Off-topic

[nickbeat]

So Kangle, you are valid but unsound perhaps.

I have to say you would make a fine candidate for the Church of the Subgenius, the one true religion for freaks of all natures. I myself am an ordained minister of said church, and have performed weddings.

[Kangleton]

Nah, I'm a Christian along with all the other wierdos.

[Peridan]

Makes me glad I'm Jewish =)

[nickbeat]

I guess you can be a weirdo in any religion, but in mine it is a requirement. I'm actually not that weird, but tell the flock or then I have to deal with a whole big expose.

[Jaeram]

Yeah, I don't think I can top that. I think my hobbies are weird though because I was blessed with a body to play certain sports well (like running back or wrestling) (even though I have bad asthma the adrenaline produced during games like football and paintball seems to be enough to offset it temporarily until I slow down and stop moving, when the adrenaline fades the asthma kicks in) I was always inquisitive and intelligent though, so at the same time I became interested in chemistry. Chemistry lead to the interest in pyrotechnics, sports and I guess my interest in anime and mythological stuff coupled with games like EQ, WoW, and NWN, lead to my interest in things like sword fighting (which I don't get to do that often anymore), martial arts, and that kind of thing. A buddy of me got me into paintball though and I just loved it after that, so I have all my own gear, inlcuding a guillie suit for woodland ball (it makes me look like a big moss monster and it's really good camouflage, military snipers used to wear it, some still do). I love having vastly different weird hobbies though because I met people who are into something I'm into like chemistry and then they look at me weird when I say things like paintball and martial arts lol, it's a fun life.

[Mighty_Draco]

meh, I'm a devout atheist, may have rubbed off on Jack *coughcough* I play table top D&D, old school nerd

[Kangleton]

Lets have a religious argument!

Why are you atheist?

[rustediron]

I feel that it is more rational to not to believe that the world is controlled by a personality, than not.

[Aries1918]

Most people call me Jewish (because I share a name with a particular character from South Park.... and no, my mom is not a bitch), but I will let you figure out what my religion is. I am religious, but I do not follow what the preachers of my religion say word for word. I make up my own mind about it.

And I only argue about religion when I am not talking about real religion (yay for the Forgotten Realms religions!)

Everyone here should follow Grumber, or burn in whatever hell you may, or may not, believe in.

[Jaeram]

I don't think a religious argument is the best idea lol. Although I will say that I am religious, although growing up I was heavily exposed to Catholocism, and then Christianity, but later in my teens I studied other religions, such as Buddhism and eastern Shintoism (I actually wrote a paper on that one in high school), and while I can't say I totally believe in one religion I have my own unique outlook on what I believe to be the truth.

[Mighty_Draco]

Lets have a religious argument!

Why are you atheist?

I believe in objective truth through observation and experimentation. An assertion should be falsifiable and be supported by evidence. There's no rational way to assert the existence of any sort of omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. For other thoughts on what "God"/"The gods"/"whatever" is/are, most of them are irrelevant or can be shown incorrect. Thus, I find the assertion that a deity exists irrational and the existence itself irrelevant.

[Peridan]

I worship the Great Cthulhu!!

[Mighty_Draco]

I worship the Great Cthulhu!!

((awesome pic))

beautiful

[Kangleton]

I believe in objective truth through observation and experimentation. An assertion should be falsifiable and be supported by evidence. There's no rational way to assert the existence of any sort of omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. For other thoughts on what "God"/"The gods"/"whatever" is/are, most of them are irrelevant or can be shown incorrect. Thus, I find the assertion that a deity exists irrational and the existence itself irrelevant.

There are a few rational suggestions that propose the existance of a being that exists outside of space and time. Intentions and opinions of such a being cannot logically be understood through such rational thoughs, but that isn't what is important - it is the existance of "God" in the first place, that is the important place to start.

And please note that when I say "God", I don't actually mean anything by it. I am not saying Jesus, I am not saying Yahweh, Jehovah, or a name from any other pantheon... I am not stating what this being's motivations, hopes, thoughts, or emotions might entail, or if it even has any. I simply use God as an entirely neutral term for lack of a better word to describe something that we do not understand, which exists of its own necessity, outside of space and time.

I, and probably very many others, put some faith in the following five arguments to believe in the existance of a higher power. At the very least, they are thought-provoking for most:

-------------------------------------------------

Theory of Movement: Everything known in nature is entirely incapable of setting itself into motion. For all movement, there is a mover, and this mover was brought into motion by something already moving, itself. For you to move your arm, your brain must send a signal, and the brain operates with blood from the heart, which beats only because life was biologically granted to you by a set of parents. Those parents, too, were set into motion by their own, and the chain goes on, as it does for all things. Plants, animals, even the weather... nothing naturally occurring can move its own being without first being moved by another.

Logic would dictate that there cannot be an infinite series of movers, as it is known that there was a begining of time. Therefore, there must have been a first mover, and no such being naturally occurrs in nature. It would have to be a creature existing of its own necessity, outside of space and time. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Theory of Cause: Nothing can simply cause itself to exist. I think that is pretty simple, in itself. Plants, animals, elements... none can simply will themselves into being, for to do that would imply that they already had a will, and were thus already existing. That makes no sense. Therefore, there must have been a first causer at some point, whether it is still around or not. This causer though, could not have been caused by another, as there cannot be an infinite series of causers, just as there cannot be an infinite series of movers. The first causer, also like the first mover, must have existed beyond space and time. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Contingency Theory: At one point or another any being dependant on something else for existance, fails to exist. It dies, ends, concludes, (etc). What goes up always comes down. Every begining has an end. That sort of thing. So, if everything were dependant and contingent on something else, then that would imply that at some point, there would be nothing in existance. If there was nothing at one point, there would still be nothing, for nothing can birth itself; especially into a world where it would be contingent on something else that also isn't there. Therefore, there must have been a being that is not contingent or reliant on anything at all, and exists of its own necessity. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Greatness Theory: Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree, existing as a standard or measurement to all lesser degrees. There must be an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Intelligence Theory: There are countless things in this world that lack intelligence. They exist without any cognitive functions, or the ability to produce thought. Many of these things, however, act to an end. Whatever acts for an end though, either must be intelligent, or be directed by an intelligent being. A puzzle cannot put itself together, and for the universe to have done so in the order that it has, would be considered a mathematical impossibility. There must be an intelligent creator, or designer, or director, that makes all things unintelligent act with intelligent purpose. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

-------------------------------------------------

No matter what value these proofs are to you, I have what I like to believe is the most rational argument in regards to whether or not one should believe in the existance of "God". See, people have a tendancy to find exactly what they look for, and they fail to find what they face the opposite direction of.

If you never actually take the time to thuroughly search for God, who are you to say that you he or she doesn't exist? A true scientist, or philosopher, would do all things in their power to look objectively at all sides without bias. To do this, you cannot look at spirituality as an attempt to prove that God does not exist, but rather, a neutral attempt to search for him or her, or it.

If you have done absolutely all that you can fathom in your search for God, and you have found nothing at all, then I will entirely support your cause for atheism.

Conclusively, wouldn't you rather live your life believing in God to find out that he doesn't exist, rather than to live your life not believing, to find out that he does?

Baha. Had to throw in that quote. I don't know who said it though. Sue me.

[Mighty_Draco]

Theory of Movement: Everything known in nature is entirely incapable of setting itself into motion. For all movement, there is a mover, and this mover was brought into motion by something already moving, itself. For you to move your arm, your brain must send a signal, and the brain operates with blood from the heart, which beats only because life was biologically granted to you by a set of parents. Those parents, too, were set into motion by their own, and the chain goes on, as it does for all things. Plants, animals, even the weather... nothing naturally occurring can move its own being without first being moved by another.

Logic would dictate that there cannot be an infinite series of movers, as it is known that there was a begining of time. Therefore, there must have been a first mover, and no such being naturally occurrs in nature. It would have to be a creature existing of its own necessity, outside of space and time. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

The term "god" would imply that it's something sapient. "It would have to be a creature existing of its own necessity" There's no reason to believe it's a "creature" and not merely some universal constant that occurs. Conventional logic says x moves y etc. but it doesn't say that there had to be some sentient thing that made it happen.

Theory of Cause: Nothing can simply cause itself to exist. I think that is pretty simple, in itself. Plants, animals, elements... none can simply will themselves into being, for to do that would imply that they already had a will, and were thus already existing. That makes no sense. Therefore, there must have been a first causer at some point, whether it is still around or not. This causer though, could not have been caused by another, as there cannot be an infinite series of causers, just as there cannot be an infinite series of movers. The first causer, also like the first mover, must have existed beyond space and time. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Saying something outside our universe has to exist in order for our universe to exist in a rather inconsistent logical step. To extend this logic, something *had* to create this "God" in order for us to be created by it, and something had to create that god etc.

Contingency Theory: At one point or another any being dependant on something else for existance, fails to exist. It dies, ends, concludes, (etc). What goes up always comes down. Every begining has an end. That sort of thing. So, if everything were dependant and contingent on something else, then that would imply that at some point, there would be nothing in existance. If there was nothing at one point, there would still be nothing, for nothing can birth itself; especially into a world where it would be contingent on something else that also isn't there. Therefore, there must have been a being that is not contingent or reliant on anything at all, and exists of its own necessity. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Another argument from ignorance. Just because an apple came from a tree, and rots away eventually, doesn't mean our universe did.

Greatness Theory: Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree, existing as a standard or measurement to all lesser degrees. There must be an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying since we compare everything for standards of measurement, a "god" must exist. The fact that we measure does not influence such things. I don't think the joule is based off of a "god" unit.

Intelligence Theory: There are countless things in this world that lack intelligence. They exist without any cognitive functions, or the ability to produce thought. Many of these things, however, act to an end. Whatever acts for an end though, either must be intelligent, or be directed by an intelligent being. A puzzle cannot put itself together, and for the universe to have done so in the order that it has, would be considered a mathematical impossibility. There must be an intelligent creator, or designer, or director, that makes all things unintelligent act with intelligent purpose. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

For the universe to have done anything specific, it would be mathematically impossible from a statistical perspective, sure. But, in the same sense, any sort of predesignated combination of rolls on 10^(100) fair dice has a statistically impossible chance of occurring. That does not mean the roll won't exist, but merely that it's impossible to predict. To say that our specific set of numbers is impossible and thus a god must have done it is also an argument from ignorance.

No matter what value these proofs are to you, I have what I like to believe is the most rational argument in regards to whether or not one should believe in the existance of "God". See, people have a tendancy to find exactly what they look for, and they fail to find what they face the opposite direction of.

And thus is why I look to objectivity. No matter how much I do or don't like, I cannot change earth's gravity. I can measure it, I can manipulate the numbers to be deceitful, but no matter how much I don't like it, I can't change it.

If you never actually take the time to thuroughly search for God, who are you to say that you he or she doesn't exist? A true scientist, or philosopher, would do all things in their power to look objectively at all sides without bias. To do this, you cannot look at spirituality as an attempt to prove that God does not exist, but rather, a neutral attempt to search for him or her, or it.

One cannot say a "God" doesn't exist objectively in the same sense that one cannot assert the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. If you take note, I said that asserting god exists is irrational, and whether or not he exists is irrelevant. To "search for god" is a way of putting away objectivity and losing rationality in the name of wanting it to be there.

If you have done absolutely all that you can fathom in your search for God, and you have found nothing at all, then I will entirely support your cause for atheism.

When I said "devout atheist" I was mostly just trying to be ironic. I do not believe atheism is a cause so much as just an objective assertion.

Conclusively, wouldn't you rather live your life believing in God to find out that he doesn't exist, rather than to live your life not believing, to find out that he does?

I would rather live my life behaving off of rationality and objectivity, and find some evidence asserting the existence of a god then make an assertion based off of irrationality.

One more thing I feel compelled to note. Those "theories" are in no way valid, objective, scientific theories. (right out of wikipedia) A theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experimentation or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.