[Evangelist]

After reading your post, I still do say I'm an Atheist and not Agnostic.

You brought up a god point on the possibilities of what humans knowledge can possess, but you're forgetting about the other side of the situation. Finding gold in China would be extremely hard, but what if someone came up to you and showed you gold? Knowing that gold could have been smuggled, you begin to research where they had found it, and the gold's origin. Leading up to more and more gold, and the conclusion that you were wrong, and there is gold in China.

The same situation could be played against God. Nobody on Earth has proven the existence of this ruler, yet scientists have the theory of Evolution. where humans come from Monkeys. Knowing how technological today's world is and a vast majority of our culture is based off things the higher-up people tell us, why don't more people not believe in God, and believe Evolution instead?

Also, it seems kind of silly that such a human that gained super natural powers at some point lives in all of us to guide us through our journey we call life. Seems like a Santa Clause story that you tell your kids it's a fake when they turn that age. The bible depicts him as one all-mighty ruler living in "Heaven." Where is this heaven? According to the bible, it's up in the skies. Many religious people claim that's a metaphor and believe God is a spiritual mindset that they have as almost a "safety net" for their troubles and worries. Much like, a child's imaginary friend they give up when they're 12. Is God just an adult's imaginary friend?

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

First HQ post by him? Funny, because it's not by him, http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/atheist.htm .

I agree with op.
If god is real, why let shit happen?
Why let people die?
Why let wars happen?
No god.

Oh shit. I am very disappointed in The High Roller.

Eh, I'm used to shits like him who are too lazy to write anything themselves.

Nonetheless good job detective! No really thanks for keeping the forum legit

[Oni]

Are you an Atheist? Well I am going to prove to you that you are not an Atheist in its true sense.

You may think that this is a rather arrogant thing to say, but if you bear with me you will see that the logic in this statement is irrefutable. First of all I want to define 3 different stances that people have about the existance of God.

Believer: A person who believes in the existance of God.
Agnostic: A person who isn't sure whether God exists or not.
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in the existance of God.
If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.

Now lets look at the amount knowledge that a human being can possess. It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. Now back to the example. If I found gold in the tooth of one Chinese citizen, then I could truthfully say that there is gold in China even if that amount of Gold was very small.

To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as yourself. However, If you had absolute knowledge then yes God would exist, because you would be God. On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer. But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Those who have seen first hand or can see evidence that gold exists in China and those who believe that gold doesn't exist in China, but can never really be sure that this is so.

Also, Atheists often say they have no faith. This is simply not the case. It has to be said that having faith in nothing is not the same as having no faith. Faith that believes that everything came from nothing is a belief and trust that this is the case even in the absence of proof. No Atheist in the world can claim to have no faith. Rather a person who doesn't know whether God exists or not is the person who has no faith.

After reading your post, I still do say I'm an Atheist and not Agnostic.

You brought up a god point on the possibilities of what humans knowledge can possess, but you're forgetting about the other side of the situation. Finding gold in China would be extremely hard, but what if someone came up to you and showed you gold? Knowing that gold could have been smuggled, you begin to research where they had found it, and the gold's origin. Leading up to more and more gold, and the conclusion that you were wrong, and there is gold in China.

The same situation could be played against God. Nobody on Earth has proven the existence of this ruler, yet scientists have the theory of Evolution. where humans come from Monkeys. Knowing how technological today's world is and a vast majority of our culture is based off things the higher-up people tell us, why don't more people not believe in God, and believe Evolution instead?

Also, it seems kind of silly that such a human that gained super natural powers at some point lives in all of us to guide us through our journey we call life. Seems like a Santa Clause story that you tell your kids it's a fake when they turn that age. The bible depicts him as one all-mighty ruler living in "Heaven." Where is this heaven? According to the bible, it's up in the skies. Many religious people claim that's a metaphor and believe God is a spiritual mindset that they have as almost a "safety net" for their troubles and worries. Much like, a child's imaginary friend they give up when they're 12. Is God just an adult's imaginary friend?

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

First HQ post by him? Funny, because it's not by him, http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/atheist.htm .

I agree with op.
If god is real, why let shit happen?
Why let people die?
Why let wars happen?
No god.

Shit. I was hoping for once he actually wrote a high-quality post.

[Vivacity]

Are you an Atheist? Well I am going to prove to you that you are not an Atheist in its true sense.

You may think that this is a rather arrogant thing to say, but if you bear with me you will see that the logic in this statement is irrefutable. First of all I want to define 3 different stances that people have about the existance of God.

Believer: A person who believes in the existance of God.
Agnostic: A person who isn't sure whether God exists or not.
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in the existance of God.
If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.

Now lets look at the amount knowledge that a human being can possess. It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. Now back to the example. If I found gold in the tooth of one Chinese citizen, then I could truthfully say that there is gold in China even if that amount of Gold was very small.

To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as yourself. However, If you had absolute knowledge then yes God would exist, because you would be God. On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer. But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Those who have seen first hand or can see evidence that gold exists in China and those who believe that gold doesn't exist in China, but can never really be sure that this is so.

Also, Atheists often say they have no faith. This is simply not the case. It has to be said that having faith in nothing is not the same as having no faith. Faith that believes that everything came from nothing is a belief and trust that this is the case even in the absence of proof. No Atheist in the world can claim to have no faith. Rather a person who doesn't know whether God exists or not is the person who has no faith.

After reading your post, I still do say I'm an Atheist and not Agnostic.

You brought up a god point on the possibilities of what humans knowledge can possess, but you're forgetting about the other side of the situation. Finding gold in China would be extremely hard, but what if someone came up to you and showed you gold? Knowing that gold could have been smuggled, you begin to research where they had found it, and the gold's origin. Leading up to more and more gold, and the conclusion that you were wrong, and there is gold in China.

The same situation could be played against God. Nobody on Earth has proven the existence of this ruler, yet scientists have the theory of Evolution. where humans come from Monkeys. Knowing how technological today's world is and a vast majority of our culture is based off things the higher-up people tell us, why don't more people not believe in God, and believe Evolution instead?

Also, it seems kind of silly that such a human that gained super natural powers at some point lives in all of us to guide us through our journey we call life. Seems like a Santa Clause story that you tell your kids it's a fake when they turn that age. The bible depicts him as one all-mighty ruler living in "Heaven." Where is this heaven? According to the bible, it's up in the skies. Many religious people claim that's a metaphor and believe God is a spiritual mindset that they have as almost a "safety net" for their troubles and worries. Much like, a child's imaginary friend they give up when they're 12. Is God just an adult's imaginary friend?

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

First HQ post by him? Funny, because it's not by him, http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/atheist.htm .

I agree with op.
If god is real, why let shit happen?
Why let people die?
Why let wars happen?
No god.

Shit. I was hoping for once he actually wrote a high-quality post.

Yeah, I knew I read the same exact text before.

[Oni]

Just a reminder. This is the Serious Discussion section. Keep things high-quality and remember to be respectful of other people's beliefs.

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

But there has to be one side that is right. Agnosticism isn't right either because they're not on a side, they're in the middle. And as for Atheists, there's nothing to prove, other than that there isn't a god. And I'm not saying this is what all Atheists believe in, because that'd be completely wrong, but the atheist 'substitute' for proof is the theory of Evolution. Which on the religious sides, there's no proof of any God.

Plus, not even bringing science into this, let's just say there's the two stories on if a God exists or not. Neither side has proof, but don't you think it's just crazy talk about "one almighty person watching out for every human on earth, that is there right by your side, but at the same time but isn't?"

The thing is, agnostics admit that they don't have an answer. However, atheists/theists claim they have the answer even though there is no evidence to support their answer. I'm not bashing either side, but I absolutely hate these atheism versus theism threads simply because neither party is able to supply sufficient evidence to support their claims. Religion is an example of faith and faith isn't necessarily based on logic. I think it's better to admit that you don't know something, rather than pretend to know. To me, the big bang theory sounds just as crazy as an omnipotent being in the sky.

[i0xIllusi0n]

Just a reminder. This is the Serious Discussion section. Keep things high-quality and remember to be respectful of other people's beliefs.

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

But there has to be one side that is right. Agnosticism isn't right either because they're not on a side, they're in the middle. And as for Atheists, there's nothing to prove, other than that there isn't a god. And I'm not saying this is what all Atheists believe in, because that'd be completely wrong, but the atheist 'substitute' for proof is the theory of Evolution. Which on the religious sides, there's no proof of any God.

Plus, not even bringing science into this, let's just say there's the two stories on if a God exists or not. Neither side has proof, but don't you think it's just crazy talk about "one almighty person watching out for every human on earth, that is there right by your side, but at the same time but isn't?"

The thing is, agnostics admit that they don't have an answer. However, atheists/theists claim they have the answer even though there is no evidence to support their answer. I'm not bashing either side, but I absolutely hate these atheism versus theism threads simply because neither party is able to supply sufficient evidence to support their claims. Religion is an example of faith and faith isn't necessarily based on logic. I think it's better to admit that you don't know something, rather than pretend to know. To me, the big bang theory sounds just as crazy as an omnipotent being in the sky.

Although Atheists still have scientists who study the theory of Evlution to back them up, while religious people have absolutely nothing. So it's not necessarily a 0 proof vs 0 proof war.

[Oni]

Just a reminder. This is the Serious Discussion section. Keep things high-quality and remember to be respectful of other people's beliefs.

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

But there has to be one side that is right. Agnosticism isn't right either because they're not on a side, they're in the middle. And as for Atheists, there's nothing to prove, other than that there isn't a god. And I'm not saying this is what all Atheists believe in, because that'd be completely wrong, but the atheist 'substitute' for proof is the theory of Evolution. Which on the religious sides, there's no proof of any God.

Plus, not even bringing science into this, let's just say there's the two stories on if a God exists or not. Neither side has proof, but don't you think it's just crazy talk about "one almighty person watching out for every human on earth, that is there right by your side, but at the same time but isn't?"

The thing is, agnostics admit that they don't have an answer. However, atheists/theists claim they have the answer even though there is no evidence to support their answer. I'm not bashing either side, but I absolutely hate these atheism versus theism threads simply because neither party is able to supply sufficient evidence to support their claims. Religion is an example of faith and faith isn't necessarily based on logic. I think it's better to admit that you don't know something, rather than pretend to know. To me, the big bang theory sounds just as crazy as an omnipotent being in the sky.

Although Atheists still have scientists who study the theory of Evlution to back them up, while religious people have absolutely nothing. So it's not necessarily a 0 proof vs 0 proof war.

There are plenty of scientists that are theists. Proof is proof. Until those scientists prove the theory, it's nothing but a theory. The same goes for the theist scientists.

[Nil]

There are plenty of theists who accept the theory of evolution. One does not negate the other. And I think you are a bit confused by the difference between a scientific theory and the more common use of the word. Similar to the general theory of relativity.

[i0xIllusi0n]

Just a reminder. This is the Serious Discussion section. Keep things high-quality and remember to be respectful of other people's beliefs.

It is funny, because that's the first high quality post I have seen from The High Roller in a long time. Personally, I thought he was dead. Anyways, he highlighted a lot of the points I intended to make last night when we discussed this. The biggest point is that neither belief has any evidence. You can't prove there is god and you can't prove there isn't. Ultimately, I believe both sides are wrong (even though I am a theist myself). The only religion that you could say is based on evidence would be agnosticism. The reason being, agnostics admit to never having seen a god, but are open to the possibility of there being one. They demand evidence to prove there is one.

But there has to be one side that is right. Agnosticism isn't right either because they're not on a side, they're in the middle. And as for Atheists, there's nothing to prove, other than that there isn't a god. And I'm not saying this is what all Atheists believe in, because that'd be completely wrong, but the atheist 'substitute' for proof is the theory of Evolution. Which on the religious sides, there's no proof of any God.

Plus, not even bringing science into this, let's just say there's the two stories on if a God exists or not. Neither side has proof, but don't you think it's just crazy talk about "one almighty person watching out for every human on earth, that is there right by your side, but at the same time but isn't?"

The thing is, agnostics admit that they don't have an answer. However, atheists/theists claim they have the answer even though there is no evidence to support their answer. I'm not bashing either side, but I absolutely hate these atheism versus theism threads simply because neither party is able to supply sufficient evidence to support their claims. Religion is an example of faith and faith isn't necessarily based on logic. I think it's better to admit that you don't know something, rather than pretend to know. To me, the big bang theory sounds just as crazy as an omnipotent being in the sky.

Although Atheists still have scientists who study the theory of Evlution to back them up, while religious people have absolutely nothing. So it's not necessarily a 0 proof vs 0 proof war.

There are plenty of scientists that are theists. Proof is proof. Until those scientists prove the theory, it's nothing but a theory. The same goes for the theist scientists.

You're right, it's not proof, but at least there's something compared to nothing,

[Achromat]

All hail the Almighty father and Savior! It is he who convinced me that there is no hope in the hierarchy of men, we can only be saved if we follow him, and demilitarize society, not by force, but by love!

[i0xIllusi0n]

All hail the Almighty father and Savior! It is he who convinced me that there is no hope in the hierarchy of men, we can only be saved if we follow him, and demilitarize society, not by force, but by love!

This post has nothing to do with the thread. Does't help the argument.