The Energon Pub

Dark Zarak wrote:
But you can't prove God doesn't exist. It's logically impossible.

You can not prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist either. That is no argument that it does.

Dark Zarak wrote:So all the Athiests that claim, without the shadow of a doubt, that the universe was an accident and there's no God except in our heads, are no better than the devout Jesus Camp sheep they hate.

Atheits who have studied Darwin do not believe that it was an accident. They believe nothing of the sort. They believe that everything in the universe is built on what has happened before and that change happens as a survival mechanism.

Dark Zarak wrote:I have a hard time swallowing the divinity of the man who was called Yehoshua of Nazareth.

So would he. As he never claimed to be divine. Those who came after him added that little detail.

Dark Zarak wrote:He was one of many messiahs of the time. Christianity would have been quite obscure, perhaps even nothing more than a cult, if not for Constantine.

What makes it different from a cult now, exactly?

Dark Zarak wrote:You make an entire empire a certain religion for your own sake, and guess what happens, even after it falls? The history, to me, seems to debunk it.

I would like to point out that extremists of all kinds are silly. Claiming that something we cannot prove either way absolutely does or does not exist is stupid. At best you can want it to exist, so you believe. If you don't care or believe something else then, well, you just don't believe (in that particular thing).

So, yeah. I'm a normal atheist. Y'know, something as mundane and uninteresting as just a non-believer. I can deny that events transpired in particular ways when evidence says otherwise but I can't exactly deny something for which there is (currently) no proof. Note the difference between "deny" and "doubt", though.

the theory of evolution and Darwin are two seperate things, it's not exactly common to study Darwin as a scientist, maybe as a historian, yes, but as a scientist, no.

however that doesn't mean the theory of evolutions points to an accidental beginning, anymore than if you stick a lump of potassium in water it exploding is an accident, mix certain chemicals, stuff happens, saying evolution is an accident is akin to saying U238 giving of radiation is an accident, or humans breating air is accident.

and yes having faith in one thing, while not having faith in all things is bigotry

Professor Smooth wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:
But you can't prove God doesn't exist. It's logically impossible.

You can not prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist either. That is no argument that it does.

But there is an arguement that God exists. Several. The complexity of nature being the first one. The beauty of it being the second one. Then we have consciousness itself, love, luck, and success. All have been used as proof of God's existence. The "can't disprove" arguement doesn't mean He does exist. It means He might exist.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:So all the Athiests that claim, without the shadow of a doubt, that the universe was an accident and there's no God except in our heads, are no better than the devout Jesus Camp sheep they hate.

Atheits who have studied Darwin do not believe that it was an accident. They believe nothing of the sort. They believe that everything in the universe is built on what has happened before and that change happens as a survival mechanism.

Well, my point still stands. All the Athiests that claim, without the shadow of a doubt, that there's no God except in our heads, are no better than the devout Jesus Camp sheep they hate.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:I have a hard time swallowing the divinity of the man who was called Yehoshua of Nazareth.

So would he. As he never claimed to be divine. Those who came after him added that little detail.

I was not aware of that. And it goes hand in hand with my doubts based on history. Nice.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:He was one of many messiahs of the time. Christianity would have been quite obscure, perhaps even nothing more than a cult, if not for Constantine.

What makes it different from a cult now, exactly?

Probably nothing, but then all religions are cults. Doesn't really change anything. I guess what I meant to say was that without Constantine, Christianity would have remained obscure.

I wonder what would have happened had Rome fallen, part of it turned into Byzantium, and there was no Christianity. Would there have been any Crusades? What would have happened to the Jews? Would there have been a Holocaust? Would there have been even the same timeline long enough for any of that?

Problem is people often think "God" only defines the deity known as "Yahweh" to most religions in Western culture-- it can define many things.

Evidence for a God as an abstract-- driving, balanced force and movement in the universe? Very compelling, but inconclusive as to properly define. "Creating" in itself is a concept invented by beings that rearrange matter in complex constructs for the sake of their own survival, and thus tend to see their own work in other places.

For a good argument on the confused, single and plurally sentient, self-opposing, all loving, and yet genocidal personal deity portrayed in the Bible and usually upheld in Christianity, you're up **** creek.

Dark Zarak wrote:All the Athiests that claim, without the shadow of a doubt, that there's no God except in our heads, are no better than the devout Jesus Camp sheep they hate.

I can't think of any athiests here that are like that though. I myself admit the possibility of gods existing. I just think it's about as likely as fairies living at the bottom of the garden, in that both cases are remote possibilities, but lacking any supporting evidence, that would lead me to believe in them. If the stories told of gods and monsters are true, these beings are powerful enough to make their presence known beyond all doubts, yet they don't. Therefore I see no reason to believe any of them exist until I see evidence to the contrary. There are millions of things that don't exist and as has been said, it's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist, however it would be blindingly simple for a deity of some kind to prove that he or she does exist.

If pressed I think you'll find all athiests are the same, in that they would be open to strong evidence contradicting that atheism. I don't think many athiests would persist in non-believing if there was some proof. However the JC sheep brigade, make it clear time and again that they are not open to evidence that contradicts their holy scriblings or established traditions, so your comparison is not valid.

High Command wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:All the Athiests that claim, without the shadow of a doubt, that there's no God except in our heads, are no better than the devout Jesus Camp sheep they hate.

I can't think of any athiests here that are like that though. I myself admit the possibility of gods existing. I just think it's about as likely as fairies living at the bottom of the garden, in that both cases are remote possibilities, but lacking any supporting evidence, that would lead me to believe in them. If the stories told of gods and monsters are true, these beings are powerful enough to make their presence known beyond all doubts, yet they don't. Therefore I see no reason to believe any of them exist until I see evidence to the contrary. There are millions of things that don't exist and as has been said, it's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist, however it would be blindingly simple for a deity of some kind to prove that he or she does exist.

If pressed I think you'll find all athiests are the same, in that they would be open to strong evidence contradicting that atheism. I don't think many athiests would persist in non-believing if there was some proof. However the JC sheep brigade, make it clear time and again that they are not open to evidence that contradicts their holy scriblings or established traditions, so your comparison is not valid.

Actually, you're not an atheist. Your mind admits, however small, the possibility.

Dictionary.com wrote: a·the·ist /Pronunciation Key - [ey-thee-ist]
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


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

[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]


—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

I added the bolds.

And I do know atheists like what I said. They dig in their heels and refuse.

Dark Zarak wrote:

High Command wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:All the Athiests that claim, without the shadow of a doubt, that there's no God except in our heads, are no better than the devout Jesus Camp sheep they hate.

I can't think of any athiests here that are like that though. I myself admit the possibility of gods existing. I just think it's about as likely as fairies living at the bottom of the garden, in that both cases are remote possibilities, but lacking any supporting evidence, that would lead me to believe in them. If the stories told of gods and monsters are true, these beings are powerful enough to make their presence known beyond all doubts, yet they don't. Therefore I see no reason to believe any of them exist until I see evidence to the contrary. There are millions of things that don't exist and as has been said, it's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist, however it would be blindingly simple for a deity of some kind to prove that he or she does exist.

If pressed I think you'll find all athiests are the same, in that they would be open to strong evidence contradicting that atheism. I don't think many athiests would persist in non-believing if there was some proof. However the JC sheep brigade, make it clear time and again that they are not open to evidence that contradicts their holy scriblings or established traditions, so your comparison is not valid.

Actually, you're not an atheist. Your mind admits, however small, the possibility.

Dictionary.com wrote: a·the·ist /Pronunciation Key - [ey-thee-ist]
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


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

[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]


—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

I added the bolds.

And I do know atheists like what I said. They dig in their heels and refuse.

I still would count myself as an atheist by that definition as I do disbelieve in the existance of gods. I'm just not so arrogant as to say that I would not be open to evidence contradicting that. However my informed conclusion based on all available evidence, is that there is no supernatural deities, fairies or Loch Ness monsters.
In the same way my informed conclusion on the extinction of the (non-avian) dinosaurs, would point towards a giant rock smashing into the planet. However I'm open to new evidence coming in, for instance fossils from after the impact showing that (non-avian) dinosaurs survived and ready to reconsider that conculsion.
As I can see no evidence supporting the existance of deities, I reach the conclusion that they don't exist, therefore athiest, until shown otherwise.

As for the synonyms, infidel and skeptic definitely would apply to me, but not so much agnostic. That's because if a god did exist it would not be impossible to know anything about him/her, as it would be very easy for such a being to make their presence felt.

The more I study religions, the more I lose faith in the people that follow them. There are parts in their holy books that are completely incompatible with what we KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt to be true.

The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. That is the big one that gets to me. If you believe the world is 6,000 years old after the LITERAL mountains of evidence, then you are probably beyond hope.

I know Christians, or people who claim to be Christians, that say that they only believe certain parts of The Bible. How does that work? How do you say "This book is the word of God, but these parts aren't true?" So the part about the Earth being only 6,000 years old is obviously false, but the parts about people rising from the dead, putting two of every animal in existence onto a boat, and God personally raining fire onto a "sinful city"...those are true.

How do you reconcile this?

As for Atheists digging in their heals and ignoring evidence to the contrary, well, that would be very difficult as there IS NONE.

For wikipedia on the difference in atheism's definition...

EDIT: Along with some statistics of Europe that I personally enjoy.

Professor Smooth wrote:As for Atheists digging in their heals and ignoring evidence to the contrary, well, that would be very difficult as there IS NONE.

It's not about evidence. It's about common sense.

It is definition of arrogance for a bunch of pink hairless apes on a speck of a mudball planet to say "There is no God" as if they know.

On the other hand, it's the same deal when a bunch of those pink apes claim to know the history of the universe and it's purpose, and its fate.


Atheists and religious people alike have one thing in common. Devout faith. If you resist that idea at all, then I must have attacked yours in one way or another.

Dark Zarak wrote:Atheists and religious people alike have one thing in common. Devout faith. If you resist that idea at all, then I must have attacked yours in one way or another.

Atheism is not about "devout faith." Atheism makes the most logical decision based on the evidence. All of the available evidence says that the earth is several billion years old, that people do not rise from the dead, speak with burning bushes, or fit 2 of every animal onto a boat. Now, should some evidence to the contrary become available, logical atheists would take that into account.

Atheists don't say "there is no god. period." They say that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a universe that was created through means other than "Let there be light."

How is that unreasonable?

Professor Smooth wrote:

The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. That is the big one that gets to me. If you believe the world is 6,000 years old after the LITERAL mountains of evidence, then you are probably beyond hope.

Sorry to go off track, but what kind of idiot believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old? I've never heard of retardation on that level.....

Ironhidensh wrote:
Sorry to go off track, but what kind of idiot believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old? I've never heard of retardation on that level.....

Thank you!

The short answer to that: It is what the bible says.

Professor Smooth wrote:The more I study religions, the more I lose faith in the people that follow them. There are parts in their holy books that are completely incompatible with what we KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt to be true.

The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. That is the big one that gets to me. If you believe the world is 6,000 years old after the LITERAL mountains of evidence, then you are probably beyond hope.

I know Christians, or people who claim to be Christians, that say that they only believe certain parts of The Bible. How does that work? How do you say "This book is the word of God, but these parts aren't true?" So the part about the Earth being only 6,000 years old is obviously false, but the parts about people rising from the dead, putting two of every animal in existence onto a boat, and God personally raining fire onto a "sinful city"...those are true.

How do you reconcile this?

As for Atheists digging in their heals and ignoring evidence to the contrary, well, that would be very difficult as there IS NONE.

The reconciliation is simple. For those religions open to reason, there is a recognition that humans are fallible and limited in their understanding. The key to reconciling what is fact and what is not is the standard of something being essential to the faith. That the earth was created 6000 years ago is not essential to, say, the Catholic faith. The message in some of these older books of the Bible is what's important. That God created the universe and is all-powerful is what is taken by Christians, though there are literalists who will hold this view. Now, some more literal approaches to the Bible mean that those parts are essential to the faith. Say, Jesus rising from the grave. Pretty essential to being a Christian, I think.

And just out of curiosity, I would like to know the arguments supporting atheism. I always like learning them.

Armorwind wrote:And just out of curiosity, I would like to know the arguments supporting atheism. I always like learning them.

If you have the time and inclination, Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, is a pretty comprehensive text supporting atheism. If you just do not have time for reading the book, his documentary "The Root of all Evil?" is readily available on Youtube. I do not care for his tone in the documentary, and believe his cause would be better served if he were a bit less blunt, but the message is clear, the arguments well formed, and the evidence very persuasive.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Atheists and religious people alike have one thing in common. Devout faith. If you resist that idea at all, then I must have attacked yours in one way or another.

Atheism is not about "devout faith." Atheism makes the most logical decision based on the evidence. All of the available evidence says that the earth is several billion years old, that people do not rise from the dead, speak with burning bushes, or fit 2 of every animal onto a boat. Now, should some evidence to the contrary become available, logical atheists would take that into account.

Atheists don't say "there is no god. period." They say that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a universe that was created through means other than "Let there be light."

How is that unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable. Fair enough. But I do know people who say He doesn't exist, period.

I still say it's a matter of faith. There is earthly evidence that suggests that what the bible says is wrong. I say, go ahead and accept that evidence, because it's pretty damn strong, yeah.

But that's only what's confined to Earth. By the time you get to cosmic demensions outside time, and what sort of forces are really, really out there, none of us can say right now. So it's right back to faith, to say some sort of creator force, with intent, does not exist. We can't know that. It's faith to say one or the other.


And I do know people that say the Earth is 6,000 years old. Truly believe it. Why? Because it's in the bible, which may have been written by people that didn't understand science as we know it today, but did have divine inspiration when they wrote about Noah's Ark. These people don't understand history of how myths and legends come about. They don't understand science beyond a middle school level. One of these people I'm speaking of is actually really into astronomy and Stephen Hawking and all that awesome stuff, but his understanding is limited to watching the Discovery Channel stoned, all the while believing the universe is 6,000 years old.

As for the evidence to the contrary, they have one arguement which is some crazy circular logic that kills all possibility of debate: It's a test of our faith. Can't disprove it. But you can't prove it either. It's an arguement standoff.

As for myself, I'll go with my man Occam and cut out the bullshit. The evidence is true evidence, and what it strongly indicates is real. As for what's out there, I'll leave it at: I don't know one way or another, so I'll just agree that the teachings of the man called Yehoshua of Nazareth are good stuff and follow that, divine or not.

The people who say that a deity of any kind absolutely, certainly does not and can not exist are extremist atheists. They're not really brighter than extremists of any other kind. So yes, that kind of people does exist. They are however not proper atheists.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:
Sorry to go off track, but what kind of idiot believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old? I've never heard of retardation on that level.....

Thank you!

The short answer to that: It is what the bible says.

Does it really? Where does it say that? Sorry, I'm not a Christian, so my readings of the Bible amount to little more than a casual perusal by the fire at night.

pretty much by adding up all the geneologies of the bible, the work of archbishop James Ussher, held true by all young earth creationists, the world was created october 23 4004 bc.

dinosaurs are a lie, and James Hutton was a severly misguided fool.

and Ironhidensh, don't you remember the old creationism versus evolution thread? we had 6000 year beleivers popping up every other week.

Kjell what you speak of is strong atheism(what Dark Zarak considers atheism), however what the majority of atheists(those who consider themselves atheists, myself, High Command, Desealtion Reborn, Autobotcity) are talking about is weak atheism, there is a subtle but distinct differeance, and it needs to be tagged on to avoid confusion and certain straw man arguments).

Dark zarak, to your evidence is confined to earth i refer you to the "god of the gaps" argument from ignorance.

Tammuz wrote:pretty much by adding up all the geneologies of the bible, the work of archbishop James Ussher, held true by all young earth creationists, the world was created october 23 4004 bc.

dinosaurs are a lie, and James Hutton was a severly misguided fool.

and Ironhidensh, don't you remember the old creationism versus evolution thread? we had 6000 year beleivers popping up every other week.

Kjell what you speak of is strong atheism(what Dark Zarak considers atheism), however what the majority of atheists(those who consider themselves atheists, myself, High Command, Desealtion Reborn, Autobotcity) are talking about is weak atheism, there is a subtle but distinct differeance, and it needs to be tagged on to avoid confusion and certain straw man arguments).

Dark zarak, to your evidence is confined to earth i refer you to the "god of the gaps" argument from ignorance.

No, I stayed out of that thread as most (not all) of the pro-creationism people made me feel stupid for believing in creation. Of course, I tend to believe that God did it by using some form of evolution.


If it makes any of you feel better, I've been surrounded all my life be devoute, and strong-willed Christians. However, I've never heard anyone try and say the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Hell, I don't know anyone who takes the Bible word-for-word literally.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Armorwind wrote:And just out of curiosity, I would like to know the arguments supporting atheism. I always like learning them.

If you have the time and inclination, Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, is a pretty comprehensive text supporting atheism. If you just do not have time for reading the book, his documentary "The Root of all Evil?" is readily available on Youtube. I do not care for his tone in the documentary, and believe his cause would be better served if he were a bit less blunt, but the message is clear, the arguments well formed, and the evidence very persuasive.

Splendid book and an entertaining TV show, although I'd have liked for it to have been longer. Maybe three parts instead of two?
Personally I liked the blunt and unapologetic tone of the show and the contempt shown to some of the people being interviewed (the muslim convert telling him how women should be told how to dress for instance). It makes a refreshing change from the usual respect the opinions of others (no matter how foolish) attitude that prevails in modern society. Personally I like to see people with opinions like that being told that they're speaking crap, rather then just meekly saying "I don't agree but I respect that".

No religion for me.

I think of it as this, religions and superstitions came from the need for people to explain things.

Example:

Lightning Strikes, everybody now knows that it's an atmospheric discharge of electricity. But people back in primitive times assumed that the thundergod was going about his bussiness.


And on a related matter, too many people assume things to be true without anything to back it up, look at these examples:

- As a child you thought that Santa and the Easterbunny were real. You were absolutely convinced of this, you knew this to be true.
- People in medieval times were absolutely 100% sure that the world was flat, there couldn't have been a doubt about it.
- In late medieval times it was a common belief in the Netherlands that your blood would flow out of your ears, if you didn't sleep in a sitting position. People were actually scared of this.
- Superstitious people think that bad things will happen when a black cat crosses your path. Really people, nothing will happen.


Well, that's my story.

Tammuz wrote:Dark zarak, to your evidence is confined to earth i refer you to the "god of the gaps" argument from ignorance.

Okay, I like this theory, and totally buy it.

All I can say in response is that, as we uncover and explain more and more of the world, we also discover more and more that we don't understand. There will always be the gaps, and until we truly know everything, until we fill gaps, there will always be the possibility of God.

The funny part is, when we finally fill all the gaps, we will have discovered and learned what God is, explained Him with science, and become Him.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Armorwind wrote:And just out of curiosity, I would like to know the arguments supporting atheism. I always like learning them.

If you have the time and inclination, Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, is a pretty comprehensive text supporting atheism. If you just do not have time for reading the book, his documentary "The Root of all Evil?" is readily available on Youtube. I do not care for his tone in the documentary, and believe his cause would be better served if he were a bit less blunt, but the message is clear, the arguments well formed, and the evidence very persuasive.

From what I have seen, read, and heard of this documentary, I notice that, for the most part, Dawkins would bea terrible journalist. Clearly his interivews are slanted. He asks religious extremists, notorious for their lack of reason.

Furthermore most of his attacks are against religion and not against any sort of deity. To mix theism with religion is just stupid: the two are not the same. Of course religions have their problems - everybody knows that.

What Dawkins attempts to do is to point out the most extreme cases and then hastily generalize every religious point of view under the same judgment. If anything Dawkins is being illogical, in the classical sense. I don't go around saying every atheist is an arrogant jerk just because I've encountered a few - or even many - in my life. Dawkins is attempting to appeal to a crowd ready to believe his claims and appeals to reason without looking at how he approaches them. I would like to see him interview some more moderate theists.

In seeing some of his interviews, I also have noticed he tries to instill the idea of any type of theism, whether rational or irrational, as fairy tale and asinine. Clearly Dawkins is not being responsible in his representation of religion and theism.

I realize the book may be different. But I'm not about to go and read through it when I could be reading real literature. I'll gladly listen to any arguments here though. Like I said I enjoy hearing careful and well-thought out arguments. I just don't like sensationalism.