It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: No it's not faith, because we don't claim something to exist, the religious do. It's on them to prove that it does.
avatar
IAmSinistar: Bingo. The original comment is an example of false equivalence. It's like saying "transparent" is a colour, when it is in fact the absence of colour. When one creates an artificial system of supposed universal categorisation, then one has to resort to false equivalence to get those things from outside the system to "fit".

avatar
pimpmonkey2382: The greatest tool to create athiests is actually reading the bible.
avatar
IAmSinistar: And understanding it. Too many read it and accept it as, well, gospel. If you come to it with the understanding that it is centuries worth of writing, editing, (mis)translation, myth-making, tribal law, and mystic vision, you are much better prepared to place it in context.
I'm waiting for the circular arguments to show up.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I'm waiting for the circular arguments to show up.
My favourite is the one I got into with my sister-in-law recently, namely the one of Prime Cause. You know, the whole "how can the universe exist without a creator", which doesn't address what created the creator.
avatar
DieRuhe: Actually I think atheists do have a faith - that "God" doesn't exist. They might not call it "faith", but nonetheless. Faiths are based on beliefs, and every single person alive has beliefs. Saying you don't believe in "God" is simply stating that you believe something else, not "I don't believe in God, therefore I don't believe in anything else either." Even if that belief is that we are simply random constructions floating through the universe and we'll die and that's that. That's my take on it, anyway.
I'm no linguist expert nor how atheism is actually defined but I think both is possible. You can have a belief in something else than god or reject the idea of faith.

I very much would like to say "I believe faith isn't necessary for all humans" as a comedic oxymoron but it is no good argument to support my claim. I suppose one could simply differentiate them as an evidence man, a man who lacks faith, or someone who rejects the concept of god but accepts something else, like your example with random constructions and when we die that's that. After all an atheist can reject the idea of spirituality but still believe in ghosts or omens. An evidence man however wouldn't believe in anything without what he accepts as solid proof.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I'm waiting for the circular arguments to show up.
avatar
IAmSinistar: My favourite is the one I got into with my sister-in-law recently, namely the one of Prime Cause. You know, the whole "how can the universe exist without a creator", which doesn't address what created the creator.
My reply: "Then who created the creator? It's an illogical never ending cycle."

There is absolutely no faith, dogma, or set beleifs in not believing, to say otherwise is humorous.
Post edited January 23, 2014 by pimpmonkey2382
"I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."

Okay that was stupid. :P
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: My reply: "Then who created the creator? It's an illogical never ending cycle."
"God always was" is usually the answer. To which I then have to ask, "Why would a timeless being create time? Why would a substanceless being create substance? Why would a perfect being create imperfection?"

Conundrum upon conundrum, once the box is opened.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: My reply: "Then who created the creator? It's an illogical never ending cycle."
avatar
IAmSinistar: "God always was" is usually the answer. To which I then have to ask, "Why would a timeless being create time? Why would a substanceless being create substance? Why would a perfect being create imperfection?"

Conundrum upon conundrum, once the box is opened.
Why would he also create the universe so imperfectly, and all beings on the earth imperfectly. And why does evil exist in the first place? Free will? No he put the tree in eden where he precisely knew adam would eat it. So no free will involved
avatar
tinyE: "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."
"Tiny is a dead man - miss him, miss him."
I just find the superiority complex on both sides wonderfully entertaining. That driving need of the idiots and morons on both sides to prove their perspective as truth. When the simple truth is no one has a clue, not even the foggiest. Claiming there is no higher power is just as much a leap of faith as saying there is one. There is no proof either way, never will be any.
avatar
SSolomon: I just find the superiority complex on both sides wonderfully entertaining. That driving need of the idiots and morons on both sides to prove their perspective as truth. When the simple truth is no one has a clue, not even the foggiest. Claiming there is no higher power is just as much a leap of faith as saying there is one. There is no proof either way, never will be any.
That's not a claim, the claim is that he does exist.
We say there's no reason to believe.
Post edited January 23, 2014 by pimpmonkey2382
avatar
tinyE: I get you?

You make it sound like we are a fad. :P
avatar
hedwards: Oh, come on, just drink the goat's blood, you know you want to. And while we're at it, why don't you help with the sacrifice. We can have a good old fashioned BBQ afterwards.
BBQ goat, I presume?

Gotta ask my wife if her mom has any recipes for cabrito. Would surely love to try some pit cooking one of these years, and cabrito would be as good a place as any to start.

avatar
IAmSinistar: "God always was" is usually the answer. To which I then have to ask, "Why would a timeless being create time? Why would a substanceless being create substance? Why would a perfect being create imperfection?"
The same reason most of us do the inexplicable, the nonsensical: boredom

"Before the First Day, there was God. And he was bored shitless."
Hmmm either there is a muttonton worth of moderation, or GOGers are simply a lot nicer than the internet norm. I half expected a shitstorm here :P
avatar
hedwards: Oh, come on, just drink the goat's blood, you know you want to. And while we're at it, why don't you help with the sacrifice. We can have a good old fashioned BBQ afterwards.
avatar
HereForTheBeer: BBQ goat, I presume?

Gotta ask my wife if her mom has any recipes for cabrito. Would surely love to try some pit cooking one of these years, and cabrito would be as good a place as any to start.

avatar
IAmSinistar: "God always was" is usually the answer. To which I then have to ask, "Why would a timeless being create time? Why would a substanceless being create substance? Why would a perfect being create imperfection?"
avatar
HereForTheBeer: The same reason most of us do the inexplicable, the nonsensical: boredom

"Before the First Day, there was God. And he was bored shitless."
Apparently he was also bored for the thousands of years of human existence, so much so 2 thousand years ago he finally decides he wants in.
avatar
HereForTheBeer: BBQ goat, I presume?

Gotta ask my wife if her mom has any recipes for cabrito. Would surely love to try some pit cooking one of these years, and cabrito would be as good a place as any to start.

The same reason most of us do the inexplicable, the nonsensical: boredom

"Before the First Day, there was God. And he was bored shitless."
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Apparently he was also bored for the thousands of years of human existence, so much so 2 thousand years ago he finally decides he wants in.
He got bored again. Thought it would spice things up making a personal appearance.
avatar
DieRuhe: Actually I think atheists do have a faith - that "God" doesn't exist. They might not call it "faith", but nonetheless. Faiths are based on beliefs, and every single person alive has beliefs.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: No it's not faith, because we don't claim something to exist, the religious do. It's on them to prove that it does.
Well, I don't think beliefs can be proven, anyway. I mean, I get it; everyone who says "I believe in God" cannot actually prove it (even if they try by saying "The Bible says so"). It is simply what they believe to be so. Beliefs are not facts, and even "facts" can change over time. I think people tend to misuse/misunderstand the word "belief" anyway; they want to cement it in solidity when it's more like a river.

But saying "If they believe it, then they must prove it" works both ways, in my opinion. It's no different than someone saying "You don't believe. Prove that."

Interesting that the onus is generally on someone professing a belief in favor of something who must then "prove" it, whereas "not believing" seems to be given a free pass - ie, "I don't believe you on (X), but I have no obligation to tell you why; I just don't." So why isn't that response good enough for the "other side"?

I guess I just don't understand - "I don't believe you. Prove it." If one doesn't believe in something, who even cares why the other person thinks what they think? For the sake of argument?