So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

[Oneironaut Zero]

...convince me! (I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. ) This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition. So, do your worst... (Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. )

[dragonoverlord]

[Oneironaut Zero]

/me Decides not to call 27 out on his post (that he can still see, btw. )

[♥Mark]

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe?

[Mes Tarrant]

Teeheehee!! Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome. I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't. But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to. Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god."

[Keeper]

Teeheehee!! Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome. I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't. But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to. Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god." Wouldn't that make you more of an Agnostic then an Atheist?

[Mes Tarrant]

Wouldn't that make you more of an Agnostic then an Atheist? No, because I live my life thinking there is no god. I don't ever dwell on the possibility because I think it's a waste of time. An agnostic goes through life thinking that there's some supernatural force of some sort which probably hasn't been represented accurately by past and current religions. Something like that.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe? Good reply. This is actually along the lines of what I was trying to bring about. The true (well, "true" in the Webster's sense) meaning of the word "atheist" is one that does not believe "God" exists. So, if those of you who are staunch atheists aren't really atheists, but are actually agnostic, why not get into a little more dialogue about what a possible God is, and adhere to it? So many "atheists" call themselves "atheists" because they they compare it to any one interpretation of "God." When breaking the word atheist down into what it actually means, are so many atheists not agnostic, instead? Teeheehee!! Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome. I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't. But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to. Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god." So believing in the possibility of there being some sort of consciousness that created what we perceive is a "physical universe" is nothing but a crutch? How so? And if you choose not to say what the moniker you choose to go by implies, are you not lying to yourself? [edit: Oh...and you have the definition of "Agnostic" wrong, by the way. ]

[♥Mark]

Wouldn't that make you more of an Agnostic then an Atheist? At least around here, those that call themselves atheist assert that certain gods do not exist, but admit that they cannot ever be completely certain (about this or anything, being only human). Further, they are agnostic in regard to more vague definitions of god ("the creator") such as the one in this post which leaves it to a very broad range of possible things.

[Mes Tarrant]

Wait, what? Can you rephrase that, O? I don't think god exists. I am an atheist. The only reason why atheists such as myself can't say that the chance of god existing is absolutely ZERO is because you can't say something like that and call yourself any kind of intellectual.

[Keeper]

No, because I live my life thinking there is no god. I don't ever dwell on the possibility because I think it's a waste of time. An agnostic goes through life thinking that there's some supernatural force of some sort which probably hasn't been represented accurately by past and current religions. Something like that. The Agnostics I talk to all say they don't bother about it either because you will never know anyway ... They say you can never know He does exist, and you cannot say for certain He does. Often they only talk in a religious debate to tell off both sides. Aside from that last bit, doesn't that look like your opinion? [Edit] At least around here, those that call themselves atheist assert that certain gods do not exist, but admit that they cannot ever be completely certain (about this or anything, being only human). Further, they are agnostic in regard to more vague definitions of god ("the creator") such as the one in this post which leaves it to a very broad range of possible things. So ... in practice they are more Agnostic then Atheistic? When I debate about God, I always (or almost always) call Him the Creator because I know that if my theory is correct, then virtually every religion came from the original relationship, and if this is the case, then it becomes very difficult to specify which view of God is the most accurate. I hope I put that across right.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Wait, what? Can you rephrase that, O? I don't think god exists. I am an atheist. The only reason why atheists such as myself can't say that the chance of god existing is absolutely ZERO is because you can't say something like that and call yourself any kind of intellectual. Sure. An Agnostic believes that the nature of a God (a Supreme Being / Entity / Consciousness) is either unknown, or unknowable. They do not adhere to any set belief - that a God does or does not exist. An atheist makes an assertion that a God (in any common interpretation - "a supreme being," a "universal consciousness," whatever) does not exist.

[Mes Tarrant]

The Agnostics I talk to all say they don't bother about it either because you will never know anyway ... They say you can never know He does exist, and you cannot say for certain He does. Often they only talk in a religious debate to tell off both sides. Aside from that last bit, doesn't that look like your opinion? Look I see what you are saying. Yes you can never know for sure... but same thing goes for fairies. I'm not gonna sit around being agnostic about fairies. I do not believe in any kind of supernatural being of any sort. If I say I'm agnostic, people will assume I would care enough to imagine all the sorts of things god could be, what he could be like, what he could want... and I think that's a waste of time. I am an atheist. Not agnostic. Hang on lemme go look up the official definition of atheist... Edit: Yes O, based on the lack of evidence, I assert that he/she/it doesn't exist. Edit edit: From websters - "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God." That's me, though I hate the word "denies." Implies that a truth is being denied.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Ok. Let's get into fairies. What sort of arguements can you make for or against fairies? We can say, for example, that we have absolutely no evidence of fairies. Nothing. Nil. Nada. We have stories that, as far as I know, can be traced back to being nothing but fiction. (If I'm wrong, and fairies have a base as being regarded as actual creatures, then let me know.) On the other had, we have an idea of a "consciousness" that created this "universe" to a degree of more-than-impressive physiology. A system so vast, yet so self-sustaining, that it's said (by us, at least) to have always been, and will always be. In anything other than this (macro) universe, we could only attribute that sort of order to something that had been well though-out. Can you think of anything else, on a smaller scale, that works so well, born from chaos? Taking that into consideration, although nothing definitive, I say we have more rationale for belief in a creator than fairies. No?

[♥Mark]

why not get into a little more dialogue about what a possible God is, and adhere to it? I guess the reason you don't really see that happening from that angle is because these "atheists" would avoid using the word god in such a broad context. The word god, thanks to certain religions, has come to own a fairly specific meaning. They'd probably tend to ask and ponder about such things more broadly like "how did existence start, if at all?" and would generally not tend to necessarily look at it from a creator-being angle. Not that such an angle is inherently invalid or wrong, I think it's just a matter of the fact that these people tend to think that a creator-being just doesn't seem probable. Personally, the only significant thing which suggests a creator-being is -- and don't laugh -- that the universe is ordered, structured and, if you will "designed to allow life". But that I would address simply by saying that a functional universe is an ordered universe and that since life requires something of a stable environment to exist, it's the only sort of universe life would exist in. So many "atheists" call themselves "atheists" because they they compare it to any one interpretation of "God." When breaking the word atheist down into what it actually means, are so many atheists not agnostic, instead? Yes. The reason I think they use it is one of convenience. "Agnosticism" seems to imply uniform uncertainty about all gods when this isn't really the case. The people in question, however, are quite convinced that certain gods don't exist. Those being the ones most discussed. It's just an easy way of quickly conveying one's stance, but it certainly does cause problems in that it also conveys a uniform certainty that all gods do not exist.

[Mes Tarrant]

Hang on it's late, I can't understand half of what I read at this hour. Are you using the watchmaker argument? Oi whatever, I'm not in the mood for this at the moment. I don't think any supernatural beings exist, and I don't want to waste my time fantasizing about what said supernatural beings could be like. I'll see you tomorrow.

[Keeper]

Look I see what you are saying. Yes you can never know for sure... but same thing goes for fairies. I'm not gonna sit around being agnostic about fairies. I do not believe in any kind of supernatural being of any sort. Now this has got me interested. You don't WANT to believe in anything supernatural, but you admit it might exist. Is this because you think all unsubstantiated belief is a crutch? If I say I'm agnostic, people will assume I would care enough to imagine all the sorts of things god could be, what he could be like, what he could want... and I think that's a waste of time. Agnostics don't do that. At least, all the ones I've spoken to. They are simply people who say "Who knows?", refuse to listen to either side and go on with there lives without ever bothering about an "Unkowability". I am an atheist. Not agnostic. Hang on lemme go look up the official definition of atheist... Edit: Yes O, based on the lack of evidence, I assert that he/she/it doesn't exist. Did you just change your view on God? You are 100% certain that He doesn't exist? Edit edit: From websters - "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God." That's me, though I hate the word "denies." Implies that a truth is being denied. Are you sure its not? Based on your previous statement, I think you are Agnostic. Agnostics don't bother about religion. That is what makes them Agnostic.

[Mes Tarrant]

But I DO bother about religion. If I didn't bother about it, I wouldn't be in R/S. Look, you are really misunderstanding what I am saying. I can't say 100% god doesn't exist in the exact same way I can't say that magical shit appears in my toilet when I'm not looking with 100% certainty. The fact of the matter is you can't prove or disprove these things. But logically, one might assert that there probably is no god, there probably is no magic shit. What exactly are you trying to do, Keeper? Edit: Must - keep - away... I shall come back later. Edit edit: Just so there's no misunderstanding, I honestly don't have any issues with people being agnostic or even spiritual or whatever, as long as it's not an organized religion.... then it really doesn't matter.

[dragonoverlord]

Hey Onerighonaut when i saw this thread i did a google search and i came up with this Website: http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ismintro2.html You should note however that they provide no direct evidence of god at all; only so called "indirect evidence". Take a look if you like.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I guess the reason you don't really see that happening from that angle is because these "atheists" would avoid using the word god in such a broad context. The word god, thanks to certain religions, has come to own a fairly specific meaning. They'd probably tend to ask and ponder about such things more broadly like "how did existence start, if at all?" and would generally not tend to necessarily look at it from a creator-being angle. Not that such an angle is inherently invalid or wrong, I think it's just a matter of the fact that these people tend to think that a creator-being just doesn't seem probable. Personally, the only significant thing which suggests a creator-being is -- and don't laugh -- that the universe is ordered, structured and, if you will "designed to allow life". But that I would address simply by saying that a functional universe is an ordered universe and that since life requires something of a stable environment to exist, it's the only sort of universe life would exist in. Ok. I see what you mean about the labeling of "it" as a "God." Because of what we know of most religions, that could be a huge problem. In saying "God," I, too, am trying to minimize a broad idea into something that's probably can't be defined in one word, seeing as how there are so many different interpretations of it. But, (and I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Holographic Paradigm but...), the way I see it, there is a very substantial argument for the existence of a Universal Consciousness (which, yes, could be interpreted as "God", and kind of where I'm, personally, coming from), in that what lies beyond our physical senses (the waves of energy/vibration/whatever that we pick up and interpret as sight/sound/etc.) is just a system of waves. IF that is true, then I believe that it presents a case for what is commonly called "God," albeit in a less-restrictive form. Not that any of that is definitive, of course (and it's hard enough to double-back on shit that I've read before, when I've been drinking now ), but it is but one of many reasons why I think a staunch position of "atheism," as opposed to agnosticism, isn't all that logical. Yes. The reason I think they use it is one of convenience. "Agnosticism" seems to imply uniform uncertainty about all gods when this isn't really the case. The people in question, however, are quite convinced that certain gods don't exist. Those being the ones most discussed. It's just an easy way of quickly conveying one's stance, but it certainly does cause problems in that it also conveys a uniform certainty that all gods do not exist. I get what you're saying though, Mark. It does come down to semantics, more or less. But that's part of what I'm trying to get people to realize.

[Keeper]

What exactly are you trying to do, Keeper? Find out if you really are an Atheist.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Hey Onerighonaut when i saw this thread i did a google search and i came up with this Website: http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ismintro2.html You should note however that they provide no direct evidence of god at all; only so called "indirect evidence". Take a look if you like. Thanks. Just bookmarked it. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Right now, I'm having enough trouble just keeping up with my own text - let alone reading that site.

[Omega Weapon]

...convince me! (I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. ) This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition. So, do your worst... (Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. ) Because there is aboslutely no reason rationally to believe in a higher creator. Not a single piece of evidence, or one logical a priori argument. Find out if you really are an Atheist. Would you call yourself agnostic about the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun, because you can't be 100% sure it doesn't exist? Also all you're doing is fluttering around with definitions. The vast majority of 'atheists' are in the 99% sure that a God doesn't exist level. To say any more would be completely paradoxical to many of the points atheists try to triumph. Anyway how does what label you give someone matter really as long as we know their view? This isn't contribution, its just pedantic. Note- By your reasoning Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist.

[♥Mark]

I think I'm going a little off-topic, here, but... I'd agree with you about the use of the term atheist. It causes more problems than it's worth, I think. Not only is it not necessarily accurate, it's also easy for someone to say "Well, you're an atheist. Atheists are wrong, atheists deny god in their hearts, etc." So proclaiming yourself as such leaves you open to these sort of dismissals. However, if you avoid the label game and simply reasonably refute illogical claims and support correct ones where you find them, the only applicable response is addressing the argument itself. Anything else is an obvious cop-out to all involved.

[AmazeO XD]

I like to not waste my time on deciding whether or not God is real. If I spend all my life worrying about my sins and my corruption, what happens when/if there is no God? I've had a shit life. But if I just enjoy life and live it to the fullest (no matter how sinful it may be), it's win in my book.