Do you believe God has abandoned us?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Judging from the Rick Santorum photo in your .sig, i fear what your government would support.

Mature debating.

It's a perfectly legit point. I was making the point that you apparently support a man who equated gay marriage with a man marrying a turtle. There's no other way to think of someone like Rick Santorum other than "alot of his views are ridiculous."

Do I have to elaborate on every thing i say around here?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well I'm sorry reality bites. All this really proves is you cling onto the existence of God primarily as a security blanket.

No it doesn't. Thanks for the condescension though.

It's not really condescension when a big concern for you is "Atheism isn't nice."

Apparently your reading comprehension is as non-existent as your God. My point was that Deism is no more comforting than Atheism because it basically says that you're on your own. Now drop the self righteous tone.

If i said the first part of it, I'm sure people would complain i'm not being mature. But that aside, you really didn't explain your position that clearly so i'm sorry for misunderstanding. But what you sounded like when you said it was "Atheism is depressing." That just sends the message that you look to religion for comfort, is all.

As for the self-righteous tone, read by above posts, you're all overreacting.

[Keystone Phil]

Judging from the Rick Santorum photo in your .sig, i fear what your government would support.

Mature debating.

It's a perfectly legit point. I was making the point that you apparently support a man who equated gay marriage with a man marrying a turtle. There's no other way to think of someone like Rick Santorum other than "alot of his views are ridiculous."

Do I have to elaborate on every thing i say around here?

Actually, uh, Santorum wasn't the one who made the man marrying a turtle comment but you seem pretty set in your ignorance so I won't continue this. I've had these battles enough times here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have the utmost respect for someone's beliefs as long as they don't negatively affect others, you're misunderstanding me. I would also never think lowly of someone simply of what they believe.

Moving on from this pile-up, no offense intended but "I don't need evidence to believe what i do" just sounds like a cop-out to me. It's just a bit to easy to escape the debate entirely by declaring no need to participate in it.

Could you elaborate on "Existence is more than enough confirmation i find" ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't even arguing with you on that, but if you feel the need to say I'm arguing with the wrong person (a completely different person) that's fine. I'm happy to hear the fact that alot of you, yourself included, agree that government and religion corrupt one another, and that you don't like organized religion, but the simple fact is, quite a few people don't. I never once tried to tack people into religious groups and insult you all.

This is the last time i'm going out of my way to clearly explain myself as well.

[Keystone Phil]

This is the last time i'm going out of my way to clearly explain myself as well.

Oh, you'll have a great time here with that attitude!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Judging from the Rick Santorum photo in your .sig, i fear what your government would support.

Mature debating.

It's a perfectly legit point. I was making the point that you apparently support a man who equated gay marriage with a man marrying a turtle. There's no other way to think of someone like Rick Santorum other than "alot of his views are ridiculous."

Do I have to elaborate on every thing i say around here?

Actually, uh, Santorum wasn't the one who made the man marrying a turtle comment but you seem pretty set in your ignorance so I won't continue this. I've had these battles enough times here.

It was Rick Santorum and John Cornyn who valiantly defended 'traditional marriage' together. I hardly found either disagreeing with the other. Santorum didn't make the TURTLE comment, but that doesn't mean he never compared gay marriage to beastiality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is the last time i'm going out of my way to clearly explain myself as well.

Oh, you'll have a great time here with that attitude!

Oh will you please stop it. Once again, what I MEANT WAS, I don't want to continually go out of my way to clear things up everytime one person misunderstands and takes offense. Geeze.

[Keystone Phil]

Judging from the Rick Santorum photo in your .sig, i fear what your government would support.

Mature debating.

It's a perfectly legit point. I was making the point that you apparently support a man who equated gay marriage with a man marrying a turtle. There's no other way to think of someone like Rick Santorum other than "alot of his views are ridiculous."

Do I have to elaborate on every thing i say around here?

Actually, uh, Santorum wasn't the one who made the man marrying a turtle comment but you seem pretty set in your ignorance so I won't continue this. I've had these battles enough times here.

It was Rick Santorum and John Cornyn who valiantly defended 'traditional marriage' together. I hardly found either disagreeing with the other. Santorum didn't make the TURTLE comment, but that doesn't mean he never compared gay marriage to beastiality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks, I'm well aware. That doesn't mean you can pass off Cornyn's comments as Santorum's.

This is the last time i'm going out of my way to clearly explain myself as well.

Oh, you'll have a great time here with that attitude!

Oh will you please stop it. Once again, what I MEANT WAS, I don't want to continually go out of my way to clear things up everytime one person misunderstands and takes offense. Geeze.

LOL so if someone isn't sure of what you mean, you're refusing to clarify? Again, that's a great attitude.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If people are going to ask questions about every statement I make it will grow tiresome very fast.

[Хahar 🤔]

Certainly not. Worse times have come and gone.

[tik 🪀✨]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have the utmost respect for someone's beliefs as long as they don't negatively affect others, you're misunderstanding me. I would also never think lowly of someone simply of what they believe.

Moving on from this pile-up, no offense intended but "I don't need evidence to believe what i do" just sounds like a cop-out to me. It's just a bit to easy to escape the debate entirely by declaring no need to participate in it.

I suppose it is a bit of a cop-out, but it ties into the individualism I mentioned. My beliefs are rooted in the lack of evidence towards God being an active player in personal and world affairs. It's in this respect that the debate on the existence of God becomes unanswerable/unknowable and an exercise in futility, which is why I don't participate in the normal way by taking a hard-line "God exists" or "God does not exist" because there comes a point where an individual has to decide based on their own personal experience, an area no one can call into question. "I don't need evidence to believe what i do" is a mischaracterization. That there is no real concrete evidence to believe is more accurate. I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of faith but I think it's a component.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such lies in personal experience and musings that probably mean very little to anyone but myself. I find the state of being in and of itself to be extremely consequential. It's the simple fact that there is something instead of nothing and that we are aware of it and of ourselves. This invites scoff and derision which is why I am careful to mention it's at the heart of my personal viewpoint. The fact that such faculties are set up in our bodies makes me think so. I could also touch up on the fact that ones sense of being and sense of having a physical presence are separate in the mind is also telling, but once again this is my own experience, unverifiable and anecdotal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't even arguing with you on that, but if you feel the need to say I'm arguing with the wrong person (a completely different person) that's fine. I'm happy to hear the fact that alot of you, yourself included, agree that government and religion corrupt one another, and that you don't like organized religion, but the simple fact is, quite a few people don't. I never once tried to tack people into religious groups and insult you all.

This is the last time i'm going out of my way to clearly explain myself as well.
[/quote]

Just keep in mind that while sometimes debates here can become stagnant because of repetition or pointlessness, many people here strive to keep it on a higher level than being militant or defensive. So far your "textual tone" has been as such, which is why you get strong responses. And by the way, I didn't mean arguing as in fighting.

[Gustaf]

Marokai Blue, no offence, but shut up. You may think you have a right to lecture others but you don't. You've already proven that you cannot argue logically, so quit the pretentious act of high and mighty rationality.

If you have an ounce of maturity in you, you should be able to debate these issues without denouncing the vast majority of all humanity as inferior weaklings.

I wasn't trying to lecture others, and with all due respect, there wasn't exactly a whole lot here to debate. If someone basically says atheism isn't "comforting" it's not exactly the point to end all points. There isnt a whole lot there.

And as for the "pretentious high and mighty rationality," give me a break. I wasn't trying to denounce other people as weaklings but simply saying that alot of religious people can have their judgement affected in what others might consider negative ways. Like certain people shouldnt have the same rights as others, or the environment shouldn't be taken care of because we're all going to be with God in the end.

The original topic was "Has god abandoned us." And the author said he was starting to think deism made alot of sense. If i'm not allowed to actually come on and say "God doesn't exist and deism sounds like fencesitting." then the debates around here must be pretty stale indeed.

Well, I usually expect people to know what they're talking about (i.e. not thinking deism is agnosticism), use arguments that are relevant to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks and actually debate the topic at hand instead of spouting their own views on vaguely related ones. But I have to say I somewhat pity you if you actually think that what you're doing constitutes debating. Because it doesn't.

This thread was about Deism. Until you have something relevant to say about that you should say nothing instead of putting in over-used personal attacks. 

[Gustaf]

Btw, I'm surprised at you, Tik. Even though I don't view mysef as a Deist I suspect our concepts of faith have some similarities.

As for the original topic, NDN, I think you'd have to elaborate a little. Is there anything in particular depressing about the current situation, i.e. God abandoned us NOW, or do you mean just basic deism? The whole free-will concept is the usual way of explaining how horrible things in the world do not necessarily necessitate deism but can be reconciled with more "traditional" faith. The much-ridiculed Leibnitzian doctrine of "the best of all worlds" is often, in some variety, the answer to the problem of evil, etc.

[John Dibble]

Loaded question though, there is no God.

I challenge you to prove it. Of course, if you were making the opposite claim I'd be asking you to prove that. I'm agnostic, and I'm not agnostic because I'm afraid to proclaim there is no god. My agnosticism comes from the fact that I don't have enough data about the universe to draw a conclusion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai Blue, no offence, but shut up. You may think you have a right to lecture others but you don't. You've already proven that you cannot argue logically, so quit the pretentious act of high and mighty rationality.

If you have an ounce of maturity in you, you should be able to debate these issues without denouncing the vast majority of all humanity as inferior weaklings.

I wasn't trying to lecture others, and with all due respect, there wasn't exactly a whole lot here to debate. If someone basically says atheism isn't "comforting" it's not exactly the point to end all points. There isnt a whole lot there.

And as for the "pretentious high and mighty rationality," give me a break. I wasn't trying to denounce other people as weaklings but simply saying that alot of religious people can have their judgement affected in what others might consider negative ways. Like certain people shouldnt have the same rights as others, or the environment shouldn't be taken care of because we're all going to be with God in the end.

The original topic was "Has god abandoned us." And the author said he was starting to think deism made alot of sense. If i'm not allowed to actually come on and say "God doesn't exist and deism sounds like fencesitting." then the debates around here must be pretty stale indeed.

Well, I usually expect people to know what they're talking about (i.e. not thinking deism is agnosticism), use arguments that are relevant to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks and actually debate the topic at hand instead of spouting their own views on vaguely related ones. But I have to say I somewhat pity you if you actually think that what you're doing constitutes debating. Because it doesn't.

This thread was about Deism. Until you have something relevant to say about that you should say nothing instead of putting in over-used personal attacks. 

Where in the world did I attack anybody? I said "I don't believe there is a god and deism sounds like fencesitting." I never once said Deism = Agnosticism, and as for the harsh "I pity you because you suck as a debator" thing, what is there to debate? There's barely anything to debate in this topic.

This thread was actually about "Has god abandoned us," Deism was just a topic the author presented.

You really must be sensitive to think I'm going around assaulting people.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Loaded question though, there is no God.

I challenge you to prove it. Of course, if you were making the opposite claim I'd be asking you to prove that. I'm agnostic, and I'm not agnostic because I'm afraid to proclaim there is no god. My agnosticism comes from the fact that I don't have enough data about the universe to draw a conclusion.

I later clarified my statement.  I clarified to say "There almost certainly is no God." Just as if i dribble a basketball it will "Almost certainly bounce up into my hands." Nothing is for certain here.

If you're an agnostic that is very interested in both sides of the debate you've probably heard all the arguments, but if you really want to delve into the topic you should probably create another thread, if you haven't already in the past.

[exopolitician]

This thread is dirtyyy. So all I will say is that I dont believe in god...or any kind of high powers up there *points up*. But if there is somehow a "god"....he abandoned me a loooong time ago so it doesnt matter either way.

[NDN]

As for the original topic, NDN, I think you'd have to elaborate a little. Is there anything in particular depressing about the current situation, i.e. God abandoned us NOW, or do you mean just basic deism?

Just basic deism. We've been through worse times than now.

[Alcon]

If you have an ounce of maturity in you, you should be able to debate these issues without denouncing the vast majority of all humanity as inferior weaklings.

I'm not meaning to defend someone who is being over-aggressive in debating, but I think it's pretty undeniable that most (i.e., all) of us hold irrational beliefs for our own comfort.  We actively choose ignorance and often optimism for self-sustenance.  I don't think that most people holding religious beliefs for comfort above rationality is an offensive concept, unless you decide to take it in a "you're a pussy" kind of way.

[Alcon]

Loaded question though, there is no God.

I challenge you to prove it. Of course, if you were making the opposite claim I'd be asking you to prove that. I'm agnostic, and I'm not agnostic because I'm afraid to proclaim there is no god. My agnosticism comes from the fact that I don't have enough data about the universe to draw a conclusion.

He doesn't really have to.  When I say "today is Monday" after checking my computer clock, asking someone, being relatively sure yesterday is Sunday, I haven't done a thorough investigation to assure there wasn't a conspiracy to erase a Thursday weeks ago.  I can only base my best guess on empirical evidence.  If he truly believes that the lack of God is as obvious as today being Monday is, I think it's fair to say "there is no God" even if he can't prove it in truly objective terms.  Any scientist will admit that, without omniscience, only a certain degree of certainty is possible.

[Gustaf]

If you have an ounce of maturity in you, you should be able to debate these issues without denouncing the vast majority of all humanity as inferior weaklings.

I'm not meaning to defend someone who is being over-aggressive in debating, but I think it's pretty undeniable that most (i.e., all) of us hold irrational beliefs for our own comfort.  We actively choose ignorance and often optimism for self-sustenance.  I don't think that most people holding religious beliefs for comfort above rationality is an offensive concept, unless you decide to take it in a "you're a pussy" kind of way.

That may be true, but it is a low-blow to use in a debate. What he said was that people who disagree with him simply are too cowardly to see the truth. That's a condescending view to take. The vast majority of all people in the world are religious in some way. Saying "all of those people are simply doing it for their own comfort and if they were only as rational and brave as I they would see the truth" is unbelieavably arrogant. There are many, many reasons why a person chooses to believe (or holding some other opinion for that matter) and denouncing it all as irrational searches for spiritual blankets is offensive to me. People throughout history have sacrificed their lives directly, choosing death, or indirectly toiling away in godforsaken places helping poor and downtrodden people and now some middle-class American brat calls them irrational cowards? I'm probably overreacting but it's exactly the sort of self-righteous bull that makes me angry.

[John Dibble]

Loaded question though, there is no God.

I challenge you to prove it. Of course, if you were making the opposite claim I'd be asking you to prove that. I'm agnostic, and I'm not agnostic because I'm afraid to proclaim there is no god. My agnosticism comes from the fact that I don't have enough data about the universe to draw a conclusion.

He doesn't really have to.  When I say "today is Monday" after checking my computer clock, asking someone, being relatively sure yesterday is Sunday, I haven't done a thorough investigation to assure there wasn't a conspiracy to erase a Thursday weeks ago.  I can only base my best guess on empirical evidence.  If he truly believes that the lack of God is as obvious as today being Monday is, I think it's fair to say "there is no God" even if he can't prove it in truly objective terms.  Any scientist will admit that, without omniscience, only a certain degree of certainty is possible.

To be fair Alcon, I think the statement "Today is Monday" is a bit easier to prove or disprove based on available data. Then again, "Monday" is just an arbitrary timeframe relative to others invented by humans, so if you wanted you could change when Monday occurs on a whim. (People will think you're nuts though, so I wouldn't recommend it)

Sure, you could say that you can't be absolutely sure of anything, but you can be sure enough if you've got the data. When it comes to the God question, people like to use statements like "There is a God" or "There is no God" rather than more accurate statements like "I believe there is a God" or "I believe that God does not exist". The difference is 'fact' versus faith, so when someone presents something that can't really be proven or at least isn't proven as a fact I'm inclined to ask for proof.

[Alcon]

That may be true, but it is a low-blow to use in a debate. What he said was that people who disagree with him simply are too cowardly to see the truth. That's a condescending view to take.  The vast majority of all people in the world are religious in some way. Saying "all of those people are simply doing it for their own comfort and if they were only as rational and brave as I they would see the truth" is unbelieavably arrogant.  There are many, many reasons why a person chooses to believe (or holding some other opinion for that matter) and denouncing it all as irrational searches for spiritual blankets is offensive to me. People throughout history have sacrificed their lives directly, choosing death, or indirectly toiling away in godforsaken places helping poor and downtrodden people and now some middle-class American brat calls them irrational cowards? I'm probably overreacting but it's exactly the sort of self-righteous bull that makes me angry.

Some would say that it's condescending to have unquestioning religious faith, because you are assuming everyone else is deluded.

Agnosticism is the only truly humble system of belief!  Convert!  Convert!

You are entitled to feel offended, I guess.  Frankly I've never had someone explain to me faith in terms that made sense to me.  Belief, yes.  So sometimes it's tempting to dismiss faith in the same way you're dismissing atheism.  And you've said yourself how common and ingrained in our history theism is.  Like it or not, Christians are effectively the theological equivalent of "some middle-class American [white!] brat" - in control, with a history of complacency about it, culturally dominant (at least in America), and with such a majority that they're effectively impervious to even name-calling crap.  That sucks when you're representing Christianity as an individual, but he probably sees it as not even a chink in the armor of the religion as a whole.

Some people would much rather martyr themselves for something they believe than live a rationally depressed life.  Just look at cults.  I'm not suggesting that Christianity is a cult, nor that choosing a less painful perception of reality is inherently "cowardice."  I'm just trying to point out the un-dickish version of the argument Marokai is corrupting.

[Alcon]

To be fair Alcon, I think the statement "Today is Monday" is a bit easier to prove or disprove based on available data. Then again, "Monday" is just an arbitrary timeframe relative to others invented by humans, so if you wanted you could change when Monday occurs on a whim. (People will think you're nuts though, so I wouldn't recommend it)

Sure, you could say that you can't be absolutely sure of anything, but you can be sure enough if you've got the data. When it comes to the God question, people like to use statements like "There is a God" or "There is no God" rather than more accurate statements like "I believe there is a God" or "I believe that God does not exist". The difference is 'fact' versus faith, so when someone presents something that can't really be proven or at least isn't proven as a fact I'm inclined to ask for proof.

Haha, I agree.  I was just nitpicking the argument (that I don't think you were really making) that agnosticism is the only true form of belief, because you can't prove the (non-)existence of God.

I should have probably said so beforehand, since I know you're A) a scientist and B) obviously smart, so that was really scarecrowing on my part.  Sorry

[Gustaf]

That may be true, but it is a low-blow to use in a debate. What he said was that people who disagree with him simply are too cowardly to see the truth. That's a condescending view to take.  The vast majority of all people in the world are religious in some way. Saying "all of those people are simply doing it for their own comfort and if they were only as rational and brave as I they would see the truth" is unbelieavably arrogant.  There are many, many reasons why a person chooses to believe (or holding some other opinion for that matter) and denouncing it all as irrational searches for spiritual blankets is offensive to me. People throughout history have sacrificed their lives directly, choosing death, or indirectly toiling away in godforsaken places helping poor and downtrodden people and now some middle-class American brat calls them irrational cowards? I'm probably overreacting but it's exactly the sort of self-righteous bull that makes me angry.

Some would say that it's condescending to have unquestioning religious faith, because you are assuming everyone else is deluded.

Agnosticism is the only truly humble system of belief!  Convert!  Convert!

You are entitled to feel offended, I guess.  Frankly I've never had someone explain to me faith in terms that made sense to me.  Belief, yes.  So sometimes it's tempting to dismiss faith in the same way you're dismissing atheism.  And you've said yourself how common and ingrained in our history theism is.  Like it or not, Christians are effectively the theological equivalent of "some middle-class American [white!] brat" - in control, with a history of complacency about it, culturally dominant (at least in America), and with such a majority that they're effectively impervious to even name-calling crap.  That sucks when you're representing Christianity as an individual, but he probably sees it as not even a chink in the armor of the religion as a whole.

Some people would much rather martyr themselves for something they believe than live a rationally depressed life.  Just look at cults.  I'm not suggesting that Christianity is a cult, nor that choosing a less painful perception of reality is inherently "cowardice."  I'm just trying to point out the un-dickish version of the argument Marokai is corrupting.

Of course people can be condescending as Christians. But it isn't necessarily so. Neither is atheism inherently condescending. I have the deepest respect for agnosticism or atheism - I completely understand where those people are coming from. Having faith is not easy, but again, few reasonably Christians claim that. I've met very few who act like that, personally. So it isn't really a general issue for me, but in this particular case I think it was very condescending and in a way that is sweeping towards a large group of people that imo deserve a little more respect for their beliefs than that.

You said I'm "dismissing atheism" and I'm not sure what you mean by that? Furthermore, I'm not sure I get the point of how Christianity is all-dominating in the United States, etc. My point was not to claim that all Christians are great martyrs and all atheists are idiots, but rather the exact opposite: denouncing a group of people in such a broad, generalizing way is offensive to me. I feel the same way when people claim "Democrats are just lazy people who want handouts" or "Republicans are just greedy rich people who want to keep their money", to take a political example.

There is a cultural difference of course. In Sweden it's a bit taboo to be religious so I'm used to being a bit defensive about it and don't really think of Christians as having "the upper hand" in public debate.

As for religious faith in itself being condescending is a bit absurd to me. By that definition, any belief that someone disagrees with is condescending. I don't have to view people as deluded or look down on them just because they don't share my opinion on something.

Again, you seem to still claim that religion v atheism is "feel-good v depressed rationality" For some it looks like that. For many it doesn't. I know people who are "regrettably atheist" - they'd like to believe that there was a God, but they can't bring themselves to it. But a lot of people enjoy being atheist, I'm sure. You don't have to worry about punishment for your sins, you can enjoy yourself and create your own moral standards. Religion isn't exactly known for giving a rosy, glorious perspective on the world. Many are quite depressing in their nature. So I still consider that perspective very simplifying and, yes, somewhat condescending.