WarpMyMind

I,n my eyes what is athiesm but saying you beleive in logic.

Uh ok then its not a religion.
So atheism doesent exist based on their own logic....


But then again since it did exist it does exist.

But in its own logic it doesnt exist because its not an actual religion.
Then again it is in the line of personal beleif.

But its based on the beleif of pure logic.
But then again isnt that what sceintoligy was sopposed to be?



Screw it i,m a Satanist.
But then again since I dont pay any mony to the church, i,m not.

Oh hell....
Exactly.

My head hurts! Why won't things stop spinning?





Ummmm, good point....I think.

I love it!! :D

Personally, I find it easier just to believe in belief. I believe that people will believe what they believe. And I usually turn out to be right. :)

Personally I always thought atheism was not believing in God/s...

you are what you are. There is no real changing that, you can either try to fight it and spend years coming to this realization or you can embrace it and enjoy all it's fun

How about this one:

Christians believe Jesus Christ was the son of god, and as an extension of god infallible.

Jesus Christ however did not believe himself to be the son of god.

So, for Christians to be right, they must be wrong.

If there's a problem with the logic than feel free to point it out to me.

Man, its not gods fault, as ubermullet would say, humans are dumb

Mallic wrote:Man, its not gods fault, as primus would say, humans are dumb

In deed, humans are indeed dumb let us agree upon that. Which is why those of us with intelligence have dropped out of the human race to form something else, we're not sure what yet but we'll let you know what

I think my species is Neo revolusionist.
My religion comes from my heart.

What are my goals?

Chaos and destruction of old world social idiocy.
And to get a female president in the white house.

Ceot wrote:I think my species is Neo revolusionist.
My religion comes from my heart.

What are my goals?

Chaos and destruction of old world social idiocy.
And to get a female president in the white house.

That's nice, if not a tad worrying.

Grins.

:twisted: Only a guy like me would honestly say it.

I know its worrying ,But I dont care.
Still want a female president.

:wink: Change is good.

Ceot wrote:I,n my eyes what is athiesm but saying you beleive in logic.

Ceot, you do really worry me. A demonic satanist who believes atheism is the belief in logic is not really a good sign.

I,m trying to understand how that works.
Why is it a bad thing?

I mean theirs two types of Satanists.
The ones who mutilate little bunnies for no reason.
Saying give me the power.

And the ones who are logical and Dominant.
Watch out for number one and dont hold lies to themselves.

As to wich one am I?

My heart comes first.
your tear's are whispers to that heart.

I may have horns.
But if you take my hand i,ll lead you to heaven.

Basically atheism is logical because thre burden of proof rests on believers, and there isn't any proof, so as far as logic goes, no god.

OMGWTFBBQ wrote:Basically atheism is logical because thre burden of proof rests on believers, and there isn't any proof, so as far as logic goes, no god.

Yeah, that's a very logical belief. The burden of proof is on everyone.

Personally, it seems to me that there is room for an infinite number of possibilities.

"God" and "No God" sound like two sides to the same coin to me.


"Beyond paradox is truth." - Unknown

If I said their is no god and choose my heart to guide my will.
Would any god who understood feel me atfault, Or would they simply understand that in me just and good overcame all.
And to a fear I put it aside if only to do as required for life and love.

Jack wrote:
Personally, it seems to me that there is room for an infinite number of possibilities.

"God" and "No God" sound like two sides to the same coin to me.

This is generally my thinking as well.

Previously I used the "agnostic" label, but realized I'm simply an atheist in all but name, given the fact that I've rejected all currect arguments in favour of a God.

The truth is I'm not certain either way, but I'm frequently arguing against the logic supporting a God concept, and in the debate this usually draws the line for me.

Incidentally I can see what you mean but disagree with you on where the burden of proof lies (see my thread).

Descartes said that it is not about proof, rather about having faith.

I believe his exact words were "Faith is a gift gievn to few, but all men have reason" But obviously that was in French.

I disagree all men are blessed with faith the question is where is it vested? To those of religion it is in God. To those who are not all upstairs it's probably with President Bush. I.. I put my faith in myself, my abilities and my friends.

God if she really is out there some where... (Gods a woman, women have always been categorized as being those of creation, wheras man was the destruction ying and yang from the get) she probably has more important things to do than listen to us squeal like babies. If we truly want to find that answer perhaps first we should civilize ourselves up and quit with all the infighting

Truthfully I think our world and our lives are a science experiment by another species of advanced people. The wheel that Ezekiel saw up in the sky? that would be your first recorded UFO sighting ladies and gentlemen. UFO sightings are our creators coming back to check on our status. To ascertain whether or not we are ready to join the galactic comunity... the answer safe to say is no.

In all reguards the answer to the greatest question is 42 what more can someone really say about that?

God is female? Someone's been watching Dogma too much.

And seeing as god represents neither in time or space, God is neither male or female. (if there is one)

SubmissMe wrote:God is female? Someone's been watching Dogma too much.

And seeing as god represents neither in time or space, God is neither male or female. (if there is one)

Agreed. To have an infinite omniscient being, would mean that there is no sex age, or..... well, any thing else to define it, other then by defining it everything.

Also the definition that God (well the God of classical theism) has to be transcendent. If God isn't of this universe, then God cannot harness a physical body.

God has the ability to be male, female, hermaphrodite, sexless, all of the above at the same time and other things we don't comprehend.

God is transcendant, and not transcendent at the same time.

God is omniscient and nescient.

God is omnipotent and omnipresent.

God is not.

God is the limit of your imagination.

No, God has definitions.

No God has definitions?

Just messing with you. ;)

What do YOU mean?

God has definitions, he can't be omniscient and niscient at the same time. Whilst there are logical contradictions in God's power (can God make a stone so heavy he himself could not lift it?) it is these definitions we can dismiss under the limit of human understanding.

What is stopping us from dismissing the seeming paradox of God being omniscience and nescience at the same time considering the limits of human understanding?

SubmissMe wrote:God has definitions, he can't be omniscient and niscient at the same time. Whilst there are logical contradictions in God's power (can God make a stone so heavy he himself could not lift it?) it is these definitions we can dismiss under the limit of human understanding.

God is all things at once, so yes he can, and many religions believe this, even though it may be known by other names.

I'm talking about the God of Classical Theism, not God in general.

God must be male.
He has the balls to let us squabble and self destruct like this.

Most of these souls have no promise of heaven
regardless of wickedness, or innocence.
And to be honest a woman would have
come down and bitch smacked us by now.

We've been such off little children...

But to me god had never a form to manifest in the heavens.
To me the fear of calling ourselves god had clouded the truth.

If ever a thing to be held responsible for actions and consequences alike.
Who are we not to understand our place in it all?

God will not come to destroy us.

Were doing a fine job by ourselves...


My only regret is good people like most of you have to follow along.
Suffer the horrors that lay before us.
I know i,ve had enough of it.

Shit call me god.
See if I don't give mankind a new hope.
Part oceans with tunnels, and stop waring nations.
Bring wisdom to man, and create life.
have fun doing it to. >-create life-<

I already know the answers that are possible.
And can easily fortell the futer.
Why not put me in charge and see what happens...
See if I surrender to the shadowy dark...

God does not exist point closed. The bible is a good source of moral code, similar to Asops fables, Greek and Roman Mythology, The Koran, Budhist code, etc. Each one presents a message that is interpreted by those who read it.

Religion is mans way of attempting to control and take power from other people. It was created in order to try to make people act in a certain way. This was a good idea in that it was trying to make people better. However, then the politicians got involved and twisted everything to make their own profit while trying to make it appear as if doing it for someone else sake.

Case Closed.

case closed --- for you.


However, there are far too many things that cannot be explained by science - and the laws of probability deem imposible. There is only one answer --- but you closed that case.

i totally disagree, there isn't one answer, if there was we would have found it by now. upon studying anything you have to realize there is no black and white involved.
also there not very much you cant explain through science actually, if you look at quantum physics most things are at least vaugley explainable. i mean in the 70s michael persinger even faked religious experiencesby altering electricity in peoples brains. to be quite honest youll never find the answers to these questions for anyone, all you can do is find the best one for yourself

kaiser wrote:God does not exist point closed. The bible is a good source of moral code, similar to Asops fables, Greek and Roman Mythology, The Koran, Budhist code, etc. Each one presents a message that is interpreted by those who read it.

Religion is mans way of attempting to control and take power from other people. It was created in order to try to make people act in a certain way. This was a good idea in that it was trying to make people better. However, then the politicians got involved and twisted everything to make their own profit while trying to make it appear as if doing it for someone else sake.

Case Closed.

Usually one presents evidence for their position, in a logical debate.

Since you're obviously talking about the Judeo-Christian God here, I'll be happy to show you what's what.

The Bible is merely good for moral codes? Awfully strange how EVERY time they have gone looking for archaeological evidence to support the Bible, they've found it. Sodom and Gomorrah were right where it said they were, for instance. And the curious Egyptian Army that is at the bottom of the Red Sea (We can thank Moses and God for that one, don't you think? I certainly can't think of any other way they'd get there.). Random massive deposits of dead saltwater fish where, geologically speaking, there has never been the saltwater to support them (The Great Flood, yes?).

Can I prove God's existence purely through Reason? No, of course not. I can build a good case however. Even Darwin said that God must have had something to do with it. He came to this conclusion first when studying the human eye, and later when examining the blood vessel structure of emperor penguins. These systems were far too complex to ever have been designed by random means, Darwin said.

Proving God's existence is like talking about the tenth planet in our solar system. There's a great deal of evidence, but we can't quite just outright say, "There it is!"

Proving God's existence is like talking about the tenth planet in our solar system. There's a great deal of evidence, but we can't quite just outright say, "There it is!"

Well, since technically Pluto is no longer a planet, you'd have to find TWO new planets in order to point to the tenth, but I get the point though :wink:

chromewhale wrote:

Proving God's existence is like talking about the tenth planet in our solar system. There's a great deal of evidence, but we can't quite just outright say, "There it is!"

Well, since technically Pluto is no longer a planet, you'd have to find TWO new planets in order to point to the tenth, but I get the point though :wink:

I remain a staunch defender of Pluto's Planet-osity!

I agree Pluto is a planet, however not with what you are sayin about the Bible.

Just because it has history in does not mean it is the word of God. Im sure loads of people knew where Sodom and Gomorrah were back in ye olden times for instance. An army at the bottom of the sea curious indeed, till you realise the Egyptians had boats. Plus I have heard about tornados and the like picking up fish and dropping them on land, which is probably more likely than them being so old that the land has all moved into new shapes since. Though both are possible.

Plus it is very possible that the eye was formed through randomness, after all if something is random you can get anything.


PS Kaiser do not try telling any Muslims the Koran is just a source of moral guidance cause they think it is the word of God and seem pretty jumpy :P

I agree about the politicians though they were present before 'politics' probably before the Papacy, probably about a day after, when some devious bastard realised how useful religion was.

That the Bible is made of man and therefore flawed I hardcore agree. Especially the Old Testament, which is definitely more political writings than religious. Nonetheless, just as we flawed humans can speak God's Truth, so can our flawed works.

Alright, a few technicalities and clarifications when it comes to the judeo christian God.

1. He has no gender. He is referred to in the male sense due to the paternal role he takes to his creation just as the church is often referred to in the female sense because of the matriarchal role of that one body.

2. Jesus certainly did believe himself to be the son of God. Here would be where I pulled out a biblical quote from my ass, but as it is 1 in the morning, i don't give a shit.

3. I am all for a woman president... when there will be a woman running, who knows? Hillary Clinton is not a woman, she is a robot, and too damned scary for me. I vote for the next female candidate.

As an aside, although I am not american I do not think anyone should WANT a female president as in you should want a good one, if it happens to be female sure go for it. However in my opinion if you were to vote for a female president just because she was female that would cheapen it.

aeroue

Well said! Voting for anyone because they are male, female, black, white, hispanic, or any other factor does cheapen the process.

But what about political parties? Voting for someone who is Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, or any other party affiliation now seems almost as bad as the first group of factors.

I guess the only justification for political parties is that (in the case of the USA Senate) 100 different points of view would take a long time to sort out and not much work would get done. But then again, maybe that wouldn't be all bad either. :lol:

patj wrote:aeroue

But what about political parties? Voting for someone who is Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, or any other party affiliation now seems almost as bad as the first group of factors.

I guess the only justification for political parties is that (in the case of the USA Senate) 100 different points of view would take a long time to sort out and not much work would get done. But then again, maybe that wouldn't be all bad either. :lol:

In case you hadn't noticed, that's the way the system already operates! Even with the limited points of view present. =)

Jack wrote:

patj wrote:aeroue

But what about political parties? Voting for someone who is Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, or any other party affiliation now seems almost as bad as the first group of factors.

I guess the only justification for political parties is that (in the case of the USA Senate) 100 different points of view would take a long time to sort out and not much work would get done. But then again, maybe that wouldn't be all bad either. :lol:

In case you hadn't noticed, that's the way the system already operates! Even with the limited points of view present. =)

It would be nice if you were correct, Jack. Unfortunately there are so many new laws passed every year that, rather than count them, it would be easier to print them out, weigh them, and then measure them by the pound. If you were to include all the new rules and regulations put forward by regulatory bodies that have been "authorized" by congress to create rules and regulations you could measure them by the ton.


Sarnoga

It would be nice if you were correct, Jack. Unfortunately there are so many new laws passed every year that, rather than count them, it would be easier to print them out, weigh them, and then measure them by the pound. If you were to include all the new rules and regulations put forward by regulatory bodies that have been "authorized" by congress to create rules and regulations you could measure them by the ton.

You're leaving a lot of information out. There are other factors to be considered. How many different aspects of the world does the government expect to regulate/control/manipulate/destroy/enhance/etc? For how long? How long does it take these changes to be implemented/enforced? How broad are the spectrums' that each of these laws are supposed to cover? How extreme are the new rules/laws, and how different from their original versions? How much heat is generated for these governing bodies by some of these laws? How much time/energy does it take for them to come to a consensus on the final bill that's passed? How many of those bills that get passed are alterations/amendments to previously passed bills? etc.

Sure, the government makes/alters a lot of rules/laws every year. If you were to divide the number of laws by the number of areas covered by the governmental bodies you would see a vastly different picture. Some areas get a lot of laws while other areas get less or none in a year or two. Some of that is because of already standing laws. Some of it is because the area isn't a hot point so it gets neglected. Some of it is because there aren't enough votes for the bills to get passed. And, you can keep going from there.

I'll leave off with one last idea.. If the US government were a more efficient governing body I think things would be a lot worse or a lot better in this world, not just this country.

Ah yes....

I am not an atheist because I do not believe, plain and simple....I cannot be catergorized as any type of religion (or indeed non-religion) because of this.