Craytonic

Yes, precisely correct. And my post was against your argument, not against you personally. And I notice you have avoided answering my initial request for compelling evidence for God's existence, not once, but twice. Maybe a 3rd time is a charm, please provide compelling evidence for God's existence.

You obviously missed the point I have made time and time again may different ways. You can't "prove" god exists or does not to a point to satisfy everyone, most academic athiests agree on this (as pugwash did earlier). This is you missing the ball wizz by every time I bang this home.

The "prove god exists" argument is one of the weakest. I can respond "prove God doesn't" or "prove you exist" and we could go on like that ad infinitum. It is the argument people make when they want to distill the issues down to little catchphrases like "bush lied people died" or things of that nature you see printed on t-shirts. It is fun to chant at a rally and probably makes the person saying it feel very self-righteous, whitty, and smart, but it does not lead _anywhere_.

It is like asking does absolute truth exists.

It has been my experience that those who cannot provide evidence for their beliefs usually end up attacking the very concept of proof - as if saying "nothing can be proved" somehow validates their belief.

I would say the same about attacking the person and not their argument.

You are very wrong..

And you can go on with your semantics forever.

But

My calling myself an atheist is simply done from lack of a better word.. I just don't believe all the religious stuff.

That's it.

There's nothing complicated about it. Nothing I have to say or do.. Nobody I have to stand trial for when the time comes.

What is the great impact here?

You're making it sound like it's a big thing to not believe in god.. It's really not.. It's nothing.

The big thing is trying to explain it to believers like you, who obviously think you are a better person for it.

-TG-

Wrong how? The existence of God, christianity, the crusades, the Greeks, the meaning of life, 42 and everything else set aside for a minute - without a doubt athism is a limiting belief (no matter if athism is right or wrong). In the same manner Christianity is a limiting belief. Either one limits its patrons. This is one of the many reasons you can probably consider Athism a "religion." To be an athist you have to subscribe to certain beliefs (i.e. God does not exist), which have many implications about right/wrong, the individual, etc.

I don't think I am a better person than anyone, and actually believe I am worse than many.

BTW for the question of "prove God exists." Can you prove to me you exist and are not a figment of my imagination (and that every bit of proof you offer is also not a figment of my imagination)? Assuming you can't prove that, does it mean you are indeed a figment of my imagination? It is a stupid exercise, I know, but I think it makes a point.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." Andre Gide.

If an athiest believes there is no truth to seek where does that leave him?

It leaves him in control of himself.. What's true depends on who you ask, it seems..

We might never know.. (damn it, I sound like an agnostic!)

If you believe there is no truth to seek

then

you are controlled by that belief

because

you won't seek a truth you don't believe to exist.

(as opposed to seeking a truth you believe to exist but don't know)

Obviously depends on what one means by "truth," but that would affect only implication and not validity.

Athism is very much a cultural/religious force itself that carries with it many implications and great impact.

If an athiest believes there is no truth to seek where does that leave him?

Thank you for taking spear-heading this project! I very much look forward to seing my crystal!

(btw you shipped mine to flavor-flav right? If not no big deal).

The VC overseas was a series of mistakes on my part; I bought the Silix-prime, then got the "1:1" version, sold the 1:1 version the next day, realized I really liked it, and picked it up again 2-3 months later.

I think the silix-prime one is a better looking watch, but the new one is more accurate. I really like the size of the older version - it is too small as far as accuracy goes but I like a smaller watch.

Anyways the bottom line is I have them both. Working on perfecting the 1:1 version. The crystal is out for AR coating now, I have a new cross to replace the 4-leaf clover on the way, and will send it to The Zigmeister for the transplant and relume.

VC overseas is a great watch. I try to hold out for as long as possible, glad I passed on the HBB and Ingie (but I know some love them) just not my thing. Picked up the tag link chrono and flipped it at a loss... just not my thing (why tag? 7750 too loud). I also don't buy certain brands: omega, Breit, Tag, or Rolex. There are exceptions.

As this thing winds up I think the major problem was that most people chose to answer the question they wanted to answer (religion, history, politics) instead of the qustion asked - skipping the do you believe in God / does God exist.

I was not addressing which God einstein believes in, but it is certain he believed in _A_ God (the topic, hello?). Note that he included "personal" before God to distinguish from not believing in God at all, and said many times that he was not an athiest and believed in a creator/prime mover.

You are both skipping the question of "is there a God" (the topic) to try and answer "What would God be like." These are two separate questions, do not answer question 1 with question 2.

Here is the full pasage on Einstien and God and Religon from Wilkepedia

He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors.", however "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" and there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies... science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.". He makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." While unequivocally not believing in a personal God,^[49] Einstein still considered himself Jewish by heritage^[50] and saying "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew."^[51]

It is clear from this passage and the one that follows that Einstein did not believe in God as he/she is described in this thread. The notion of beliveing in the "rational nature of reality" is a reference to Spinoza a founder of Rational thought who equated God with nature. Spinoza's God is not at all like the God in the tradional sense. In fact the difference between Spinoza's views Jewish Dogma were significant enough to have him shunned in Jewish circles.

Here is a quote from Wilkepedia

"He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part."

As you can see, this is not exactly God as we know it in the traditional sense. To me this is more a view that represents the Universe as a single organism comprised of infinite micro-organisms. (so now I am an ameoba!). In other words, we are connected by virtue of being part of the same organism.. and to the extent our actions impact that organism they impact us all.

Humm in regards to the question "does anyone in this forum believe in God" it would still be yes for einstein (in the idea of a prime mover). I believe the debate was existence and not characteristics? Sadly people kept confusing the two.

Happy birthday!

Kill it and we all eat spam to celebrate

or bacon!

"I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

since we are quoting

You have long posts with 10-15 points from various subjects all intermixed together. If you made one point on one subject instead of a treatise on your beliefs it would be easier. Sorry if that is a personal attack, but it is just too time consuming to sort out your post and write a reply to each point. It is the nature of the medium (posts) that they are better suited for one small point each. I attack your discussion style because it makes it virtually impossible to attack your "points at hand." Perhaps it is me.

You obviously missed the point of the quote. Our understanding of the world changes and grows over time. Just look at the progression of our understanding of the atom. The scientists of the future will likely look at ours as a world of fools, just as we look similarly of that of our predecessors - even though progress has been made. Those that have it "all explained" eventually have to eat their words, even relativity may be thrown out the window (and some researchers believe that will be soon). It requires the proper world view and perspective to realize these things.

Einstein DID belive in God fyi

and a reasonable person could say he was religious (google it!) He specifically disavowed being an athiest on numerous occasions (again, google is your friend).

Its All Explained.

I am sorry but you are just ranting at this point. I don't see any point in continuing, you can't really debate with someone who has the whole world (from start to finish) figured out (but congrats, I will never achieve that feat). It just is not that simple, and I have my plants to water and suitcases to pack.

‘We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know.’ - Einstein

this forum isn't adiquite for our debate, the issues are too numerous and too complicated, i have answers to all your points.

I believe i can show you how live exists WITHOUT divine intervention - in fact i can prove the concept of "intelligent design" false in 2 sentances

If, life - and its complexity , MUST have been created because it couldn't have happened on its own - whatever "Created" it must be at least as complex as the thing it creates - Therefore, the logic is meaningless -

I recomend The god Delusion by Richard Dawkins - in fact i would love someone who likes the subject to read the book and critisize it - i have seen some people try to - but they end up critisizing the author and not the content -

he does away with every good argument i have heard.

Religion - on a Whole - is Very Very BAD for the world - More blood has been shed in teh name of religion then any other cause in history, bar none. Sure, religion, played a vital role in controlling the masses to organize society in the early stages thereof- it provides comfort to those who seek answers. And frankly i think the human brain is not smart enough to comprehend the world we exist in - and that on the whole, religion closes the gap between comprehension and reality.

I didn't say that the world sucks unless your rich - i said that the rich run the world and that most of the "institutions" out there-that many hold dear are just money making machines for the manipulative power hungry

The world, is in fact, a bad place. - Its sad really. My existance is not however empty - i fill it with daily enjoyment of my immediate surroundings, primarily my family. I simply don't need to feel that i'm part of some big cosmic plan just to be happy.

Most people believe in god - in the US anyway

But most people used to believe the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, that Air was made up of a lack of molecules, the flying was impossible, that mermaids existed, that their particular King was hand picked by god. - So whats your point - we have been delusional about something since the begining of time - AND - it has alwasy been in furtherance of our own divine image of ourselves

its quite egotistical to think that we are all part of some grander universe make up- its quite humble to think were no better off than the fruit fly - just another bunch of atoms eeking out an existance.

Frankly, i could go on all day - AND- frankly, if we were in person, i would win the debate - mostly because i am right- and i have history, science, and logic on my side vs. Faith - the only concept in the world where ignorance is praised lack of curiousity is praised.

I'm sure it would be one hell of a debate, you sound quite good at debating - however - i happen to be un-beatable if i am right on the facts - which i am here

there are a shitload of things i can't do right, or well, but - this, i got down

till one day when we meet in person = or in the afterlife - we can finish this there.

You are all over the map, god faith, history, religion. You can't cherry pick one event from each you like and call it an argument - it is fun to spout off but it isn't proof of anything. There are no "facts" here, this is why the existence of God is the longest running debate in the history of mankind - it is something you can't "prove" on way or the other in the terms you describe. When it comes down to it, both sides as far as science goes are empty handed and you can't really debate with someone who doesn't admit it (and that 2 sentence "proof" is meaningless). Sorry, but there is no logic here and I can't argue with that.

anyone that says they were just out to meet the neighbors is trying to SELL you something.

Did they ever ask you to buy anything? Isn't there a polite refusal? I don't see the point in not just being civil. The world really is a better place if you are polite. I just really don't see the point in not giving a "No thank you." Sure you find they are bothering you... but come on.

Craytonic - I think its silly that you would even think there is a god or would even entertain the possiblity in the face of any evidence being that none would exist.

Such a staunch belief! I think you will find most people that believe in God, myself included, are always doubting our faith for this reason or that, and will entertain any idea at least for a second until they fully evaluate it. I am always willing to consider any athiest's theory. However, athiests are almost always instantly dismissive of the others that believe. There is no "picture" evidence (there are plenty of other ways to go about demonstrating the need of a prime mover, etc) you can point to that says God does or does not exist. period. end of story. This means there are two options - a) God does not exist, or he does and there is no way to prove it to you.

Just as easy as you can say "prove to me there is a God." I can say "Prove to me God did not create everything." Neither of us can prove jack. (There are many rational proofs I find convincing that are logic based that I find convincing but I will be the first to admit I don't have the skill or familiarity to recite and defend them so I will leave their research as an exercise to the reader)

Have you ever read a paper where a researcher tries to detect something? If they don't find it, they will say we did not DETECT anything, not that it does not exist (sample to small, measurements not acute enough, etc). That is the _responsible_ answer a truly scientific mind would give (look at any research paper).

I am constantly amazed when athiests say I don't believe in God because he let "x" happen. That simply invites the counter points of both a) you don't know the full consequences of what "x" caused in the long run, and look at all the good things that have come about that should not.

Athiests - don't have an "anti religion" agenda - Atheists aren't "out" to get anyone -athiests are not obessed with the actions of others. the Religious people - start this fight - although they would have most think that is the athiest who, by not participating in a baseless "belief" we are somehow the instigator

This isn't really fact based, so I will just point out that it always seems the opposite to me. Perhaps the problem is all people think someone is persecuting them, who knows?

Having spent time at the "high end" of society, i've seen to much for someone my age - the way the world really works, the scams that religion, charity, politics, minority set asides "community activists" - lots of things i used to support. - Fact is, the rich run the world, the rest of us are just pawns in their rat maze.

anyone tells you different they are trying to sell you something

Congrats on the time in the high end of society, I hope you enjoyed your stay!

So

a) you want to be left alone

the world is going to [censored]

c) life is meaningless unless you have money

Nothing personal, but it sounds like a bitter, empty existence?

I can add that religious people tend, on average to be happier. Of the professions, ministers (and doctors) live the longest. I think this has something to do with religion giving meaning to their life. Obviously, this begs the question of do they turn to religion for that meaning, but that is an entirely different issue.

Let me add I am a very strong believer, but I don't really participate in organized religion and attend services at a maximum twice a year with family as time spent together over easter and Christmas. Any "observation" of my own is thought and/or reading. I enjoy the works of many athiests, William Barrett being my favorite (followed by Sarte). That said, I believe organized religion is "good" for society as a whole.

Nothing against present company.

They believe that their world view is the only right one and therefore i am wrong

See my post above, Athiests are exactly the same way; I have never met one that didn't have some wise-ass comment they heard on late night TV about "how could God let X happened if he existed" or this or that (which I typically find ill-thought out and insulting).

Athiesm is as much of a belief system that is preached and taught as any religion by its converts.

I don't think they were trying to insult his world view.

Nothing against whoever started this thread, but I think most athiests have major issues with hubris, they are always 100% sure about their beliefs and are "insulted" that someone else would believe different. I think it is silly not to admit the possibility there is a God, and assuming thus they are somewhat justified in their beliefs, they really thought they had his best interests at heart. They were not selling crack or asking for a magazine subscription.

It is silly to act like you have all the answers... no one does. No scientist can say "this is where the world came from." There are theories (big bang, etc) but they change constantly and any scientist will tell you that they are far from proven fact and can offer little more certainty that "this is what I believe happend but I can't prove it."

I am not catholic but the Jesuits I have encountered here and there are the best example of religous scholars I know - they are always deep in thought about their beliefs. If you ever have the chance I encourage conversing with one of them, they go far beyond "blind faith" in their beliefs and usually have a very well thought out dogma. Think about it, they have nothing better to do all day than study and learn so they are very interesting to talk to. They typically devote at least an hour or two to thinking about it every day.

We have people come by about once a month trying to convert us to his or that but I always politely tell them that I am very busy or just don't open the door. No reason not to be civil.

Only 1 out of many bad enough I had to send it back - rolex crown on dial of day/date fell off day it arrived.

As your deity, I would reproach you at the very least. The Christian God was well-known for doing just that in the Old Testament. So, he either never existed and the Bible is interpreted fiction, he's forsaken you or Nietzsche killed him Spakeing Thus and the like.

Pick one.

You are over-looking the major shift as christianity arose and th New Testament was written that marked a substantial change in man's relationship with God (speaking jews v. christians).

This is one of the key arguments for the non-existence of God. Remember how jealous and fickle he was when people worshipped other gods, and when his name was taken in vain? Today, there are so many people hiding behind the mantle of religion that surely he'd be a-smitin' them a lot more often.

A loony kills over and over because God told him to? Surely the God we've been taught about would have seriously [censored] on that guy's cornflakes after the first killing in his name.

Or the priests molesting children, or the white-haired evangelists with their planes and TV shows, or the hypocrites. These are precisely the sorts of people that we were told God despised and smote with a pure vengeance.

And let's not forget the church you pay tithes to was the same church that was behind the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition (that no-one expects, naturally). Both of these crimes against humanity were done in God's name by His followers. At what point were they not evil acts done in God's name by His followers as His will?

QED: The fact that the Spanish Inquisition happened means there is no God.

You are muddling God with human religion.

For instance, you proclaimed yourself a diety earlier in this thread. If I decide to worship you and kill millions in your name (with no instruction from you to do so) is that your fault? I think not. It would just mean I am a wack job (which may be true either way depending on who you ask).

This is where your 100% wrong - lets analyze the "reason to do so"

Definition of compassion 1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

its a FEELING - you can have feelings with or without god

if your talking about kindness and doing right by your fellow man and being a "good Person?" (a good person as opposed to committing good acts) your theory is that an athiest can commit good acts but can not be a good person. because it has the "moral weight of a bowl of oats"

Under your analysis the only way that someone can be a good person is if a set of rules are established and the fear of punishment will occur if not followed. That would give it moral value

HOwever, is that a good person at all? - no it is not.

I would argue that a good person is one who does good acts wihtout expectation of reward or under threat of punishment.

Is a MORAL person someone who does things because he is told to, or because he believes it is the right thing to do independant of punishment or reward

in fact - you have it backwards - a "religious" person can not be a "good person" under most popular religions, as they do so in order to be obediant/ curry favor/ or avoid punishment.

however, the athiest who commits good acts is truly a good/ moral person because he can do so and not be doing so out of any selfish benefit.

Sigh, i see exactly what you are saying and you are still missing it. Really busy tonight, will try to explain tomorrow.

Same here, raised Lutheran then became agnostic and eventually became atheist. I really believe it had mostly to do with my educational progress and growing up (I love math and physics).

Welcome to Kansas

Well, sounds like JP Sarte did not take into consideration the not so elegant things the human design includes.

So an atheist choosing to further mankind is selfish? Interesting

So atheist can not be compassionate? Wow.

An athiest can be compassionate, but has no reason to do so; doing good if you are an athiest has about the moral weight of eating a bowl of oats. It is the difference between the internal/external.