Atheist 1 - Christian guy 0

"What evidence of god existing? There is no such evidence!"

Maybe not to you... But to me, I just look at the world around us.
For me, it's hard to believe that all the diversity (on this planet alone) just happened
to exist from nothing. I believe that everything on this planet was created by a creator.
Even still, these are just my beliefs. They are not fact.

"He tells you to pray and things will be answered. Ask and you shall receive."

It says ask and you shall receive. Not ask and you shall get whatever you want.
Also, I believe this refers to spiritual things, not worldly things.
For example, asking to win the lottery is no good, but asking God to help you grow in your faith is good.

"if i had a dog and he dug out my neighbors trash i wouldn't kill him ..
thats what god did to man. his own creation didn't please him so he flooded us and wiped us out"

The people that died in the flood were already dead spiritually because they rejected God.
God knew this, so he created the flood. However, not every human was killed. The ones who followed God were saved.
The thing you have to remember about the old testament is that it's meant to compliment the new testament.
The flood that washed away the sinful people is complimented in the new testament as baptism washing away sin.

I always enjoy having civil discussions about religion with atheists because it makes me dig deeper into my beliefs.
It's a bit weird having this discussion in a jiu jitsu forum though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

That part i understand. its the little changes that confuse me. for instance.. to get from a worm to whatever comes next, would require multiple changes. None of which would occur overnight. they are all a lengthy process. For instance some believe we started in a pond or body of water, and eventually developed lungs. So lets say to get from a water occupying creature, to becoming something that could take in oxygen from the air, we would need to develope some sort of organ or body part that we didnt have before. bust that obviously wouldnt happen overnight. Or in one generation. so how would this DNA "plan ahead" if you will. Or start this organ needed for air intake generations before it was complete? i hope that makes sense. Because to me, even "small" changes would take at minimum a few generations to evolve. So what would be the evolutionary benefit of the generation in between. before its actually fully functioning? it seems like there would be a lot of half developed parts between the original specimen and the one that had the fully operational (insert whatever the next part to develope was here). do you understand what im saying? Maybe its not coming out right.. if not, ill try to think about it and re-write it sometime lol

---

I think I'm getting you. Evolution doen't plan ahead and decide that in a million years i'm going to change in a certain way it says what can I start changing now and then builds from there. Say you take an animal like the giraffe. It used to have a short neck. With the short neck it was harder to eat the tall trees leaves. So the giraffes with the shortest of the short necks got less food and died the giraffes with the longer of the short necks survived. So long necks bread with other long necks until the neck was a little bit longer. Evolution had no idea how far it would take the process the DNA just kept making changes based on what the DNA said to do. Now after a long time of the DNA making changes to the species you have this long necked freak of nature we call a giraffe lol. Or take the lungs for example. There was probably several little changes between living in the water and breathing air, those little changes would of had to of been benificial in there own way prior to breathing air in order to keep the process of evolution going. The end result may have been lungs but the first evolutions of the lungs would of had to be benificial in there own way or else they would of been just mutations that never took off, this happens more offen then actual evolution, simple pointless mutations with no benefit what so ever that die off with their host.

Quote:

---

I'm saying that there needs to be evidence to justify a claim. That claim being: god exists. Make the claim, back it with evidence. That is how something is determined whether or not to be true. In this case, there is no evidence to back the claim, therefor it is logical that we determine the claim untrue.

The reason the default is atheism is because theism must be taught, it must be learned. You apply new information to a person who previously had no information on the subject. If someone had never heard of the concept of a god, then you would need to explain theism to that person, whereas there would be nothing to explain in terms of atheism.

---

I'm saying what's the difference if you claim god doen't exist. That claim being: god does not exists. Make the claim, back it with evidence. That is how something is determined whether or not to be true. In this case, there is no evidence to back the claim, therefor it is logical that we determine the claim untrue.

Quote:

---

And if i said that the gremlin is not subject to the scientific method, then what?

---

Everything is subject to scientific method except God beause of the "all knowing, all mighty, all powerful" premises we attach to God. Thats what makes it unknowable the athority given to god makes god untestable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Both beliefs have an equal amount of evidence backing them. There is just as much evidence that god exists as there is that god doesn't exist.



[QUOTE=Andrew Maxwell;44618

When did I say there was?

---

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Mccaghren

2. You believe in a thing which you do not fully understand but feel compelled towards based upon what you do in fact believe yourself to understand about the subject.

Just some food for thought :)

---

Here's the problem, you consistently use the word "believe" but you're mixing semantics. There are multiple definitions for the word "belief" and none of them are interchangeable or equal in their meaning. In fact most words have multiple definitions which could be so drastic as to almost require a different word to differentiate between them.

I don't understand your intention with this semantic game you are playing but I'll try to make my point as clear as possible.

I do hold, as an opinion, based upon my current knowledgeable knowledge that the idea of "The absence of a belief is not a belief." is a valid idea. Is an opinion a form of belief? Yes, it is. But that usage of the term "belief" has nothing to due with the religious usage of the term.

Quote:

---

Throughout history, humans have attempted to prove of his existence. All attempts have failed, but that does not mean he does not exist, so is it fair to say that there probably is no god?

---

In order to say probably the odds must be greater then 50/50. It's best to say I can't be posative either way since the evidence will always be 50/50. For every argument for god there is a fallacious retort and for every argument against god there is a fallacious retort. There is no conclusive deductive or inductive argument either way for or against God, yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Blankenship

wheres your proof god exsist. No disrespect man i like you.......its just the fact ive read the bible. i v read the evild deeds god wants of a man. if i had a dog and he dug out my neighbors trash i wouldn't kill him .. thats what god did to man. his own creation didn't please him so he flooded us and wiped us out ... thats wrong morally and you can't deny that my friend. i love all you tenth planet brothers but you need to think logically for a moment. read the bible and think about it.

---

This is one of the reasons i think it can sometimes be a scary situation for someone to read parts of the Bible without some sort of guidance can turn people away at first. My ex-gf saw the exact same things when she first started reading the Bible. It was muder here, destruction there.. (reading the Old testament you will run into these things even more often). But Once you get a full understanding of it. You begin to see it from a different standpoint. For instance with the Flood and wiping everyone out. You find in the Bible God gave mankind MULTIPLE chances to do the right thing. Sending messengers who were willing to hear him to talk to the rest who werent. And giving warning after warning. But eventually, all of mankind had turned there back on God and decided to follow after their own desires. And live a life pursuing sin. While at first it may seem like the "Law" of the old testament seems harsh and like a list of things we cant do just because God wants us to live boring funless (I made that word up.. but i like it so im going to use it :P) lives, You find that these laws all have meaning or purpose behind them. To protect us, to help us, or to teach us. Not because he hates us, if that was the case he would just let mankind go the first time they separated themselves from him when they chose to take part in sin in the garden. But instead he gave us another chance. Then again with the Flood. The first time we read it it seems like "wow, God gets mad because they turn their back so he kills everyone? But in reality you can choose to see it two ways. God is killing people because he has an anger issue, or because it somehow ultimately helps mankind as a whole. Which may be hard to understand looking from an outside perspective.. which is completely understandable. But what you have to realize is that had mankind continued the way they were, None of the people would have listened to Noah, because they had all completely turned there hearts away from God. and commited the only "unforgivable sin". which in other words meant they had come to a point in their life that they refused to ever turn back to him. no matter what they were told. So God (being God lol) was aware of that. And he could have continued to allow the world to continue this way and lose all of mankind. Or purge it of this new developed way of life and give it a chance to become "good" again. By allowing Noah to teach his children about the "truth" and what had happened. So that they could pass it along and eventually repopulate the world to a place that would be open to the thought of God rather than completely turned against him. Yes its unfortunate people had to die. But if you believe in the Bible and what it teaches (which i understand you dont but this is just to explain how I see it to address why i dont see me as morally sadistic), then you would see that right now there are more people alive on this planet than all the previous generations combined, And the fact that God chose to purge the world long ago so that all the future generations might have a chance to know who he is, seems less sadistic. I dont think God enjoyed killing all those people. I would assume it would break his heart. But the fact is, it had to be done. the whole "sacrafice the few for the many" type thing. he knew it was too late for them because he understood their heart. And he made the choice he did because of love for humanity, not hate. Sorry this post was so long, and in no way am i trying to convince you of anything. Because i know that you dont believe in any of this.. i just wanted you to see that christians arent as crazy and sociopathic as it might appear at first glance. lol.

Quote:

---

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence

---

I'll be honest I agree with you about faith, I just like playing the devils advocate because doubting our own beliefs is the only way to try to make sure you're believing mostly truths. I'm also being honest when I say our belifes aren't as rooted in truth as we'd like to belive they are. Everyone walks arould beliving things without enough emperical evidence, its what we do, I guess we're programed that way. There are alot of Athiests so dogmatic about there not being a god that they don't realize they have faith themselves. Faith that there is no god is still based in faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

This is one of the reasons i think it can sometimes be a scary situation for someone to read parts of the Bible without some sort of guidance can turn people away at first. My ex-gf saw the exact same things when she first started reading the Bible. It was muder here, destruction there.. (reading the Old testament you will run into these things even more often). But Once you get a full understanding of it. You begin to see it from a different standpoint. For instance with the Flood and wiping everyone out. You find in the Bible God gave mankind MULTIPLE chances to do the right thing. Sending messengers who were willing to hear him to talk to the rest who werent. And giving warning after warning. But eventually, all of mankind had turned there back on God and decided to follow after their own desires. And live a life pursuing sin. While at first it may seem like the "Law" of the old testament seems harsh and like a list of things we cant do just because God wants us to live boring funless (I made that word up.. but i like it so im going to use it :P) lives, You find that these laws all have meaning or purpose behind them. To protect us, to help us, or to teach us. Not because he hates us, if that was the case he would just let mankind go the first time they separated themselves from him when they chose to take part in sin in the garden. But instead he gave us another chance. Then again with the Flood. The first time we read it it seems like "wow, God gets mad because they turn their back so he kills everyone? But in reality you can choose to see it two ways. God is killing people because he has an anger issue, or because it somehow ultimately helps mankind as a whole. Which may be hard to understand looking from an outside perspective.. which is completely understandable. But what you have to realize is that had mankind continued the way they were, None of the people would have listened to Noah, because they had all completely turned there hearts away from God. and commited the only "unforgivable sin". which in other words meant they had come to a point in their life that they refused to ever turn back to him. no matter what they were told. So God (being God lol) was aware of that. And he could have continued to allow the world to continue this way and lose all of mankind. Or purge it of this new developed way of life and give it a chance to become "good" again. By allowing Noah to teach his children about the "truth" and what had happened. So that they could pass it along and eventually repopulate the world to a place that would be open to the thought of God rather than completely turned against him. Yes its unfortunate people had to die. But if you believe in the Bible and what it teaches (which i understand you dont but this is just to explain how I see it to address why i dont see me as morally sadistic), then you would see that right now there are more people alive on this planet than all the previous generations combined, And the fact that God chose to purge the world long ago so that all the future generations might have a chance to know who he is, seems less sadistic. I dont think God enjoyed killing all those people. I would assume it would break his heart. But the fact is, it had to be done. the whole "sacrafice the few for the many" type thing. he knew it was too late for them because he understood their heart. And he made the choice he did because of love for humanity, not hate. Sorry this post was so long, and in no way am i trying to convince you of anything. Because i know that you dont believe in any of this.. i just wanted you to see that christians arent as crazy and sociopathic as it might appear at first glance. lol.

---

Sorry, don't believe the stories men wrote in the bible! The content in the book are not facts! Of course people would need help or guidance to manipulate the words, stories.

Quote:

---

Throughout history, humans have attempted to prove of his existence. All attempts have failed, but that does not mean he does not exist, so is it fair to say that there probably is no god?

---

This is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), it's when you reason that since something has not been proven that it must be true or when you reason since something hasn't been proven that it must be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack LaBarge

Sorry, don't believe the stories men wrote in the bible! The content in the book are not facts! Of course people would need help or guidance to manipulate the words, stories.

---

Im aware of that. which is why i made sure to mention i wasnt doing this because i thought the story was believed, but to respond to don about how i interpreted the story. Obviously a majority of the world isnt part of the christian faith.. so i wouldnt assume they would believe the Bible. lol. Sorry if it sounded like i was trying to quote that story as a proven fact to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack LaBarge

Sorry, don't believe the stories men wrote in the bible! The content in the book are not facts! Of course people would need help or guidance to manipulate the words, stories.

---

Some of the bibles content is proven facts. This does'nt mean it's all facts but some of it is.

andrew you remind me of the non-christian version of myself lol. Always making people (even those who believe what you believe) question why they think a certain way. or play the devils advocate. haha. I agree its important to always be open to question why you believe what you believe. As soon as you have to cover your ears and start convincing yourself you believe a certain way, its a good sign you've become closed minded. which is never a good thing. how can you defend your own belief if you refuse to hear the other sides opinion on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

1. When it comes to evolution.. for the ones who believe we started from wither a plasma or single cell of some sort. If over millions or billions of years we developed into where we are now, how did it all evolve in a way that allowed for our organs to be useful before they were arranged the way they are now.. for instance, it would be pointless for me to have eyes without nerves leading to my brain, or for me to have a butthole without intestines. So how did the evolutionary process allow for these things to develope one without the other? what would have been the point of having a heart without blood vessels? I hope this makes sense the way im wording it. For instance, Its not like our DNA was smart enough to plan evolution ahead and say "in 10 million years i want to be able to see, so i think ill start working on that now my gradually evolving the nerves and brain that will be required to use the eyes that will come around that time". And again, dont take this as a personal attack on the theory, I obviously am aware that there is an actual scientific theory to how it happened, and thats the answer im looking for. From someone who knows enough to respond in a way that makes sense and so i will be better able to understand your views.

2. For Christians, (and i have my own personal opinion on this but i would like to hear others views because i know mine isnt the only one) But how would you say it is possible that God (and im talking about the christian God of the Bible in this instance), Was able to create Satan with the ability to sin if there was no sin in God?

3. For the ones who believe we evolved from monkeys (if that is still even a theory, im not positive), How do you believe it was that monkeys remained, and humans remained, but all of the links between died off? why is there no 1/2 monkey 1/2 man, or any other percentage of man/monkey mix any longer?

---

http://productsearch.barnesandnoble....g=False&ugrp=2

This is the intro book used in my junior-year Evolutionary Biology class. In the years since completing my degree (biochemistry and evolutionary biology) I've fought the evolution fight a number of times. I've grown weary of doing so. I don't mean to imply that you're trying to start a fight and my intent is not to start one either. But over and over and over again I've heard people complain, criticize, and misrepresent evolutionary theory; all without ever having actually READ a single textbook on the subject. If you REALLY want to know something about evolutionary biology, the information is readily available. All it takes is a credit card and several hours of your time. I just finished re-reading the text cover-to-cover (I kept it in the bathroom. Took me about three months). There is an astounding abundance of evidence for those who are willing to put in the time to look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt

http://productsearch.barnesandnoble....g=False&ugrp=2

This is the intro book used in my junior-year Evolutionary Biology class. In the years since completing my degree (biochemistry and evolutionary biology) I've fought the evolution fight a number of times. I've grown weary of doing so. I don't mean to imply that you're trying to start a fight and my intent is not to start one either. But over and over and over again I've heard people complain, criticize, and misrepresent evolutionary theory; all without ever having actually READ a single textbook on the subject. If you REALLY want to know something about evolutionary biology, the information is readily available. All it takes is a credit card and several hours of your time. I just finished re-reading the text cover-to-cover (I kept it in the bathroom. Took me about three months). There is an astounding abundance of evidence for those who are willing to put in the time to look at it.

---

Very awsome! Thanks for the link!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

Ok, so i THINK i understand what you are saying. but let me make sure. What you are suggesting is that the reason we dont do certain "immoral" things. (I'll just use the example of cheating in this scenario), is because we have learned the benefits of working together. And by not betraying each other or the person we have chose to be with, it will ultimately lead to more of a unison and cooperation of the species overall. Therefor leading to, for lack of a better terminology, "power in numbers" because we are all working together. So in a sense, we are looking out for others best interest, because it would ultimately be better for us also (seeing as though that means we would work together) is that correct?

---

That's kind of correct. The people who had those morals built in genetically passed those genes down, and the people who did not have them did not procreate.

@ Andrew: Any time. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt

http://productsearch.barnesandnoble....g=False&ugrp=2

This is the intro book used in my junior-year Evolutionary Biology class. In the years since completing my degree (biochemistry and evolutionary biology) I've fought the evolution fight a number of times. I've grown weary of doing so. I don't mean to imply that you're trying to start a fight and my intent is not to start one either. But over and over and over again I've heard people complain, criticize, and misrepresent evolutionary theory; all without ever having actually READ a single textbook on the subject. If you REALLY want to know something about evolutionary biology, the information is readily available. All it takes is a credit card and several hours of your time. I just finished re-reading the text cover-to-cover (I kept it in the bathroom. Took me about three months). There is an astounding abundance of evidence for those who are willing to put in the time to look at it.

---

Thanks for the link. my mom works at a college so hopefully she can get me this one. If not i'll try to order it. And Im glad you didnt take it the wrong way. I really do want to know all the sides. If nothing else just for my own personal growth in my beliefs. I look at it like the whole 10th planet/BJJ jiujitsu thing.. Even if people claim BJJ is the way to go, and 10th planet is worthless.. I never understood what harm there was in learning it... if nothing else, to know how to defend if one of your opponents is knowledgeable in it. I like knowing as much as i can about as many religions (or points of view on any subject for that matter) as i can. But i'll def check out the book! thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

This is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), it's when you reason that since something has not been proven that it must be true or when you reason since something hasn't been proven that it must be true.

---

The point is probability, it's not a matter of truth. And it's when something is false, then the opposite must be true by default, which is not what i'm claiming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

I'm saying what's the difference if you claim god doen't exist. That claim being: god does not exists. Make the claim, back it with evidence. That is how something is determined whether or not to be true. In this case, there is no evidence to back the claim, therefor it is logical that we determine the claim untrue.

---

That's the thing, i'm not making a claim. Atheism is the logical default, theism is the claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

I'm saying what's the difference if you claim god doen't exist. That claim being: god does not exists. Make the claim, back it with evidence. That is how something is determined whether or not to be true. In this case, there is no evidence to back the claim, therefor it is logical that we determine the claim untrue.

---

Put it this way, pretend i'm a child, 4 years old. I have never heard of theism, atheism, agnosticism, nothing.

Now make a claim about god.

You could say that there is no god.
I would respond by asking, "what is god?"
Then you would need to explain a theistic position on god, because there is no atheistic belief in god. Theism is the claim, not atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

That's the thing, i'm not making a claim. Atheism is the logical default, theism is the claim.

---

Atheism isn't the default. Not beliving anything at all is the default. A child is born with no concept of god what so ever and an Athiest denies gods existance and has a concept of god in mind to deny. Default is not even realizing there is a debate to be had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

Atheism isn't the default. Not beliving anything at all is the default. A child is born with no concept of god what so ever and an Athiest denies gods existance and has a concept of god in mind to deny. Default is not even realizing there is a debate to be had.

---

correct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

Put it this way, pretend i'm a child, 4 years old. I have never heard of theism, atheism, agnosticism, nothing.

Now make a claim about god.

You could say that there is no god.
I would respond by asking, "what is god?"
Then you would need to explain a theistic position on god, because there is no atheistic belief in god. Theism is the claim, not atheism.

---

I get what you are saying now, but i still don't see Atheism as a default. The default would be like Nihilism or some thing like that. Where one has no opinion or believes nothing at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

Put it this way, pretend i'm a child, 4 years old. I have never heard of theism, atheism, agnosticism, nothing.

Now make a claim about god.

You could say that there is no god.
I would respond by asking, "what is god?"
Then you would need to explain a theistic position on god, because there is no atheistic belief in god. Theism is the claim, not atheism.

---

so what DO you believe? like do you have any opinion at all on how things were started? and what was the reason you chose to do this with just religion? why not with any other thing in the world? like gravity, or the water cycle? what allowed you to hear the theory of these things and then decide to say "sounds interesting, i want to know more" until you were taught about them and chose that those were things you wanted to believe in. was it just because you never saw any logical explanation when it came to religion? or it just never interested you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

I get what you are saying now, but i still don't see Atheism as a default. The default would be like Nihilism or some thing like that. Where one has no opinion or believes nothing at all

---

Hmm, I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning behind atheism. It's basically saying, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

Hmm, I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning behind atheism. It's basically saying, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else."

---

Thats called Agnostic when you say "I don't know". Athiesm is saying "I know there is no god".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

Hmm, I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning behind atheism. It's basically saying, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else."

---

Like I said earlier, Its hard to debate when you don't have your premises defined. Semantics and the way people define things is almost always an issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

so what DO you believe? like do you have any opinion at all on how things were started? and what was the reason you chose to do this with just religion? why not with any other thing in the world? like gravity, or the water cycle? what allowed you to hear the theory of these things and then decide to say "sounds interesting, i want to know more" until you were taught about them and chose that those were things you wanted to believe in. was it just because you never saw any logical explanation when it came to religion? or it just never interested you?

---

I don't believe in anything, from a religious stand point. I have no idea what happens when you die etc.

I don't really have an opinion on how things started, but the big bang is the most plausible answer. Gravity and the water cycle definitely have explanations, but that's a totally different subject (science). Gravity is under attack atm, but I think it will be proven once again.

I'm not sure why i'm interested in these things, but I definitely am. Just the way I was built I suppose. I'm constantly questioning my beliefs. It's like jiu jitsu; something has worked for me in the past, but that doesn't mean it's the best way (see London).

As it happens, I was confirmed Lutheran, but I thought my way out of the belief. I got myself an education, attended logic classes, science classes, etc. and applied them to the things I knew before. The new information was not congruent with my former beliefs, so I dropped said beliefs.

i gotcha. so just curious.. but on the gravity issue.. i used that as a fundamental because i know most people believe in it. but have you seen "thunderbolts of the gods" yet? I thought it was a pretty interesting documentary. Its about things working i guess you could say "magnetically" instead of gravitationally. very intriguing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

i gotcha. so just curious.. but on the gravity issue.. i used that as a fundamental because i know most people believe in it. but have you seen "thunderbolts of the gods" yet? I thought it was a pretty interesting documentary. Its about things working i guess you could say "magnetically" instead of gravitationally. very intriguing

---

I haven't, but I'll have to check it out. I'm pretty up to speed on the gravity issue. It's a hot topic in 'science magazine.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

I don't believe in anything, from a religious stand point. I have no idea what happens when you die etc.

I don't really have an opinion on how things started, but the big bang is the most plausible answer. Gravity and the water cycle definitely have explanations, but that's a totally different subject (science). Gravity is under attack atm, but I think it will be proven once again.

I'm not sure why i'm interested in these things, but I definitely am. Just the way I was built I suppose. I'm constantly questioning my beliefs. It's like jiu jitsu; something has worked for me in the past, but that doesn't mean it's the best way (see London).

As it happens, I was confirmed Lutheran, but I thought my way out of the belief. I got myself an education, attended logic classes, science classes, etc. and applied them to the things I knew before. The new information was not congruent with my former beliefs, so I dropped said beliefs.

---

Good for you getting educated! To few people doing that these days! I've been reading some of Theodore Jacobson's old reaserch on gravity and thermodynamics and have been trying to slowly work my way through Erik Verlinde's reaserch on gravity as an entropic force. It does have me wondering but I'm pulling for gravities existance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbUK3c9zak

thats part one.. you can just follow the links for the rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbUK3c9zak

thats part one.. you can just follow the links for the rest

---

Thanks man that's awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew maxwell

good for you getting educated! To few people doing that these days! I've been reading some of theodore jacobson's old reaserch on gravity and thermodynamics and have been trying to slowly work my way through erik verlinde's reaserch on gravity as an entropic force. It does have me wondering but i'm pulling for gravities existance.

---

cmon isaac newton!!!

I believe in evolution.

So to me going on this fact would make it seem obvious why so many cultures throughout human evolution have developed so many views of of afterlife and religion.

Once what ever evolved in our brain that allowed us to ask "I wonder what happens to me when I die?" I think the only answers are you could continue to have some sort of existence or none, right?

I think the more favored would be to exist. You can see the evolution of this hopeful answer to the age old question in fossil records. It's evolved as we have.

I just can't seem to come to any other conclusion.

Nice video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

I get what you are saying now, but i still don't see Atheism as a default. The default would be like Nihilism or some thing like that. Where one has no opinion or believes nothing at all

---

I've tried to explain it, but the semantic of atheism that myself, Dawkins, Hitchens, (you know the types) etc... place themselves under is not that of a person who believes that there is no God. It is simply the absence of a belief in all gods. You are really just making headway with a strawman here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

I've tried to explain it, but the semantic of atheism that myself, Dawkins, Hitchens, (you know the types) etc... place themselves under is not that of a person who believes that there is no God. It is simply the absence of a belief in all gods. You are really just making headway with a strawman here.

---

It's not strawman it's pointing out that the way the term "Athiest" as it is used by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc is incorrect, the word Agnostic has been around longer then they have and its the word that acually means what their use of "Athiest" is ment to mean, so there was no reason to change the peramiters of the term. The dictionary hasn't changed the meaning yet because there is no reason to. There is already a word in place with that defenition. It wouldn't be strawman, if I was commiting a fallacy it would be the fallicy of equivocation, when you slide between two or more different meanings of a single term or phrase in an arguement withoutmaking it explicit. But my terms haven't changed thay are the same as defined by the dictioary.