Dogmatic Atheism

  • 240 Replies
  • 25010 Views
?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2007, 10:32:49 AM »
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.


Don't take this thread out of context.  First of all, several of us who are atheist are defending the right to personal belief.  If you want to call Skeptical Scientist and I bigots because of that, then maybe Ubuntu's case is valid after all--religion causes stupidity.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2007, 10:34:58 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.


Don't take this thread out of context.  First of all, several of us who are atheist are defending the right to personal belief.  If you want to call Skeptical Scientist and I bigots because of that, then maybe Ubuntu's case is valid after all--religion causes stupidity.


There are no rights at all on the internet. Because I am currently outside of the USA, and their internet laws, there are also no rules. And I suggest that you go off in a corner and die. See how hot it is in Hell for me 'k?

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2007, 10:37:02 AM »
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2007, 10:37:47 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2007, 10:39:00 AM »
And that is exactly why theism is dangerous.  More and more every day I begin to agree with Ubuntu on this.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #65 on: January 10, 2007, 10:59:25 AM »
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.


...and you claim atheists are close-minded.
the cake is a lie

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2007, 11:28:56 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.


...and you claim atheists are close-minded.


My view is that all religions are ok, but anti-, or non-religions must be destroyed. And that's very close minded, and I'm proud of it because I won't be a homo if I don't become an atheist. Stupid homos is what atheists are, and on top of that they are tree-hugging liberals.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2007, 11:37:54 AM »
Why do you use 'liberal' or 'homo' as an insult? And is there a problem with thinking trees are a good thing?
the cake is a lie

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2007, 11:43:30 AM »
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.


...and you claim atheists are close-minded.


My view is that all religions are ok, but anti-, or non-religions must be destroyed. And that's very close minded, and I'm proud of it because I won't be a homo if I don't become an atheist. Stupid homos is what atheists are, and on top of that they are tree-hugging liberals.


I support the right to bear arms, in the hopes that idiots like you accidentally shoot themselves.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2007, 11:55:37 AM »
I prefer the right to arm bears. That would be awsome, but they'd own us.

And homo is only an insult because people take it as an insult, its the same with the word "retarded" which people also find innapropriate.

I use "gay" and "retard" as an insult all the time, but i am neither homophobic or "retardphobic?" i simply assume that people will take it as an insult. In the same way i could use any other word. If people start using "atheist" as an insult, it wont be long before even atheists use it to insult each other.
ny Conspiricy without a secret society more than 1000 years old isn't worth thinking about

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2007, 11:58:07 AM »
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
I use "gay" and "retard" as an insult all the time, but i am neither homophobic or "retardphobic?" i simply assume that people will take it as an insult. In the same way i could use any other word. If people start using "atheist" as an insult, it wont be long before even atheists use it to insult each other.


By that logic, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to use 'nigger' as an insult?
the cake is a lie

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2007, 12:00:29 PM »
I personally have no real problem with it, although you have to aprreciate that its an insulting term for black people, rather than just a noun. Thats like "faggot" compared to "gay".
I myself feel that if people didnt care about things like that it would be much better. An insult is only offensive if you choose to find it that way.
ny Conspiricy without a secret society more than 1000 years old isn't worth thinking about

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #72 on: January 10, 2007, 01:51:35 PM »
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
My view is that all religions are ok, but anti-, or non-religions must be destroyed. And that's very close minded, and I'm proud of it


It's this type of person that will cause the end of the world.  How can one be so irrational?
ooyakasha!

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2007, 02:15:22 PM »
haha i like this guy kwaun Se cos he's mad and a whole new type of dick i've never actually known before.  Tell us more about what you see as an injustice in a world with anti/non-religions and liberals and hippies. :lol:
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2007, 02:39:16 PM »
Quote
It's this type of person that will cause the end of the world. How can one be so irrational?

It's the effect of religion.

Hey. Hey Kwan Se! How come all atheists like thedigitalnomad and Ubuntu and I are so horrible? We have ethics an' stuff like that just like you. By saying you support all theist religions, do you include fundamentalist Islam? It's not okay to be atheist but it's okay to kill infidels and blow yourself up to get a few dozen virgins to play with in heaven?

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2007, 03:04:01 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, Ubuntu.  

I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference.  Nobody is capable of disproving -or- proving this belief, so when there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity, a person must make the decision based on personal preference, especially in such a small matter as whether a God exists or not.

This is true. That does not mean we should accept the existence of a deity as being equally likely as nonexistence however; it is possible to imagine that of two or more possibilities which are all potentially true, some are more likely than others. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ubuntu, I, and many others all believe that the probability that there is a deity, while nonzero, is vanishingly small. So there may be reasons other than personal preference for choosing - in this case, what you think is likely to be the true state of the universe.

Quote
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered.  I attribute it therefore, to God.  Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe, meaning a supernatural power.  The easiest to relate to power outside the Universe would be a rational one, so I attribute this outside power some form of intelligence.  Seeing as it s outside the Universe, it probably (but not neccesarily) has intelligence enough to create something, so I assume it's intelligence is beyond or equal to the intelligence of man.

Why must the universe have a cause outside itself? Couldn't it simply exist without causation? If nothing can exist without causation, what caused god, and so how does the idea of god explain anything? Otherwise, something exists without causation, and it seems at least as likely that the universe exists without cause than it does that the universe was caused by god, but nothing caused his existence.

Quote
You will probably argue this by attacking the premise that 'Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe.'  I will try to defend that here:  If it was a force within the Universe, then where was it before the Universe was?  Before the Universe existed, what was it?

Ok, but this is not how I was arguing this.

Quote
I believe this God is capable of (but not inclined to) do things in this physical Universe that are not possible by normal physical means.  
There are unexplained phenomenae that occur everyday, whether or not we find reason or logic to explain these things dictates whether or not they are 'miracles.'  Until every last one is explained, they will remain 'miracles.'

Just because you cannot think of a natural explanation doesn't mean that none exist. Over the course of history, a great many things that were once thought inexplicable have been quite satisfactorily explained by natural causes, and the amount of inexplicable things has steadily grown smaller. Shouldn't we suppose then that there are no inexplicable events, but simply natural causes which are as yet unknown? Doesn't this seem much more likely than the idea that there is some supernatural entity who constantly meddles in our universe?

Quote
I believe that when I die, my mind will not die with my body.
Again, there is no way to prove either way, so it comes down to personal preference.  I WANT to believe that my mind will go on.  This does not mean that it WILL, it is just a personal belief.  Tied in with my belief in God is the belief that there is something besides the Physical which occurs after death.

I'm sure this is a very comforting belief, and it is one which I sometimes wish I shared, but I don't. Without evidence of anything occurring outside of nature, and with explanations for just about everything which occurs in nature, as well as the likelihood of there existing unknown explanations for the natural phenomena that we can't yet explain, what could possibly cause you to think that there's anything else except for sheer wishful thinking?

Quote
I do NOT believe in a heaven nor a hell.  I do not know what the afterlife will be like, nor do I concern myself with it at most times, it is a minor aspect of my life.

I do not worship this God, I am merely aware of it's existence.  I am thankful that I exist, but I do not consider it to be infallible nor a source of morals, those are all the result of logic and reasoning.

Thank god for that!

Quote
Now Ubuntu, what is wrong with my 'religion?'

Nothing at all, except for the fact it is almost certainly false. It doesn't cause anyone harm in any way, and if you wish to continue believing, it is none of my concern. However, I would urge you to carefully consider whether it is likely to be true, and if you come to the conclusion that it is not, I would urge you to discard it.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

beast

  • 2997
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2007, 03:27:16 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, Ubuntu.  

I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference.  Nobody is capable of disproving -or- proving this belief, so when there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity, a person must make the decision based on personal preference, especially in such a small matter as whether a God exists or not.


I think this is a false statement.  While we can't 100% disprove the existence of God, we can disprove many of the claims made about God, and more importantly we can explain why people feel the way they do about God.  With things that we don't know the answer to, we can look at all the evidence and then make a decision based on that evidence as to the likelihood of the existence of God.  In this case we can see very strong neurological explanations for the phenomenon attributed to God and we can't see any objective evidence at all suggesting the existence of God.

Quote

I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered.  I attribute it therefore, to God.

Completely illogical.  What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler?  You have no evidence for either.


Quote

 Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe, meaning a supernatural power.

How can you make this statement?  What logic did you use to come to that assumption?  Why does the Universe have to be created at all?  Isn't it just as possible that the Universe has always existed as it is possible that God has already existed?  Or else what created God?  Another God higher than God?

Quote

  The easiest to relate to power outside the Universe would be a rational one, so I attribute this outside power some form of intelligence.  Seeing as it s outside the Universe, it probably (but not neccesarily) has intelligence enough to create something, so I assume it's intelligence is beyond or equal to the intelligence of man.

How do you make the assumption that the creator would be rational?  Natural selection explains perfectly how life began and became as complex as it is, there's no need for a rational being to create life or to guide it.  Given the estimated number of planets in the Universe, it seems unlikely it was necessary for the rational creator to set up Earth and our solar system.  What did this rational creator do that is rational?  Create a lot of big explosions?  How can you assume that that is rational?  What actual evidence do you have to base this claim on?


Quote

You will probably argue this by attacking the premise that 'Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe.'  I will try to defend that here:  If it was a force within the Universe, then where was it before the Universe was?  Before the Universe existed, what was it?

Specifically I'm attacking the point that you've made all these claims without backing them up with a single piece of evidence.

Quote

I believe this God is capable of (but not inclined to) do things in this physical Universe that are not possible by normal physical means.  
There are unexplained phenomenae that occur everyday, whether or not we find reason or logic to explain these things dictates whether or not they are 'miracles.'  Until every last one is explained, they will remain 'miracles.'

What evidence do you have to attribute these "miracles" to God?  Do you see how explaining things that you don't understand as the work of "God" is false logic?  Why don't you attribute the miracles to Zeus instead?

Quote

I believe that when I die, my mind will not die with my body.
Again, there is no way to prove either way, so it comes down to personal preference.  I WANT to believe that my mind will go on.  This does not mean that it WILL, it is just a personal belief.  Tied in with my belief in God is the belief that there is something besides the Physical which occurs after death.

Yes, on the face of it, that's a nice belief but it's not based on any evidence at all.  You have as much reason to believe that your soul will go on as you have to believe that in the afterlife you'll be in a world run by beans.  There are plenty of other things that would be nice.  You should believe that there is a pirate treasure chest in your backyard as well.


Quote

I do NOT believe in a heaven nor a hell.  I do not know what the afterlife will be like, nor do I concern myself with it at most times, it is a minor aspect of my life.

I do not worship this God, I am merely aware of it's existence.  I am thankful that I exist, but I do not consider it to be infallible nor a source of morals, those are all the result of logic and reasoning.


Now Ubuntu, what is wrong with my 'religion?'


The obvious thing wrong with your religion is the fact that you have all these beliefs but you have no reason to back them up.  Now on the face of it you haven't demonstrated any beliefs that would cause problems for the rest of people but in fact when we look at the world we can see just what an effect religion has on the world.  Because you believe in God, you're really giving more power to all the people who believe in God.  If we have to tolerate your beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting them, then we have to tolerate the beliefs of all religious people.  How would it be logical to say; "We can respect those beliefs, even though you can't back them up at all but we can't respect your friends beliefs, even though he also can't back them up at all."  Religion in the world has a huge amount of power at the moment, and it is power based on a belief in something that has no evidence to support it.  Some religious people may not use their power to influence the world but many do.  So long as we continue to tolerate the idea that people can hold a view and dictate other people's lives based on it, despite a lack of evidence for that view, we will be forced to tolerate all the many bad points of religion.

You said earlier that a person's religious belief is a small matter, but that's simply not the case.  Look at the major conflicts going on in the world at the moment and tell me what it is that is separating those two sides.  Ask yourself this, if those two sides suddenly both gave up their religion, would they still be fighting.  Who would be fighting who?  Over what?  But even beyond war we can see a massive influence on the lives of everybody.  For example in Australia a few weeks ago we had a debate about therapeutic stem cell research.  I'm sure you'd understand that a number of politicians voted in this debate, not on the evidence presented by the scientists or qualified ethicists, but instead, on their own interpretations of what God wants - despite the complete lack of reason to believe this, or even any kind of example of God's views on us living our lives having any credibility at all.  Luckily the bill passed but imagine if it hadn't.  That would mean that my rights to carry out stem cell research would be censored because of religious opinions that I don't have.  Of course, there are plenty of times where that has actually happened, and no doubt it will continue to happen until we move to a society where people base their decisions on rationality and human reasons, not superstition.  While your views may not directly effect me, they give more credibility to the people whose views do effect me and all of humanity and are therefore views I have problem with.

Quote
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.


Surely an open minded person looks at all the evidence and then decides on the option that is most likely.  Evidence against God - well there are 3 major religions in the world, and a huge amount of other religions, all of which contradict each other.  It is therefore clear that all but one have to be wrong - at least partially.  How can we decide which is correct?  How much evidence is there to back up each religion?  The fact is that there is no objective evidence and if we accept the fact that they're all equally likely to be right (by keeping an open mind) then we have to accept the fact that the existence of the other religions is evidence that any particular religion is wrong, coupled with the fact that there is no objective evidence, we have to assume that all religions are false and that God is a human construct.  In fact the work of many scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, psychologists and neurologists have led as to be able to explain very well why people believe in God and even what they experience when they have religious experiences.  We can explain so much.  We've also managed to prove large parts of religions wrong through science.  For example the world cannot be as young as the bible says it is.   We can disprove specific religious claims and we can explain the world in far more detail without God.

So you can claim that atheists are not open minded, but the fact is that they've actually looked at the evidence and made an assessment based on that.  You, on the other hand, have looked at the world, ignored the evidence, and made an assumption that because you can't understand things, there must be a supernatural power.  Not being able to understand something doesn't mean you should invent an answer - which is what religion does - it means you should pursue the real answer with great vigour, until you find it.

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2007, 03:41:46 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered. I attribute it therefore, to God.


Quote from: "beast"
Completely illogical. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler? You have no evidence for either.


wrong compadre, the universe existed before Adolf Hitler so he couldn't have created it - father told me so!
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2007, 03:44:08 PM »
All the religious debates I've seen are the same.

Theist states beliefs -> Atheists point out there is no objective evidence -> Theist gives subjective, obviously church-supplied evidence -> Atheists refute -> Theist insults atheists -> Atheist (s) make massive rant blowing theist's logic to smithereens.

Can we just make this a thread template so we don't have to keep doing it over and over? :D

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2007, 03:49:45 PM »
Quote from: "rustyslacker"
All the religious debates I've seen are the same.

Theist states beliefs -> Atheists point out there is no objective evidence -> Theist gives subjective, obviously church-supplied evidence -> Atheists refute -> Theist insults atheists -> Atheist (s) make massive rant blowing theist's logic to smithereens.

Can we just make this a thread template so we don't have to keep doing it over and over? :D


yeah, and can there be something done about their names?  i'm sure im not the only one that finds it hard to follow a discussion late at night with sleepy eyes trying to distinguish the word "theist" from "atheist".  one letter.  ONE LETTER!  thats not much difference at all, infact if i didnt know any better i'd say they were the same thing.  'A' isnt even that great of a letter to make such a difference anyway.
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

*

beast

  • 2997
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2007, 03:50:30 PM »
Quote from: "Captain_Bubblebum"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered. I attribute it therefore, to God.


Quote from: "beast"
Completely illogical. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler? You have no evidence for either.


wrong compadre, the universe existed before Adolf Hitler so he couldn't have created it - father told me so!


But how do you know Hitler's presence on Earth was his first presence.  What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?  More to the point, how is that statement any less likely than the statement that the universe was created by God?

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2007, 03:53:09 PM »
Quote from: "beast"
But how do you know Hitler's presence on Earth was his first presence.  What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?  More to the point, how is that statement any less likely than the statement that the universe was created by God?


at the expense of repeating myself (sorry) - my father told me.
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2007, 03:56:28 PM »
Quote
What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?

Because the Earth is only 6000 years old? >.>

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2007, 04:01:27 PM »
Quote from: "rustyslacker"
Because the Earth is only 6000 years old? >.>


LOL!!!?!!! *spews out ass as a result of immense unexpected funnyness* :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2007, 09:26:16 PM »
Granted, my beliefs are not based on logic.  However, my beliefs cannot be disproved, they can be said to be unlikely, or unmeaningful, but not disproved.

In the end, my beliefs are simply that, beliefs.  They are of little consequence to the world, and in fact, to my physical life.  I live according to a capitalistic, objective, egotistical system of ethics.  However, I do not understand why my beliefs, which are essentially harmless, can be compared to those beliefs ABOUT God that are not harmless.

How is it logical to say 'God is harmful, because these people say bad things in it's name?'

Wouldn't it be better to point out the inherent falacies within religions that abuse the authority of God to do evil?

As far as 'proving' God, one cannot do it by natural means.  If one could, the being you are describing would cease being God, and would become a natural force.  However, I will give you the reason for my preference:

I am an unusually lucky person.  I typically am capable of 'getting away with' quite a few things that other people get stuck with.  For example, I have always had a romantic interest, I am generally seen to make 'good' decisions, such as my choices in employment, where I am earning quite a profitable wage, not to mention regular comissions for my productive work.  

In addition, at various times in my life, I have felt (I know, it is not objective proof) feelings of discomfort, and have been compelled to act upon them.  I have prevented two suicides simply by picking up a phone and calling a friend.  Now, trying to rationalise this, I have a theory which I am going to post in another thread shortly, as soon as I get around to it, but the point remains:
  Either I am very lucky, or a God (with limited power or limited awareness) is influencing my actions.

I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.


As far as rustyslacker's post:
I stated my belief.
Atheists point out there is no objective evidence.
I have given subjective, but not church based evidence (I have no church)
Atheists should now refute it.
Why you think I will insult somebody is beyond me, and quite frankly, rude.
The atheist rant is something I would like to see, especially since 'Theist Logic' is an oxymoron.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2007, 09:41:22 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.
-David
E pur si muove!

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2007, 09:42:47 PM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.


But it's pretty awesome!
Are you jealous that God likes me more than you?
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2007, 12:03:26 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.


But it's pretty awesome!
Are you jealous that God likes me more than you?


Haha.  He helps you find your car keys, and your TV remote, while he lets millions of kids in Africa starve to death.  Yes, I'm jealous.  :)
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2007, 12:20:29 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.


But it's pretty awesome!
Are you jealous that God likes me more than you?


Haha.  He helps you find your car keys, and your TV remote, while he lets millions of kids in Africa starve to death.  Yes, I'm jealous.  :)


You find you car keys, and your TV remote, and you let millions of kids in Africa starve to death too!

(God is not all-powerful, btw)
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Dogmatic Atheism
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2007, 12:29:11 AM »
It was a joke.  And I do donate to hunger funds.  Doesn't do a whole hell of a lot, but it's better than just sitting by doing nothing.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET