New poll: 21% of atheists believe in God

Grind said:
dixie is on record admitting he "lied" about being a christian so he could engage in arguments with various members of this website. While pretending to be a christian, he referred to his christian duty, as well as argued over who was a better christian. He often referred to jesus.

Now that such silly claims are no longer useful to his purposes, he's now some type of unitarian.
Click to expand...

so this is just more "we don't think you're a very good person so none of your arguments carry any weight"?.......

you guys ought to have a specific thread devoted to that issue so we don't have to read it on all the others.....
 
Damocles said:
I've never insinuated any of that. I spoke of probabilities. The leap to faith is infinite regardless of probabilities.

It doesn't matter where you are on the line of probability once you take that leap to certainty you are no longer on that line and it becomes an assertion backed by faith.

Using that logic I was able to show you both that you were not atheist. At that time Watermark looked up and found that phrase you seem to hang all of your assertion on now. That of "agnostic atheism"... which was made up by people who don't want to take that leap but want to fit in with the group they so want to associate with...
Click to expand...

No, Damo, I've known about agnostic atheism for quite a long time now.

Damocles said:
You are agnostic, it is from that starting point you should add your adjectives, one shouldn't attempt to associate to what they are not by adding adjectives to some other noun. You are an atheistic agnostic. That's like saying you are a "male lesbian" because they both like women...
Click to expand...

You're trying to play stupid semantic games and pretend that the only form of atheism that can possibly exist is strong atheism, when I doubt there's a strong atheist alive. It's stupid and annoying.
 
Damocles said:
It really doesn't matter what they consider it, did it effect them?

A person who has a dream about God helping them quit drugs who is then able to quit what they were addicted to until that moment isn't being irrational if they believe in God thereafter.

It would be irrational for them to expect you to believe because of their experience (often the case, it isn't my argument that people are rational as most are not) and it would be equally irrational for an atheist to expect them to reject their experience for that of the atheist...

A person who suddenly is in remission after prayer (inexplicably by science) isn't irrational if they believe the prayer helped them. (Nor would they be irrational if they didn't believe it and remained skeptical).
Click to expand...

And Islamics "experience god" and Christians "experience god" and Jews "experience god", yet all the gods they are "experiencing" are exclusive. It's pretty easy to find out the real answer here; it's just a common form of delusion.
 
Damocles said:
If the belief started from that and they actually heard auditory hallucinations then yes.

However, their belief in the invisible man and his capacity to "hear" them through prayer almost never begins with a conversation in the shower. Whether or not you or they believe that he could hear them and give insight is almost never based by the evidence of the shower. (Although sometimes it is, think Saul being blinded on the road to Damascus).

A person who was able to give up addiction in an instant through conversion and insight communicated "to" them during prayer would not be irrational in believing that same type of insight can come during a shower if that is where they choose to pray, even if you and I believe they are listening to their own subconscious.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would. They should know about the placebo effect.
 
Dixie said:
Here is the problem in a nutshell! You have absolutely NO comprehension of what God is! It's NOT an "invisible man" or anything remotely similar to one! This is your caricature of God, based on your own stupidity and ignorance. God is most often called "He" because the male is the dominant gender in our species, and we can better relate to God in that way. There is no actual gender of God, gender is a mortal attribute, not a spiritual one. And "invisibility" is somewhat subjective... can you SEE gravity? can you SEE air? There is not a doubt that these things do exist, but they are "invisible" to us.
Click to expand...

How do you know God's not an invisible man? Retard.
 
Dixie said:
I wasn't addressing what you said, don't flatter yourself so much. The quote I posted was from Grind, and that was who I was speaking to. If you think God is "an invisible man" then it applies to you as well, but I don't think that accurately describes your beliefs in God. Actually, I think you and I have a very similar concept of God.

What is tiresome, is having to continually stop Atheists and correct them on this, because their minds can't comprehend anything more than the simplest concepts. The only way they can imagine a God is by applying humanistic characteristics to God, as if He were a human, a man, an invisible man in the sky! It is beyond their comprehension that God is spiritual, not of the physical world.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's just that in the most common judeo-Christian application, he is, and that's usually the God we find are self in the situation of combating. Debating other possible natures of a non-exist deity when at best we couldn't even know anything about him is really a pointless task.
 
Dixie said:
Well Damo, a lot of people use "invisible" to describe "spiritual" and a lot of people identify God as "He" indicative of "man" and I have probably used the terminology in a sentence at some point myself. The point is, what do you believe? Do you think God is an invisible human male who lives on a cloud in the sky, and has humanistic wants, needs and desires? That's a little far-fetched.

The spiritual belief in God is gender neutral, and we only refer to Him as "Him" because of societal culture, and our need to relate to the spirit in a familiar way. God is not visible for much the same reason as gravity is not visible. Gravity is not a physical entity, it is a force. You can see the effects of gravity, and if you are willing to look, you can see the effects of God. But we can't "SEE" something that isn't part of the physical world, it is not possible.

"Invisible man in the shower" is evidence someone is ignorant of the concept of God. It shows a complete lack of understanding in difference between spiritual forces and the material world. Of course, it is done facetiously, to take a sarcastic "slap" at those who are spiritual, but the deep-rooted psychology in the choice of wording is revealing.
Click to expand...

I drop a ball and it falls; gravity.

What would I have to do to incur some similar experimental evidence for God?
 
Watermark said:
And Islamics "experience god" and Christians "experience god" and Jews "experience god", yet all the gods they are "experiencing" are exclusive. It's pretty easy to find out the real answer here; it's just a common form of delusion.
Click to expand...

how?....can you safely conclude that 100% is delusion instead of only 66%?.....
 
Watermark said:
You're trying to play stupid semantic games and pretend that the only form of atheism that can possibly exist is strong atheism, when I doubt there's a strong atheist alive. It's stupid and annoying.
Click to expand...
pretending there is something called "strong atheism" is a stupid semantic game.....it's merely cover for people who are afraid to admit what they really believe....
 
Watermark said:
I am incapable of praying in a serious fashion. To pray in a serious fashion would mean I would have to believe; so it's circular logic.
Click to expand...

No, it just means you are incapable of understanding God, so you should shut up.

You asked what you could do to observe the effects of God as you would to observe the effects of gravity, and I told you how. The fact that you aren't willing to attempt it, or don't have the desire to attempt it, doesn't mean the way wasn't articulated. If you told me to drop something to demonstrate the force of gravity, and I told you I was unwilling to drop something, does that prove gravity doesn't exist, or that I am a moron?
 
Dixie said:
No, it just means you are incapable of understanding God, so you should shut up.
Click to expand...

This is another special pleading.

Dixie said:
You asked what you could do to observe the effects of God as you would to observe the effects of gravity, and I told you how. The fact that you aren't willing to attempt it, or don't have the desire to attempt it, doesn't mean the way wasn't articulated.
Click to expand...


You told me to do something that requires circular logic; I'd have to believe in God to prove the existence of God. It's logically invalid.

Dixie said:
If you told me to drop something to demonstrate the force of gravity, and I told you I was unwilling to drop something, does that prove gravity doesn't exist, or that I am a moron?
Click to expand...

What you told me to do is more akin to telling me that if I want to prove the existence of gravity I have to believe in it already.

Praying seriously requires BELIEF in the existence God. It's not a valid experiment.
 
Imagine if science was as easy as religion.

I come up with a theory of everything one day, and I tell my fellow physicist. He asks me to come up with an experiment to prove the validity of the theory, and I say that in order to prove it he has to believe in it already.

The I lose my job.
 
Watermark said:
This is another special pleading.
Click to expand...

What is it with this "special pleading" bullshit? NO, it's NOT a "special pleading" ...it is me making a 'plea' to a 'special' person maybe! There is nothing IN what I said that is a special pleading, it is common fucking sense... If you don't understand or comprehend something, it is just best all around if you shut the fuck up! Nothing special about that!

You told me to do something that requires circular logic; I'd have to believe in God to prove the existence of God. It's logically invalid.
Click to expand...

Do I have to believe in gravity to prove it exists? What if I refute gravity and refuse to do any experiment which would prove it? Would that be avoiding circular logic? I don't believe in gravity, so there is nothing I can do to prove to myself it exists! That's really SMART, moron! That makes a TON of sense! There is NOTHING circular about the logic, it is the EXACT same logic one would use to "prove" any number of things! The thing is, you don't want to do the test, you claim you aren't capable. So be it! That doesn't prove there isn't a test, that doesn't prove there isn't something one can do to 'prove' to themselves the evidence of God. You've simply closed your mind to that possibility and refuse to examine it further!

What you told me to do is more akin to telling me that if I want to prove the existence of gravity I have to believe in it already.
Click to expand...

No, if you want to believe in gravity, you can do something to prove its existence, if you don't want to believe in gravity, nothing you can do will EVER prove it! I could claim that invisible fairies tug and pull things to Earth which would otherwise float away into space! Can you prove that I am wrong? Can any gravity experiment you demonstrate, prove me wrong? I've already drawn a conclusion on what I think is responsible for things falling to Earth, and it isn't what you call gravity, and nothing you can ever show me will ever convince me otherwise... am I right or am I ignorant? I'll let you decide for yourself!

Praying seriously requires BELIEF in the existence God. It's not a valid experiment.
Click to expand...

Gravity requires belief that something causes things to fall to Earth! It's just as valid!
 
Dixie said:
What is it with this "special pleading" bullshit? NO, it's NOT a "special pleading" ...it is me making a 'plea' to a 'special' person maybe! There is nothing IN what I said that is a special pleading, it is common fucking sense... If you don't understand or comprehend something, it is just best all around if you shut the fuck up! Nothing special about that!
Click to expand...


Any claim that your belief is "beyond human/your/anyones understanding" is a special pleading. I can defend any claim on such grounds, as Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage" illustrates. That's why its a fallacy.



Dixie said:
Do I have to believe in gravity to prove it exists? What if I refute gravity and refuse to do any experiment which would prove it? Would that be avoiding circular logic? I don't believe in gravity, so there is nothing I can do to prove to myself it exists! That's really SMART, moron! That makes a TON of sense! There is NOTHING circular about the logic, it is the EXACT same logic one would use to "prove" any number of things! The thing is, you don't want to do the test, you claim you aren't capable. So be it! That doesn't prove there isn't a test, that doesn't prove there isn't something one can do to 'prove' to themselves the evidence of God. You've simply closed your mind to that possibility and refuse to examine it further!
Click to expand...

To pray seriously to God you need to believe in him. But the purpose of the experiment is supposed to be to show that he exists so that I can believe in him. The experiment presupposes the conclusion.

Dixie said:
No, if you want to believe in gravity, you can do something to prove its existence, if you don't want to believe in gravity, nothing you can do will EVER prove it! I could claim that invisible fairies tug and pull things to Earth which would otherwise float away into space! Can you prove that I am wrong? Can any gravity experiment you demonstrate, prove me wrong? I've already drawn a conclusion on what I think is responsible for things falling to Earth, and it isn't what you call gravity, and nothing you can ever show me will ever convince me otherwise... am I right or am I ignorant? I'll let you decide for yourself!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the subject. Your just curtailing off into some tangeant about the philosophy of knowledge and science. I don't care to discuss it with you. Any experiment which requires you to accept that the results will be positive in order for it to work is automatically invalid.

Dixie said:
Gravity requires belief that something causes things to fall to Earth! It's just as valid!
Click to expand...

No, it is not. Dropping the ball and letting it hit the floor doesn't require me to accept beforehand that dropping the ball will make it hit the floor.
 
Watermark said:
No, Damo, I've known about agnostic atheism for quite a long time now.



You're trying to play stupid semantic games and pretend that the only form of atheism that can possibly exist is strong atheism, when I doubt there's a strong atheist alive. It's stupid and annoying.
Click to expand...
Right. That was why you spent several hundred posts totally ignoring the phrase because you knew it meant I was correct. "Quite some time" means since you posted it in the hopes it would make us stop laughing.

:D

This is fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top