Villain

No evidence can ever be produced to those that believe that a god doesn't exist, so surely you jest. Edited for spelling

1. In terms of science your conclusion is correct. But to the religious their god is not described in science, they have chosen to believe in the texts that were written by witnesses or as you might refer to them as 'witnesses'. There is evidence just not scientific evidence but then historical written evidence of singular events wouldn't be considered scientific either. The individual would have to assign credibility to the evidence and question whether belief in such evidence was warranted. In your example, your belief in the evidence of Poseidon or Mothra is nil. I think that giving faith the same value for all concepts that don't have conclusive evidence is rather silly, but you seem to do so when you compare the tooth fairy and someone's belief in a god. If I cannot infer motivation how can you infer that you know what others believe? 2. If a god cannot exist, then you will never find a god. You have to allow your mind to understand that a god might exist, then ask how a god might present themselves and then ask what motivations a god might have and then read texts and actively try to understand them as if it was a god talking through them, but you will never get this far if you want science to present you with evidence first. If you don't want to find god don't expect them to present themselves. Religion is not something that you can stumble into half-heartedly and expect to be spoon-fed. Thinking that a god should have to convince you is rather arrogant. If you know for sure that there is no god then don't bother but we have already dismissed this. 3. Harry Potter is irrelevant to me, he never claimed to create the universe or myself and therefore there is little reason to think that he might be god. Your over simplification is rather insulting towards your intellect. 4. The comment was toward the video you posted in #183. Motivation is the only logical reason that I think of as to why 'People who believe in god are broken' is still being discussed when you have already admitted that there is no evidence to suggest that god doesn't exist. How can someone be broken to believe that something might exist if it might exist? 5. Sorry, edited post to avoid confusion.

What do you mean by 'bad'?

@ iNow At best your conclusion can be: there is no scientific evidence for or against the possibility of a god and therefore we don't know. Don't make the mistake of making a positive assertion because there is a lack of evidence otherwise. History has provided numerous examples of the mistake of such an assertion, the world being flat is one of them. The concept of a god, exists and has a reality, perhaps not the reality that you are suggesting that it should but that is your reality and things exist outside of your reality. There is no positive evidence that a god doesn't exist but there is plenty of texts that suggest a god does exist, perhaps the default should be that god does exist then? You also keep confusing religion and politics, something that I have pointed out numerous times, in fact it seems the entire motivation (here I go assigning motivation again) seems a political one. As a scientist I would think that you would not make such an elementary (get it) mistake. @seriously disabled I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that because we find ourselves in the reality we live it proves that God doesn't exist? How would a perfect reality look? Like Jesus, or are you suggesting a different way? Edited for quote clarity.

Might I suggest that the title of the thread get changed to Team America:World Police so that the ROW doesn't get confused by thinking that it is about belief in God. It might as well get moved to the Politics section and perhaps a sister thread can attack race groups and cultures that hold moral codes that might influence politics.

What is the point of posting a Youtube link with: 'This amplifies some of my own points', if we are not suppose to try figure out what your 'points' are? I apologise for not taking your point of view, I didn't know it was posted in some form of brain wash attempt. Perhaps you could highlight the aspects that I should listen to and then I can sit with my hands over my ears for the rest. Is it the terrible injustice of circumcision part? Or that religion tells people when to jerk-off part? Or is there some other trivial point that I'm suppose to concentrate on?

The first one and a half minutes also do nothing to promote him as an intellect, they mostly just show him to be obnoxious. What else am I suppose to take from this? Perhaps this particular video is not a very good choice, there might be a better one (of him) to get your point across. If you would like me to point out the part that suggests my previous post I will watch it again and do so, just ask.

What is there rationale behind this 'trip' if not to conceive or orgasm (the word orgasm is used to convey pleasure from sexual activity in case you are only talking about it only in the very heightened end of pleasure, I apologise if this was not clear). Perhaps I am the only one that thinks rational thought excludes emotion, if that's not the case then my argument is largely flawed.

I think anything mentioned in the quotes or posts in probably fair game. The thread was just made in order to avoid derailing the one from which it came. The horny aspect can be dealt with otherwise, sex itself is not the only way to relief or enjoying someone's company. With regards to female orgasm, I think oral sex or masturbation are probably more efficient in this regard.

Are you really under the impression that humans are rational beings? Don't get me wrong, we are capable of rational thought but are not rational. If many couples don't want children, not having sex would be the rational answer, contraceptives are not 100% effective (no matter how close they might come) and therefore the rational thing to do to avoid a child is to abstain from sex. If rational thought is free of emotion, why would rational thought promote pleasure which is a form of emotion? People might have their own reasons for sex but it is not a rational act. Much like eating to live is rational, eating cake (even in moderation) because you like it, is not rational. Suggesting that religious leaders are trying to keep women pregnant and homebound is also completely irrational. Firstly the Abrahamic religions all have a no sex before marriage rule (not sure how you can get pregnant by abstaining), secondly not all Abrahamic denominations are against contraception and thirdly how long do modern working mothers really spend at home with their children? I think it is safe to say that the average paid maternity leave is probably 2-3 months. As far as I am aware religions don't prescribe the working patterns of mothers with children.

After watching the Tribute to Hitchens video posted earlier on in the thread, I can't help but think that his motivation is based on not wanting to bow down to anything and his reasons follow. One might say that a religious following is based in the emotional side of a human being but I have yet to come across a person who does not ultimately refer to emotion when disagreeing to religion.

Response to #121 & #124 My link

A discussion started in the People who believe in God are broken thread which I think is probably off topic, so I have started a new thread. I will try to highlight the relevant posts but I suggest you read that thread to get a better understanding. Response, Villain: Response, imatfaal: Response, Villain*: Response to Villain*, imatfaal: Ecoli response to Villain* comment: My response to the above two comments is as follows: The primary function of sex in my mind is reproduction and the by-product is pleasure. No one is denying that sex is pleasurable, but to think of a baby as a undesirable hardship or risk in the attainment of pleasure is by no means rational, this is the act of creating life and the pleasure that is attained from it cannot compare to the life and responsibility to that life.

It might not be your opinion but that doesn't automatically make it a falsehood. I don't think there is much rational thought in having sex for pleasure, I think if we were completely rational beings sex would be for reproduction only. So where exactly does the rational argument begin?

Perhaps you would be better served by bringing up the problems of democracy. If the majority disagree with abortion or whatever else might be on the cards then it's probably going to get banned. Most countries ban recreational drugs as well and I'm sure some people are upset about it. Using the easy target of religion is a very weak argument in this regard. Vote or take up a political position if you want to change or keep legislation. Attacking someone's morals is not the best way of changing their mind IMO. What does your study of human psychology have to say about the essay that you wrote to my one line question? Why do you feel the need to motivate your position to me or others?

Let's get to the real point, regardless of what people say, God either exists or doesn't and in that decision, like in most things that are of importance, we are left to our own devices. The real question perhaps, is why you have an incessant need for people to agree with you on this subject? Seems to me that you are not totally convinced of your own opinion.

If we continue, in this line of thought we might ask what is happening to the Ego (in the Freudian term, concious mind in more modern terms) when such a substance is taken. My initial thought would be that it would be suppressed. The concious mind is fully set in what we call 'reality', lets call it the material world, in the sense of what is appealing to our five senses. If God was to communicate with us the concious mind might block this communication as 'crazy'. We could also have access to knowledge that was within us but not available directly to the concious mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everyone should get high, but I don't think that dismissing the outcome of such an experience is completely warranted either. There is a movie in which one of the characters says: 'Your'e not yourself today', to which they reply: 'How am I not myself?'. Say it a few times and ask yourself the question. Can you ever not be yourself? Then how much does my concious mind stop me from knowing? Perhaps we can ask 'How is my personality limiting my access to truth or knowledge?' and this can work both ways i.e. for religious and non-religious. Don't let your personality decide what is considered truth and don't let it limit you either. If you don't hold your personal ideals in the concious mind, the information can be accessed before it is consider as truth or false. If you read something with the idea of 'this is not true', then you will never access the truth of the information being presented. This might sound like obvious advice but how many of us can honestly say that we don't bring in a bias when reading the opposing opinion? Edited for spelling and punctuation

In reference to Moontanman post #435: I think one of the biggest problems with 'by accident' reasoning is that it lacks a web of sorts. The web that I am talking about in this case is something that would provide intelligent motivation, intelligent in the brain sense of the human body. The human brain is the centre that controls the body, without it the arms don't move and no food (fuel) is taken in etc. and then the question of 'why did cells end up forming an animal/human/plant etc., what made them decide to work together, why don't they just go it alone?'. How does one get from elements to personality or a functioning being? By accident is almost impossible to comprehend IMO, not impossible completely though. # 438: The world that we live in is a commercial world, there are people who will use anything possible to make money and benefit themselves. As far as I can tell Christianity is probably the most relevant to you in this regard, the Christian Bible however has Jesus telling His disciples to leave their material possessions and follow Him, there are many other passages that confirm letting go of material possessions. My point is that those that are using Christianity to enrich themselves are not practising the religion but using it as a mask. It is not the religion's fault but the individual that is masquerading falsely behind the religion. Confusing or transferring people's actions to God is a mistake.

I don't really think of myself as a piece of shit, if that is the way others see me or themselves then so be it. Yes abstract in the sense that they are not available directly to the five senses, but not abstract as in without understanding or availability to the mind.

Yes, I think it is well within everyone's grasp to understand that there is relative order and stability in our universe, something that is needed for life to be sustained. The randomness of such order existing would quite easily be interpreted by the human mind to be controlled in some way. Which might lead to something controlling it. Perhaps logic would then suggest that suggesting the universe is not controlled but purely random is not of logic. Moving from such an analogy to God seems rather obvious to me. We do know that man is not in control so looking to man as some who holds the answers would be a very flawed line of thought. Only something that claims to be not purely of this universe could ever claim to control this universe. Seriously Disabled: Only when viewing life through finite eyes would an example of a child drowning have reference, we see the child alive and now the child is dead. But if God is eternal then the child has not died but merely left earthly life as we know it. Has the death of the child had an impact on those humans that are still in this form of life, undoubtedly. But that does not mean that the act of not saving the child was bad, especially if the child is now in a better environment. It is only perceived as bad by the self which has lost a part of themselves that they had attached to the child. Moontanman: To your first comment - Are you really using shit as a metaphor for the universe and all that is in it? Second comment - I am not sure what is meant by good deeds, surely it is something that we like. I would say the correct punishment is much more of a good deed than giving children 'sweets' to stop them from having a tantrum. Love is not always perceived as good by the individual. Someone had a nice example a few posts above this one. John5746 I assume by the smiley face that you get what I'm saying. I don't think the concept of God is abstract at all, there doesn't seem to be a human alive that hasn't heard of the concept of God. How could it possibly be considered abstract? The concept of a human on the opposite side of the planet is no more abstract than the concept of God on the opposite side of a plain that includes the universe.

I will use what you have written as an example. A mother gives birth to her child, much like a animal gives birth to it's young, much like a plant sheds it's seeds and gives 'birth' to a new plant etc, etc. Why is it then such a strange concept for God to give birth to the universe? There is no need to use good deeds as evidence of creation. Instead of making oneself responsible to a possible God, it is easier for the human mind to dismiss the possibility by trying to forge abstract reasoning to liken God to ponies and fairies, much like the 'God didn't heal my wound or stop someone I knew from dying (something that happens to many people everyday I might add, it's how the world works) therefore He doesn't exist' line of thought. If you are one of the 'we just don't know' people then saying God does or doesn't exist is rather pointless, but there are many religious texts which might not meet all of sciences rules but to dismiss them as not being evidence is opinionated at best. When looking for the truth you generally have to put your own ideas of how the truth should be aside and consider all possibilities. By prescribing what God should or shouldn't be you will only find God if He is exactly what you have prescribed, which considering the limits of the human mind will more than likely fail miserably, but at least you can be a god onto yourself then.

Where do people get this 'God didn't help me so He doesn't exist' from? Are you under the impression that you were made to be served? If the universe is 13.7 billion years old,how does your life of maybe 100 years (if you're lucky) have any significance? Either there is a creator and your life has external meaning (external of your own consciousness and that creator chooses the meaning not yourself) or you came about by chance (accident is probably a better way of describing it as chances are quite slim) and your life has no meaning outside of your conciousness.

I think you might have missed the point of the post, from what I read he was questioning whether anyone has the right to pass judgement seeing as we never chose to be here and didn't make ourselves, but yet all claim that we seem to know the truth.