Lex wrote:
Oh but I forgot how useful religion can be.

Lex wrote:

So why should I believe in this entity? Even if it did exist?

Landlady wrote:
people secretly do feel discontent towards their god, especially during hardships.

180 Proof wrote:
"What can be asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason"

moonlight wrote:


No it can't. If I assert that Jupiter has 63 natural satellites, without any reason, it does not mean that you can discard the claim without reason. You may in fact find the claim to be justifiable by reason.

Religious people claim that the sentence "there is a God" is a valid sentence. Atheists rush to claim the opposite: that it is invalid. Both positions are ridiculous. The facts we know imply that the sentence is merely satisfiable: neither valid, nor invalid. It is impossible to either prove, or disprove the sentence therefore.

Extremists from both camps argue to the contrary.

Cordially,
moonlight.

moonlight wrote:
Hi Lex,

My example is not at all inappropriate. You seem to be missing something: the assumption about Jupiter's satellites can be easily verified today. But that wasn't the case 3000 years ago in ancient Greece. Still someone could have made the same claim then, without any evidence, and it would have been pretty ridiculous to say "this claim was reached without reason, therefore it may be dismissed the same way: let's declare it to be false!".

Moreover, saying that "nobody would make such an assumption out of thin air" is not true. It is merely possible. Just like the opposite is also possible.

By the way, since you don't like me picking on your phrasing, then allow me to pick on your capitalizing: your use of capital letters seems to indicate anger. So once again: why are you putting yourself through this? Don't think that I'm trying to undermine your argument by this: you're OP's reasoning is already contradictory so you've done a good job at that on your own.

Take care,
moonlight.

dwilljo wrote:
hey so from your original post

"I say that I can be a better person than any christian or other theist without believing in a deity"

You are correct in saying that, but I have a feeling you don't quite understand what you are saying, so forgive me if I am wrong here...

The idea of being a better or worse person is a religious idea - as people measure up morally to what God lays out the criteria of "betterness" (I am assuming you mean morality). While you may indeed display christian morality better than christians, then yes according to their rules you could be better.

However, given your anti-theist position it appears that you think you can be a better person without religious guidelines. This seems like an oxymoron, as without the religious guidelines it would be impossible to apply "betterness" on a wide scale. Yet, you are correct in saying that you can be better, but according to your own criteria. But I think it's important for anyone to examine the effect of society on their criteria. According to that idea, where anyone can make up criteria for good, anyone could say they are better than you based on their own criteria. So you would be right from your side and I could be right from mine. In the end, there is no all encompassing better to you or, in my opinion, atheists.

Mortalfool wrote:
Lex, I decided to post this article of mine for your consideration.

FIFTY-FIFTY PROPOSITION IN CONSIDERATION OF ATHEISM

Being unable to negate the subjective experiences of my spiritual quest, I find it impossible to rise to any higher conclusion than the following: from my perspective it’s fifty fifty.

It may well be that God, if he exists, when making his plan for man, decided all that could be known of him, was an understanding that God-ness has a fifty-fifty chance of being.

If there is a God who is using planning above our understanding, he allowed in his plan, the freedom to develop logical conclusions based on our ability to reason. Reason makes demand that both sides of any argument be considered and argued equally, especially when it concerns the Godhead; to learn the difference between good and evil; right and wrong; God or no God!

Common sense allows that both sides can be argued equally well. Influences caused by the limiting factors of individual subjectivity, make us try to present arguments for or against God, as though one side held more than 50 percent of the evidence, when in fact, it is impossible to gain evidence that would outweigh either side. It is only when subjectivity replaces reason that we fall short of understanding. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, it becomes just as unreasonable to conclude that there is no God, as to conclude there is. Argument either way, can amount to no more then an exercise between egos! Our Ego, unfortunately, represents the part of us that does not require evidence when presenting what it calls ‘sound doctrine’. Reason alone, creates no unbalance with the status quo [50/50]. It is when our inherent ignorance is bolstered by our ego’s insistence that we can mistakenly accept mere opinion as evidence.

My premise implies that no one person or group knows any more about God than another. When a man teaches another what he knows about God, he tries only too more deeply convince himself. There can be no superiority among men when it comes to knowing about God’s existence, except that which the ignorance in others allows. Any claim to Godly understanding that is based on ‘blind faith’ amounts to no more than embellishments added to hopes imaginings.

This means that the least you can learn about God is equal to the sum of what all others have learned, the highest product of reasoning that can exist without evidence. Acceptance of this gives us the ability to set aside our subjectivity and weigh our conclusions tempered with sound consideration, acknowledging wisdom does truly begin and end with admitted ignorance.

It remains then; if a man reaches the highest state of learning, me assuming that to be man’s purpose, it will be to the crux that comes into view when a man knows both the lack of evidence concerning God, and Hope, on which all faiths are based. The definition of Hope outlines the full human containment of God’s potential. We can ascend to no higher a conclusion than the middle line that separates that which is known and, that which may be God-ness. Having weighed that which is known, and that which is not known, a man’s faith will have the purity of being based solely on Hope, a faith that is founded on the humility that shines before all that we don’t know. This allows man to express his faith, in a life that shows benefit from what he does not know! His faith exists in a life that contains both humility and confidence!

Lest someone should say that fifty-fifty is being lukewarm in one’s faith, the ‘fifty-fifty view’ is no less devout to the existence of God, than those who allow the excesses of Ego that cause them to preen in their faith. An avowed Atheist will also find himself in the same position, if, ignoring the equal lack of evidence concerning ‘no God’, he bounds in his belief to excess, likewise making claim to knowledge that exists beyond his sphere of learning. He [the Atheist] negates the human spirit of hope in exchange for nothing.

Hope adds to life its own germination. Allowed to grow in a world that has no God-ness [evidenced] of its own, it forms in a man the expression of Good, made manifest and seen, thereby creating a witness as from a Godlike influence!

The strength of ones hope/faith determines whether a person accepts death carrying a boldness formed in the transcendental fires of hope; or, there is nothing! In which case, the boldness so prepared, neither helps nor hinders; unless, you count it of value that a person lives as though worthy of having a God, with them being representative of the only Godliness to exist, human goodness!