Looking for atheist friends to co-op with for OB

"

Epicurwin wrote:

"

zeto wrote:

"

Epicurwin wrote:

The belief that god doesn't exist and the lack of a belief in a god are two different things. One is a claim the other is a disbelief of a claim.

All I see are equivalent commutative semantics. Despite the word order being different there is no functional difference.

belief
god
~
exist

~
belief
god
(exist)

positive belief in false
negative belief in true

Lack of belief is not a belief. There is a difference.

I edited my post above, but overall I disagree, given knowledge of both.

Lack of belief implies not knowing about a topic... once you know, you form an opinion whether you want to or not. Once you are aware, you either positively believe a claim or negatively... there is no going back to having no belief at all.

"

oBLACKIECHANo wrote:

If you actually knew what logic was, and how to use it, you would see that what you just said is absolutely wrong, and stupid. Logic does not point towards a creator of any kind. Logic points towards quantum fluctuations. But you obviously don't even know the difference between an electron and a gluon, so explaining such things would be a waste of time. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the earth was 6000yr old and fossils were created by satan.


But in the end, we will never truly know. Because we can confirm quantum fluctuations, but then we ask why those exist, and why the thing that causes them to exist, exists, and so on and so on, infinitely. The same goes for a God. What created God? What created it? Again, infinitely asking the same question. But as I said, a "god" would have no reason to create the universe, and so he wouldn't.

Somebody sounds a little cranky. Some kind of a creator for the universe is very logical. Many atheists point towards aliens to explain away creation. That's still a creator/creators. You think the idea of some kind of a creator is stupid but when asked how we got here all we get are vague theories. My statement was that at this point in time a creator is logical. Maybe some day it will be far less logical than it is now, but right now it is.

Try not to be insulting next time. It doesn't help out your points at all. No one wants to listen to someone who sounds really douchey.

This thread has the potential to go way down hill. Grats om 20 pages with no lock,

"

zeto wrote:

"

Epicurwin wrote:

The belief that god doesn't exist and the lack of a belief in a god are two different things. One is a claim the other is a disbelief of a claim.

All I see are equivalent commutative semantics. Despite the word order being different there is no functional difference.

belief
god
~
exist

~
belief
god
(exist)

positive belief in false
negative belief in true

If you are assuming the progenitor to be theist, then perhaps your semantic makes sense, but I don't think that's the case, theist and atheist are two sides of the same coin, created at the same time as binary inverses.

What I'm getting from this is that you believe that "lack in a belief in god" and "belief that god doesn't exist" are equal. That is simply not true. Someone can say that I lack a belief in a god but believe that it is possible. You cannot say that I believe that god doesn't exist and that it is possible that he does.

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

oBLACKIECHANo wrote:

If you actually knew what logic was, and how to use it, you would see that what you just said is absolutely wrong, and stupid. Logic does not point towards a creator of any kind. Logic points towards quantum fluctuations. But you obviously don't even know the difference between an electron and a gluon, so explaining such things would be a waste of time. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the earth was 6000yr old and fossils were created by satan.


But in the end, we will never truly know. Because we can confirm quantum fluctuations, but then we ask why those exist, and why the thing that causes them to exist, exists, and so on and so on, infinitely. The same goes for a God. What created God? What created it? Again, infinitely asking the same question. But as I said, a "god" would have no reason to create the universe, and so he wouldn't.

Somebody sounds a little cranky. Some kind of a creator for the universe is very logical. Many atheists point towards aliens to explain away creation. That's still a creator/creators. You think the idea of some kind of a creator is stupid but when asked how we got here all we get are vague theories. My statement was that at this point in time a creator is logical. Maybe some day it will be far less logical than it is now, but right now it is.

Try not to be insulting next time. It doesn't help out your points at all. No one wants to listen to someone who sounds really douchey.

Nobody says aliens created the universe. And like I said, a creator is completely illogical, there is absolutely no reason for such a powerful being to create this universe, and without a reason to do something, why would this being do it? He could run a simulation of every single possible universe, instantly, inside his head. He would know what happens before doing it, so he wouldn't do it. And then, why is the universe so complicated? So many things could of been simplified and yet weren't, lie Atoms and the quantum world. Atoms could just be a single "thing" and many of them fit together to create things, it could really be that simple, but it isn't. Gravity could just "exist" and yet there is the higgs field. I could go on, but you get the point. This universe is too complex to be created by something that has the power to just imagine things in to existence, and there is no reason for it to do so in the first place.

And also, like I said, quantum fluctuations are the best explanation I have seen so far as to the cause of the big bang. It is supported by a lot of evidence and is completely logical.

"

Epicurwin wrote:

"

zeto wrote:

"

Epicurwin wrote:

The belief that god doesn't exist and the lack of a belief in a god are two different things. One is a claim the other is a disbelief of a claim.

All I see are equivalent commutative semantics. Despite the word order being different there is no functional difference.

belief
god
~
exist

~
belief
god
(exist)

positive belief in false
negative belief in true

If you are assuming the progenitor to be theist, then perhaps your semantic makes sense, but I don't think that's the case, theist and atheist are two sides of the same coin, created at the same time as binary inverses.

What I'm getting from this is that you believe that "lack in a belief in god" and "belief that god doesn't exist" are equal. That is simply not true. Someone can say that I lack a belief in a god but believe that it is possible. You cannot say that I believe that god doesn't exist and that it is possible that he does.

The first option is incongruent; it works in English as a language construct, but not as a logical construct. You cannot believe it is possible and believe ~God... you must choose one belief on the subject out of the 3 possible logics, which is why the delineations of theist, agnostic, and atheist exist. Saying it is possible (agnostic, I don't know), but I lack a belief in the possible side, are two incongruent arguments.

God
maybe god
no god

those are the three options.

People can lean towards one side or the other from a position of maybe (agnostic), however they would have absolutely no grounds for that argument, and from a logic standpoint, it's still a maybe.

oh man a mod is here
Quick someone trap, this should provide finally after 20 pages

"

debix wrote:

oh man a mod is here
Quick someone trap, this should provide finally after 20 pages

To be fair, a wild Charan appeared on page 18 :)

YOU CANNOT PLAY THIS GAME IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE LORD.

BESTEL THE HOLY WENT MAD FOR OUR SINS, AND WITH HIS SACRIFICE HE ENSURED THAT WE WOULD FOREVER BE FREE OF CRAZY PIRATE GHOSTS, AND ENRICHES US WITH HIS BLESSED SKILL POINTS

This thread = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A