The God Delusion

[Nono]

Friends, forgive this-here miserable sinner for launching a thread on something probably already discussed in three dozen other places on this board. But yea verily I just can't be bothered sifting through all the round'n'round discussion on the matter to see where it best belongs.

As an agnostic, I view atheists as people who are convinced, as a matter of blind faith, of something they couldn't rationally be at all sure about. And, as with Bertrand Russell's sneering dismissal of the Church of England (by means of which he imagined he was somehow disproving theism), there's a note of zealotry in what I've read by Dawkins on the subject.

The biologist H. Allen Orr puts it rather nicely in this article from The NY Review of Books.

Quote by: Orr (...) One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins's book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length? The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. Its arguments are those of any bright student who has thumbed through Bertrand Russell's more popular books and who has, horrified, watched videos of holy rollers. Dawkins is obviously entitled to his views on God, ballet, and currency markets. But I doubt he feels much need to pen books on the last two topics. The reason Dawkins thinks he has something to say about God is, of course, clear: he is an evolutionary biologist. And as we all know, Darwinism had an early and noisy run-in with religion. What Dawkins never seems to consider is that this incident might have been, in an important way, local and contingent. It might, in other words, have turned out differently, at least in principle. Believers could, for instance, have uttered a collective "So what?" to evolution. Indeed some did. The angry reaction of many religious leaders to Darwinism had complex causes, involving equal parts ignorance, fear, politics, and the sheer shock of the new. The point is that it's far from certain that there is an ineluctable conflict between the acceptance of evolutionary mechanism and the belief that, as William James putit, "the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe." Instead, we and Dawkins might simply be living through the reverberations of an interesting, but not especially fundamental, bit of Victorian history. If so, evolutionary biology would enjoy no particularly exalted pulpit from which to preach about religion. (...)

Rest here.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Nono As an agnostic, I view atheists as people who are convinced, as a matter of blind faith, of something they couldn't rationally be at all sure about.

First, thank you for being a real agnostic. Agnosticism is NOT without beliefs, it is the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

As an atheist, I don't accept the current attempts at placing a god in our universe. Whether it be logically contradicting or psychologically suspicious.

And thus, it seems your statement "as a matter of blind faith" is already false. It is not faith, as it depends on evidence, and it is not blind, because there is evidence against the existence of the gods currently presented. Also, please don't confuse evidence as proof.. I'm aware there is no proof against the existence of gods.

Quote by: Orr One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins's book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length?

There's a wonderful interview that answers this question.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on his book "The God Delusion"

[Kamehameha34]

First, thank you for being a real agnostic. Agnosticism is NOT without beliefs, it is the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

I doubt you'll find an agnostic on the board who says otherwise.

And thus, it seems your statement "as a matter of blind faith" is already false. It is not faith, as it depends on evidence...

1. Such as?
2. Is it logically valid evidence? (No ad ignorantium)

[Nono]

Yes, Lullaby, seems to me the matter is truly unknowable. Anything that you (or I) might accept as "evidence" would be so heavily dependent on our point of view as to be objectively worthless.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I doubt you'll find an agnostic on the board who says otherwise.

lawls, you. Remember that conversation we had? You're so afraid of having a belief you went from agnostic to unpracticing agnostic, to some other crap, and you still didn't fit.

This also isn't the place to debate what agnosticism is. Let's not continue my comment into a discussion, please.

Quote by: Kamehamea34 1. Such as? 2. Is it logically valid evidence? (No ad ignorantium)

You're asking for evidence against the existence of god?

Our world does not match up with the existence of a god who is described in the Bible.

The Bible itself is contradicting.

Injustice of absolute punishment and rewards.

Religion seems to be a huge part of human attempts to explain the world, hence the greek gods, and there is no reason to believe more recent religions have suddenly found the answer.

There is evidence against the existence of Jesus, and Jesus is fundamental to Christianity and the existence of God is only convincing if Christianity is true. Else, the Bible is a book of lies (more than we all already know) and should not taken seriously.

The sheer number of religions (over 200) is suspicious.

Many holy books are curiously similar to the particular region they were written. This includes many barbaric traditions and it is suspicious that a perfect god would have such disgusting morals.

The problem of evil and the contradicting qualities of God.

Our world is slowly being explained by intelligent people with state-of-the-art tools, resources, and equipment, and not once have these explanations been agreeably a god.

I could go on and on..

Please, please, please make sure you understand that evidence is not the same as proof.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Nono Yes, Lullaby, seems to me the matter is truly unknowable. Anything that you (or I) might accept as "evidence" would be so heavily dependent on our point of view as to be objectively worthless.

Makes sense. I tend to think that "knowing" requires proof, and not just evidence. But atheists don't "know" that there are no gods so much as they simply believe there is more evidence against the existence of god than for. A scientist doesn't "know" that the Big Bang Theory is true, he just believes the evidence for the Big Bang is greater than against. Faith isn't concerned with evidence, whether or not the theist believes there is more faith for a god than against. Faith does not change for evidence while simple belief does. Hence, theists are often rewarded for believing unquestionably, or having faith.

[Mozart1220]

I can take science all the way to the "big bang", then it get's murky. I leave the options open for a "prime mover" but the Biblical version is a bit too "human" for me. My version of God would have no problem using the Big Bang to create the universe, and would be fine with evolution. but I wouold think He'd have a bit of a problem with war in His name and the destruction of the environment He created for us.

But that contradicts the Republican version of God so I guess I'm just a liberal whacko.

[Alive]

I'm wondering, how many self-proclaimed atheists have you met who have claimed that it is possible to disprove the existance of god? Does Dawkins himself ever make that claim?

What is the obsession of internet debators (and I guess real life debators too) over the topics of "proof" (or knowledge) vs. "faith"?

It has been shown many times that "proof" is impossible, as a concept. So of course it is not possible to "prove" "atheism", or "disprove" the existance of god.

So what? Who disagrees?

I think most activist atheists are at least partially conscious of the fact that they are not just promoting "the truth" but rather a certain worldview. Perhaps it should be called the scientific worldview or the rationalist worldview or the evidence-based worldview. In this worldview, something is not believed unless there is evidence for it, and what qualifies as evidence is defined by the worldview itself.

How do you judge between the evidence-based worldview and other worldviews if none of them can be proven or disproven?

Well, I haven't read Dawkins, but I've read enough discussions of him that I think I know his basic argument--religious-based worldviews are harmful to people. He is making a moral argument against religion, not merely a proof-based argument.

One way to judge between worldviews is to examine what they have brought to the world and compare. Choose the one whose results you like best.

Religion=religious wars, sexual repression, little scientific advancement
Science=technology to improve life, predictions that work a whole lot better than prophecy, rationalism

Of course, the problem with this method is that you can't judge results of worldviews without using the worldview you already have. One might also put the results like this:

Religion=peace, joy, morality
Science=disturbing theories, disrupting tech change, nihlism

Still, it's as good a method as any. It is not possible for any two groups of people to actually argue against each other unless they can find a common ground of belief to argue on. "Proof" is obviously not this common ground, since the evidence-based worldview admits that proof is impossible and the religious worldviews don't say "proof" as necessary. Morality is the common ground. Most people have certain common beliefs of how the world "should" look, how people "should" act, what people "should" believe. Dawkins and the pope agree, murder is wrong, making other people happy is usually good, war is bad (unless justified by a greater wrong.) That's where theists and atheists fight--over which ideology best matches the common morality. Not proof.

[Kamehameha34]

lawls, you. Remember that conversation we had? You're so afraid of having a belief you went from agnostic to unpracticing agnostic, to some other crap, and you still didn't fit.

Forgetting your own qualifiers?

And I quote yourself:

Agnosticism is.. the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

You're asking for evidence against the existence of god? Our world does not match up with the existence of a god who is described in the Bible.

Nor does science agree with the existence of flying, pink elephants. That doesn't mean that elephants don't exist.

..the existence of God is only convincing if Christianity is true..

Sure, and Jesse Jackson is the emperor of black people. :rolleyes:

Please, please, please make sure you understand that evidence is not the same as proof.

Don't patronize me.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Forgetting your own qualifiers?

Don't be so vague. How does what you later typed relate to that conversation we had way back yonder?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Nor does science agree with the existence of flying, pink elephants. That doesn't mean that elephants don't exist.

Man, I THOUGHT I stressed this enough.. but sure enough someone seems oblivious.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence.. is not.. the same.. as proof.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Sure, and Jesse Jackson is the emperor of black people. :rolleyes:

Firstly, I love South Park too

Secondly, Christianity is one part of religion. If you're an atheist, you MUST deny the Christian god as well. I happen to have reasons against the Christian God, and I kindly gave some to you, as requested. Don't be so gosh darn needy and stop making hole for you to pile this shit into. I never once even hinted that if I have evidence against the Christian god, I have evidence against all gods. Don't be silly.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Don't patronize me.

lawls, obviously it still didn't work. You should have taken my words into consideration instead of feeling like I'm automatically attacking you. And what do you know.. you type up a post that is oblivious to

Me- Please, please, please make sure you understand that evidence is not the same as proof.

When you typed..

You- Nor does science agree with the existence of flying, pink elephants. That doesn't mean that elephants don't exist.

Sorry if you feel I was patronizing, but apparently I need to be more clear.

[Yarn]

I'm wondering, how many self-proclaimed atheists have you met who have claimed that it is possible to disprove the existance of god?

A few.

Does Dawkins himself ever make that claim?

No. He admits there is a tiny chance of him existing, a very tiny chance. He uses the intelligent design arguement against god, proclaiming that its more unlikely that god could just come out of being then the universe as it is.

It has been shown many times that "proof" is impossible, as a concept. So of course it is not possible to "prove" "atheism", or "disprove" the existance of god.

Not to the acceptance of most.

I think most activist atheists are at least partially conscious of the fact that they are not just promoting "the truth" but rather a certain worldview. Perhaps it should be called the scientific worldview or the rationalist worldview or the evidence-based worldview. In this worldview, something is not believed unless there is evidence for it, and what qualifies as evidence is defined by the worldview itself.

Thst worldview is the one most of us hold most for most things.

How do you judge between the evidence-based worldview and other worldviews if none of them can be proven or disproven?

Most people share the same worldview for how to find reality who care to debate in a religious forum. Where axioms are shared arguement via reason can ensue.

Religion=religious wars, sexual repression, little scientific advancement
Science=technology to improve life, predictions that work a whole lot better than prophecy, rationalism

Religion=peace, joy, morality
Science=disturbing theories, disrupting tech change, nihlism

Humanism is in my opinion superior to Religion morally speaking, as it is the persuance merely of the greatest possible human good, whereas religion claims natural things which hurt no one can be wrong. Religion can be a vehicle for promotion of compassion and such, but it is the not the only vehicle which can.

Maybe it influences the world net positively maybe not.

I don't personally prescribe to religion, because i'm fairly certain its wrong. Mortality does bug me though, so perhaps I should get "faith", but to which religion? A big one would be nice for the community aspect of it (a church nearby I could go to), but the Christian god is evil. Most popular gods are evil it would seem, sending the mass majority of man to hell for ignorance.

[arielmessenger]

"Religion=religious wars, sexual repression, little scientific advancement
Science=technology to improve life, predictions that work a whole lot better than prophecy, rationalism"

Or

Religion= religious wars, sexual repression, little scientific advancement
Science= technology to improve life, technology to improve warfare so vastly more people get killed, technology that is causing Global Warming, predictions? Like Global Warming? It was prediction of cooling earth not too many years ago. Rationalism, like as practiced by the French Republicans like Robespiere and Marat?

"Rationalists" in power is no guarantee of benevolence for humanity.

And really, those of you who still believe theology and religious belief is bound to books written by fallible men, well, the world has changed you know and so too has "faith" in religious texts.

More and more, gnosis or "knowledge of God" is the final criteria of lasting belief and gnosis never was bound to any one man's or group of men's particular belief system. "No man can tell another what to do" goes the Cheyenne wisdom. With Gnosis it is the same concept; no one on earth can tell another how to believe. Each must establish their own unique spiritual relationship with God for that contact to be authentically one's own.

Why believe in a supernatural being called "God"? Why do you believe in your own existence? In the end it is the same act of "faith" that creates the illusion of independent existence.

[Kamehameha34]

Don't be so vague. How does what you later typed relate to that conversation we had way back yonder?

Read the underlined text.

Also, I fit the definition for non-practicing agnostic perfectly. To say otherwise was ridiculous, arbitrary, and baseless.

Man, I THOUGHT I stressed this enough.. but sure enough someone seems oblivious. Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence.. is not.. the same.. as proof.

That's completely unrelated to the analogy. Are you saying that the inexistence of flying, pink elephants constitutes proof against elephants as a species?

Secondly, Christianity is one part of religion. If you're an atheist, you MUST deny the Christian god as well. I happen to have reasons against the Christian God, and I kindly gave some to you, as requested.

If someone asked you if you had evidence against something being in a box, would you say "well I know there isn't a horse in it"?

The Christian god is one of an infinite amount of possibilities.

Don't be so gosh darn needy and stop making hole for you to pile this shit into*. I never once even hinted that if I have evidence against the Christian god, I have evidence against all gods. Don't be silly.

You at least "hinted" at it.

*Abhu?

Quote by: Lull And thus, it seems your statement "as a matter of blind faith" is already false. It is not faith, as it depends on evidence...

You are talking about atheism, here. As in, the disbelief of the existence of any god. Saying that the disbelief of all gods is substantiated with evidence, citing evidence against the Christian god is a strong "hint" that you think the two are logically consequent.

lawls, obviously it still didn't work. You should have taken my words into consideration instead of feeling like I'm automatically attacking you. And what do you know.. you type up a post that is oblivious to Me- Please, please, please make sure you understand that evidence is not the same as proof. When you typed.. You- Nor does science agree with the existence of flying, pink elephants. That doesn't mean that elephants don't exist. Sorry if you feel I was patronizing, but apparently I need to be more clear.

You're demonstrating ignorance, and twice in the same rant -.-

1) You fail to realize the point of the analogy.
2) You seem to have the impression that I don't know the difference between proof and evidence.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Read the underlined text.

I have. You STILL haven't explained what the sentence:

Forgetting your own qualifiers?

has to do with

Agnosticism is.. the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

So just suck it up and explain.. that's all anyone can ever ask of you.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Also, I fit the definition for non-practicing agnostic perfectly. To say otherwise was ridiculous, arbitrary, and baseless.

When I had that conversation with you, you denied that agnosticm had ANY beliefs whatsoever. When I confronted that silliness, you took a step back.. to "non-practicing agnosticism" and linked me to a small wiki on it..

the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), and that it's meaningless to care.

You demanded that you were a non-practicing agnostic, but denied carrying any beliefs with that banner at the same time.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's completely unrelated to the analogy. Are you saying that the inexistence of flying, pink elephants constitutes proof against elephants as a species?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If someone asked you if you had evidence against something being in a box, would you say "well I know there isn't a horse in it"? The Christian god is one of an infinite amount of possibilities.

Not at all, and I'm very annoyed that you keep thinking these wild things. Just because I'm presenting evidence against one god doesn't mean I'm presenting evidence against all gods. I also said.. Christianity is one part of religion. If you're an atheist, you MUST deny the Christian god as well. I happen to have reasons against the Christian God, and I kindly gave some to you, as requested. Don't be so gosh darn needy and stop making hole for you to pile this shit into. I never once even hinted that if I have evidence against the Christian god, I have evidence against all gods. Don't be silly.

So PLEASE make sure you just read the above, because it's just not cool to repeat yourself and ignore what your opponent says.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You are talking about atheism, here. As in, the disbelief of the existence of any god. Saying that the disbelief of all gods is substantiated with evidence, citing evidence against the Christian god is a strong "hint" that you think the two are logically consequent.

Disbelief of the existence of any god. Right.

That doesn't mean you can start making up gods and because I don't know of these gods you're about to make up, doesn't mean I'm not qualified as an atheist. Don't be silleh.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're demonstrating ignorance, and twice in the same rant -.- 1) You fail to realize the point of the analogy.

Yes, I know the analogy. What you don't understand is that what you're saying is wrong. You're getting the wrong message and poking holes for you shit again. ^^

Quote by: Kamehameha34 2) You seem to have the impression that I don't know the difference between proof and evidence.

Maybe if you understood the difference, you wouldn't need to poke holes.

[Alive]

Quote by: yarn Most people share the same worldview for how to find reality who care to debate in a religious forum. Where axioms are shared arguement via reason can ensue.

Really? I have definitely not found that to be the case. In my experience, it is extremely rare that arguments between theists and atheists end in one or the other side admitting its wrongness. Granted, it is oversimplistic to say that theists and atheists can't argue through a common basis of reason. Obviously logic in a certain common form does get played on by both "sides." But why doesn't the argument that is more logical win over the members of the argument that is less logical?

There are two possible reasons:
1. The less logical side just does not understand that it is being illogical
2. Logic is not what the arguments are really based on.

In my observation, #2 is the more common occurance, though #1 appears a lot as well. This is because almost all arguments between theists and atheists fall under #2 whereas just most of them fall under #1.

That is, it is not true that "most people share the same worldview for how to find reality." People interpret data in different ways, especially in areas of metaphysics. And to go further, no one interpretation is "provably" better than any other interpretation. This is because proof attempts are themselves interpretive, and therefore proving a method of interpretation is necessarily circular.

Now it is worth asking: If theists and atheists are going to fight for superiority, will they argue in "moral" terms or in "rational" terms? By moral, I do not mean what you seem to mean by moral when you state that humanism is more moral than religion. I mean: Which of atheism and theism is more morally utilitarian? Would the world be better off if everyone was an atheist or theist?

I think all atheist-theist "arguments"--that is, discussions where both sides are debating on a common ground and not just speaking past each other--are moral arguments. Moreover, I think atheists and theist activists basically understand this and therefore tend to argue in these terms when trying to convince the other side to switch over. Both sides say: Believe in a/theism because it is better to believe in a/theism, not because it is more likely true.

Even arguments which are explicitely about "truth" tend to have implicit moral components. Saying there is no evidence to believe in god, therefore you should not believe in god, contains the moral argument that one should not believe in that which a person has no evidence for (a good way to detect moral arguments is the presence of the word "should"). I think an intelligent theist could be convinced to agree that there is no data that an atheist activist would classify as valid evidence for the existance of god. The disagreement would be over whether it is "right" to believe that which lacks such evidence. No way to prove this logically. But you can offer moral arguments; i.e, believing in an all-knowing god will make you less likely to commit evil acts (stating implicitely that it is worth believing in god regardless of whether he truly exists). Or, believing in an all-knowing god will make you more susceptible for criticizing others for acts you consider evil but which actually are not (again stating implicitely that it is worth not believing in god regardless of whether he truly exists.)

[Kamehameha34]

So just suck it up and explain.. that's all anyone can ever ask of you.

"Suck it up and explain"? That's what you say when you fail to comprehend a rather simplistic analogy? Your compounding of the two makes you seem a little blunt.

"Unknowable at this point" means that, with current evidence, or lack thereof, the question of a god is unknown. That has nothing to do with future evidence or faith. What did you take "at this point" to mean? That we'd invent some new form of reasoning with which to construe static evidence?

you denied that agnosticm had ANY beliefs whatsoever

Faith and belief are two different things. Belief is logically consequent to faith, but faith doesn't always follow belief.

You demanded that you were a non-practicing agnostic, but denied carrying any beliefs with that banner at the same time.

Sheesh.. were you in the same conversation?

Quote where I say that I believe that there IS proof for or against god, or where I say it's meaningFUL to care.

Just because I'm presenting evidence against one god doesn't mean I'm presenting evidence against all gods.

I asked for evidence against the 'creator of the universe' - not a god defined into impossibility.

Disbelief of the existence of any god. Right. That doesn't mean you can start making up gods and because I don't know of these gods you're about to make up, doesn't mean I'm not qualified as an atheist. Don't be silleh.

All potential gods share one thing in common - that they created the universe. Exclusive atheism, by definition, proposes that no gods could exist - and therefore, that no beings could have created the universe. Any other variances with each god are irrelevant to the atheistic position.

Yes, I know the analogy. What you don't understand is that what you're saying is wrong. You're getting the wrong message and poking holes for you shit again. ^^

You didn't demonstrate knowledge of the analogy.

And please stop poking holes for me shit again.

Maybe if you understood the difference, you wouldn't need to poke holes.

Was telling you not enough of a clue that I did know the difference, or are you just out to be a counterproductive to discussion?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "Suck it up and explain"? That's what you say when you fail to comprehend a rather simplistic analogy? Your compounding of the two makes you seem a little blunt.

You haven't drawn connections beetween
Forgetting your own qualifiers?
-and-
Agnosticism is.. the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.
to your analogy. You can whine about it all you want, but until then, I'm waiting.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Faith and belief are two different things. Belief is logically consequent to faith, but faith doesn't always follow belief.

That's nice. Yet, your standards in that thread made just about everything a matter of faith.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Sheesh.. were you in the same conversation?

It's funny, you were in denial about this EVEN in that thread. ^^

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Quote where I say that I believe that there IS proof for or against god, or where I say it's meaningFUL to care.

Actually, Kame, you're mistakened again. I did not say you ever said any of those things. So why would you want me to quote them? :] Please read what I said. Thanks.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I asked for evidence against the 'creator of the universe' - not a god defined into impossibility.

lawls, no you didn't. You said THIS..

1. Such as?
2. Is it logically valid evidence? (No ad ignorantium)

When I said I am an atheist because of evidence. EVERY god, including the Christian god, must be denied. I gave you a small portion of the evidence for atheism, and all you've done is have a bizarre pissy fit which is getting old.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 All potential gods share one thing in common - that they created the universe.

That doesn't define a god. That, by itself, defines nature. It becomes a god if it is given qualities, consciousness, and morals (in most cases). Like I said, I'm not going to give you evidence against every possible way you can make up a god.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Exclusive atheism, by definition, proposes that no gods could exist - and therefore, that no beings could have created the universe. Any other variances with each god are irrelevant to the atheistic position.

I don't know what other gods you're talking about.

Like any intellectual, theories must have evidence in the first place in order to even acknowledge them as theories.

Do you wish to present me another god theory? Cause you haven't, dear.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And please stop poking holes for me shit again.

lawls.. what does that mean?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Was telling you not enough of a clue that I did know the difference, or are you just out to be a counterproductive to discussion?

Kame, all you've done here is whine (like in most threads you participate in). I have no idea why you're even here. Do you even HAVE a point?

[Kamehameha34]

You haven't drawn connections beetween Forgetting your own qualifiers? -and- Agnosticism is.. the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

Now I can't do anything if you choose to ignore the text right under what you choose to quote.

Now, I could simply type "you still haven't answered the rest of my points", or I could address what you answered them with. One saves me a couple minutes, while the other remains in concurrence with the objectives here at volconvo.

That's nice. Yet, your standards in that thread made just about everything a matter of faith.

Standards being .. evidence?

That's all I asked for, to grant your belief "non-faith" status. You provided no evidence against the existence of all potential gods.

lawls, no you didn't. You said THIS.. 1. Such as? 2. Is it logically valid evidence? (No ad ignorantium) When I said I am an atheist because of evidence. EVERY god, including the Christian god, must be denied. I gave you a small portion of the evidence for atheism, and all you've done is have a bizarre pissy fit which is getting old.

You said I didn't just ask for evidence, then quoted me asking for evidence. That was very intelligent.

Seriousness aside, to deny every god and not consider it a faith, you'll have to come up for evidence against the actual concept. What you've disproven are the little variances attached to the Christian god - none of which actually relate to the "god" part of it.

That doesn't define a god. That, by itself, defines nature. It becomes a god if it is given qualities, consciousness, and morals (in most cases).

No, it's a god as soon as it creates the universe. I'll give you consciousness, but morals and qualities have nothing to do with it.

Like I said, I'm not going to give you evidence against every possible way you can make up a god.

Because you don't have it? If you don't, then you hold a faith.

I don't know what other gods you're talking about.

Any being that could have created our universe, and has consciousness. That's the definition for "god".

Like any intellectual, theories must have evidence in the first place in order to even acknowledge them as theories.

I don't have to take a theist position in order for you to deconstruct any god I propose, if you have the evidence.

And yes, I would need to provide evidence for the gods I propose to be taken seriously, but I'm not a theist. I'm an agnostic, and you're an atheist. Don't pigeon hole me into a completely seperate category so you can dodge.

Do you wish to present me another god theory? Cause you haven't, dear.

That's really irrelevant. You're an atheist, and by definition, you have disbelief in any god. God means 'creator of the universe'. Anything that fits that description is something that you don't believe in.

If you feel that the above description is innacurate, then you have a double standard for knowledge, or you mischaracterized your beliefs.

lawls.. what does that mean?

I don't know. Stop saying it.

Kame, all you've done here is whine (like in most threads you participate in). I have no idea why you're even here. Do you even HAVE a point?

You suck at life! Go eat shit! Your points are pussies! Why are you alive!? Go die!

:rolleyes: