On Atheism vs. Christianity

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: LunarRay
As an advocate looking into the eyes of the jury while trying to defend the existence of my client, "Time", who sat at the table nearby, I begin by saying that while I agree there is no physical property to measure or touch or smell or hear or taste "Time" exists... To prove this to you, ladies and gentlemen, I must resort to inferential means... I have the luxury, however, of noticing on each of your wrists exists a watch... you are measuring time intervals... you accept "Time" exists because you see the hands move... But, there are two kinds of "Time"... Physical and Metaphysical... Metaphysical time is immeasurable. It is the perception of time as a continuous flow... no interval. You must quantify it into intervals by looking at your watch for it to pass from Metaphysical to Physical.
Think of it another way... I notice you each brought a bible to court... you each, I presume, believe that God exists... God is like "Time" in the sense that you cannot prove directly his existence but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

Thank goodness there were no atheists in Court that day...

Time is Measurable(look at your System Tray) and Observable(just look). It is mostly a Human Construct though, to explain a Cycle(Day/Night). There's nothing Mystical about it, anymore than Gravity or Inertia.

Of course Physical time exists and is measurable...(the system tray etc..) but... Metaphysical time has no quantifiable means by which to measure it... ergo, two types of time... and you are using inference to prove physical time....

EDIT: IOW Time, in and of itself, has no property... it is a word that describes the relation change between some other factor(s). Perhaps God is like Time... measured/proved by other factors...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I don't understand, however, is the glibness of atheists. How can you suffer to live in a universe that has no meaning, where every little child that dies is dead forever, never to know the beauty of love, never to have a chance at life. How about all the lovers who die young, separated from the ones they love or who lose their lover. How can you stand to live in a universe where pain can exceed human imagination and it all means nothing.

Atheism is great for people who do not feel. But when the door to pain opens the bottom falls away. Lucky is he who is numb, or is he cursed? Lucky are the privileged who do not know what it is to suffer. What you should do is take the faith from those deluded billions that but for God would die of broken hearts.

how does being an atheist prevent you from being able to love? love is something *human*, not something christian, atheist, buddhist, hindu, muslim, etc.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sandorski, would you please explain where gravity comes from, how it attracts, and why inertia and gravity are equivalent? BTW I am quite familiar with Machs principle, but why is it so? The best minds have no idea about time. It's a profound mystery but there are those who have opinions based on no objective data.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I don't understand, however, is the glibness of atheists. How can you suffer to live in a universe that has no meaning, where every little child that dies is dead forever, never to know the beauty of love, never to have a chance at life. How about all the lovers who die young, separated from the ones they love or who lose their lover. How can you stand to live in a universe where pain can exceed human imagination and it all means nothing.

Atheism is great for people who do not feel. But when the door to pain opens the bottom falls away. Lucky is he who is numb, or is he cursed? Lucky are the privileged who do not know what it is to suffer. What you should do is take the faith from those deluded billions that but for God would die of broken hearts.

how does being an atheist prevent you from being able to love? love is something *human*, not something christian, atheist, buddhist, hindu, muslim, etc.

I wonder about the meaning of Love... is it the same for each... Do I love my dog more than I love my kids, or love them differently somehow. Is Love simply something that makes one 'feel good' emotionally and thereby sates a need..
I wonder, IF God is God does this God love. Do we need to know we are loved by God to believe God exists... Did the Romans feel their Gods gave them love or some other greater power or encouragement..
Maybe God is not a tangible entity but, rather, all the aspects we find good in our selves... like Moonbeam suggested... Maybe we are God because we act like what we expect God would want us to act like.. and therefore, God exists as we do. And the bit about creating the universe is our need to give this God power over us...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sandorski, would you please explain where gravity comes from, how it attracts, and why inertia and gravity are equivalent? BTW I am quite familiar with Machs principle, but why is it so? The best minds have no idea about time. It's a profound mystery but there are those who have opinions based on no objective data.

WinstonSmith would have said, Yes, indeed it is so... I've no idea why but it is as it is... As Winston stood spinning... heheheh

Edit: stood spinning sounds counter intuitive but so would be the effect of the stars... on Winston... heheheheh

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
You vaguely referred to your 'background in math' as your source of belief, but have not mentioned a specific principle from that discipline. Name it and explain it, or give up your professed belief. That's my legitimate challenge to you.

Mathematics is, at its heart, one of the most purest forms of science. It can be established from thoughts, with only a paper and pencil. It can trace its theorems, its corollaries back through the rules of deductive logic to a small handful of axioms. But, at the end of the day, the axioms cannot be proven. Neither can they be disproven. They are taken for granted, and are often less 'established' (in the historical sense) than the concept of monotheism. All we know reduces to things we take for granted; though we may consistently review what we've accepted. This illustrates the point that axioms are simply rules we take for granted that are generally consistent with what we observe - even 'consistency' relies on the axioms of logic.

I don't view belief in an origin of order or a god as an exception. I can agree that many people's concept of god is not consistent with what I observe. However, everyone's concept is not the same, so I can't dismiss them categorically.

Evidence to the contrary should allow for the revision of these beliefs. But, an absence of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. I question my belief fairly often, but belief is my null hypothesis, if you will.

I'm not sure that will answer your question, but that's about as much as I can offer. If I've managed to fail your challenge, I suppose you can win - I've thought about these things for some time, and until I have some further revelation, I'm not going to be changing my mind on it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.

YOU may be talking about this, but not the rest of us.

If "God" in inseparable from each of us, if "God" exists as a part of us, then why not just speak of each of us? Why complicate matters?

If you want to distinguish between an enlightened and unenlightened self, then do so. You don't need to add "God" to the conversation. You're just muddying the waters.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.

YOU may be talking about this, but not the rest of us.

If "God" in inseparable from each of us, if "God" exists as a part of us, then why not just speak of each of us? Why complicate matters?

If you want to distinguish between an enlightened and unenlightened self, then do so. You don't need to add "God" to the conversation. You're just muddying the waters.

Somebody awhile back wrote a story about this fellow who said that 'God' was within us... and something about a mustard seed... He was writing to folks who believed God existed as an entity apart from us... while at the same time saying or implying that God wouldn't lie... so which is it... could it be both?

Or neither...
The greatest minds on the subject - on the side that supported the existence of God - were the Jesuits who taught me in high skule... each a highly educated fellow... I asked one time... IF God is God how come he lets children get run over by cars and interviens in seemingly unimportant matters... what could be more important than the life of this person over that one... and before he could say "maybe it was his plan for the future".. I continued.... given if God is God and is eternal and knows all there was and is to come... why let a child be born only to die... and allow a drunk driver to live and run that child over.... It makes no sense.... He looked at me... turned away then looked back... and said... Pray to God for that answer...hehehehhe

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sandorski, would you please explain where gravity comes from, how it attracts, and why inertia and gravity are equivalent? BTW I am quite familiar with Machs principle, but why is it so? The best minds have no idea about time. It's a profound mystery but there are those who have opinions based on no objective data.

WinstonSmith would have said, Yes, indeed it is so... I've no idea why but it is as it is... As Winston stood spinning... heheheh

Edit: stood spinning sounds counter intuitive but so would be the effect of the stars... on Winston... heheheheh

Well played

It has occurred to me that one has to guard oneself against "knowledge" that is not. There is what we know, what we think we know, and that which we believe but cannot prove. It is an exercise in discipline to understand which things belong in which category, and that it's never fixed. We have to attempt to understand our biases and attempt (imperfectly) to compensate.

As Sandorski said to you, time is arbitrary, or at least that's how I took his words. It's just measuring between events. If that is true, then the limit of measuring time is entirely dependent on our ability to measure. Since it isn't "real" it can be measured with arbitrary precision. Unfortunately that doesn't work in the universe as we currently understand it. We have physical constants which constrain the minimum possible length of time which can exist in our universe, namely Planck Time. If time were merely an illusion or invented then the universe wouldn't care, yet it does.

Even with science, not everything we "know", we know.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
As an advocate looking into the eyes of the jury while trying to defend the existence of my client, "Time", who sat at the table nearby, I begin by saying that while I agree there is no physical property to measure or touch or smell or hear or taste "Time" exists... To prove this to you, ladies and gentlemen, I must resort to inferential means... I have the luxury, however, of noticing on each of your wrists exists a watch... you are measuring time intervals... you accept "Time" exists because you see the hands move... But, there are two kinds of "Time"... Physical and Metaphysical... Metaphysical time is immeasurable. It is the perception of time as a continuous flow... no interval. You must quantify it into intervals by looking at your watch for it to pass from Metaphysical to Physical.
Think of it another way... I notice you each brought a Copy of Bullfinches Mythology to court... you each, I presume, believe that Gods exists... Gods are like "Time" in the sense that you cannot prove directly their existence but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

Thank goodness there were no atheists in Court that day...

I am confident you can re-read this statement with the bolded changes and very quickly find the logical fallacy of the original version.

But just incase, to whit, the following statement:

but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

is a complete non sequitur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

More important, this statement:

Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God

Is (still) vacant of content. What factors?

Final score = F

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Skoorb
For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

If Heaven is so wonderful why are Christians more afraid to die then anyone else on the planet? Could it be deep down they know there isn't one and that it's all BS? I have never seen more people afraid to die then Christians, clinging to life as long as they can just don't want to go down.. Hmmmm

Sounds like you are just making that up and could probably insert any group into there. I would say that there are too many different groups to discuss. Of the specific churches that i pay attention to, they are ecstatic for the end of times. Death isn't the end of life in this world, its the beginning of the eternal and it indicates that time is passing which brings the rapture ever closer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Skoorb
For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

If Heaven is so wonderful why are Christians more afraid to die then anyone else on the planet? Could it be deep down they know there isn't one and that it's all BS? I have never seen more people afraid to die then Christians, clinging to life as long as they can just don't want to go down.. Hmmmm

Sounds like you are just making that up and could probably insert any group into there. I would say that there are too many different groups to discuss. Of the specific churches that i pay attention to, they are ecstatic for the end of times. Death isn't the end of life in this world, its the beginning of the eternal and it indicates that time is passing which brings the rapture ever closer.

It seems that he has invented a statistic and then cites it as proof for his claim. While I don't see things as Skoorb does, I know people of many faiths, and of none. Christians aren't more afraid, at least in any demonstrable way that I know of.

I would like to see the proof of his contention by scientific means.

 

[magomago]

What I always wonder if why people seem to struggle with religion vs science. As if the two are completely and diametrically opposed.

There are plenty examples of wrong science that was believed for a long time, and plenty examples (and I can even talk about modern examples in the Quran no less!) of shitty interpretation of religion.

Religion is meant as an attempt to answer that which can never be known experimentally. Its a belief in something which you know can never be empircally or theoretically proven. Science is an attempt to answer that which CAN be experimentally tested and theoretically derived

I look to science to aid and bolster an understanding in religion in an attempt to straighten and continuously refine the interpretations of the texts. Science will contiuously correct itself (Even if its not right) over time, and that is indispensable when reading and understanding many religious scriptures/texts.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sandorski, would you please explain where gravity comes from, how it attracts, and why inertia and gravity are equivalent? BTW I am quite familiar with Machs principle, but why is it so? The best minds have no idea about time. It's a profound mystery but there are those who have opinions based on no objective data.

WinstonSmith would have said, Yes, indeed it is so... I've no idea why but it is as it is... As Winston stood spinning... heheheh

Edit: stood spinning sounds counter intuitive but so would be the effect of the stars... on Winston... heheheheh

Well played

It has occurred to me that one has to guard oneself against "knowledge" that is not. There is what we know, what we think we know, and that which we believe but cannot prove. It is an exercise in discipline to understand which things belong in which category, and that it's never fixed. We have to attempt to understand our biases and attempt (imperfectly) to compensate.

As Sandorski said to you, time is arbitrary, or at least that's how I took his words. It's just measuring between events. If that is true, then the limit of measuring time is entirely dependent on our ability to measure. Since it isn't "real" it can be measured with arbitrary precision. Unfortunately that doesn't work in the universe as we currently understand it. We have physical constants which constrain the minimum possible length of time which can exist in our universe, namely Planck Time. If time were merely an illusion or invented then the universe wouldn't care, yet it does.

Even with science, not everything we "know", we know.

Yeah... I know that I don't know what I don't know...

I am in awe of folks who sit and think and produce understanding to the unknown... I can't grasp infinity... or eternity... they conflict in meaning to me... One is with out time.. and the other has time as infinite...
This God that this thread talks about is eternal... always was and always will be... IS here there and everywhere transcending the limits of time in a place where time is... In the future of our infinity and our past at the same time... That alone would make me shrink away in disbelief had I not already known God is God cuz who else can explain all this scientific stuff to me when we meet... and a list I have... (the exception to the rule.. )

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Skoorb
For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

If Heaven is so wonderful why are Christians more afraid to die then anyone else on the planet? Could it be deep down they know there isn't one and that it's all BS? I have never seen more people afraid to die then Christians, clinging to life as long as they can just don't want to go down.. Hmmmm

Sounds like you are just making that up and could probably insert any group into there. I would say that there are too many different groups to discuss. Of the specific churches that i pay attention to, they are ecstatic for the end of times. Death isn't the end of life in this world, its the beginning
But you see, you're not referring to the same thing. The groups that anticipate the end of times aren't contemplating their individual deaths. They're imaging an overall event that feels wonderful. They're embracing a fantasy.

Real death in the here and now is something entirely different.

 

[JSt0rm]

We can't grasp existence for eternity because well, I know i would be bored as fuck after half of eternity let alone the WHOLE thing. People don't want to swallow the truth that when its over its over and for the most part they shouldn't have to. Let them believe there is a afterlife, it doesn't matter and if it brings peace to someone then cool.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Atomic Playboy how things appear are entirely dependent on a priori beliefs. I take your point, but the atheist assumes his version of reality is correct. That being the case squirrel calling is an apt analogy. It almost goes without saying that if the belief is that there is a god who is the Creator then it's not arbitrary.

Now since neither hypothesis is testable, this is forever academic.

I'm always hesitant to participate in religious threads since they often devolve into a flame fest, but this has generally been fairly adult material.

Eh, whether invisible leprechauns exist is also untestable but if someone ordered their life around the likelihood of such creatures existing I'd say they were off their rocker.

Except the point of your post is essentially absurd. We are not talking about inbisible leprechauns or speghetti monsters or unicorns or anything else of that like, if you will look.

We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.

Evidence for the existence of god or the FSM is exactly equal.

Interest in the first is profound, in the second essentially non-existent, and that is the only point I make. Like calls to like. It is a fact that man has an interest in the God question. Man is interested in God because God is interested in man. Nobody gives a flying fig about the spaghetti monster.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sandorski, would you please explain where gravity comes from, how it attracts, and why inertia and gravity are equivalent? BTW I am quite familiar with Machs principle, but why is it so? The best minds have no idea about time. It's a profound mystery but there are those who have opinions based on no objective data.

WinstonSmith would have said, Yes, indeed it is so... I've no idea why but it is as it is... As Winston stood spinning... heheheh

Edit: stood spinning sounds counter intuitive but so would be the effect of the stars... on Winston... heheheheh

Well played

It has occurred to me that one has to guard oneself against "knowledge" that is not. There is what we know, what we think we know, and that which we believe but cannot prove. It is an exercise in discipline to understand which things belong in which category, and that it's never fixed. We have to attempt to understand our biases and attempt (imperfectly) to compensate.

As Sandorski said to you, time is arbitrary, or at least that's how I took his words. It's just measuring between events. If that is true, then the limit of measuring time is entirely dependent on our ability to measure. Since it isn't "real" it can be measured with arbitrary precision. Unfortunately that doesn't work in the universe as we currently understand it. We have physical constants which constrain the minimum possible length of time which can exist in our universe, namely Planck Time. If time were merely an illusion or invented then the universe wouldn't care, yet it does.

Even with science, not everything we "know", we know.

Time isn't an Illusion, but it is our Construct of Observable phenomena. That is, that things Progress and Change from one moment to the next. The Universe doesn't care, but we do because it has ramifications upon our Lives.

I really don't know what Science has to say on the matter and am just going off the top of my head here. Time is not a Mystical thing though.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: LunarRay
As an advocate looking into the eyes of the jury while trying to defend the existence of my client, "Time", who sat at the table nearby, I begin by saying that while I agree there is no physical property to measure or touch or smell or hear or taste "Time" exists... To prove this to you, ladies and gentlemen, I must resort to inferential means... I have the luxury, however, of noticing on each of your wrists exists a watch... you are measuring time intervals... you accept "Time" exists because you see the hands move... But, there are two kinds of "Time"... Physical and Metaphysical... Metaphysical time is immeasurable. It is the perception of time as a continuous flow... no interval. You must quantify it into intervals by looking at your watch for it to pass from Metaphysical to Physical.
Think of it another way... I notice you each brought a Copy of Bullfinches Mythology to court... you each, I presume, believe that Gods exists... Gods are like "Time" in the sense that you cannot prove directly their existence but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

Thank goodness there were no atheists in Court that day...

I am confident you can re-read this statement with the bolded changes and very quickly find the logical fallacy of the original version.

But just incase, to whit, the following statement:

but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

is a complete non sequitur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

More important, this statement:

Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God

Is (still) vacant of content. What factors?

Final score = F

Oh.. heck.. if I'd known I was speaking to a group of Fable Rousers I'd likely have used some other means to defend Time. Do you think they will deny my plea for the existence of Time... or is it God... hmmmm ineffective counsel, I guess

It is to the individual to determine 'factors'.. but to the extent they point one way or another they do..

I like my rendition better... yours has too many..... too many gods..

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: magomago
Religion is meant as an attempt to answer that which can never be known experimentally. Its a belief in something which you know can never be empircally or theoretically proven.

What can't be known experimentally? Let me guess:

1. Does God exist?
Religion doesn't "explain", it just makes statements: "God exists."


2. Is there a purpose to existence?
Again, religion doesn't explain, it just tells you there's a purpose.


Religions don't explain anything. They are systems of shared fantasies.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Interest in the first is profound, in the second essentially non-existent, and that is the only point I make. Like calls to like. It is a fact that man has an interest in the God question. Man is interested in God because God is interested in man. Nobody gives a flying fig about the spaghetti monster.

Man is interested in God because a purposeless existence, ending in annihilation, is too horrible for most people to contemplate.

The belief in God is a coping mechanism.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Skoorb
For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

If Heaven is so wonderful why are Christians more afraid to die then anyone else on the planet? Could it be deep down they know there isn't one and that it's all BS? I have never seen more people afraid to die then Christians, clinging to life as long as they can just don't want to go down.. Hmmmm

Sounds like you are just making that up and could probably insert any group into there. I would say that there are too many different groups to discuss. Of the specific churches that i pay attention to, they are ecstatic for the end of times. Death isn't the end of life in this world, its the beginning of the eternal and it indicates that time is passing which brings the rapture ever closer.

Sorta. Depends on which Interpretation they adhere to. For many it is only the start of a 1000 Year Reign on Earth. Another Conflict transpires, the Righteous go away to what's termed "a New Heaven and New Earth", the unrighteous Survivors lolligag on a Hell like Earth.

The Rapture is just "Gods'" way to spare the "Righteous" from Its' angry fucking around with Earth and the "unrighteous" left behind.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Interest in the first is profound, in the second essentially non-existent, and that is the only point I make. Like calls to like. It is a fact that man has an interest in the God question. Man is interested in God because God is interested in man. Nobody gives a flying fig about the spaghetti monster.

Man is interested in God because a purposeless existence, ending in annihilation, is too horrible for most people to contemplate.

The belief in God is a coping mechanism.

Why are you so afraid to have a purpose?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: inspire
Mathematics is, at its heart, one of the most purest forms of science. It can be established from thoughts, with only a paper and pencil. It can trace its theorems, its corollaries back through the rules of deductive logic to a small handful of axioms. But, at the end of the day, the axioms cannot be proven. Neither can they be disproven. They are taken for granted, and are often less 'established' (in the historical sense) than the concept of monotheism.

I'm not sure about your background in math, but what you say here is absolutely false. Axioms are not just 'taken for granted.' They are self verifying, because their denial produces absurdities that are inconsistent with reality. They are not 'less established than the concept of monotheism.' In fact, if you were to deny these axioms, you would not be able to even make an argument, which you are attempting to do now. Or your arguments would contain absurdities such as: A and not A. So you just contradicted yourself in an epic way.

All we know reduces to things we take for granted; though we may consistently review what we've accepted. This illustrates the point that axioms are simply rules we take for granted that are generally consistent with what we observe - even 'consistency' relies on the axioms of logic.

Axioms are only givens under pain of absurdity. They are taken for 'granted' only in the sense that anyone who denied them would be considered a babbling fool, incapable of any rational argument.

I don't view belief in an origin of order or a god as an exception. I can agree that many people's concept of god is not consistent with what I observe. However, everyone's concept is not the same, so I can't dismiss them categorically.

I do not dismiss god categorically either. Nor do I dismiss categorically space aliens. In this way I am an agnostic atheist. What I denounce is a positive claim to some unknown force or god that is controlling the universe.

Evidence to the contrary should allow for the revision of these beliefs. But, an absence of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. I question my belief fairly often, but belief is my null hypothesis, if you will.

I'm not sure that will answer your question, but that's about as much as I can offer. If I've managed to fail your challenge, I suppose you can win - I've thought about these things for some time, and until I have some further revelation, I'm not going to be changing my mind on it.

But the huge error you are making is that it should be the other way around. Instead of having a positive belief in god and then not changing your mind until it is proven that god doesn't exist, you should assume god does not exist and then change your mind once it is shown that it does. This is the same process applied to all other imaginary constructs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.

Yeah, but what kind of a brain dead moron would chose a logical consistency over God? You are awfully damn funny.