10-04-2003 22:15									#271
	Tired of ads?

quote: At any rate, I do not believe because no one as proven to me any God exists, and I currently don't view it as something that fits in my worldview. However, I cannot believe God does not exist, because there is no evidence for such, either.

That is all I am trying to get at... I also add, though, that because it cannot be shown either way, conclusivly, then believing either way could be (and in my opinion is) assinine for inclusion into any practicle, or more so physical, interpretation, proof, or line of reason. Because of which, the mere debate is mute until which time some sort of definite evidence can be delivered to prove one or the other... My question then, is what kind of interpretation should this evidence be addressed in so that it cannot be misconstrude?

	10-04-2003 23:19									#272
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov At any rate, I do not believe because no one as proven to me any God exists, and I currently don't view it as something that fits in my worldview. However, I cannot believe God does not exist, because there is no evidence for such, either.

I also can't prove to you that while you were out yesterday, someone broke into your house, stole everything and then replaced it all with exact duplicates.

The only issue of importance is whether it affects your life or not. If the lack of evidence for God's existence causes you to act in no way different than if you didn't believe, then for all intents and purposes, you don't believe.

	10-04-2003 23:24									#273
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator The only issue of importance is whether it affects your life or not. If the lack of evidence for God's existence causes you to act in no way different than if you didn't believe, then for all intents and purposes, you don't believe.

I explicitley stated "I don't believe." I don't think I can be any clearer.

But again, that is different from "I believe there is no God," at least on a philosophical level. On a practical level, no, there is no tangible difference between my soft athiesm and your hard athiesm. But there is a philosophical difference.

	11-04-2003 00:25									#274
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

ur using a distinction w/o a difference boris. since it is supposed that we have to take a neutral stance when someone proposes something(ie they present proof for their claim). but we do not.

I do not have to be neutral about the existance of invisible undetectable green men simply because u bring it up. I can perfectly well disbelieve, and am in no way dishonest. while ur claim that because someone brings up an unprovable proposition I must immediately move to neutrality about its existance just cuz he brought it up.

	11-04-2003 00:50									#275
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

yavoon, it is not the same thing at all. The belief in something beyond the physical is held by 99% of the world's population. It is hardly akin to believing in 'invisible undetectable green men'.

Even science requires an assumption of something unprovable before you can start, but most atheists are happy to believe this assumption to be true.

	11-04-2003 00:59									#276
	Get a bigger avatar today!

there is a difference between postulating that the speed of light is constant from ne reference point. and god.

for one the first has consequences that can be indirectly drawn. and those can be proved. it is postulated cuz it is not proved directly, but that is not to say that it is random and irrational.

what does 99% of the worlds population have to do w/ the reliability o fnething? why dont we go back and history and name the things that 99% of the worlds population believed and count how many of them turned out to to be true.

truth is not democratic.

	11-04-2003 01:02									#277
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: truth is not democratic.

but the perception of truth is, and that is worth something

	11-04-2003 01:04									#278
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

the only possible thing I can imagine to help u out is that "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"

which could be interpreted as an appeal to accepted doctrine. otherwise ur kinda flat.

and either way ur deliberately not understanding my pt which is frustrating.

	11-04-2003 01:14									#279
	Got spare money?

I understand your point

and, I agree

	11-04-2003 02:03									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by yavoon for one the first has consequences that can be indirectly drawn. and those can be proved. it is postulated cuz it is not proved directly, but that is not to say that it is random and irrational.

That is not true. Nothing can ever be proven 100%. It can only be proven to a specified degree of certainty (eg. 95% confidence) and that is further dependent on assumptions which themselves are not proven (and cannot be).

quote: what does 99% of the worlds population have to do w/ the reliability o fnething? why dont we go back and history and name the things that 99% of the worlds population believed and count how many of them turned out to to be true. truth is not democratic.

Something that 99% of the population believes in deserves consideration before dismissal. To not consider such a thing is arrogance in the extreme.

Or do you believe you understand the world better than the 99% (or the 99.9999%)? That is I hypothesis in which I would not place much faith....

	11-04-2003 02:48									#281
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

1)the vast majority of the world doesn't bother being rigorously scientific in their beliefs. so simply understanding the concepts puts u ahead of the vast majority. I dont know why ur trying to argue that the truth is democratic. since its so obviously false through the vast majority of human history. but no now ur bringing it up as "as long as a lot of ppl believe something stupid it must be kinda true."

2)the pt of "nothing is absolutely certain" is completely inane and I can't believ eu'd even bring it up. I dont know wut to say, go read up on what science is and get back to me.

	11-04-2003 04:11									#282
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If anyone is curious as to whether a God exists or not, I would suggest the following link as a good starting point.
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html

	11-04-2003 07:34									#283
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh The word "bullsh*t" seems remarkably appropriate. Your comment shows that you either don't understand Christianity or you don't understand science, or both.

Your inability to demonstrate what is "wrong" with my quoted statement clearly illustrates that it in fact points to the crux of the problem.

	11-04-2003 07:37									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm going to watch the game, I'll be back, say 10ish?

Working from when I left:

yavoon:

quote: yes obiwan it is true that just because science can not explain something doesn't mean it doesn't occur. BUT ITS ALSO TRUE. that just because something isnt explained by science u get to makeup something and lay claim to it.

Good. Now we get into some really interesting points, such as the reliability of the Gospels. Are the Christians making something up, or are they telling the truth?

Kontiki:

I see your point. I'm not trying to discard these sections, but I am trying to redirect the debate to a more useful direction.

Look at the sections I'm leaving out at this point, the Psalms, Proverbs, things that are not meant to be used as historical evidence. Now one could make the argument for the first nine chapters of Genesis as a historical account. To do so, I need to harmonise the individual Christian interpretations so that I argue from a common perspective.

Therefore, I argue from the least position, that there was some kind of flood, at least a local flood, and that creation occured over an indeterminate period of time, whether 6 days or eons.

Neither detail is critical to accept the existence of God. What difference does it make if God creates the universe in 6 days or over the course of billions of years?

The same is for the flood. Did a flood occur wiping out a substantial portion of the world's population? Yes. If God brought the flood, what difference does it make if it only kills one portion for the existence of God?

That's why I'm trying to put the debate on the sections critical to the existence of God, rather than the side debates which can come later.

That clear, Kontiki?

	11-04-2003 07:40									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov UR: Science has yet to rule out God's existence, since without knowing anything about the nature of God, it is impossible to scientifically prove or disprove his existence. Science has shown that the actions ascribed to Yaweh are either fictional or have scientific explanations, but they haven't disproved "God" in the absolute sense. But that just goes back to the futility of trying to comprehend a being that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

My main contention is a person cannot hold both the sciences and Christianity to be true. Unless you hold that this god is transcendantal instead of interventionist, a clockmaker who just watches on after setting the world in motion. This, however, flies in the face of orthodox Christian doctrines.

	11-04-2003 07:44									#286
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh The belief in something beyond the physical is held by 99% of the world's population.

1. You are saying that atheists consist of 1% of the world's population? Where did you get your figure from?

2. Not that long ago people believed that lightnings were caused by angry gods.

3. You are Appealing to the Masses.

	11-04-2003 07:48									#287
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

obiwan18:

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger If the original text does not have any reference to this Lex Talionis, as demonstrated by various other translations, why would it be in the NIV? There are two possibilities. All other editions are messed up, or the NIV is. Since it is a lot less likely for the former to occur, I conclude that the NIV is a messed up translation.

Since you have yet to answer me, I considered you have conceded the point. Feel free to state your reasons to the otherwise.

	11-04-2003 07:49									#288
	Got spare money?

Actually agnostics and atheist conform the 5th largest world religion - or non-religion (IIRC almost 20% of the world's population) just BARELY losing 4th place to Hinduism.

What's even more surprising is that it is the FASTEST GROWING religion/non-religion in the world, again IIRC correctly it went from about 3% to 17% in the last 100 years. At that rate, you all can guess what's going to the big one in the year 2100

Kinda dissapointing for you believers that your grand-grand children will be on our side!

BTW: this data came from the Encyclopedia of World Religions or something like that, I read a summary of it's data about a year ago.

	11-04-2003 08:13									#289
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

So what's the split between agnostics and atheists? While the two are perhaps on the same side of the fence, I think many here agree that an atheist position is the fanatical extreme and that they hold an unwarrented degree of certainty. If an atheist admits there is a possibility God exists even though they believe he doesn't, are they still atheists?

Among agnostics, what is the level of doubt required to be considered agnostic? Many people claim faith to a religion, when truth be known there are plenty of doubts. I suppose you are what you profess to be.

	11-04-2003 08:26									#290
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

While the two are perhaps on the same side of the fence, I think many here agree that an atheist position is the fanatical extreme and that they hold an unwarrented degree of certainty.

I prefer to think of it as the literate extreme.

If an atheist admits there is a possibility God exists even though they believe he doesn't, are they still atheists?

I admit that it's possible that our universe exists in a larger universe and that there might be a creator god(s). However, the concepts of soul, afterlife, and various demigods such as Jesus are absurd and violate everything we know about the universe.

Of course, the whole universe inside bigger universe concept is silly because you either get universes all the way to infinity or there is an arbitrary number of finite universes that violates Occam's Razor due to lack of supporting evidence.

Ergo, there are no creators because there is no space for them to exist (there being nothing outside the universe) or time to decide (time not existing before the Big Bang) to create the universe.

	11-04-2003 08:32									#291
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Frogman So what's the split between agnostics and atheists? While the two are perhaps on the same side of the fence, I think many here agree that an atheist position is the fanatical extreme and that they hold an unwarrented degree of certainty. If an atheist admits there is a possibility God exists even though they believe he doesn't, are they still atheists?

An atheist is a person who is without an religious beliefs. Therefore, anybody who does not actively hold any form of religion is considered an athiest. Contrary to popular misbelief, an atheist does not have to actively deny the existence of god(s). In other words, atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs.

	11-04-2003 09:05									#292
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger An atheist is a person who is without an religious beliefs. Therefore, anybody who does not actively hold any form of religion is considered an athiest. Contrary to popular misbelief, an atheist does not have to actively deny the existence of god(s). In other words, atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs.

The dictionary is pretty to the point on this one. Atheists do in fact deny the existance of God. They hold this belief quite firmly, and thus tend to show up on religious forums with great frequency.

A person with no religion is irreligious.

	11-04-2003 09:22									#293
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yes, an atheist, as the name implies that there is no God, and accept it as a fact (a-theist, like a-sexual with no sex)

An agnostic person (like me) admits that there MIGHT, just MIGHT exist the possiblity of God (in my case like 0.0000000000000000000001%). Thus, an agnostic better fits the definition of "absence of theistic beliefs" because they choose not to follow any established relgion, not that they do not accept the existence of god.

I think true atheists are just the same as believers, you can't really confirm that god doesn't exist, just that most evidence points in the other direction.

	11-04-2003 09:38									#294
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen An agnostic person (like me) admits that there MIGHT, just MIGHT exist the possiblity of God (in my case like 0.0000000000000000000001%). Thus, an agnostic better fits the definition of "absence of theistic beliefs" because they choose not to follow any established relgion, not that they do not accept the existence of god.

Hmm, the dictionary doesn't say that, it says that Agnostics believe that the reality of God is unknowable. I always thought it meant people who question the existance of God.

I teach adult Sunday School classes, I'm an Elder, and on the surface appear as Christian as anyone. But the fact is that even Christians don't know God. The Trinity is not a belief, but an admission that God is unknowable. So are Christians agnostic? I question the existance of God, am I agnostic even though I follow an established religion?

	11-04-2003 09:40									#295
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogman The dictionary is pretty to the point on this one. Atheists do in fact deny the existance of God. They hold this belief quite firmly, and thus tend to show up on religious forums with great frequency. A person with no religion is irreligious.

There are only 2 options: Theist and Atheist. Would you really consider an Agnostic a theist? No, of course not. So he is an Atheist.

There are soft and hard atheists. Agnostics fit in with the soft atheists ("I do not believe in God"). This is, contrary to popular misconception, what the vast majority of atheists believe.

Hard atheists are those who actively believe there is no God, and they are the rarer ones in the bunch.

	11-04-2003 09:49									#296
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov There are only 2 options: Theist and Atheist. Would you really consider an Agnostic a theist? No, of course not. So he is an Atheist. There are soft and hard atheists. Agnostics fit in with the soft atheists ("I do not believe in God"). This is, contrary to popular misconception, what the vast majority of atheists believe. Hard atheists are those who actively believe there is no God, and they are the rarer ones in the bunch.

I think you are making up your own definitions. Theists and Atheists are the two extremes. You can lean one side or the other, but you don't have to wear either label. Saying "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God".

What you're saying is that a bunch of people call themselves atheists when they are really agnostic or irreligious.

	11-04-2003 09:55									#297
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Frogman I think you are making up your own definitions. Theists and Atheists are the two extremes. You can lean one side or the other, but you don't have to wear either label. Saying "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God". What you're saying is that a bunch of people call themselves atheists when they are really agnostic or irreligious.

No, you're making up the definitions. What could possibly be between Theist and Atheist? It's an either/or proposition. One believes in God or one does not, it's simple as that. Traditional Agnosticism is NOT believing in God, ergo it is Atheism.

Considering I said many times before this, and in the very post you quoted, that there is a difference between "I do not believe in God" and "I believe there is no God," it's funny you'd lecture me on it!

But that doesn't change that atheists are not necessarily of the later stripe. That's just a societal presumption of what atheists believe. Most atheists are soft atheists, the "I do not believe in God" type.

	11-04-2003 09:55									#298
	Remove this text

I don't have a dictionary but IIRC an atheist is one who AFFIRMS and is convinced there is no god (just like a believer will affirm there is one)

An agnostic simply has the benefit of the doubt and chooses not to follow any established religion (but by default most agnostics will tend to believe that no god "probably" exists)

Frogman, I would categorize you as a Christian who questions. Since you actively follow the religion I guess that is the difference between you and an agnostic.

	11-04-2003 09:56									#299
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Kontiki: I see your point. I'm not trying to discard these sections, but I am trying to redirect the debate to a more useful direction. ... Therefore, I argue from the least position, that there was some kind of flood, at least a local flood, and that creation occured over an indeterminate period of time, whether 6 days or eons. Neither detail is critical to accept the existence of God. What difference does it make if God creates the universe in 6 days or over the course of billions of years? The same is for the flood. Did a flood occur wiping out a substantial portion of the world's population? Yes. If God brought the flood, what difference does it make if it only kills one portion for the existence of God? That's why I'm trying to put the debate on the sections critical to the existence of God, rather than the side debates which can come later. That clear, Kontiki?

Obiwan, I understand what you are saying, but it still makes no difference to my argument. I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this...

Obviously, there are far more sections in the Bible than those dealing with the creation and the flood, but let's stick to these for now since they two of the more significant and important acts of God. Now, you say it is irrelevant to the acceptance of God if the universe was created in 6 days or billions of years, or if the flood was global or local, but I already explained how this matters in my previous post.

If you accept current scientific theories (and you seem to do so), then the only part of the creation story that isn't almost totally disproven is that there was some spiritual act that started all of it. The time frame and the sequencing of events simply could not have occurred in the manner described in Genesis.

As for the flood, we have an even bigger problem here. First, you stated above that there was indeed a flood that wiped out a substantial portion of the world's population. The only evidence of this at all comes from the Bible. There may be (and indeed are) other historical references to catastrophic floods in localized areas, but there is no indication outside the Bible that anything approaching a significant proportion of humanity was affected. Second, you state that if God caused it, what difference would it make. Well, that's a rather enormous "if", since there is geological evidence of major seismic activity which ultimately led to, for example, the creation of the Black Sea. If you want to attribute it to the end of the last major ice age, then you have evidence of glacial melting and deposits. Either way, you're dealing with common occurences that no one today (well, maybe a few fringe people) would ever attribute to an act of God. Not to mention that the Bible does rather explicitly state that all of humanity, flora and fauna were wiped out, save for what was on the ark.

What this demonstrates is that creation, the flood and many other biblical events (some posted by others on this forum, others not) have been routinely proven to have not occurred as described in the Bible. What's left, then, is the possibility of a god which triggered creation or any other given event. However, with so much of the literal text of the Bible either shown to have been impossible or at least highly unlikely, it's an easy conclusion for me to draw that what may actually exist is nothing like what the Chistian manifestation of God is supposed to be, since the whole basis for that God is derived from the Bible.

One final way of putting it: Let's assume that some entity did create the universe in some manner, and/or that there is some measure of life beyond our earthly exitance. Give me one example, other than the Bible, that suggests that it has to be the Christian God instead of the multiple gods of Hinduism or some other entity yet completely unidentified and unexplained?

	11-04-2003 09:58									#300
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

a·the·ist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That's American Heritage Dictionary. So anyone who does not believe in God is an atheist, as is anyone who believes there is no God.