MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: Do You Believe In A "God"? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-19-2015 03:36 PM
KingSlayer
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

I believe in the Gods
and Satan as creator of humanity
but not in any monotheistic creator of the universe
so in this sense , i'm an Atheist
09-30-2014 10:32 PM
Fatima
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

No. I'm ignostic.
04-29-2014 06:35 PM
BauerAlmeida
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Violation View Post
It goes the other way too, if universe could come out of nothing, why not God
For starters, we know the universe exists. Not god.
04-27-2014 05:10 PM
underspin
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by selyoink View Post
Minor, inconvenient details.
That's because it's an application of logic to something people don't believe can be explained by human logic. I find that a somewhat incomplete and insufficient explanation but I don't think it's inherently hypocritical.
04-27-2014 04:59 PM
Time Violation
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida View Post
I love how some think the universe can't come out of nothing but believe God came out of nothing.....
It goes the other way too, if universe could come out of nothing, why not God
04-27-2014 02:14 PM
selyoink
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida View Post
I love how some think the universe can't come out of nothing but believe God came out of nothing.....
Minor, inconvenient details.
04-27-2014 04:10 AM
BauerAlmeida
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

I love how some think the universe can't come out of nothing but believe God came out of nothing.....
04-25-2014 08:06 PM
Litotes
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjau! View Post
I will mark you down as agnostic.
Perhaps you have other definitions for the words. I found these in the dictionary.


atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
- fits me perfectly


ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs′tĭk)
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. - doesn't fit as well, since a God is a human attempt to explain the unexplainable I am convinced there isn't one.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. - same thing

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. - I am not in doubt in this matter
04-25-2014 06:52 PM
Mjau!
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

I will mark you down as agnostic.
04-25-2014 04:01 PM
Litotes
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjau! View Post
Atheists have a biased way of thinking about this matter. If a deist assumes a guiding intelligence behind the creation of the universe and its laws and holds a non-materialistic view of consciousness, they protest. "Can't prove a negative", "no evidence" etc. But atheists believe the accidental-universe-out-of-nothing-with-no-purpose must be considered true until proven wrong. Why is this so much more rational? Why must it be the default position? It is in fact a hypothesis that makes assumptions about the very nature and origins of consciousness and the universe. Assumptions that are not based in scientific evidence. So my question is; what makes one hypothesis that's lacking in evidence the only reasonable hypothesis? Is the most reductionist explanation necessarily the most likely to be true? If no one knew what lightning was and I said; "lightning has no cause" would scientists be forced to accept this until proven wrong, because any other explanation would have to include speculative causes that cannot yet be proven?
You don't know a lot ot atheists, I see.

I for one don't assume an accidental-universe-out-of-nothing. I assume nothing. Why should I? There is simply no point. Having a theory about how it all started is pointless to me since the odds of proving it are so infinitesimal. Better use your mental strength in areas where you're more likely to get a result. I can state with conviction that I believe every theory launched by humans is wrong, simply because I'm convinced the Universe is too complicated for us to be capable of understanding. Only logical position then is to have no theory at all. I thus regard those having a theory, any theory, as being mistaken. But it's an honest mistake. I know why it is being made. It is just man rationalizing things he can't understand because such things appear frightening. I don't mind there being things I don't know and will never get an answer to, but I know that places me in the minority.
04-25-2014 03:19 PM
Mjau!
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotion View Post
It is better to believe what evidence suggests than what would give life meaning. I'd rather be right than blissfully ignorant.

The first four statements are true for the most part (though the laws of nature aren't arbitrary, they are just the inherent nature of the universe) if nihilistic. But to claim there is no evidence for them is nonsense. Life as we know it exists by anything but coincidence- the forms best suited to life are those that still exist. Life in its original state may have been "coincidence" to the degree that everything is, but recent evidence shows wasn't all that unlikely over the course of billions of years. As for consciousness, well, I suppose it is merely a manifestation of the type of reasoning that made us best equipped for survival. That isn't the same as being accidental.

But these are all assertions very much backed by evidence. Unlike religion, which is based on faith alone and has unchanging dogma, an evidence-grounded system of beliefs allows one to live in accordance with their own values, and to adjust their beliefs to accommodate for an evolving world. Nihilism is a beautiful thing if you look at it correctly.
Oh, really?

What is the evidence that the universe is an accident that appeared out of nothing, for no reason and with no purpose?

What is the evidence that the laws of nature appeared out of nothing, for no reason and with no purpose?

What is the evidence that the universe allows for the emergence of life by coincidence, for no reason and with no purpose?

What is the evidence that the universe allows for the emergence of consciousness by coincidence, for no reason and without purpose?

What is consciousness?

Quote:
Life as we know it exists by anything but coincidence- the forms best suited to life are those that still exist. Life in its original state may have been "coincidence" to the degree that everything is, but recent evidence shows wasn't all that unlikely over the course of billions of years. As for consciousness, well, I suppose it is merely a manifestation of the type of reasoning that made us best equipped for survival. That isn't the same as being accidental.
Fundamental misunderstanding of the issue on display here.

The nature of the universe is conducive to the emergence of conscious lifeforms, at least on one planet. In that sense, the emergence of life might not be a coincidence and the evolution of life is not a coincidence. However, atheists believe it is indeed a coincidence, devoid of purpose that the universe is conducive to the emergence of conscious lifeforms. Thus, life is a coincidence according to the atheistic worldview.
04-25-2014 03:03 PM
Mjau!
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Atheists have a biased way of thinking about this matter. If a deist assumes a guiding intelligence behind the creation of the universe and its laws and holds a non-materialistic view of consciousness, they protest. "Can't prove a negative", "no evidence" etc. But atheists believe the accidental-universe-out-of-nothing-with-no-purpose must be considered true until proven wrong. Why is this so much more rational? Why must it be the default position? It is in fact a hypothesis that makes assumptions about the very nature and origins of consciousness and the universe. Assumptions that are not based in scientific evidence. So my question is; what makes one hypothesis that's lacking in evidence the only reasonable hypothesis? Is the most reductionist explanation necessarily the most likely to be true? If no one knew what lightning was and I said; "lightning has no cause" would scientists be forced to accept this until proven wrong, because any other explanation would have to include speculative causes that cannot yet be proven?
04-25-2014 04:39 AM
blueclay
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

I believe in good, she has couple of big knockers, hair long all the way down to waistline and shaven... oh dont let me start again..
04-25-2014 01:47 AM
emotion
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjau! View Post
The universe is an accident that appeared out of nothing, for no reason and with no purpose.
The laws of nature appeared out of nothing, with no cause, for no reason and with no purpose.
Life emerged from dead matter by coincidence, for no reason and with no purpose.
Consciousness is merely an emergent property of the biological brain and a coincidence without purpose.

All of the above are assumptions, not backed by scientific evidence. Scientists do not know why the laws of nature exist or how they came into existence. Scientists don't know why the universe exists or how it came into existence. They don't know why it allows for the emergence of life, of conscious lifeforms, and they certainly do not know what consciousness is. Materialism is an assumption. It's all we can calculate and measure, so we assume it's all that exists.
It is better to believe what evidence suggests than what would give life meaning. I'd rather be right than blissfully ignorant.

The first four statements are true for the most part (though the laws of nature aren't arbitrary, they are just the inherent nature of the universe) if nihilistic. But to claim there is no evidence for them is nonsense. Life as we know it exists by anything but coincidence- the forms best suited to life are those that still exist. Life in its original state may have been "coincidence" to the degree that everything is, but recent evidence shows wasn't all that unlikely over the course of billions of years. As for consciousness, well, I suppose it is merely a manifestation of the type of reasoning that made us best equipped for survival. That isn't the same as being accidental.

But these are all assertions very much backed by evidence. Unlike religion, which is based on faith alone and has unchanging dogma, an evidence-grounded system of beliefs allows one to live in accordance with their own values, and to adjust their beliefs to accommodate for an evolving world. Nihilism is a beautiful thing if you look at it correctly.
04-25-2014 01:31 AM
Htom Sirveaux
Re: Do You Believe In A "God"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjau! View Post
The universe is an accident that appeared out of nothing, for no reason and with no purpose.
The laws of nature appeared out of nothing, with no cause, for no reason and with no purpose.
Life emerged from dead matter by coincidence, for no reason and with no purpose.
Consciousness is merely an emergent property of the biological brain and a coincidence without purpose.

All of the above are assumptions, not backed by scientific evidence. Scientists do not know why the laws of nature exist or how they came into existence. Scientists don't know why the universe exists or how it came into existence. They don't know why it allows for the emergence of life, of conscious lifeforms, and they certainly do not know what consciousness is. Materialism is an assumption. It's all we can calculate and measure, so we assume it's all that exists.
To jump from all that to 'there must be a god or gods' is quite a leap. A rational and open-minded atheist could agree with everything you said in your second paragraph and simply respond that more research/observation will reveal more scientific truths and that there may well be a god or gods behind everything but it's impossible to know without them revealing themselves and thus a purely speculative hypothesis or, to be less charitable, a very creative fiction. This is basically negative atheism and it makes no unsubstantiated claims.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome