Post by yorutenchi on Jan 24, 2013 23:44:06 GMT -5
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Or as many atheist say It is the answer to the question of "is there a god". It is the negative rather than positive claim.
Is there sufficent evidence for anyone to truely say with confidence there is no god? thus rendering agnostic the only "logical" choice for atheist. Or is the idea of god so farfetched that without any proof it would be illogical to assume anything other than Atheism.
State your cases.
EDIT:
To be more specific the thread topic is this. "Is it more logical to be Atheistic or theistic? Atheists believe that logically there is no reason to believe in god. However theist often make the case that it requires a leap of faith to say "there is no god""
Debate which side of this topic you support. Or don't support but wish to debate on.
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2013 3:26:21 GMT -5 by yorutenchi
You know your Crazy when a rapter flies in through your windo. Because rapters can't fly.
retros scientific theory on god: time. what is time? simply a concept used to distnguised our location in the universe. nothing more. imagine if you will a world where everything happens at once. a world where yesterday has no distinguisment from today, and tomorro is just another word for now. what do you see? you see but a simple point. a flash if you were. boom. done. its over. deal with it. it was there, now its not. but wait. that isnt the end, now is it? you clearly watched the universe being painted. you saw every detail unfold as though it was a movie, didnt you?
that is because you were around to see it be painted. you were there to see the world spin. you felt the movement of the wind in your hair, and procssed it into an idea. you kept that idea with you up untill now, and all of those ideas you kept with you reflect your vision of the world. and when your gon, will that idea simply dissapear? will your perspective simply dissapear from existance? well ill put it like this.
nothing in this universe is ever destroyed. all it can ever truely be is broken down to its smallest elemants. now follow me. if yur spirit is nothing but an amalgimation of ideas procssed over the span of your life, i propos that like everything els in the universe, your spirit must follow the rules of physics. never truely destroyed, but broken down and reassembled eventually.
now, going off of the idea that souls are like matter or energy, what would be the space inbetween these flickers of light? what would the tiny sparks of broken down spirit floating in vastnss? to me, thats god.
Interesting persepctive. To play the devil's advocate I"ll bring up a few points.
The idea that there is a "soul" is rooted very strongly in the superstitious and faith held. The idea that the electrical signals in our brains that come together to create "thought" can be interpreted as a "soul" but is that what it is really?
Electrical energy can be used and focused in many ways. It exists in nature as it does in our very biology. To a degree the idea of a soul and electricity must go hand in hand if one states that a soul is physically here.
You know your Crazy when a rapter flies in through your windo. Because rapters can't fly.
energy is just another form of matter, is it not? so if i was making the argument that a soul is like the millions upon trillion of electrical signals not just coursing through your brain, but your entire body, whouldnt that technically make the soul a tangible substance?
also, as long as were going this way, id like to point out that a persons heart. long assosciated with the human spirit, is able to produce its own electrical siganl. also, in most heart transplant patients, it is noticed that the person who recieved the heart begins to take on traits of the person who donated their hart. like food intrests, mostly. but still, coincidence?
to a degree. What causes it to be a soul? And if so then are souls no more than batteries? Batteries create electrical signals that flow out of the battery. The electrical energy is transfered elsewhere.
IF you want to make the argument that a soul is simply the energy within each person at a time then I suppose you could go that route but its far from what someone could call a "soul" in the traditional sense. And what define's god? Is it an actual god or are you calling the residual energy of the universe "god". Again one could go that route but only after understanding that you are letting go of all traditional definitions of "god" and actually taking a more atheistic point of view.
You know your Crazy when a rapter flies in through your windo. Because rapters can't fly.
bleh. tradition is for racists. i find that in order to truely understand anything, you must understand that the only constant is change. remember, the idea of a"traditional" god was always a way for man to interprate the creation of everything. everything has a beginning and an end. really, to give up the notion of "beggining" and "end" is to give up the very fundimentals of tradition itself.
really, my theory goes beyond "explinaton", it falls more under the catagory of observation. i observe a gigantic, wonderful, perpetual machine that was set here by something. to us, the machine itself is god, as it is our creator. but then beyond that something even further compex that created the machine that created us. and so on and so on.
i remember i once shocked religion class when divinity inspired me to utter a beautiful phrase. god is niether a man, nor a woman. we call him father because to us, that is as close as we can ever truely come to understanding his true face.
So far what you've descirbed is a sort of agnosticism or spiritual atheism. It doesn't sound very much like theism. Perhaps you can go into more depth of what you actually believe?
Also I'm going to edit the thread to give it a clearer debate subject.
You know your Crazy when a rapter flies in through your windo. Because rapters can't fly.