The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Uthark]

Not having a belief is not a belief in itself...

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Lack of belief is not a belief, right.

 

[Dak]

It is once you are aware of a concept. To know of the concept of the supernatural and either accept or reject it as a possibility/likely is a belief, since there is no evidence to prove or disprove it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Don't you know of the concept of Santa Claus? He clearly doesn't exist, but you don't have to fucking BELIEVE that he does or doesn't, he just doesn't. He's a goddamn fabrication. In my opinion, God is the same exact way; a fabrication created to allow people to feel better, to control, to blame things on, to do any number of things humans, as of now, can't do without the assistance of a non-provable, meta-hypothetical entity.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

You are still ignoring that [athiests] are making an assumption of there being no supernatural based off of a lack of natural evidence. I consider this at least as equally absurd as athiests consider believing in a god is.

No. There could still be supernatural evidence for something... i.e. for example if God suddenly appeared in Manhattan and cured everyone in the city with AIDS that would be undeniable supernatural evidence.
The fact that there is no such evidence simply leads skeptics to say "well there is no evidence to lead to the conclusion that God exists therefore until such evidence asserts itself I am under no moral or intellectual observation to believe in it".

 

[Dak]

Don't you know of the concept of Santa Claus? He clearly doesn't exist, but you don't have to fucking BELIEVE that he does or doesn't, he just doesn't. He's a goddamn fabrication.

You're seriously using this as an analogy?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

And again, if God exists, he has to have a provable effect on Earth, it has to be something science can study. Since this can't happen, God doesn't matter and/or doesn't exist. Whichever way it goes, skepticism/atheism is the best way to go while still being a sane human being.

edit: why shouldn't I? I could use the same analogy for all sorts of things claimed to exist that just DON'T.

 

[Dak]

No. There could still be supernatural evidence for something... i.e. for example if God suddenly appeared in Manhattan and cured everyone in the city with AIDS that would be undeniable supernatural evidence.
The fact that there is no such evidence simply leads skeptics to say "well there is no evidence to lead to the conclusion that God exists therefore until such evidence asserts itself I am under no moral or intellectual observation to believe in it".

Right, but that doesn't change that by default to not believe in the supernatural is to believe in it's non-existence.

 

[Carcassian]

No, it asserts that evidence about the way the world works and was formed (i.e. scientific theory). Lack of belief in God is a side issue, atheists don't necessarily choose to believe in a lack of God, God is not proven to them.

Does that make any fucking sense ?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nice, you're falling back on the common fucking Christian rhetoric that attempts to get skeptics to admit that they believe in the presence of the supernatural since our "belief" that no god exists implicitly describes a quarter given to supernaturalism. Right? Not gonna work.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Ok, then it seems we agree. I know Christianity requires faith. Yes, I take different things as evidence, but I cannot (and do not) claim that these things equate to proof that I can hand to another person, who will have to accept them. I did make a statement that I thought Atheism was wrong (incorrect), but that was in reference to backing up a statement made to seedofvengeance. I can no more prove Atheism wrong than I can prove God's existence.

Word.

So then why the big fuss if you don't positively believe there is no god? Also, you claim my assumptions are baseless but only based off of your own experiences. They aren't baseless to me.

Since when does a person's belief in something make it valid for other people? You have just as much validity behind your claim as does a person on LSD who swears their hallucinations are real. Now, clearly the LSD user's claims are baseless, but it's not just because one other person is not experiencing the same thing as he is. This logic of yours is silly.

You are still ignoring that [athiests] are making an assumption of there being no supernatural based off of a lack of natural evidence. I consider this at least as equally absurd as athiests consider believing in a god is.

You're confused about the meaning of "atheist". I just pointed out that an atheist does not necessarily believe there is no god. An atheist can be someone who has absolutely no opinion on the matter. And that's where I (and pretty much every other atheist here) stand, because we currently have no way of knowing whether there is a god. When you have no way of knowing something, it is illogical to form baseless assumptions about it.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Right, but that doesn't change that by default to not believe in the supernatural is to believe in it's non-existence.

ok... but how is that any different from you belief in the non-existence of the tooth fairy or bigfoot?

 

[Dak]

And again, if God exists, he has to have a provable effect on Earth, it has to be something science can study. Since this can't happen, God doesn't matter and/or doesn't exist. Whichever way it goes, skepticism/atheism is the best way to go while still being a sane human being.

edit: why shouldn't I? I could use the same analogy for all sorts of things claimed to exist that just DON'T.

Well we could go with satellite imagery proving theres no Toy Factory at the North Pole, or any other of the hundred reasons why it's scientifically proven there is no ageless jolly elf visiting ever house in the developed world (but ignoring the poor starvin children) randomly dispensing gifts.

We are talking about a spirit world, totally different. Again, I am not trying to prove to you the existance of the supernatural, merely requesting a concession that to believe in it's possibility is no less sane or logical than to not believe in it's unlikelyhood.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

There is also the point I made; that since the idea of god and spirituality is generally intensely personal, no god exists to me.

Spirit world? l-o-fucking-l. I'd like your hypothesis, experiment, data and conclusion on why that exists typed up and handed into me in a manila envelope by 3 PM est.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well we could go with satellite imagery proving theres no Toy Factory at the North Pole, or any other of the hundred reasons why it's scientifically proven there is no ageless jolly elf visiting ever house in the developed world (but ignoring the poor starvin children) randomly dispensing gifts.

We are talking about a spirit world, totally different. Again, I am not trying to prove to you the existance of the supernatural, merely requesting a concession that to believe in it's possibility is no less sane or logical than to not believe in it's unlikelyhood.

Sure that's possible but where's the evidence? Since you can't procure any I don't see how people are supposed to be obligated to believe in it, especially on pain of eternal damnation.

 

[Dak]

ok... but how is that any different from you belief in the non-existence of the tooth fairy or bigfoot?

You don't make a point.

I believe the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and I don't think there is any arguement to the contrary for that matter. It is still a belief in it's non existence. (Since technically a fairy would be supernatural there is no "proof" against it other than a complete lack of interaction).

As far as bigfoot goes, I am open to the possibility of something like that existing. I doubt it does but I won't be dogmatic on it considering we are stilldiscovering new species .

Scientists are discovering new species at a rate of two per week, said Chungyalpa, who said the reason for publishing the report now was twofold.

There is nothing supernatural about "Bigfoot".

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Dude, it's the spirit world. Can't you just...CONJURE YOUR EVIDENCE?! *waves hands*

 

[Uthark]

Again, I am not trying to prove to you the existance of the supernatural, merely requesting a concession that to believe in it's possibility is no less sane or logical than to not believe in it's unlikelyhood.

I don't see any reason to concede that. If someone believes in an invisible unicorn who eats lollypops, or a teacup orbiting around the sun, why should I take that seriously at all? Why should anyone?

People can believe whatever the fuck they want, but that doesn't make it rational or logical. If you claim the existence of something, you should have a good case. Otherwise, you're just a loony to me.

 

[skeptik]

I am not in disbelief of a higher power because there's no natural evidence for his existence. I have this (logical) disbelief because there is no evidence at all, and there is no reason to have this belief whatsoever. I don't know how many times I have to emphasize that if God came down and gave me a megahighfive I would totally fucking believe in him, but I will continue to do so until you get it. But the fact of the matter is that, just like everything else in life, having no valid reason whatsoever for believing in it leads me to the conclusion that it doesn't exist until a valid reason is provided.

And believing in the supernatural with no evidence is definitely not as "sane or logical" than to not believe in its "unlikelyhood."

 

[Thoth-Amon]

(Since technically a fairy would be supernatural there is no "proof" against it other than a complete lack of interaction).

Exactly. Same with God.