Support NeoGAF

[soul creator]

the fun part about vague, ethereal, and essentially undefined gods and creators that some people come up with is that you can replace the word "god" with anything else, and pretty much get the exact same amount of information.

And if anyone challenges you on it, you can just assert that "______ is required for all existence!"

 

[Haly]

Yeah, at that point it's just a debate over semantics.

 

[Ashes]

Guess I'll wait for him to come back.

What's next?

What do you think is the biggest problem with the atheist line of thinking? Is there, or are there any flaws in their approach to reach the truth?

 

[Log4Girlz]

So why should an atheist assume a particular supernatural force is real or not?

 

[Haly]

What do you think is the biggest problem with the atheist line of thinking? Is there, or are there any flaws in their approach to reach the truth?

Well my biggest problem with atheists is their misappropriating atheism in order to push an anti-religion agenda. It's no longer about the philosophy but about teams, like democrat and republican.

Atheism itself is flawed in that it claims as much certainty as theism. Agnosticism is the only logical stance to take in this debate, but many (both atheists and theists alike) perceive it as "weak" or a "cop out", which ties into the whole team thing I mentioned previously.

So why should an atheist assume a particular supernatural force is real or not?

Because the very definition of Atheism requires that its proponents state, without significant doubt, "Deities do not exist". Which is the same level of certainty with which a theist states "At least one deity must exist"

 

[Ashes]

Well my biggest problem with atheists is their misappropriating atheism in order to push an anti-religion agenda. It's no longer about the philosophy but about teams, like democrat and republican.

Atheism itself is flawed in that it claims as much certainty as theism. Agnosticism is the only logical stance to take in this debate, but many perceive it as "weak" or a "cop out", which ties into the whole team thing I mentioned previously.

Fair enough.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Well my biggest problem with atheists is their misappropriating atheism in order to push an anti-religion agenda. It's no longer about the philosophy but about teams, like democrat and republican.

Atheism itself is flawed in that it claims as much certainty as theism. Agnosticism is the only logical stance to take in this debate, but many perceive it as "weak" or a "cop out", which ties into the whole team thing I mentioned previously.

Why is dismissing a concept asserted without evidence not logical? Is the most logical stance regarding unicorn riding leprechauns is to be agnostic regarding the concept?

 

[Ashes]

Why is dismissing a concept asserted without evidence not logical? Is the most logical stance regarding unicorn riding leprechauns is to be agnostic regarding the concept?

I suppose there is a difference between suspending a judgement on the creator of the universe, and rejecting the tooth fairy. Except, you claim that there isn't. And here we depart.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I suppose there is a difference between suspending a judgement on the creator of the universe, and rejecting the tooth fairy. Except, you claim that there isn't.

No. To me, supernatural constructs all have equal likelihood of existing, which is nearly absolute zero until proven otherwise. The biggest problem I have with the religious is they take offense when their belief system is not held to a different standard than any other belief system.

 

[Haly]

Why is dismissing a concept asserted without evidence not logical? Is the most logical stance regarding unicorn riding leprechauns is to be agnostic regarding the concept?

I give you a variable x, and I tell you that x can be any subset of A.

What are your thoughts on x?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I give you a variable x, and I tell you that x can be any subset of A.

What are your thoughts on x?

I'm not bright enough to understand your meaning.

Because the very definition of Atheism requires that its proponents state, without significant doubt, "Deities do not exist". Which is the same level of certainty with which a theist states "At least one deity must exist"

I have no doubts that Leprechauns do not exist, which is of equal certainty to which believers in leprechauns state "that at least one leprechaun must exist".

 

[soul creator]

I suppose there is a difference between suspending a judgement on the creator of the universe, and rejecting the tooth fairy. Except, you claim that there isn't. And here we depart.

Until more independent evidence is provided for a god beyond "Why? Because I have asserted/defined it to be so!", why shouldn't we treat it the same?

I assume that you don't believe in the God that meddles specifically in the lives of human beings, and has special feelings for us, and can read minds, since you seem to be pursuing the "basis of all existence" definition of God. Doesn't that make you just as much an "atheist" to billions of believers, just like a "full" atheist is?

 

[Haly]

A is the set of deities, which is infinite in size.
x is the set of deities that exist.

Atheism: x is the empty set
Theism: x can be any subset of A that is not the empty set
Agnostism: i dunno lol

 

[Log4Girlz]

A is the infinite set of supernatural beings. x is the set of leprechauns that exist.

Atheism: x is the empty set
Theism: x can be any subset of A that is not the empty set
Agnostism: i dunno lol

F'ing leprechauns *shakes fist*

 

[Ashes]

Until more independent evidence is provided for a god beyond "Why? Because I have asserted/defined it to be so!", why shouldn't we treat it the same?

I assume that you don't believe in the God that meddles specifically in the lives of human beings, and has special feelings for us, and can read minds, since you seem to be pursuing the "basis of all existence" definition of God. Doesn't that make you just as much an "atheist" to billions of believers, just like a "full" atheist is?

Don't assume anything. Assume everything.

Push me on as a believer of toothfairies, unicorns, and teapots in space. Its the same thing right?

 

[DiscoShark]

Well my biggest problem with atheists is their misappropriating atheism in order to push an anti-religion agenda. It's no longer about the philosophy but about teams, like democrat and republican.

Atheism itself is flawed in that it claims as much certainty as theism. Agnosticism is the only logical stance to take in this debate, but many (both atheists and theists alike) perceive it as "weak" or a "cop out", which ties into the whole team thing I mentioned previously.

Agnosticism and Atheism aren't mutually exclusive concepts. What you're arguing is the difference between Gnostic-Atheism (saying with 100% certainty that there is no god) vs. Agnostic-Atheism (you believe that there is no god but without absolute certainty, or are generally open to the idea that a god could conceivably exist given certain parameters). Just ... just look at the chart.

Okay, let me ask you this:

Why do you not think that a god's existence is possible? And I'm not talking about proof.

I just find this question to be a bit nonsensical. The existence of a god or god-like being is possible, but the lack of proof remains the primary reason why someone wouldn't believe in its existence.

What other reasons for not believing in god were you expecting to hear?

 

[Ashes]

You hear people saying God might exist, without acknowledging the possibility that it may, you know, exist.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Don't assume anything. Assume everything.

Push me on as a believer of toothfairies, unicorns, and teapots in space. Its the same thing right?

Why is the supernatural concept of god above other supernatural concepts? Is it simply because you believe that a god exists but do not believe in the others?

You hear people saying God might exist, without acknowledging the possibility that it may, you know, exist.

To acknowledge the possibility of a god is to acknowledge the possibility of anything else. There is a completely equal chance in my mind of us being brains in vats and there is nothing anyone can show to prove otherwise to me.

 

[Ashes]

Why is the supernatural concept of god above other supernatural concept? Is it simply because you believe that a god exists but do not believe in the others?

Because I don't think that they are analogous examples. edit: The teapot and the God example, I mean.

 

[soul creator]

A is the set of deities, which is infinite in size.
x is the set of deities that exist.

Atheism: x is the empty set
Theism: x can be any subset of A that is not the empty set
Agnostism: i dunno lol

A sort of seems like a meaningless statement in practice. Couldn't you replace "deities" with "comic book characters" and get the same "infinite size set"?

Or maybe it's better to phrase it that A isn't actually "infinite" in practice. I can only respond to the deities I've heard of, and I'm an atheist towards those. Could there hypothetically be some deity out there that no one's ever heard of before that actually exists? Sure, I guess. But so could a comic book character. *shrug*

Don't assume anything. Assume everything.

Push me on as a believer of toothfairies, unicorns, and teapots in space. Its the same thing right?

So, define your god then? What are you actually referring to when you say "I believe in God". I must've missed that.

It often seems like those types of statements are "I don't have understanding of some mystery of the universe, and the word God is the socially agreed upon word to use in those cases, therefore I believe in God!" But I'm willing to be corrected if the definition you're thinking of is more detailed than that, and actually does refer to something external.

 

[Haly]

I'm sensing a misunderstanding here, and while I don't know exactly what it is I can understand where it's coming from.

In science, it is not simply enough to assert that something is true. Evidence is required to back up any claim, I'm sure everyone can agree with this. However, this is not to say every assertion without evidence is implicitly false. An assertion or hypothesis without evidence is useless to science without further evidence. Science works with things that are provable, either with some form of mathematical logic or empirical evidence. Everything else falls under the realm of philosophy.

That's what atheism is, it's a philosophy. Science has no standing on the existence of God until someone can come up with evidence for or against it.

A sort of seems like a meaningless statement in practice. Couldn't you replace "deities" with "comic book characters" and get the same "infinite size set"?

Just like Atheism and Theism you mean? And yes, yes I can, which is why I find this debate to be silly.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Because I don't think that they are analogous examples.

Why not? Why do you place god on a pedestal above other supernatural concepts?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm sensing a misunderstanding here, and while I don't know exactly what it is I can understand where it's coming from.

In science, it is not simply enough to assert that something is true. Evidence is required to back up any claim, I'm sure everyone can agree with this. However, this is not to say every assertion without evidence is implicitly false. An assertion or hypothesis without evidence is useless to science without further evidence. Science works with things that are provable, either with some form of mathematical logic or empirical evidence. Everything else falls under the realm of philosophy.

That's what atheism is, it's a philosophy. Science has no standing on the existence of God until someone can come up with evidence for or against it.

Aleprechaunism is a philosophy. Science has no standing on the existence of leprechauns, until someone can come up with evidence for or against it.

 

[Aeris130]

A is the set of deities, which is infinite in size.
x is the set of deities that exist.

Atheism: x is the empty set
Theism: x can be any subset of A that is not the empty set
Agnostism: i dunno lol

Your scenario only describes the probability of a human guessing the correct answer.

If I flip a coin, the odds of it being heads is 50%. For you that is. I've already looked at the coin, so I know it's heads, hence the "probability" of it being heads is actually 100% regardless of if the coin has 1000000... different sides to land on.

If the set of deities is infinite, the probability (according to your logic) of any single deity to exist is 1/inf, which is infinitely close to 0.

 

[Ashes]

A sort of seems like a meaningless statement in practice. Couldn't you replace "deities" with "comic book characters" and get the same "infinite size set"?



So, define your god then? What are you actually referring to when you say "I believe in God". I must've missed that.

It often seems like those types of statements are "I don't have understanding of some mystery of the universe, and the word God is the socially agreed upon word to use in those cases, therefore I believe in God!" But I'm willing to be corrected if the definition you're thinking of is more detailed than that, and actually does refer to something external.

If one is basing one self as a theist, one might as well go the whole hog. The arguments for and against are similar enough, except, you laugh at us for believing in the sphegetti monster, a guy on a throne, and I laugh at you for thinking this of us.

 

[Haly]

The leprechaun argument is disingenuous. Rather than try to deflect my statements by relating it to something silly, why not actually address my points?

This is why I don't think highly of atheists, many of you use the same inane arguments as "the other side".

Your scenario only describes the probability of a human guessing the correct answer.

If I flip a coin, the odds of it being heads is 50%. For you that is. I've already looked at the coin, so I know it's heads, hence the "probability" of it being heads is actually 100% regardless of if the coin has 1000000... different sides to land on.

If the set of deities is infinite, the probability (according to your logic) of any single deity to exist is 1/inf, which is infinitely close to 0.

“It is known that there are an infinte number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely products of a deranged imagination.”

 

[Log4Girlz]

If one is basing one self as a theist, one might as well go the whole hog. The arguments for and against are similar enough, except, you laugh at us for believing in the sphegetti monster, a guy on a throne, and I laugh at you for thinking this of us.

What theists believe in is just as absurd to an atheist as spaghetti monsters and deities on thrones.

An infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The leprechaun argument is disingenuous. Rather than try to deflect my statements by relating it to something silly, why not actually address my points?

This is why I don't think highly of atheists, many of you use the same inane arguments as "the other side".

What is science's stance on leprechauns?

 

[Haly]

They exist.

Spoiler

In folklore.

 

[Erigu]

“It is known that there are an infinte number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely products of a deranged imagination.”

Of course, it helps a whole lot that we're certain of the existence of at least one inhabited world. Gods aren't so lucky.

 

[Ashes]

What theists believe in is just as absurd to an atheist as spaghetti monsters and deities on thrones.

An infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created.

And I'm out.

Fun whilst it lasted.

 

[Angry Fork]

I don't know how this thread is still going on. I come back every once in a while when it's bumped and see the same terrible theist arguments that have been demolished many previous pages over and over. The only difference is the people spewing them.

I find myself raging much more at 'agnostics' now than theists though because they keep making a false equivalence between theists and atheists. Then they take the high road by pretending a non-answer and pussy thinking is admirable. This was evidenced in that large neil de grasse tyson thread and now keeps going on in here.

 

[Haly]

Of course, it helps a whole lot that we're certain of the existence of at least one inhabited world. Gods aren't so lucky.

I'm not sure if you're just joking with me or completely missing the point.

Then they take the high road by pretending a non-answer and pussy thinking is admirable.

See? It's not really about the debate, but about "us" against "them".

This I have actual evidence of, right here in this thread.

 

[Log4Girlz]

They exist.

Spoiler

In folklore.

And so does god.

What about ghosts?

What about Spirits?

What about demons?

What about angels?

What about witches?

What about shamans?

By your reasoning my insistence that none of the above exist is merely philosophical.

And I'm out.

Fun whilst it lasted.

Is god not an infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created?

 

[JGS]

What theists believe in is just as absurd to an atheist as spaghetti monsters and deities on thrones.

An infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created.

That's what makes atheists here so cute sometimes- They actually think their opinion has a higher value.

I honestly don't care if a spaghetti monster is out there for the record although the belief setup is a little different (After all if he wanted me to worship him, he would provide proof- with some garlic bread)

 

[soul creator]

I'm sensing a misunderstanding here, and while I don't know exactly what it is I can understand where it's coming from.

In science, it is not simply enough to assert that something is true. Evidence is required to back up any claim, I'm sure everyone can agree with this. However, this is not to say every assertion without evidence is implicitly false. An assertion or hypothesis without evidence is useless to science without further evidence. Science works with things that are provable, either with some form of mathematical logic or empirical evidence. Everything else falls under the realm of philosophy.

That's what atheism is, it's a philosophy. Science has no standing on the existence of God until someone can come up with evidence for or against it.

Just like Atheism and Theism you mean? And yes, yes I can, which is why I find this debate to be silly.

Then, as mentioned, in practice we hear about very specific gods that often do have evidence that directly contradicts them, as they claim to do very direct things in the universe we all live in. For those gods (which are quite popular, and not some minority belief), "Neutrality" doesn't really make sense. A scientific approach does have a very specific standing on the existence of a god that is claimed to create people out of thin air, for example, since that version of god would contradict tons of evidence showing otherwise. Science says "no, that's bullshit" just like it says bullshit to millions of other "supernatural" occurrences.

Sure, if you remove pretty much every traditional quality ascribed to god, and make it super vague, and define it to be "outside science!" (whatever that means) then I suppose at that point you can be "neutral". But the people that believe in those types of gods are the minority, and seem to only pop up in message board discussions to "trap" atheists.

"My god definition #4,080 is unlike the other thousands of definitions you heard. Why are you being close minded by rejecting it out of hand!"

See? It's not really about the debate, but about "us" against "them".

Every debate is about "us" against "them". If there weren't two sides, there wouldn't be a debate in the first place!

 

[Log4Girlz]

That's what makes atheists here so cute sometimes- They actually think their opinion has a higher value.

I honestly don't care if a spaghetti monster is out there for the record although the belief setup is a little different (After all if he wanted me to worship him, he would provide proof- with some garlic bread)

He boiled for your sins JGS, show some respect. He's allergic to garlic.

 

[Haly]

It is philosophical, what would make you think it wasn't?

What, do you think your denial of those things is based on incontrovertible proof?

Atheism isn't science, it's philosophy. Buddhism is a subset of Atheism. Do you believe in reincarnation as well?

Then, as mentioned, in practice we hear about very specific gods that often do have evidence that directly contradicts them, as they claim to do very direct things in the universe we all live in. For those gods (which are quite popular, and not some minority belief), "Neutrality" doesn't really make sense. A scientific approach does have a very specific standing on the existence of a god that is claimed to create people out of thin air, for example, since that version of god would contradict tons of evidence showing otherwise. Science says "no, that's bullshit" just like it says bullshit to millions of other "supernatural" occurrences.

It says "this so called 'flood' is bullshit", it also says "this video tape of aliens is bullshit, I can tell by some of the pixels and because I've seen a lot of bullshit in my time", it also says "this video of a leprechaun is bullshit, I can see the strings holding up the rainbow". It says, "your claim is bullshit until you have evidence backing it up", it doesn't say the claim is undeniably false.

Every debate is about "us" against "them". If there weren't two sides, there wouldn't be a debate in the first place!

Not what I'm talking about at all. How many atheists have made a study of their stance, theists? Do they know the history? The technicalities? The various forms? When I say "us" versus "them" I'm talking about a debate reaching the point where the two sides are so far removed from their stance of choice that it is not longer a competition between ideas, but a competition between people.

Maybe I am missing the point. Could you clarify what it was?

My point is he misused statistics in an attempt to disprove my point. Again, I would like to complain about underhanded tactics coming from the side that supposedly champions rational thought.

 

[Erigu]

I'm not sure if you're just joking with me or completely missing the point.

Maybe I am missing the point. Could you clarify what it was?

 

[Log4Girlz]

It is philosophical, what would make you think it wasn't?

What, do you think your denial of those things is based on incontrovertible proof?

Atheism isn't science, it's philosophy. Buddhism is a subset of Atheism. Do you believe in reincarnation as well?

Atheism as described here, as is described when referring to Dawkins, Hitchens and other vocal atheists is that of skeptical, non-supernaturalist belief systems, much how theism is assumed to be mono-theism.

The dismissal of supernatural beliefs is not mere philosophy. Unless you want to describe every single type of thought process as philosophy. Which you can make an argument for considering the various definitions.

 

[Angry Fork]

Not what I'm talking about at all. How many atheists have made a study of their stance, theists? Do they know the history? The technicalities? The various forms? When I say "us" versus "them" I'm talking about a debate reaching the point where the two sides are so far removed from their stance of choice that it is not longer a competition between ideas, but a competition between people.

You're not making any sense. Ideas come from people so of course we're going to be competing against people, because those people speak ideas we disagree with.

 

[Pollux]

Hey Log, I got one that even you can't explain, if leprechauns aren't real...who the hell makes my Lucky Charms?

 

[Haly]

Leaving for class, just leaving some food for thought.

Science always leaves room for doubt. Always. When a new hypothesis is proposed that challenges established fact, that hypothesis is reviewed, rejected, improved and resubmitted until it has sufficient evidence to overturn the status quo.

Atheism leaves no room for doubt. It says, "there are no gods, this is so, because I say it is".

Agnosticism, however, embraces doubt.

But hey, I guess science just likes to revel in non-answers and pussy thinking.

 

[JGS]

He boiled for your sins JGS, show some respect. He's allergic to garlic.

I gotta admit, he sounds tastier & I'm pretty devout on Ragu night.

 

[Log4Girlz]

As Ashes' exit from the thread has illustrated, religious people hold their beliefs on a pedestal and expect others to respect its place in their heart and hold it to a different standard than other lesser supernatural beliefs, without merit, without any reasoning to support such a double standard. Since god is attributed by religious people to creating the universe, then it must be respected on equal grounds with other theories of the origination of the universe. This is not the case in my opinion.

The concept of god is not a valid explanation of the origin of the universe.

Yes, it is a hypothetical being constructed to do anything, so if such a being existed, naturally it is possible that it created the universe. But seeing as how there is nothing supporting the existence of such a being, then it is dismissed and added to the pile of other concepts that may conceivably exist.

Hey Log, I got one that even you can't explain, if leprechauns aren't real...who the hell makes my Lucky Charms?

Listen, do not bring up such questions, the illuminati are watching.

I gotta admit, he sounds tastier & I'm pretty devout on Ragu night.

He is the most delectable of the gods.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Leaving for class, just leaving some food for thought.

Science always leaves room for doubt. Always. When a new hypothesis is proposed that challenges established fact, that hypothesis is reviewed, rejected, improved and resubmitted until it has sufficient evidence to overturn the status quo.

Atheism leaves no room for doubt. It says, "there are no gods, this is so, because I say it is".

Agnosticism, however, embraces doubt.

But hey, I guess science just likes to revel in non-answers and pussy thinking.

I'm sure science leaves room for doubt about leprechauns and icecream at the center of jupiter.

 

[Angry Fork]

Leaving for class, just leaving some food for thought.

Science always leaves room for doubt. Always. When a new hypothesis is proposed that challenges established fact, that hypothesis is reviewed, rejected, improved and resubmitted until it has sufficient evidence to overturn the status quo.

Atheism leaves no room for doubt. It says, "there are no gods, this is so, because I say it is".

Agnosticism, however, embraces doubt.

That is not what atheism says and agnostics need to stop shouting it to support their stupid pointless title. The most 'ardent' atheists such as Hitchens and Dawkins have both said it's not possible to know there isn't a God, there just hasn't been any convincing evidence or argument in it's favor, therefore they're atheists. That's the entire point.

Do you pray? Do you go to church? Do you do any religious activity in your normal every day life? If not then you're either an atheist or deist. There is no agnosticism. Nobody is walking around with half-faith, half-non faith as in the south park episode, that's what made the episode funny because it's so silly. You live yourself as if there wasn't an intervening god, period. There is no need for the term agnosticism.

 

[Pollux]

Listen, do not bring up such questions, the illuminati are watching.

Then it is as I suspected...

Damn them!!!

 

[Log4Girlz]

Then it is as I suspected...

Damn them!!!

Noooo, Patty, vanish, teleport away!





zmoney, let's split the gold 50/50.



Wait...you're the one with the gun....

 

[Erigu]

Atheism leaves no room for doubt. It says, "there are no gods, this is so, because I say it is".

Even Dawkins doesn't go there.