The Choice I Never Made...

[olylifter420]

@ luger187...

so what is it you want me to answer?

Im done arguing! I see no point in my behavior and have thought it through that you guys are right... i did take offense to what you all said and acted like a child that got their toy taken away... But as the adult that i am, i know that i should have not responded in the ways i did.

If you all took offense or found my actions disrespectful, for that i am sorry. What i am not sorry for is sticking to my beliefs...

I thank you all for your understanding and i thank you even if you dont care about what i just said...

 

[Dankster4Life]

@ luger187...

so what is it you want me to answer?

Im done arguing! I see no point in my behavior and have thought it through that you guys are right... i did take offense to what you all said and acted like a child that got their toy taken away... But as the adult that i am, i know that i should have not responded in the ways i did.

If you all took offense or found my actions disrespectful, for that i am sorry. What i am not sorry for is sticking to my beliefs...

I thank you all for your understanding and i thank you even if you dont care about what i just said...

++++++++++++ Rep.......

 

[Luger187]

@ luger187...

so what is it you want me to answer?

Im done arguing! I see no point in my behavior and have thought it through that you guys are right... i did take offense to what you all said and acted like a child that got their toy taken away... But as the adult that i am, i know that i should have not responded in the ways i did.

If you all took offense or found my actions disrespectful, for that i am sorry. What i am not sorry for is sticking to my beliefs...

I thank you all for your understanding and i thank you even if you dont care about what i just said...

no hard feelings. i dont even remember what i was asking lol, so nevermind.

most of us on this thread seem to think that people should have reasoning behind their decisions. to us, it seemed like you didnt want to let us know why you believe what you do. and because of that, we assumed you didnt really have reasons, you just believe because you were raised that way. to us, that doesnt seem like a logical way to come to a conclusion.
i was raised to believe in santa, but eventually i used my brain to disprove santa. we(or at least i do) see religion sort of in the same way. you will believe it until you question your beliefs. and it is at that point when you find out what is really going on.
questioning beliefs serves as a way to verify or discredit them. either way, it works out in your favor. now you either know you are correct, or are no longer following a lie

 

[dababydroman]

here you go again? whats wrong with you? an athiest yet all your concerned about iS other ppl believeing and it bothers you so much?

ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!

i think yoru the one one needs to convince himself that he believes in nothing.

 

[Brazko]

By X, I was referring to an action, not a person. I'll reword my statement and put in the example I used...

A hypocrite is one who says "don't do x(don't trash anothers beliefs)" or "x is wrong(trashing someones beliefs is wrong)", then proceeds to do exactly what he is telling others not to. Someone who acts in contrast to what they say.

Braz,

Do you choose to believe in gods? Could you Choose not to and truly believe it?

Karrion I'm gonna throw you a lifeline... I know you were talking about x as in a action. You used Christian as an example to why people call Christians a Hypocrite by way of their described actions. Well, what or who are we talking about? And why use Christians as an example if that is not who we are talking about as being hypocrites.

Well, you were not using X to describe a particular Christian in the thread so I just said X as not to label or pick on anyone particular and because you used (x). You didn't understand the meaning of me using X so I stated what I meant and put an (x) by Christian to show you what I meant. Then I explained to you again and you are still Pom Poms high 4 X.

edit: I only partially answered your question. If the evidence perceived to my understanding disallowed me to believe in the conceptual God I believe in then No, I wouldn't choose to believe in that God, I just would not.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

Does anybody remember this post? Am I the only one that actually reads the thread. Am I the only one that thinks if I was to start a thread that I would be the one to actually read all the comments people have chosen to post. Especially the ones that they quote me on. On my own Thread.

And Incog I already know why you didn't see it. You only got half way through it remember.

Not!! Just go ahead and skip down to the Pretty Big Letters!!

I don't know Pad. Is there any rational reasons to believe in God?

Let's see what a quick google search brings up.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God














Arguments for the existence of God

• The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
• The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
  • The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligentcause.[18] Its proponents are mainly Christians[19] and Jews[20].
• The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.[21]Avicenna,[22][23]St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[21]
• The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.
• Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
• The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
• The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
• The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
• The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
• The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

[edit] Arguments from historical events or personages

















See also: Anecdotal Evidence

• Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.
• The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence.[24] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.
• Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur'an, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of a God.
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God.

[edit] Hindu arguments



Hindus argue that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[25]
A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[26] Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[27] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.
The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[28] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[28] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[28]

[edit] Inductive arguments















Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

• Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[29]

[edit] Arguments from testimony



See also: Anecdotal Evidence















Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealedreligion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[30]

• The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
• The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

[edit] Arguments grounded in personal experiences
















See also: Anecdotal Evidence

• An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called "Born-Again Christians".
• The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.
• The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
• In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person's consciousness and unites them to one another.[31] God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
• In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person's understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people's hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
• The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[32]
• Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
• Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one's subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")
• Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
• Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him. [33][34

Back on Topic...

I do not choose to believe in God. Maybe there is only evidential information provided in contexts that you are capable of comprehending that impedes you to not believe in God. However what you are capable of comprehending has no bearing on the evidence that I am able to comprehend that facilitates my belief in God. Your absence is my absence.

The premise assumes the conclusion! Lets not Rush to irrationality.

Oh, that is what we're talking about now? Irrational people?

Thanks for your vote of confidence

Why? Why? Zzzzzzzzzz

Why Incog? Maybe the private time I decide to share outside of my personal life with the company I work for sometimes moves me to feel obligated in actually getting something accomplished while I'm there since they are paying me. It's hard to get good signals in to my smartphone but I accomplish it every now and then. The only thing is it puts a big strain on my phone always roaming for signals and it already has a shitty battery life.

So at some point I have to charge it (main reason) and also uphold my agreements to the company. I would use the internet there but because they monitor what we search, I don't think going to a grow site would be in my best interest, and even less worth immediately responding to ignorance..

That's All

 

[beardo]

As long as the state recognizes the union contract and confers special benefits, .

I'm all for that go get a gay union contract with all the same benefits a marriage certificate gets you with the exception of the approval of God.

 

[beardo]

This thread exploded. Why don't you support killing humans (whether it helps you economically or socially or any other way)? Do you have any reasons other than god says not too? Any reasons at all that are not fundamentally tied to god, like maybe you have some sort of moral framework independent of your god and religion?

What is moral framework? What are it's foundations? who sets its bounderies? why are certain things moral or imoral? who draws these definitions and who enforces them and how?

 

[Brazko]

here you go again? whats wrong with you? an athiest yet all your concerned about iS other ppl believeing and it bothers you so much?

ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!

i think yoru the one one needs to convince himself that he believes in nothing.

Stop being Irrational!!

Actually BabyDro I don't feel you're being irrational, so let me clear it up now before you become confused as to my angle of intention. This is Sarcasm BabyDro but it is not in anyway directed at you. I apologize if you already know I'm being sarcastic and feel I'm mocking your intelligence. I apologize if you did consider me mocking your intelligence. I meant no harm and only wanted to keep the thread lively. I apologize again for apologizing.

Thanks 4 Posting

And keep it Fire...., I mean the Dro

 

[Luger187]

here you go again? whats wrong with you? an athiest yet all your concerned about iS other ppl believeing and it bothers you so much?

ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!

i think yoru the one one needs to convince himself that he believes in nothing.

dude, no need to get offended. what about what i said offended you?

its the topic of the thread, so idk why its a problem that we debate it.

if you have something constructive to say about why i should believe, lets hear it. otherwise quit acting like a victim

 

[Luger187]

wait, was dababydroman talking to me or brazko? im confused

 

[Brazko]

The challenge stands - What kinds of irrational beliefs is science (not scientists)responsible for?

What kind of irrational beliefs have been put forth by science.. I don't know Pad, the science has always been correct in the past. The science is always right and never clouded by the Scientist interpetation of the information put forth because it stood alone as scientific fact even if the interpation made was based on incomplete information. Good Grief, but hey I'll tickle your fancy..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2

Does anybody remember this Post?

I'm not saying I'm right but the information within put forth information that science led to an irrational belief.

I just never heard back from the OP. I just wanted to know if I was able to tackle his challenge he put forth. Where he go? I could be wrong about the information within and I don't mind fully understanding anothers prespective of how I may be wrong.


aside note:

I'm not your adversary and I'm always on the team seeking to understand truth. You have to learn to Respect your teammates. There is no I or We in Team. And I never look at you as an Atheist or anything else but a human who's seeking to understand. I'm always willing to learn from you and anybody else regardless of their belief or education. Something I already have accomplished by simply reading what insights, information, prespectives and knowledge you have chosen to share. I feel you have made me a better person and it had nothing to do with your beliefs or education.

but that aside:

 

[Brazko]

wait, was dababydroman talking to me or brazko? im confused

Nah, I believe he was addressing you and to be specific I don't think you in particular or at all.

Luger I can say that the way you talk to others is very admirable to me. I definitely respect that!!

 

[beardo]

Does anybody remember this Post?

I'm not saying I'm right but the information within put forth information that science led to an irrational belief.

I just never heard back from the OP. I just wanted to know if I was able to tackle his challenge he put forth. Where he go? I could be wrong about the information within and I don't mind fully understanding anothers prespective of how I may be wrong.


aside note:

I'm not your adversary and I'm always on the team seeking to understand truth. You have to learn to Respect your teammates. There is no I or We in Team. And I never look at you as an Atheist or anything else but a human who's seeking to understand. I'm always willing to learn from you and anybody else regardless of their belief or education. Something I already have accomplished by simply reading what insights, information, prespectives and knowledge you have chosen to share. I feel you have made me a better person and it had nothing to do with your beliefs or education.

but that aside:

Yeah science is always being proven wrong-Remember when margerine was good for you and butter was bad, then trans fats were bad so margerine had to change?
Science is often proven wrong-God is never disproven.

 

[dababydroman]

i wasn't talking to either of you, so if the shoes dont fit dont wear em. i was talking to pandawater bc this is all he ever ever talks about.
and you shoulda apologized for saying something that ment nothing.

 

[Luger187]

Nah, I believe he was addressing you and to be specific I don't think you in particular or at all.

Luger I can say that the way you talk to others is very admirable to me. I definitely respect that!!

thanks buddy ive been admiring your posts as well

 

[Luger187]

i wasn't talking to either of you, so if the shoes dont fit dont wear em. i was talking to pandawater bc this is all he ever ever talks about.
and you shoulda apologized for saying something that ment nothing.

ok sorry, i thought you were talking to me. i didnt say anything in my post that was negative against religion, so i was confused lol

maybe he talks about it a lot because he is interested in the subject, as am i. if you see something wrong with what he says, you should tell him why you are right and he is wrong. then he does the same. its called debate. BUT if people go around calling people names and insulting, we just get mad at eachother and we end up with 50 pages of arguing

if you cant stand the heat, stay outta the kitchen

 

[Brazko]

i wasn't talking to either of you, so if the shoes dont fit dont wear em. i was talking to pandawater bc this is all he ever ever talks about.
and you shoulda apologized for saying something that ment nothing.

I knew where your intentions were set. After the many posts I've made I was shaky about using your post filled with any kind of sarcasm.

And as noted wasn't directed at you. And even now I understand you understood my meaning. It meant nothing.

 

[dababydroman]

i didnt call any names, and not insulting. i just think that if someone does'nt believe why is it that all they want to do is debate about it? it would seem to me that that person is not even sure them self that there isent "somthing" out there or a higher being of somesort. theres nothing to debate about for me its all a useless 50 pages anyways.
how can you debate about ones belief? and how can one debate about his own belief? anyone who has a religion would never accept anything you say anyways, so its pointless.
only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them. < witch doesnt apply to everything, but to this i believe so.

 

[beardo]

That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm not interested in hearing about this in this thread. If you start a new one about it, I'll check it out and post, but lets just try to stay on topic.

The point I believe you were making was "he's an atheist, he does this thing that's really bad, so atheism is bad" which is invalid from the start. It's the same as the Hitler argument I've seen a million times. Hitler was an atheist > Hitler was bad > atheism is bad!. This is a fallacy of logic, if you don't understand why or need me to be more clear, ask.




Any consenting adults should be able to marry if they want to.



I think it's morally wrong to eat people unless they die of natural causes and consent to being eaten after they've passed. Then it'd probably be pretty gross. If I ate someone I'd want the prime cut off the prime calf, some nice lean 25 year old, not some 95 year old who just lost a bout with cancer..

Humans aren't supposed to eat each other, and not for religious reasons.

Thier are threads with the population control plans I can find one and give link if you want and the video in this thread is good, I think it is relevant but I will try to stay more on direct in relation to the topic at hand.
My point was to say that Atheism opens the door to justify horrible things or to take away the premise for not doing those things and excercising self control
And what are morals without religion? or religious roots.
If you can get gay married why not be able to have multiple wives or have a husband and wife for a 3 way marriage?

 

[Luger187]

i didnt call any names, and not insulting. i just think that if someone does'nt believe why is it that all they want to do is debate about it? it would seem to me that that person is not even sure them self that there isent "somthing" out there or a higher being of somesort. theres nothing to debate about for me its all a useless 50 pages anyways.
how can you debate about ones belief? and how can one debate about his own belief? anyone who has a religion would never accept anything you say anyways, so its pointless.
only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them. < witch doesnt apply to everything, but to this i believe so.

so far, we(atheists) havent been shown evidence that god exists. thats it. atheism doesnt mean we think god does not exist, that is antitheism. atheists simply do not believe in a god because it hasnt been proven to them that he does exist. and until then, we refuse to conform to a religion because we dont know its true. why spend our lives praying to a god that we dont KNOW exists? religious people dont have a problem praying because they truly believe he does exist.

people believe in religions because they think their holy book is gods word, or they were raised to believe it and never questioned it, and some other reasons. for me personally, i debate about it because im interested in the psychology of it. i like to see how others view the world, and i share the same with them. that is how we learn. also as others debate, i learn more about my side of the argument by seeing what other atheists say, and what information they post.

if a religious person does not accept anything an atheist says based solely on the fact he is an atheist, doesnt that mean the religious person is willfully choosing to be ignorant? what if the atheist legitimately had a set of facts and observations which would expand the religious persons thinking? wouldnt they want to listen to that and at least consider it? what if the religious person has been proven wrong in certain aspects, but refuses to accept those FACTS because they choose their holy book instead? why live a lie willingly?

you said "only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them". everyone should always question their own beliefs because our own minds can trick us, and do all the time. if someone believes whole heartedly in their religion, they should have no problem defending it and showing others what it is about, because they truly believe in it.

im not saying you are wrong. im speaking of religious people in general. i mean no offense