I don't see much difference in what the Rigveda says than the Bible regarding where the universe, or whom, it originates with...

i just saw this one post and had to ask: " do you believe a supreme being known as god created everything?"

do you know what "everything" entails? do you know what kind of response you would get with that observation from an astrophysicist or astronomer...??

Dude, your patronizing mentality is a reflection on you and only you.

Don't go blaming your opponents for your own behavior.

Yeah, read a couple of peer reviewed thesis on the subject of the origins of everything, however, I am sure you can sum up what you believe pretty well, since when I state that God is the origin of all things, that is in fact a concise summary.

Opponent? My dear lady, thou thinkest way too highly of thyself, you are not even near my cypher...

No such thing.

Your pronouncements are irrelevant bullshit.

You're not good enough and it shows.

I said that I created it. I don't lie. Therefore I must have created it. That's all the proof anyone should require. No need for long involved stories and years of searching.

so your answer is yes, god created everything, right?

No dice, that doesn't fit your m/o. What scientifc proof can you give to prove that you in fact created this universe? Your standards, not what you think mine are, in other words, your court, your eveidence, perhaps you can answer seriously now..

The only thing these elitists/christians/creeps "know" is that they're going to hebben and the rest of us are gonna burn.

Can't come soon enough, AFAIC.

It's the only thing that keeps their own self-loathing under wraps so they don't go homicidal on the rest of us.

And, as we know, that only works so well, as it is.

My answer is that by God all thing came to be...so no, I don't think he crated MS Office (if he did it wouldn't suck as much) but the lifeforce of Mr. gates originates from Him. Now quit trying to play the semantic game and be serious and tell me how you think our univeser began...

I've given up on my old m/o and adopted yours. See? Half converted already.

It SAYS SO RIGHT THERE in the Book of Tyo, which is the inerrant word of Tyo, because the Book of Tyo says so.

Why shouldn't he?

Prove it.

Untrue. My apologies, I thought you could discuss this seriously, as you were...

Self evident.

Tautological.

I'm not a jealous deity. I'm not even sure I am a deity in the conventional sense. Will have to do some instrospection and self analysis on that one. Not quite sure where my subjective proofs will lead me. But anyway, if you want to give your god credit for it all that's fine with me. He seems kinda needy that way.

Well, that's certainly a plus.

I've grown very weary of these jealous, something-to-prove gods. Worse than them are the people like DJ who follow them, and come out swinging against anyone/anything that lives differently.

Consider this and our other discussion completed, again, when you want to actually "talk", you know where to find me...

Laila Tov

Re-Listening to Randi's show of 12/07/04 I found out Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is also a Mormon.Welcome to Freedom of Religion!

Wrong.

Atheists need faith just as much as religious persons do, because the fundamental premise of each of their belief systems cannot be proven. Atheism is based on faith in the idea that there is no God (an idea which cannot be proven and therefore is a faith-based notion) in exactly the same way that religion (i.e. the belief that God does exist) is based on unprovable and therefore faith-based assumptions. In actual fact, atheists rely on faith just as much as do religious persons in holding to their respective world views.

The idea that the universe came to be spontaenously, without a creator and without direction or purpose (the basis of atheism) is entirely unprovable, as I made clear in any earlier post. To believe such a thing, by definition, requires faith – i.e. belief in something without objective proof. Therefore, atheism is a faith-based belief system ... just exactly as theism is a faith-based system.

Fundamentalist atheists, who assert as absolutely certain the unprovable notion that God does not exist, are guilty of additional hypocrisy ... since atheism is supposedly all about reason and rationality, and yet fundamentalist atheists irrationally call that which is unproven and therefore uncertain (the non-existence of God) certain and sure without any doubt.

Religious fundamentalist are guilty, on the other hand, of additional immorality, since they judgmentally view those who do not thoroughly agree with their own narrow theological beliefs as inferior and unworthy, while teaching that only God is qualified to judge righteously.

Atheists need no defense from me, but you're mistaken, and in the wrong, imposing your own need for "faith" or arcane "beliefs" onto others.

You're in the wrong.

So is Smith of Oregon and Hatch and Bennett of Utah (Republicans), as are Tom and Mark Udall (Democrats) that are about to be elected to the senate from New Mexico and Colorado (which are heavily Mormon states).

What's the error in my reasoning?

Please expose, if you can, the error in my argument:

---

Definition: "theism" – the notion that God does exist.

Definition: "atheism" – the notion that God does not exist.

Definition: "faith-based belief" – any belief that cannot be objectively proven.

Premise: the statement "God exists" cannot be objectively proven to be true.

Premise: the statement "God does not exist" cannot be objectively proven to be true.

Conclusion: Theism is a faith-based belief.

Conclusion: Atheism is a faith-based belief.

---

I see no flaw in the argument above.

If you can't find an error in my reasoning, you must accept it, or show yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

I have a question or two.
1. Is it true J. Smith read the tablets from a hat to someone else and that he was the only one able to read these new testiments?

2. I hear I could obtain my own PLANET after I die if I join the LDS. Is this true? I really would like a planet.

3. Last one, a woman I work with is LDS and she told me that you do great things for women like teaching them to can food and make crafts like wooden picture frames. I would like to know what else you are doing for women in the church.

My best friend was LDS when I was young. I don't hate your religion I just have a hard time putting "god" in a box. I know your religion is a young one and in my eyes really is not any more crazy than the rest. These are things I've heard. Hook me up with some truth.

We've been "talking" all along, and I've enjoyed it for the most part. But we've never discussed anything and the chance of our ever being able to have an actual discussion seems remote. But who knows? God works in mysterious and surprising ways.
All the best

Or, the notion that theist explanations for fill-in-the-blank have no proof outside of faith.

Atheism can be simply the idea that "I don't accept ANY theist assertions".



Your error, as I have been telling you this whole time, is imposing a theist's definition onto atheism.

this seems to happen a lot. I don't have a need to be an atheist, I don't look for anything in atheism, I never thought that I might want to be an atheist so I'd better read up on it and see if it was for me, I wasn't "converted" to atheism by anyone and I'm not interested in turning anyone else into an atheist. Isn't it simply the rejection of theism because of a lack of supporting evidence for it? How does faith play into that?

To honestly rebut an argument, you have to actually confront the actual statements being made in the argument.

That is, you have to cite a particular statement made in the argument, and show how it is incorrect.

You haven't done that.

Again, please show me which of the statements in my argument is incorrect.

Otherwise, you must accept it, or admit a lack sincere interest in truth.

It's a problem. My solution is not to allow anyone to believe in me. That way no whacked out faithful doing terrible things in my name, no one waking up in the middle of the night agonizing over whether or not i approve of them, no one trying to figure out where I stand on issues and getting it all wrong. It just seems to make sense.

See the argument I laid out a few posts ago.

There's no problem and nothing inconsistent with someone saying "I don't think God exists."

There is, however, a big problem with someone dogmatically saying "God does not exist," since this last statement cannot be proven. Such a statement is based on faith (belief in an unprovable assumption, i.e. that there is no God, that the universe came to be without any direction, purpose, or creative intent) just as much as is the dogmatic statement "God exists."

Undogmatically expressing one's opinion that God doesn't exist isn't illogical or inconsistent, but stating as a FACT that God does not exist IS illogical and inconsistent, since such a statement is impossible to prove. The best one can do is to say, "In my opinion (and I could be wrong), god does not exist."

But that's not the flavor of the comments I'm hearing in the last few dozen posts, here. That flavor is much more akin to what I'm calling "fundamentalist atheism" which, to me, seems indistinguishable in many ways from fundamentalist theism.

Likewise, undogmatically saying "In my experience, God does exist (though I could be mistaken)" is not illogical or inconsistent, but saying "God exists" IS both illogical and inconsistent, since such a statement cannot be proven.

Both fundamentalist, dogmatic ("God does NOT exist. I'm right, you're wrong. Period.") atheism and fundamentalist, dogmatic ("God DOES exist. I'm right, you're wrong. Period.") theism are based on faith (i.e. an unprovable assumption) and not on reason. Which makes fundamentalist atheism particularly annoying and hypocritical, since fundamentalist, dogmatic atheists make such a big deal about the critical importance of rationality, and reject faith of any kind.

(As I said in my previous post, though, fundamentalist theists have a similar problem with their own additional and particularly annoying immorality that fundamentalist atheists do not have to worry about, since such theists judge infidels, contrary to their own central teaching that only God is fit to judge.)

It's the fundamentalism that's the problem, the "my unprovable view of the world is certain and true, and all other views are wrong" dogmatism championed by both intransigent theists and atheists – NOT theistic or atheistic opinions or leanings.

What's wrong, in my view, are the statements from both theists and atheists in this thread that their unprovable (and therefore faith-based) opinion is certain truth. It isn't. Such statements on matters unprovable are never more than opinions, and all opinions carry with them inherent potential for error.

What I'm saying is that relying with certainty on unprovable assumptions (e.g. as in both theism and atheism) is often unwise, can be delusional, and definitely can lead to all kinds of unkind (or worse) behavior, as, in my opinion, we've been witnessing here, lately.

Doing so should be avoided, IMO.

I don't have to accept ANYTHING coming from a theist.

Not one thing. You theists don't have any lock on "truth" outside your closed circles of imposed belief; stop pretending you do.

Again, the post above only further illustrates the theists' misapprehension of persons who do not need a "belief system" to be a functional human being.

Atheists and agnostics have moved past the theist quandry of "proofs" or evidence for some deity, or cosmogony.

We don't need it.

That's true; you don't. You don't have anything you don't want to do. Of course.

But you can't claim to be honest and interested in truth, and then not take up the challenge made to you to validly rebut an argument you've said is untrue – without exposing yourself as an irrational dogmatist who (like the religious fundamentalists you decry) isn't interested in reason or learning, but only in being right (i.e. having control).

You've not shown that any specific statement or inference made in my argument I made is unsound. Until you do so, you cannot conclude that my argument is false. Until you do so, your insistence that my argument is faulty is simply your own refusal to confront it – and shows your desire to avoid it, to run from it, rather than to meet it head on and see if you can defeat it fair and square.

Of course, you don't need to do so. What you do and don't do is up to you.

But refusing to confront an argument candidly indicates to all reading this thread that you care less for honest argument and reasoning than you do for your own unsupported, dogmatic pronouncements.

Reminds me of good ol' justamere10.

Have you been reading anything I've been saying?

Apparently not ... or else you'd understand (as I've explicitly stated repeatedly ... in fact, this has been my entire point, here!) that neither atheists NOR theists can be absolutely certain of their (unprovable, faith-based) world view. And therefore, neither should bash the other on the basis of the other's beliefs.

Is that clear, now?

(I hope so ... sheesh).

Sure.

Resisting the control freakery of irrational theism and theists is "having control".

Prove your b.s. theist assertions about your god are true.

I'll wait. Until you do, I'll just continue to reject any truth claims from ANY theists. Doing so is not "fundamentalist", it's not related to ANY "fundamentals" at all.

It's only saying I do not accept yours, and there is no reason why I should.



I have, but as the emotionally-invested theist you are, you ignored it.

Your entire line of reasoning is a logical fallacy: "you won't prove me wrong, so I must be right".

Sorry, that's not how "truth" works.

Oh. Okay. Got it. I think. Takes me a while sometimes. I'll leave open the possibility of the existence of a deity or deities because I can't prove their non-existence. I don't have a problem with that. I think that the chance is so remote as to be electron microscopic. Not to be offensive, but fairy/Munchkin/werewolf/Zeus microscopic. That's the only way I can describe it.

But okay. I'll go with it. I guess that's kind of the way I've always felt. I'm open to evidence, but I'm not going to actively search for proof of a deity because I don't think such a search is worth the time or the trouble. Any more than it would be worth the effort to lie awake waitiing for the tooth fairy.

Again, I'm not trying be offensive. I'm not saying that your God is on a level with the tooth fairy. I'm only saying that I think the likelihood of either existing is pretty much the same. But to tell the truth I don't spend much time dwelling on my non-belief. Any more than I spend time reflecting on how I don't collect stamps. I'm much more concerned about what weirdness the believers are getting up to and how it might affect me. Present company excluded of course.

Atheists DO have a belief system.

Fundamentalist atheists assert in no uncertain terms that God does not exist. This assertion cannot be proven, however, and so it's really no more than an unproven belief (i.e. faith). Therefore, their atheism is based on faith (not reason, or proof), and is therefore a i.e. a faith-based belief.

All I'm saying is you can't be sure God does NOT exist, and more than a theist can be sure that God DOES exist. Frankly, I don't know what's so hard to see about that.

Why won't you try to rebut the points in that argument? What are you running from? With all due respect, you're starting to sound a bit like Sarah Palin.

If you can refute any of the particular points in my argument, please do so. But up till now, all you've done is ignore them, as if you aren't able to confront them directly and so need to run from them. Throwing up a bunch of words (like Palin does) is not "refuting an argument." To show that an argument is unsound, you must point precisely out how a particular statement or inference is erroneous or flawed in some way.

Otherwise, the argument stands ... which is not to say the argument is sound, just no flaw has yet to be pointed out (i.e. it may be either true or false, no one yet knows).

I'm just trying to get you to pay attention to the actual argument, and try to refute it. If I'm wrong, I want to know. But you've got to show me HOW I'm wrong, that is what error exists in the exact list of statements and inferences I've made.

Incorrect, and reactionary as usual.

Unlike justamere10 and other bible banging whackobots, I'm not out to convert anyone to my view, or my way of life. No jewels for my crown, no brownie points to show to a nonexistent god so I can have a bigger mansion or planet of my own, or whatever.

I don't give a shit what any theist bs'ers need to believe.

Other people's belief hangups are irrelevant to anything, until they try to foist them on the rest of us. At that point, they are met with a simple "no".

Interesting how the very basic concept of "no" can send those who need to "believe" into shivering fits of wrath.

Athiests don't need any belifs.



Then you need to take it up with them.



I can be certain that no religious group has come up with anything I must "believe".



But I don't have anything to prove about your assertions.



In other words, you are attempting to control the conversation and direct it in a way you think it should go. Thanks for admitting that publicly.

It's just not going to happen, shoeshoe.

Please.

I look much better in a skirt and heels than she does.

Exactly.

But you're willing to acknowledge that is is possible, no matter how remote that possiblity may be in your estimation, that God does exist. That is, that the other's view may be correct, and yours incorrect.

That means you're not a fundamentalist ... you're someone with strong atheistic leanings, but not a fundamentalist.

I, like you, also feel that the likelihood that I'm correct, i.e. that God does exist, is darn close to 100% ... but as I've said all throughout my participation on this thread, I could be wrong. It is entirely possible that there is no God, no overarching existential purpose or direction in the universe and no element of intentionality in its origination.


I really think religious fundamentalism (which is what I assume you're referring to here, since most religious people are no more or less intolerant than non-religious people) is mainly a projection of unresolved personal immaturity and irrationality, which is the root cause of much of our societal and personal problems.

Reason is the fuse for the emotions; without it, things blow up.

No, I'm just holding you accountable for your words.

You said my argument was flawed. But you haven't proven my argument is flawed. That is, you've not shown what specific statement or inference in it is incorrect. Doing so is how you honestly and truthfully refute an argument. Anything else is just distraction (at best) or b.s. (at worst).

If you can refute any point or inference in my argument, please do so. But so far, you haven't been willing or able to. What you've done is to ignore the particular points in my argument, and express auxiliary opinions somehow related to it. But that's not refuting an argument. That's just blowing hot air.

Which is just what Palin and the neoconsevatives love to do. When she can't point to what is incorrect in what someone is saying, she just says a bunch of stuff in the hope that doing so will fool people into thinking that she's somehow shot down the other's position when in fact all she's done is said a lot of words.

If you're not going to address the argument I've laid out, that's your choice.

But you don't get to go around saying someone's incorrect in their reasoning without showing clearly and specifically how that reasoning is flawed ... unless you don't mind exposing your intellectual dishonesty.

You do what you want. I'm not trying to control what you do. I really couldn't care less. I'm just pointing out your lack of integrity, so far, in refusing to confront and honestly grapple with the actual argument that you insist is wrong.

Lol is that what you call it.



Er, no, I've shown both.

Just because you are too emotionally caught up in your god arguments to see it has nothing to do with me.



You haven't shown why anyone should accept your bogus, faith-based argument about what atheism is.

When are you going to start doing that?



Give it up, it's not working.

You are relying on a made-up, theistic definition of "atheism", and requiring someone who isn't even "an atheist" to prove you wrong.

I have nothing to prove to you, or any other person so wrapped up in a theistic orientation they can't take the time to step outside their bubble of belief to have a rational conversation on the topic.

That's just the way the ball bounces, jack. Your moralist judgments won't work on people who have already been where you are, now.

I can't prove that God exists. I've said that OVER AND OVER in this thread! That's half of my whole point!!! Really ... do you know how to read? It's like talking to justamere10 ...

I don't know how many times can I say that theism and atheism are belief systems based on faith in unprovable postulates? I've stated over and over that there's no way that I or any one else can be certain that God exists.

Really ... how many times do I have to write "No one can prove the existence or non-existence of God" before you'll understand my statement?

Sheesh.


That's EXACTLY what fundamentalism IS: the refusal to admit that one, as an imperfect human being, could be wrong about an essentially unprovable opinion one holds.

You're saying you're mind is completely closed with regard to the question of religion. Your point of view is the correct one. Period. That there's zero chance that someone else's point of view could be right and yours could be wrong. Again ... that's the definition of fundamentalism.

So, how does "truth" work? You just declare yourself to be infallibly correct and others inevitably incorrect? Then dogmatically state others' arguments are wrong without specifying what statement or inference in the argument makes it unsound? That they're wrong because you say so? I think it's pretty obvious that such an attitude is textbook fundamentalism at its finest (worst).

All I'm saying is that you don't know that god doesn't exist any more than I know that He does! Neither position is provable. Therefore, dogmatism rooted in either position is irrational, out of line, and potentially harmful.

That's all I'm saying. To refute this you'll have to prove God doesn't exist, which you can't do, anymore than I can prove that God does exist (which I'm not really interested in doing, anyway; I think anyone who's read my posts in this thread knows my mind is open pretty wide on that subject and other religious topics).

You and I each believe in our respective, UNCERTAIN positions on the question of God's existence or non-existence based on our personal experience and by a "leap of faith" made necessary by the fact that each of our positions is unprovable. Your position cannot be proven to be true, therefore you must believe it's true by faith (i.e. you trust your own imperfect perceptions and understanding ... which, since you're human, could be wrong). Same thing goes for me.

Atheists can't prove theists are wrong, and theists can't prove atheists are wrong.

On this particular question, you could be right, and I could be wrong. I really don't understand why you can't seem to admit that, likewise, I could be right and you could be wrong. That there's no way for human beings to know, for sure, whether or not the universe was intentionally created (by "God").

But the inability or unwillingness to admit the fact that one could be wrong is the basic building block of fundamentalism. Very, very dangerous, in my opinion.

The error is in ONE or your assertions (premises?) That atheism is a "notion that God does not exist."

That is NOT what atheism is. Atheism is a logical choice to simply NOT believe due to an overwhelming LACK of ANY evidence to the contrary.

Your later use of "fundamentalist atheists" is a strawman. Such individuals are very rare among thinking people. To believe in ANYTHING with no evidence of its existence is called superstition.

I choose not to be superstitious.

Oh, and you might be correct about agnostics though. Since they hold that it IS IMPOSSIBLE to know one way or the other--a positive assertion. So--agnostics are not really a "middle ground." They're a bit faith based too. One reason I've never thought of myself as an agnostic.

Really? Perhaps I missed it.

Which actual specific definition, premise, or inference of mine taken from my argument (post #1076) is erroneous, and why?

If you can't specify at least one, then you must accept the argument's conclusions ... unless you're not interested in honest debate.


I don't have to put forth an "argument" about what athiesm is, and I haven't. Atheism is an English noun. Its meaning is easy to look up, if you're not clear about exactly what this word means:

---

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

a·the·ism

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

---

That's precisely how I've used the word throughout this discussion.