Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Does that mean you guys don't have a rebuttal?

I think it's more likely that they're stunned by how dumb that post was.

Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I think you're missing the point of my dumb post, or I articulated it poorly. And you calling my post dumb is not surprising. Atheists tend to be pretty defensive as they have to fend off the intolerable fundamental religious. I'd be defensive too. I have no skin in the game. I happen to choose to believe in God knowing that it is unlikely because as a rational, reasonable person, there is no risk for me. And because the quantum craziness of the cosmos is our only close answer to some deeper questions, believing that there is a God is just as reasonable. And just as reasonable in believing that aliens planted the first single cell on earth, or there was a spaghetti monster. To me, they're all 'God.' I'm also perfectly fine for others to believe that there is no God or intelligent designer. I used to think that, I may in the future. My point is I don't know, and nobody knows. Atheism and the burden of proof argument only seems to bring itself out when a person is telling you they know God exists and expect you to agree. To me, both viewpoints are close minded, outdated, and belong in a room together.

Kaius wrote:Agreed. Typical RM asshole response. We've all been guilty, though.

You're alright, guy.

pnjguy wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Does that mean you guys don't have a rebuttal?

I think it's more likely that they're stunned by how dumb that post was.

Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I think you're missing the point of my dumb post, or I articulated it poorly. And you calling my post dumb is not surprising. Atheists tend to be pretty defensive as they have to fend off the intolerable fundamental religious. I'd be defensive too. I have no skin in the game. I happen to choose to believe in God knowing that it is unlikely because as a rational, reasonable person, there is no risk for me. And because the quantum craziness of the cosmos is our only close answer to some deeper questions, believing that there is a God is just as reasonable. And just as reasonable in believing that aliens planted the first single cell on earth, or there was a spaghetti monster. To me, they're all 'God.' I'm also perfectly fine for others to believe that there is no God or intelligent designer. I used to think that, I may in the future. My point is I don't know, and nobody knows. Atheism and the burden of proof argument only seems to bring itself out when a person is telling you they know God exists and expect you to agree. To me, both viewpoints are close minded, outdated, and belong in a room together.

I'm not an atheist. And I apologize for calling your post dumb. I just get annoyed by the epistemological circularity of "we can't really KNOW, you know?". To me it's just as tiresome, simplistic and well-trodden an argument as the ones you decry.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Kaius wrote:Agreed. Typical RM asshole response. We've all been guilty, though.

You're alright, guy.

It's been a long time, shouldn't of left you...

theplatypus wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Does that mean you guys don't have a rebuttal?

I think it's more likely that they're stunned by how dumb that post was.

Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I think you're missing the point of my dumb post, or I articulated it poorly. And you calling my post dumb is not surprising. Atheists tend to be pretty defensive as they have to fend off the intolerable fundamental religious. I'd be defensive too. I have no skin in the game. I happen to choose to believe in God knowing that it is unlikely because as a rational, reasonable person, there is no risk for me. And because the quantum craziness of the cosmos is our only close answer to some deeper questions, believing that there is a God is just as reasonable. And just as reasonable in believing that aliens planted the first single cell on earth, or there was a spaghetti monster. To me, they're all 'God.' I'm also perfectly fine for others to believe that there is no God or intelligent designer. I used to think that, I may in the future. My point is I don't know, and nobody knows. Atheism and the burden of proof argument only seems to bring itself out when a person is telling you they know God exists and expect you to agree. To me, both viewpoints are close minded, outdated, and belong in a room together.

I'm not an atheist. And I apologize for calling your post dumb. I just get annoyed by the epistemological circularity of "we can't really KNOW, you know?". To me it's just as tiresome, simplistic and well-trodden an argument as the ones you decry.

Well, we can't really know, at least for now. We can only know the probabilities. But the things we don't know are the most fascinating things and especially for scientists. Can you imagine if the Higgs particle was proven to be false? It would breed out a new understanding of the cosmos we never thought was possible. It would be more incredible than the discovery of the Higgs particle itself. Which arguments do you prefer?

pnjguy wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Does that mean you guys don't have a rebuttal?

I think it's more likely that they're stunned by how dumb that post was.

Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I think you're missing the point of my dumb post, or I articulated it poorly. And you calling my post dumb is not surprising. Atheists tend to be pretty defensive as they have to fend off the intolerable fundamental religious. I'd be defensive too. I have no skin in the game. I happen to choose to believe in God knowing that it is unlikely because as a rational, reasonable person, there is no risk for me. And because the quantum craziness of the cosmos is our only close answer to some deeper questions, believing that there is a God is just as reasonable. And just as reasonable in believing that aliens planted the first single cell on earth, or there was a spaghetti monster. To me, they're all 'God.' I'm also perfectly fine for others to believe that there is no God or intelligent designer. I used to think that, I may in the future. My point is I don't know, and nobody knows. Atheism and the burden of proof argument only seems to bring itself out when a person is telling you they know God exists and expect you to agree. To me, both viewpoints are close minded, outdated, and belong in a room together.

I'm not an atheist. And I apologize for calling your post dumb. I just get annoyed by the epistemological circularity of "we can't really KNOW, you know?". To me it's just as tiresome, simplistic and well-trodden an argument as the ones you decry.

Well, we can't really know, at least for now. We can only know the probabilities. But the things we don't know are the most fascinating things and especially for scientists. Can you imagine if the Higgs particle was proven to be false? It would breed out a new understanding of the cosmos we never thought was possible. It would be more incredible than the discovery of the Higgs particle itself. Which arguments do you prefer?

I could think of more interesting unknowables than the tired God question, personally.

what's Jorge believe?

to clarify- I've never had much use for religion in my life, although my mother sent me to religious instructions and dragged me to church as a child it never made a whole lot of sense to me to follow some man made religion. as I've aged, I've thought a great deal of the idea of god or whatever it is that its so important to so many people to have a belief in and I've largely put aside the idea of god that I was always taught as a child. Its unrealistic and old fashioned to think of a god in those terms, and ultimately to me, in any terms. I neither reject or accept the existence of god and I largely don't care because my belief or disbelief has never impacted on my life in any way that I'm aware of so it makes no difference to me. life is neither better or worse believing or disbelieving. life simply is.
if god in any form exists, I've a feeling god may hold a similar opinion.
I think the only real conclusion I've come to regarding god is we look for a sense of validation in life, belief often offers that. I cannot understand, and find it bothersome when other people can't respect that form of solace for other people, and I find it rude to ridicule someone for stating what they think...

malice wrote:life is neither better or worse believing or disbelieving. life simply is.
if god in any form exists, I've a feeling god may hold a similar opinion.

Well aren't we feeling modest today!

Kaius wrote:

malice wrote:life is neither better or worse believing or disbelieving. life simply is.
if god in any form exists, I've a feeling god may hold a similar opinion.

Well aren't we feeling modest today!

everyday, friend, every fucking day.

malice wrote:

Kaius wrote:

malice wrote:life is neither better or worse believing or disbelieving. life simply is.
if god in any form exists, I've a feeling god may hold a similar opinion.

Well aren't we feeling modest today!

everyday, friend, every fucking day.

explain you avatar and how it relates to God.

BurtReynolds wrote:

malice wrote:

Kaius wrote:

malice wrote:life is neither better or worse believing or disbelieving. life simply is.
if god in any form exists, I've a feeling god may hold a similar opinion.

Well aren't we feeling modest today!

everyday, friend, every fucking day.

explain you avatar and how it relates to God.

hasagirl needs no explanation, and needs no god

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief.

I'll see if I can find the video later (it may not even exist on the internet anymore), but Penn Jillette made a distinction that I found very useful. Agnosticism (and whatever its opposite is) deals with the question of whether or not a supernatural power (we'll call it God for short) exists. As you said (correctly, I believe), very few of us are bold enough to declaratively say that God does or doesn't exist. So in the end, the question of agnosticism doesn't tell us a lot. This is contrasted to atheism vs. theism, which is about whether one believes in God. Regardless if you call yourself agnostic, you still have to answer the question of belief. I don't have a belief in God, so I'm an atheist. Plenty of others do, and thus are theists. Agnosticism can (and quite often does) bridge both.

What's Steve Harvey's opinion on the topic? Glad you asked.

During the interview with Tyra Banks, an audience member asked for some dating advice and Steve Harvey said one of the most important questions to ask is, “Does he have a relationship with God?”

You’re sitting there talking with a dude and he tells you he’s an atheist, you need to pack it up and go home,” said Harvey. “You know, talking to a person that don’t believe in God, what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at? It’s nowhere.”

That topic was also covered in his New York Times No. 1 best seller Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. In reference to that issue, on CNN Joy Behar asked Harvey, “You say in the book that you wouldn't go out with a woman, I guess, a woman should not go out with a man that doesn't believe in God.”

Harvey said, “No, I mean, why would you?”

The exchange continued,

Behar: “Do you believe that only people who are religious are ethical and moral?”

Harvey: “No. I just believe if you don't believe in God, then where is your moral barometer? That's just me talking. You can believe what you want to believe. But if you're an atheist, you're basing your goodness and morality on what? I mean, but what is an atheist? I don't really get into that. I've talked the people all the time. I'm an atheist. I just walk away. I don't know what to say to you.”

Behar: “Well, an atheist is someone that doesn't quite believe that there is somebody out there, some God out there.”

Harvey: “Well, then, to me you're an idiot.”

Behar: “Okay. Well –”

Harvey: “I'm cool with that. Probably not the right, politically correct thing to say. But if you don't believe in God, I mean, really, you have to have an explanation for this. You can't just tell me it spun out of a gastrous ball and then all of a sudden we were evolved from monkeys. Why we still got monkeys? There is too much open. I just believe that and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you.”

The saddest part of that last post is how common this is, even though it's not very hard to argue against the bible being some kind of moral foundation.

The old "moral compass" argument.

I don't need a god or the threat of burning in Hell to do what's right.

I hate this thread now.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:What's Steve Harvey's opinion on the topic? Glad you asked.

During the interview with Tyra Banks, an audience member asked for some dating advice and Steve Harvey said one of the most important questions to ask is, “Does he have a relationship with God?”

You’re sitting there talking with a dude and he tells you he’s an atheist, you need to pack it up and go home,” said Harvey. “You know, talking to a person that don’t believe in God, what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at? It’s nowhere.”

That topic was also covered in his New York Times No. 1 best seller Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. In reference to that issue, on CNN Joy Behar asked Harvey, “You say in the book that you wouldn't go out with a woman, I guess, a woman should not go out with a man that doesn't believe in God.”

Harvey said, “No, I mean, why would you?”

The exchange continued,

Behar: “Do you believe that only people who are religious are ethical and moral?”

Harvey: “No. I just believe if you don't believe in God, then where is your moral barometer? That's just me talking. You can believe what you want to believe. But if you're an atheist, you're basing your goodness and morality on what? I mean, but what is an atheist? I don't really get into that. I've talked the people all the time. I'm an atheist. I just walk away. I don't know what to say to you.”

Behar: “Well, an atheist is someone that doesn't quite believe that there is somebody out there, some God out there.”

Harvey: “Well, then, to me you're an idiot.”

Behar: “Okay. Well –”

Harvey: “I'm cool with that. Probably not the right, politically correct thing to say. But if you don't believe in God, I mean, really, you have to have an explanation for this. You can't just tell me it spun out of a gastrous ball and then all of a sudden we were evolved from monkeys. Why we still got monkeys? There is too much open. I just believe that and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you.”

I guess I will now only watch Family Fued syndication.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:What's Steve Harvey's opinion on the topic? Glad you asked.

During the interview with Tyra Banks, an audience member asked for some dating advice and Steve Harvey said one of the most important questions to ask is, “Does he have a relationship with God?”

You’re sitting there talking with a dude and he tells you he’s an atheist, you need to pack it up and go home,” said Harvey. “You know, talking to a person that don’t believe in God, what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at? It’s nowhere.”

That topic was also covered in his New York Times No. 1 best seller Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. In reference to that issue, on CNN Joy Behar asked Harvey, “You say in the book that you wouldn't go out with a woman, I guess, a woman should not go out with a man that doesn't believe in God.”

Harvey said, “No, I mean, why would you?”

The exchange continued,

Behar: “Do you believe that only people who are religious are ethical and moral?”

Harvey: “No. I just believe if you don't believe in God, then where is your moral barometer? That's just me talking. You can believe what you want to believe. But if you're an atheist, you're basing your goodness and morality on what? I mean, but what is an atheist? I don't really get into that. I've talked the people all the time. I'm an atheist. I just walk away. I don't know what to say to you.”

Behar: “Well, an atheist is someone that doesn't quite believe that there is somebody out there, some God out there.”

Harvey: “Well, then, to me you're an idiot.”

Behar: “Okay. Well –”

Harvey: “I'm cool with that. Probably not the right, politically correct thing to say. But if you don't believe in God, I mean, really, you have to have an explanation for this. You can't just tell me it spun out of a gastrous ball and then all of a sudden we were evolved from monkeys. Why we still got monkeys? There is too much open. I just believe that and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you.”

This guy is a tool - what's written there is some of the most un-Christian stuff I've read.

If you need god in your life in order to be a moral person, you are nothing more than a useless asshole.

The whole "You can't REALLY know" argument seems insane to me. If some dude walks up to me on the street and tells me there's an invisible rabbit hovering above my head that controls my destiny, well, I don't really have any way of KNOWING that's not true either. But that's not going to stop me from easily determining that the assertion is pure bullshit. The only reason deities aren't ridiculed out of credibility like that invisible rabbit would be is because they benefit from centuries of ingrained tolerance and conditioning. People give the concept of God the time of day because society fosters that attitude toward current religions.

The fact that "we can't really know" doesn't mean that we should just abandon logic and critical thinking and decide to believe in "maybe."