Do you believe in God(s)?

[Neil_Bryan]

Yes, I do believe. But not what the Church thinks. I'm Christian, but I do not offend them (or anyone here, for that matter.) Well, I know the teachings of the Church has something wrong about the God being taught. But anyway, I believe.

[Banned]

I am a Christian and I believe there is a God. He is in Heaven With his son, Jesus. I am happy for all of the Christians in the world and there is only one God. You see, His son died for all of you. He took all of your sin because God loved you.
I hope many of you got the message and maybe became a Christian.

Was that sarcasm?

[Tunco]

I personally do not. I am a man of science. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The amount of evidence supporting God is virtually nothing. Evolution, however, has loads of proof.

I have no intention to offend anyone so don't post if you are going to cuss me out.

I don't want to start all the topic over again, and just mess the conversation at the moment in this topic, but.
If you are a science man, you are a logic man. Not to offend anyone, but a normal person who is thinking reasonable and logically (science man), should say "There is a god!" before anyone else.

[EdoI]

I don't want to start all the topic over again, and just mess the conversation at the moment in this topic, but.
If you are a science man, you are a logic man. Not to offend anyone, but a normal person who is thinking reasonable and logically (science man), should say "There is a god!" before anyone else.

A nonsense.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I personally do not. I am a man of science. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The amount of evidence supporting God is virtually nothing. Evolution, however, has loads of proof.

I have no intention to offend anyone so don't post if you are going to cuss me out.

I don't want to start all the topic over again, and just mess the conversation at the moment in this topic, but.
If you are a science man, you are a logic man. Not to offend anyone, but a normal person who is thinking reasonable and logically (science man), should say "There is a god!" before anyone else.

Um...

Based on what reasoning, exactly?

Seconded.
I would love to hear you justify this.

Actually, I'd probably cringe, but I'd like you to do it anyway.

[isaacx]

wrong. humans do not have God's level of power. thing of logic as a ceiling for one's power. God is at the ceiling limit. we humans straggle below. it is my personal view, however, that humans could eventually become as powerful, mentally or physically, as God, if it weren't for the fact that we all die very shortly after being born.

WRONG

Psalm 8:5,6

5 You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him lord over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet

[a happy song]

Do I believe in a god? No.

Gods are a primitive by-product of human evolution. We couldn't explain the pretty lights in the sky so we invented the gods so we wouldn't have to. The more questions we answer about the universe, the more redundant the need for belief in a god becomes until it's simply a comfort blanket for those not able to deal with the realities of existence.

Gods and Devils are simply metaphors for our conscience. Good Vs Evil.

Heaven and Hell are manifestations of primal fears and have been exploited by ruling powers for centuries in order to control.

-

Religion isn't found by people, it's either pushed upon them (taught to children who grow with the value attached with little choice) or offered as a solution to life's troubles for those not strong enough to find their own way.

I'm not going to argue with anyone, so there's little point replying to this. I respect your right to disagree with me and believe in anything you want, but I do feel sorry for anyone subscribing to the notion of a god. It's desperate, deluded, and you're simply opening yourself up to more avenues of control.

[SlappyMcGee]

I saw a really irritating YouTube video that made a good point; Christians, nor any faith, are not the majority. While Christians can look at Mormons or Muslims as wrong and deluded, because their story is ridiculous (and more modern, I guess. That's how you know it is false.), they can't care to understand the delusion of their own Faith. Feeling something in your heart does not make it true. Otherwise, the Seattle Mariners would win the World Series, along with every other team that has at least one deluded fan. And while the baseball delusion is fun and relatively campy, the Christian delusion is very dangerous. If you can say that something is wrong not because of reason or your own conscience but because a book written thousands of years ago with little social relevance today says that it is wrong, then you're very dangerous indeed.

[otters]

Otherwise, the Seattle Mariners would win the World Series, along with every other team that has at least one deluded fan.

Eh? How many Seattle Mariners fans believe that the Mariners are currently winning the World Series?

If you can say that something is wrong not because of reason or your own conscience but because a book written thousands of years ago with little social relevance today says that it is wrong, then you're very dangerous indeed.

You're far more dangerous than me. Most atheists believe things they were told by people in commanding academic positions. Slappy, tell me which is more dangerous to follow: a thousand-year-old book that says to love your enemies, or a community at the head of which is a British biologist who thinks that children should be removed from religious homes because teaching them such belief is child abuse.


P.S. I might never have mentioned this, but it's relevant: we as Christians don't follow the Old Testament as a rule book, since Jesus fulfilled the Old Law when coming to earth. For the purposes of this argument, the best policy is probably to argue against the New Testament itself, rather than the Bible as a whole.

[a happy song]

You're far more dangerous than me. Most atheists believe things they were told by people in commanding academic positions. Slappy, tell me which is more dangerous to follow: a thousand-year-old book that says to love your enemies, or a community at the head of which is a British biologist who thinks that children should be removed from religious homes because teaching them such belief is child abuse.

Massively common misconception. All atheism is is anti-theism. An atheist is opposed to the notion of a god, that is all, it has nothing to do with a belief in academia or science. Stop considering Science and Religion to be opposed, they're far from it.

All you have is assumption, whereas it's known that Christians follow a ridiculously outdated story book. A single biologist believing in that idea is nowhere near as dangerous as the millions of people who blindly follow a book filled with laws and ideals that cannot possibly be considered relative the modern world.

Also, I strongly believe that children should be taught ABOUT religion, and should have decent values installed in them, but they certainly shouldn't be brought up AS a Christian before they're able to make the decision for themselves.

[otters~1]

Feeling something in your heart does not make it true. Otherwise, the Seattle Mariners would win the World Series...

Except no one actually believes that the Mariners are gonna win the Series anymore. Ever.

PS: I'm an athiest, and I consider anyone who believes in a god of any kind to be sort of sad. I respect people's right to think what they want, though, so I don't participate in this thread much.

[isaacx]

Belief in God is *entirely* a leap of faith, and nothing at all more than that.

How is a "leap of faith" if we have the Holy Spirit"

All you have is assumption, whereas it's known that Christians follow a ridiculously outdated story book.

If all Christians actually followed the Bible don't you think that there would be more people winning souls and fufilling the Great Commission?

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Hell, many don't even believe that God intends them to be blessed, and many teachers are opposed to that teaching.

6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.
"But you ask, 'How are we to return?'

8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
"But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
"In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. 12 "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.

7Let each one give as he has made up his own mind and purposed in his heart, not reluctantly or sorrowfully or under compulsion, for God lovesHe takes pleasure in, prizes above other things, and is unwilling to abandon or to do without a cheerful joyous "prompt to do it" giver whose heart is in his giving.

8And God is able to make all grace every favor and earthly blessing come to you in abundance, so that you may always and under all circumstances and whatever the need be self-sufficient possessing enough to require no aid or support and furnished in abundance for every good work and charitable donation.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

All atheism is is anti-theism.

AAAAAUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Take it back! Take it back right now!!

I mean, I completely agree with what you intended to say (the rest of your first response), but you happened to have touched on a lexical subtlety that I have an overgrown nerve wrapped tightly around.

Also, I strongly believe that children should be taught ABOUT religion, and should have decent values installed in them, but they certainly shouldn't be brought up AS a Christian before they're able to make the decision for themselves.

I'm sure I've said this before, but just to back up your point in case this Wight guy starts getting involved in this discussion (which would be interesting, since I haven't heard a lot out of him)...
I am obnoxiously atheist, but I will not hide my children away from religion. I'll tell them about major religions that will influence their lives, as well as any they ask about, and I'll try my best to do it without bias. I will actually be okay with my children being religious. But as they get older, I'll tell them that the boogeyman is only a device to make children go to bed on time and eat their vegetables, that the tooth fairy is only a device to console them for losing teeth, that Santa Claus is only a myth who helps get people in the arbitrarily-decided and corporate-sponsored spirit of Christmas, that leprechauns are actually assholes in person who don't so much have a pot of gold as they have pot to sell you, and that God is only a device to make people behave when no one else is around to judge them, as well as generally motivating people in life and through hard times. Just as every culture that celebrates Christmas has its own version of Saint Nick, God is different across cultures -- some people call him Jehovah, some call him Yahweh, some call him Allah, or Buddha, or Brahma, or think he's five people called Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha... people have very powerful imaginations. I'll tell them that these things are crutches to help people along when they haven't come to terms with parts of their lives through reason: children aren't equipped mentally to understand the importance of healthy eating or building good habits for behavior throughout their lives. Once they can understand why these things are good ideas, they no longer need these crutches.
If my kid still wants to believe in the tooth fairy, whatever, he'll be his own person and he can do whatever makes him happy. I hope I have a positive influence on him, but whatever.

Slappy, tell me which is more dangerous to follow: a thousand-year-old book that says to love your enemies, or a community at the head of which is a British biologist who thinks that children should be removed from religious homes because teaching them such belief is child abuse.

First off, that's not even relevant to trusting academicians in their fields of specialty, because Richard Dawkins is not a sociologist. You've also given an extremely slanted view of both sides, so the comparison is unfair to start with. The two sources are talking about two completely different things, even. There is no reasonable comparison that can be made from the two straw men you've built.
Even so, I'm one of those people who regards fundamentalist belief as a diagnosable mental derangement, so I'm still with Dawkins on this one. The Bible tells you to love your enemies, but only if those enemies adhere totally to an extremely long list of inconsistent and impossible orders from a bigoted, jealous, vengeance-obsessed asshole in the sky. Dawkins at least looked at anything empirical before making that statement (he prefaces it with an explanation of how religious adherence can significantly stunt a person's personal growth).

Belief in God is *entirely* a leap of faith, and nothing at all more than that.

How is a "leap of faith" if we have the Holy Spirit"

wat

[SlappyMcGee]

Wight=incluye.

And Wight, heads up: Your assumption is false, and even if it weren't and I were following a dude who believed that to be true, (although I likely would because I also believe it to be true), I would still find my opinion on a subject less dangerous than a delusion. Realize the definition of delusion:

A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue. These irrational beliefs defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them.

I, in your example, am probably easily persuaded just by data; if an equal number of children who are christians and who are not turn out fucked up, then I was probably wrong, and would concede. Now, realize how Christianity fits that definition perfectly:

A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue. These irrational beliefs defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them.

Forget for a moment that it say untrue, because that is what we are debating.

-"unshakable belief" is certainly what you have.
-"Irrational". If you haven't realized the irrationality of Christianity by now, let me spell it out for you. It is irrational to believe that a story that has high fantasy elements from thousands of years ago is true when this stuff does not happen today. Again, this is not proof that it is necessarily false, but certainly there is no rational, logical way to justify believing in this.
-No matter what amount of reasoning we give to you, you continue to refute it. In fact, no amount of logical, regular reasoning could dissuade you from your Christianity, as evidented by the pagecount of this thread.
-And even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF, such as, fossils, science, a variety of other faiths, or contradictions in the text, you just blame Satan or say that God is testing us.

So, realize that you have a delusion. Even if it is true, you have no logical reason to believe so, and therefore, you are deluded.

[blue_tetris]

I think Slappy grazes over what is a very important aspect of the argument, so I wanna focus on it.



Is it falisifiable?

If something isn't falsifiable, then there's no real way that it can be true. By all rights, if something is utterly true, it can withstand evidence against it. It is a strong enough idea that you'll willingly accept and consider alternative and you'll attempt to prove the idea wrong at every turn.

Science is the practice of constant falsifying. Got a new theory? A perfect theory? Is it built upon so much evidence that you can't imagine it ever going wrong? Too bad. It's your job to try to prove it wrong, over and over, at every opportunity. New technology, new information, new ideas might supplant it. Moreover, whenever you've got the time, you try to prove the old science wrong. That way, you'll come to have new and better science.

And, hell, it's not even about science. It's the process of epistemology. It's about gathering and updating our knowledge, day to day. I told myself 15 years ago I'd learn nothing new, but a policy of constantly falsifying myself has proven me wrong and has thankfully made me smarter. Me, of all people.



If, in your eyes, no evidence or information you discover could ever make your belief wrong. If you refuse to put it to the test that most other information. If you can't forsee a moment where you'll update your knowledge when new things come to light. That's when you are using faith and not knowledge. You are no longer testing ideas in the epistemological fashion--you're just utilizing ideas and resisting every source that could make the idea wrong.

Not using information to guide your behavior certainly has its up sides, but you really need to make sure that you know it's not real information. Until you consider it falsifiable, it's faith and it's instinct and it's a well-defended hunch.

Slappy, tell me which is more dangerous to follow: a thousand-year-old book that says to love your enemies, or a community at the head of which is a British biologist who thinks that children should be removed from religious homes because teaching them such belief is child abuse.

Who makes better music? An ethical, caring, charitable country girl who picked herself up by her bootstraps or some zombie pedophile who had everything handed to him from his family of four? Reba McEntire makes awful music, so the answer is pretty clear here.

The "niceness" of a source of information doesn't make its information true. Hell, it doesn't even make the information dangerous, as you might say. Obby and I had a conversation at great length where he presumed that Kinsey's information should all be called false, just because Obby discovered Kinsey was a pedophile and a murderer and a poor dresser and something else that's evil. And I posited that the Audobahn was an awful road because it was made by Hitler. And he agreed. And I was being ironic: the Audobahn is a pretty good road, from an mean source.

Some people just don't think with their heads and instead think with their feelings. And that's you incluye. And that's why you're ESFP, if anything. Get the fuck out of my MBTI type, liar.

[SlappyMcGee]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm

^This section of this webpage is a really fascinating extension of the Jesus Myth the cly and I discussed last nuit.

[otters]

Hi Slappy. I only have a short time to make a post, so I'm going to address this:

-"unshakable belief" is certainly what you have.
-"Irrational". If you haven't realized the irrationality of Christianity by now, let me spell it out for you. It is irrational to believe that a story that has high fantasy elements from thousands of years ago is true when this stuff does not happen today. Again, this is not proof that it is necessarily false, but certainly there is no rational, logical way to justify believing in this.
-No matter what amount of reasoning we give to you, you continue to refute it. In fact, no amount of logical, regular reasoning could dissuade you from your Christianity, as evidented by the pagecount of this thread.
-And even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF, such as, fossils, science, a variety of other faiths, or contradictions in the text, you just blame Satan or say that God is testing us.

-"unshakable belief" is certainly what you have.
-"Irrational." See footnote.
-Apparently, no amount of logical reasoning can dissuade you from your belief. Otherwise, you would have taken my views by now. (Doesn't it sound ridiculous when you say it explicitly?)
-Even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF (like, if there was a Cambrian Explosion, a Big Bang with...go to the footnote, some scientifically implausible occurrences, which, hey, all three of those are true) you would still not be a Christian. Which you aren't. You would just blame my irrationality, which is apparently what's making me not believe you, or make general statements.

Therefore, your belief is delusional. And even if you're right, you have no logical reason to believe it, therefore you're deluded. Therefore, you are potentially incredibly dangerous. Do you see how atheism fits the definition of "delusion" perfectly?


Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200, which is something like believing one person could win a high-stakes lottery six thousand years in a row, except less plausible. How unlikely does it have to be before you stop believing in that particular event? How crazy/irrational/deluded do you have to be to think that 1. not only did matter come from nothing but 2. it had to happen about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to result in existence once? Are you serious?


P.S. I like how you gave "science" as an example for a reason I shouldn't believe in God.

[otters~1]

Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200...

Yes, but we have a universe now, don't we? That argument doesn't hold water in my opinion. No matter how great the odds, it happened. Maybe it happened fifty billion times before it worked, but it happened.

And your last statement is just wrong. If my understanding of Slappy's argument is correct, he was throwing up a counter-example.

[Seneschal]

Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200, which is something like believing one person could win a high-stakes lottery six thousand years in a row, except less plausible. How unlikely does it have to be before you stop believing in that particular event? How crazy/irrational/deluded do you have to be to think that 1. not only did matter come from nothing but 2. it had to happen about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to result in existence once? Are you serious?


P.S. I like how you gave "science" as an example for a reason I shouldn't believe in God.

Yeah, and what's the probability of there being an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent who creates the world in 6 days and takes an unexplainable interest in humanity?

-Apparently, no amount of logical reasoning can dissuade you from your belief. Otherwise, you would have taken my views by now. (Doesn't it sound ridiculous when you say it explicitly?)

I actually lol'd when I read this. I've read through most of this topic and have yet to see any occassion where you've made a point that hasn't been either irrelevant or easily refuted by people like Tsukatu or Slaps.

Even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF (like, if there was a Cambrian Explosion, a Big Bang with...go to the footnote, some scientifically implausible occurrences, which, hey, all three of those are true) you would still not be a Christian. Which you aren't. You would just blame my irrationality, which is apparently what's making me not believe you, or make general statements.

First of all, I think if there was overwhelming proof then we would convert, but clearly there isn’t. In fact, this point was full of crap actually. It raises a hypothetical situation and automatically assumes that we atheists would act in a certain way, i.e. ignoring overwhelming proof, which in my eyes would be something like a physical manifestation of God and/or angels, all that mystical shit. I’m telling you that given overwhelming proof, we would happily convert. But there isn’t any. Now, I could take a cheap shot and say that ignoring overwhelming proof is exactly what you’re doing…oh, I just did.

Therefore, your belief is delusional. And even if you're right, you have no logical reason to believe it, therefore you're deluded. Therefore, you are potentially incredibly dangerous. Do you see how atheism fits the definition of "delusion" perfectly?

No, I don’t. This whole conclusion seems to be based on no evidence whatsoever. You’ve said that there’s no logical reason to believe in an atheistic point of view, yet if that’s the case, then I don’t think you’ve been reading this thread very carefully.

[SlappyMcGee]

Hi Slappy. I only have a short time to make a post, so I'm going to address this:

-"unshakable belief" is certainly what you have.
-"Irrational". If you haven't realized the irrationality of Christianity by now, let me spell it out for you. It is irrational to believe that a story that has high fantasy elements from thousands of years ago is true when this stuff does not happen today. Again, this is not proof that it is necessarily false, but certainly there is no rational, logical way to justify believing in this.
-No matter what amount of reasoning we give to you, you continue to refute it. In fact, no amount of logical, regular reasoning could dissuade you from your Christianity, as evidented by the pagecount of this thread.
-And even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF, such as, fossils, science, a variety of other faiths, or contradictions in the text, you just blame Satan or say that God is testing us.

-"unshakable belief" is certainly what you have.
-"Irrational." See footnote.
-Apparently, no amount of logical reasoning can dissuade you from your belief. Otherwise, you would have taken my views by now. (Doesn't it sound ridiculous when you say it explicitly?)
-Even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF (like, if there was a Cambrian Explosion, a Big Bang with...go to the footnote, some scientifically implausible occurrences, which, hey, all three of those are true) you would still not be a Christian. Which you aren't. You would just blame my irrationality, which is apparently what's making me not believe you, or make general statements.

Therefore, your belief is delusional. And even if you're right, you have no logical reason to believe it, therefore you're deluded. Therefore, you are potentially incredibly dangerous. Do you see how atheism fits the definition of "delusion" perfectly?


Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200, which is something like believing one person could win a high-stakes lottery six thousand years in a row, except less plausible. How unlikely does it have to be before you stop believing in that particular event? How crazy/irrational/deluded do you have to be to think that 1. not only did matter come from nothing but 2. it had to happen about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to result in existence once? Are you serious?


P.S. I like how you gave "science" as an example for a reason I shouldn't believe in God.

I've touched on the idea that probability is an invention of humanity. We can tell the likelihood of something happening. For instance, a coin will land heads 1/2 times. however, if you flip exactly the same coin in the exact same way in the exact same environment, it will always land on the same side. So, the likelihood of the universe being created is irrelevant. The universe exists, and there are an infinite number of galaxies and universes where this universe does not. I don't understand what you don't understand about this; we can't assign probability to something that exists and say that it was unlikely to happen. This isn't a manner of predestiny, it's that there is nothing truly random. Things depend on variables, and when those variables allign in a certain way, this is the way things happen. If I flip a coin and it lands heads, and you say that "If you flip that coin in exactly the same way, it has a fifty percent chance of landing tails" that's irrational. Because the only time we'd say that is when we are ignoring variables. The exact same circumstances will yield the exact same results, and that is why probability is an invention of our heads rather than a definite truth. If you follow.

But you don't have to, because I'll math this out for you. Let's say that the odds of the universe being created are basically 1/~Infinity. Our galaxy as we know it, our universe, is one universe. There are an infinite number of other universes. As in, not finite. Not approaching infinity, but in fact, an impossible amount of other universes. So, we put that into our equation (1/~infinity * Infinity/1) and we get a roughly ~1/1 chance of the universe being created. If science has a way of explaining the creation of the universe, and the odds are infinitely small, but it follows logically, then we can assume it is true, because it is a logical explanation, and we aren't trying to look to disprove God when we come up with this explanation. We want to understand the universe. So, we aren't saying, "This is unlikely to have happened to us." Because there is no us without it happening. We are living proof that it happened, unless you subscribe to a God theory, which does not follow logically. It instead follows through faith and feeling and not, in fact, proof. You guys can not show numbers and say, "There is a 1/x chance that God exists for us." because you don't have any logical proof. You believe that God is absolute, and there is a 100% chance that he exists, and science and reasoning are irrelevant when it comes to God.

And I would argue that I don't have an unshakable belief nor are my beliefs irrational. First, I will address the third thing you said. No amount of logical reasoning can dissuade you. I believe this to be true about you. I'm not making a statement about this argument, and I'm not saying, "If all Christians just read the facts, they would become non-Christians" either. I'm saying that, what I believe to be true about you as well as most Christians, is that if I were to give you something completely irrefutable, something that may not necessarily exist right now, but something in the hypothetical world that is completely irrefutable (such as proof of the Norse Gods. Let's say Thor arrived on Earth, said that Jesus was a myth, shot lightning from his hands) I believe that if such a thing happened, you would say that the Devil was responsible. Or that God was testing us. I am not saying that I have presented this proof, and I may be wrong in this assumption, but I believe that your religion and belief system is organized in such a way that nothing, not even genuine proof, could convince you that it were untrue. I think you approach almost all of our so-called proofs with the mindset "I know Christianity is true; let's see how it can hold up against Science." And here's the problem with that, and it's the problem a lot of people ridiculously bring up with the Spaghetti Monster or with other religions: Your faith has something to cover everything. It exists within itself, and even the most evident proof can be written of as Satan's tricks or God's test. And I think, and this is just my opinion, that a lot of those proofs have manifested, and you've ignored them via those easy ways of looking at things. I can go into more detail, but I feel like I'm over pontificating.

And the final thing,

-Even if there were OVERWHELMING PROOF (like, if there was a Cambrian Explosion, a Big Bang with...go to the footnote, some scientifically implausible occurrences, which, hey, all three of those are true) you would still not be a Christian. Which you aren't. You would just blame my irrationality, which is apparently what's making me not believe you, or make general statements.

Are semi-proofs against Science, but not proofs for Christianity. I think Science probably just doesn't have enough of an understanding of our natural world yet.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

[NO U]

I only want to comment on the bit about evidence for the time being. I think you have your hands full as it is with Slappy.

There are a number of failures occurring here that I'm going to overlook, such as:

• You keep working from this assumption that science opposes religion. As it pertains to historical or physical claims a religion might make, science can cast doubt, but ultimately science can never fully address religion because it's supernatural and faith-based.
• Atheism does not posit anything, so it can't be a delusion on the criteria mentioned. The only thing I need to say is "Burden of Proof," optionally with an overview of evidence religions these days can give, and I've made an unbeatable argument.
• You're still talking about evidence for something faith-based. This is self-defeating. Knock it off.

But still, whatever, under the assumptions that atheism is a posited belief, that science conflicts with religion, and that religion has applicable evidence...
Proper science regularly produces tactile, verifiable, unquestionable proof of its validity every time it's applied. Every bridge, elevator, lightbulb, car, microwave, television, cleaning product, multivitamin, ballpoint pen, and integrated chip is so far beyond any qualifications for evidence you can reasonably have for the effectiveness of science. We can send shit into space, have it take photos, and have it pilot itself back to a specific spot on Earth. Trusting science became justified the moment the first Neanderthal was able to reliably make fire on command, and it's only become stupifyingly more worthy of our trust ever since.
No religion has ever had any scrap of evidence that has come close to this level of proof. There remains absolutely no compelling reason to have faith. The best that can be offered by the faithful are the ever-pathetic "I just know," "I feel it in my heart," "just look around you -- the evidence is everywhere," or "when you see a painting, you figure there must have been a painter..." No appeal to emotion, no credit blatantly stolen from science, no verbal gymnastics, no dogma masquerading as science, nor any attempts to rewrite history have ever been reliable by any reasonable standards, let alone those demanded by science. Every "argument" in favor of God can swap out the word "God" with "leprechaun," or any other non-existing thing, and be quickly falsified. There is nothing, nada, zilch in its favor. Nothing that can be trusted. Nothing that attests to its reliability. Nothing. Not one, single thing.
(Naturally, this should be expected since, as has been said multiple times, it's all a leap of faith by definition.)

So when Slappy tells you that you meet that criteria of having a delusion that is holding on to a belief despite overwhelming evidence, that's not something you can turn around on him. Religion has never thrown overwhelming evidence against science, so Slappy is not delusional in his adherence to a scientific mindset. This is not a point you will be able to win. On the other hand, the point as it was initially established has still not been addressed: you are holding on to a belief in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary. You meet that criteria for having a delusion.

[blue_tetris]

If I'm alive to evalute the "rarity" that I'm alive, I'll imagine that it's 1:1. Because I'm alive to evaluate it. Like, we're not in the kagillion universes that don't exist. And given the sheer amount of time that's possible to have passed, a nearly unlimited number of "rolls" has been made on the proverbial 1d10^200. And in the other 10^200 universes that don't exist, there's no one around to pompously proclaim "I was certain to be!"



There are several types of people. They look down and see a 6-sided die that has a "6" currently face-up. They reach these different conclusions:

"Wow, I see a 6! That means that there was a 100% chance of that die rolling a 6."
(and)
"Wow, I see a 6! Even though I witness one result, I should know that there was only a 1 in 6 chance of getting this result."
(and)
"Wow, I see a 6! Let me evaluate the die to see what the chances of that rare occurence are!"

It's mostly boring to be the last sort of dude, because he has to use science and logic instead of jumping to conclusions. He has to evaluate stuff and not assume certainty where there is only "faith" or "a hunch". That's why it's easier and cooler to be religious. A lot less hassle, and the answers make you seem to be really important. Same reason they pump oxygen into casinos.

[EdoI]

The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200, which is something like believing one person could win a high-stakes lottery six thousand years in a row, except less plausible. How unlikely does it have to be before you stop believing in that particular event? How crazy/irrational/deluded do you have to be to think that 1. not only did matter come from nothing but 2. it had to happen about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to result in existence once? Are you serious?


P.S. I like how you gave "science" as an example for a reason I shouldn't believe in God.

Hold on there.
Big Bang is a theory that scientists find most likely to be truth. If someone offers a better theory, it will be accepted. We don't strictly believe in Big Bang, it's just more probable than anything else. Especially than any of the religious explanations.
Besides, it's also possible that this is not the only universe. So, out of our universe there might 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 small balls of infinite density, "banging" every once in a while.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

If I'm alive to evalute the "rarity" that I'm alive, I'll imagine that it's 1:1. Because I'm alive to evaluate it. Like, we're not in the kagillion universes that don't exist. And given the sheer amount of time that's possible to have passed, a nearly unlimited number of "rolls" has been made on the proverbial 1d10^200. And in the other 10^200 universes that don't exist, there's no one around to pompously proclaim "I was certain to be!"



There are several types of people. They look down and see a 6-sided die that has a "6" currently face-up. They reach these different conclusions:

"Wow, I see a 6! That means that there was a 100% chance of that die rolling a 6."
(and)
"Wow, I see a 6! Even though I witness one result, I should know that there was only a 1 in 6 chance of getting this result."
(and)
"Wow, I see a 6! Let me evaluate the die to see what the chances of that rare occurence are!"

It's mostly boring to be the last sort of dude, because he has to use science and logic instead of jumping to conclusions. He has to evaluate stuff and not assume certainty where there is only "faith" or "a hunch". That's why it's easier and cooler to be religious. A lot less hassle, and the answers make you seem to be really important. Same reason they pump oxygen into casinos.

This totally reminds me of a video I saw on an atheism-focused talk show (based in Texas, I believe). It was public access, if memory serves. One of their guests used a jar of beads as an aid in explaining some of her key points, and one of them involved her dumping a whole mess of them on the table. The point of it was that there was a ridiculously small chance that the beads, if simply dumped onto the table, would land in exactly that arrangement; you'd be a fool to bet beforehand where every single bead would go. But despite the astronomically low chance that the beads would land in that position, they clearly did just that. Pointing out that the chance for the beads to land that way is insanely small is fine, but concluding from the fact that the chance is effectively zero that it's impossible -- and that something else likely happened -- is as ridiculous as saying that the likely result of spilling the beads on the table is for all of them to land in no arrangement (and disappear, I guess), claiming the chance of them landing in each given arrangement is so tiny that it couldn't happen.

[Amadeus]

Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200, which is something like believing one person could win a high-stakes lottery six thousand years in a row, except less plausible. How unlikely does it have to be before you stop believing in that particular event? How crazy/irrational/deluded do you have to be to think that 1. not only did matter come from nothing but 2. it had to happen about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to result in existence once? Are you serious?


P.S. I like how you gave "science" as an example for a reason I shouldn't believe in God.

Hold on there.
Big Bang is a theory that scientists find most likely to be truth. If someone offers a better theory, it will be accepted. We don't strictly believe in Big Bang, it's just more probable than anything else. Especially than any of the religious explanations.
Besides, it's also possible that this is not the only universe. So, out of our universe there might 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 small balls of infinite density, "banging" every once in a while

Or maybe not? Maybe it happened the first time, and never again? No matter how small chances are...
Like Tetris said, what if you rolled a 20 sided dice, and a 20 came up the first time? Your argument verges on saying that the roll is impossible, and it must have been some Divine Influence that made the dice roll a 20. Regardless how small a chance is (1/20 or 1/10^200) the chance is still there, and we wouldn't be here if the dice rolled a different way.
And speaking of probability, there's no such thing /ever/ as true random, or true 1/x chances, because when the Big Bang occurred, it just happened that conditions were right. No one picked a number between 1 and 10^200, rather conditions happened to be perfect and it was destined to be. And if they weren't perfect, we wouldn't be debating right now.