collegehopefull

@gsiddarth: Lol, please say the g is for Gautam. (if you aren't who I think you are, ignore this...)
"Cornell" probably doesn't care. As for individual people....most of the friends I have at Cornell (and in general) are atheists (or nontheist, and all of those other things), so. yeah.

Feral24

i dont think people in iran would like you being atheist...

EL_TACO_GRANDE

the philosophy department is very anti-theist ....

applejack

Oh, relax. I wasn't judging you. Just trying to surmise your situation based on the general culture of SUNY schools and what you posted so I could try and help. Had nothing to do with you in particular.

Yes, there's tons of groups like the type you seek.

If Cornell's your dream school, then go to it. Your true friends will still be your true friends on the other side. The others won't be worth walking away from one of the best schools in the world if you have an opportunity to attend it.

I was in a similar situation before I transferred. I was comfortable, but found myself to be really happy once I was at Cornell for all it offered that my previous school didn't. Everyone's different, though.

danyellie1913

thanks.
=]

gsiddarth

@collegehopefull: nope, sorry got the nationality right though

JollyStNick

@theslowclap:

Actually, you sound very ignorant. You're right, I am obviously not here to have a constructive debate on the existence of a higher being because there is no debate to be had. In order to have a debate you need to have (at least) two opposing sides that have evidence to back up their claims. And while there are clearly two opposing sides on the religious issue, one of them has absolutely no evidence. (And for the record, I did help the OP make a decision because I showed him/her that there are people, like me, at Cornell who obviously don't want people like the OP to attend Cornell).

You're right, I do know the definition of rational, but it sounds like you don't. It also sounds like you don't know the definition of logical. So let me define these words for you:

ra⋅tion⋅al
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.

log⋅i⋅cal
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.

And since this definition uses the word "logic" in its definition, I will also define logic for you:

log⋅ic
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

Ok, so lets walk through this. Something that is rational must be agreeable to reason and sensible. The concept of God is not agreeable to reason because in order to be agreeable to reason there must be evidence of God's existence because reason arrives at conclusions based on the collection and analysis of information. And the concept of God is not sensible because sensible literally means "able to be perceived by the senses", and seeing as there is no way to sense God (I am basing this on the belief that God is everywhere, and since I can not sense him, no one else can), God is not sensible. Since the concept of God is neither agreeable to reason or sensible, it is most certainly not rational.

Then you told me to google "God philosophy", so I did. I also read the first couple results. The first one was particularly hilarious. It was a page titled "Philosophy and the Proof of God's Existence", and its first point was "the argument from Design". It basically said that God must exist because there is no way that the complexity of human beings could occur by chance, or in other words humans are so complex that there must be an intelligent creator. This is a very naive argument. There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the Universe, so chances are that complex life would come about on at least one of these almost infinite number of planets. In fact, it's likely that there are other planets out there that have advanced, complex life-forms. His second argument was "The ontological argument" which is basically that since God is perfect he must exist, because if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect. There are so many problems with this argument I don't even know where to begin. First of all, our concept of "perfection" is completely man-made, not to mention completely subjective. Who's to say that our idea of "perfect" is the same as the universes idea of "perfect". Secondly, in order for this argument to make any sense, we must assume that God exists and that God is perfect, but why would we assume this if this is exactly what they are trying to prove. I stopped reading that retarded article after that argument.

Oh and you said "point proven" but you never stated your point... or proved it for that matter.

This brings us back to your point that philosophers believed in God, and they were smart and had logical arguments, therefore God must exist. First of all, the fact that other people believe in God does not prove that God exists, it just proves that more idiots have been deluded by religion. And their arguments cannot be logical because, as I defined above, something is only logical if it arrives at conclusions by analyzing evidence, and, as I have said before, there is no evidence, therefore there is no logic.

And I would counter your statement by saying that it is VERY irrational for me to believe that Bob exists. I never said that I could see Bob, I also explicitly mentioned that Bob was mute, so I never heard Bob. I also clearly didn't taste, smell, or feel Bob, so (going back to our definition of rational (aka sensible)) since I cannot sense Bob, it would be highly irrational for me to think that he exists.

Hey, I'm going to stop here because I pretty much raped your terrible, fallacy-filled argument. And sadly I think that you are right that this discussion will go on for millennia because there will always be gullible, weak idiots who need to rely on religion to get through their lives.

dragonneedspank

JollyStNick took it way too far. Very ignorant of him. This is the problem with people today. They are NEVER open to new ideas and are very CLOSED minded. They are just like Oprah, they THINK they are always RIGHT. But I'm not going to rebuttal his comment because there is no point is arguing with a close-minded ignorant person. I suggest that this thread either dies or post some useful comment to the OP.

However, JollyStNick demonstrates a point in which there are people who will challenge our religious belief. It can either break you or make you stronger as a religious person. Since Cornell is your dream school, I think you should apply, and I believe that your love for God will grow even stronger if you get in. There are so many Christian Fellowships at Cornell and there will always be support if you need it. Let us know what you plan to do OP.

applejack

Start another thread in the cafe, JollyStNick. Proselytizing your faith in only science is very much off topic.

JollyStNick

@dragonneedspank:
You could not be more wrong. It's not that I am close minded, it is that I am close minded to things that don't make any sense. That's like calling me close minded for not believing in Santa Clause, while a large part of the population does (albeit the younger part).

You are also wrong that I think that I am always right. I actually frequently profess that I know nothing, which I honestly believe to be the truth; none of us knows anything.

And you say that you aren't going to argue with me because I am "a close-minded ignorant person", but the real reason is because you have no argument against me. You are far worse than me (along with theslowclap) because instead of trying to come up with intelligent arguments, you use ad hominem arguments to attack my personal character rather than my intelligible arguments.

I think it's just as likely that we are the experiment of super advanced humans as that there is a God, but that's not to say I think either is very likely. You should also notice that I never attacked religion, only the concept of God. This is because I think there are many lessons we can learn from religion, but the concept of God is particularly retarded.

chendrix

Do you have any evidence for the argument that God does not exist? Neither side has evidence, and so you can't use evidence as the basis of your argument. If you wanted to, then I could just as easily rewrite your entire argument with the words "God must not exist."

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

How long ago was it that the concept of an atom, because invisible to the naked eye, was thought to be irrational?

Now quit the bickering, and if you want to continue this asinine argument, do it on your own thread.

Feral24

even though i'm an atheist myself, i hate how some atheists try and prove that they are so much more rational and intelligent than religious people.

CayugaRed2005

I tend towards agnosticism or deism myself, but I must point out that to be an atheist requires just as much faith as one who is religious. Both place their trust in something they do not know.

And unfortunately, both sides may exhibit much hate and bigotry.

lianri

Wow JollyStNick, TL;DR.

I knew this would turn into a flame war...

Tboonepickens

Using the scientific method, disprove the existance of god. You can not, there is simply no evidence the disproves the existance of god. Thats why religion is not based on scientific inquiry. In fact, I think that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle nearly proves the existance of god. God exists and does not exist simultaneously until he is observed and collapses back into the state that he is observed in (existance or non existance).