Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think you misunderstood what I meant by my example. I wasn't implying that humans are kings, or that they're above other animals. I must've worded it wrong, so I'll clarify with a quick, very simplified diagram.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2nlb8ea.jpg
I'm not saying there are no differences, just that one could easily argue that humans are animals, while animals are not all humans. Besides, I only started down this particular path of discussion because I noticed that your original comment about other animals not attacking their own kind is incorrect. I'm not trying to argue that other animals think in good and evil, merely that they do kill others for seemingly no reason.


So, back onto our main point of discussion; at what point did I claim my morals are either evil or good? I don't think they're either. They're just my way of living. Futhermore, all of my actions have repercussions, even without going into hypothetical situations. However, as you request, I'll answer. I would rather stick to my own beliefs/ moral code and die, than go against it and live, excluding some very exceptional circumstances. I would feel repressed, probably angry, and sorrowful that I'd managed to end up in a situation or place when my own morals seem to be so incompatible with the laws set. I'm fine with being judged, but again, as an atheist, I question who or what has such a right.

If you are referring to religious texts that explain rainbows, no, I will not accept it. To me, they cannot answer it either; not going to say they're wrong, but to me, personally, they hold about as much credit as if a scientist were to randomly say 'a wizard did it, that's why rainbows exist' without any kind of backup.

...you're attacking my argument that I copied word for word from yours with minor edits to make a point, while outright saying that I only did it to prove a point. Thanks for helping that. xP

I cannot be satisfied with 'proof' that is given to me if it isn't given to me. Your claim that I should find it myself seems to just be you avoiding the question. I've made it clear that I am not seeing it in your posts, and that I have not found it myself, and am asking for you to point it out to me. Perhaps I'd be able to acknowledge it then, hm?

I do not think that I don't sin (although generally, I don't refer to it as that; I'd rather avoid the religious connotations of the word). Of course I do, and I don't think I'm absolved of that. However, I don't feel a need to be absolved of it; why ask someone or something I don't believe in to forgive me? I can live with the fact that I sin, and simply work to try and improve, and be the best person I can be, without a religion. On a similar note, I have no trouble finding hope without one. Like I've said, I respect people and their religious beliefs, and I think it's great that others find hope in gods and religion, but I, personally, don't need that.

I do not acknowledge a god, because I have never felt a connection with one. If I were to claim I believe in one particular god, and follow a religion, without actually believing in that god, how would that be any different to what I'm doing now? Other than the part where I would be lying to myself and several people around me.

I have read at least 2 different translations of the Christian bible, extracts from others, and part of the Qur'an. I've visited the holy buildings of several religions (if you're curious, I felt most comfortable and at peace in the Mosque I visited, but I feel no pulling toward Islam, so...). I also took Religious Studies classes for 5 years. I have never felt myself moving towards or away from any faith, with the exception of the time at which I stopped attending church; although, that was more a matter of finally being able to, rather than a sudden decision.

I find it funny that you're unwilling to tell me because you're making the assumption that I'm going to use the knowledge in a negative way. Like I said, I do not judge people based on religion, and I respect everyone's right to their own belief. In this whole conversation, you've been putting down and making assumptions based on my beliefs more than I've been doing so on yours. In fact, I wouldn't have replied to you to begin with if you hadn't implied that it's ignorant to not believe in a god, and that atheists still blame one whenever it's convenient for them. xP

Humans can assess and interpret things on a level that other animals cannot because our brains have developed the ability and capacity to do so. It doesn't separate us from them in a way that could only be the result of some divine event.

"Step outside of your scientific box sometime and try to see things for what they are, not their chemical makeup or theorised behaviours."

...So you want to remove the aspect of logic from a logical debate? Well if you do that, then

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE~~!!

Seeing things for what they are is pointless in a conversation like this. The point is to ask why they are, and answer with sound logic supported by your side of the argument in order to present a strong case. This isn't about abstract philosophy - it's about facts and reasoning.

"The only proof that will satisfy people, is the proof they find on their own."

...If that were true, wouldn't it make everyone atheists?
Y'know, since the existence of a god hasn't been proven at all...

That's why I don't believe in a deity. The lack of evidence pointing toward the existence of a god holds a lot more validity than the lack of evidence proving there isn't a god. What this means is, when "you can't prove there's a god" and "you can't prove there ISN'T a god" are on equal footing in terms of favorable evidence, the former has a significant advantage. All it needs is a lack of proof from the opposite side, and that's precisely what it has. It is immeasurably more probable that a god doesn't exist, since nothing has been found to prove otherwise.

Another argument against the existence of God is that God is unnecessary. Science has proven that nearly every discovered event and phenomenon could have easily occurred naturally, and those that haven't been proven involve factors that science hasn't yet detected. Thus, such an explanation makes much more sense than an omnipotent being causing all of it.

I love RiRi so much right now.

You obviously were not paying attention to the whole discussion. There is only a lack of evidence in your eyes, and so you are entitled to your opinion of things. Don't confuse your opinion of what was said to what was implied. Trying to bandy words with logic as you are, you have not done anything to find evidence to make your point. You are instead clinging to someone elses idea yet again...and it is a thin string of logic. The idea that science can explain all. It does not, as was previously shown through the rainbow example which RiRi agreed with. If you want to know if there is the existence of God, then the why of things is one of the most important. I already discussed that with RiRi and she told me the why of her actions and beliefs. There are many things which can seem to make sense, thats why people can think they are correct even when they are not. So once again, this is why I say people should find their own proof. By that I mean, independant of someone elses opinion. The problem is that you seem prideful of your answers, and so you are satisfied with knowing what you do. There is no reason to discuss this if you are not partial to new understanding. To you, science is your religion...and science cannot explain the things it cannot touch. Science cannot explain emotion aside for its chemical reactions and thats only one example. Stating that "we just did'nt discover why yet" is nonsense. There has been ample time.

Science has its uses, and it is important. It can explain the how of things. It can explain incredible things, like how ones body reacts to a situation, the processes involved, the physical consequences. It can bring humans to harness the powers of nature, and so we have the most amazing of inventions. It is only one side of the world though, there are all those things which cannot be seen, but we know of their existence. One is that thoughts cannot be explained through numbers and equations. Now I've gone off topic. Thank you.

Honestly, this is simply why I knew this thread wouldn't be good.

Does Algebra exist?

I wish it didn't,
I hate Algebra.

Did anyone hear that they are reconsidering if Gravity exists?

O<

How can you hate algebra?! gonk
Algebra is AWESOME!

...And no, I haven't heard. o.O

Ah, now I see your point.

I really just want people to go out into the world and experience life...and learn before making decisions. I dislike the idea of hand-outs so I rarely if ever tell people things directly. I prefer to point them to a way forward. I don't want you to understand my point of view based on my words, I just want people to as I said, learn things on their own.

I bring up vanity and negative human emotions often because to me, these are a root cause of what I believe makes people ignorant. Its not fair, granted and I too am bound to those things. I'm prideful and harsh, and in that sense, I make judgements of others. I know that and I acknowledge it as hypocritical because it is contrary to what I've said. Man is not fit to judge, but he does so all the same. Again, my idea on Sin makes me believe it has something to do with that. So like you say, can I prove all atheists wrong? No, but at the same time, atheists cannot prove all God fearing peoples wrong. Perhaps they think they can, but it clearly has not happened. There is no definitive scientific evidence to support either claim. To that there is one of several answers, you could go with Foam-Domes explanation that because there is no evidence, it must be that God does not exist. Or you could simply believe what is written in religious texts. You could also use logic in another sense to say that because so many people believe in it, it must exist and that in itself is proof of a sort. There are other views I'm sure but clearly, it is just a matter of opinion at that point since nobody can effectively prove anything. Thats the reason you can alter my words to fit your own view. That and I'm not giving much evidence based on anything but more abstract concepts, nor will I because it was never my intention even if I did broach on it somewhat.

My own opinion is that to answer this question correctly, it takes more than just logic, it requires knowledge and experience as well. Even then, that answer is still only reserved for oneself because like you've said, we don't all have the same experiences. There will always differences of opinion. Maybe I went about it in the wrong way, but I still want people to look for answers on their own before condemning others. I'm once again pleased that you've held onto your view so strongly and with such a clear mind. Thats one reason I enjoy speaking to many atheists. I enjoyed discussing this with you RiRi, and I feel I've learned a few new things but I'm not going to speak on it any further since we've already gone off topic and I've said what I wanted to already.

Also, to touch on your comment to Arc, there is someone here who is getting a bit too personal and excited...and its not me this time. >.> ...now I need some tea. *goes to get some*