Originally Posted by JayStar

It isn't exactly that the world would fall into anarchy but I've heard them say that no one would teach their kids right from wrong. Little kids think it's okay to take from other kids, although harmless, it is a start. They need to be guided on a moral path. Should that path come from religion, does it need to? No... not at all.

Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I agree with you, there would be essentially no change to the world with religion gone. Actually, I see a more productive, intelligent, and aware world.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Personally, I tend to identify as a deist when prompted, not because of any need for a higher power to validate the meaning of my existence, but because of my rejection that time is infinite. I reject the notion due to the fact that it's one of those theories that has the advantage of "proven true only if it happens to be true". Humans have a natural expiration date, and as a result, there is nothing that we could ever observe as having "existed forever": without a start or end. This is significant to the topic of religion, because without the assumption that time is infinite, a start to existence becomes a requirement. Based on the fact that existence itself is too complex for humans to ever fully grasp, the only plausible assumption I can really make is that a force outside of our grasp of understanding was the motivating factor. Whether or not you want to take that to mean, "a higher being" or "God" is up to you, but I thought I should let you in on the fact that my belief in something greater is completely based in my own personal logic.

Now, given that my beliefs subsequently reject any divine intervention, or afterlife, it'd probably be pretty accurate to say that my views fall a bit closer to atheism than theism. Even so, I find it a bit silly that you have this retarded notion of superiority against a group people who believe in something you don't based upon their own life experiences and personal logic. Given your apparent authority on the realm of logic, I thought that you might like to explain how your stance is somehow more logical than theirs. That said, please logically explain to me how your belief in atheism (and subsequently, in time being infinite) isn't based in complete faith in the theories established by a group of physicists who's understanding of some of the more minute details of time somehow gave them unwarranted authority in the subject.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Your assumptions would make sense if the Big Bang theory was a theory regarding the creation of existence, and not what it actually is. (Which is the creation of the universe) By its definition, it asserts that existence was in place prior. If that wasn't the case, what elements would make up the chemical reaction that resulted in the rapid expansion of our known universe?

Originally Posted by Juntalis

I've already covered why your understanding of the Big Bang theory is inaccurate. It occurred to me, though, that our understanding of existence and lack of existence may not match, so perhaps it'd be better if we established that before I continue. Understand that to me, lack of existence is not the same thing as emptiness. For existence not to be established, you're left with a plane that has no potential for anything to exist. That is to say, it's not necessarily emptiness, because nothing could ever be placed in it. With that concept in mind, how does one go from anti-something to something?

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Personally, my beliefs are all a product of, "what is the most reasonable conclusion I can come to at this time". By establishing my beliefs as such, I'm afforded the flexibility of changing my beliefs if my logic changes, or if I receive new information. Unfortunately though, it makes it impossible for me to write off anyone else's beliefs, because without knowing whether or not my beliefs are true, who the fuck am I to judge the credibility of theirs? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you shape your beliefs the same way, but you destroy that possibility when you say things like:

By classifying an entire group of people as illogical, you've now asserted that you have the logical and correct answers, and that their answers are incorrect and illogical. As a result, the burden is now on you to give the right answers, or face looking like a completely arrogant piece of shit. I also should note that by defining oneself as an atheist, you establish that there is no greater force than what's already been established to exist. Agnostics have the luxury of saying, "We don't know, but we don't think a god exists." Atheism, on the other hand, is the belief that, "There is no god." You've now locked yourself in a small box of reason, where your belief cannot change, without you having to admit that you were completely wrong and unjustified in judgement of anyone else. To be honest, this is why I have a hard time taking anything you say anymore seriously, and why I'm more inclined to just write you off as, "someone with the belief system of a naive teenager."

Originally Posted by Juntalis

I would agree that it's counterproductive to ignore science. There should, however, be a distinction between what is considered science and what is essentially a scientist's opinion.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Except that the theories proposed by physicists for "infinite time" are not backed by any proof. At all. They basically explain it as, "Well, this is our best guess, since we can't think of any way for time to start on its own." As easy as trusting the guesses of someone else may be, it's never been something that my personality will allow for. I have to establish something as reasonable and understandable before I can view it as correct.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Incorrect and unjustifiable biased. Quakers, (if you didn't know, a sect of Christianity) for example, encourage their believers to question the belief. It's a religion where there is no "preacher", and where the average meeting is actually just a discussion of ideas and beliefs, where patrons have a vested interest in challenging their own beliefs. Their entire belief is based on the idea that, "You should have a personal belief, and not one based on a predefined template". Given that you were unaware of that fact, it leads me to think that you haven't even bothered to do any research on the beliefs that you so vehemently oppose. Again, you're a fucking joke.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Logic is a term that you should think critically about before using. Based on the fact that none of us are machines, we are incapable of completely objective logic. This is the exact reason why my logic of, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't speak ill of other beliefs if I don't know mine is correct" ends up being different from your logic of, "I'M RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS STUPID". This is why I prefer to use the word, "reasonable" when describing the practicality of a particular tree of thought.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Understand that as human beings, scientists are subject to the same weaknesses of character as the rest of us. No human is infallible, and setting a lower burden of proof for a scientist just kind of shows that you're applying the same blind faith as any theist - you're just applying it to someone with a degree, rather than some abstract deity. (From my perspective, that's an even greater crime to intellect, because at least theists can sculpt the personality of their deity)

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Again, that just doesn't work. You can't say someone else is "illogical", and then turn around and say, "I don't know the right answer".

Originally Posted by Juntalis

At least, you can't do that without first explaining why a particular view is illogical. Since theism is a blanket term for anyone who believes in an omnipresent deity, you'd literally have to break down why each particular religion is illogical. As I told you during our last debate, you're not anything special, and therefore you're subject to the same burden of proof as everyone else. To my knowledge, science has never explicitly stated, "All religions are wrong." Since you've asserted that fact, you can't turn around and hide behind science at this point without looking retarded.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

I'm pretty sure I said that I believe, "time is finite". Still, I guess your argument sort of applies. I'm afraid this is more a result of my personality, and is one of the big reasons I base my beliefs the way I do. (With flexibility for being wrong and changing) I'm not just going to accept, "I have no answer" for something. Instead, I'll work out the most reasonable answer for myself, and if circumstances change at a later date, I'll re-evaluate my beliefs. I spend at least a day every year challenging my current beliefs, and seeing if there's a different answer I can come to. I'm also not so arrogant to think that my beliefs five years from today will reflect my beliefs of today. (Mostly because there's yet to be a point in my life where I didn't hate the "me" of 5 years prior) Maybe if you weren't so insecure about the prospect of being wrong, you could employ a similar strategy.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Lastly, I wanted to work this in somewhere, but forgot until now. There's a reason why I can't just accept that existence sprung up out of nowhere, and why I can't accept that time is infinite. Our knowledge up until this point can be boiled down to a single model: cause and effect. With that in mind, "infinite" seems like a complete cop-out. Furthermore, existence would require a force outside of our understanding to establish, or would occur spontaneously. With "cause and effect" in mind, nothing can truly be categorized as, "spontaneous".

Originally Posted by Juntalis

Anyways, before our next debate, could you please take the time to do a bit more research. Before establishing the belief I eventually came to, I took the time to read up on every sect of religion I could find, and I suggest you do the same. At least then you might have something interesting to say instead of the same recycled philosophies that every other loud atheist tries to preach.

Originally Posted by Juntalis

After the Fact: I just wanted to give an explanation on why I think the way I come to my beliefs is a bit more beneficial in the long run. By utilizing "agnosticism" in parts of your belief, you consequently assert that rest of your beliefs to be correct. That may not be your end goal, mind you, but it's the result of differentiating what parts of your beliefs you don't know. In the audience's mind, you've now asserted that the remainder of your beliefs are what you know. Since knowing something is asserting something is factual, it leaves you with very little flexibility.

Originally Posted by NormalCitizen

I will say one thing about this:


Were it not for the bible, the plebeian mongoloids of the time would have raped and butchered each other into extinction, since their fairytales didn't tell them that raping and killing is bad.

Sure, it has been proven that humans are "naturally good" like all other animals, but humans are really stupid; especially peasants of the biblical times.