*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by rottenseed.

length=3:57

Also, <3 Stephen Fry.

I'm afraid it's a dupe of this:
http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Fry-The-Importance-of-Unbelief

Starting at 4:56

Worth listening to again though.

"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..


Are you suggesting that the human race doesn't understand anything!? I suppose God created that keyboard you are typing on to send this digital information over the mysterious God-given internet. I personally get more humility from Stephen Fry than from you.

I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.


>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..

Are you suggesting that the human race doesn't understand anything!? I suppose God created that keyboard you are typing on to send this digital information over the mysterious God-given internet. I personally get more humility from Stephen Fry than from you.

I would say that to suggest this magic man who looks just like us and has ultimate power over every facet of everything that exists or ever has existed just because some Jews wrote a collection of books several centuries ago is equally laughable.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.

Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.

Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.

You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Thank (insert random deity here) for ignore.

ooooh.... SIFTBOT MUST BE GOD!

Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.

Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.

Cheers.

not an argument against belief in god. just an argument why religion is stupid, and religious people are stupid, and this guy he talked to is stupid.

god knows arrogance like that pisses me off.

Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.

Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

responding to maxwilder

Ghandi starved himself, very humble, wished for peace w/ his enemies. as for "communicates with us individually and grants requests"

I guess when moses asked for the ten commandments and God sent this flame and set those commandments into stone? Oh, that was a charlton heston movie. Excuse my sarcasm.

I have to use humor to respond to "god will grant your requests" because the whole idea is a joke.

wait, never mind. last time i was in a bookstore, they had a whole isle of "power of prayer" books. What the hell was i defending? Prayer granting wishes is making some authors moderately rich.

If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.

Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.

Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

There. Fixed it.>> ^Ti_Moth:

I would say that to suggest this magic man who looks just like us and has ultimate power over every facet of everything that exists or ever has existed just because some Jews wrote a collection of books several centuries ago is equallyfar more laughable.

Ah Mr.Fry - one of my favourite *british people.

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Seric.

But, but, but, science DOES explain all the things that it claims to explain. It explains exactly and only those things. It just doesn't claim to explain everything! If God did start the big bang, and science eventually learns every single fact there is to know about the universe, it will be discovered that God exists and started the big bang. Then God and his role in the creation of the universe will be scientific fact. Same with Russel's Teapot -- science may one day prove that it exists. In the meantime, however, there's no sense in believing it, nor god. Science isn't anti-God; it's pro-truth.

So the rest of your argument is that God exists because science doesn't yet have the answers to everything?

MAKE SENSE!!!

(edited)>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

Less sb, more Fry.

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...


Well, people used to invoke religion to explain things like lightning and rainbows. Now you can say that we don't fully understand rainbows - but we understand them a lot better than when the explanation was "God made rainbows as a signal to man" (well, some of us do anyway), and very few people now would say "Well, if there's no God how do you explain rainbows?" now. Similarly, people now should have little reason to ask something like "If there's no God, how do you explain the diversity of life?" (but they still do). In any case, if you can't see the progression through history in terms of man's ability to comprehend and explain the natural world (and if you can't see the corresponding changes in how religions address the natural world, from thunder gods on down) then you're a moron and know nothing of world history or religion.

Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen?


You're bunching up some very different questions. "How did the Universe get here?" is a question for which a good answer is very difficult to imagine really, and it's also a question for which religion has absolutely no insight. Adding a non-created, always existing God isn't any different than saying "The Universe has always been there". The cold reality is "there could have been nothing - no God or anything". And yet there is something, some discontinuity that I'm perceiving now, that clearly is. All anyone could reply with is kind of an anthropic principle - a question begging, a case for special pleading - that clearly there is more than nothing, because there is.

The other question, "How did we get life from non-life" is very different, and something we may well have strong candidate answers for in our life time. Already, there are many possible ideas, your ignorance of them being wholly unsurprising. Read a book. Also, your idea that scientists believe "time and space begun with the big bang" is simplistic. You're not understanding how the ideas of "time" and "space" are being used, and how it would make perfect sense (to someone who understands these ideas) that the precursor to a big bang could be perfectly natural. The big bang is not the ex-nihilo beginning, it's just a threshold beyond which it's difficult to see. Again, read a book.

Here's basic logic..

nothing comes from nothing

something exists

Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.


>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.


>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.


>> ^messenger:
But, but, but, science DOES explain all the things that it claims to explain. It explains exactly and only those things. It just doesn't claim to explain everything! If God did start the big bang, and science eventually learns every single fact there is to know about the universe, it will be discovered that God exists and started the big bang. Then God and his role in the creation of the universe will be scientific fact. Same with Russel's Teapot -- science may one day prove that it exists. In the meantime, however, there's no sense in believing it, nor god. Science isn't anti-God; it's pro-truth.
So the rest of your argument is that God exists because science doesn't yet have the answers to everything?
MAKE SENSE!!!
(edited)>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

If space and time were created in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is transcendent and immaterial..ie, supernatural. I suggest you follow the logical conclusions of the things you believe. Your wish for a natural explanation for the beginning of the Universe will not happen because you click your heels..it could only happen if a materialist explanation makes sense, which it doesnt. I've read plenty of books and I know that science hasn't answered any of these questions, has not progressed on them one inch. It has just mired in more and more speculation..universe appears designed? no problem, lets just have infinite universes (that we can never detect) can't reconcile newtonian physics with quantum mechanics? no problem, lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother! More than that, just the creation of life itself is steeped in idiocy..abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief. If you believe in that you have a religious faith.

If it wasn't so stupid and toxic to the human mind, i would laugh..again, for the kids not paying attention, asking whether the Universe was deliberately created is entirely credible, as recognized by the greatest minds who have ever lived..and anyone saying it isn't is just closed minded and arrogant, and doesn't understand that these questions go a little deeper than the puddle they are playing in.

>> ^jmzero:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...
Well, people used to invoke religion to explain things like lightning and rainbows. Now you can say that we don't fully understand rainbows - but we understand them a lot better than when the explanation was "God made rainbows as a signal to man" (well, some of us do anyway), and very few people now would say "Well, if there's no God how do you explain rainbows?" now. Similarly, people now should have little reason to ask something like "If there's no God, how do you explain the diversity of life?" (but they still do). In any case, if you can't see the progression through history in terms of man's ability to comprehend and explain the natural world (and if you can't see the corresponding changes in how religions address the natural world, from thunder gods on down) then you're a moron and know nothing of world history or religion.
Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen?
You're bunching up some very different questions. "How did the Universe get here?" is a question for which a good answer is very difficult to imagine really, and it's also a question for which religion has absolutely no insight. Adding a non-created, always existing God isn't any different than saying "The Universe has always been there". The cold reality is "there could have been nothing - no God or anything". And yet there is something, some discontinuity that I'm perceiving now, that clearly is. All anyone could reply with is kind of an anthropic principle - a question begging, a case for special pleading - that clearly there is more than nothing, because there is.
The other question, "How did we get life from non-life" is very different, and something we may well have strong candidate answers for in our life time. Already, there are many possible ideas, your ignorance of them being wholly unsurprising. Read a book. Also, your idea that scientists believe "time and space begun with the big bang" is simplistic. You're not understanding how the ideas of "time" and "space" are being used, and how it would make perfect sense (to someone who understands these ideas) that the precursor to a big bang could be perfectly natural. The big bang is not the ex-nihilo beginning, it's just a threshold beyond which it's difficult to see. Again, read a book.

False. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it supernatural.
>> ^shinyblurry:

If space and time were created in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is transcendent and immaterial..ie, supernatural.

If space and time were created in the big bang...


You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!


You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.

even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.


Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.


It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.


I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

>> ^jmzero:

If space and time were created in the big bang...

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.
lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!

You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.
even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.
.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.
A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.
If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).
But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.


I wish I could vote for this comment more than once : )

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, June 19th, 2011 1:14pm PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.

Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:

Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.

>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

what if the universe was created by a homer simpson in another universe, who sat on the controls at a black hole power plant.

does that mean that the other universe's homer simpson is god?

god is a useful concept for explaining a unintuitive universe. as soon as you start characterizing god, thinking gets stupid fast.

Remarkably, every sentence you wrote except for one (I'll let you figure out which one it is) is factually incorrect, even the ones about monkeys and Dawkins.

Fortunately for me, many of them are debunked by some of my favourite videos and Wikipedia articles:

* Neil deGrasse Tyson explains what Fry means by God receeding (if you watch up to 2:20, you'll have enough of the picture, as long as you understand why apparent retrograde motion really happens). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion
* The answer to a fundamental question about life
* It's the bible that draws upon the imagination alone. Science draws upon evidence. Ideas without evidence are not science.
* A single eternally living monkey at a single eternally functional typewriter would, on an infinite timeline, create everything ever written, not just Shakespeare. OR an infinite number of such monkeys at an infinite number of such typewriters would produce all the written works there ever have been or will be in the amount of time it takes to write the longest of them. That said, I don't see what this has to do with this argument, but decided to refute it anyway.
* Dawkins never said any such thing.

(edited)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.

Is that original quote from you? It's brilliant.>> ^MaxWilder:

Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

Why choose? Both are funny in their own ways.>> ^Boise_Lib:

Less sb, more Fry.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

>> ^messenger:

Is that original quote from you? It's brilliant.>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.



Yup. That's the angry thought that pops into my head every time a religious zealot claims to be "a million times as humble as thou art."

I might also need to add something about man having dominion over all the animals, and being the only life in the universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..


For a "Christian" you certainly sound rather Old Testament. Maybe you should try Buddhism; it might help with your anger issues.

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.

>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

This from the same person who told me that you absolutely believe there are no absolutes. That it is absolutely true that everything is relatively true. lol..

>> ^KnivesOut:
False. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it supernatural.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If space and time were created in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is transcendent and immaterial..ie, supernatural.

>> ^shinyblurry:

science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! *deep breath* Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

Buddhism is just glorified atheism with a supernatural twist. Don't worry, the one world religion is coming..soon you'll be able to feel superior to Christians theologically as well as intellectually

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..

For a "Christian" you certainly sound rather Old Testament. Maybe you should try Buddhism; it might help with your anger issues.

Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>> ^shinyblurry:

Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!



Did you read the quote that provided me with such mirth? You claim that nothing has been proven to not have a supernatural basis! Do you think scientists are still scratching their heads over what lightning is or that they think rain is God taking a shower!?
As for scientists weeping over what they don't know I seriously doubt that, isn't it their job to try and figure out what they don't know?

Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.

Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:

The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

sigh..Gods existence means that everything ultimately has a supernatural casuation..

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!


Did you read the quote that provided me with such mirth? You claim that nothing has been proven to not have a supernatural basis! Do you think scientists are still scratching their heads over what lightning is or that they think rain is God taking a shower!?
As for scientists weeping over what they don't know I seriously doubt that, isn't it their job to try and figure out what they don't know?

The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.

>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.




Is it hubris to say "Your story is flawed and I don't believe it"?

No, it is hubris to say "I know the truth of the universe, and you should believe everything I say."
It is vanity to say "The only way to get into heaven is to be like me."
It is prideful to say "I am a chosen child of God."

You know nothing, and are too prideful to admit it. The atheist admits to knowing nothing, and believes only when evidence is shown.

The path to self destruction... believing whatever somebody tells you without thinking about it for yourself. That's almost the definition of religion.

Atheism takes a stance, which is that God does not exist. It's the agnostic that says he doesn't know. Don't you even know what you believe? All I've ever told people is this..that there is plenty of evidence to believe that God exists..however, my testimony isn't necessarily going to be good enough for people..which I why is tell them to seek out the truth themselves. I have told anyone who has honestly inquired that God will reveal Himself to anyone who dilligently seeks Him out, as He directly promised. This is not about me and never was. I don't have any motive other than doing what the Lord commanded me to do. The conversation never turns around here though, its mostly a blanket wall of denial and dogmatic assertion. I don't have any trouble speaking or appealing to the deeper thinkers..its the shallow know it alls that can't hear anything.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.


Is it hubris to say "Your story is flawed and I don't believe it"?
No, it is hubris to say "I know the truth of the universe, and you should believe everything I say."
It is vanity to say "The only way to get into heaven is to be like me."
It is prideful to say "I am a chosen child of God."
You know nothing, and are too prideful to admit it. The atheist admits to knowing nothing, and believes only when evidence is shown.
The path to self destruction... believing whatever somebody tells you without thinking about it for yourself. That's almost the definition of religion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Atheism takes a stance, which is that God does not exist. It's the agnostic that says he doesn't know. Don't you even know what you believe? All I've ever told people is this..that there is plenty of evidence to believe that God exists..however, my testimony isn't necessarily going to be good enough for people..which I why is tell them to seek out the truth themselves. I have told anyone who has honestly inquired that God will reveal Himself to anyone who dilligently seeks Him out, as He directly promised. This is not about me and never was. I don't have any motive other than doing what the Lord commanded me to do. The conversation never turns around here though, its mostly a blanket wall of denial and dogmatic assertion. I don't have any trouble speaking or appealing to the deeper thinkers..its the shallow know it alls that can't hear anything.


You make the fundamental mistake of not understanding the term Atheism.

Atheism is the lack of belief of God(s), not the belief of no god. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unkowable. So one can be an agnostic atheist.

You also make another fundamental mistake of misusing the term evidence. You may feel your "evidence" is enough to sustain your faith, but that doesn't give it the rigor to be considered evidence in a scientific sense.

Frankly, when you complain of others' hubris and denial, while misusing terms and bringing up theories that you clearly don't understand, you make yourself look bad, and make people of faith look bad. Faith is a private thing, and doesn't need someone so poorly educated as you as its champion.

According to the dictionary, atheism is a denial or disbelief in God.

reference.com
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

cambridge
atheist
noun /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ n [C] Definition
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

websters

Atheism
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So go ahead and argue with the dictionary. I know what an atheist is..and I also know what an agnostic is because I used to be one. I would suggest that atheist propaganda isnt a good source of information to bring to an argument and that maybe you should figure out what the meaning of something is before you correct someone else.


>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Atheism takes a stance, which is that God does not exist. It's the agnostic that says he doesn't know. Don't you even know what you believe? All I've ever told people is this..that there is plenty of evidence to believe that God exists..however, my testimony isn't necessarily going to be good enough for people..which I why is tell them to seek out the truth themselves. I have told anyone who has honestly inquired that God will reveal Himself to anyone who dilligently seeks Him out, as He directly promised. This is not about me and never was. I don't have any motive other than doing what the Lord commanded me to do. The conversation never turns around here though, its mostly a blanket wall of denial and dogmatic assertion. I don't have any trouble speaking or appealing to the deeper thinkers..its the shallow know it alls that can't hear anything.

You make the fundamental mistake of not understanding the term Atheism.
Atheism is the lack of belief of God(s), not the belief of no god. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unkowable. So one can be an agnostic atheist.
You also make another fundamental mistake of misusing the term evidence. You may feel your "evidence" is enough to sustain your faith, but that doesn't give it the rigor to be considered evidence in a scientific sense.
Frankly, when you complain of others' hubris and denial, while misusing terms and bringing up theories that you clearly don't understand, you make yourself look bad, and make people of faith look bad. Faith is a private thing, and doesn't need someone so poorly educated as you as its champion.

>> ^shinyblurry:
So go ahead and argue with the dictionary. I know what an atheist is..and I also know what an agnostic is because I used to be one. I would suggest that atheist propaganda isnt a good source of information to bring to an argument.

I am trying to show you that the terms atheist and agnostic are more nuanced and layered than you believe. If you are so arrogant that you won't even spend the time to understand the position of your perceived opponents, how can you begin to argue with them? Take some of your own advice and keep your hubris in check.

And when you respond to my post, respond to the whole thing, not just the first line.

I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment he has about reality. If you want to say you don't know then you are an agnostic..in fact the whole idea of atheism is just logically inconsistant to begin with.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So go ahead and argue with the dictionary. I know what an atheist is..and I also know what an agnostic is because I used to be one. I would suggest that atheist propaganda isnt a good source of information to bring to an argument.
I am trying to show you that the terms atheist and agnostic are more nuanced and layered than you believe. If you are so arrogant that you won't even spend the time to understand the position of your perceived opponents, how can you begin to argue with them? Take some of your own advice and keep your hubris in check.
And when you respond to my post, respond to the whole thing, not just the first line.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.

Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?

And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:

"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."

These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.

Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.

Goodbye and good luck.

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:

Ask yourself this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic

It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.

Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Spiritual pride is the final gate of the chapel perilous, shinyblurry. Almost there!

>> ^mentality:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.


Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.

And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.

If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.

I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:

The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

@shinyblurry
A few sincere questions so I can understand you better:

I don't think you're a bible literalist. If so, that answers all these questions.


1. Where do you derive your faith if not the literal words?
   
   
2. Assuming you believe in Intelligent Design,
   
   • do you believe it because it seems the most reasonable explanation to you, or because the Holy Bible says it's the truth?
     
   • if there were another theory that better explained creation, would you accept it?
   
   
3. Do you consider yourself a seeker of the truth, whatever that truth may be?
   
   
4. Do you consider that science has any value at all?
   
   
5. Do you consider that you understand the scientific process to such a degree that if you explained it to a scientist, the scientist would agree with you?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior.

Hi, remember me? We had a long discussion a while back in which I made it quite clear that I lacked belief but made no assertions. I did argue that I was right on some topics, but not on the non-existence of gods. I also admitted ignorance on some topics, but explained my thoughts and feelings on them as best I could for the sake of the discussion.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, sb. See you in hell.

No, @xxovercastxx, @shinyblurry has a golden ticket to do whatever the fuck he wants, remember?

F O R G I V E N>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior.
Hi, remember me? We had a long discussion a while back in which I made it quite clear that I lacked belief but made no assertions. I did argue that I was right on some topics, but not on the non-existence of gods. I also admitted ignorance on some topics, but explained my thoughts and feelings on them as best I could for the sake of the discussion.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, sb. See you in hell.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)

Disbelieve:
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in

Again, the dictionary, at least some of them, allow both "there is no god" and "I lack a belief in god" to fit under the umbrella of atheism. Your quoted definition above does as well, whether you intended it to or not.

During our previous discussion we also could not come to agreement on terms. I opted to throw them out and tell you specifically what I thought and believed so that we could continue the discussion without getting hung up on semantics. Yet you tried to bring it back to those terms a few times.

The terms are not what's important to the discussion and it makes you seem like a dishonest debater when you do that.

>> ^shinyblurry:

However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.



So god has revealed himself to you and not me? Why? Why did he choose you over me? What makes you a better spokesperson for god than me?

Superiority aside, what evidence did you get directly from god? What evidence did god personally contact you, as an individual, to relay? You're saying your evidence is personal testimony and then deriding other people for not believing it.

Random House College Dictionary

hy-poc-ri-sy: a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:
Ask yourself this question:
Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic
It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)
As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. I don't claim to be humble, or tell you to be humble. I'm pointing out that your arrogance make you sound like a fool, and you come here to make a mockery of religion.

"I know quite a bit about evolutionary biology and general relativity." Oh really? Pray tell what you do for a living and what exactly qualifies you as knowing "quite a bit" about these fields? Becoming an expert on one field is difficult enough, and apparently on videosift we have a self professed expert on two major fields of science.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

I do literally believe the bible is true and the word of God..I think there may be a couple of things in the modern bibles that weren't there originally, but in general that it is literally true

1. I derive my faith formost from personal and special revelation, and generally from the word of God

2. I believe in the creation week of genesis

3. Yes; seeking the truth honestly is how I ended up being a Christian

4. Yes, I think science is of value..but I don't consider evolutionary theory science

5. I understand the scientific method. I consider that I am a layman however I know more than your average bear, enough to be dangerous to complacent atheists

>> ^messenger:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
A few sincere questions so I can understand you better:

I don't think you're a bible literalist. If so, that answers all these questions.


1. Where do you derive your faith if not the literal words?
   
   
2. Assuming you believe in Intelligent Design,
   
   
   
   
   • do you believe it because it seems the most reasonable explanation to you, or because the Holy Bible says it's the truth?
     
     
   • if there were another theory that better explained creation, would you accept it?
   
   
   
3. Do you consider yourself a seeker of the truth, whatever that truth may be?
   
   
4. Do you consider that science has any value at all?
   
   
5. Do you consider that you understand the scientific process to such a degree that if you explained it to a scientist, the scientist would agree with you?

I considered you to be agnostic and not truly an atheist, however if you want to define yourself as one I will say I stand corrected.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior.
Hi, remember me? We had a long discussion a while back in which I made it quite clear that I lacked belief but made no assertions. I did argue that I was right on some topics, but not on the non-existence of gods. I also admitted ignorance on some topics, but explained my thoughts and feelings on them as best I could for the sake of the discussion.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, sb. See you in hell. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">

I really don't care about semantics..I do care when people use them to frame their debates when they don't really honestly represent what they believe. You're either open to the idea of God existing or you're not..and if you are open to it then dont say someone else is wrong, and if you're not open just admit it..this view has nothing to do with which God it is..just the very fact the Universe was intelligently created. If you're open to it, I don't think you are really an atheist in any sense of the word. This new atheism tries to combine agnosticism and atheism into one thing, but as a former agnostic I know there are clearly defined boundries. I'll have to review our conversation to see where we left off but I doubt it was stalled over semantics.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)
Disbelieve:
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in
Again, the dictionary, at least some of them, allow both "there is no god" and "I lack a belief in god" to fit under the umbrella of atheism. Your quoted definition above does as well, whether you intended it to or not.
During our previous discussion we also could not come to agreement on terms. I opted to throw them out and tell you specifically what I thought and believed so that we could continue the discussion without getting hung up on semantics. Yet you tried to bring it back to those terms a few times.
The terms are not what's important to the discussion and it makes you seem like a dishonest debater when you do that.

He revealed Himself to me because I was seeking him out, because I wanted to know the real truth and not just what men thought and believed. If you don't know Him, I can only preumse it's because you have failed to do that and only concern yourself with the wisdom of the world. I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.


So god has revealed himself to you and not me? Why? Why did he choose you over me? What makes you a better spokesperson for god than me?
Superiority aside, what evidence did you get directly from god? What evidence did god personally contact you, as an individual, to relay? You're saying your evidence is personal testimony and then deriding other people for not believing it.
Random House College Dictionary
hy-poc-ri-sy: a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.

It's not dishonest to say you are open to evidence of a supernatural being but find belief without it silly. Is it arrogant to find a belief in unicorns silly? Shiva? Mormon doctrine? Was it hubris for Christians to not be pagans when Christianity wasn't the #1 religion? Would you reconcile your beliefs if someone found a herd of unicorns? Some help with terms: http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

How intuitive an idea is has little bearing on truth. That something can't come from nothing, if true, grants no particular credibility to the idea of a supreme intellect. If a supreme intellect can be eternal, why not the universe itself? How the universe works is a profoundly interesting question, but until our understanding of a material universe stops bearing fruit, its exploration -- testing the predictive power of (even unintuitive) hypotheses -- is the most helpful method for finding truth. Additional random thoughts: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

Religion is important to believers, in part, for the sense of humility, awe, and connection it inspires with the world and others. But this feeling is important to everyone. When accusing an atheist of arrogance, consider what might inspire reverence in him or her:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Pale-Blue-Dot-by-Carl-Saga
n-Excerpt-read-by-the-Author

Does the obviousness of an idea guarantee its truth? Does its popularity? Does the comfort it brings you, or the earnestness with which you believe in it? Ask yourself what makes your testimony more valid than the differing testimony found in others'? Is that an arrogant position? Despite earnestness, you sound no more convincing than...>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know unicorns exists; they are as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from the unicorns. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, the unicorns' herald commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach unicorn words and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

ffs @shinyblurry, learn to quote.

which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs


I wasn't using an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument would be that you're wrong because you're an idiot (though, honestly, that's an underrated method of reasoning and actually makes sense here). Instead, my argument was related to subject and only later did I call you an idiot. Well, I might have called you some things before that too - but in any case those things weren't the starting point for my argument. But I guess you don't understand logic either.

Anyways, I'm content to rest there in terms of subject because you've yet to say anything of substance back in terms of discussion. The best you did is gainsay, but even that was hamstrung by your lack of understanding of my points (and similar lack of understanding of the books you claim to have read). You gainsaid a lot of stuff nobody said.

To be clear, I've heard very intelligent arguments in favor of creationism and I think there's lots to debate in terms of current scientific understanding of evolution and related topics. I really enjoy discussing things online with people. There's been many times when I've changed my mind, or at least become more open to another position, after hearing good arguments.

But that's not going to happen with you: you don't understand my side, your side, or anything beyond the very basics of science or philosophy - and you are dead set against any kind of earnest exchange of ideas. Obviously you don't agree with my assessment there. Maybe you think I'm mean. I don't care. I only write this last part as advice: people will give up trying to discuss things with you, but it's not because they're impressed by what you've said. They just don't want to talk to a douche.

@shinyblurry
If that's the case, then there's no point continuing this conversation. As a bible literalist, you decided before the conversation began what your belief was going to be at the end, so this is not really a meeting of intellects --both open to new ideas-- but a clash of one such intellect versus a skilled defender of tautological dogma, which, sadly, is unresolvable because such dogma, by its own definition, cannot be challenged from within. The fact that you say you derive your faith in the word of God from the word of God itself is exactly what I mean.

You say that if someone truly tries to reach God, he will. That's true in that person's mind. It's also true that if you really try to reach faith in the Jewish version of God, or try to find "true connection with the universe," or go on a spirit walk with peyote to find your spirit guide animal, or meditate on a fire until you begin to see the God within it, and do so with a sincere heart, you will be able to succeed in any of those things. The only question is, do you feel more kinship with Christians or Jews or hippies or Native Indians or stoned camper? That will determine which way you feel most comfortable accessing the same experience of connection with a higher power.

So while you're seeking the truth, consider that the way you found your good spiritual feeling isn't unique to the Church -- that's just where you happened to find yours first.

And finally, you really don't understand science if you don't think evolution is a scientific theory. Any theory that is arrived at through following science is a scientific theory. That's a definition. The only reason atheists (I'm using the term broadly here) seem to care about that particular theory is that we noticed Christians were attacking it. The only reasons Christians were attacking it and not any other scientific theories is simply because it exposes a flaw with your faith's creation myth, which has dire implications for the rest of the stories in that book.

Peace.

Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.

Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.

BELIEF

theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)

While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).

An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.

KNOWLEDGE

gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.

For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

One can be...

1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).

2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.

While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

If that's the case, then there's no point continuing this conversation

okie dokie
>> ^messenger:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
If that's the case, then there's no point continuing this conversation. As a bible literalist, you decided before the conversation began what your belief was going to be at the end, so this is not really a meeting of intellects --both open to new ideas-- but a clash of one such intellect versus a skilled defender of tautological dogma, which, sadly, is unresolvable because such dogma, by its own definition, cannot be challenged from within. The fact that you say you derive your faith in the word of God from the word of God itself is exactly what I mean.
You say that if someone truly tries to reach God, he will. That's true in that person's mind. It's also true that if you really try to reach faith in the Jewish version of God, or try to find "true connection with the universe," or go on a spirit walk with peyote to find your spirit guide animal, or meditate on a fire until you begin to see the God within it, and do so with a sincere heart, you will be able to succeed in any of those things. The only question is, do you feel more kinship with Christians or Jews or hippies or Native Indians or stoned camper? That will determine which way you feel most comfortable accessing the same experience of connection with a higher power.
So while you're seeking the truth, consider that the way you found your good spiritual feeling isn't unique to the Church -- that's just where you happened to find yours first.
And finally, you really don't understand science if you don't think evolution is a scientific theory. Any theory that is arrived at through following science is a scientific theory. That's a definition. The only reason atheists (I'm using the term broadly here) seem to care about that particular theory is that we noticed Christians were attacking it. The only reasons Christians were attacking it and not any other scientific theories is simply because it exposes a flaw with your faith's creation myth, which has dire implications for the rest of the stories in that book.
Peace.

You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

>> ^shuac:
Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.
Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.
BELIEF
theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.
KNOWLEDGE
gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.
For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.
The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.
One can be...
1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).
2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

He got me. damn.

Still, it doesn't make that info less accurate. Or less true. Do you feel any of those points are inaccurate or untrue? Do tell.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing



Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight.

You, shinyblurry...

...are dismissing someone's argument...

...because it was cut and pasted from an online source.

((o.O))

Do you really want us to go back and count how many times you did that exact thing???

I honestly don't think I've ever seen a more brilliant example of hypocrisy.


You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.

I've used outside sources, sure..have I ever said..Dear Reader, this is why you're wrong *paste*..as if they were my own ideas? Perhaps in debates about evolution I have used quotations or cited websites..but this is about what people believe..I would think an atheist could explain why he is an atheist..or what it means to him..or the distinctions therein..i dont need to run to a website to tell people what i believe or why and really cant be bothered to debate others who do

in any case max stop stalking me..you're starting to become obsessed and it isn't healthy..either come out of the peanut gallery and debate me, or just live with the fact that you've utterly failed to face up so far..em>>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight.
You, shinyblurry...
...are dismissing someone's argument...
...because it was cut and pasted from an online source.
((o.O))
Do you really want us to go back and count how many times you did that exact thing???
I honestly don't think I've ever seen a more brilliant example of hypocrisy.
You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.

not really..ive already done battle with this wiki page before in another thread..if i have some time ill get back to it

>> ^shuac:
He got me. damn.
Still, it doesn't make that info less accurate. Or less true. Do you feel any of those points are inaccurate or untrue? Do tell.

@shinyblurry

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Energy existing is a much more simple explanation. Let's be clear too, you're not just proposing an eternal being existed. You're proposing what you conveniently ommitted from replying to:

Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

How about we start with the parts it can't make it's own mind up on:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#guilt

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.

This was a throaway line really.

But anyway, I feel like this argument will continue until forever so let me give you my take. As far as I'm concerned arguing over the existence/non-existence of God is meaningless. If you want to address the Christian god specifically, even if I had proof that he existed, I would not willingly worship a being like this or adhere to its religion for the endless list of cruelty that he has supposedly perpetrated. Take the murder of the firstborns of Egypt for the actions of others as but one example. To me worshiping such a god were it to exist would be no different to worshiping a tyrannical dictator or abiding to an abusive parent.

@shinyblurry - How do you know I haven't sought him out, just as you did, and found him lacking? Why does the fact that you found what you wanted to find and I didn't make you "right"? Doesn't that seem a little too convenient to you?

Saying you know anyone who isn't interested in what you believe is worthless is derision.


shinyblurry said: He revealed Himself to me because I was seeking him out, because I wanted to know the real truth and not just what men thought and believed. If you don't know Him, I can only preumse it's because you have failed to do that and only concern yourself with the wisdom of the world. I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

The true God would have the number one, I'm sorry, "#1" religion? Seriously? Even if that religion is only two-sevenths of the world's population. Saving two people out of every seven is good enough for God I guess. And then you drag the half of the world you believe are doomed for eternity because they pray to the wrong Magic Sky Person into it and use them to suggest, "Hey they'll all burn in Hell because they picked the wrong God but at least they get the idea, unlike you morons." Of course, Islam and Judaism also believe in the Abrahemic God, so there's a billion and a half people who do believe in your God, but get to go to Hell because they're doing it wrong.

But no, really, your translations of old books and imaginary friend are way better than critical thinking. Three cheers for God!

The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!!!


>> ^shinyblurry:
Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.

Energy existing is a terrible explanation, a it was created in the big bang, b because it violates all laws (no perpetual motion machine), c because there is no impetus for creation in an eternal continuim (it would have to stable), etc..if you want to say it is infinite, well..if if it is then it couldn't exist..if you take infinitity to its conclusion you have something which contridicts its own existence..if you want to say there are infinite universes again you'll inevitably have a universe which destroys all other universes or something to that effect.

since you couldn't bothered to think for yourself, i couldn't be bothered to individually debunk them myself, but its easy to see that right off the bat many of them are just patently false

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540

as far as the egyptians go, they were responsible for quite a bit of baby murdering..400 or so years worth of it..and God punished them for it as a nation..I don't see a problem with a sovereign God exercising his control over life and death..He could have killed hitler off but He didn't..he lets man reap with he sows, even if it means that "innocents" will be punished for it..ultimate justice is certain in every case..and if you don't want to obey God its your own choice, just as its your choice to reap the consequences of your actions>> ^RedSky:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.
Energy existing is a much more simple explanation. Let's be clear too, you're not just proposing an eternal being existed. You're proposing what you conveniently ommitted from replying to:
Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Like what?
How about we start with the parts it can't make it's own mind up on:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#guilt
Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
This was a throaway line really.
But anyway, I feel like this argument will continue until forever so let me give you my take. As far as I'm concerned arguing over the existence/non-existence of God is meaningless. If you want to address the Christian god specifically, even if I had proof that he existed, I would not willingly worship a being like this or adhere to its religion for the endless list of cruelty that he has supposedly perpetrated. Take the murder of the firstborns of Egypt for the actions of others as but one example. To me worshiping such a god were it to exist would be no different to worshiping a tyrannical dictator or abiding to an abusive parent.

If you found God, you would be profoundly changed..since you're not and quite worldly in your thinking and understanding, it's clear you never really made the attempt..

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry - How do you know I haven't sought him out, just as you did, and found him lacking? Why does the fact that you found what you wanted to find and I didn't make you "right"? Doesn't that seem a little too convenient to you?
Saying you know anyone who isn't interested in what you believe is worthless is derision.
shinyblurry said: He revealed Himself to me because I was seeking him out, because I wanted to know the real truth and not just what men thought and believed. If you don't know Him, I can only preumse it's because you have failed to do that and only concern yourself with the wisdom of the world. I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

I said numbers don't mean anything, but if you want to make a big deal out of my comment, fine..God gives everyone a fair chance..anyone who goes to hell is just someone who refused to turn from their evil..it's not like anyone is "stuck" somewhere, as if God couldn't reach them..God isn't limited..so what is incomprehensible to you is possible for Him..Here is a primary example of God reaching someone who otherwise wouldn't know about HIm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvvClFSMIzA

>> ^mizila:
The true God would have the number one, I'm sorry, "#1" religion? Seriously? Even if that religion is only two-sevenths of the world's population. Saving two people out of every seven is good enough for God I guess. And then you drag the half of the world you believe are doomed for eternity because they pray to the wrong Magic Sky Person into it and use them to suggest, "Hey they'll all burn in Hell because they picked the wrong God but at least they get the idea, unlike you morons." Of course, Islam and Judaism also believe in the Abrahemic God, so there's a billion and a half people who do believe in your God, but get to go to Hell because they're doing it wrong.
But no, really, your translations of old books and imaginary friend are way better than critical thinking. Three cheers for God!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!!!
>> ^shinyblurry:
Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you found God, you would be profoundly changed..since you're not and quite worldly in your thinking and understanding, it's clear you never really made the attempt..
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Fry-on-God-Gods?loadcomm=1#comment-1231473'>^Opus_Moderandi</a>:<br />@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry</A> - How do you know I haven't sought him out, just as you did, and found him lacking? Why does the fact that you found what you wanted to find and I didn't make you "right"? Doesn't that seem a little too convenient to you?<BR><BR>Saying you know anyone who isn't interested in what you believe is worthless is derision.<BR><BR><BR>shinyblurry said: He revealed Himself to me because I was seeking him out, because I wanted to know the real truth and not just what men thought and believed. If you don't know Him, I can only preumse it's because you have failed to do that and only concern yourself with the wisdom of the world. I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.<BR></em>


Well, like you said, you're presuming...

Right, well you go ahead and justify indiscriminant genocide then. I'll leave you to it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Energy existing is a terrible explanation, a it was created in the big bang, b because it violates all laws (no perpetual motion machine), c because there is no impetus for creation in an eternal continuim (it would have to stable), etc..if you want to say it is infinite, well..if if it is then it couldn't exist..if you take infinitity to its conclusion you have something which contridicts its own existence..if you want to say there are infinite universes again you'll inevitably have a universe which destroys all other universes or something to that effect.
since you couldn't bothered to think for yourself, i couldn't be bothered to individually debunk them myself, but its easy to see that right off the bat many of them are just patently false
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540">http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540</a>
as far as the egyptians go, they were responsible for quite a bit of baby murdering..400 or so years worth of it..and God punished them for it as a nation..I don't see a problem with a sovereign God exercising his control over life and death..He could have killed hitler off but He didn't..he lets man reap with he sows, even if it means that "innocents" will be punished for it..ultimate justice is certain in every case..and if you don't want to obey God its your own choice, just as its your choice to reap the consequences of your actions

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Fry-The-Importance-of-Unbelief at 04:56 as entr0py observed.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.