Why are you an atheist?

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:38 pm

Whatever you say.

.......heli pegs Hugmungi on the WGARAS......

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:44 pm

helitack wrote:Whatever you say.

.......heli pegs Hugmungi on the WGARAS......

Thanks for the bump. Again.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:56 pm

Sure, glad to do it. Hey, would you hold my camera?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:35 pm

HughMungus wrote:
bringer wrote:I just checked out the ToS, well... gave it a cursory glance to be honest, but I couldn't find any rule about posting off-topic.

Am I missing something?

"keep on topic"

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... guidelines

So now that that's out of the way, could someone please explain how you can't disprove anything yet can believe that god does not exist? That's still a big conan drum. Thanks!

OH LORD HUGH!
PRAISED BE THY NAME!
I HAVE FORSAKEN THE LOWLY ARTS OF LOGIC AND DEBATE!
INSTRUCT ME IN YOUR NOBLE ARTS OF CONAN DRUMS!
FOR THOU ART GOD, AND IN YOUR NAME LET ME STRIKE FEAR INTO THE MASSES OF HEATHEN PHILOSOPHERS!
LEAD ME NOT INTO THE TEMPTATIONS OF THE BOOK!
DELIVER ME FROM LOGIC OH LORD!*

*from logical proof that hugh is god, page 2

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:02 pm

Gotta bump ol Hugh, Maybe he will load my film next year.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:23 pm

Rob the Wop wrote:CONAN DRUMS!

:P

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:22 pm

No Helitack Hugh as already promised to follow me around this year he is going to be my photo caddy!

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:45 pm

Rockdad wrote:No Helitack Hugh as already promised to follow me around this year he is going to be my photo caddy!

I just wanted to follow you around so I could pretend I have a friend. :(

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:21 am

OK. Now I`m heading right into the vortex of the *

HughMungus wrote: I just want to know how someone could be an atheist if god's existence cannot be disproven.

I don`t think you will find a suitable answer for this, nor are you really looking for an answer.
maybe you are going somewhere with this. . .
...slowly, methodically driving this riveting discussion to
some fantastic conclusion; much like Socrates steered his students
with questions, and then questioning the questions...
(until he got whacked for being a pain in the ass)
so to question a question:

How can someone believe in god if his existence can`t be proven?

oh let me answer it:

It`s a personal choice.
We choose to.
Choice works for all kinds of things.
We choose steak over hot-dogs.
We choose what we wear, what we drive, who we give good head to....
....the choices on this plane of existence are practically limitless...SO...

Why not choose to believe in something that is un-provable?...

...or decide not to believe in something that can`t be disproven?

....and polish it off with a hamburger and a lap dance?

....because it`s your choice?

Does that answer the question?

I didn`t think so....

and if you`d hop out of the box for a bit,
you`d see that I was spot-on Topic with my remarks about the physics
of this discussion....vortex/abyss/black hole...etc...

You created it. I am only commenting on what`s left.

......plus everyone talking shit about evil ....
Evil this...good is better.....
blame it on evil....

....YOU give evil a bad name.

but that`s a choice too.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:53 am

I guess being an atheist takes the same leap of faith that being a theist requires -- believing in something that can't be proven. I guess people are more comfortable living in the black or white worlds of one or the other. Shrug.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:09 am

HughMungus wrote:I guess being an atheist takes the same leap of faith that being a theist requires -- believing in something that can't be proven. I guess people are more comfortable living in the black or white worlds of one or the other. Shrug.

Nope. But you will never understand as you don't believe in learning, since actual knowledge would hurt your 'case'.

Remember, ignorance is nothing more than not knowing a subject, and therefore excusable.

Stupidity is turning your back on knowledge, especially when you are trying to argue a point without the knowledge required.

If you want to ever understand what many on this thread have already stated ad naseum, you will have to learn the basics of logic. Nothing that has been stated here has not been stated repeatedly by scholars for thousands of years.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:50 am

Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:I guess being an atheist takes the same leap of faith that being a theist requires -- believing in something that can't be proven. I guess people are more comfortable living in the black or white worlds of one or the other. Shrug.
Nope. But you will never understand as you don't believe in learning, since actual knowledge would hurt your 'case'.

Remember, ignorance is nothing more than not knowing a subject, and therefore excusable.

Stupidity is turning your back on knowledge, especially when you are trying to argue a point without the knowledge required.

If you want to ever understand what many on this thread have already stated ad naseum, you will have to learn the basics of logic. Nothing that has been stated here has not been stated repeatedly by scholars for thousands of years.

Would you at least admit that there could possibly be a god?

p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.

bringer · Post by **bringer** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:52 am

HughMungus wrote:Would you at least admit that there could possibly be a god?

I'll admit that the likelyhood of god is the same as the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:59 am

HughMungus wrote:I guess being an atheist takes the same leap of faith that being a theist requires -- believing in something that can't be proven. I guess people are more comfortable living in the black or white worlds of one or the other. Shrug.

Yep. I was going to use the Faith word too, but "choice" was less vague. Faith is a fascinating topic,(although I won`t start a topic...and I`m crazy for posting in this thread)
Faith...a totally illogical human concept, so hard to define or prove but a very real, powerful human tool with so many interesting twists; telekinesis, ESP, telepathy, health and well-being...................just what do you believe? And what do you question?
Could people handle a topic like that?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:01 am

HughMungus wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:I guess being an atheist takes the same leap of faith that being a theist requires -- believing in something that can't be proven. I guess people are more comfortable living in the black or white worlds of one or the other. Shrug.
Nope. But you will never understand as you don't believe in learning, since actual knowledge would hurt your 'case'.

Remember, ignorance is nothing more than not knowing a subject, and therefore excusable.

Stupidity is turning your back on knowledge, especially when you are trying to argue a point without the knowledge required.

If you want to ever understand what many on this thread have already stated ad naseum, you will have to learn the basics of logic. Nothing that has been stated here has not been stated repeatedly by scholars for thousands of years.
Would you at least admit that there could possibly be a god?

p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.

Once again, your questions were answered a long time ago. You apparently are the only one unable to see this.

Read book.
Reread thread.

mojo · Post by **mojo** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:02 am

Can you prove or disprove the existence of love?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:03 am

HughMungus wrote:p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.

Oh, and look up the word ignorant. It's not an insult. Stupid, yes- ignorant no. I figured you wouldn't understand that either.

bringer · Post by **bringer** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:06 am

mojo wrote:Can you prove or disprove the existence of love?

Love is a feeling.
My atheism relies more on measurable facts (or the lack of them).
Besides, love can be shown in brain scans. It can be disproven. You can point to where its supposed to be and see if its there.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:09 am

Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.
Oh, and look up the word ignorant. It's not an insult. Stupid, yes- ignorant no. I figured you wouldn't understand that either.

My god you really think very highly of yourself don't you? Does it make you feel smart to think that everybody else is stupid?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:10 am

bringer wrote:
mojo wrote:Can you prove or disprove the existence of love?

Love is a feeling.
My atheism relies more on measurable facts (or the lack of them).
Besides, love can be shown in brain scans. It can be disproven. You can point to where its supposed to be and see if its there.

Love is also a subjective term. Different people and different cultures experience 'love' in different forms. As a concept, no- since it can have an infinite number of meanings. As an individual experience, absolutley.

mojo · Post by **mojo** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:11 am

So, if God (to me) is love, and love is measureable on a brain scan, then the existence of God is measurable and therefore proven.

You cannot suggest that God needs to be the same in the minds of everyone claiming to believe in his existence. Love is not the same to everyone experiencing it.

I think you will find VERY few who claim they believe in the big guy sitting in a golden throne in the clouds.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:11 am

Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote: Nope. But you will never understand as you don't believe in learning, since actual knowledge would hurt your 'case'.

Remember, ignorance is nothing more than not knowing a subject, and therefore excusable.

Stupidity is turning your back on knowledge, especially when you are trying to argue a point without the knowledge required.

If you want to ever understand what many on this thread have already stated ad naseum, you will have to learn the basics of logic. Nothing that has been stated here has not been stated repeatedly by scholars for thousands of years.
Would you at least admit that there could possibly be a god?

p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.
Once again, your questions were answered a long time ago. You apparently are the only one unable to see this.

Read book.
Reread thread.

Which page?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:11 am

HughMungus wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.
Oh, and look up the word ignorant. It's not an insult. Stupid, yes- ignorant no. I figured you wouldn't understand that either.
My god you really think very highly of yourself don't you? Does it make you feel smart to think that everybody else is stupid?

Where did I say everyone else is stupid?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:12 am

HughMungus wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote: Would you at least admit that there could possibly be a god?

p.s. You refuse to answer my questions and yet you say that I'm ignorant. Hm.
Once again, your questions were answered a long time ago. You apparently are the only one unable to see this.

Read book.
Reread thread.
Which page?

Read book.
Reread thread.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:13 am

bringer wrote:
mojo wrote:Can you prove or disprove the existence of love?

Love is a feeling.
My atheism relies more on measurable facts (or the lack of them).
Besides, love can be shown in brain scans. It can be disproven. You can point to where its supposed to be and see if its there.

So because something hasn't been detected, it does not, in fact, exist?

That's another question that was never answered.

bringer · Post by **bringer** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:15 am

mojo wrote:So, if God (to me) is love, and love is measureable on a brain scan, then the existence of God is measurable and therefore proven.

Of course. I already agreed with Hugh that if you decide to rename you pet cat "god", then god could exist.
But divinity, thats different.
You can redefine god until the cows come home, but athiesm denies divinity.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:15 am

mojo wrote:You cannot suggest that God needs to be the same in the minds of everyone claiming to believe in his existence.

This was my point, also -- that you can't use one narrow definition of god's nature to disprove god's existence. Funny that those who think they are so much more logical are doing exactly that to prove their point.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:15 am

Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote: Oh, and look up the word ignorant. It's not an insult. Stupid, yes- ignorant no. I figured you wouldn't understand that either.
My god you really think very highly of yourself don't you? Does it make you feel smart to think that everybody else is stupid?
Where did I say everyone else is stupid?

You think I don't know what "ignorant" means. You must think very highly of yourself and very little of others. No wonder you can't admit that you might be wrong.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:17 am

Rob the Wop wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote: Once again, your questions were answered a long time ago. You apparently are the only one unable to see this.

Read book.
Reread thread.
Which page?
Read book.
Reread thread.

Instead of re-posting that, why don't you just re-post the answer to my question? You can't because the question was never answered here and you can't admit that god might, in fact, exist.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:18 am

mojo wrote:So, if God (to me) is love, and love is measureable on a brain scan, then the existence of God is measurable and therefore proven.

You cannot suggest that God needs to be the same in the minds of everyone claiming to believe in his existence. Love is not the same to everyone experiencing it.

I think you will find VERY few who claim they believe in the big guy sitting in a golden throne in the clouds.

Ah, the meanings game. If I define a rock as God, then prove that the rock exists- it means God exists.

a) If A is B
b) B is proven
c) then A is proven

Logical, but I can attack the premise A. Do you have omnipotent powers when you are in love? Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not love.