Originally Posted By DPIF

Simple as that, all humans are born Atheist anyways, so you can't have a belief system when you are a baby and can't even formulate complex thoughts or concepts..

Originally Posted By UFOT

[ rave.ca ] = solving theology one post at a time...

Ufot-I believe in dog

Originally Posted By TREY

Borderlands is a good game, but it's always the same enemies.

Condensing my post was a bad idea.
Let's put up some graphs so we can know what the fuck we are talking about shall we? I will said for now I am an atheist (left on the graph).








You guys just links wiki articles and mentioned forms of arguments without elucidating why you said them in the first place? I'm not saying it is bad in practice. It's just I have to guess what you are talking about. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, you're erroneously accused me of wrongful argument tactics?

I'm going to take a shot in the dark, and assume "Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable." [ www.iep.utm.edu ]

errr...are you implying that: my argument is piss poor 'cause I'm saying that, in a God Hypothesis, the chance of god is highly unlikely is the truth since it's impossible to be false". I think you're applying this to an atheist gnostic. Would you feel better if I said that the probability of god existence is really extremely low instead of impossible? Just as saying water will not freeze at 0c is really extremely low instead of water not freezing at 0c is impossible? ( that is on Earth in standard pressure).

I don't believe in god because I'm highly confident (99.9%) with all the empirical arguments, rational thinking, naturalist laws pointing that way. Then you would accused me of being (Atheism) Agnostics since I didn't say 100%. If I don't believe, if I know ( 100%) for sure god don't exist, then you would accuse me as having the same position as FAITH position.

You would (you did) put me in the same category as a Theist. However I already proven that is wrong because I didn't make a leap of faith to have this conviction (see the quote from Atheism, a very short Intro). There is plethora of proof for a naturalistic world and so far none for the existence of god, then we what reason can we have to supposed god exist?

did you even read what was in the article 'cause in that very article: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that shows, indicates, suggests, or can be used to infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something. In some sense "absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence". For instance, absence of evidence that there are malignant cells is evidence of absence that there is cancer."

Since you like Wiki link so much, here's one for you.
[ en.wikipedia.org ]

When I said there is evidence of absence, I mean this (I can't said it better myself). I hope this is enough:

Yes. but why do you dismiss the existence of Smurfs entirely and not god? For the typical Atheist, it's the same thing. At least we have signs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



No one said Science is omniscient... Maybe you are associating science as the doctrine of the Atheist as religion is to god? That's a huge no no. This here [ www.gly.uga.edu ]

" Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. " "The examples above are observational science, but there is also experimental science. "

Science is a system, a way, for us to gain knowledge so we can understand the universe and proposed models of reality. That's why science has theories, and some are thrown away 'cause they don't work. Some do, such as the Sun will rise to the East and set in the West.

I can prove to you that gravity exist if I push someone off the Empire State building. When human are extinct, gravity will still be there. We don't need faith to "believe that". Or do you actually think is that by believing in gravity is what makes gravity possible? It's your choice not to believe in factual knowledge, but don't come crying when you don't believe you will get burn by putting your hand through fire.



Atheists don't need to prove anything, they lack the belief, that's it. Dpif and other people clearly explain why. We can agree what god is by what the Theists tell us what god is. god just happens to be omniprescent since it conveniently suit their purpose. There is no purpose in denying or lacking belief in God, there is no agenda. Some Atheists might also be against religion, there are some who are Theists and are against religions.

What you perceive as arrogance is your prerogative. You give the unfavorable quality of atheists being arrogant. Typical. This is a common tactic in politics and debate, instead of addressing the issue at hand, one simply attack the opponent so whatever he has to say, no matter how insightful or reasonable, it gets unheard because that person has a negative characteristics. Dawkins seems arrogant, even to me, but that doesn't disqualify him from making good arguments.

"One of the most curious is the assumption that atheists are arrogant. Why? Because making assumptions without even caring enough to bother to ask questions in order to learn more is itself a sign of arrogance. " -Austin Cline

--------------------

If god exists and we find god, then we surely charged god with crimes against humanity.
that's it.

Originally Posted By DATABOY

"Blaise Pascal had it right, with his "wager" "-Kishmay_Pinas

One thing that Blaise Pascal didnt factor into his equation are the sacrifices one must make to be a Christian.
Also, when Blaise Pascal was around at the end of the dark ages, if you where not a devout Catholic, the chances that you would end up dead where quite high. So in the 1600, his wager made perfect sens for anyone with an instinct of survival.

Originally Posted By DATABOY

The reason why that wager isn't applied to most other mythological characters is because its only the Christian and Muslim Faiths that promises eternal suffering if you don't comply.
In the other faiths, the stakes aren't high enough to scare peoples into joining.

Originally Posted By KISHMAY_PINAS

THE WAGER my "friend" was first of all not written by me, but but Blaise Pascal. Ridiculous? Oh really. Congratulations champion, his entire argument was to be precisely that, ridiculous and sarcastic. As opposed to subscribing to one camp or the other, he is basically saying, based on odds and probabilities if you were indeed to choose one side over the other, well, oddly (punny) enough you were best to accept the notion of an all powerful .....

And given when Pascal was a prominent philosopher and statistician, we are clearly talking about the Christians of the day and what people were fearing, and based on the logic used, and the weighing of the pro's and cons.....

you know what...fuck it I feel I am wasting my time and bandwidth trying to type this in words you will understand....

My mind and god might both be figments of my imagination, but one is my interface with the world so i'm pretty sure it exists and at least i can use it. The other is a an idea passed down to me by my peers witch is meant to be experienced by this interface.

To Whitelight, "Observation is the key word here. What if some things were not perceivable by observation, by the physical senses? What if it could only be experienced?"
What would be a "non-physical sense"?

Originally Posted By MOLOCH

Originally Posted By WHITELIGHT

Your mind and consciousness receive information that tells what the body hears/touches/tastes/sees, etc. We know that we can mess with the mind and give it information that isn't coming from the external, physical world (hallucinations).

Originally Posted By WHITELIGHT

Your mind and consciousness receive information that tells what the body hears/touches/tastes/sees, etc. We know that we can mess with the mind and give it information that isn't coming from the external, physical world (hallucinations). Therefore, how can you be so sure that the "normal" state of mind isn't a complete illusion? A skeptic shouldn't doubt only what he sees as false, he has to question everything, even the most accepted ideas. Accepting something as absolute truth asks for belief in something.