Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
DH_Guyver
n00b (level 8)
DH_Guyver's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburg, Texas
Posts: 22
Subtract from DH_Guyver's ReputationAdd to DH_Guyver's Reputation DH_Guyver is a novice
#41
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by db Hellcry View Post
ill believe in god when i see him.
I agree me too.
GT: DH Guyver

TooMuchButtHair
Satisfying women
TooMuchButtHair's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California!
Posts: 3,659
Subtract from TooMuchButtHair's ReputationAdd to TooMuchButtHair's Reputation TooMuchButtHair is a novice
Send a message via AIM to TooMuchButtHair
#42
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Da Egg View Post
that God does not exist. Don't even bring up a personal God, e.g. Christianity. I currently believe God's only purpose was to bring the universe into existence. I believe that the natural laws were put into existence by this God, but God does not involve himself in the universe anymore. My beliefs closely resemble deism, but I don't believe in an afterlife. I offer a challenge to the atheists in the H3F community to provide logical and coherent proofs and evidence to prove my version of God does not exist.


I am open to anything.
Atheism is based on the lack of proof. You essentially want me to prove that there is a lack of proof that god exists? I can't prove that your god doesn't exist, because that's not what atheism is about. Atheism is about what you know, not what you don't know. There isn't any reason to believe that your position is correct at all. You position is based on the fact that we don't know exactly how our Universe came into existence. Your position is based on an assumption - that a god must have done it - the fact that you're leaping to a conclusion without support is illogical.

I don't have a conclusion simply because there is no evidence to support said conclusion. If you give String Theory any consideration, you can find a pretty interesting theory for how our Universe came into existence.

Agnosticism certainly has it's merit, but so does atheism. I do consider the idea of a god to be un-knowable, but given the Earthly definitions, stories, and ideas about god(s), it's fairly safe to say that they already-defined ideas about god are pretty much crap.
The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
-Thomas Paine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowl View Post
. . .
Chimpanzee (our closest living relative) is a well known homosexual animal.. . .
Steve Da Egg
Tech Support Section
Steve Da Egg's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,846
Subtract from Steve Da Egg's ReputationAdd to Steve Da Egg's Reputation Steve Da Egg is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Steve Da Egg
#43
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair View Post
Atheism is based on the lack of proof. You essentially want me to prove that there is a lack of proof that god exists? I can't prove that your god doesn't exist, because that's not what atheism is about. Atheism is about what you know, not what you don't know. There isn't any reason to believe that your position is correct at all. You position is based on the fact that we don't know exactly how our Universe came into existence. Your position is based on an assumption - that a god must have done it - the fact that you're leaping to a conclusion without support is illogical.

I don't have a conclusion simply because there is no evidence to support said conclusion. If you give String Theory any consideration, you can find a pretty interesting theory for how our Universe came into existence.

Agnosticism certainly has it's merit, but so does atheism. I do consider the idea of a god to be un-knowable, but given the Earthly definitions, stories, and ideas about god(s), it's fairly safe to say that they already-defined ideas about god are pretty much crap.

Your stance of reserving your opinion is agnosticism and not atheism. Atheists must prove why they believe there is not God or disprove theist's logicalproofs. Disprove my cosmological debate, and then you will have convinced me God does not exist (ontological and teleological are shit). And I'm not Christian. I am deist for the moment.
TooMuchButtHair
Satisfying women
TooMuchButtHair's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California!
Posts: 3,659
Subtract from TooMuchButtHair's ReputationAdd to TooMuchButtHair's Reputation TooMuchButtHair is a novice
Send a message via AIM to TooMuchButtHair
#44
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Da Egg View Post
Your stance of reserving your opinion is agnosticism and not atheism. Atheists must prove why they believe there is not God or disprove theist's logicalproofs. Disprove my cosmological debate, and then you will have convinced me God does not exist (ontological and teleological are s**t). And I'm not Christian. I am deist for the moment.
Whoa bud, your definition of atheism is a little far fetched. The only trait an atheist must have is that said atheist can't believe in god's existence. 'Proof' or not, that's it. If you want me to adress your original post, here goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Da Egg View Post
I currently believe God's only purpose was to bring the universe into existence.
Unfounded idea.

Quote:
I believe that the natural laws were put into existence by this God,
Matter and energy are inter-changable. A large release of energy, whether it's by two Strings that increased infinitely in size or not, doesn't need a god to occur.

Quote:
but God does not involve himself in the universe anymore.
This certainly is unfounded. There are a lot of ways (all of which are unfounded) that a god could be actively involved in our Universe. We just don't know. To make that statement, even with the slightest degree of certainty is illogical. I can't say god doesn't exist, or that it does because I really don't know. HOWEVER, given the evidence, it really doesn't look like it does.

Quote:
My beliefs closely resemble deism, but I don't believe in an afterlife. I offer a challenge to the atheists in the H3F community to provide logical and coherent proofs and evidence to prove my version of God does not exist.
Like I tried to say before, it's hard to disprove an idea that is so incredible based in the abstract. Asking me to disprove that Bigfoot exists is easier on a monumental scale. Your arguement and ideological system portrayed in your original post is literally so weak that you can't say it's false...
The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
-Thomas Paine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowl View Post
. . .
Chimpanzee (our closest living relative) is a well known homosexual animal.. . .
Steve Da Egg
Tech Support Section
Steve Da Egg's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,846
Subtract from Steve Da Egg's ReputationAdd to Steve Da Egg's Reputation Steve Da Egg is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Steve Da Egg
#45
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair View Post
Whoa bud, your definition of atheism is a little far fetched. The only trait an atheist must have is that said atheist can't believe in god's existence. 'Proof' or not, that's it. If you want me to adress your original post, here goes:



Unfounded idea.



Matter and energy are inter-changable. A large release of energy, whether it's by two Strings that increased infinitely in size or not, doesn't need a god to occur.



This certainly is unfounded. There are a lot of ways (all of which are unfounded) that a god could be actively involved in our Universe. We just don't know. To make that statement, even with the slightest degree of certainty is illogical. I can't say god doesn't exist, or that it does because I really don't know. HOWEVER, given the evidence, it really doesn't look like it does.



Like I tried to say before, it's hard to disprove an idea that is so incredible based in the abstract. Asking me to disprove that Bigfoot exists is easier on a monumental scale. Your arguement and ideological system portrayed in your original post is literally so weak that you can't say it's false...
Sting Theory cannot be used in your defense.

Look at my version of the cosmological proof. Then you will see where my statements branch from.
Furiosa
less than three
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,680
Subtract from Furiosa's ReputationAdd to Furiosa's Reputation Furiosa is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Furiosa
#46
05-14-2007
Default

Atheism is the polar opposite of theism, that is to say Atheists believe a god does not exist, whereas a Theist believes a god(s) exists. Neither of these are very strong stances, and each has a very, very loose base of proof. Calling out atheists is just as bad as a theist calling out an atheist. A belief is just that, a belief. It is not a proof in and of itself.

This thread fails to deliver.
Froggy618157725
Level 31
Froggy618157725's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,012
Subtract from Froggy618157725's ReputationAdd to Froggy618157725's Reputation Froggy618157725 is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Froggy618157725 Send a message via MSN to Froggy618157725 Send a message via Yahoo to Froggy618157725
#47
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furiosa View Post
Atheism is the polar opposite of theism, that is to say Atheists believe a god does not exist, whereas a Theist believes a god(s) exists. Neither of these are very strong stances, and each has a very, very loose base of proof. Calling out atheists is just as bad as a theist calling out an atheist. A belief is just that, a belief. It is not a proof in and of itself.

This thread fails to deliver.
The only other productive thing I can see from this topic is running through a theistic and atheistic view of the universe, and what each implies. I doubt that'll get us too much, but it'll be something different. As for me, I'm gunna try not to fail AP Chem tomorrow...
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

Thanks to Shystie for avatar
TooMuchButtHair
Satisfying women
TooMuchButtHair's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California!
Posts: 3,659
Subtract from TooMuchButtHair's ReputationAdd to TooMuchButtHair's Reputation TooMuchButtHair is a novice
Send a message via AIM to TooMuchButtHair
#48
05-14-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Da Egg View Post
Sting Theory cannot be used in your defense.
Why not? Time as we know it might not have existed before those two Strings collided. If you want to get into theoretical physics, I've got a good friend who can dazzle us with his knowledge, but it really wouldn't do us any good. There is no good way to explain String Theory in layman's terms. You do the proofs, and then talk about what the hell they could mean.

Oh, yeah, I wasn't using String Theory as a weapon in this debate: I was just pointing out that it was something to be considered, in that it explains the creation of our Universe without needing a creator to be the catalyst in that particular casual chain.

Quote:
Look at my version of the cosmological proof. Then you will see where my statements branch from.
What can I say that Cursed and Hulk haven't already said? They both picked apart your arguement pretty darn well....
The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
-Thomas Paine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowl View Post
. . .
Chimpanzee (our closest living relative) is a well known homosexual animal.. . .
MarkedAchilles
MarkedAchilles's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 8,298
Subtract from MarkedAchilles's ReputationAdd to MarkedAchilles's Reputation MarkedAchilles is a novice
#49
05-15-2007
Default

There is no such thing as agnosticism. . . .

There is no way to prove a negative.

This thread is pointless by definition.


-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/showthread.php?t=81621
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#50
05-15-2007
Default

This is quoted from my homework in Critical Thinking last year; it's the definition of an argument fallacy:

Quote:
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

This is a subspecies of the more general fallacy of FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIRED BURDEN OF PROOF -- this is the issue of what evidence is REQUIRED in order to support a claim sufficiently. To see how this could be sensitive, consider that some people defend their belief in God's existence by saying that no one has been able to prove that God does not exist. Is this appeal to the lack of contrary evidence enough to justify believing in God or must the believer has SOME positive evidence in favor of God's existence. This is the fallacy of saying something is true because it can't be proven false, untestable.
AKA: Flying Spaghetti Monster
Busy, busy, busy
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off