CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Atheists Convert!
I am not an atheist, let me start out by saying that. Besides being the holy leader of the Church of Judas, I am agnostic. This thread is a call to all atheists. Agnosticism is more logical than atheism. It's time to convert. A few things to consider,
The universe is an extraordinary place to live and there are nothing but possibilities here. In this place we live, it is possible to distort time and travel through it. There are black holes that inhale suns bigger than our entire solar system. There are wormholes that can move matter from one side of the universe to the other. We are organisms that have evolved into these primates with big brains that have learned to make fire, grow food, build cities, and create economies and industry. Now we are in the process of linking every human on the planet together through an electronic network. We are smashing particles together and detecting strings and other dimensions on top of our known 3 dimensions of space. We can peer into other galaxies and see what was going on millions of years ago through our telescopes. We are genetically creating organisms from scratch now.
All of this accumulated knowledge, gained over so many years, barely scratches the surface of what there is to know. Over the entire scope of human history, science is a brand new thing. 200 years ago if you wanted to see a picture of something, you had to draw it. Now we have robots roaming around the surface of mars.
Due to all this evidence of how unpredictable and extraordinary the universe that we live in really is, I think it's a mistake to say that anything is impossible, even a creator. No one knows what is possible and what is not, that being the case I believe it is more logical to call myself an agnostic. You know, 100 years ago people knew that space travel was impossible. 500 years ago, invisible germs that made make us sick were impossible. Let's not pretend that we are so smart as to know what is possible and what is not. Use your logic, join the church of I-don't-know.
I think many atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. We think it's highly unlikely that a god exists due to lack of any credible evidence, but don't claim to know for an absolute certainty.
The precise definitions of agnostic and atheist vary depending on who you're talking to. But it's hard to think of anything more logical than saying "I don't know."
The most inclusive and accurate definition of atheism is a lack of belief in God. You don't have to claim "there is no God" to be atheist, although of course many do.
Having a belief in God is a positive position, so even if you say "I-just-don't-know" you are still an atheist because you don't believe in God. It just makes you an agnostic atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience, the majority of atheists are agnostic ones.
Acting like you know anything is fairly dumb. Most people can't even figure out themselves, let alone the answer to -everything-
On that though, I'm not saying I think any religion is correct. They're more than likely not. S'big universe and all that. What makes our mudball so special?
Atheism is just as closed minded as any other religion in many ways. Atheism takes the view that there is no creator/divine entity or what ever you want to call it, were as most religions claim to have the answer for it all. They both offer answers to questions which simply cannot be answered. An agnostic on the other hand neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity/divine entity, whereas as with with most religions they believe and in atheism they disbelieve. I take the view that right now no one knows the answer to questions regarding how the universe came into being, what reality is or why there is even a reality in the first place. There is simply no way of knowing with the current evidence available.
All that I have to say here is that we do not know for certain if a God exists or not. Theists say he does, atheists say he doesn't. The call for atheists to convert is thus natural for an agnostic person. What we want the atheists to acknowledge is that not everything can be expressed through knowledge, that there are many things which are sustained on faith alone, and that they should always be liberal enough to maintain a small corner of their "logic" in the belief that there may exist someone who is not bound by logic.
I have to reiterate the common position though I'm going to go beyond it. Atheism is the opposite of theism, a belief in a god. Thus if you do not actually believe in the existence of one, you're an atheist. Indeed, I'm pretty baffled why people bother so much with such an academic and philosophical detail about the limit of cognition. In everyday life the difference is nada, and IMHO is mostly a rhetorical trick to placate the theists. A softer position so to speak.
Personally, I'm an gnostic atheist and I believe it's the most open-minded and rational approach. Contrary? wait.
According to my dictionary a god is defined as: "— n
1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force". Keyword supernatural. I believe that is a logical inconsistency. If there were a god he could be defined and measured, he would be natural, instead of supernatural.
Why for example is a god different than a powerful man if not for this fact?
I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Atheism is completely unnecessary, as a concept.
I'm not a golfer, but there is no need for a non-golfing group that is actively against enjoying the game of golf. There is no need to label yourself a non anything. You should define yourself by who you are, not by who you are not. You don't put salt in the non-pepper shaker do you?
To me, there is a clear difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An atheist has made a decision not to believe in god. An agnostic is undecided, he does not actively believe or disbelieve anything. This is the way a truly scientific mind should look at life, objectively, without bias, blindly following the evidence.
I'm not a golfer, but there is no need for a non-golfing group that is actively against enjoying the game of golf.
Kind of. Except that historically if one does not like golf, or likes golf better then tennis, or likes ping pong, they are not told to kill one another. They also do not tell children from a young age golf is great and if they don't think golf is great they are going to hell. Golf also does not constantly feel the need to inject itself into laws that effect people whether they are into golf or not.
So not really a precise comparison. I sort of get the idea of the point, but it's not equivalent.
There is no need to label yourself a non anything. You should define yourself by who you are, not by who you are not. You don't put salt in the non-pepper shaker do you?
Isn't there? If you're in a country where you do not speak their language yet everyone tries to speak to you in that language, eventually they would assume you don't speak the language. Then they get a translator and you don't speak that language, then another and so on. Would there be value in being able to communicate you speak none of the languages?
An atheist has made a decision not to believe in god. An agnostic is undecided, he does not actively believe or disbelieve anything. This is the way a truly scientific mind should look at life, objectively, without bias, blindly following the evidence.
This is a way a scientific mind should look at life up to the point where enough evidence is gathered. However, I could as easily say this about evolution (and it is precisely what theists often say not ironically) yeah, we have all of this evidence but there could still be something else we don't know. You could say that about everything from the rotation of the earth to the color of the sky.
If there is some yet-unknown evidence some type of god exists there is no "atheist doctrine" which dictates an atheist could not change their mind, but a more apt comparison between agnostic and atheist is not the non-salt shaker vs pepper shaker, it is "No, evolution is real here's the evidence" vs "I don't know, there could be something else and I'm not going along with that whole evolution thing just yet..."
This is a way a scientific mind should look at life up to the point where enough evidence is gathered
Enough evidence has not been gathered. In the 15 billion years of the history of matter, humans have been "technologically advanced" for a whole 100 years. The possibilities of what we do not know are endless. The little bit of knowledge we've accumulated in the last few years is nothing.
Evolution is just a theory (although I believe it to be extremely likely). If evolution holds up as a theory and continues to be tested(and I think it will), one day it will become a law of science. Biologists already agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.
A thought: there is a possibility that our 5 senses are deceiving us. After all, we are trapped here in our minds with only these 5 primitive senses to experience the outside world. You saw "the matrix" right? In this highly unlikely scenario, anything we believe could be false. Everything we know of science and nature could be an invention of our owners who are running the simulation. Even 2+2=4 could be false in this highly unlikely situation.
The point is just that the more we know, the more everything we do not know becomes apparent.
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
Were you born with the knowledge about some gods? Were you born with inherent belief in a god? No and no. If so then why should theism or anything but "there is no god" be right?
Where do you think the idea of a god came from if every human is born without the knowledge of one? Imagination. It's all fantasy.
The only way to have some "knowledge" about some god is to first have that knowledge made up by a human.
Secondly, god is no deity, but just a positive energy which different cultures have seen with different perspectives, the same way the the devil is just negative energy of the universe.
In the case of a newborn baby, he doesn't yet know about the existence of God. But, with his experience, he comes to distinguish between two things: the good and the bad. Assisted in this by his conscience, parents and other mentors, he comes to know what and what to do and not to do.
Now, taking in mind my definition of God, the baby has now already distinguished between God and devil.
In this way, throughout the evolution of mankind, by dividing and classifying in their favor, humans have ultimately achieved only one purpose : distinguishing between god and devil.
God is a positive energy. Nevertheless, humans have tried to see him the way they like it. The Greeks see the gods with togas, the Indians in dhotis and so on. A deity is only a way, a medium to to see the good. Throughout history, man has been making god more or less human, depending on his thinking and convenience. This has led you atheists to believe that god doesn't exist.
If only you could see that God is nothing more or less than the positive energy present in the universe, you would understand that there is a clear, and I dare say a very strong possibility that god exists.
First of all, I pity you, for you are fighting your argument with me and ismaila without any support from your friends.
Anyway, as I was saying, you are finding it difficult to admit that there is logic in my argument ( the very thing on which you atheists state the non-existence of God ). I am not trying to prove you wrong or anything, but just trying to make it clear that God has always existed.
"No, you try concentrate harder on reality". Seriously?
Why did the atheist cross the road?
He thought there might be a street on the other side, but he wouldn’t believe it until he tested his hypothesis.
Support from my friends? Why should I need that? Wait... are you saying your friends are also delusional? That's not a good company to be a part of, you really should look for friends who are well of mind, perhaps that way you'll notice the flaws you have.
Anyway, as I was saying, you are finding it difficult to admit that there is logic in my argument ( the very thing on which you atheists state the non-existence of God ).
Actually not true at all. I find it very difficult to find logic in your argument 'cause there isn't any.
You atheists? I don't claim myself to be an atheist... I simply fall under the definition with no belief in any gods, that's all. I'm human, and that's what I call myself, aside my name.
I am not trying to prove you wrong or anything, but just trying to make it clear that God has always existed.
I am trying to beat some sense into you by saying god has never existed, does not exist, and never will exist. I'll not even go into logic right now and begin giving examples as to why, there's not much point, as I've done that before quite a bit and kind of exhausted the topic for myself, and, most importantly, since you evidently lack the necessary logic.
"No, you try concentrate harder on reality". Seriously?
Yes, seriously. You need it, if you care about your mental health. Right now you are delusional.
Why did the atheist cross the road?
He thought there might be a street on the other side, but he wouldn’t believe it until he tested his hypothesis.
A good thing I don't call myself an atheist then.
But honestly, this last part was simply childish. Explains your stupid views - you're not mature enough, mentally. You still have a lot of growing to do. Good luck with that.
Man, I am starting to get the impression that you are seriously retarded. Moreover, cracking jokes and having fun is not childish, if that's what you think. Why don't you try and view it like I told you too? You may not change your mindset, but you may at least learn to respect the other side.
Secondly, you need to stop using words like "delusional". Why can't you use other more civil words? Also, your concept of reality is based on "seeing is believing" criteria, the very thing the joke at the end of my previous argument was meant to elaborate. However, YOU, with your one sided mindset, chose to ignore that part. If explaining something in easy language is immature, then go ahead with your nonsense views.
Why can't you see god, not as a deity, but simply as a positive energy which circulates in the universe?
Man, I am starting to get the impression that you are seriously retarded.
Yet you are the one taking fantasy as reality.
Moreover, cracking jokes and having fun is not childish, if that's what you think.
No, not always. Depends what and when and how you use them, and for what purpose exactly.
Why don't you try and view it like I told you too?
Because I have a rather high sense of logic. Not just that but I notice flaws, illogicalities, rather quickly. Yours was full of them, like all of it.
You may not change your mindset, but you may at least learn to respect the other side.
Opinions taken as reality but based on fantasy are not to be respected, they are to be corrected and told what is wrong with them, or at least that there is something wrong.
Secondly, you need to stop using words like "delusional". Why can't you use other more civil words?
You know what delusional means? It is very much "civil". I do not care for civility.
Also, your concept of reality is based on "seeing is believing" criteria, the very thing the joke at the end of my previous argument was meant to elaborate.
You got my concept of reality completely wrong. I literally do not believe anything or anyone, I either know or don't know, trust or don't trust.
And as I've also said, I do not call myself an atheist.
However, YOU, with your one sided mindset, chose to ignore that part.
My mindset is far from one-sided. I could view the world any way I wanted to, but why settle for something inferior, and downright idiotic, if I can go straight for the best possible way, the most logical and practical solution, by simply thinking objectively and logically? Why should I throw that aside and settle for something inferior?
If explaining something in easy language is immature, then go ahead with your nonsense views.
Easy language is immature.
My nonsense views? While yours are based on fantasy? Are you kidding me?
Why can't you see god, not as a deity, but simply as a positive energy which circulates in the universe?
Because, for one, that would go against the definition of god. God is a creature, basically. And why call energy a god? What would be the point? You could call the energy simply "energy".
You have taken something previously made up and ascribed other definitions to it, definitions that already have their own correspondent words. Not just that but twisted it a bit to make it completely illogical. Something like that.
And positive energy? Are you kidding me, again? There is no positive or negative, universally, all that is simply is, all of it simply happened to come into existence, however that happened (from a previous state of existence, no doubt).
There is no good or bad, neither positive or negative. These concepts are all made up by humans, just as is the concept of god.
God must love stupid people, he made so many.
Assuming it was real, it so is true. You are indeed very stupid, downright delusional (about this subject, anyway), and you definitely are not alone in that.
You must try and first of all see it as if neither of the sides are inferior ( not saying that any side is ). Every man thinks that what he thinks is right.
Believe me when I say that I took your views into consideration and seriously thought about it.Even so, I think that the problem can only be solved when one of us gains the upper hand.
You have taken something previously made up and ascribed other definitions to it, definitions that already have their own correspondent words. Not just that but twisted it a bit to make it completely illogical. Something like that.
And positive energy? Are you kidding me, again? There is no positive or negative, universally, all that is simply is, all of it simply happened to come into existence, however that happened (from a previous state of existence, no doubt).
Man, this is the part that hurt. I can bear through all your talks, but your saying that what I write here is a patch-up work really stings. Whatever, and I repeat. WHATEVER i write in the debate is a product of intensive thought on the topic and subject. I have done research on various gods of different cultures and have then come to this conclusion
Opinions taken as reality but based on fantasy are not to be respected, they are to be corrected and told what is wrong with them, or at least that there is something wrong.
If you have noticed, I did not call you an atheist even once in my previous argument.
Honestly, you didn't even try to do it as I said, did you? How can you state something as inferior, downright idiotic if you haven't yet seen it from both sides yet?
And positive energy? Are you kidding me, again? There is no positive or negative, universally, all that is simply is, all of it simply happened to come into existence, however that happened (from a previous state of existence, no doubt).
"however that happened"? what are you hinting at, nummi? "from a previous state of existence, no doubt" Seriously? I smell guesswork on this one, nummi.
Why don't you admit, once and for all, that not everything that exists can be proven by logic and that god does exist.
Lastly, you should stop calling my views "fantasies and delusional". Those two words are really starting to bug me.
You must try and first of all see it as if neither of the sides are inferior
Your side is inferior as it is not based on reality.
Every man thinks that what he thinks is right.
I can see that very clearly, even though you are wrong you still insist you aren't.
Believe me when I say that I took your views into consideration and seriously thought about it.
I'm guessing you can't see all the relevant aspects?
It should come naturally, forcing yourself to think will only mess up the thought process. Thinking is best done with a calm mind, without any stress, or any distractions, and without any kind of bias.
Man, this is the part that hurt. I can bear through all your talks, but your saying that what I write here is a patch-up work really stings. Whatever, and I repeat. WHATEVER i write in the debate is a product of intensive thought on the topic and subject.
Thank you!
The thing is, I don't actually put much thought into anything, it all comes quite naturally to me, and quickly. And I like thinking (actually, I can't really not think... it's just the way I am), to view things one way and another, to see what is the most logical and best.
I have done research on various gods of different cultures and have then come to this conclusion
This is the part where you went completely wrong. The conclusions I have come to aren't based on anything previously made up (aside proved scientific facts). All my opinions come from independent thinking, from viewing the world without any kind of bias, I have only included proved scientific facts because those are reliable.
Doing research on gods of different cultures is the same as doing research on characters from various fantasy works. And so, whatever conclusions/opinions you base on that research, without including the fact that the research was about fiction, will always be nonsense when compared to actual reality.
"however that happened"? what are you hinting at, nummi? "from a previous state of existence, no doubt" Seriously? I smell guesswork on this one, nummi.
What was before our universe? Where did the bang come from, what did it come from, what was before that? And so on.
How it happened we do not know. What was before we do not know. Was there something before? Must have been, something cannot come from nothing. So, simply a different state of existence when compared to our current universe.
This cannot be anything but guesswork, because we do not know and cannot know anything for certain right now, very probably never will. Just so you wouldn't get it wrong, one is certain - there is no god of any kind, it's simple logic (to me anyway).
Why don't you admit, once and for all, that not everything that exists can be proven by logic and that god does exist.
Admit some delusions to be correct? Never.
If something exists it can be proven by logic, if it couldn't be then it couldn't exist. God does not exist.
Lastly, you should stop calling my views "fantasies and delusional".
Why, if that's what they are?
Those two words are really starting to bug me.
Good. Perhaps you'll start seeing that something is wrong and needs corrections.
On that little thingy, what side is up? What if you flip your head?
How do you know positive from negative?
And after you can tell, prove it's real. Where is this positive energy?
Why can't we see it with telescopes or why can't atheists feel it?
It seems like you're basically making things up. Please provide evidence as to why I should take you seriously, and then you will make Nummi a lot happier.
Remember, don't just prove it to yourself. Prove it to Nummi and I.
Same old proof theory. Not worth answering. Nevertheless, you start believing, and you shall start seeing.
Prove the positive energy is real?
Positive energy is, well, positive. It encompasses all fields having a positive feeling, like happiness, peace, belief, hope etc. If you think that these energies are not real but just an illusion, then you'r welcome to do that.
Positive as opposed to what?
Positive energy as opposed to negative energy. Negative energy encompasses all fields having a, well, negative feel, such as hatred, jealousy etc. These things all fall in the category of negative energy.
If a god, what is negative to that being?
The negative aspect of God is the devil.
There can be no love without hatred, joy without sorrow, pride without humbleness and so on. To everything positive, there is something negative. Thus the God and the Devil keep the universe in balance, providing the right mixture of positive and negative.
How do you know positive from negative?
Positive can be distinguished from the negative by the following two factors-
a. The basic feeling
b. The thing it is used for.
For example, love used for the right cause and hatred used to destroy someone are two clear cut examples of positive and negative. However, the second factor largely, and I dare say wholly decides whether your actions or implementations of the two energies were positive or negative. For example, hatred against something that causes harm to others , and happiness in someone's sorrow, these are the ones which are pretty much on the borderline or either side of the two energies.
Why can't we see it with telescopes or why can't atheists feel it?
Spiritual energies, such as the positive and the negative energies cannot be seen and felt by devices such as telescopes, which are meant to observe physical objects. Atheists, of course, can feel it but they lack the belief to know from where these come from.
The rest of your questions I could not grasp.
How many atheists does it take to fix a light bulb? None, because they cannot see the light.
That's an easy way of becoming delusional, and that's all it leads to. Why do you think religious people were kept in the dark in times of the past? So they would believe instead of thinking, so they would remain stupid and loyal - willful slaves from ignorance. Believing is never the option, there must be evidence, if not then must be regarded as "not known yet", assuming there is some credence to the theory.
Positive energy is, well, positive. It encompasses all fields having a positive feeling, like happiness, peace, belief, hope etc.
Positive energy as opposed to negative energy. Negative energy encompasses all fields having a, well, negative feel, such as hatred, jealousy etc.
Not reality.
To make up something like this is extremely easy. After all... writing a fantasy story was very easy, and a sci fi story is coming soon, for practice of course, but the point remains - very easy to make up something that has never happened, that is not even real. If you believe this energy thing to be real without any evidence showing so, you must also believe the story I have written so far, even without knowing a single detail about it, to be just as much real.
Universally, there is no good or bad, positive or negative. They are all human-created concepts.
The negative aspect of God is the devil.
Thus the God and the Devil keep the universe in balance, providing the right mixture of positive and negative.
Taking already created fantasy and twisting it is easy. It's called fan-fiction.
There can be no love without hatred, joy without sorrow, pride without humbleness and so on.
There can be love without hatred and joy without sorrow, etc. There is no need for the "opposite" to know what the other one is. It's all in our minds, and our minds are... flexible. Also depends how people are raised, how they are educated. Talking of fantasies... imagination is a powerful tool, not just for scenery, not just for fiction or any stories, but also emotions. We can make up events that have never happened and never will, but feel as if it was real, or close to real.
Emotions have a cause - something perceived from the environment. There are different causes for hate and hatred, for love, like, adoration, etc. It's not as simple as hatred and love, you also have to look at the cause.
To everything positive, there is something negative.
And what is positive and negative, comes from human subjectivity.
Positive and negative are rather wide terms. What do you mean by them exactly? Only emotions? They cover a much broader scope.
Positive can be distinguished from the negative by the following two factors-
a. The basic feeling
b. The thing it is used for.
What if in order to make something good happen in the future, something that will benefit everyone, a bad emotion must be acted upon? At that moment the act will be bad, extremely bad, but when looked upon from the future moment, it will be the best decision ever made. Will it still be negative, since the cause was the negative emotion, and let's say billions died because of it ? Or will it be a positive one, because it was the right thing to do compared to what would've happened otherwise?
For example, love used for the right cause and hatred used to destroy someone are two clear cut examples of positive and negative.
You are in a situation where you either don't act now (really negative now, good later) or you do act now (good, but devastating later). What then?
Humans have logical part and emotional. Those two do not go separately, they go together. Both should be considered simultaneously, and should be decided, depending on the situation and what it demands, on which one to act, or mix them up if necessary.
It's like we have two sides - logical and emotional. And a third one - to view those two and make a decision.
However, the second factor largely, and I dare say wholly decides whether your actions or implementations of the two energies were positive or negative. For example, hatred against something that causes harm to others , and happiness in someone's sorrow, these are the ones which are pretty much on the borderline or either side of the two energies.
What if to a person what you call negative is positive? How can you know you are right and the other person is wrong? What determines that? Nothing and no one.
The solution is there are no energies, that there are simply our minds that can interpret the world in many different ways, including those not actually real.
Spiritual energies, such as the positive and the negative energies cannot be seen and felt by devices such as telescopes, which are meant to observe physical objects.
If something exists, it can, if not yet then one day, be measured and viewed scientifically. There are no such things as spiritual energies. There is our universe and everything it is made of, including that which we are made of.
If something exists it is logical, and if it is logical it can be explained by science, and again, if not now then one day.
Atheists, of course, can feel it but they lack the belief to know from where these come from.
Again fantasy; I recognize fantasy when I see it. A potentially good fiction writer knows well the world he/she lives in. And I do have potential, lots of it.
Belief is by definition blindness. Being blind is not a good thing, which in your terms means believing is negative. A mentally mature person either knows or doesn't know, trusts or doesn't trust. Honestly, what good has belief done so far?
In those times, religion was MANIPULATED. People who were ignorant of the right knowledge were kept in the dark. Those who manipulated kept manipulating, while those who were being manipulated kept stumbling in the dark. That's why it is viewed such. If religion is viewed in it's finer sense, then you shall realize that all religions preach the good of mankind.
The evidence is given in the statements. Do you think peace, hatred, hope and despair do not exist?
It is not fiction, it is the truth which you cannot see.
People may be raised in different ways, but the ones who have balanced their minds through discipline, can view these emotions in a clear way. Also, the cause and application of the emotions I have given in the rest of the statements. Love for something bad is bad, and hatred towards something bad is good. That is the way you can see it.
Positive and negative encompass actions, emotions and the motives for those actions.
I am saying the same thing. The positive or negative of the actions depends little on the emotion utilized and largely on the action, the purpose of the action and the result of the action. It doesn't matter what people think about it. If it is right, then it is right.
What is right and what is wrong can only be thought upon through a clear, unbiased mind. Unfortunately, that is very rare to come by.
In those times, religion was MANIPULATED. People who were ignorant of the right knowledge were kept in the dark. Those who manipulated kept manipulating, while those who were being manipulated kept stumbling in the dark. That's why it is viewed such.
This is what religion was used for. It can no longer be used for that, which means now it is almost completely useless (the only use it ever had was negative). But now there are other means to manipulate people...
What would you think of someone who worshiped Harry Potter the way religious worship their gods? Also preached about it and did the same kind of things. Crazy, right?
If religion is viewed in it's finer sense, then you shall realize that all religions preach the good of mankind.
If religion is viewed objectively then it is nothing but fiction.
Why make up fantasies to "preach the good of mankind", why not just look at what humanity is and conclude from that, from actual reality?
Religions are worthless to humanity. No, they are negative to humanity. They keep people back, away from thinking objectively, even now.
Do you think peace, hatred, hope and despair do not exist?
They are emotions created by our minds, by our brains, nothing more. And people's minds differ, as is obvious. It's all electrical impulses and chemical reactions.
It is not fiction, it is the truth which you cannot see.
On the contrary, it is fiction. Truth is what you cannot see. Does reality hurt so much that you have to make things up to make your life emotionally easier? Or is reality simply too boring?
I see reality clearly, which means I notice fiction clearly and easily. If that is all so then why would I still dispute you? Why not simply take your word for it? If what you say was real then why can I not see it?
People may be raised in different ways, but the ones who have balanced their minds through discipline, can view these emotions in a clear way.
I view my emotions clearly, it comes rather naturally to me. In fact I cannot not see them clearly anymore. Getting to that point had nothing to do with discipline. Simply a lot of time to think over a lot of things.
Love for something bad is bad, and hatred towards something bad is good. That is the way you can see it.
Love for something bad is bad? And what or who determines what is bad?
Same about hatred. How can you know the bad is actually bad? Maybe it's good instead?
The way I see it is that you are wrong, as you keep talking about good and bad "energies" but not where they come from.
Positive and negative encompass actions, emotions and the motives for those actions.
Who determines positive and negative? Don't say "you have to believe", or something like that. It would be exactly the same as saying "they just are", which says nothing.
It doesn't matter what people think about it. If it is right, then it is right.
What is right, what is wrong? Do you know? If you do then why are they so? Where do they come from? Why?
What is right and what is wrong can only be thought upon through a clear, unbiased mind. Unfortunately, that is very rare to come by.
I know... haven't met anyone else like that, ever.
Not everything can be explained by science.
Because currently science isn't that advanced. But if we were to survive long enough, everything could, very probably, be explained.
Atheism isn't the knowledge there is no god, it is the belief there is no god. Sorry to ruin the strawman for you, but your entire premise is incorrect.
If one has never heard of a thing, like the examples given, physics and the english language, they by default do not believe in them. It is impossible to believe in something you have never heard of, you see... this applies to a god as well. Babies are a bunch of atheists... which may bring a new and interesting angle to the old boring abortion debate.
sorry, went off subject.
Anyway, agnostic is just a refusal to be a part of the conversation, which is fine but if that is the wish than creating a debate on the subject seems counter productive.
Agnostics don't refuse to be a part of the conversation. Agnostics detach themselves from the question and make it objective and impersonal. We don't pick sides until all the evidence is in. The question of god is a scientific question, it's not philosophical or spiritual. Thus it needs to be looked at like any other problem.
If the question was, "Why is the sky blue?", we start by collecting data. We don't start with an answer, "I don't know, but god certainly didn't make it blue". With science, you don't make any assumptions like that. You just collect data, and that evidence leads to your answer. (because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.)
Assumptions are okay in philosophy or religion but if you cannot measure it, then it is not science. Since the evidence is not in, agnostics remain undecided until it is. Agnosticism is the only logical, scientific position you can have on the concept of God.
I have a coin in my pocket. Do you "believe" it is a quarter or a dime? It doesn't matter what your answer is, your leaning toward answering "dime" or "quarter" says nothing about what is actually in my pocket. You don't have the necessary evidence to give an answer that is worth anything.
You are taking an utter and complete void of evidence and injecting the possibility of some unknown evidence, and based on this withholding an opinion.
This is not logical or scientific. While we have not covered every area of the earth with cameras which run 24/7, still, we determine there are no unicorns. Theists say there are unicorns on earth. Atheists say there are not unicorns on earth. An agnostic person says they are not sure because we've not covered every square inch of earth with cameras that record everything 24/7.
Your mistake is thinking all or most of the evidence is in. From my point of view, only a tiny amount of all knowable data is in, certainly less than 1 percent. Given less than 1% of the data, making conclusions is just not appropriate.
Even the existence of unicorns is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Our tiny fraction of the universe that we call the milky way, contains an estimated 2 billion earth-like planets. There are at least 50 other galaxies like ours. Of all these billions upon billions of planets that are similar to earth, you think it's impossible that a horse-like creature with a horn evolved on one of them?
That is ridiculous. Given the scope of this information, I would be quite surprised if unicorns don't exist.
Now you are changing the possible definition of god though. God is everywhere and everything is he not?
If this is god we can say the lack of evidence everywhere and in everything concludes this god does not exist.
As with the unicorns you can say there is some hidden place where unicorns reside, some chasm in the ocean, maybe they're invisible, maybe they are in an underground layer in the middle of the Amazon surrounded by a maze of thick forest and giant spiders.
No, actually, we are born agnostic. We do not form beliefs at that age. Theism, atheism, babies have no concept of any of it. I might be a Christian, but Judas is right.
The only reason atheism exists is because definition was first given to the belief in gods - theism. Then was created the word for what preceded theism - atheism - godless, basically. We are all born atheistic, this is an irrefutable fact. No one is born with the belief in gods, or any knowledge of them.
Being atheistic requires no knowledge of it. While being theistic does, you literally cannot be a theist without having heard and learned of it.
And agnosticism, it requires first having learned about what theism stands for, and then also keeping in mind that it might all be wrong.
If to be atheist is just to be godless isn't agnosticism a redundant concept? I've always differentiated between atheism and agnosticism by thinking that atheists actively deny or reject god (and are godless) and agnostics don't know one way or the other or don't care (but are also godless). Atheism - in my opinion and according to some popular definitions of the word - implies and encompasses taking the position "god doesn't exist" in some sense or another.
So using that definition of atheism we are not all born atheists. We are born, as you said, without knowledge of the supernatural; but you have to have knowledge of something to reject or or deny it. If we are born godless, not knowing or not caring about the supernatural, you could more accurately call us agnostics.
Obviously definitions are universally binding. It just seems to me that if your only criteria for determining atheism is a lack of belief or knowledge in gods you reduce atheism to meaning the exact same thing as agnosticism and we end up with an extra, pointless word. If you use atheism to describe the godless who deny god and agnosticism to describe the godless who don't know or care we have more overall descriptive power as we have more words to more accurately name specific systems of belief.
It is impossible to believe in something you haven't even been taught of yet. If you have not been taught of something you already do not believe in it, obviously it is impossible.
To be an agnostic the person must have learned about theism, about gods, and keep that as an uncertain possibility. A newborn child does not possess that knowledge. Atheism is not something a person believes in, or a state of belief, it is the state of no belief in gods. Or are you suggesting atheists believe in no belief in gods? That would be just stupid.
You are wrong. The word agnosticism comes from two Greek words. "A" which means no or none, and gnosticism from the Greek "gnostikos" which means "learned" from the Greek "gnosis" which means knowledge. Basically an agnostic is someone who has no knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. ;'(
Now, if you have done educating yourself perhaps you will understand that being an agnostic is only possible if the person has learned about what both theism and atheism stand for.
You really need to concentrate on "These English words"
You are aware that over time words also change in meaning and definition, and some words gain new meanings? It doesn't matter where they came from, at all, what matters is what they mean now.
As has already been stated, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
Which position is more logical? Both. We cannot know with absolute certainty if there is or is not a god, but given all the evidence (or lack of evidence) our current best guess is that a god does not exist.
As someone has already pointed out the majority of atheists will be agnostic atheists, which is that the don't think god exists but are not totally sure. That being said i do think Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy sums it up you cannot prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun, too small to be seen by our telescopes, but does that mean you should be agnostic about that teapot?
Yes, you should be agnostic about the teapot. Considering the extraordinary nature of the universe where literally anything is possible, we cannot conclude that there are no tea pouring devices orbiting the sun.
If they could travel fast enough, is possible that you become older than your own grandparents. If another civilization has been monitoring us for thousands of years, we may be able to "rewind the tape" one day and watch our own history unfold. I think one day space travel will be so prolific that tea pots and other human debris will absolutely orbit large masses. The universe is such a crazy place. If a giant ham sandwich came out of no where and wiped out half our solar system, I wouldn't be THAT surprised.
Are you saying that it is not possible that a tea pot is orbiting the sun? Is that what you are saying?
You can not prove anything with 100% certainty so I'm guessing you are agnostic about absolutely everything?
and looking into your second and third paragraphs.
1) if you travel really fast it would not make you older then your grandparents.
2) Whilst there might be some alien civilization monitoring us, why should we think there is?
There is no evidence supporting that whatsoever.
3)We most probably will have a lot of space travel in the distance future, so i have no problem there.
4) If a ham sandwich could wipe out half the solar system it would have to be a planet sized object, do you think we should be agnostic about planet sized ham sandwiches?
5) I'm not saying it is impossible that a tea pot is in orbit around the sun but I'm saying it is highly unlikely, far too unlikely to say i don't know about.
Finally if i asked you what 2+2 was would you say i don't know or 4? If you are looking for 100% certainty, you won't find it anywhere, that would mean you must say I don't know about everything.
1) if you travel really fast it would not make you older then your grandparents.
That's not what I said. If your grandparents traveled at near light speed for several decades, their time would be slowed and yours would remain consistent. At some point you would have spent more time alive than your own grandparents.
2) Whilst there might be some alien civilization monitoring us, why should we think there is?
I didn't say this was likely or that there is evidence for it, I said it is possible. It is.
4) If a ham sandwich could wipe out half the solar system it would have to be a planet sized object, do you think we should be agnostic about planet sized ham sandwiches?
Yes. (It would have to be much larger than "planet sized" to wipe out half our solar system.)
5) I'm not saying it is impossible that a tea pot is in orbit around the sun but I'm saying it is highly unlikely, far too unlikely to say i don't know about.
The fact of the matter is you don't know. The only difference between us is that I am humble enough to admit that I do not know.
1)That's not what I said. If your grandparents traveled at near light speed for several decades, their time would be slowed and yours would remain consistent. At some point you would have spent more time alive than your own grandparents.
I have just realised i misread what you wrote I apologise for that.
2)I didn't say this was likely or that there is evidence for it, I said it is possible. It is.
I'll take it as you are agnostic about an alien civilisation watching us?
4) Yes. (It would have to be much larger than "planet sized" to wipe out half our solar system.)
A ham sandwich larger than a planet... you're agnostic about that?
5) The fact of the matter is you don't know. The only difference between us is that I am humble enough to admit that I do not know.
Like i said which is a point you seemed to ignore, it is not 100% that 2+2 = 4 but are you "humble" about that and when someone asks you, do you say i don't know or do you say 4?
I'll take it as you are agnostic about an alien civilisation watching us?
Yes.
A ham sandwich larger than a planet... you're agnostic about that?
Yes I am.
Like i said which is a point you seemed to ignore, it is not 100% that 2+2 = 4 but are you "humble" about that and when someone asks you, do you say i don't know or do you say 4?
On 2+2 = 4, the evidence is in. This can be proven mathematically, so it can be measured and calculated. That quality brings it into the realm of fact.
2+2=4 cannot be proven to 100% certainty, like everything else there is a possibility it is wrong. It could be wrong and no matter how small the chances it is of being wrong, by what you have already said you should be agnostic about it.
you have not shown how unicorns are possible please explain...
Time travel into the future by traveling close to the speed of light is possible, i know that.
I can't show where 2 + 2 = 5, that is not what i said, what i am saying is you cannot say it is impossible. I also can't give an example of where gravity suddenly repels but i cannot say with 100% certainty that one day it won't do that.
quoting you from the description up the top.
I think it's a mistake to say that anything is impossible
Are you going back on that statement?
The problem is your agnosticism involves you being agnostic about absolutely everything, and i don't think that is logical at all.
Its highly unlikely that there is a planet sized ham sandwich and you said you are agnostic about that, so now I'm guessing you are agnostic about 2+2=4?
Or have you decided that something being highly unlikely is enough to reject it if there is no evidence for it?
I would say that it is highly unlikely there is a god because there is no evidence for one and everything we can explain so far we can do without invoking a god.
I don't consider the giant ham sandwich, or even the existence of god, anywhere near as unlikely as 2 + 2 equaling 5. However, if we are being completely logical and using the strictest possible terms, yes, we must be agnostic about everything.
i didn't say the existence of god was that unlikely i just said it is unlikely so i would say that I'm not 100% certain but i would say the likelihood is a god doesn't exist.
i didn't say the existence of god was that unlikely i just said it is unlikely so i would say that I'm not 100% certain but i would say the likelihood is a god doesn't exist.
Let me put it this way, If you tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, the vast majority of people will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it just to make sure.
I picked atheism after studying religion because it is the logical, and might I add correct thing to do. I don't 'believe' the world is spherical, I know it, so all these religious people saying that they 'believe' in God is pretty much saying " I have less faith in God than I do a scientific theory going against what my religion used to teach."
I am not bothering to put much effort in to this because theists will read this and say " ah well that is illogical because the Bible says....." Whatever fanciful crap they wish to believe.
One day, an atheist was struggling with his moral conscience over what to do in a particularly ugly situation. Then he remembered there’s no God and no accountability so fuck it! Wheh-hew!