Marriage not reffering to any sort of physical object has no solidity to it in that context therefore is incapable of having any "hardness" :P

No the worst time to have a heart attack is during a play/movie where you are supposed to act out a scene where you have a heart attack ;)

I don't determine that "automatically" nor "assume" people are stupid, I determine how intelligent a person is by the evidence they give me. If someone behaves like an idiot I start to think of them as an idiot at least in some way or another... I do some pretty idiotic stuff myself though so, I can't say much...

like ?

Like I said, there are spiritual atheists

Indeed, but earlier you said spirituality was opposite of materialism, and with how blurry the definition of spirituality is, it can be, I was saying that because it is associated with those things I don't like to use the term spiritual. However believing in an afterlife, transcending soul, higher power is not necessary to not be materialistic.

But I believe in the same scientific theories as you. However, we have come to different conclusions. If you think that it is more logical to not believe in "God", then clearly the term in that sense is subjective. So, either we are both guilty of confirmation bias, or neither of us are. Science does not say whether or not "God" exists. What people conclude regarding a Creator is opinion-based.

Science isn't the only basis of truth, just the most efficient means of knowing. Science can't prove nor disprove god, nor has been able to show god to be probable, with this we have to rely on pure logic and reason to conclude whether or not god is worth believing. We may have all the same evidence, but in all honesty, I still am not convinced that belief in god is justified on logical grounds.

Also, when did I say "find a reason to believe in God"? That doesn't sound right. "Fine duh reason, asshole! Or duh lawd gonna sed ya tuh hell!" lol

Actually you did... "Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself." third last argument you made... you really need to reread the thread.

What I think of as wisdom, you think of as foolishness.

No what you seemingly claimed to be wisdom was actually confirmation bias. You seemingly have forgotten, or you haven't been keeping track the context of the entire thread...

I have looked at the evidence, and I have formed a conclusion. What have you done differently?

Supported my position with logic and reason.

Do we? The idea that life came from the lifeless is as much of a belief as the opposite idea, is it not?

yes it is, but to not believe we came from another being is totally logically justified. We can't assume that we have.

We didn't need to assume that all life needed the sun to survive either... We just did. However, we all have a sense of individuality that allows us to come to our own conclusions, so WE don't really need to assume anything. Different beliefs draws different assumptions.

Not all beliefs have to be based on assumptions, though I am sure we all have assumed, but the goal should be to assume as little as we can.

We also haven't seen them grow into advanced organisms.

If bacteria is "gaining" intelligence, doesn't that mean that intelligence was implied within it the whole time? If a flower grows from a plant, it isn't a flower coming from nothing. The flower was implied in that plant from the start.

We have evidence that they most likely have. Please tell me what you mean "implied within it"?

You are not setting up your arguments to be convincing. You are asking me to prove stuff, not vice versa. I have been trying to treat this more along the lines of a conversation, where as you wanted to turn it into a battle.

you disputed me

I offer up an idea, and then you slap it away saying something along the lines of, "that doesn't prove anything". Well, duh! That wasn't even my intention. You say that you accept my idea as an idea, but then in the following comment you say, "How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?" The hostility that is implied in that comment is incredible, because there is absolutely no reason for it.

Well I am sorry that I assumed that you were trying to make an argument against me, where you attempt to logically justify yourself on a debate site, I guess I should have known better... I'm not trying to be hostile... I'm debating... on a debate site. You made an argument against me, obviously (because we are on a debate site, and that you made yourself out as opposed to me) trying to challenge my viewpoint, which I have no problem with, as long as you have no problem with me challenging yours. Therefore my natural reaction is to make an argument against you.

The main reason I keep going off topic to address how you are handling this debate, is because of comments just like that. Do you even remember what I said that triggered that response from you? I said this: "No, it is as simple as saying, 'Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." All I was saying is that people come to different conclusions. It was basically an attempt on my part to let you know that even though we disagree, I still respect your opinion. I think this is my third time having to say this, but it wasn't a JAB!

Yet, within those same arguments you were still attempting to refute other points I was making, and were still disputing me, having me assume that too was also a point against me. My point towards that, which is perfectly respectable, is that there are still logical grounds between belief and non-belief, and I have been arguing that non-belief is simply more logical. I'm sorry I assumed that a piece of an argument against me, wasn't also against me, or rather within an argument disputing me, I was supposed to assume one singular point wasn't... I am so sorry about that... Geesh

To me it seemed as though you were implying that both atheism and theism is on equal grounds logically, and I made an argument against that, it's a debate site, people will disagree with you.

When you said it wasn't a jab at my atheism, to be completely honest, I thought that you thought that I was personally offended, and by "jab" you meant offense, not an argument.

Civility was probably too much to ask for, you're right.

How have I been uncivil? All I've been doing is making counter arguments.

I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way.

How does any of this take away from the fact that our disposition towards life is subjective?

Right, and I was in the same place as you not too long ago. I was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I found my own personal reason to believe in "God", one you likely wouldn't understand. That's nothing against you, because I probably wouldn't have understood it a while ago either. I am not trying to convert you to the idea, I just want you to see that a theistic argument can work.

If a theistic argument did work, I'd be a theist. Or if by a theist argument can work, you mean that there can be arguments for the theistic position I agree, if you mean by work, you mean logically justify the belief in a god, I disagree. In either case, on a debate site, I'm going to counter you, if I disagree, or at the very least point out what I think is wrong with your arguments.

I stopped debating her when I realized she wanted me to do all her homework for her. It doesn't work like that, I back up my claims with evidence as should be expected, so she should back up her own claims with evidence. I'm not going to do research into her own claims, neither would she research my claims, if she can't provide actual evidence, that's her problem not mine. She's a big girl, she can do her own research, and if not, she's not worth my time.

Of course it's natural, it has natural in it's name, it's not just natural... it's SUPERnatural! ;) But you wouldn't have been able to get my soul anyway, I'm a ginger. :P

Like?

an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power.

So, you think God is a person?

fair point.

I thought you were implying it.

You assumed that when I said superstition.

I usually call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that. Would trying to logically justify God's non-existence be "confirmation bias", as well?

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way."

It's not confirmation bias to back yourself up via logic and evidence, it is confirmation bias to go out of your way and try to convince yourself something is true. Earlier I said, I don't believe in god, because I haven't came across a reason, then you said I simply haven't found one yet, and I said if a reason is provided I will believe in a god, to which you said "find a reason to believe in god". That's confirmation bias. If you are trying to convince yourself god exists, if you are going out of your way to look for a reason to believe in god, you are searching for evidence selectively and interpreting it selectively for the bias that their is a god. Confirmation bias. That's not wisdom, that is something you learn in basic psychology that gets the best of us, but is in no way a virtue or wise.

No, it is a statement as to what we have observed. Would you have said that I had a bias towards the sun's light if I had claimed that all life needed sunlight to survive? No, until the 70's, that is what we had observed.

If you ignored all the evidence to the contrary, or interpret information in a biased way, to confirm what you believe is true. Rather than looking at all the evidence before forming a belief and then coming to a conclusion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... That is something you are going to have to back up. This is stuff we have actually observed?

This is stuff we have evidence for.

If you want to plant an apple tree, you take the seeds from an apple... Which grew from the tree. We grew from the Earth, but why could it not have been that intelligence was implied in that initial point, just as apples are implied in the seed? The apple seed grew into a tree before apples came out of it.

I don't see why we need to assume intelligence is necessary or implied.

It is also observation at its finest. It can be falsified, though. Plus, I am not saying intelligence can only create intelligence as a fact, but as of now, that is all we have observed. Show me otherwise.

All biological life being produced from the earth? Bacteria gaining intelligence and becoming more complex? We haven't observed an intelligence behind these, so far as we can tell, that is intelligence coming from non-intelligence. To simply say "you don't know if their wasn't an intelligence behind that" is confirmation bias. No I don't know, but I have no reason to believe all the life here on earth had to come from an intelligent being, we've found them come about without ever finding any intelligence behind it.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the word "prove". I am not trying to prove anything. I am only offering up an idea.

And I accept your idea, as an idea, and a possibility simply from not being disproven. So what is the point in continuing this with me?

Oh, good grief, man! I am sorry that I am not convincing you, but we both know that you didn't come into this argument to be convinced. As that quote that Joe just posted said, when arguing, people tend not to listen to understand, they listen to reply. That is all I am getting from you. Even the stuff you agreed with, you have probably already forgotten.

I could say the same thing about you, you didn't come into this argument to be convinced either, and it is in my opinion a lot more obvious with you than me. I'm rather pretty confident debater but your arrogance here, reading through the thread, has rather surprised me, with all due respect.

No, it is as simple as saying, "Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else."

How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?

It was not a jab at you for being an atheist. It was just me pointing out that there are reasons to believe in "God"... You just haven't found one. Is that really all that offensive?

It's not so much offensive, rather than a tad annoying, not contributing at all, and makes you seem rather arrogant.

What have I been doing this entire debate? I have been giving you several reasons and you keep coming back to this shit! If you don't agree, then so be it. I have found no reason to be an atheist, you have found no reason to be a theist... That does not mean I have not offered up ideas. If you don't agree with them, then fine.

It's a debate site, what do you expect? Yes I am going to disagree with you... But when you keep saying "you just haven't found a reason" as if it contributes to anything, or means anything at some point I feel obliged to point out it doesn't. I have listened, and accepted all your ideas, as ideas, if that is all you want to argue with me about, fine you win, but you have not convinced me, if that isn't what you want, you don't have to keep arguing with me.

And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way.

LOL, and you accuse me of not listening to you. The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life. It is subjective, your feelings about being alive doesn't at all contribute to making god more probable.

.

I don't even need proof to believe in a god, I just need something that at least makes god probable, not just a possibility, as I accept god already as a possibility until someone proves otherwise. I just need evidence, or one good argument that can stand up to scrutiny.

You don't my soul Joe? You can use it to make a deal with satan lol

I bid my soul. . .

Superstition is associated with irrationality and magic. A spiritual person wouldn't consider their beliefs irrational, would they?

No but most things that are associated with spirituality, are in my opinion, superstitious

And as far as magic goes, it depends on your definition.

a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

If there is a God, it isn't necessarily magic. Maybe by our standards, because we can't personally create an entire universe, but our human capabilities don't really compare to God's capabilities. He wouldn't think of his abilities as magic, I assume.

Did I ever say god was necessarily magic?

Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself.

So in other words try to logically justify god's existence... that's called confirmation bias...

Well, lets think of it that way for a minute. A continuous chain of intelligence. God gave us intelligence, something else gave God intelligence, something before that gave that thing it's intelligence, and so on and so forth. So when does it stop? Is it infinite? That would mean that intelligence has always existed. Does it stop at something that is unintelligent? Well, that would disprove my argument that intelligence can only come from intelligence. Can it be that the ultimate source of the higher intelligences is an eternal intelligence? Well, then what is wrong with the idea that the intelligence that created the universe is an eternal intelligence?

Fair point.

If we come to conclusions based on our observations, can we say that we have never seen intelligence come from something that is unintelligent? We have not seen an oak tree drop an acorn that grew to be a talking oak tree, or as far as we know, a thinking oak tree.

Yes we have, we have observed intelligent beings evolve here on earth, produced from the earth, and from stars, which are unintelligent. To say that isn't an observance of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, is itself, merely an assumption that an intelligence had to be, behind the things that created us. Observing intelligent things coming from intelligent things and going "Ha, only intelligence can produce another intelligence" and then observing intelligence with no evidence of intelligence behind it, and saying "There has to be an intelligence really far back that implemented this" is confirmation bias, at it's finest.

But the computers that we created came from an intelligence, and the intelligence that a computer has acquired is not necessarily real intelligence. Scientists and doctors have found that in order for people to make decisions, they need the part in their brain that creates emotions, to remain functional. A computer does not have any sort of emotion. And the intelligence that is uploaded into a computer, is knowledge that we have, but a computer can process it faster.

Considering you are talking about conscious intelligence, which is what produces intention, I concede that to be a rather fallacious argument.

If I were to plant an apple tree seed, everything that the tree will become is implied in the seed. I would not see it go from a little tree, to a big tree, and then wonder what the hell happened when it starts growing apples. The seed that had all of that within it came from a full grown apple tree though. This brings us to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, but instead of chickens and eggs, it is seed or tree. Well, ultimately a tree came into this world through growth, and then what it grew from ultimately came from the Big Bang. But within that point, was implication of everything. It had the ability to grow into everything that we see today. It is the seed of creation, and what if that seed was planted? However, with God, I do not think that it was a literal seed, but maybe a thought, which is a lot like a seed. If you were to write a novel, ultimately the seed of that novel was your mind.

How does this at all prove you point? Yes, things can be a product of intention, but there is no reason that you have supplied here that intention is necessary.

You just haven't found a reason.

Yes, and until I do come across a logical reason to believe, I don't see the point in believing. Saying things like "You just haven't found a reason" doesn't contribute anything, just highlight why I am not a believer. This would be the equivalent to me saying "You just haven't seen the flaws in your reasons in belief yet" or in translation, and I mean this with all due respect "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you just don't know how". If there is a reason to believe in god, don't just tell me there is, SHOW ME THAT REASON...

Yet our population is growing. There are dangers, yes... But if we truly are eternal, like God, then what do we have to worry about?

I never said that humans were eternal, if that is what you are getting at. Yes, our population is growing, the world is more convenient for us, than any other animal, because we have adapted to it.

It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient.

A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. My point isn't that the universe is convenient or inconvenient, bad or good, shitty or wonderful. My point is, our disposition to the universe is rather subjective, and thus not a good argument for a god's existence. In other words, just because you appreciate your existence, doesn't mean that a god exists, your appreciation for your existence, is entirely a subjective disposition.

Superstition? Here is a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an atheist: "Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don't know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me."

A spiritual feeling can pretty much be summed up as a feeling of oneness.

It can be, definitely, and in that sense I suppose you could say I am spiritual, but generally spirituality is associated with superstition.

No. If he has always existed, he would not have come from anything. He would be the ultimate source of intelligence.

So intelligence exists, without it having to come from intelligence itself?

No, we have intelligence always existing. Maybe, like energy, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed. Maybe it isn't intelligence being created, maybe it is the same intelligence just multiplying, or growing. This at least fits for my idea, which is that God is our higher Self.

So an intelligence that doesn't need another intelligence behind it?

You just haven't found a reason. There is a difference. By your mindset, we can say that it is safe to assume that there is no reason to believe anything regarding what created us, agreed?

Unless a reason is provided.

This sort of stuff only sounds crazy to people because they haven't taken enough time to think about it.

Intelligence came from an intelligence that has always existed, that is what I believe. However, I don't think our intelligence is separate from the ultimate intelligence. So, the intelligence that has always existed, is the only intelligence that has ever existed.

Think of it like water. I can pour water into separate cups, I can mix the water with different ingredients, I can make the water evaporate, I can freeze the water, I can do so many different things with the same water, and disguise it from what it ultimately is. When you drink tea or coffee, you don't think water... But the water is still there. Water from one bottle used to make coffee, tea, ice, steam... Is still the same water. So, like water, intelligence can be found "hiding" behind many different things... Humans, animals, insects... Some people even think that plants have some sort of intelligence, but what if it is all just one intelligence/consciousness that has taken several different forms?

I see what you are saying here, but by asserting that intelligence needs an intelligence behind it, wouldn't that also apply to an eternal intelligence? To assert intelligence needs intelligence behind it, you make eternal intelligence itself a paradox. Furthermore, we don't have evidence or reason to think intelligence requires intelligence behind it. We assume that because the product of our own intelligence, is the result of intelligent things, purposeful things, but that doesn't mean that all things that act intelligently need intelligence behind it. Also, does whatever intelligence need a GREATER intelligence behind it? We have created computers which are intelligent, not conscious, but intelligent, and in some ways more intelligent than us, we actually did come from an intelligence, the organism that we evolved from which was less intelligent, and the organism before that, being less intelligent, and so on. Intelligence doesn't necessarily need a GREATER intelligence, nor a less intelligence, and thus the most minimal intelligence could result from non-intelligence, no?

There may be. Without food and water we'd die. Without plants and animals, we wouldn't have food. Without the sun and water, we wouldn't have anything. Really, the conditions are just right... But the question is, is there a purpose behind all of it, or did we just luck out?

Luck out? the conditions that allow us to live, are the only conditions where we would be alive to be able to say "we lucked out" which is true, however slightly misleading. Of course we should find that the conditions that allow our lives exist where we live, that's just logical, but to allude to that being intentional... well... there is no reason to. 99% of the universe will kill us, millions of black holes are flying around the galaxy that would tear us apart, as well as stars that would obliterate us, meteores and asteroids, here on earth, life is about eat or get eaten, do or die, cretures bigger than you that want to kill, creatures smaller than you that can assissinate. We have removed ourselves from that to a good extent, but the universe isn't convenient for our existence. It is easy to look at all the things that are coincidentally convenient and go "gosh this world is so convenient" as easily as one could look at all the inconveniences of the world and go "gosh this world is so inconvenient", it's practically subjective either way.