I don’t like how you group theists and deists into one even though they differ greatly in their beliefs. There are many types of deists, ranging from people who chose to still identify as part of their religion but deny the authenticity of the religious scriptures and rituals to deists like me who deny religions and rather advocate for incomprehensibility of a deity supposedly functioning at a higher level. I also do not deny that god may not exist at all, but it is highly possible given that there are so many discoveries yet to be made in quantum physics
Why not? Please offer a lucid and rational argument that is supported by evidence. Not just wishful thinking.
There got to beings somewhere in this seemingly endless universe that are much more advanced than humanity in all fields, our values, culture, and everything else may seem so primitive to them, that they may not even regard us seriously. The same applies for god, an omnipotent being must exist somewhere. Regarding empirically derived evidence, I don’t have any just as there aren’t any empirical/scientific evidence to deny the existence of god.
I noticed how you atheists usually debate with traditional theists and usually attack the authenticity of a specific religion and of the possibility of existence of god as described in the scriptures. It must great to have some variation with your opponents 
You are not my opponent. You are a fellow human being with emotions, a life, family, and pride for example. We differ in our respective positions, and attempting to reconcile that difference.
2 Likes
Oh thanks, I’m sorry if I sounded too offensive in my post. You did mention how people here never target the individual himself/herded but the ideas they rather possess
I concede that somewhere out in this known universe there may be life and advanced civilizations. Maybe.
Are you truly aware of the size of this universe? Are you aware that the speed of light may be the true limiting factor in the ability to travel between the stars? Are you aware that the nearest star is over four light years from us? Are you aware that the nearest galaxy is 25,000 light years distant?
This is not like Star Trek where one can zip between inhabited planets as one takes the subway. It may be that advanced civilizations do not get past the transition into advanced science and destroy themselves and their planet. It may be that if there were advanced civilizations but the vast distances and the rate of expansion of this universe may render any form of travel and communication between such assumed civilizations as fundamentally impossibly.
You are presenting just wishful thinking. How about something more than wishful thinking?
1 Like
I really do not care what you like. Anyone who believes that there “must” be a creator or god or “universe sentience” without one shred of evidence is tarred with the same fantastical brush.
So what? There are many species of ants. Yet nearly all follow the same functional path. Deists/theists just don’t have an excuse for their baseless twaddle
?Highly possible? Where did you pull that conclusion from?..eewww…dont answer I can see what it is covered in. .
Here is your sentence fixed for you: “I have no evidence of any kind of deity or superior godlike being. I choose to ignore the complete lack of evidence for such a thing, and make up word salad that makes me feel comfortable about being an infinitesimal speck on an unimportant, remote planet in a changing and magnificent universe that I do not understand.”
1 Like
Of course there are. But that has nothing to do with the existence of a god. Science advances our understanding of this universe. But just because your god has not been discovered yet, that does not indicate there is one. There is no evidence, no data, and as far as I know, every phenomena can be explained without resorting to a god.
In fact, the world of Quantum Physics is buzzing because of this recent experiment.
1 Like
You begin with a false analogy and a false assertion. Ants eat human beings so they are very much aware of a human beings existence as a food source. Your issue is not that an ant does not comprehend a human being, but rather, how they comprehend a human being.
Next, you are postulating that which is known to exist with that which is completely hypothetical. We we know both ants and humans exist. We have no reliable evidence what so ever for the existence of a magical universe creating deity.
Finally, you have rank ordered these beings as higher and lower order? How in the hell did you ever come to decide which was higher or lower? An ant can live in a microwave oven that has been turned on … can you? Most invertebrates will laugh at nuclear winter as the human race destroys itself, hell, you aren’t even on the top of the food chain, covid 19 proves that. Where did you ever get the idea that you were part of a “higher order?” Who made the ruler? LOL … don’t you think there is a bit of bias here?
Atheism is not a position of “Denying the Existence of God.” At least not until you identify the God you profess exists. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You claim a god exists, I ask you for evidence. Your evidence falls short of the claim and I am therefore completely justified in asserting that specific god you are arguing for does not exist. This is the very reason theists no longer believe in the god of the bible and instead argue for some amorphous being existing beyond time and space… LOL… A god that exists for no time and in no space is the same thing as non-existent. You say you cannot know, and then you run about making claims. Someone is not playing with a full deck here and it is not the atheists.
I am not a being of a potentially lower intelligence until you can demonstrate a potentially higher intelligence and exactly what that means. What is it you are qualifying as intelligence? It is only one aspect of the evolutionary influences and it is certainly not a primary one in any species but our own.
1 Like
Advocate…(recommend or support).
Interesting 
. You are choosing one unfalsifiable claim over another as a BELIEF.(NOTE: as to knowledge it places humans in a state of “I don’t know” or agnosticism)
Remaining open to future discovers either way does not define current BELIEF based on demonstrable evidence.
I personally always reserve the right to change my mind based on information.
Think of the gumball machine. Is it an even or odd amount of gum balls?
A theist may choose “Even”.
Don’t assume an atheist is choosing “odd”. I personally withhold believing the claim of the theist of the number being “even” until it can be demonstrated.
Until the machine is opened and gumballs counted, why would I have “belief”? OR “confidence” in a claim with a low standard for “evidence”.
The “deity” of which you advocate may have “died” when it burst through the “outside time/space (I have no clue what this is)” and we are just residue.
One more thought - I just had a smoke 
.
Say you are right. I thought if the 
ants under my flowerpot. Those little guys don’t KNOW of the world outside of their colony and I happen to be a human that leaves them alone. I don’t feed them upon doing “pleasing rituals” to acknowledge my existence. I may accidentally step on one (which could be argued that if you were to personify them, they may wonder why some ants die flat).
BUT they don’t have that personified thinking capability in reality, do they? They carry on with whatever awareness they have in their environment doing what they’ve evolved to do.
LIKEWISE so have we evolved. This advocating for a deity has no meaning. This deity is unknowable and uncomprehendable - so basically useless.
IT may just perpetuate more “uncomprehendable guesswork” for humans to base more “rituals” upon to reach what has not been demonstrated to “exist” in our reality.
1 Like
OMG 
. I was just scrolling up to find a claim that didn’t sit right with me and 
read your post! OMG! AND old man! Fuck me!!! So much for originality…
Fuck! I seriously posted before I read your “ant” analogy. 
Anyhoo… oh fuck…wrong fucking thread! I’m looking for the “slave” guy claims…
1 Like
God! I’ve got to get more original.
So @Arandomdeist here’s a thought 
. Do you hold this same standard for advocating belief on other ideas that have the same (or some more so) level of evidence?
For example, do you advocate for belief in mermaids 
♀?
The ocean is vast and we know more about space than our home’s expansive seas. Claims have been made throughout our human history of mermaids and sirens. Tales have been written by sailors of their experiences and eye-witness accounts. We have stories today and believers.
If you don’t believe in the typical mermaid mythology, why not?
That is when you are trying to calculate probability while smoking marijuana.
2 Likes
I just remembered that meme with Dawkins when he said “Thank God I am an atheist”. YOU SHOULDNT BE BLASPHEMING WITH LORD’S NAME like that! 
Regarding your arguments that you have made against my claims, I will answer them after I sober up
hits oneself up side the head
thinks to myself “Jesus fuckin’Christ, I gotta remember that”
You should have mentioned that this was a study of some kind. That’s a little deceptive. That said, you can use my responses, it doesn’t bother me. How are you going to use them, a paper?
I almost never read the responses of others prior to responding. My responses are my own, that way any criticism I receive is a direct result of my own thoughts, I prefer it that way. I will generally go back and read the responses of others and then comment or not. What I tend to find is agreement but different ways of expressing ideas and occasional insights that I find useful and interesting. Now and again someone will say something that sends me off to Google looking for information. I enjoy those responses. Who does not like a good puzzle to solve?
Anyway, you are pretty much doing it the way I do it. I prefer commenting first unless I am completely ignorant of the topic at hand.
Really. I’m sorry to learn that. Not judging, mind. Giving up smoking on the umpteenth attempt was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. (I was 55 at the time)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
I’m fascinated that people are still bothering with this dropkick. For me not so much because of the breadth and depth of ignorance, but that such ignorance is so wilful. Yet another theist/deist impervious to facts and reason and ignorant of the most basic scientific concepts.
In the mean time I’ll go and buy some more popcorn, as you good folks continue to make him eat his own head… 
As I explained it’s a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam to imply a belief is valid because it can’t be disproved.
It’s perfectly rational to withhold belief from all unfalsifiable claims. Its absurdly irrational however to believe them all, and obviously biased to believe some or one, and not others.