Strong Atheism, or Weak Atheism?

[Max35]

I'm beginning to think starting this topic was a bad idea.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That, my friend, is false.

Actually no, it's not.
Many dictionaries go off the old (incorrect) definition of atheism, or use a loose definition of Strong Atheism in place of a wholly accurate definition.

It's basically the same as how america is having all these debates on the definition of "marriage" when it has already been expanded to include gay people in nations across the world.

You can follow the dictionary, or you can follow the reality. A one-sentence definition can only go so far.

That's not a "recruitment" thing. Both weak and strong atheism are effectively identical in terms of their basic philisophical tenets.
Even if you persist in refusing to equate the two by name, the ideas remain overwhelmingly similar.

Atheist is the only word for "not theist" and the word itself is a compound of "not" and "theist".

 

[PvtRyan]

Indeed, just look at the goddamn word: a-theist or non-theist. A theist being someone with a belief in a god as opposed to an atheist who does not have a belief in a god.

 

[Faizu]

I am a weak atheist. And of course, I am a Satanist, and Satanism is also a atheistic religions along with Buddhism.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I love Satanism. Libertarianism converted into a religion = win.

 

[Absinthe]

That, my friend, is false.

What Mecha said. In any case, you're wrong even when it comes to the sources you provide.

"atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings" - Random House Unabridged Dictionary

"atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" - Houghton Mifflin Company

Disbelieving is the rejection/absence of belief. Both definitions satisfy the primary tenet of what defines atheism: an absence of theism. They just also go one step further and supply a second definition entailing the denial of deity existence. This is because, as I have stated repeatedly during my time here, atheism covers both camps.

The third definition you provided is simply flat-out false because it only defines a very particular kind of atheism. I cannot put it any simpler.

If we want to play games with dictionaries, you're wrong on another point.

Note that one who has no beliefs is not disbelieving nor is he denying. He simply has no beliefs.

"–verb (used with object)
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
–verb (used without object)
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief." - Dictionary.com

Disbelieving is the act of rejecting belief in something, consequently holding no belief in it. Every atheist on the planet qualifies for their label exactly because of this.

Again, if an atheist is taking offense at being called as such, then he or she is not taking the time to honestly reflect on their position.

 

[tehsolace]

People please don't get into a debate on this.

Wiki has spelled out exactly whats going on so please read the following:

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).

The very definition has been evolving in the recent past. It was once simply the disbelief of God or Gods, but now (for some) has changed to cover agnosticism as well.

Let me make this clear: The current standard for defining atheists, theists, and anyone in between is Strong Atheists (Those who deny the belief in God), Weak Atheists (Those who are simply not theists [such as agnostics]), and Theists. Therefore, it is valid to generalize them into two categories, Atheists and Theists, where Atheists includes both Strong Atheists and Agnostics (Weak Atheists).

Please read the following if you disagree, and then after you've read it if you still disagree, then please continue with the debate.... but don't start quoting from dictionary.com as if dictionaries are the latest in terminologies.

 

[Absinthe]

The only reason I quoted dictionaries in return was to demonstrate that, even by his own sources, he is wrong in his definition of what atheism is and isn't.

 

[tehsolace]

The only reason I quoted dictionaries in return was to demonstrate that, even by his own sources, he is wrong in his definition of what atheism is and isn't.

I agree with your argument... and where I said "don't quote dictionaries", I meant to terms such as atheism, not "disbelief". I doubt the word "disbelief" has changed in the past few decades

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I'm quite happy to be branded a weak atheist, but the description of agnostic posted matches me too. Call me what you want, it's just a label.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[W4d5Y]

W4d5Y, we are not saying that faith itself is a bad thing... but it can certainly facilitate extremely negative actions, like intolerance and war.

This is not, what I listen to. I don't follow a certain Religion, I call it faith. I just try to look at all the stuff given, i.e. Bible, and maybe even Koran, if possibel.
And yes, you ARE rewarded for not thinking, the problem is just this a bit heavy because we are reminded of churches like Scientology, or the catholics.
But the ways of god are inexplicable, and, to cite the simpsons, "You don't understand, maybe we don't WANT to know wether that's not an angel."
I know, I might sound pretty lame and conservative-ish, but this just what got myself stuck into. When I read the bible I just tried starting to accept that trust is something you just have to live w/, because every try to test or proove it will lead to mistrust.
Btw, I still like this phrase: Something as complex and precise as the bible can't not be real.

 

[Absinthe]

Trust should be reserved for things that exist, or at least have a fair degree of possibility. Not for God.

As for the Bible being complex and precise, it's anything but. Unless by "complexity" you're referring to a confusing mess littered with contradictions.

It really depresses me that people can so willingly sabotage their intellect - that people not only admit to not exercising critical thinking skills, but also advocate it. If religion isn't causing stupid bloodbaths, at the least it's teaching people to be dumb.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And yes, you ARE rewarded for not thinking [...] because every [attempt] to test or [prove a religion] will lead to mistrust.

Right, another excellent post.
Let's decypher it again, because what I see says:


-Thinking is bad because it makes you less gullible.

-So, instead of thinking, you listen to the bible - which tells you that:

-thinking is bad because it makes you less gullible.

-So, instead of thinking you listen to the bible - which tells you that:

-thinking is bad because it makes you less gullible.

-So, instead of thinking you listen to the bible - which tells you that:

...etc.


???

 

[Geogaddi]

Right, another excellent post.
Let's decypher it again, because what I see says:


-Thinking is bad because it makes you less gullible.

-So, instead of thinking, you listen to the bible - which tells you that:

-thinking is bad because it makes you less gullible.

-So, instead of thinking you listen to the bible - which tells you that:

-thinking is bad because it makes you less gullible.

-So, instead of thinking you listen to the bible - which tells you that:

...etc.


???

Profit!

 

[W4d5Y]

see, religion is bad, faith is not. I would describe myself as a man of science, and it is actually condradicting science. But as I search for 'mental stabilization' that doesn't lead to violence and repression, what christians and Muslims alike have managed to reach pretty well.
Waita sec, that makes no sense...Well, what I think is, that your arguments suck as well, because you just insist on argumenting there was no proof for the existence of a devine force, but you don't actually offer scientific explanations, although all you have to offer is 'OMG rape the bible or it melts our minds coz it doesn't want us to be sentient creatures'. I just say, that the bible doesn't forbid intellect, but what I fear is, from some point on you just say 'we're sooo clever, we can proove there is no god and that will be a perfect excuse for our individualist temper'
Sooo there actually isn't any proof neither FOR OR AGAINST the existance of oh you know what I wanna say, but OH! there is something called bible, koran, what-haveth-thou but as far as I know there's no anti-bible stating that any faith and submission would lead to a hillbilly reputation
And according to democracy you mustn't frown upon my thoughts because to be frank, any disafirmation of at least certain religiously motivated themes maybe wouldn't have lead to the world as we have it now, although still, even in our western medium governments, there will always be evil,
but we're not talking about religion, I know, I'd just like to state that you could be buddhist and not believe in a god (thaaat's right, buddha was more like a simple psychotherapist, he never took any god of any sorts in account) but still be quite religious. So what might let other religions fail is of course the fact that it just requires a broad dumb mass to follow rules a simple, sinful human being came up with, THAT's what i call explicit removal of intellect, so all I want is a certain confirmation by a higher being to give my senseless life a meaning or reason. But I can tell, as I said, that something as undeniable as the bible IS in fact a reason to give faith or at least 'certain religiously motivated themes'a try and stop bickering about how religion and god's commandments make us dumb, I don't even know if any of you have read the bible. Read the new testament, the mountain prayer by Jesus, it's inspiring I tell you. There was a chapter called 'Phrases' or something called like that as well. It said stuff like 'hide you knowledge and don't try to impone with it', which is something we can still use today, and you might recall that it is in fact better to be timid at some points.
Now, what are your complaints now?

 

[Ennui]

I haven't read that yet, except the last line, to which I pose the following:

PARAGRAPH BREAKS!

 

[Absinthe]

see, religion is bad, faith is not.

?!?!?!

Also, I second Ennui's notion. It's best if nobody replies to him until he learns how to structure his post in a way that doesn't result in hemhoraging visual sensory organs.

ADDED: Oh dear god, I read about five more sentences into his post and I think I'm going to suck on a revolver.

 

[Cole]

religion is bad, faith is not.

I have faith that if a nuke hits me and explodes I will survive. Faith can be bad.

I have faith that if I go on a killing spree GTA style I wont get caught! Logical would tell me a differne answer.

Logic > Faith

Now, because it would be impossible for me to read what you said due to organiziation I am going to pick out the sentences that stick out.

Read the new testament, the mountain prayer by Jesus, it's inspiring I tell you. There was a chapter called 'Phrases' or something called like that as well. It said stuff like 'hide you knowledge and don't try to impone with it', which is something we can still use today, and you might recall that it is in fact better to be timid at some points.

Ok, thats great. It's an inspiring book. There are many inspiring stories.

But I can tell, as I said, that something as undeniable as the bible IS in fact a reason to give faith or at least 'certain religiously motivated themes'a try and stop bickering about how religion and god's commandments make us dumb, I don't even know if any of you have read the bible.

undeniable?
How IS THE BIBLE UNDENIABLE.

..Well, what I think is, that your arguments suck as well, because you just insist on argumenting there was no proof for the existence of a devine force, but you don't actually offer scientific explanations, although all you have to offer is 'OMG rape the bible or it melts our minds coz it doesn't want us to be sentient creatures'.

There is no proof for it. So why would we believe it?
This is what you do not get.
It is better to not know, then to settle on any reason.
I would rather not know and search for answers than settle on something that has no proof and no science behind it.

I just say, that the bible doesn't forbid intellect

So I should just settle down and believe everything the Bible tells me? No! I refuse to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The bible gives reasons. Reasoning with no proof. Settling on reasons with no proof is halting intelligence.

Sooo there actually isn't any proof neither FOR OR AGAINST the existance of oh you know what I wanna say, but OH! there is something called bible, koran, what-haveth-thou but as far as I know there's no anti-bible stating that any faith and submission would lead to a hillbilly reputation

There does not have to be proof AGAINST IT. There doesn't. If you cannot prove god exists, that means by basic logic it does not exist. If you offer proof then by basic logic it does exist. However until you can provide proof, basic logic tells you that it wont exist.

, I know, I'd just like to state that you could be buddhist and not believe in a god (thaaat's right, buddha was more like a simple psychotherapist, he never took any god of any sorts in account)

Buddhism is more of a set of rules, from ones perspective you could consider it not to even be a religion.




REMEMBER: Just because I cannot disprove something does not make it any more possible or true. Basic logic tells me that something is false until proven true. If I tell you that, I am the second coming of Jesus. You'll want some proof otherwise you wont believe me. Thus you are following basic logic in that, I am not jesus until I prove myself so.

Thereby basic logic tells me that God does not exist until there is proof. There is yet to be proof. If you fail to understand this(I hate to flame or be mean but) then you are retarded from my point of view.

 

[DaMaN]

Related to proof, I would recommend reviewing the logical fallacy "Burdon of Proof".

4: Reversing the Burden of Proof:
In science, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this"
If the person reverses the burden of proof by only saying "you can't disprove this," their argument is invalid.

The Bible/Koran/etc is claiming (among other things) that:
- There is a God
- You can't disprove that there is a God

By stating the first claim, the burdon of proof falls on the Bible or someone supporting the Bible. Attempting to reverse the burdon of proof by stating that you can't disprove there is a God is an invalid argument and a logical fallacy.



A more different way of looking at this would be the example of Russel's Teapot:

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 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.

 

[W4d5Y]

I refuse to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

That's not an argument. It's an exageration. Do you really believe, that people who wrote that stuff cared about WHEN that happened??
So, you still can't proove there is no god, therefore you just settle on you didn't gaf? Look, theologists have posed the question wether the holy Maria was in fact raped. Some people refuse to accept that, as it kinda extracts any devinity out of that "symbol" of the untouched Maria, mother of man's son.
I don't. You know why?
Because a proof of a rape of Maria (by studying original papers and sources, blahblah) just adds science to the matter.
So, that was just an instance, but you guys maybe shouldn't always believe the bible was something some people just made up on the spot. And honestly, do you really believe there was NOTHING in it that didn't have at least some degree of actual events in it?
The bible has to interpreted cause it just doesn't tell you "Jesus was born on 23:45 23rd dec. a.d. as a result of rape."! That's just not what old writings would look like! People were less educated of science. So, what they saw automatically became a miracle. But today we can sometimes even proove a natural source behind those events.
For example, as far as I can recall, when Jesus died, an earthquake broke out and the sun darkened (?). Now, people will then have believed "OMGHOLYSHITWTFBBQ ANGRY GOD: IS ANGRY!!!!11" and written what-have-you that god took the sun away and stuff. But today we might probably proove, that there was a eclipse of the sun around that time of 0037.
Now you might say "But do you know people saw an eclipse?", well, no. But that's not the point, because I just wanted to point out, how the bible should be understood. Today we'd say, assuming there was in fact an eclipse, or some other sort of natural phenomena "Well, I'd say that was just coincidence." But do you?
I personally believe there is mostly an perfectly logical explanation for such stuff. But still, I deem them miracles, coz it is unlikely that such phenomena just happen out of coincidence. I believe there is a
greater purpose for that.
So, now having a proper base for my argumentation, do you still believe I was some sort of hillbilly who had his scientific knowledge replaced w/ sheer mystic Phantasies?!?! I struggle w/ such disbelievs quite often, but after all I just think "There MUST be something to it, why else should it have happened?!? Why else were there a bible? Why else are religions like Islam, and Christanity spread so far across the world (ok, let's cut the Islam, anything concerning that should be discussed in the 'Islam is a extremist religion, consistent of blind-eyed mobs LOLOL'-topic somewhere) if those who spread it in the first place haven't had a holy consecration?


And oh yes, please don't come with "and how do you explain God created earth in seven days?", read some articles about that somewhere, I personally believe that a day doesn't eagerly have to a human day, but a rather a very long timespan, as everything is soooo small in comparison to God, otherwise you'd question his authority whateva, if you didn't assume he was something that couldn't be described w/ our limited vocabulary...Oops, stole that one from Breen :O!
Also, the story about the creation of earth was written by theocratical servants somewhen around the enslavement of the Jews by Agypt I think.
I also heard, that the bible is not perfect in itself, as it still is created by mankind. Over ages, on struggled over which writings to add to the bible and which to detract. Just take the story about the gnostics, the catholic church hunted them, because the knew stuff the church didn't want to become public. I saw that in a tely-show once, they talked about wether Jesus had a sexual relationship with Maria-Magdalena, what would lead to the holy grail, or 'sang raal', as they argued. Now, if you were the catholic church...Would you allow any of that quite interesting information to become public? The church was eager to keep abstinence throughout the population...They probably wouldn't allow Jesus having had children and such stuff.
There, you see not everything in the bible is true, and to be taken seriously, or taken in a literal sense. Of course it would be stupid to proclame all stories of the bible manipulated, or made up, whatever you want to say or believe. The bible is just too large, now imagine, there was one chapter that was a false friend, would you automatically assume everything of the bible false? A false chapter doesn't render all chapters elsewhere wrong as well.
Sheesh, I think I take quite a burden here...Me young, naive Christian against a whole bunch of realistic, life-written individuals....*phew*
Oh yes, something...Do you really think god was what is generally thought to be, if he was to follow logic? Something like the creator of the universe probably couldn't be described as something that was part of the universe itself.

(ps: I once saw a film and a topic that was offered on hlfallout, quite interessting. They discussed the point, that the universe only had little chance of existing in the first place, leading to the assumption of higher forces.

Secondly, would you at least concider the mountain homily and adages as an appropraite moral guideline? You know, what is written there is highly thoughtful. So please, only judge if you've read it yourself. A good christian is one following the rules, but you could also be atheist and know certain rules of behaviour concerning your fellow brethren. That way you wouldn't hurt anybody. In turn, somebody believing in god, could still be a bad person. I in fact concider meself a bad character sometimes. Now, concerning everybody, who gives a god-given mercy a thought, I don't know what makes a good christian, but I just wanted to hint the above, making you think about how religion is never deniable, or rejectable. It thouches our whole daily life.)

Ooohhh, burdon of proof? Well, then try disprooving the existance of god, and not the legality of faith, or my very own arguments. If you can call em like that -.-'

 

[Mechagodzilla]

?!?!?!

Also, I second Ennui's notion. It's best if nobody replies to him until he learns how to structure his post in a way that doesn't result in hemhoraging visual sensory organs.

ADDED: Oh dear god, I read about five more sentences into his post and I think I'm going to suck on a revolver.

Repeated in case you missed it the first time.

Also, read Daman's post.

...And Cole's post again, really.

I guess just read something and write better about it. That sums things up.

 

[Hapless]

There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.--Graham Chapman

 

[Cole]

And oh yes, please don't come with "and how do you explain God created earth in seven days?", read some articles about that somewhere, I personally believe that a day doesn't eagerly have to a human day, but a rather a very long timespan, as everything is soooo small in comparison to God, otherwise you'd question his authority whateva, if you didn't assume he was something that couldn't be described w/ our limited vocabulary...Oops, stole that one from Breen !

I am only going to pick out this single sentence from your rambling.
If the bible cannot be taken in a literal sense, then why do you take it literally except in the parts that do not make sense.


You seem to fail to understand. I do not have to prove god does not exist until you prove it to exist.

For Instance:
Yak created everything. Yak is the one one of 5 gods. Each god created a seperate universe. Yak created earth and everything there is about it. Yak has also sub "gods" associated with him. One of them was named God. God sent Jesus down to advertise him as the creater. Yak got pissed and then killed God and had jesus put on a cross. Then Yak, resurrected Jesus and sent his body up into the atmosphere where Jesus could die in agany one more time.

Disprove it. It must be right if you can't disprove it.

Do you get it yet? I have to prove Yak exists otherwise you don't have to disprove it. Same applies to God.


Hey Mecha, can't you just ban him from the politics forum? Or switch all his posts into a thread in Off-Topic where we can laugh at them? I have seen some well structured posts by theists. Posts that made sense, and wern't closed minded. However, I have never met someone so ignorant and closed minded as this person.

 

[Absinthe]

Walter makes a better scratching post.

LOL at the the whole "A God day is different from a human day" bit. You'd think that God would be more specific in his terminology instead of confusing us like a jackass.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Hey Mecha, can't you just ban him from the politics forum? Or switch all his posts into a thread in Off-Topic where we can laugh at them?

Nah, there is no rule against extreme stupidity. Maybe at some point the stupidity will turn into Spam, as it did with the whole clarky conspiracy trend.
In the meantime, he's at least trying to make a point, even if he is failing rather badly at it.


Also, Walter is probably the most reasonable religious person I've encountered on the forums to date. Besides his tendency to post the occasional dumb website instead of a smart argument, and to "leave and think about" the biggest flaws in his points and then never bring it up again, he's as good as it gets.

LOL at the the whole "A God day is different from a human day" bit. You'd think that God would be more specific in his terminology instead of confusing us like a jackass.

Which brings us back to the major flaw of why omnipotent god is so horrible at public speaking.

According to the sandwich analogy, god must have pre-planned all his dialogue in advance, before the universe is ever made.
Now, it is very obvious that christians, as a whole, do not understand god's words, based on how I've debunked the false prophet Paul of Tarsus.

So, the only possible explanation is that god deliberately chose to confuse religious people.
And, what stems from ambiguity in the scriptures? Conflict and, inevitably, hellfire.

So again, if god is real, he has deliberately damned trillions of innocent people, including most of his own followers, to hell for no good reason.

Which brings me back to an old theory of mine:

Q: Why does god permit hell to exist?
A: The bible tells us repeatedly that god loves the scent of roasted meat.

Now, add the sandwich analogy; in order for god to be omnipotent, he must have a constant and eternal supply of everything he desires.
He desires burnt flesh, and that's exactly what hell provides in eternal supply.

 

[DaMaN]

Ooohhh, burdon of proof? Well, then try disprooving the existance of god, and not the legality of faith, or my very own arguments. If you can call em like that -.-'

Ok, since you obviously didn't understand me the first time,

Related to proof, I would recommend reviewing the logical fallacy "Burdon of Proof".

4: Reversing the Burden of Proof:
In science, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this"
If the person reverses the burden of proof by only saying "you can't disprove this," their argument is invalid.

Basically, you and the Bible, are stating:
- There is a God
- People haven't proved that there isn't a God
- Therefore, there must be a God.

This is false reasoning, and a logical fallacy. Since you (and the Bible) are making the initial claim, you (and the Bible) are under the burdon of proof. Essentially, those making the claims must provide the proof.

 

[Cole]

Nah, there is no rule against extreme stupidity.

Damnit!

Which brings me back to an old theory of mine:

Q: Why does god permit hell to exist?
A: The bible tells us repeatedly that god loves the scent of roasted meat.

Now, add the sandwich analogy; in order for god to be omnipotent, he must have a constant and eternal supply of everything he desires.
He desires burnt flesh, and that's exactly what hell provides in eternal supply.

Which would also explain why God loves us. Because we are satisfying his desires!

 

[W4d5Y]

It's something called compassion and forgivingness. I dunno what's up w/ devil and hell. Some people find this information uncomfortable. But of course, you gotta think about it. I believe the devil is in fact a fallen angel, who wouldn't cooperate w/ god, rendering him a traitor, having nothing left in heaven, god's archipel. Then again, he is the impersonification of temptation.
But you can't just say god was a hater, just picture man himself. WHat is it exactely that creates evil in the world? Isn't it finally our very own responsibility how much injustice one can make? Then again, god's supposed to feature ultimate justice. No matter what you do, it will be rewarded or frowned upon and repaid properly.
Oh yeah, something I read in the hitchhiker'S guide to the galaxy:

"In fact, the Fish was so fantastically handy, Some people posed the theory, it would finally disproove the existance of god. Because god says: I'm existant through faith, and faith excludes proof. Man says: But isn't this fish so improbable it must have been created by a higher force? [snap]Oh no! I didn't think about that! and just vanishes in rationality."

Well, it went like. phew, thank god there isn't actually any instance like that. Probably? :O

 

[Cole]

It's something called compassion and forgivingness. I dunno what's up w/ devil and hell. Some people find this information uncomfortable. But of course, you gotta think about it. I believe the devil is in fact a fallen angel, who wouldn't cooperate w/ god, rendering him a traitor, having nothing left in heaven, god's archipel. Then again, he is the impersonification of temptation.
But you can't just say god was a hater, just picture man himself. WHat is it exactely that creates evil in the world? Isn't it finally our very own responsibility how much injustice one can make? Then again, god's supposed to feature ultimate justice. No matter what you do, it will be rewarded or frowned upon and repaid properly.

It's something called making god happy by burning forever in hell.


Why are you quoating from a movie? You probably can't even begin to imagine how many planets there are out there to even begin imagining what is probable and what is not inside the universe.

The word "Probably" is not what were using here. The fact remains that you are not giving any proof than I have gave for my god that will take over and rule the world and make everyone his slave that did not believe in him. My god is just as probable as your god.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

...what?

The things you write make absolutely no sense at all, Wadsy.
I know you're from germany and may not be great at english but, even after decoding the language, the points you make are nonsensical.

If the devil is god's archrival, then god should have defeated him easily.

 

[Jintor]

Oh yeah, something I read in the hitchhiker'S guide to the galaxy: Well, it went like. phew, thank god there isn't actually any instance like that. Probably? :O

"In fact, the Fish was so fantastically handy, Some people posed the theory, it would finally disproove the existance of god. Because god says: I'm existant through faith, and faith excludes proof. Man says: But isn't this fish so improbable it must have been created by a higher force? [snap]Oh no! I didn't think about that! and just vanishes in rationality."

In fact, the world was so fantastically made just for human life, some people posed the theory that it would finally disprove the existance of god. God says: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for without faith, I am nothing". But Man says: "But this world was made for the existance of human life, isn't that so wildly improbable that it MUST have been created by a hower power?" and God goes "Oh Snap!, I didn't think about that" and vanishes in a puff of logic.

By the way, it's still satire, and your use of it is still nonsensical.

 

[W4d5Y]

okay, I shall abandon my faith and deny it from now, letting spread devil's work or what ever it is over our miserable world. Oh wait, who said god was to let everybody burn in hell? Well, yeah, I just wanna test ya respect and want to know wether anyone of you is so convinced of a lack of god and subsequent punishment that he would actually dare comitting some sort of obscene blasphemy?
Are you really like that? Are you just people who have lost their faith?? Are you really people who just doubt his existence? I mean, I could also do it the phylosopher's way -
I am or am not religious although there might or might not be a god (Oh'snap, that's the gnosticists! Or however you call them :O ) But if I really went that far, I wouldn't have actual faith anyore - because faith excludes logic. Therefore I do reject such
attempts at physically prooving such an entities existence, as it just contradicts with my believe I have layed my trust in. And also, god never actually didn't proove he didn't exist - otherwise nobody would have been allowed to learn about him. It's just like that Constantine-type-thingie - he knows God exists, but that doesn't render him a believer yet. So, there's choosing between Knowledge and Believe. There's no inbetween I'd know of so far, and I simply chose the latter because I thought to myself I'd be on, you know, some kind of safer side. Why not listen to some old dusty book people have been reading for ages reaching over 2,000 years and more, instead of some mob of 'realists' who just screams 'Diz is all bullshit!'
They way I think I just don't concider any false-thinking in the first place. I say something has to be right, some stuff might be wrong and other shit is just not interpreted well. You guys might suddenly raise the question "If there as a god, why doesn't he help out man w/ his miseries?" pose that question to yourself. I don't wanna answer that, because I'm waaaay not in the position. But what really startles me is your picking single aspects against any proof of existence of god. Well, can't you just agree w/ me there is that 2,000 years book?!? And you're not better than me in points of argumentation, some of you just exaggerate and claim the bible wanted us be believing the world was "6000 years olde".

 

[Glirk Dient]

okay, I shall abandon my faith and deny it from now, letting spread devil's work or what ever it is over our miserable world.

If you actually abandoned your faith you would abandon the belief of a magical underworld that the devil lives in that is un detectable by and means

Are you really like that? Are you just people who have lost their faith?? Are you really people who just doubt his existence? I mean, I could also do it the phylosopher's way -

No...we don't doubt his existence. We deny that a magical man governs over our lives when everything we do is clearly within the realm of possibilities and any time something bad happens and we wonder why god let it happen people only respond with "God works in mysterious ways".

I am or am not religious although there might or might not be a god (Oh'snap, that's the gnosticists! Or however you call them :O ) But if I really went that far, I wouldn't have actual faith anyore - because faith excludes logic. Therefore I do reject such
attempts at physically prooving such an entities existence, as it just contradicts with my believe I have layed my trust in.

Logic doesn't mean physical evidence. Why didn't the bible come around until jesus sprang up? There were plenty of "prophets" and jesus so happens to become popular and get a few followers. He then was considered a rebel by the roman empire(because he sympathized with rebels) and when he went in front of the roman tribunal he didn't say that he was or wasn't a rebel so they just considered he was one and crucified him. After that he was a martyr and his religion spread quickly. I don't see the work of god causing it to spread.

Not to mention if adam and eve were the very first people to be created, and they knew about god why didn't word of him ever appear in any form until jesus came about?

And also, god never actually didn't proove he didn't exist -

Umm, did you really just use a triple negative?

otherwise nobody would have been allowed to learn about him. It's just like that Constantine-type-thingie - he knows God exists, but that doesn't render him a believer yet. So, there's choosing between Knowledge and Believe. There's no inbetween I'd know of so far, and I simply chose the latter because I thought to myself I'd be on, you know, some kind of safer side. Why not listen to some old dusty book people have been reading for ages reaching over 2,000 years and more, instead of some mob of 'realists' who just screams 'Diz is all bullshit!'

Because everything in the bible is structured to cause that religion to spread and slip through logical cracks by avoiding ansering real questions and telling people to just have faith. Saying that its gods test to not show evidence of himself is a really dumb answer. If I come to your house and try to sell you a car and when you ask to see it I tell you to just have faith and give me your money and you will eventually get the car, are you going to buy it? Of course not, because you will use logic and realise it is a scam.

They way I think I just don't concider any false-thinking in the first place. I say something has to be right, some stuff might be wrong and other shit is just not interpreted well. You guys might suddenly raise the question "If there as a god, why doesn't he help out man w/ his miseries?" pose that question to yourself. I don't wanna answer that, because I'm waaaay not in the position. But what really startles me is your picking single aspects against any proof of existence of god. Well, can't you just agree w/ me there is that 2,000 years book?!? And you're not better than me in points of argumentation, some of you just exaggerate and claim the bible wanted us be believing the world was "6000 years olde".

The bible is full of misinformation and fallacies. I find it hard that your evidence is the book lasting 2000 years makes it true. Nostradamus is still a best seller and has his stuff come true? Nope, its a bunch of BS as well.

Really, you should try to open your eyes and be critical of your religion if you truly believe in it. You would want to make sure that you are correct because it sounds like your faith is rather weak and you don't know what your getting yourself into. It is a long wait for a train don't come.

 

[Absinthe]

okay, I shall abandon my faith and deny it from now, letting spread devil's work or what ever it is over our miserable world.

It's statements like this that me curious as to how you're sure God loves you.

He designed you to be faulty. He throws temptations at you constantly (many of which you will give into). He casts you into what you see as a "miserable world" to live out your mortal life. Oh, and he'll send you to Hell to burn for eternity if put your foot down and say enough is enough.

Meanwhile, as God continues his hands-off "Anything Goes" policy in regards to our worldly affairs, Satan is actually going out of his way to convert the little man. God won't even get off his couch. Apparently you aren't worth house visits.

You're pretty typical, actually. In your own words, you profess belief in God because it's supposedly the safer alternative to.. oh, I dunno. Living in the real world. I sincerely wish Pascal never came up with his wager, because it's done nothing but infect otherwise rational minds.
Basically, you are ignoring the equal possibilities of millions of other gods existing aside from your own. So even if you're right that a god exists, you still have no guarantee of safety. For all you know, you will still spend an eternity in Hell because another religion's god exists instead. Or perhaps there is a god that rewards rational thinking and punishes blind faith. So no, your blanket of security doesn't actually exist no matter how you look at it.

As for the age of the Bible - so what? What about the Tora or the Koran? Those are pretty old books. I guess they must be right too. And hey, texts regarding the Greek and Aztec gods are also pretty old. They predate the Bible! So I guess if the criteria you're going for is historical seniority, you're better off worshipping Zeus.
Oh wait, perhaps your referring more to Christianity itself as an idea that has endured time. I guess that makes it valid? Well, shit. I guess it's time to kick slavery back into gear. We should roll back womens' right to vote. After all, we spent significantly more time as male-dominated slave-owners than we have as not. Obviously tradition is the ultimate decider in factual accuracy and the way we live our lives. Why are progressives so stupid?

 

[CptStern]

okay, I shall abandon my faith and deny it from now, letting spread devil's work or what ever it is over our miserable world.

so you are the catalyst that prevents the devil from wreaking havoc over the world? ...riiiiight

Oh wait, who said god was to let everybody burn in hell? Well, yeah, I just wanna test ya respect and want to know wether anyone of you is so convinced of a lack of god and subsequent punishment that he would actually dare comitting some sort of obscene blasphemy?

lol

/me looks at other hl2.net members: we have a live one :rolling:

so lets see ..god is blaspheming himself by sending the faithful to burn in the fires of hell? and he dares rebel against ...himself?

you soo crazy

Are you really like that? Are you just people who have lost their faith?? Are you really people who just doubt his existence?

a little from column A and a little from column B but mostly column B because you know ..it's ****ing rediculous?

I mean, I could also do it the phylosopher's way -
I am or am not religious although there might or might not be a god (Oh'snap, that's the gnosticists! Or however you call them :O ) But if I really went that far, I wouldn't have actual faith anyore - because faith excludes logic. Therefore I do reject such
attempts at physically prooving such an entities existence, as it just contradicts with my believe I have layed my trust in.

so you're saying you couldnt lose your faith because you cant prove the existance of god? that makes no sense

And also, god never actually didn't proove he didn't exist - otherwise nobody would have been allowed to learn about him. It's just like that Constantine-type-thingie - he knows God exists, but that doesn't render him a believer yet. So, there's choosing between Knowledge and Believe. There's no inbetween I'd know of so far, and I simply chose the latter because I thought to myself I'd be on, you know, some kind of safer side.

so fear is the motivator for your faith? isnt that just lying to the lord? well you're not fooling god. you're going to hell

Why not listen to some old dusty book people have been reading for ages reaching over 2,000 years and more, instead of some mob of 'realists' who just screams 'Diz is all bullshit!'

hey the world is flat, the universe revolves around the earth and if you sail too far in any direction you'll eventually fall off the earth ...hey why not listen to the ancients; they couldnt possibly be wrong. Basically what you're saying is that "if it's good for every other person out there then it must be ok for me" ..that's a sorry excuse for faith

They way I think I just don't concider any false-thinking in the first place. I say something has to be right, some stuff might be wrong and other shit is just not interpreted well. You guys might suddenly raise the question "If there as a god, why doesn't he help out man w/ his miseries?" pose that question to yourself. I don't wanna answer that, because I'm waaaay not in the position.

who would be? I mean if god is real then how would we know what motivates him? maybe he's just a prick and enjoys watching us suffer? ...my statement is just as valid as yours

But what really startles me is your picking single aspects against any proof of existence of god. Well, can't you just agree w/ me there is that 2,000 years book?!?

which proves what exactly?

And you're not better than me in points of argumentation

perhaps if you limit it to only Walter I might agree with you ..no offense but you barely make sense

some of you just exaggerate and claim the bible wanted us be believing the world was "6000 years olde".

yes well just because you dont know about it doesnt mean it doesnt exist

 

[kirovman]

Apparently Hitler was Jesus's evil twin.

 

[tehsolace]

dude come ON i KNOW all of you want to admit there is a god... i mean come on... look at the bible! JUST LOOK! its there. its all there it says so. i mean can you prove there isn't a god? NO YOU CANT. i mean come on. how am i supposed to believe theres no god when you cant even prove to me there isnt a god! so therefore you should start beleiving that theres a god too.

i mean come on.

....


... come on

 

[Cole]

tehsolace.

I'm hoping your entire post was filled with sarcasm.
else.....

I WILL CRY​

;(

 

[tehsolace]

tehsolace.

I'm hoping your entire post was filled with sarcasm.
else.....

I WILL CRY​

;(

t'was.

whats scary is i tried to make it as ridiculous, sarcastic, illogical, and nonsensical as possible, and yet it STILL looked like something a theist would say.

 

[Cole]

THANK SCIENCE!​