can manipulate the facts that are presented to you in whatever way that you choose to. It's still pseudo-intellectual masturbation that serves no purpose.
You have failed to get the one vital point I keep trying to make, but no-one seems to hear.

The only argument that God exists is one of FAITH. If God stepped down from the clouds right now, and got on national television, and said, "Hey Guys, let's be good to each other," then we would have proof - but at the same time, we would have no need for FAITH. Faith becomes meaningless in the light of proof.

So, wrap your head around that. Faith denies proof. When you have proof, you have no more faith.

Proof is verifiable by empirical evidence (observable). In this case, I have no empirical evidence that God exists. I have no proof.

Conversely, I can make the hypothesis, "God doesn't exist". The next step is to gather data, and then perform experiments.

I observe (and gather the data) that I cannot see, smell, touch, taste, or hear God. I also observe than in my surroundings, nothing is being effected in any way by God (everything in my surroundings is acting in accordance to physical laws).

So, I have gathered my data, and now I perform an experiment, based on the thesis that "if God exists, and he's supposed to be all-knowing, and he
answers prayers, then if I make a prayer, he should answer than prayer, and I can quantify that answer as being performed or enacted by God."

So, my experiment: "Dear God, please strike me dead in the next 10 seconds, or, failing that, do ANYTHING that will give me a sign of your existence."

(now, sitting here in front of my computer, I perform the experiment, and nothing happens)

Now, I can say that by the scientific method, I have completed my hypothesis and can state that by my reckoning God does not exist.

Let's flip that around.

Follow it through in your head, devise whatever method, and tell me at what point does it fall apart because you have to, at some point, say, "FAITH tells me this is true."

Which invalidates it as an argument.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 05:55 pm

This is a very poor reason for being an atheist. You are assuming if there i a god, he is some form of a theistic god, ignoring the fact that if there is a creator, he merely could be some form of deistic one. Meaning he/it, set life in motion, but doesn't act in human affairs. (I am an agnostic, but thi would make more sense to me than any thiestic god, because it is based on human self-importance.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary

The model you are talking about is called the "Grand Clockmaker" model - where God is this universally powerful clockmaker who set our universe into motion and then moved on to something else.

Which to me is the same as believing that there is no God at all. If God is not going to involve himself in human affairs, then his existence to me is meaningless - there's certainly no reason to pray to him, or get spiritual guidane from him, or believe that he will give us an afterlife.

And certainly no reason to build a religion around him.

He'd be no different than some shmoe down the street whom I don't know and never see.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:31:12

You can manipulate the facts that are presented to you in whatever way that choose to. It's still pseudo-intellectual masturbation that serves no purpo

I do not understand this statement at all. I'm not sitting here presenting you with fudged numbers or misquotations. This makes no sense and stands only as a bizarre attempt to cut me down and fill out your message with anti-chicken rhetoric.

You have failed to get the one vital point I keep trying to make, but no-on seems to hear.

No, I understand your point. Faith does not require proof, and proof eliminates the need for faith. You can conduct experiments which fail to prove that God exists, while the other side doesn't even have that much of a leg to stand on. You and I will never believe in God unless his existence can be proven, and therefore we can never believe in God because if we did we would not have faith. See? I get it.

All I am saying is that you haven't actually proven that God doesn't exist. Whether or not the other side would accept your proof is irrelevant. You simply haven't proven it. It is not a fact, and yet you toss it around as if it is one. This is just as silly as the other side saying that God *does* exist, when their reason is, essentially, "because I have a feeling."

It's like Nightcrawler's reference to Russell's Teapot. If somebody told me that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (or however the story went) but that the teapot could never be detected, I couldn't actually say for sure that it wasn't out there. I may not believe that it's out there, but I can't actually prove this story to be false, so I would simply abstain from making a judgement one way or the other. Yeah, lack of proof to the contrary does not make something true, but so what? What difference does it make if I simply allow for the possibility that this thing is out there? None whatsoever.

So I don't believe in God, but I like to be fair and open minded, so I allow for the possibility that I am wrong - if only because I have no absolute proof that I am right. This makes a lot of sense to me.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:31:12

The only argument that God exists is one of FAITH. If God stepped down from the clouds right now, and got on national television, and said, "Hey Guys, let's be good to each other," then we would have proof - but at the same tim we would have no need for FAITH. Faith becomes meaningless in the light of proof.

And yes, this makes total sense. In fact, if I ever met God, in person, I think that I would actually expect some proof that he was who he said that he was - so no matter what, I'd never actually be able to believe in him. :)

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:37:45

The model you are talking about is called the "Grand Clockmaker" model - whe God is this universally powerful clockmaker who set our universe into motion and then moved on to something else.

Which to me is the same as believing that there is no God at all. If God is not going to involve himself in human affairs, then his existence to me is meaningless - there's certainly no reason to pray to him, or get spiritual guidane from him, or believe that he will give us an afterlife.

Part of the trouble that I'm having in discussing this with you is that you seem to have a specific definition of "God" in your head (one that requires "faith" to be believed in, etc.) Many people believe many different things. What harm would it do to believe in the clockmaker, even if his existence was meaningless?

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230


---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:14 am

I am an Atheist, and I am not demanding evidence. I am making an assertion that God doesn't exist. And he doesn't. The only thing I demand is that an who deny my assertion provide proof that I am wrong. And they can't.

Your logic is flawed.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to Corey on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:17 am

If you have a picture (photograph) of dogs sitting around with poker cards stuck to their paws, then you have a picture of dogs sitting around with pok cards stuck to their paws. Not a picture of dogs playing poker.

Please, try an argument next time, instead of silliness.

LOL, my thoughts exactly.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:37 am

The model you are talking about is called the "Grand Clockmaker" model - whe God is this universally powerful clockmaker who set our universe into motion and then moved on to something else.

Which to me is the same as believing that there is no God at all. If God is not going to involve himself in human affairs, then his existence to me is meaningless - there's certainly no reason to pray to him, or get spiritual guidane from him, or believe that he will give us an afterlife.

And certainly no reason to build a religion around him.

He'd be no different than some shmoe down the street whom I don't know and never see.

I agree in this assesment.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to esc on Mon Jan 11 2010 01:19 am

I think you are corrent, I misread your post. We all make mistakes. :)

Heh, yeah, I was confused...I thought we were on the same side on this one :P

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Mon Jan 11 2010 12:08 pm

And yes, this makes total sense. In fact, if I ever met God, in person, I think that I would actually expect some proof that he was who he said that h was - so no matter what, I'd never actually be able to believe in him. :) echicken

thats funny. "you are GOD? hmm, got any id on you? can you prove it?"
scary thing is thou, If Jesus came back, most would not believe him,
and if he is dressed like depicted in drawings, most church would never let him in becuase he looked like a bum.

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Mon Jan 11 2010 12:32 pm

Part of the trouble that I'm having in discussing this with you is that you seem to have a specific definition of "God" in your head (one that requires "faith" to be believed in, etc.) Many people believe many different things. What harm would it do to believe in the clockmaker, even if his existence wa meaningless?

echicken

I think we covered this. God provides us with no proof of this existence - we have to have faith that he exists at all. If there was any proof of his existence, regardless of how small - we'd all believe in him - it would be foolish not to.

Faith is the magic sauce that makes God go. I don't know any other simpler way to say it. If no-one had faith that God existed, then religion would have disappeared a long time ago.

So, to address the rest of your reply - with no faith that God (or anything) exists, then why would you put in any stock in it's existence?

For example, I have no faith that the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy exist - and wow, they don't. If I believe in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy even when I don't have any faith that they exist, then I'm an idiot.

Same goes for God.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to Atari X on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:54 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:14 am

I am an Atheist, and I am not demanding evidence. I am making an asserti that God doesn't exist. And he doesn't. The only thing I demand is that who deny my assertion provide proof that I am wrong. And they can't.

Your logic is flawed.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary

More flawed than believing in a magic Santa Claus who is going to send me to an eternal heaven if I'm good, but will burn me in fire for eternity if I'm bad?

My logic is not flawed. Your argument is without merit. Next please.


---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 03:11:10

Part of the trouble that I'm having in discussing this with you is that y seem to have a specific definition of "God" in your head (one that requir "faith" to be believed in, etc.) Many people believe many different thin

I think we covered this. God provides us with no proof of this existence - have to have faith that he exists at all. If there was any proof of his existence, regardless of how small - we'd all believe in him - it would be foolish not to.

Faith is the magic sauce that makes God go. I don't know any other simpler to say it. If no-one had faith that God existed, then religion would have disappeared a long time ago.

You're just not paying attention to what I'm saying. You think that the only possible definition of God is one that requires faith and excludes any form of proof. I do not believe in God, I do not think that God exists, but I leave room for the possibility that I could be proven wrong and that *something* might be out there somewhere, even if it's some guy in a parallel universe who picked his nose and flicked the booger that caused the big bang.

Faith is the magic sauce that makes God go. I don't know any other simpler to say it. If no-one had faith that God existed, then religion would have disappeared a long time ago.

Some religions and systems of belief require this, yes. But not all. Even so, the fact that so many people out there seem to strongly feel this thing, this "faith" which I have no understanding of, is one reason why I allow for the possibility of a God. What if this "faith" is a real thing? What if the thing that others *need* no proof of *can* actually be proven? If that were to happen, faith would no longer be necessary, but the thing that once required faith but was now proven would still exist.

For example, I have no faith that the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy exist - an wow, they don't. If I believe in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy even when don't have any faith that they exist, then I'm an idiot.

I have no faith that God exists and I don't believe that God exists, but I allow for the possibility that I could be proven wrong. Hell, I'll stand up and say that God does not exist, that the Easter Bunny does not exist, that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, but I will follow that up with a statement that I'm willing to keep an open mind, and if I ever encountered proof to the contrary - even if nobody, including me, is looking for it - I would accept that I was wrong.

I'm just arguing for the middle ground, where belief is not required but humility is.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com