The cycle

[xSilverPhinx]

Yes I see what you are getting at, I actually understand what the man you heard of is saying...If you don't, that's your problem. I could elaborate but I suppose it's just worthless and stupid  

I would say that it's unnecessary to call gravity "god".

Why don't you just answer the question? That isn't my response to why people don't agree with me, it's just a question... As for, what this God is, it is IMO the ultimate perspective, the truth, the relativity between all things, the reason you get a chance to live. It is not a person, or a place, or a thing, but rather a person, a place, and a thing. God is the reason for the big bang, the reason for all the madness. The fairness between life and death and beyond.

I don't think that "everything" or "existence" "truth" is intelligent and consciously capable of creating a universe. I like pantheism (atheistic pantheism - reality is not intelligent). I wouldn't call gravity intelligent either or give it an emotional quality.

[Asmodean]

That's my point, you can't comletely define yourself, like you said you can't believe in something that's not completely defined...

Of course, I can. I did.

I gave you the primary defining characteristics. If you are looking to define me the person as opposed to me the biocomputer in a philosophical way, well, that's not hard:

I, the person, am the sum of all primary defining characteristics and all outside influences, past or present.

You can combine both definitions to define both aspects, although I see no need in doing so.

[Davin]

This is my first topic on the big boy boards and mainly the whole reason I came to this board. I would like to debate with anyone who is up for it. As many of you support your beliefs with the others, I only have my experience to support mine. Anyways I have a few points and questions. First question, Why do people believe there is no God? God is not defined, like me or you, the idea itself exists, obviously, and people cannot create ideas, as much as you would like to believe ideas are created, I personally feel that they are discovered and manipulated. My other question is if you don't believe in religions, is it because of what you see they do to people, or really what the people do to people?

There are more than a few problems with your questions.

"First question, Why do people believe there is no God? God is not defined, like me or you, the idea itself exists, obviously, and people cannot create ideas, as much as you would like to believe ideas are created, I personally feel that they are discovered and manipulated."

The question should only be answered by people that believe there is no god, most atheists do not fall into this category. My answer to this would be that one believes there is no god because for thousands of years, no reasonable evidence has been provided of said god. I would liken it to the same reason why one believes there is no Santa.

The statement after it is a long drawn out, unclear, run-on sentence. But you do make some claims about the god you believe in which leads me to disregard your concept: "God is not defined[...]" If god is not defined, then there is no reason to posit the existence of it.

You state that people cannot create ideas, you will need to support this claim, because in your statement you've only supported with what you personally feel. Anecdotal evidence is only useful to the person providing it because it cannot be demonstrated to, verified by or tested by other people.

"My other question is if you don't believe in religions, is it because of what you see they do to people, or really what the people do to people?"

Religions exist, I don't know of anyone who claims they don't.

Then what is atheism? not a flock of people with the same belief, that's not hypocritical...

An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any given, multiple or all deities with various degrees of conviction. It's an umbrella term, like theist is an umbrella term for someone who does believe in god(s)

Atheism is not a flock. Even religion is not. A congregation is a flock. See the difference?

Atheism is not a religion. It is not even a life philosophy, really.

but here you are on a board of atheists, how is that not a congregation?

I wonder what you would call yourself then? Another atheist in the congregation? Are you not also on this board? There are many Christians and some Muslims and various other people that post on these boards.

Look back to your statement that was replied to: "Then what is atheism? not a flock of people with the same belief, that's not hypocritical..." Not only is this incorrect in itself, but your reply to it changed from that to merely a congregation. It is incorrect in itself because atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods and therefore cannot be a belief... unless you want to explain how the lack of belief in something is somehow a belief.

So what would constitute as evidence if there was a God?

You're making a claim that a god exists, you're the one responsible for providing the evidence. Things that constitute evidence are things that are demonstrable, verifiable and satisfies predictions.

That's my point, you can't comletely define yourself, like you said you can't believe in something that's not completely defined...

First please remember that no one asked you to completely define the god, it would go a long way to define a little bit of it.

Those are just the biggest problems I've found while reading this thread.

[McQ]

bicycle, you have been trolling since you came on the forum. I'd say you're time here is limited at best.

[bicycle]

silverphinx,

I would say that it's unnecessary to call gravity "god".

I wouldn't call gravity "god" either. I wouldn't call "God" anything but "God." Anything else would be limiting God to a small aspect of itself. That's like saying if I lost my toe, and you found it on the ground, and that it would be who I am. When the man says God is the love that keeps the planets together, it's like saying Love is attachment, the planets are equally attached, just like everything in the universe. Nothing can be created or destroyed.

I don't think that "everything" or "existence" "truth" is intelligent and consciously capable of creating a universe. I like pantheism (atheistic pantheism - reality is not intelligent). I wouldn't call gravity intelligent either or give it an emotional quality.

Neither would I, but life has emotion, and life has knowledge, to my knowledge, God is a part of life. If you don't believe God exists because there is no reasonable evidence, I'm sure you don't believe there is intelligent life on other planets, considering no one has ever found reasonable evidence.

Asmodeon,

I gave you the primary defining characteristics.

Great if you want the primary defining characteristics of God here you go: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, Everything in existence and nothing, alpha and omega.

I, the person, am the sum of all primary defining characteristics and all outside influences, past or present.

You can combine both definitions to define both aspects, although I see no need in doing so.

What you defined was a living person, in no way is it who you are, it is just what you are. You also have a name and a personal experience which words would not do justice in defining. Who "you" are, or were, or will be cannot be defined by you or anyone else.

DAvin,

The statement after it is a long drawn out, unclear, run-on sentence. But you do make some claims about the god you believe in which leads me to disregard your concept: "God is not defined[...]" If god is not defined, then there is no reason to posit the existence of it.

This is the same problem I have been answering the entire time. I am not defined, it does not mean I do not exist.  And why would making claims about (aka describing) the god I believe in, lead to disregarding the concept that "God is not defined?" I can't define myself and yet I can describe myself. In no way can a description be a definition. e.g A book is rectangular, rather than A written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

You state that people cannot create ideas, you will need to support this claim, because in your statement you've only supported with what you personally feel. Anecdotal evidence is only useful to the person providing it because it cannot be demonstrated to, verified by or tested by other people.

Why don't you test it out then? Name one idea that you have come up with on your own, without any outside influence or experience, that's like saying people dream before they are alive, it is impossible.

Religions exist, I don't know of anyone who claims they don't.

That's not even what I was asking...Everyone knows religions exist besides maybe 2 year olds, I was asking why you would reject the concepts of religions. In other words, why would you accept that they are wrong or bad? My other point was that people can be wrong or bad, not religion itself.

I wonder what you would call yourself then? Another atheist in the congregation? Are you not also on this board? There are many Christians and some Muslims and various other people that post on these boards.

I have no problem being part of a congretion, In context the person I was talking to said they don't like congregations of people , which is what led to me asking that question, but no I am not atheist.

Look back to your statement that was replied to: "Then what is atheism? not a flock of people with the same belief, that's not hypocritical..." Not only is this incorrect in itself, but your reply to it changed from that to merely a congregation.

Merely a congregation? A congregation is a : an assembly of persons : gathering; especially : an assembly of persons met for worship and religious instruction... That is synonymous to a flock of people with the same belief...especially when it is a religious belief. A religious belief is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. If you don't believe there is a God or have a lack of belief in religion altogether, that would be considered some sort of psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Do you not think you are right, that all religions are wrong? If you are just uncertain that would be called agnostic.

So what would constitute as evidence if there was a God?

This was a hypothetical question. What I was asking was, what would you need to know or experience in order to believe God exists? Or what would be evidence that God exists, If I was uncertain of the existence of God, I would like to know what would make me change my mind.

Quote from: bicycle on Yesterday at 08:48:57 AM
That's my point, you can't comletely define yourself, like you said you can't believe in something that's not completely defined...
First please remember that no one asked you to completely define the god, it would go a long way to define a little bit of it.

I have defined a little bit of it, but that's not even what a definition is in the first place, that is a description. Definitions are passages that explain the meaning of a term. If you don't know what the term god is then look it up, it is used quite often. As far as I was concerned I used it as a name, why would I define a name? That's pointless...

[Asmodean]

Great if you want the primary defining characteristics of God here you go: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient,

Logical fallacy, thus requiring proof of concept.

Everything in existence and nothing, alpha and omega.

We have a word for that: the Universe

What you defined was a living person, in no way is it who you are, it is just what you are. You also have a name and a personal experience which words would not do justice in defining. Who "you" are, or were, or will be cannot be defined by you or anyone else.

Intelligence fail. My name does not define me in any way. I would not become a different person if I changed it to like Bob or Tad. My personal experiences and all my interactions with the outside of the biocomputer are the "outside influences"

My definition is more than good enough. It is complete, even if through use of the umbrella terms.

In context the person I was talking to said they don't like congregations of people , which is what led to me asking that question

You are not refering to me, are you..? Because if you are, this is where I ask you to provide a specific quote of me saying that I dislike congregations...

[Sweetdeath]

Actually bicycle, the reason why there is no real defined God is because it can technically mean anything you worship.

For example; in Japanese Shintoism, all around is "god."  Even a large tree may be considered sacred and referred to as "god."

This is why it is so very annoying to have people fight and even kill in the name of their god(s)
It is childish.  

[The Magic Pudding]

DAvin,

You state that people cannot create ideas, you will need to support this claim, because in your statement you've only supported with what you personally feel. Anecdotal evidence is only useful to the person providing it because it cannot be demonstrated to, verified by or tested by other people.

Why don't you test it out then? Name one idea that you have come up with on your own, without any outside influence or experience, that's like saying people dream before they are alive, it is impossible.

What is the fact people are influenced by their environment supposed to prove?

Religions exist, I don't know of anyone who claims they don't.

That's not even what I was asking...Everyone knows religions exist besides maybe 2 year olds, I was asking why you would reject the concepts of religions. In other words, why would you accept that they are wrong or bad? My other point was that people can be wrong or bad, not religion itself.

A religion says suicide is a sin and the suicide will burn in hell.  The mother who believes this suffers for the rest of her life thinking her child is burning in hell.

[Sweetdeath]

You know, the whole "kill yourself and go to hell thing " is really agitating.

I have read horrible stories about many ancient cities that were invaded. The women would usually kill themselves and their children to save them from being  tortured or used as a sex slave. So, freakin excuse me, but there are situations where the best choice is suicide.

[The Magic Pudding]

You know, the whole "kill yourself and go to hell thing " is really agitating.

I have read horrible stories about many ancient cities that were invaded. The women would usually kill themselves and their children to save them from being  tortured or used as a sex slave. So, freakin excuse me, but there are situations where the best choice is suicide.

I've always long thought it was a property issue, you don't want your sheep deciding life isn't worth living and jumping off a cliff.

[Sweetdeath]

That Sky daddy is one smart laddy, he is

[xSilverPhinx]

I wouldn't call gravity "god" either. I wouldn't call "God" anything but "God." Anything else would be limiting God to a small aspect of itself. That's like saying if I lost my toe, and you found it on the ground, and that it would be who I am. When the man says God is the love that keeps the planets together, it's like saying Love is attachment, the planets are equally attached, just like everything in the universe. Nothing can be created or destroyed.

Then what's the point of calling it god? Does love exist outside your mind or are you (and that guy) projecting your own emotion onto a physical phenomena? Love is also a loaded word, and not so simple is meaning than merely "attachment". So is "god".

Neither would I, but life has emotion, and life has knowledge, to my knowledge, God is a part of life. If you don't believe God exists because there is no reasonable evidence, I'm sure you don't believe there is intelligent life on other planets, considering no one has ever found reasonable evidence.

There is a lot of evidence that such a thing is possible, which makes it reasonable to assume (based on physical evidence, not just speculation) that there is life on planets other than our own.

What exactly do you see as being the evidence for the existence of god? And I'm curious, what are your thoughts on reality?

Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, Everything in existence and nothing, alpha and omega.

Hmmm I see you've left out omnibenelovent, at least where that's concerned, you're not projecting your expectations onto existence. Well done!

I've always long thought it was a property issue, you don't want your sheep deciding life isn't worth living and jumping off a cliff.

Only in religion would deciding what to do with your own life be a sin worthy of eternal torture.  

[Davin]

DAvin,

The statement after it is a long drawn out, unclear, run-on sentence. But you do make some claims about the god you believe in which leads me to disregard your concept: "God is not defined[...]" If god is not defined, then there is no reason to posit the existence of it.

This is the same problem I have been answering the entire time. I am not defined, it does not mean I do not exist.  And why would making claims about (aka describing) the god I believe in, lead to disregarding the concept that "God is not defined?" I can't define myself and yet I can describe myself. In no way can a description be a definition. e.g A book is rectangular, rather than A written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

All I can define of your existence is that there are posts being made on this forum under the username bicycle, but that is at least something. If I were to say that there was a person with a username of bicycle on HAF who makes posts, I can support that definition by pointing to the posts made under that username. However there is nothing, as in not a single thing, for god.

Also, to describe oneself and to define oneself, you keep acting as if they're different things:

de·fine
   [dih-fahyn] verb -fined, -fin·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define "liberal."
2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.
3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly: to define one's responsibilities.
4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.
5. to make clear the outline or form of: The roof was boldly defined against the sky.

You'll notice number 2 does in fact even use the word "describe" in the definition of what "define" means, so we're done with your silly little word game.

You state that people cannot create ideas, you will need to support this claim, because in your statement you've only supported with what you personally feel. Anecdotal evidence is only useful to the person providing it because it cannot be demonstrated to, verified by or tested by other people.

Why don't you test it out then? Name one idea that you have come up with on your own, without any outside influence or experience, that's like saying people dream before they are alive, it is impossible.

Are you seriously trying to shift the burden of proof for your claim onto me? I hope you realize that I'm very used to this and will not fall into that common trap. So you provide the evidence for your claims and stop trying to get other people to do it for you.

Religions exist, I don't know of anyone who claims they don't.

That's not even what I was asking...Everyone knows religions exist besides maybe 2 year olds, I was asking why you would reject the concepts of religions. In other words, why would you accept that they are wrong or bad? My other point was that people can be wrong or bad, not religion itself.

What I answered is an answer to what you asked, however I will take your correction. I would accept that no religion can be supported to be correct due to the lack of evidence and even reasoning.

I wonder what you would call yourself then? Another atheist in the congregation? Are you not also on this board? There are many Christians and some Muslims and various other people that post on these boards.

I have no problem being part of a congretion, In context the person I was talking to said they don't like congregations of people , which is what led to me asking that question, but no I am not atheist.

I didn't see anyone say that, don't lie.

Look back to your statement that was replied to: "Then what is atheism? not a flock of people with the same belief, that's not hypocritical..." Not only is this incorrect in itself, but your reply to it changed from that to merely a congregation.

Merely a congregation? A congregation is a : an assembly of persons : gathering; especially : an assembly of persons met for worship and religious instruction... That is synonymous to a flock of people with the same belief...especially when it is a religious belief.

Can be, but not anywhere near as specific as your previous post. You were moving your goal post, which is a logical fallacy, please refrain from logical fallacies.

A religious belief is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. If you don't believe there is a God or have a lack of belief in religion altogether, that would be considered some sort of psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Wrong. You've had the concept explained to you many many times, yet you seem to lack the ability to comprehend what is being said.

Do you not think you are right, that all religions are wrong? If you are just uncertain that would be called agnostic.

I answered this previously, there is no reason to accept what any religion says.

So what would constitute as evidence if there was a God?

This was a hypothetical question. What I was asking was, what would you need to know or experience in order to believe God exists? Or what would be evidence that God exists, If I was uncertain of the existence of God, I would like to know what would make me change my mind.

I answered.

[Stevil]

My other point was that people can be wrong or bad, not religion itself.

Religion is wrong when it promotes human suffering (anti Euthanasia) when it promotes ignorance (anti sex education), when it promotes sexism (all male preisthood), when it promotes persecusion (anti homosexuality), when it promotes against critical thinking, when it promotes against the idea of requiring proof, when it creates the idea of requiring belief...

[bicycle]

People are wrong when they use religions to persecute others, that is not the job of religion, and I am religious but still use critical thinking...God can be described, just like I can be described, but no one can truly define me or any other person specifically... Anyways, the universe is far too perfect to not have been created for nothing, or to not have a creator. Coincidentally, theists would say God created himself, similar to the universe being created out of itself. We were all created, you could say our parents are the ones who created us, but we came from the universe, where nothing is created or destroyed just changed or manipulated. Time is an illusion which hides the true nature of the universe.
It may seem random but everything can be calculated. As far as homosexuals, no one is born gay, you can argue with me all you want, but gay scientific researchers have been known to have found ZERO proof that people are born gay. No such thing as gay genetics or centers in the brain that conduce homosexual behavior. Would it be right to persecute homosexuals? Hell no, but they are wishfully thinking if they think they were made that way. If you disagree, prove me wrong, would be glad to listen, unless your just trying to be a smart a$$.