After some reflection to my invitation for a thread about the merits of religious supersitions (thank you Umpa!), it occured to me that a catchy title would do me no good if it set about from the wrong side of the coin. This is a mistake many debating atheists and anti-theists make and one that almost always sees them waste undue time explaining his own position. With that in mind, I spout not the renunciation of Yaweh or Allah (or Zeus, Ra, Seth, Zaroaster, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Ananzi, etc.) from my title, but request that those living in the certitude of such a being explain why they suppose their God(s) to exist. As an atheist, I make no such claim to knowledge.
I freely admit that my knowledge has limits in the physical world as well as to the realm of what scientists can currently experiment and observe. I fully acknowledge that there will be new ideas, new postulaions, and even new religions long after my life has ended. I expect many would argue that science is dispensed with, having admitted these limitations, but to that I must push the question: what makes anything else more plausible? What makes a many-millenia old work of creative non-fiction (or historical fiction, take your pick) any more a useful tool to seek truth?
I must be careful to caveat on several points, again, in the hopes that we will have as little grandstanding and unnecessary derailing from the central issue:
1. Atheists do not maintain there is no god, they maintain there has never been convincing evidence for a god. While this distinction seems flippant, it is not. The former is a claim that would make atheists no more rational than a strident theist.
2. Atheists do not (all) contend that religious texts are entirely useless, morally bankrupt, or request their destruction. Many of us, myself included, oblige the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, etc. as works of literature worth reading. They may be windows into iron/bronze age society, common literary experiences that enrich the reader just as much as The Illiad, works of Shakespear, or (perhaps more modern context) a classic film series like The Godfather.
3. What then, seperates the agnostic from the Atheist? Good question. There is some debate on this, but my take is this: Agnostics just don't care about the question and Atheists have pursued the question and found all answers wanting. If you are a professed agnostic and find a problem with my diffirentiation, please let me know how you see yourself. I am quite interested in this dichotomy.
4. "The universe," is not proof of the existence of a god or gods. Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either. Appeals to authority on the matter of quantum physics proving a deist position would be interesting to hear (though i've yet to hear a good one).
---------------------------
With that out of the way I would like to make the small request that posters identify (at least in their first post) themselves as Theist, Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. This is not to typecast or mock anyone I view as holding an indefensible position, but rather to help me (and anyone else who wants to contribute) understand the context of what is being said by way of position.
---------------------------
In deference to our gracious moderation team I will also request that ad hominem and useless trolling be kept at a cordial level. I'm well aware that most of these discussions don't "convert," or "englighten," anyone and that the prospect of this thread charging into the flaming abyss of crap are high: therefor, let us do our best to maintain a civil discourse.
So: Prove to me your God exists!
1
If you catch my drift.
1
Edit: No, nevermind. The Multiplayer-only version is an in-browser version that connects to public servers. :/
1
Granted, I am often mistaken.
Next friday, when I get paid, I'll join the server.
(Love that little game!)
1
2
I <3 days off...
Has anyone played Kohan or Kohan 2?
1
Cold, Fire, or Light Sorc?
1
+Sorc MF'ed better then all the classes. The sorceress was the premier MF class. So, by your definition the Sorc is better then the Paladin, Amazon, Assassin, etc as well.
-Assassin and Pally PK/PvP 1000X better than a necro.
+That is your opinion. Yes, the Paladin is OP in PvP, but in the proper hands any class can defeat any class, and in the not-so-proper hands, any class can be defeated by any class. So this point is mute.
-Javazons and Hammerdins solo Hell and bosses 100000X better than a necro.
+Actually the Javazon has problems in Hell due to Light Immunes, whereas the Necromancer's bone skills are just like the Hammerdin's hammers, IE they have no immunes. Now, if your refering to the weapons that remove immunities, then you must be saying that all classes are equal. Otherwise the Paladin is on equal footing as the Necromancer.
-Ive heard of Hammerdins soloing Ubers, not necros..
+Actually Smitadens are better then Hammerdins in Ubers. And there are builds for Necromancers for defeating Ubers, just like there are builds for Sorceresses, Amazons, Druids, Barbarians, and Assassins. So this point is mute.
-Oh yeah, game lagging, Necro really does it 1000 X better than everyone else. I do admit.
+Summonmancers are not Bonemancers. Summonmancers are not Poisonmancers. And again, bonemancers cause just as much lag as Hammerdins.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Hammerdins, or any class for that matter. But it's silly to use stereotypes to dismiss a class.
1
And don't get me wrong, I love the avatar and signature, it's just not what I'm looking for right now. >.>
1
Then what makes it better then other console-friendly fps's, like Golden Eye? It was just another game that just happened to stick as far as I can personally see. Yea, it was fun, but it had no story, it didn't do anything different, and it didnt add anything. At least Half Life 2 brought the idea of using physics as a weapon, even if the game was bleh.
1