Disagree to Disagree
-
I'm not sure how many Atheists and Theists actually get into these kind of drag-out fights that you describe. One thing about drawing conclusions based on posts is that only the most vehiment people post replies. Those of us who agree to disagree and who don't disparage the other's view tend not to post. Hence, there is a silent (i.e. moderate) group, which is difficult to account for. :) ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
Brit wrote: One thing about drawing conclusions based on posts is that only the most vehiment people post replies. Those of us who agree to disagree and who don't disparage the other's view tend not to post. I disagree. I would never attack another's views for the sake of "winning an argument", or forcing my views on another. I reply so people can understand the foundation of my logic, and not merely take my posts as useless opinion. I ask questions of others because I, likewise, want to understand their views and logic. Although I see your statement it true in many cases, I would hope I would be viewed as an exception. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Since I did the origional post to the links, let me state what I stated below: "The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. Before evaluating any given fact about religion, people bring to the table a pair of rose-colored glasses representing their world-view. This world-view is a culimination of all their experiences and beliefs, as well as the root of their logic. Everyone needs a starting point for their arguments: a faith-based assumption so to speak. From the secular athiest point of view, all there exists in the universe is molecules in motion. Love is nothing more than random firings of neurons that can be duplicated by consuming lots of cholocate. It is their belief that the universe came into being merely by chance, and there is no intelligent creator (God). However, that assumption is not scientifically provable, and as thus is merely an assumption of faith. There is no scientific method to prove what is beyond the universe or supernatural. Now from a bible-believing point of view, the faith assumption is that the bible is the inerrant word of god. A revealing of the nature of God to his people. Like the secular point of view, this assumption is also not provable by scientific method, but is a faith assumption. Thus it is the bible-believer who argues that the only reason the laws of the universe make any sense is that there is an intelligent creator. It is the bible-believer who states that it is no accident that the earth is the exact distance from the sun that it needs to be. The bible-believer will argue that the only reason man can do what he does is that an intelligent creator set it all in motion. Well, considering those two points of view, an athiest marriage is nothing more than random electrical neural patterns, with no set course and no arguable reason to be in the relationship in the first place. Wheras, the believers in a supreme being (God) have taken an oath in front of God as has been revealed to them in God's word. Thus the marriage has a goal and substance, and is not merely random chemical and electrial responses to the presence of the other individual." So, as a bible-believing Christian, I base my worldview on the pesupposition that the bible is the inerrant word of god. Whether there is proof or not, it is an un-provable faith assumption, just as the aformentioned assumption of secular atheism or any other world religion. However, I do belive in religious pluralism (recogniti
The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. :~ :wtf::rolleyes: God is nothing more than a invisible giant pink elephant that circles the earth. When it rains it is nothing more than him taking a big piss. Now considering I have as much proof that my god exists as you have that yours does, tell my why again it is atheism that is on shaky ground? Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Atheists and Theists will never get along as long as both sides honestly believe that the other side is all a bunch of self-deluded ignorant idiots, too dumb to see the obivious truth. But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent. In order for the two sides to debate constructively they would have to be willing to admit that the other side might possibly be right. Neither side is willing to do that. So the battle will rage on forever. Though I myself am a Theist, sometimes I think Agnostics are the only intelligent people out there. Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters, but at least they retain their intellectual integrity. [disclaimer] Please don't get into a big war about whether or not there is a God. The point of the post is the battle between the sides, not which side is right. If you get into a big war about it, you will only prove my point. [/disclaimer] Ps. I only mention this after looking at the web site for infidels.org linked to in the divorce thread from earlier today.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
I tend to believe the reason people get into heated debates are either to prop up their ego, or for amusement. Defending your belief is very natural. Having people around that believe the same as you is very comforting, and so it is natural to split any argument into 2 major sides, "for" and "against" (depending on your side). Even if you aren't surrounded by people who think likewise, you can justify your stance to yourself by being passionate about it. The amusement crowd just likes to argue to get a reaction. They don't care what you think, they will play devil's advocate regardless. those who are in the conversation for knowledge and growth and exploration, are less likely to be confrontational about the issue, however no less passionate. These people seek the truth, but wouldn't know if it smacked them in the face, because they enjoy seeking the truth, and discussing points of view. They aren't always comfortable taking a certain side definitively, because they might not have all the facts straight. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Brit wrote: One thing about drawing conclusions based on posts is that only the most vehiment people post replies. Those of us who agree to disagree and who don't disparage the other's view tend not to post. I disagree. I would never attack another's views for the sake of "winning an argument", or forcing my views on another. I reply so people can understand the foundation of my logic, and not merely take my posts as useless opinion. I ask questions of others because I, likewise, want to understand their views and logic. Although I see your statement it true in many cases, I would hope I would be viewed as an exception. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: I disagree. I would never attack another's views for the sake of "winning an argument", or forcing my views on another. I was just taking Kevnar's statement at face value (I didn't go and look for the message post that he was refering to). My thought was merely that "moderates are less likely to post, so if assume the posts are a reflection of a larger societal opinion, the moderates will be underaccounted for". And, I wasn't claiming that you were attacking anyone for the sake of winning an argument. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Jonny Newman wrote: I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. It is my decision and I will make it by myself, i've made mine now, and i'll stick with it to the grave. What is the nature of your decision? Are you "secular", denouncing the existence of a supernatural being, are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? What would dissappoint you about being "converted" as you say? What do you believe happens when you die? Do the lights just go out, and your existance merely terminated? Are humans and CodeProject just a big freak accident of nature? - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? NOt with my current theory's on it. To me, nothing can be 'supernatural'. If something did create the earth, it was not a god, just a very powerfull being, but still a being. In such a sense I could and would denounce anythign that said it was a god, because to say it was a god would need it to exist on a plain of existance with us, making it a member of this universe, making it an alien. If you are confused, basically I'm saying that if it has form, it is not a god, and if it has no form, it cannot exist. Nitron wrote: What do you believe happens when you die? Do the lights just go out, and your existance merely terminated? I don't know and I don't pretend to know, simply because no one has ever gone there and come back. If science is correct, then we simply cease. If religion is correct we go on to somewhere else (a place which no one has proved exists). If the "re-incarnation" beliefs are true, we come back as something else. To me the latter (however unplausable to me) would be prefereable, otherwise life would be boring. Nitron wrote: Are humans and CodeProject just a big freak accident of nature? Choose your words carefully, yes I think that there was no drive behind our creation, but that doesn't stop me living out my days to be successfull and to continue our species. Nitron wrote: What would dissappoint you about being "converted" as you say? Because I thought hard about my beliefs in myself. To be 'told' what to believe, would make me a follower rather than a leader/decision maker. I'd prefer to be the shepard than the sheep (religious pun unintended). If, however inconceivable to myself, I were to become a christian, it would be my own decision and I hope it would take me a long time to realise. I have friends who were atheists and then almost suddenly became christian. To me this means, that they were either to quick to follow others, or had not thought about their original belief as hard as they should have. Changing a belief should be a long process with a lot of thought put into it. Nitron wrote: are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? Supernatural creation is a theory, just like the big bang etc... but its more a case of choosing the most plausible one. When discussing Moses' "Parting of the sea" with a
-
The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. :~ :wtf::rolleyes: God is nothing more than a invisible giant pink elephant that circles the earth. When it rains it is nothing more than him taking a big piss. Now considering I have as much proof that my god exists as you have that yours does, tell my why again it is atheism that is on shaky ground? Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
lol. Sorry. The origional meaning of that statement was for the divorce conversation below. The meaning was that grounds for a marriage founded in atheism is shaky. And obviouslyu this thread IS a religous discussion, so disregard that too. The reason for the shaky marraige in (secular) atheism is that the only thing holding their marriage together is mutual chemical nural patterns firing in their brains. Where the godly marriage is an oath before God with purpose and direction, not just neural patterns and random chance. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
lol. Sorry. The origional meaning of that statement was for the divorce conversation below. The meaning was that grounds for a marriage founded in atheism is shaky. And obviouslyu this thread IS a religous discussion, so disregard that too. The reason for the shaky marraige in (secular) atheism is that the only thing holding their marriage together is mutual chemical nural patterns firing in their brains. Where the godly marriage is an oath before God with purpose and direction, not just neural patterns and random chance. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Nitron wrote: are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? NOt with my current theory's on it. To me, nothing can be 'supernatural'. If something did create the earth, it was not a god, just a very powerfull being, but still a being. In such a sense I could and would denounce anythign that said it was a god, because to say it was a god would need it to exist on a plain of existance with us, making it a member of this universe, making it an alien. If you are confused, basically I'm saying that if it has form, it is not a god, and if it has no form, it cannot exist. Nitron wrote: What do you believe happens when you die? Do the lights just go out, and your existance merely terminated? I don't know and I don't pretend to know, simply because no one has ever gone there and come back. If science is correct, then we simply cease. If religion is correct we go on to somewhere else (a place which no one has proved exists). If the "re-incarnation" beliefs are true, we come back as something else. To me the latter (however unplausable to me) would be prefereable, otherwise life would be boring. Nitron wrote: Are humans and CodeProject just a big freak accident of nature? Choose your words carefully, yes I think that there was no drive behind our creation, but that doesn't stop me living out my days to be successfull and to continue our species. Nitron wrote: What would dissappoint you about being "converted" as you say? Because I thought hard about my beliefs in myself. To be 'told' what to believe, would make me a follower rather than a leader/decision maker. I'd prefer to be the shepard than the sheep (religious pun unintended). If, however inconceivable to myself, I were to become a christian, it would be my own decision and I hope it would take me a long time to realise. I have friends who were atheists and then almost suddenly became christian. To me this means, that they were either to quick to follow others, or had not thought about their original belief as hard as they should have. Changing a belief should be a long process with a lot of thought put into it. Nitron wrote: are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? Supernatural creation is a theory, just like the big bang etc... but its more a case of choosing the most plausible one. When discussing Moses' "Parting of the sea" with a
Thank you for your response. Jonny Newman wrote: Because I thought hard about my beliefs in myself. To be 'told' what to believe, would make me a follower rather than a leader/decision maker. I'd prefer to be the shepard than the sheep (religious pun unintended). If, however inconceivable to myself, I were to become a christian, it would be my own decision and I hope it would take me a long time to realise. I have friends who were atheists and then almost suddenly became christian. To me this means, that they were either to quick to follow others, or had not thought about their original belief as hard as they should have. Changing a belief should be a long process with a lot of thought put into it. In response to the "suddenly became christian" thing, I see this a lot myself, and agree with your conclusion. It takes much time to turn the hearts of man. I admit I am still in the process myself, although I was raised catholic, and am turning towards presbyterian. I think long and hard still about the nature of things. However, there is overwhelming evidence of the accuracy of the bible, which strikes me as more than mere coinicidence. Today's bible spans thousands of years, with many authors, yet none contradict another (although there are some places where things don't match exactly, the overall message remains consistent). There is no other historical manuscript that has undergone such rigourous study that turns up so accurate in it's message. Even different sources of the writings of plato and socrates vary far greater than the recently discovered dead sea scrolls vary from origional biblical text. This overwhelming evidence is what made me seriously consider persuing it further. Anyway, the belief in the existance or non-existance of God is not an overnight decision. Again thanks for your input. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Atheists and Theists will never get along as long as both sides honestly believe that the other side is all a bunch of self-deluded ignorant idiots, too dumb to see the obivious truth. But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent. In order for the two sides to debate constructively they would have to be willing to admit that the other side might possibly be right. Neither side is willing to do that. So the battle will rage on forever. Though I myself am a Theist, sometimes I think Agnostics are the only intelligent people out there. Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters, but at least they retain their intellectual integrity. [disclaimer] Please don't get into a big war about whether or not there is a God. The point of the post is the battle between the sides, not which side is right. If you get into a big war about it, you will only prove my point. [/disclaimer] Ps. I only mention this after looking at the web site for infidels.org linked to in the divorce thread from earlier today.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
I tend to find it funny that people are arguing over who has the better imaginary friend. Like agnostics say "Wether or not there is a God, no one can ever really know for sure." Personally, I'm a Theist, it takes too much faith to be an Atheist. I just go by the "Where did all this stuff come from?" theory. That's enough for me to believe there's a God. Now, as of what kind of God and all those other more specific questions, I go by the Agnostic view. I think that as long as you know what you believe and why, you're good to go. It's the people who believe on 'faith' alone that are the ones who are the real ones who need to be converted. "Faith is believing what you know is not true." Me, I choose logic over faith any day. ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r y+ http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html
-
... to Democrats vs Republicans
Dare I say France and US? (and yes, you can read that as U.S. or us) :)
-
Nitron wrote: are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? NOt with my current theory's on it. To me, nothing can be 'supernatural'. If something did create the earth, it was not a god, just a very powerfull being, but still a being. In such a sense I could and would denounce anythign that said it was a god, because to say it was a god would need it to exist on a plain of existance with us, making it a member of this universe, making it an alien. If you are confused, basically I'm saying that if it has form, it is not a god, and if it has no form, it cannot exist. Nitron wrote: What do you believe happens when you die? Do the lights just go out, and your existance merely terminated? I don't know and I don't pretend to know, simply because no one has ever gone there and come back. If science is correct, then we simply cease. If religion is correct we go on to somewhere else (a place which no one has proved exists). If the "re-incarnation" beliefs are true, we come back as something else. To me the latter (however unplausable to me) would be prefereable, otherwise life would be boring. Nitron wrote: Are humans and CodeProject just a big freak accident of nature? Choose your words carefully, yes I think that there was no drive behind our creation, but that doesn't stop me living out my days to be successfull and to continue our species. Nitron wrote: What would dissappoint you about being "converted" as you say? Because I thought hard about my beliefs in myself. To be 'told' what to believe, would make me a follower rather than a leader/decision maker. I'd prefer to be the shepard than the sheep (religious pun unintended). If, however inconceivable to myself, I were to become a christian, it would be my own decision and I hope it would take me a long time to realise. I have friends who were atheists and then almost suddenly became christian. To me this means, that they were either to quick to follow others, or had not thought about their original belief as hard as they should have. Changing a belief should be a long process with a lot of thought put into it. Nitron wrote: are are you open to the possibility of supernatural existance? Supernatural creation is a theory, just like the big bang etc... but its more a case of choosing the most plausible one. When discussing Moses' "Parting of the sea" with a
Jonny Newman wrote: When discussing Moses' "Parting of the sea" with a christian, I mentioned the fact that aliens could have drawn the waters using advanced technology, the guy dissmissed it inmmediately as 'nonsense'. Is the idea that a human did it not far more suspect? Moses didn't part the Red Sea, God did. Jason Gerard qeou kai kurioV Iasou Cristou douloV
-
Atheists and Theists will never get along as long as both sides honestly believe that the other side is all a bunch of self-deluded ignorant idiots, too dumb to see the obivious truth. But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent. In order for the two sides to debate constructively they would have to be willing to admit that the other side might possibly be right. Neither side is willing to do that. So the battle will rage on forever. Though I myself am a Theist, sometimes I think Agnostics are the only intelligent people out there. Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters, but at least they retain their intellectual integrity. [disclaimer] Please don't get into a big war about whether or not there is a God. The point of the post is the battle between the sides, not which side is right. If you get into a big war about it, you will only prove my point. [/disclaimer] Ps. I only mention this after looking at the web site for infidels.org linked to in the divorce thread from earlier today.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
Kevnar wrote: Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters If someone throws that in my face I'll just sigh loudly and go away. Such people are best ignored. Kevnar wrote: but at least they retain their intellectual integrity Thank you. To me, following something blindly seems very dangerous. -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
Atheists and Theists will never get along as long as both sides honestly believe that the other side is all a bunch of self-deluded ignorant idiots, too dumb to see the obivious truth. But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent. In order for the two sides to debate constructively they would have to be willing to admit that the other side might possibly be right. Neither side is willing to do that. So the battle will rage on forever. Though I myself am a Theist, sometimes I think Agnostics are the only intelligent people out there. Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters, but at least they retain their intellectual integrity. [disclaimer] Please don't get into a big war about whether or not there is a God. The point of the post is the battle between the sides, not which side is right. If you get into a big war about it, you will only prove my point. [/disclaimer] Ps. I only mention this after looking at the web site for infidels.org linked to in the divorce thread from earlier today.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
I believe in God, but I did have doubts for the better part of my life. So I can see both sides of this. It seems like almost every issue nowadays turns into a black or white issue. There is no middle ground. Maybe its always been this way, but I never noticed it before.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Catholics won't be happy untill everyone is catholic. Protestants won't be happy until the Pope is protestant. So on and so forth... Every religion wants itself to be the dominant one, due to the fact that the fundamental belief that it IS the right one is what divides them. I don't want everyone to be atheist. Sure It would have its benefits, but it would get rid of the key argument-starting topics. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I simply disagree that people try to convert others. There IS a reason why people have chosen their belief, its not like they are gonna change just because you say they were wrong and you were right. I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. It is my decision and I will make it by myself, i've made mine now, and i'll stick with it to the grave.
"How long has the "Quote Selected Text" been around???"
- Marc Clifton, Lounge 4 Mar '03
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]Jonny Newman wrote: I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. I've been converted between sides of major issues a time or two. It all stems from the willingness to admit that you might be wrong. If someone comes along with a better argument, more compelling facts, or even proof, I'll change my beliefs. I'm not one of these idiots who will cling tenatiously to some erroneous ideology just becuause I don't want to be 'wrong'.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
-
Jonny Newman wrote: When discussing Moses' "Parting of the sea" with a christian, I mentioned the fact that aliens could have drawn the waters using advanced technology, the guy dissmissed it inmmediately as 'nonsense'. Is the idea that a human did it not far more suspect? Moses didn't part the Red Sea, God did. Jason Gerard qeou kai kurioV Iasou Cristou douloV
-
Since I did the origional post to the links, let me state what I stated below: "The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. Before evaluating any given fact about religion, people bring to the table a pair of rose-colored glasses representing their world-view. This world-view is a culimination of all their experiences and beliefs, as well as the root of their logic. Everyone needs a starting point for their arguments: a faith-based assumption so to speak. From the secular athiest point of view, all there exists in the universe is molecules in motion. Love is nothing more than random firings of neurons that can be duplicated by consuming lots of cholocate. It is their belief that the universe came into being merely by chance, and there is no intelligent creator (God). However, that assumption is not scientifically provable, and as thus is merely an assumption of faith. There is no scientific method to prove what is beyond the universe or supernatural. Now from a bible-believing point of view, the faith assumption is that the bible is the inerrant word of god. A revealing of the nature of God to his people. Like the secular point of view, this assumption is also not provable by scientific method, but is a faith assumption. Thus it is the bible-believer who argues that the only reason the laws of the universe make any sense is that there is an intelligent creator. It is the bible-believer who states that it is no accident that the earth is the exact distance from the sun that it needs to be. The bible-believer will argue that the only reason man can do what he does is that an intelligent creator set it all in motion. Well, considering those two points of view, an athiest marriage is nothing more than random electrical neural patterns, with no set course and no arguable reason to be in the relationship in the first place. Wheras, the believers in a supreme being (God) have taken an oath in front of God as has been revealed to them in God's word. Thus the marriage has a goal and substance, and is not merely random chemical and electrial responses to the presence of the other individual." So, as a bible-believing Christian, I base my worldview on the pesupposition that the bible is the inerrant word of god. Whether there is proof or not, it is an un-provable faith assumption, just as the aformentioned assumption of secular atheism or any other world religion. However, I do belive in religious pluralism (recogniti
I suppose the argument between Atheists and Theists essentially runs into problems due to the fact that Atheists seek proof, while the belief in the existence of God does not require it. In other words, how do you prove that someone invisible, inaudible, and intangible exists to someone who only looks with their eyes, ears, and hands? It's impossible. It's like trying to use a microphone to measure the brightness of light. You'll simply never find anything if you're looking with the wrong instrument. Is the light non-existent just because the microphone can't percieve it? The Atheist would say yes, and they would be correct for all intents and purposes, if the microphone was the only instrument available. It's not though, if you follow the analogy. On the other hand, at least you don't see Atheists fighting with other Atheists over which denomination of Atheism is the correct one.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
-
Jonny Newman wrote: I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. I've been converted between sides of major issues a time or two. It all stems from the willingness to admit that you might be wrong. If someone comes along with a better argument, more compelling facts, or even proof, I'll change my beliefs. I'm not one of these idiots who will cling tenatiously to some erroneous ideology just becuause I don't want to be 'wrong'.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
But what you don't seem to understand is that I *AM* right. This is a joke before you comment on my arrogance.
"How long has the "Quote Selected Text" been around???"
- Marc Clifton, Lounge 4 Mar '03
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^] -
I think I prefer an oath to a person I love. Not an oath to a god of fear. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Well the Bible portrays God as Loving and one that you should fear. An Marriage is defined by the Bible as an union between God, your lover and you. (Eccl reference) -Steven
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.
For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.
Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.com -
I suppose the argument between Atheists and Theists essentially runs into problems due to the fact that Atheists seek proof, while the belief in the existence of God does not require it. In other words, how do you prove that someone invisible, inaudible, and intangible exists to someone who only looks with their eyes, ears, and hands? It's impossible. It's like trying to use a microphone to measure the brightness of light. You'll simply never find anything if you're looking with the wrong instrument. Is the light non-existent just because the microphone can't percieve it? The Atheist would say yes, and they would be correct for all intents and purposes, if the microphone was the only instrument available. It's not though, if you follow the analogy. On the other hand, at least you don't see Atheists fighting with other Atheists over which denomination of Atheism is the correct one.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
You can prove there is a God. There are about eight or nine proofs for the existance of God, depending how metaphysical you want to get. The two main and most simple are the following: "Cause and Effect Proof" This proof builds on the fact that there are events happening all over the universe (planets spinning, stars forming, etc.). All of these events must have a cause. Yet, the universe cannot be a series of looped cause and effects, there must be a first unmoved mover. This is called God. "Someting From Nothing" This proof simply states: There are things within the universe. Yet, at one point, at the beginning of time, there was infinite nothingness. There must have been an unmade maker. This is called God. There are other deeper proofs, such as the fact that every person has a subconscience desire to believe in a higher power. This, I feel, is more a theory than a proof. That and the fact that most all cultures believe in some sort of higher power. While I believe there is a God, I can't speak for that God, so I have no idea the more specifics of God. I simply believe that there is a God based on logical evidence, but further than that, who knows? ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
-
The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. :~ :wtf::rolleyes: God is nothing more than a invisible giant pink elephant that circles the earth. When it rains it is nothing more than him taking a big piss. Now considering I have as much proof that my god exists as you have that yours does, tell my why again it is atheism that is on shaky ground? Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Atheism is on shaky ground for this reason. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe that the universe just appeared. While I do not know if a God created everything we see, I do believe that a God somehow put matter into the universe. How else did it get here? Logic concludes that you cannot get something out of nothing. As does the Convervation of Matter and Enegery: "Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply shifts" God may be a giant elephant, but a God of some sort had to exist at one point to put all the matter we see today into the universe. ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+