Quake3World

I think Iccy is actually trying to be serious.

bless y'all yo

I'm a follower of the great Cthulhu

Iccy (temp) wrote:Personaly i think athiesm is a close minded religion in itself. By denying the existance of god you bind yourself to the same falicy that you claim to renounce. If you claim there is no god, where is your proof? The argument of the atheist is that no religions sect can prove they are right through scientific means. But like i said, lack of proof doesnt not equate to lack of existence. Prove to me god doesnt exist with hard indisputable facts, that cant be rebutled and you will be justified, till then your just another sheep in another herd, thats pretty much like the one you chose to reject, as much as you might not want to hear it.

funny how god is the only thing we ever hear anyone demand proof of NON-existence

oh, and by the way, the burden of proof rests on the believer not on the unbeliever. occam's razor etc.

Pext wrote:it's like thinking: "i don't believe in god, but just for the case he exists, i pretend to"

a.k.a. pascal's wager - a silly idea imho since if god is the kind of god who'd send someone to hell for not believing in him, then he's probably also the kind of god who'd send them to hell for only believing in him as an insurance policy. i think pascal was on crack when he dreamed this up

I didn't read the whole thread but I am no ashamed to say that I believe in GOD.
It's a weird thing to think about the science and the likes as we were talking in other topics before as the strings theory but I sincerely believe in GOD.
I know those ''things'' can't mix very well in theory but may be this is something else we have to learn.

the problem with this article is they only look at democratic countries with a religious presence.. not any religious backed country...

Why is that a problem?

seremtan wrote:
funny how god is the only thing we ever hear anyone demand proof of NON-existence

oh, and by the way, the burden of proof rests on the believer not on the unbeliever. occam's razor etc.

But as a atheist, you ( meaning them ) are believers. You are a believer in the idea that there isnt a god. The atheist would have you believe they have it figured out and there is no god, thats the definition, "Someone who believes that there is no God."

So lest you have proof of this, as i said, you are simply a hipocrite if you feel you dont need to prove your stance and someone who does believe should.

A friendly amendment. All that we (should) require in the God case is that a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist can give some kind of a reasoned justification for what they believe. And we do love Occam, but before we start sucking each other's dicks over the razor, remember that it is nothing more than a cognitive 'rule of thumb' that has demonstrated some utility in scientific theorizing. It tells us nothing about how the world is.

At the joint of it all (where the educated believer and educated non-believer smack foreheads) is the question of what premises each side can accept as a starting point in a dialogue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - spirituality is often hijacked by it being presumed to revolve around a question of belief.

The fact that people are labeled atheists, agnostics, or believers is proof of this.

I think I'm agreeable Jules but could you clarify a bit?

one of the problems with religion is that it has been used by power hungry rulers to drive people to war and atroctities. So in that sense, when it is misunderstood by people and causes them to hurt others in it's name, it does cause damage in the world.

On the other hand, I think it's hard to measure the positive effect of religion on people, because that's usually a personal individualized experience of people's sufferings being alleviated, or being motivated to change their lives for the better. I think it's harder to see and measure stuff like that.

Iccy (temp) wrote:

seremtan wrote:
funny how god is the only thing we ever hear anyone demand proof of NON-existence

oh, and by the way, the burden of proof rests on the believer not on the unbeliever. occam's razor etc.

But as a atheist, you ( meaning them ) are believers. You are a believer in the idea that there isnt a god. The atheist would have you believe they have it figured out and there is no god, thats the definition, "Someone who believes that there is no God."

So lest you have proof of this, as i said, you are simply a hipocrite if you feel you dont need to prove your stance and someone who does believe should.

It's not so much a matter of belief, but rather a channeling of belief into a very limiting set of rules or objects (gods, supernatural events, etc). When it comes down to it, much of what we do revolves around belief, regardless of religious orientation. Athiesm is just the belief that there is no devine entity that overlooks us and controls or influences our environment. Rather, unexplainable events are left unexplained or are understood by applying other beliefs, as opposed to having the unexplained event be the work of a supreme consciousness.

you dont need a link to prove the moronity of religion %)

One major difference I find between athiesm and other religions (I'm agnostic, for the record) is that it really does have a strict definition of what 'it' is.

When someone says they're a Christian, that doesn't really mean too much because it can mean so many things. When someone says they're an athiest, you're only getting one of a couple of possible perspectives.

Agnostics are just uncertain atheists.

Iccy (temp) wrote:

seremtan wrote:
funny how god is the only thing we ever hear anyone demand proof of NON-existence

oh, and by the way, the burden of proof rests on the believer not on the unbeliever. occam's razor etc.

But as a atheist, you ( meaning them ) are believers. You are a believer in the idea that there isnt a god. The atheist would have you believe they have it figured out and there is no god, thats the definition, "Someone who believes that there is no God."

So lest you have proof of this, as i said, you are simply a hipocrite if you feel you dont need to prove your stance and someone who does believe should.

"...a believer in the idea that there isnt a god..." - i'm also a "believer in the idea" that there isn't a tiny, invisible, swahili-speaking elephant sitting in the room with me, but since i lack proof i guess my belief has the same status as the belief of a hypothetical crazy person that there IS such a thing in the room

if the onus of proof rested equally on believers and skeptics, scientific enquiry would be impossible and our scientific knowledge would be cluttered with un-refuted but "valid" claims about unicorns, angels, pixies and grassy knolls. it doesn't mean none of these things are real, simply that the burden of proof rests on the believer, not the skeptic

and like i said, this rather weak 'non-believing is a kind of faith' argument is only ever applied in the case of god, seldom in the case of other things of which people are skeptical, like ghosts or aliens or whatever. the argument has always sounded to me like a kind of defence mechanism, and a pretty poor one at that

ones wonders what the christians will think when they die and they go to the light and see the smiling face of Budda.

busetibi wrote:ones wonders what the christians will think when they die and they go to the light and see the smiling face of Budda.

Something on the order of, "Oh fuck me...."

busetibi wrote:ones wonders what the christians will think when they die and they go to the light and see the smiling face of Budda.

id be all liek

eh.... pwned

they'll think heaven has been taken over terrorists most likely

LOL at this a/theological hamster wheel of a thread.

Ryoki wrote:Agnostics are just uncertain atheists.

A convenient belief for either an athiest or man of god to hold.

But I'm afraid it's bullshit.

what's bullshit?