<p>3 pages deep and I think the discussion has been very respectful, especially for the internet where tact is so easily dismissed as useless.</p>
<p>However, I’m not betting against you chibi.</p>
<p>whos arguing? i dont see it</p>
<p>I mean, anything to stop thinking about wack-ass UCLA!</p>
<p>if you want details about why he “most likely does not exist” you should read “the god delusion” by richard dawkins (a couple of the important chapters would be enough) That guy is pretty damn narcissitic (you can feel it ooze out of his writing) but is a good read nonetheless. All I wanted to do was clarify that just because i can not say certainly that god does not exist does not put his probability of existing on equal footing with his non existence (something that i felt like you were implying in your post)</p>
<p>that’s the point legendary… it’s going to have arguing all over it. </p>
<p>but then again, maybe my interference is going to disrupt the fate of this thread, lol.</p>
<p>well in that case chibi, i can prove everything and anything…try me</p>
<p>radiowilco, </p>
<p>i think this is futile so i’m done after this post. i will just enjoy reading the debate. i have read a little of the god delusion, but it was sickeningly biased. i have an athiest friend who saw him (Dawkins) talk at berkeley and admitted he didn’t make a strong case for atheism. he said he mostly just cracked jokes at religions. which is really ignorant to do, imo.</p>
<p>of course it’s biased, it’s called “the god delusion” for crying out loud. But he does a good job at addressing a lot of the arguments for god’s existence (and refuting it thereafter, if that’s what you mean by biased). I wouldn’t be surprized if he did crack jokes at religions at his talk though…</p>
<p>richard dawkins is basically vincent gallow with an education… :p</p>
<p>As has been said in past posts, to say that God was the cause is a leap. Throughout history, that which has not been explainable has been dubbed the work of God. But as humanity has progressed, breakthroughs in the sciences have jumped in and taken the reigns in explaining what was once attributed to God and solely God. These blows have hurt the institution of religion. </p>
<p>Now, who are you to claim with 100% certainty that the world Physics will never thoroughly explain the Big Bang, or even disprove it? Mind that we have only GLIMPSED at the new-born notion of “Universe”. Lets be objective here. Step out of our own slice of time, and look to the future. What you may think is “truth” now is not “truth” until it is timeless.</p>
<p>i’ll start believing in god if i get into UCLA </p>
<p>jk</p>
<p>i can’t believe someone really created this thread.</p>
<p>this is so foolish.</p>
<p>ya’lls need to read some christopher hitchens and richard dawkins.</p>
<p>I got to this late, but the minute I saw this on my phone I was extremely infuriated by some of the comments of those in delusion-believers.</p>
<p>Just yesterday we were discussing Hume in class. Surprise surprise the Christians in the class room came under attack, stating things like “he’s trying to put things into your head.” To avoid an argument I stayed shut. But what I really wanted to say was, “Use(yes use, not you are) a dumb b*tch! It’s called logic! It’s called being presented with a really good argument, which will make you think if you can make connections!”
I personally dislike when those who go into philosophy come out exactly the same person as when they went in. They might as well have majored in business. </p>
<p>I consider myself an agnostic-atheist. My myspace says atheist because I don’t want anyone thinking that there’s a possibility that I"ll shift my life around just because there’s something called god that exists… The problem with both positions(theists and atheists) is that they make a KNOWLEDGE CLAIM, and when one makes a Knowledge Claim, one should be prepared to show proof. So when atheists claim that god doesn’t exist, how can one who is an atheist prove something that doesn’t exist? They would have to prove that everything else exists except that one thing(and that is impossible to do for obvious reasons). So the responsibility therefore lies in the theist.</p>
<p>In addition, it takes paying attention to what you’re learning in other humanity/liberal art classes including ones that are NON-Western to make connections and inferences about your own culture and your own beliefs. The more you realize those connections, and understand humans as an animal, the more you realize how much ***** you’ve been fed since day 1. It takes decondition-ing almost everything you hold as truth, to be able to think for yourself.</p>
<p>i just wrote so much… and it was all deleted, and i feel like slitting my wrists because i hate these argument so much that i can’t help but chime in…</p>
<p>quick recap:</p>
<p>1) we may not have the mental capacity to argue properly, one way or another, for the existence of God. </p>
<p>2) proving the existence of God is a far cry from proving that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and sentient. </p>
<p>3) i would put the odds of there actually being a God as FAR outweighing the probability that you chose the right religion by which to appease him. </p>
<p>4) i believe that religion is inherently evil. i won’t substantiate that claim, but i will direct you toward some literature or video that can do it for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you referring to? An introductory world history class? Because that should do it for any rational and civil person.</p>
<p>haha, i’ve been doing a little light reading on the subject… and watching christopher hitchens debate so many pretentious pious ma’suckas on youtube.</p>
<p>[There is] a widespread approach to ideas which Objectivism repudiates altogether: agnosticism. I mean this term in a sense which applies to the question of God, but to many other issues also, such as extra-sensory perception or the claim that the stars influence man’s destiny. In regard to all such claims, the agnostic is the type who says, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other.”</p>
<p>The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. See how many fallacies you can find in it. Here are a few obvious ones: First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate—and then he regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. “It’s up to you,” he says, “to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt.” Third, the agnostic says, “Maybe these things will one day be proved.” In other words, he asserts possibilities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis.</p>
<p>The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.</p>
<p>[Agnosticism</a> — Ayn*Rand Lexicon](<a href=“—Ayn Rand Lexicon”>—Ayn Rand Lexicon)</p>
<p>every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .</p>
<p>Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.</p>
<p>Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.</p>
<p><a href=“—Ayn Rand Lexicon”>—Ayn Rand Lexicon;
<p>Please no Ad-Hominem responses to this rational.</p>
<p>are any philosophy majors in here you think the term “logic” would not be thrown around so much. Didn’t you learn in Phil. 101 that both faith and atheism are illogical? Not in a negative sense but at their base this is true. Faith claims that the supernatural exist. This is illogical because we exist in the natural world and therefore cannot empirically test the supernatural. Likewise atheism claims that the supernatural does not exist. This is illogical because we exist in the natural world and therefore cannot disprove the existence of the supernatural. </p>
<p>By the way I personally believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Not because it is logical but because I have PERSONALY experienced his love and presence in my life. I do not come from a religious family and was not raised in a church. I know that he has found me and called me to him. I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter but I do believe he calls on all of us. That is my own personal illogical belief ;)</p>
<p>i think you meant we live in the natural world.</p>
<p>@CBBolts</p>
<p>“1) we may not have the mental capacity to argue properly, one way or another, for the existence of God.”</p>
<p>and about your belief in Jesus Christ… if you have the balls to believe in something that crazy for no other reason than ‘you just KNOW’… have fun, but please, (not that you have already) don’t try to tell me that i can be saved too. </p>
<p>similarly, when i was 5, i was convinced that there was a monster in my closet. i just KNEW he was there. i heard him… i could have sworn that i saw him a few times… i even felt the draft he created when he ran back in the closet as my parents were about to walk into the room.</p>
<p>eventually, i grew out of that silly belief.</p>
<p>haha good call thanks i fixed it</p>