Metal Reviews

You assert that there is no God just as much as one would assert the other way around. The burden of proof falls on both. Science itself is also based on disproving. Hypotheses are created to be disproven so that, once enough has been disproven, an even better hypothesis can be created and the conclusion may be found. My point? Science does not have the means in which it may test the hypothesis that "God does not exist" OR "God does exist" therefore with no evidence proving either, both are just as feasible. If God is based upon another plane of existence, and we have no scientific evidence disproving another plane of existence, then it cannot be said that God defies science, rather that it is unknown to it.



I mean the whole matter thing more as something based on logic than concrete science. I'm not saying that is how one should judge the existence of God, rather that if one were to take a scientific or logical approach (it's pointless because of reasons above) to the existence of God (like you are) then you should also take into consideration the logic that applies to that approach. You can't say "logically, there is no God" and at the same time deny the use of logic to support his existence.





It's based entirely on the people I know.

I like how you selectively argue.[/quote]
The only way I can debate that original point is by using common knowledge... so I don't know what else to say on that matter other than that I disagree.

Oh yay, relativism.

If there's no proof for a god, then a god doesn't exist. It's that simple.



I'm not denying the use of logic to support the existence of a supreme being, merely positing that a supreme being is illogical. Anyone's free to try and disprove that.



Fine with me.

So when we didn't have proof that bacteria existed, it didn't exist? When we couldn't prove that other solar systems existed, they didn't exist? If there is a another species of animal that technically "exists" but we haven't discovered it yet, it still doesn't exist until we can scientifically prove it is a new species? Your logic falls.


"You can't use scientific evidence to back up an idea that defies science without being an idiot." You are indeed, denying it's use. My attempt at what could be considered disproving it is by finding logic in it's existence, hence that existence couldn't have been created from nothing. It is also scientifically proven that our minds are limited. Therefore, it is possible that there is a supreme being that we do not have the mental capacity to comprehend. That is perfectly logical.

A supreme being is only illogical to those who only have faith in what we already know, which I can understand and respect. However, that does not make those same people any more correct than those who will put faith in something that extends past our knowledge.

BTW, thanks for the more mature attitude.

Great... another "less judgemental than thou" agnositc. If you want to believe in a non-specific "higher being" then do that, but the version of events peddled by organised religions has already been thoroughly disproved a thousand times over. Why people still give it the time of day is inexplicable to me.

Actually, the "version of events" are still being debated and studied and no real truth or explanations have been found yet.

Being debated and studied? You mean you actually take someone who tries to introduce organized religion into scientific discourse seriously? You're not going to tell me that intelligent design is a reason-based theory with a legitimate case? It's there because of denial.

If earth was constructed by a higher being, then the first time we would see him/her/it would be through a telescope. Then after that, we would have a scientific investigation into what that hypothetical creature was, and how it functioned. That is what atheism is: Not knowing, but at least being able to discount supernatural fairytales that were formed through presumption and superstition, in an age before serious study was possible.

I suppose I had doubts too when I was 17. Not many, but a couple. Four years later they've been totally erased through rational thinking. Hopefully it will be the same for you, and it looks like Dead Machine got there years before both of us.

No, that is not what I mean in the least. I mean that WHAT happened, HOW it happened, and even IF it happened is still being debated. Specifically in the New Testament in the Bible. I don't believe in intelligent design. It should be taught in history along with evolution, not in science class.




That's a large assumption to make on a being we have absolutely no scientific comprehension of.



Atheism isn't "not knowing" it's the simple disbelief or denial of any God or similar existence. Agnosticism contains more of that "not knowing" aspect while still discounting religion in general as also being wrong or presumptious. You need to keep in mind that when reason and study did become available, religious thought still reigned and can be found in the philosphies and ideas of many great thinkers who did indeed think logically about man's existence even if it contradicted with previous thought. America itself was founded by deists.


The whole "Oh when I was your age, I was the same way, but you will mature from it!" point is bullshit. That is supposed to prove your point? Give me a break... You don't know me in the least. For all you know, I could be more mature and have thought more "rationally" than yourself. For example, I think DM had a much better arguement than yourself and he is even younger than me. Don't assume so much because you are older. Additionally, I know much much much older people who began as atheists or doubters and actually grew into religious belief over their lives through experiences and thoughts they had. My dad is a religious person, and he is also one of the smartest, most rational, and most logical people I know.

If you mean we're still debating how the New Testament happened? Nope, people are changing their interpretations of it to make it seem more palatable/relevant. If you mean we're still debating the whys and wherefores of the scientific approach? That's true, but we know easily enough to discount certain things. Evolution, for example, is a proven fact. We've seen Bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics in real time through a microscope. That alone is enough evidence to afford Darwinism more rationalist gravitas than anything else available to us so far. Do you have one tiny shred of evidence that would support a religious explanation? Other than, "well we don't know how that works, so let's assume it's god"?



I made an assumption? If the world was constructed the methods would undoubtedly be decipherable through science. Science that is beyond our capabilities, but science nonetheless.



Of course Atheism is not knowing. I don't know how the universe was formed, but I would still describe myself as an atheist, because I denounce 100% any supernatural or religious view in favour of a purely scientific one. And the rise of scientific knowledge and religious proliferation are inversely proportional.



The "When I was your age" thing was not an attempt to prove anything... I don't see why you would interpret it as that. And also the word "Hopefully" indicates that I'm not making an assumption. If you think DM has a better argument... Well, whatever, he's a clever guy. This isn't a debating contest, it's me offering reasons why I think everyone should become an atheist. Both of us made points much earlier in this thread that are totally unanswerable from a religious perspective... Seems to me that you're just in a mood because this is one of the rare occasions when he has been politer than me. And I also know people who've converted to religion. I think they're very strange.

Interesting points, Action J., but your acceptance of the New Testament is ridiculous. How many people, telling different versions of the same story do you want? Not only was Jesus not made into a deity until a few centuries later, but there are absolutely no records of him in Roman records. The same Romans who were so meticulous about taxes etc, not recording this annoying upstart Jew? I don't think so.

And for the record, if God was proved to exist I doubt I'd worship him. Looking at the world, looking at people, this god is not one I feel in any way respect or fear, for. This god that slaughters millions without a thought, merely because they act immorally (Tsunami, Katrina)? This god that smites Ariel Sharon, because he was going to split up the Holy Land? This god that traps miners underground, raises the relatives' hopes, then dashes them cruelly? This god can go fuck himself. He's not getting any more of my time.

that is if you think of a god almighty

I don't. if god really exists how can he control every action of every human being, geology etc ?... I think we're all part of this deity and therefore it's for us to deal with things and make them better...

Well, an xtian god is that, no?

Always knew you were a Satanist. Wink.

Scientists and historians alike are still debating whether a few parts of the New Testament were true or not such as the existence of Jesus period. Adam and Eve isn't the New Testament by the way. I've met Christians who believe in evolution too. It doesn't cancel it out. You can believe science AND have religion in your life. The way you and DM have been putting it, is that you either choose one or the other which is false. Besides, people don't approach religion to provide every scientific and logical answer and they shouldn't either, but some people do (like yourself).

It is just as unrational, in my opinion, to completely discount any existence of a "God" simply because we haven't prove it yet with science which is the core belief of atheists.


You made the assumption that another being on completely different plane of existence then our own follows the same laws of science that we do. How can you say there is no doubt if there is no way in which you can prove it yet?


No, atheism is the denial of "God's" existence. Period. Agnosticism is the denial of the knowledge of whether he exists or not, or it can be that "something" exists that noone has any knowledge of. I favor science as well but that does not automatically make me atheist.


With comments like that, you imply that you have matured past my state of mind, therefore making your opinion more valid. There would have been no other reason to post that. I said DM had a better arguement to show you that age has little to do with who is right and wrong, especially since we are all young anyways. You misinterpreted my point.


I don't accept it, I accept the controversy. Jesus pretty much existed. That is the general opinion of historians at least. The odd thing is is that he influenced a group of people who led completely normal lives until they met him, then they suddenly undertook vast journies to spread his word. Why would normal men who were closest to him suddenly devote their lives to the word of one man above all others? Especially since their experience with him didn't last all that long. I personally don't believe in the divinity of Jesus but it's still something to think about[/quote]

That's actually how I used to feel up until pretty recently. The way I saw it is "God didn't kill these people, but why did he just let it happen? Why does he let children get raped and murdered who did nothing?" I don't know the answer to that, just that I don't think God would just do it because he's evil. I would trust that he has a higher sense of morality and what it means than I do. Maybe the deists are right? Theres no way in hell I can know the answer because I don't care enough to delve into studying a religion the amount required to come close to understanding it, which nobody but God would anyways.

I believe it's perfectly possible that a Nazarene called Jesus existed. However, his "achievements" are bullshit. Scientists can be religious, of course, but I've yet to see a single case where this hasn't detracted from their credibility. Religious scientists seek to infer god into scientific theory. Intellignet design is the perfect example. Religious scientists are unable to accept that the evidence is stacked against them, so a theory is produced that gets comprehensively destroyed the moment it surfaces. Yet people still cling to it because they desperately want to reconcile their beliefs with science. And you say I shouldn't ask religion to provide logical answers... Why not? Something potentially so destructive should be required to justify itself.



Perfectly rational in the case of organised religions. We have 7 major ones. Clearly at least 6 have to be wrong by definition. Surely the rational thing is to assume they all are, given that none of them have uncovered a single shred of evidence to support their veracity. In the case of a more general "creator" figure, we cannot be so crudely dismissive. But such a being would still be subject to the laws of science, and as such still requires evidence. We have none of that,(and as an atheist I am certain that we will never see any) so we discard it in favour of more credible ideas.



I don't believe such a being exists, so it is totally moot. But we have seen to virtually the edge of the universe, and we know that over there the same scientific principles are evidenced- as such we can assume that this hypothetical (non existant) being would operate on the same plane, just to a vastly more intelligent level. It would still recognise the same physical laws.



What's your point? "Not knowing" is a huge part of atheism. An atheist is an agnostic that has crossed of a deity as a possibility.



I meant that you seem like an intelligent guy, and I hope that over the next few years you join "our side", so to speak. That's what happened to me, anyway. If you find that patronising, then feel free to feel patronised...

As you might be able to tell, I don't believe in mixing science and religion together. A priest shouldn't be a scientist and a scientist shouldn't be a priest. The role of a scientist is one that should have nothing to do with religion unless he is trying to prove something that has religious relevance. As a scientist his first role is to follow scientific laws and observations, so I would agree with you on religious scientists (at least the ones who try to input religion into their theories without any proof). What I'M saying is that a person CAN accept BOTH religion AND science like I used to, and my father does.

Because religion itself isn't based on logically proving anything. It is much closer to philosophy. Maybe STRICT organized religion cannot provide the answers you seek, but I have the most respect for religious people who have their own ideas and interpretations and beliefs based upon their own experience and knowledge. However, if someone doesn't have the mental ability to answer your questions, that doesn't make his/her entire faith fall apart which you seem to be trying to prove. Just like if you don't know the answer yet to the more difficult science questions doesn't mean your belief in science is invalid or false.

Honestly, organized ANYTHING is potentially destructive. I do disagree with organized religion, though I don't look down on people who follow it or try to disprove their belief as long as they are just as open minded to me.


And alas, one of the major flaws of an athiest. You cannot just group religious criticism all of the 7 major religions or even ANY of them for that matter! Religion is something that MUST be judged on an individual basis. Religious opinions and beliefs vary infinitely even in individual sects themselves. It is highly unrational to say every single man, woman, child is wrong if he follows that religion.

Their faith and beliefs are their evidence. Those beliefs allow them to see other evidence that non-believers cannot because they don't share those beliefs. For example, a very devout religious person is terminally ill but is cured. Doctors can't explain it and cannot provide evidence, MAYBE a theory or two. The fact that science itself couldn't prove what happened is the evidence that the same religious person believes in. That is NOT unrational.



Scientific laws and even the word "science" itself are only proved to apply to THIS plane of existence. If there is a being, I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be anything that follows our laws. The concept of that existence itself defies our laws anyway. Hell, we aren't even sure the entire universe itseIf is limited to all of the same laws. We say that the universe is infinite yet logically, that seems to be impossible, so we don't even know the answer to that. Even so, we haven't come close to discovering all that there is to know about science, universes, "higher beings", different planes, whatever. There is no evidence supporting that another plane would share the same laws and even concept of science itself as this one does. THAT is why you are just assuming. Because of this obvious lack of knowledge, I think atheism is wrong to claim to believe in logic and science yet illogically say that there is definately no God. That is why I am agnostic.


That isn't "Not knowing". That is a certainty.


It was the way you said it and the timing that made me think so... oh fuck it, just forget it.

can someone lock this thread ? :roll:

I don't know why each religious debate goes on for 10+ pages... and never changes each poster's opinion anyway ! :? it's pointless...

that and the hate/praise threads on either NSBM or Burzum...

i agree, so much text in this thread, it's soooo not metal!

hey doods, who needs to read when we got tv ?

I love debating. Thats why I'm also on the debate team at school . That reminds me of an off topic question: DM, are you on any sort of debate squad/team thing? Your language and attitude reflects it.

For our religious friends (man I love ebaums)