[General Battuta]

Kara and co. are correct.

For the nth time, everyone is an atheist.

There are so many gods that all y'all don't believe in - Ra, Vishnu, Cthulhu, Raptor Jesus - it's not even funny.

How can atheism be a religion when everyone is an atheist? Some people are just atheist with respect to one more deity.

[terran_emperor]

Ive decided to myself rather than continuing trying to explain. There are as many beliefs as there are people. So lets just leave it at that. Now i wash my hands (literally) of this debate. I will hence forth disavow all knowledge of his. You kids are on your own now.
Sayonara!
 

[pecenipicek]

Wuss. Pagan is extra fun

[Scuddie]

Atheism is a belief just like monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism.  It just operates on different principles, just like monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism.

Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined.  There is no logic on any side of the coin.  The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere.  Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists.  See wat I did thar?


Anyway, the US inventions (or reinventions, per se) may have gotten their principals from other ideas, but they were created in a manner that made them practical.  Most reinventions were of inventions that were not looked at in the right light, or even simply didn't work. 

Besides, every single invention was based off another invention before it.

[karajorma]

Correct but to accept either one you have to accept logic (and the knowledge that comes from logic) as the ultimate measure.

Nope. You only have to accept logic as the best we've come up with so far.

Science it self doesn't in all occations (i refer particulary to the quantum theory).

Where?

I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?

From what you describe you sound like you're actually an Agnostic Atheist. Many Agnostic Atheists call themselves Atheists simply to avoid confusion.

Most people who say they are Agnostic are actually Strong, Weak or Agnostic Theists (Take a look here for an explanation).

To be honest though I tend to find the terms rather confusing myself. Then again whenever you try to describe something as complex as person's outlook on life in words you'll tend to find yourself coming unstuck.

[Mefustae]

Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined.  There is no logic on any side of the coin.  The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere.  Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists.  See wat I did thar?

I don't see, actually.

That's not deductive reasoning. Not by a long shot. Taking your reasoning: By strict logic, the Big Bang violates thermodynamics theory and is therefore not true. How can you go from that to "therefore, a god exists". That's like saying that if i'm hungry, therefore Kara is orange.

Kara's demonstration of atheist logic on the previous page, that's valid logic. Your example is almost as fallacious as the average believer.

[karajorma]

Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined.  There is no logic on any side of the coin.  The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere.  Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists.  See wat I did thar?

Constructed a strawman.

Where did God come from? He also violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  All you've done is shifted back one remove, explaining nothing in the process. You'll now be forced to come up with some non-explanation like "God always existed" in order to cover your back. You've tried to explain complexity by coming up with something even more complex and then refusing to explain that.


Secondly you've made the assumption that every atheist knows of and cares about the Big Bang. At which point I have to ask you, what do you call someone who has never heard of it but doesn't believe in God?

[Nuclear1]

Wait, I still don't get the Strong/Weak Atheism deal.

Are we just saying that "strong" atheists are the violent "THERE IS NO GOD!" type and "weak" atheists are just the passive "eh" types?  Because both share a set of beliefs, one just more passionately than the other. 

[Scuddie]

The way I see it

That's not deductive reasoning. Not by a long shot. Taking your reasoning: By strict logic, the Big Bang violates thermodynamics theory and is therefore not true. How can you go from that to "therefore, a god exists". That's like saying that if i'm hungry, therefore Kara is orange.

Kara's demonstration of atheist logic on the previous page, that's valid logic. Your example is almost as fallacious as the average believer.

Eh, I was using flawed logic to show how the idea that atheism is logic based while monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism are belief based is flawed logic.  I just didn't care enough to write a drawn-out post.  I have better things to do.  Like thinking about rocket ships!

Wait, I still don't get the Strong/Weak Atheism deal.

Are we just saying that "strong" atheists are the violent "THERE IS NO GOD!" type and "weak" atheists are just the passive "eh" types?  Because both share a set of beliefs, one just more passionately than the other. 

If you really want to get deep into that, atheism the absence of theism of any kind.  It doesn't derive from anything at all.  People who never think about any god(s).  When people have a belief of there being no god, it is antitheism.  "There is no god" is an antitheistic view, not an atheistic one.

[castor]

Hm.. maybe the "problem" in being a believer or being a non-believer is the same.
Like, we all are part of the universe we try to explain, but we are a part of it like a spring in a clock is part of the clock; if the spring tries to explain the clock without taking itself into account the whole makes no sense at all

[terran_emperor]

"In the Beginning, the Universe was created. The has made a lot of people angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."

If you want the "non-existance" of God, then watch this 0:38 - 1:41

---
Look if God exists we would never be able to truely understand him.

God by definition exists in all dimensions - he/she/they/it is a multi dimensional being.

We live in 3-dimensional space. We are aware of the 4th dimension but we cannot percieve it physically. (If you define 4-d as time.)

As such our understanding of the laws of Relativity, Thermodynamics and physics, etc, are limited to the 3 dimensions that we can perceive.
It is currently beyond our capabilities to comprehend a 4-d shape like a tesseract. Thus we would be unable to completly understand a 4-d being.

The best way to explain this is the old explanation of a 2-d person who lives on the surface of a piece of paper. A 2-d being would be unable to comprehend the

Depending on who you ask, there are 10 or 26 spatial dimension. It is highly unlikely that mankind will ever be able to fully comprehend 10-d space within the lifetime of our species. And just about impossible to get to 26.

But the point is that God he exists in all dimensions would forever be truely beyond our power to comprehend.

On the other hand, God could just be the boss of the 3rd dimension - dimensional director.

Actually Tenchi Muyo: Ryo-Ohki (the OVA) had an interesting idea on this - 3 Goddesses who are 11-d being. They created the other 10 dimensions, and each dimension had a "Dimensional Director". D-1 controlls the 1st dimension, D-3 controls our Dimension [the 3rd] (he even looks somewhat like the classic image of God), and so on up to D-10. These dimensional directiors presumably have such control over their respective dimensions that they would appear as Gods to the inhabitants.

I'm not discussing belief anymore.

I'm still watching you Scuddie 

---
Now on the subject of who invented what...The Americans and French created two of the most heinous Evil groups of people in the world (apart from Scientologist)
America invented the the evil known as "Televangelists"
The French invented modern Mime Artists - I'm talking those damn street mime artist (Watch Suburban Commando to see one get what's comming to him)

Damn both countries for inventing them.

NOTE: I've nothing against actors from silent Films - Fritz Lang's Metropolis is one of my favourite movies

Both groups are pure evil and should be throw into the sun

[karajorma]

Wait, I still don't get the Strong/Weak Atheism deal.

Are we just saying that "strong" atheists are the violent "THERE IS NO GOD!" type and "weak" atheists are just the passive "eh" types?  Because both share a set of beliefs, one just more passionately than the other.

Weak Atheism doesn't say God is impossible simply that there is no evidence. Strong Atheism does. Neither believe in God but the reasons are a little different.

If you really want to get deep into that, atheism the absence of theism of any kind.  It doesn't derive from anything at all.  People who never think about any god(s).  When people have a belief of there being no god, it is antitheism.  "There is no god" is an antitheistic view, not an atheistic one.

That's where the terms start getting fuzzy. If you talk to 10 different philosophers you'll probably get different definitions. What you're describing as antitheism I'd describe as strong atheism. You've left a huge ambiguity for people who say that "There is no evidence for god so I have no belief in God"

It seems excessive to say that they are antitheistic but by your own definition they have thought about the subject and therefore aren't want you would call atheists.

That's the main reason I preferred the terms I used.

[captain-custard]

it's like black. the absence of colour is equal to the absence of religion. some people can't get that through their skulls.

mmmm isnt balck just made up of red or blue pigments


at the end of the day all religions are just social controls there to seperate and devide the people

[Stormkeeper]

Sorry, but how did you guys get from here:

The machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.

to here:

mmmm isnt balck just made up of red or blue pigments


at the end of the day all religions are just social controls there to seperate and devide the people

Anyone care to explain ?

[captain-custard]

sheer talent and a slight sprinkling of fairy dust

[TrashMan]

I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?

Prolly because of the bolded part.

Where did God come from? He also violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  All you've done is shifted back one remove, explaining nothing in the process. You'll now be forced to come up with some non-explanation like "God always existed" in order to cover your back. You've tried to explain complexity by coming up with something even more complex and then refusing to explain that.

There is a difference between God and universe, you know.

By some sort of definition, God is above the laws of Physics, above logic  and above explanation - unlike the universe.
Therefore, that neatly circumvents the need to explain him or any physical inconcistencies (in fact, it's illogical to even try to explain him).
Logic perserved.

[captain-custard]

I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?

Prolly because of the bolded part.

Where did God come from? He also violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  All you've done is shifted back one remove, explaining nothing in the process. You'll now be forced to come up with some non-explanation like "God always existed" in order to cover your back. You've tried to explain complexity by coming up with something even more complex and then refusing to explain that.

There is a difference between God and universe, you know.

By some sort of definition, God is above the laws of Physics, above logic  and above explanation - unlike the universe.
Therefore, that neatly circumvents the need to explain him or any physical inconcistencies (in fact, it's illogical to even try to explain him).
Logic perserved.

ok so god is like the easter bunny at last i think i understand .......thanks

[Polpolion]

I still don't quite understand how you can logically prove that a God can either exist or not exist. Can someone explain?

[General Battuta]

Atheism is a belief just like monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism.  It just operates on different principles, just like monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism.

Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined.  There is no logic on any side of the coin.  The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity.  Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere.  Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists.  See wat I did thar?

Just to get pedantic, the Big Bang doesn't actually violate laws of thermodynamics, and it's certainly not 'something from nothing.' There are many physical mechanisms -- spontaneous symmetry breaking, M-brane theory, so on -- which have been advanced to explain the Horrendous Space Kablooie.

We do not yet fully understand the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean it's a miracle or that it defies physics.

[karajorma]

I still don't quite understand how you can logically prove that a God can either exist or not exist. Can someone explain?

http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/

Explains it much better than I could.