If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out...

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

As far as my understanding goes...we mostly argue about concepts of God or his attributes. And for the most part all known and popular concepts of God or the idea of God are flawed.

How can the concept of something that we can't observe in any way be proven to be flawed? You either believe it or you don't. Learn more philosophy from television please.

 

[KingAce]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

How can the concept of something that we can't observe in any way be proven to be flawed? You either believe it or you don't. Learn more philosophy from television please.

It's all flawed...before science. Obviously different cultures came to some assumption one way or another of some kind of deity...in other words a source construct for the Universe.
Humans will always want an explanation for whatever questions they have...and evidently a Universe coming from nowhere into existence isn't a satisfactory explanation.
As it would seem the reasoning is..."If we're products of the Universe, some part of Universe must be intelligent."

Hence, I say we're arguing concepts of God. It's logical to assume we're products of the Universe...However we disagree if that Universe is in fact an intelligent one, or that it grants wishes.

What is certain is that, we are what we are because we're part of a complex system. I think atheists sometimes forget that we humans despite how complex we're...we're still just parts of the Universe. We're constructs of the Universe composed of matter and energy...even our thoughts are part of this very Universe. Our concepts are flawed because we attribute the Universe with human characteristics...like anger, and greed...and call it God.

So then have a cookie...pifactor!

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

It's all flawed...before science. Obviously different cultures came to some assumption one way or another of some kind of deity...in other words a source construct for the Universe.
Humans will always want an explanation for whatever questions they have...and evidently a Universe coming from nowhere into existence isn't a satisfactory explanation.
As it would seem the reasoning is..."If we're products of the Universe, some part of Universe must be intelligent."

That reasoning is entirely flawed and I don't know about you, but I've never come to that conclusion. It's just complete bullshit and the cause and effect have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other.

It's like saying.. because your dog jumped on your couch, your neighbors lit a candle.

Cause and effect are entirely unrelated.

Hence, I say we're arguing concepts of God. It's logical to assume we're products of the Universe...However we disagree if that Universe is in fact an intelligent one, or that it grants wishes.

A god is a sentient being. If the Universe was sentient, you could probably call it god and most people would agree. But if we're arguing that the universe does not have a higher plan nor does it have intelligence, it is NOT god in any way, shape, or form.

As I like metaphors... it'd be like if we were debating the interpretation of a certain passage of the bible and how it applies to our respective congregations, but we labeled it as arguing degrees of atheism. Both this and the statement you made are utterly wrong. Arguing a "concept of god(s)" is like arguing which hair color is better, which has disadvantages, and which even deserve to be called hair colors. What we're actually arguing in this thread is if you should have hair or not. Do you understand the difference between arguing about varieties of a subject and arguing if the subject even exists?

What is certain is that, we are what we are because we're part of a complex system. I think atheists sometimes forget that we humans despite how complex we're...we're still just parts of the Universe.

Let me rephrase this for you to make a more accurate sentence:
"I think all people sometimes forget that we humans despite how complex we are...we're still just parts of the Universe."

The people most guilty of the offense you mentioned are usually religious ones, who believe that after they die, are no longer part of the universe. They usually also believe that they have a soul, which is tied to them and really is them, yet also is not a part of our universe.

So while your statement is 100% correct, it's also misleading.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

It's all flawed...before science. Obviously different cultures came to some assumption one way or another of some kind of deity...in other words a source construct for the Universe.
Humans will always want an explanation for whatever questions they have...and evidently a Universe coming from nowhere into existence isn't a satisfactory explanation.
As it would seem the reasoning is..."If we're products of the Universe, some part of Universe must be intelligent."

Hence, I say we're arguing concepts of God. It's logical to assume we're products of the Universe...However we disagree if that Universe is in fact an intelligent one, or that it grants wishes.

You seem to have this composition fallacy in your head that you can't bear to let go. Let me break down your argument into each separate premise and see what conclusion we come to.

1. Premise 1: Human beings are sentient, intelligent constructs.
   
2. Premise 2: Human beings reside within the Universe.
   
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe is a sentient, intelligent construct.

This is considerably flawed, as you are attempting to take the characteristics of the individuals within a SET and apply it to the SET itself without presenting a justifying principle. For further clarification, take this example, using the logic you are attempting to apply to your own argument.

• Premise 1: Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
  
• Premise 2: Human beings are composed of atoms.
  
• Conclusion: Therefore, humans are invisible.

See the flaw now?

What is certain is that, we are what we are because we're part of a complex system. I think atheists sometimes forget that we humans despite how complex we're...we're still just parts of the Universe.

Which makes the idea of a God more logically sound how, exactly?

 

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

• Premise 1: Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
  
• Premise 2: Human beings are composed of atoms.
  
• Conclusion: Therefore, humans are invisible.

Atoms are not invisible to KingAce. I remember quite distinctly this from an old soulcalibur.com thread which firmly established for me that he is an absolute moron (He linked a picture of a Bohr model, which, unless he is extra special, is not anything what an atom looks like). Don't bother arguing with this guy, it's like trying to play mind games with a button masher, there's nothing really going on in his head.