Yeah, no point in continuing the discussion, since we’re disagreeing on simple linguistics. And, in a way, philosophy.
Yup, arguing is fun :3
Especially when the results don’t matter.
Holy fuck nuts, can I please leave this place for a few fucking hours and not come back to a shitty Atheist/religion debate?
For fuck’s sake.
EDIT: I’ve already stated my position on the matter 20 or so times…search the forums for one of my many statements on religion, I can’t be bothered to restate me position.
How is “disbelief” active?
@W1: You’re in a thread about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What did you expect?
Same way believe is active, which you claimed it to be.
When you believe, you’re doing something. When you’re not…you’re not.
We are going is circles. Disbelief is just believing the opposite of whatever is the issue. Your still believing something, and as such are active. You can only be inactive if you are not thinking.
And that’s why we’re going in circles. You say disbelief is belief. Not X = X. And you don’t see anything wrong here?
I’m afraid I must agree with Someonerandm. Disbelief is not the same thing as lack of belief.
To disbelieve is to believe that something is not true. That is the definition. I’ve covered this repeatedly that disbelieving does not mean “not believing” but “not believing a particular thing”, meaning that you still believe that that particular thing is not true. Its fairly simple.
@Someoneranm, according to this page, you are wrong. However, in English we have no official definitions, so by saying “That is the definition.” of anything, you are stating falsities. What you should have said is “That is a definition.”
Atheism, according to that page Wikipedia and me, isn’t disbelief of God or religion, it’s a belief that deities are non-existent. Atheism is a belief, not disbelief. Can we stop being dumb now, please?
Back on topic: old news is ooooooooooooold.
My head is spinning from reading all this.
shut up
my brain is full of fuck
Person 1: I believe things will fall at the same speed no matter which mass they have.
Person 2: I don’t believe that. So I believe that things will fall at different speeds when they have different weights.
If we forget who is right and who is wrong we can clearly say that both believe in something because they will never really know who is right. The only thing to do is to bring a proof or antiproof so we will see who believed in the right thing.
Now with the example of Existence.
I think there are 3 theses of it:
-
Everything is a product of coincidence.
-
Every atom (or the smallest thing we know(strings?)) have to contain every law we know yet and don’t know yet.
-
Everything is the product of god.
What is god: God isn’t a bearded old man nor a spaghetti monster. These things are simple metaphors of the human mind. It trys to explain something by using other things it already knows (spaghetti, old wise man =? god) God doesn’t look like something we already know or will get to know in the future. He’s not bound to space and time, because these things were created by him (“God is everywhere” is therefore a false statement, because he is not bound to anywhere). God isn’t a “he” or “she” or “it”.
So far I only said what god not is but these things desribe him as “not understandable nor imaginable by the human mind”.
That means: If you try to “find” god with your own mind without the help of any other information of him (religion) you will come to the conclusion that god doesn’t exist, because you never heard the right thing about him. The only information god gave us about him were written down in the bible, thora , qur’an and one other book that got lost. The qur’an is the newest of the them what makes the others obsolote which is very important because they were changed so many times that they already lost their real meaning.
I also wanted to write something about the 3 theses but this post has gotten too long.
But, you’re merely asserting this claim without any evidence to back it up. And then you pile on more baseless assertions to cover the holes.
That God thing you’re asserting has ZERO evidence. I can’t believe in something that does not have a single solitary shred of evidence. And, tbh, I don’t understand how others even could. I personally see it as a copout so that you don’t have to admit that you don’t know the answer.
Me, I’m perfectly fine with “I don’t know”. But, inventing things to fill the gap is the stuff of fiction books and it’s best to remember that
But, I could be wrong. The production of evidence for a deity will turn me into a believer and, dammit, I want to believe!
There is lot more I could write but I better don’t. My language is not good enough for it so I eventually will write something I don’t wanted to.
Theses 2 also has no evidence.
Theses 1 is total bullshit. The chance that all this could happen by accident is 1:inf.
Good bye. I am sick of this thread. It gives me headaches.
“Hey I’m right and you’re wrong but I’m not going to try to convince you because you don’t know anything and I have a special insight. I’m better than you.”
Also, yes, thesis 2 has no evidence because you just pulled it out of your ass.
And you obviously have no grasp of what chance is.
Atheism is a belief in a negative, which is a disbelief. A belief that there are no deities is a disbelief in deities.