Let's get this straight.

I first off want to say, that this isn't any kind of "calling out" of anyone--and although this is directed mainly at you, SPrinkZ, this should not in any way be taken as a personal attack.  I just want to clarify some things, as you pretty much just came in a couple days ago and started arguing with us, making completely baseless assumptions about our beliefs.

Also, I would like this to remain civil.  Let's leave insults out of this thread, else I would like to ask that it be locked in such a scenario.

The problem we seem to be having with SPrinkZ is that we have not defined "god" yet.  We are arguing about two separate entities.

So let's do that--define the "god" we're arguing doesn't exist.

When one of us says "God doesn't exist," we are probably talking about the Abrahamic god.  That is, Allah, Yahweh, or the almighty nameless Christian "God."  A personal god that is concerned with everything that we mere mortals do; he watches everything everyone does, he reads our minds, he listens to and answers prayers, and performs miracles (If all of these are "in his will.").

This god created the universe in just a few days, less than 10,000 years ago, although the geological, archaeological, and astronomical evidence tends to show overwhelming evidence that the universe is much, much older.  This god also created humans before the animals, which means that dinosaurs had to coexist at the same time as humans at one point--however, again the geological and archaeological evidence is also strongly against this one.

And I could go on, but we'll move on unless you need a further description of this "God".

Your arguments seem to be about a different god, however.  A simple divine being that created the universe and pretty much left it at that.  Pretty much a deist point of view, am I right?

Perhaps now you understand the biggest differences in what we are thinking about?  Do you think that the likelihood of these two different types of "gods" are the same?

I don't think so, and most everyone else here will agree.  It is possible to be 100% positive that the former, Abrahamic personal god doesn't exist.  Evidence against this god is all around us, and the evidence supporting this god is incredibly lacking.

However, you are mostly correct that your idea of "god" is less able to be contradicted, but that doesn't not necessarily mean that it can't be shown that it almost certainly does not exist.

The thing with your idea of god, is that it exists outside of our plane of reality in some outside (for lack of better word) universe.  The problem that comes up with your god, is that sure it seems very unlikely for our universe to have existed out of "nothing" without some divine help, but what about this god?

As unlikely as our universe having come from "nothing," just how much more likely is it for this god to have just simply existed?  As complex and unlikely as our universe is, this god is infinitely more complex and unlikely.  Beast should be able to take this argument up from here, but I will continue with one more thing.

It is not a matter of black and white, "either it exists or it doesn't," 50-50 chance.  The likelihood for the Abrahamic god is no more than that of Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Wodan, Thor, Isis, Brahma, or Kali.  Is that something we can agree on?  They're all equally likely as a fairy tale.

The likelihood of the deistic god is not black and white, 50-50 either.  Just stating that "we don't know how the universe started, so it is entirely possible that a god must have done it" is not a rational mode of thought.  That is no different thinking from the ancient Greeks not knowing how lightning formed, so giants forged the bolts of lightning for Zeus to use as weapons to slay his father Cronus.  It's the same as the Greeks thinking that the gods moved the celestial objects themselves, because they didn't understand the physics involved.  It's the same delusion that the unknown must be the cause of the divine.

While I do realize that the existence of such a god is very, very difficult to disprove, if possible at all.  But the likelihood of such a being is definitely not 50-50, "either it exists or it doesn't".  The probability of such a being is not very high.

But the nature of our atheism is not that it is impossible that such a being does not exist!  Do not make that assumption, as we have told you the opposite many times already although you don't seem to understand it.  If evidence in favor of such a being was discovered, all of us would examine it and make the necessary changes to our beliefs to accommodate the new evidence.  But until that time comes, we will indeed be very skeptical about such a being's existence.  Skeptical to a point where we do not believe that it is likely for such a being to exist, and live our lives accordingly.

tl;dr.

*applause*  Very bright and mature, I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

</sarcasm>

In seriousness, I'm sorry I bothered try to have some sort of intelligent discussion.  Obviously you're incapable of such a thing.

The "tl;dr" is his way of admitting defeat.

I agree with nomad.

*applause*  Very bright and mature, I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

</sarcasm>

In seriousness, I'm sorry I bothered try to have some sort of intelligent discussion.  Obviously you're incapable of such a thing.

I don't care about this. Let's discuss something that matters.

You can think I am an idiot, but you might see I'm not.

I don't care about this. Let's discuss something that matters.

If you don't care, don't post. :roll:

You can think I am an idiot, but you might see I'm not.

If people think you're an idiot, its only because you made yourself look like one.

Seconded.

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

I don't care about this. Let's discuss something that matters.

If you don't care, don't post. :roll:

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

You can think I am an idiot, but you might see I'm not.

If people think you're an idiot, its [sic] only because you made yourself look like one.

All right. It's your choice to believe these pseudo-truths.

You reeeeeaaaallllyyyy like using the word pseudo, don't you? You may be up for another trophy soon! :lol:

Can anyone give me a Spinkz post:pseudo count?

You reeeeeaaaallllyyyy like using the word pseudo, don't you? You may be up for another trophy soon! :lol:

Can anyone give me a Spinkz post:pseudo count?

You can't even spell my name right, and I've used pseudo maybe five times out of 200 posts. Go count them, prove you have less a life than a chair. I find that everything you say is terribly stupid, perhaps it reflects your intelligence.

You can't even spell my name right, and I've used pseudo maybe five times out of 200 posts. Go count them, prove you have less a life than a chair. I find that everything you say is terribly stupid, perhaps it reflects your intelligence.

Pseudo seems to be in most of your posts. I'm not going to count them, someone else will get bored and do it.

Those in glass houses shouldn't cast the first quip about intelligence.

Sorry about spelling your name wrong, but:

I'm just going to put this very plainly: I don't care.

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

You can't even spell my name right, and I've used pseudo maybe five times out of 200 posts. Go count them, prove you have less a life than a chair. I find that everything you say is terribly stupid, perhaps it reflects your intelligence.

Pseudo seems to be in most of your posts. I'm not going to count them, someone else will get bored and do it.

Those in glass houses shouldn't cast the first quip about intelligence.

Sorry about spelling your name wrong, but:

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

I'm just going to put this very plainly: I don't care.

Why don't we discuss my strengths rather than my weaknesses? So far I see that you are all quite dedicated to your beliefs. I am enmeshed in writing. Seems that when I had that discussion (and proved many wrong) I was considered an idiot because I knew what I was talking about in terms of prosody, or prose.

I find that's pretty unfair. You're smart because you understand esoteric logic, and I'm stupid because I understand esoteric prosody.

I don't think that's terribly fair, is it?

Why don't we discuss my strengths rather than my weaknesses? So far I see that you are all quite dedicated to your beliefs. I am enmeshed in writing. Seems that when I had that discussion (and proved many wrong) I was considered an idiot because I knew what I was talking about in terms of prosody, or prose.

I find that's pretty unfair. You're smart because you understand esoteric logic, and I'm stupid because I understand esoteric prosody.

I don't think that's terribly fair, is it?

As I wasn't involved that that particular discussion, I can't really comment on that specifically. I guess, for me, I find you stupid because of the content of your posts, and the cross-thread spamming.

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

Why don't we discuss my strengths rather than my weaknesses? So far I see that you are all quite dedicated to your beliefs. I am enmeshed in writing. Seems that when I had that discussion (and proved many wrong) I was considered an idiot because I knew what I was talking about in terms of prosody, or prose.

I find that's pretty unfair. You're smart because you understand esoteric logic, and I'm stupid because I understand esoteric prosody.

I don't think that's terribly fair, is it?

As I wasn't involved that that particular discussion, I can't really comment on that specifically. I guess, for me, I find you stupid because of the content of your posts, and the cross-thread spamming.

Do you know what stupid really is? Define stupid.

Do you know what stupid really is? Define stupid.

In this context, I consider stupid to be a relative view of someone based on your previous encounters with them.

Why don't we discuss my strengths rather than my weaknesses? So far I see that you are all quite dedicated to your beliefs. I am enmeshed in writing. Seems that when I had that discussion (and proved many wrong) I was considered an idiot because I knew what I was talking about in terms of prosody, or prose.

I find that's pretty unfair. You're smart because you understand esoteric logic, and I'm stupid because I understand esoteric prosody.

I don't think that's terribly fair, is it?

tl;dr

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

Do you know what stupid really is? Define stupid.

In this context, I consider stupid to be a relative view of someone based on your previous encounters with them.

So, how did you go about thinking I am stupid? You know very little about me. We both probably know very different things. I can tell that much already.

If we discussed writing, I'd probably make most people look childish. I focus very heavily on writing and some history, not terribly a lot though in the history area. I am just starting to dabble in philosophy.

So, how did you go about thinking I am stupid? You know very little about me. We both probably know very different things. I can tell that much already.

If we discussed writing, I'd probably make most people look childish. I focus very heavily on writing and some history, not terribly a lot though in the history area. I am just starting to dabble in philosophy.

As I said on the previous page, I've based my views on my opinion of the content of your posts, and your cross-thread spamming of such content.

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

So, how did you go about thinking I am stupid? You know very little about me. We both probably know very different things. I can tell that much already.

If we discussed writing, I'd probably make most people look childish. I focus very heavily on writing and some history, not terribly a lot though in the history area. I am just starting to dabble in philosophy.

As I said on the previous page, I've based my views on my opinion of the content of your posts, and your cross-thread spamming of such content.

So, because of a few posts. You've determined that I am of the below-average, or even lower, retarded level of intelligence and knowledge?

All right, you've proven my point. I guess you cannot see nuance.

I am of the below-average, or even lower, retarded level of intelligence and knowledge

I agree.

tl;dr

So, because of a few posts. You've determined that I am of the below-average, or even lower, retarded level of intelligence and knowledge?

All right, you've proven my point. I guess you cannot see nuance.

Another way to look at it is that I've viewed what you've posted, I can only assume you would choose to represent yourself accurately, and from that I've concluded I don't agree with your views on a few things, and find your "forum etiquette" (haha) lacking. You seem to be a smart guy, I don't really think I could comment accurately on your general intelligence on the basis of a few internet posts.

*Ubuntu starts building a universe where SPrinkZ doesn't exist*

I first off want to say, that this isn't any kind of "calling out" of anyone--and although this is directed mainly at you, SPrinkZ, this should not in any way be taken as a personal attack.  I just want to clarify some things, as you pretty much just came in a couple days ago and started arguing with us, making completely baseless assumptions about our beliefs.

Also, I would like this to remain civil.  Let's leave insults out of this thread, else I would like to ask that it be locked in such a scenario.

The problem we seem to be having with SPrinkZ is that we have not defined "god" yet.  We are arguing about two separate entities.

So let's do that--define the "god" we're arguing doesn't exist.

When one of us says "God doesn't exist," we are probably talking about the Abrahamic god.  That is, Allah, Yahweh, or the almighty nameless Christian "God."  A personal god that is concerned with everything that we mere mortals do; he watches everything everyone does, he reads our minds, he listens to and answers prayers, and performs miracles (If all of these are "in his will.").

This god created the universe in just a few days, less than 10,000 years ago, although the geological, archaeological, and astronomical evidence tends to show overwhelming evidence that the universe is much, much older.  This god also created humans before the animals, which means that dinosaurs had to coexist at the same time as humans at one point--however, again the geological and archaeological evidence is also strongly against this one.

And I could go on, but we'll move on unless you need a further description of this "God".

Your arguments seem to be about a different god, however.  A simple divine being that created the universe and pretty much left it at that.  Pretty much a deist point of view, am I right?

Perhaps now you understand the biggest differences in what we are thinking about?  Do you think that the likelihood of these two different types of "gods" are the same?

I don't think so, and most everyone else here will agree.  It is possible to be 100% positive that the former, Abrahamic personal god doesn't exist.  Evidence against this god is all around us, and the evidence supporting this god is incredibly lacking.

However, you are mostly correct that your idea of "god" is less able to be contradicted, but that doesn't not necessarily mean that it can't be shown that it almost certainly does not exist.

The thing with your idea of god, is that it exists outside of our plane of reality in some outside (for lack of better word) universe.  The problem that comes up with your god, is that sure it seems very unlikely for our universe to have existed out of "nothing" without some divine help, but what about this god?

As unlikely as our universe having come from "nothing," just how much more likely is it for this god to have just simply existed?  As complex and unlikely as our universe is, this god is infinitely more complex and unlikely.  Beast should be able to take this argument up from here, but I will continue with one more thing.

It is not a matter of black and white, "either it exists or it doesn't," 50-50 chance.  The likelihood for the Abrahamic god is no more than that of Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Wodan, Thor, Isis, Brahma, or Kali.  Is that something we can agree on?  They're all equally likely as a fairy tale.

The likelihood of the deistic god is not black and white, 50-50 either.  Just stating that "we don't know how the universe started, so it is entirely possible that a god must have done it" is not a rational mode of thought.  That is no different thinking from the ancient Greeks not knowing how lightning formed, so giants forged the bolts of lightning for Zeus to use as weapons to slay his father Cronus.  It's the same as the Greeks thinking that the gods moved the celestial objects themselves, because they didn't understand the physics involved.  It's the same delusion that the unknown must be the cause of the divine.

While I do realize that the existence of such a god is very, very difficult to disprove, if possible at all.  But the likelihood of such a being is definitely not 50-50, "either it exists or it doesn't".  The probability of such a being is not very high.

But the nature of our atheism is not that it is impossible that such a being does not exist!  Do not make that assumption, as we have told you the opposite many times already although you don't seem to understand it.  If evidence in favor of such a being was discovered, all of us would examine it and make the necessary changes to our beliefs to accommodate the new evidence.  But until that time comes, we will indeed be very skeptical about such a being's existence.  Skeptical to a point where we do not believe that it is likely for such a being to exist, and live our lives accordingly.

Great post Nomad, I'm disappointed that nobody commented in response to this.  I think you stated it very well.  The question of the definition of God is a very important one.  My mother is a Quaker and she believes that God is essentially just a word that means the goodness in us all.  I'm not sure I completely understand, but she doesn't believe in anything supernatural and she doesn't believe in life after death.  I'm an atheist to that kind of God only in that I think "god" is the wrong word to use.  Apparently there are more atheists in the Quaker religion than in the general population (according to Mum).  Yet they all believe in a definition of "god" - just not the one that had anything to do with creating the world (well some do - Quakerism doesn't really have any set beliefs about God - just beliefs about how to worship and morality).  If you define God as the creator of the world, I find that impossible to believe.  If you define God as something abstract and spiritual, it's a completely different situation.

I would define an atheist - not as somebody who denies the existence of God, but as somebody who doesn't believe in the existence.  An agnostic is somebody who believes there is some possibility that God exists, but as far as all the evidence we have seen, there is no possibility.  Of course theoretically we can imagine situations that allow for the existence of God, but we have no evidence to give those situations any probability.

It's really sort of inefficient when people keep throwing new definitions of "God" around. The classic one is "you can keep going back all you like, but something had to start it all [not necessarily true] and I choose to call that God." That seems to me like "you can dig and dig all you like but eventually you get to a spot where you can't go any further. I choose to call that place Hell."

It may be inefficient to redefine something for each person, but in the case of "god" it is very important.  In my personal experience I have never found anyone that holds the same idea of god as anyone else.  So when we talk about god we definitely should pin down a definition.  However, I don't think we are ever going to get anywhere with this discussion precisely because of this.  I think the best solution is to smile and nod.

My mother is a Quaker and she believes that God is essentially just a word that means the goodness in us all.

She uses the word god (traditionally not capitalized because 'God' is a character) in the transcendental manner that many theologians use it in, I think.  In this sense, we can say that god exists.

I'm an atheist to that kind of God only in that I think "god" is the wrong word to use.

From what I understand, Nietzsche felt the exact same way.  In fact, he thought that the word 'god' was so ambiguous that we ought to stop using it altogether.  If we're going to believe "god = good" or "god = Being (in the sense of the act of existing itself, a verb)", and then we're going to turn around and say "god exists," then why don't we just stop using the word 'god' and start using the words 'good' and 'Being' and anything else that we mean by the word.  It's really a good point.

tl;dr

Wtf?

Quote from: "Hara Taiki"

tl;dr

Wtf?

too long didnt read