NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, before I get flamed, I'm just curious. I'm not outraged or anything, just curiou as to why Nationstates is so predominantly Atheist, (with many militant atheists as well) especially considering that Atheists are generally a minority. Why are the numbers so out of proportion? (Oh and please don't say something like "Because Christians are ignorant hicks!" or on the other side "Atheists are obsessed with their megalomaniacal desires for a One World Government!" I want a civil debate.)

It's not. You just see it that way.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

I think its becuase this site tends to attract a somewhat more intelligent crowd than most site forums.
Many intelligent people naturally gravitate to atheism.
Wich is not to say that Christians are generally more stupid, or anything.

I call it "sanity".

Either:

A. They're more vocal (kinda like the whole "Stupid American!" stereotype)

or

B. There really is more of them

Atheists aren't really that uncommon. It's the third most populous religion in the world. However, religions tend to huddle together in groups, so you really wouldn't notice.

Young adults are more likely to be atheists than older or younger people.

Computer savvy people are more likely to be atheists.


These are just a few reasons.

Nationstates is advertised in M.A.Q.(Militant Atheists Quarterly). It's a small publication that deals with thinks that concern atheists. Like dentistry and stuff. *nod*

There's been like a million polls on this subject. The only thing that is predominant amongst NSers is very loud opinions.

Nationstates is advertised in M.A.Q.(Militant Atheists Quarterly). It's a small publication that deals with thinks that concern atheists. Like dentistry and stuff. *nod*


Militant dentistry?

You weren't there man, you weren't there! (the great filling rebellion of '73)

Militant dentistry?

You weren't there man, you weren't there! (the great filling rebellion of '73)
Whoa...
Wasn't there a Monty Python skit about dentistry?
I'm gonna go dig through my DVD box and see if I can find it!

Now, before I get flamed, I'm just curious. I'm not outraged or anything, just curiou as to why Nationstates is so predominantly Atheist, (with many militant atheists as well) especially considering that Atheists are generally a minority. Why are the numbers so out of proportion? (Oh and please don't say something like "Because Christians are ignorant hicks!" or on the other side "Atheists are obsessed with their megalomaniacal desires for a One World Government!" I want a civil debate.)

Because we have a hard time beliving that god could have created some of the people on here.

*shudders*

J/K

Now, before I get flamed, I'm just curious. I'm not outraged or anything, just curiou as to why Nationstates is so predominantly Atheist, (with many militant atheists as well) especially considering that Atheists are generally a minority. Why are the numbers so out of proportion? (Oh and please don't say something like "Because Christians are ignorant hicks!" or on the other side "Atheists are obsessed with their megalomaniacal desires for a One World Government!" I want a civil debate.)

I don't know about your backyard, but Australia is a post-Christian society. Non-religious and non-practising far outnumber theists. I don't include myself in either category personally, I'm a mystic.

Nationstates is advertised in M.A.Q.(Militant Atheists Quarterly). It's a small publication that deals with thinks that concern atheists. Like dentistry and stuff. *nod*

You've been nodding a lot lately. Is there something wrong with your neck?

It is disproportionate. Most NS users are from the US or Canada, and Canada has about 16% Atheism with the US having only about 5. Yet every time I go to a forum, and evenmention God, I'm called a "sheep" by at least six people, and a racist homophobe to boot.

I don't know about your backyard, but Australia is a post-Christian society. Non-religious and non-practising far outnumber theists. I don't include myself in either category personally, I'm a mystic.
Not true, according to the latest census. Christians are still the biggest group, with Atheists in a distant second. I'm not quite sure what you mean about non-practicing though...

Yet every time I go to a forum, and evenmention God, I'm called a "sheep" by at least six people, and a racist homophobe to boot.
I'd say that's just a bit of an exaggeration.

It is disproportionate. Most NS users are from the US or Canada, and Canada has about 16% Atheism with the US having only about 5. Yet every time I go to a forum, and evenmention God, I'm called a "sheep" by at least six people, and a racist homophobe to boot.

Grow up. It is not disproportionate. For every radical atheist there is a reactionary Christian.

Sheep!

Homophobe!

BURN THE WITCH!!

Oh..sorry....got carried away.

In real life, yes. But not on Nationstates.
My point is specifically referring to this site.
And I'm not exaggerating; Atheists constantly complain about militant Christians trying to convert them (which is a reasonable complaint, even I as a Christian find them annoying) but you rarely actually see those fundamentalists they refer to, on NS.

You've been nodding a lot lately. Is there something wrong with your neck?

*shrug* I go through emote phases. *nod* I'm sure it'll wane in another couple weeks.

In real life, yes. But not on Nationstates.
My point is specifically referring to this site.
And I'm not exaggerating; Atheists constantly complain about militant Christians trying to convert them (which is a reasonable complaint, even I as a Christian find them annoying) but you rarely actually see those fundamentalists they refer to, on NS.


Thats becuase they generally get torn to little holy-than-thou bite size crunchies.

In real life, yes. But not on Nationstates.
My point is specifically referring to this site.
And I'm not exaggerating; Atheists constantly complain about militant Christians trying to convert them (which is a reasonable complaint, even I as a Christian find them annoying) but you rarely actually see those fundamentalists they refer to, on NS.

On NS. How many "militant atheists" are there out there trying to convert you? You're most certainly exaggerating. It's a fairly even mix; you just don't see it as such.

Thats becuase they generally get torn to little holy-than-thou bite size crunchies.

Yum! :D

Thats becuase they generally get torn to little holy-than-thou bite size crunchies.

Mmm...sacredelicious....

Exactly my point. In real life, the numbers of radicals would be equal on both sides. (Actually, less on the Atheist side due to sheer amounts.) Here, any slight mention of Christianity is automatically responded by six guys saying God doesn't exist.

Exactly my point. In real life, the numbers of radicals would be equal on both sides. (Actually, less on the Atheist side due to sheer amounts.) Here, any slight mention of Christianity is automatically responded by six guys saying God doesn't exist.

And there are about 10 threads a day about how homosexuality or abortion are sins and anyone who supports them will burn in hell.

Yum! :D


Psalm and vinegar crispies?

On NS. How many "militant atheists" are there out there trying to convert you? You're most certainly exaggerating. It's a fairly even mix; you just don't see it as such.
Oh come on. Every religious debate I get into on this site, I'm always overwhelmed. And my general point anyway is that the levels of "militant religious people" and "militant atheists" are vastly uneven on NS, with the atheists attracted to the site more. Why is that?

I'd say that's just a bit of an exaggeration.
Racist homophobes typically are very sensitive to being recognized as such. Wouldn't you be? 8)


The difference between NS and real life is that atheists have a support base here. We don't get together regularly for the very purpose of discussing our atheism in real life.

And there are about 10 threads a day about how homosexuality or abortion are sins and anyone who supports them will burn in hell.
Yeah, but there is one freak who'll post that, and the rest of the thread will be atheists condemning him/her.

Racist homophobes typically are very sensitive to being recognized as such. Wouldn't you be? 8)


The difference between NS and real life is that atheists have a support base here. We don't get together regularly for the very purpose of discussing our atheism in real life.
Yes, but why this site specifically? Is there anything about the nature of Atheism that draws people to the idea of ruling a country?

Oh come on. Every religious debate I get into on this site, I'm always overwhelmed. And my general point anyway is that the levels of "militant religious people" and "militant atheists" are vastly uneven on NS, with the atheists attracted to the site more. Why is that?

I don't know how many times I need to say this. It's not vastly uneven. In the almost two years I've been here, there must have been at least 100 polls about this same goddamned thing, and it always turns out about a 50/50 split between religious and non-religious. Have you ever stopped to consider the reason you view this site as so rabidly atheistic is that perhaps you're a bit biased in the matter?

It is disproportionate. Most NS users are from the US or Canada, and Canada has about 16% Atheism with the US having only about 5. Yet every time I go to a forum, and evenmention God, I'm called a "sheep" by at least six people, and a racist homophobe to boot.

YES! Canada totally wins the "less religious nutters" competition! GO CANADA!

In other news: I think it's because Atheists are more likely to be interested in Politics, while Xtians are more likely to be interested in...self-righteousness. And their own bellybuttons.

Yeah, but there is one freak who'll post that, and the rest of the thread will be atheists condemning him/her.
... or Democrats or Libertarians. You don't have to be atheist in order to think that homosexuality is acceptable or at least tolerable.

... or Democrats or Libertarians. You don't have to be atheist in order to think that homosexuality is acceptable or at least tolerable.
No, most of the responders point out how "religion has led you to believe such oppressive dogma" and stuff like that.
'Oh? And the guy with the "Xtians" who "look at their bellybuttons" remark? I specifically said I want a civil debate. If you're going to flame, get the hell out.
Ah, and does this thread not prove my point? Not a single admitted religious person has come here.

Not true, according to the latest census. Christians are still the biggest group, with Atheists in a distant second. I'm not quite sure what you mean about non-practicing though...

Non-practicing "christians" are members of church or another but do not practice that religion in their life, and may or may not disagree with the teachings of their religion, and probably don't know what those teachings even are - they are just too lazy or timid resign.

No, most of the responders point out how "religion has led you to believe such oppressive dogma" and stuff like that.
'Oh? And the guy with the "Xtians" who "look at their bellybuttons" remark? I specifically said I want a civil debate. If you're going to flame, get the hell out.
Ah, and does this thread not prove my point? Not a single admitted religious person has come here.

I'm a Roman Catholic. There, happy? You don't have to be an atheist to think that you're a fool.

I don't know how many times I need to say this. It's not vastly uneven. In the almost two years I've been here, there must have been at least 100 polls about this same goddamned thing, and it always turns out about a 50/50 split between religious and non-religious. Have you ever stopped to consider the reason you view this site as so rabidly atheistic is that perhaps you're a bit biased in the matter?
The polls are bad examples, since few people input into them. It's not bias; I have nothing against atheists. It's simply an observation, mostly based on personal experience, especially with the droves who call religion oppressive.

No, most of the responders point out how "religion has led you to believe such oppressive dogma" and stuff like that.
'Oh? And the guy with the "Xtians" who "look at their bellybuttons" remark? I specifically said I want a civil debate. If you're going to flame, get the hell out.
Ah, and does this thread not prove my point? Not a single admitted religious person has come here.
I am religious.
Although I am agnostic, I am pragmatic as well, and do whatever I feel like.
Of course, if by 'religious' you meant 'Christian', that I am not.

The polls are bad examples, since few people input into them. It's not bias; I have nothing against atheists. It's simply an observation, mostly based on personal experience, especially with the droves who call religion oppressive.

The polls are bad examples, but your personal observations are good examples?

Non-practicing "christians" are members of church or another but do not practice that religion in their life, and may or may not disagree with the teachings of their religion, and probably don't know what those teachings even are - they are just too lazy or timid resign.
That's fairly vague. That does not mean they're Atheists, or "post-Christian". It simply means they have a different view of their religion, or are not as involved. And why would you be "lazy or timid" to resign? On a census, all you have to do is not check off the box with "Christianity" on it.

No, most of the responders point out how "religion has led you to believe such oppressive dogma" and stuff like that.
A religious person could say that. In fact, a Jewish person probably would say that, since they learn hebrew and actually care about Leviticus. Besides, where else does homophobia come from?

The polls are bad examples, but your personal observations are good examples?
Well, it's not proof, I'll admit, but I thought it was obvious that Atheism was fairly dominant here. Not meant to offend; just questioning why there are so many here. Still, I would say the numbers are dispproportionate. Atheists are a a minority, and even if you don't accept them as the overwhelming majority on NS, you still have to admit they have at least equal amounts. Now let's get back to my original question...Why?

And why would you be "lazy or timid" to resign? On a census, all you have to do is not check off the box with "Christianity" on it.

So that's how they do it in Australia huh?

A religious person could say that. In fact, a Jewish person probably would say that, since they learn hebrew and actually care about Leviticus. Besides, where else does homophobia come from?
Homophobia does not come from religion. People use religion to justify it.

So that's how they do it in Australia huh?
Well, someone said someone that the majority of Australians aren't religious, and you said that it's just that they're too "lazy or timid" to resign, which apparently means you're too lazy to say what you really believe in during the census.

I'm a Roman Catholic. There, happy? You don't have to be an atheist to think that you're a fool.
Oh, thanks for calling me a fool simply because I asked a question. You know, it's people like you that give us Roman Catholics a bad name...

Oh, thanks for calling me a fool simply because I asked a question. You know, it's people like you that give us Roman Catholics a bad name...

No, it's people like you who see vast atheistic conspiracies in internet forums that give us Roman Catholics a bad name.

I don't see conspiracies. I simply see a dispropportionate prevalence. I never said anything negative, I simply said that both the regular and fanatic atheists outnumber the regular and fanatic religious people.

Not true, according to the latest census. Christians are still the biggest group, with Atheists in a distant second. I'm not quite sure what you mean about non-practicing though...

You can't trust that, people say they are Christian because they are, compared to muslims, jews, buddhists, etc. By non-practising, I mean those who were born Christian, but don't go to church and rarely pray. Few people in Australia are 'athiests' that is consciously proclaim that there is no God, we're to happy-go-lucky.

Of couse, I may be mistaken, but I go to an Anglican school of apprx. 1000, and the Christian fellowship attracts 2-3 people each week. Those 2-3 people represent what I would call 'true' Christians. Add a few, maybe. The new generation is turning out very few theists from what I can see. (But then. I live in Canberra, so... )

Homophobia does not come from religion. People use religion to justify it.
That's a possibility. However, I find it hard to believe that people are born homophobic without being everything-else-ophobic. They have to receive reinforcement from somewhere. Religious people are the only ones giving reinforcement that I see.

There are people who try to take out their angers and frustrations on someone else, so they find religion, see that God doesn't approve of homosexualit, and vent their personal issues on gays.

You can't trust that, people say they are Christian because they are, compared to muslims, jews, buddhists, etc. By non-practising, I mean those who were born Christian, but don't go to church and rarely pray. Few people in Australia are 'athiests' that is consciously proclaim that there is no God, we're to happy-go-lucky.

Of couse, I may be mistaken, but I go to an Anglican school of apprx. 1000, and the Christian fellowship attracts 2-3 people each week. Those 2-3 people represent what I would call 'true' Christians. Add a few, maybe. The new generation is turning out very few theists from what I can see. (But then. I live in Canberra, so... )

The topic I'm referring to here in general is admitted atheists. Anyway, I don't see anyone as a "true christian" or a "not true christian". We've evolved beyond the Middle Ages and have realized that God wouldn't want us to obsess over him every minute of the day. And you can't really judge by younger generations, since they tend to change drastically when they get older...(Teens especially have the tendency to believe they're immortal, not literally of course, but you get what I mean)

i think its because being an atheist is no long so socially unacceptable, also there is more understanding in general that being an atheist doesnt mean you worship the devil. as people become more educated in general then they begin to try and see scientific reason to most things - one of the (well i guess it might be) drawbacks of having an educated upbringing. in general its just a rise of poeple attempting to discover their beliefs for themselves...

The topic I'm referring to here in general is admitted atheists. Anyway, I don't see anyone as a "true christian" or a "not true christian". We've evolved beyond the Middle Ages and have realized that God wouldn't want us to obsess over him every minute of the day. And you can't really judge by younger generations, since they tend to change drastically when they get older...(Teens especially have the tendency to believe they're immortal, not literally of course, but you get what I mean)

Fair enough, I see what you mean. Although, I'd be careful about that 'obsession with God' statement, I'm not sure most muslims would take that kindly.

i dunno much about the decrease in theism... i just think people are starting to place their beliefs in other places, not necessarily a "god" figure, but the belief in the fundamental teachings of most religions i dont see as decreasing

Well, someone said someone that the majority of Australians aren't religious, and you said that it's just that they're too "lazy or timid" to resign, which apparently means you're too lazy to say what you really believe in during the census.

I mean "so that's how they get these statistics in Australia". I thought they looked at some kind of records on who is a member of a church and who isn't, rather than actually having people fill out census forms. Still, if someone's religious conviction is just strong enough to check "christian" but is in no way apparent in their life that doesn't mean much. Granted, they are not atheists either.

ammm how else do you determin who is a "member" of which church than to ask them as in a census???

I mean "so that's how they get these statistics in Australia". I thought they looked at some kind of records on who is a member of a church and who isn't, rather than actually having people fill out census forms. Still, if someone's religious conviction is just strong enough to check "christian" but is in no way apparent in their life that doesn't mean much. Granted, they are not atheists either.

Now you see our predicament. ;)

whats more, whether they tick the box or not in the census is in no way an indication of how strong their beliefs might be... and i can think of no more appropriate way to attempt to gauge how many poeple believe what they believe than a census every few years. as is becoming more obvious - people are not following one religion for their entire lives. especially teenagers becoming adults who are finding themselves freer to question their beliefs they have been given to follow from childhood. in todays world i think people are feeling less guilty about questioning their beliefs and thus the amount of people who follow certain religions is changing - another reason why a census is yet more effective ....

I'm an agnostic who lives in the bible belt. My theories as to why there seem to be more atheists and agnostics on this site than seem to be represented in the general populace go like this. 1- In some places in the U.S. you really catch hell ;) if you are open about being non-religious. People can be downright unfriendly. A lot of the non-religious people won't admit to not being Christian unless you know them well and they are comfortable with you having that knowledge. 2- There aren't a lot of places the non-religious can get together to debate in safety. Unlike more religious folk we don't have a special place and time we get together each week. You find a bunch of people who think like you and you let loose. And people, can we keep it civil. If you just go around telling people that they're f*ucking morons because they don't believe the same way we do, we're no better than the right- wing fundamentalist nuts :fluffle:

Homophobia does not come from religion. People use religion to justify it.

But you cannot tell me that a lot of the homophobes had their homophobia foisted upon them by scripture, and even if their elders use religion to justify it, the religion is the burr in the saddle that creates or helps create the situation. Whether it's cause/effect or effect/cause... end result is similar if not identical.

and yet isnt homosexuality frowned upon by almsot all major religions??

i am unsure whether it is directly related upon in scripture - this would be interesting to look up, but at the same time i doubt you could ignore the general feeling amongst the major religions that homosexuality is not acceptable behaviour within their respective faiths???

Now, before I get flamed, I'm just curious. I'm not outraged or anything, just curiou as to why Nationstates is so predominantly Atheist, (with many militant atheists as well) especially considering that Atheists are generally a minority. Why are the numbers so out of proportion? (Oh and please don't say something like "Because Christians are ignorant hicks!" or on the other side "Atheists are obsessed with their megalomaniacal desires for a One World Government!" I want a civil debate.)

You perceive it as being 'out of proportion' because you're programmed to perceive it that way. It feels just about right from where I'm sitting...

Actually homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible directly at least once - I could look up the reference for you, dude. I think it's in the OT and related to Sodom and Gomorrah.

As an atheist, I tend to go about my life and keep to myself. I admit I am a bit of a militant, but only when someone tries to convert me to their religion. Or at least they see it as being militant ;)
My general position is that religion, like politics or sexuality or racism does make a difference in people's lives and I've never been backwards in putting my views forward in open debate. Why? Because I also firmly believe that all of these things should be talked through continuously.

In short, religion etc. deals with the big things. I spent a large part of my life researching questions such as Why am I here? What will happen once I die? And so on, etc. After much study of different viewpoints I have come down on the side of complete atheism.

The supernatural does not exist.

From there, using Occam's Razor, it all fits. It can seem a bleak position to some, but it does mean that as a rational, thinking being I have to develop my own morality and confront what I do as my own actions.
I think it was Socrates who said "The unexamined life is not worth living." (if I have quoted the wrong philosopher then please correct me) meaning that each and every one of us must examine what we do with our lives continually.

I am actually quite happy when the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons come to my door as I then have a chance to indulge in some serious debate about religion and the way the world works. I make it clear to any religious types that try to convert me that I will be trying to convert them as well.

So far I've only converted one JW, but it was wierd to see the look of revelation on his face.

I've rambled a bit here, but look forward to the return flames. As for why there seem to be so many atheists on Nation States? Search me, guv'nor!

i think we'd be on shakey ground to call believing in a religion the same as believing in the "supernatural".... people who hold these beliefs treat them usually as exactly that. they "believe" in them - as you believe that they are supernatural and do not exist. it is a grey area, and once again it all comes down to how we decide we want to live - and the people that do believe in a religiong, whether they see is as supernatural or not, may well have come to that conclusion by examining their lives as you have done...

There are ore atheists here because there are a lot of young people here.

I am also atheist, but not militant.

... or Democrats or Libertarians. You don't have to be atheist in order to think that homosexuality is acceptable or at least tolerable.
Nor do you have to be member of an American political party!!! ;)

There are ore atheists here because there are a lot of young people here.

I am also atheist, but not militant.

i hope i am no being too personal Siljhouettes, but have you always been an atheist?? or did you grow up with a different belief structure?
paul

please remeber the differnence between homophoBIA and homophobic

homophobia = scared of , dislikiing actions of homosexuals

homophobic = hating, hating the actions and the homosexual

there is a difference I wish that was aknowledged as not all christians are homophobic, many just have homophobia

please remeber the differnence between homophoBIA and homophobic

homophobia = scared of , dislikiing actions of homosexuals

homophobic = hating, hating the actions and the homosexual

there is a difference I wish that was aknowledged as not all christians are homophobic, many just have homophobia

i find it intriguing that homophobia is so prevelant throughout christianity... and i can only conclude that it must be in some way linked to the teachings of the christian beliefs - not the actual philosopy behind the beliefs

As an atheist, I tend to go about my life and keep to myself. I admit I am a bit of a militant, but only when someone tries to convert me to their religion. Or at least they see it as being militant ;)
My general position is that religion, like politics or sexuality or racism does make a difference in people's lives and I've never been backwards in putting my views forward in open debate. Why? Because I also firmly believe that all of these things should be talked through continuously.

In short, religion etc. deals with the big things. I spent a large part of my life researching questions such as Why am I here? What will happen once I die? And so on, etc. After much study of different viewpoints I have come down on the side of complete atheism.

The supernatural does not exist.

From there, using Occam's Razor, it all fits. It can seem a bleak position to some, but it does mean that as a rational, thinking being I have to develop my own morality and confront what I do as my own actions.
I think it was Socrates who said "The unexamined life is not worth living." (if I have quoted the wrong philosopher then please correct me) meaning that each and every one of us must examine what we do with our lives continually.

I am actually quite happy when the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons come to my door as I then have a chance to indulge in some serious debate about religion and the way the world works. I make it clear to any religious types that try to convert me that I will be trying to convert them as well.

So far I've only converted one JW, but it was wierd to see the look of revelation on his face.

I've rambled a bit here, but look forward to the return flames. As for why there seem to be so many atheists on Nation States? Search me, guv'nor!

You're correct, that was Socrates. As for Occam's Razor, well, it makes sense in mathematics, but I disagree, sometimes we should multiply entities beyond pure necessity to see what we find. Being a mystic, I disagree with you on many points: Religion DOES make a difference in people's lives; the supernatural DOES exist - explain ESP and deja vu; Conversion is something I don't encourage, people are free to believe what the want. I agree wholehartedly, though, that the enexamined life is not worth living.

There's been like a million polls on this subject. The only thing that is predominant amongst NSers is very loud opinions.
LOL! That and extreme verbosity. :D

I think its becuase this site tends to attract a somewhat more intelligent crowd than most site forums.
Many intelligent people naturally gravitate to atheism.
Wich is not to say that Christians are generally more stupid, or anything.

I call it "sanity".

OR
This site might attract people that may wanna play god, in this case over hypothetical countries. Maybe the atheism thing happens because they also don't appreciate external competition.
eh ... I still would like to know the R&D department who came up with things like the Optic Nerve, Photosynthesis, and Sex.

Oh come on. Every religious debate I get into on this site, I'm always overwhelmed. And my general point anyway is that the levels of "militant religious people" and "militant atheists" are vastly uneven on NS, with the atheists attracted to the site more. Why is that?
I've been giving this some thought, along with the disproportionate numbers of liberals and soclialists and libertarians here. Since NationStates allows you to create your own nation and manage it according to whatever political philosophy you please, it stands to reason that it would attract a disproportionate number of people who are somewhat frustrated with politics in the real world. NS represents an opportunity to create a soclialist state, or a libertarian state, or an atheistic state, or whatever trips your trigger but which you would have extreme difficulty creating in real life.

Make sense? :)

Actually homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible directly at least once - I could look up the reference for you, dude. I think it's in the OT and related to Sodom and Gomorrah.
No, it's mentioned lots more than just once, just not called by name.

I've been giving this some thought, along with the disproportionate numbers of liberals and soclialists and libertarians here. Since NationStates allows you to create your own nation and manage it according to whatever political philosophy you please, it stands to reason that it would attract a disproportionate number of people who are somewhat frustrated with politics in the real world. NS represents an opportunity to create a soclialist state, or a libertarian state, or an atheistic state, or whatever trips your trigger but which you would have extreme difficulty creating in real life.

Make sense? :)

It makes perfect sense. Why don't we all form some kind of secret government regulation organisation to stop politicians from making a mess of society? *senses the NWO homing in on discussion*

No, it's mentioned lots more than just once, just not called by name.

etrusca... and in what light is it mentioned???

It makes perfect sense. Why don't we all form some kind of secret government regulation organisation to stop politicians from making a mess of society? *senses the NWO homing in on discussion*

what??? do you mean something amazingly different like letting the people rule?? :P

It makes perfect sense. Why don't we all form some kind of secret government regulation organisation to stop politicians from making a mess of society? *senses the NWO homing in on discussion*
Kewl! But that sure would be a tall order! Perhaps we could adopt as our themesong the theme from "Mission Impossible?" :D

getting tom cruise on board might be a bit difficult tho.....

Oh come on. Every religious debate I get into on this site, I'm always overwhelmed. And my general point anyway is that the levels of "militant religious people" and "militant atheists" are vastly uneven on NS, with the atheists attracted to the site more. Why is that?

That more atheists than Christians are willing to debate with you does not necessarily mean there are more atheists here. It after all seems easier to attack than to defend something as complex as a religion if you have not made an extensive study of it. Note that this does not improve the quality of the attacks (see e.g. evolution debates where several participants on both the pro and contra side obviously have no clue what they are talking about), but it does increase their number.

In addition, the rather dogmatic responses of some people here who refuse to back their statements up with argument or to even read those of others will annoy more people, drawing them into the discussion.

kinda like a live and let live Alma Mater?? everyone should feel free to come forward - but more often than not there will be someone who is too impatient to hear what they have to say.... people who aren't necessarily educated shouldnt be discouraged from joining in - what else is education but the gaining of knowledge, and joining in arguments is one way of learning - if you enter with an open mind

getting tom cruise on board might be a bit difficult tho.....
Ewwwwww! Don't like dat Thomas Cruise person! :mad: :headbang:

Ewwwwww! Don't like dat Thomas Cruise person! :mad: :headbang:

seeing that ive hit a nerve...TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE... no just kidding... well we can always try and find the cast of the original mission impossible but im sure that would be pretty... well impossible

For me it is not religion that is the problem, neither is christianity a problem.
It is when politicians use religion to suppress science and to silence opposition.
That's why I fear the Bush administration and the muslim fundamentalists equally much.

I am not a believer myself, but I'm not an atheist either. I like Buddhism actually.
And if Jesus had lived today he would probably have been a prisoner at Guantanamo.

So right-wing preachers give me the creeps. How about you?

No, it's mentioned lots more than just once, just not called by name.
I said at least once because there are only vague and often differing references to the particular crime a person or village was guilty of. For instance, Genesis implies homosexuality was the crime of Sodom, whereas Ekeziel describes it as disregard for the poor, Isaiah as a lack of social justice, and Jeremiah as general immorality.
I was trying to find a specific quote - it goes something like "and men lay with men, and some with beasts..."
And Tom Cruise has a big nose.

as i have said many a time - the philosophies behind the major religions are often askewed by the people that are passing on the message and the only forseeable way around that is to encourage people to learn about all the major religions and to decide for themselves. it saddens me to see that the religions endeavour to portray the ability to chose which religion to follow as inherently wrong...

it saddens me to see that the religions endeavour to portray the ability to chose which religion to follow as inherently wrong...Not all. Hinduism in particular is remarkably tolerant of other religions.

And I actually see evangelicism and attempts to convert the 'unbelievers' as misguided faith - as far as I can gather, most religious people simply think that unbelievers are lost. They believe that they're doing the world a service by showing you what they believe to be the right path.

No, it's mentioned lots more than just once, just not called by name.The crime in Lot's story could just as easily have been one of lack of hospitality. I ancient times hospitality to travelers was very important. Surely you don't think offering up your virgin daughters to be raped was less serious than threatened rape of two men. Breaking the rules of hospitality at that time was at least as serious. As far as homosexuality being a crime in many religions, it's mostly just the western ones, which all have the same root religion. It made sense to some ancient peoples to disapprove of something that didn't increase the numbers of their tribe. The hebrews started out as a nomadic minority and wanted to increase their numbers. Many other peoples in the area had no problem with homosexuality. Yes, the bible does condemn homosexuality, but it's silly to make such a big deal about it. Some rules in Leviticus are just plain flaky now but made sense back then. If homosexuality is such a big No-No just because the bible says something against it how come so many Christians eat shellfish. Is there a huge conservative outcry about making Red Lobster against the law? Do some Christains even know what the bible says?

what??? do you mean something amazingly different like letting the people rule?? :P

Hmmm... Why is that Australians seem particularly disgruntled at their system of goverment? Perhaps it's the many teirs that ensure nothing ever gets done. Maybe the fact that their Prime Minister is the no-hoper wannabe treasurer who actually managed to con tha nation into electing him and continues to do so to this day. Maybe it's because we're a democracy where voting is compulsary and where you get promoted in the public service not for being good at what you do, but for being sufficiantly bad at what you do not to pose as a threat to the person promoting you. It might even be because we have a monarch, yet we cannot be knighted or receive Victoria Crosses anymore because some moron from the govenment decided an OA was much more prestegious and I forget what the medal is, but it's not a VC's bastard. *bows*.

etrusca... and in what light is it mentioned???
A very negative light. That seems to be true throughout the Bible.

heheh well the government in my mind seems very ineffectual - but mostly im just bitter about the public transport ... and am just absolutely dumbfounded that we managed to get such a bloody huge budget surplus and seem unable to give extra money to the state government for things liek "public transport" not that id be bitter... oh wait i said that i was. anyways it just seems to me that very little seems to get done in general, and it would appear we have the finances to start making a difference....

oh and yes he does have a big nose helen...
and i know very little about hinduism sadly... :(

Some rules in Leviticus are just plain flaky now but made sense back then. If homosexuality is such a big No-No just because the bible says something against it how come so many Christians eat shellfish? Is there a huge conservative outcry about making Red Lobster against the law? Do some Christains even know what the bible says?
To respond to your questions as best I can ( even though I don't consider myself a "Christian" in the modern American sense of the term ):

1. I don't know why so many Christians eat shellfish; perhaps because they like the taste?

2. So far as I know, there is no "huge conservative outcry about making Red Lobster against the law."

3. Many, many of those who call themselves "Christian" have no idea what the Bible says.

Hope that helped. :)

Deuteronomy 14:8 :: You shall not eat ... the pig, which does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:10 :: Of the various creatures that live in the water ... all those that lack either fins or scales you shall not eat.
Yet I know a lot of Christians that eat pork and octopus. It seems to me as though they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow, a little like they choose which interpretation of certain sections they want to believe.
And yup, I think there are a lot of Christians who have never read the Bible.

Deuteronomy 14:8 :: You shall not eat ... the pig, which does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:10 :: Of the various creatures that live in the water ... all those that lack either fins or scales you shall not eat.
Yet I know a lot of Christians that eat pork and octopus. It seems to me as though they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow, a little like they choose which interpretation of certain sections they want to believe.Yeah, what he said! :D

I'm female :mad:
Why do so many people assume I'm male? Pauly Wauly? Huh?

To respond to your questions as best I can ( even though I don't consider myself a "Christian" in the modern American sense of the term ):

1. I don't know why so many Christians eat shellfish; perhaps because they like the taste?

2. So far as I know, there is no "huge conservative outcry about making Red Lobster against the law."

3. Many, many of those who call themselves "Christian" have no idea what the Bible says.

Hope that helped. :)Hey, try harder! :p If I become a Ccccccccccccc
(the cat is helping) Christain will God make my computer faster? Or teach my cat to type?

huh? maybe the same reason they think im a chick so it all balances out hel

I'm female :mad:
Why do so many people assume I'm male? Pauly Wauly? Huh?
So sorry, insult not intended! :rolleyes:

So sorry, insult not intended! :rolleyes:
Sorry - I was joking! Do I sound like a guy, though? Or is it just because I'm always right? :p

are you saying guys are always right cos you're the first girl to say that...
and i guess ill accept it... cos even if guys are always right, it doesnt hurt to say that girls are right somethimes :P
hehehehehehe

Hey, try harder! :p If I become a Ccccccccccccc
(the cat is helping) Christain will God make my computer faster? Or teach my cat to type?
Nope. God works in mysterious ways, so instead of giving you something useful and physical, s/he will give you the ephemeral security of belief, soon to be replaced by a solid blanket of faith.

Hey, not worried about pauly, he got a promotion.

are you saying guys are always right cos you're the first girl to say that...
and i guess ill accept it... cos even if guys are always right, it doesnt hurt to say that girls are right somethimes :P
hehehehehehe
You come over here and say that, dude. I'll put a nice pointy pair of heels on and get my kicking action ready.
I should have said 'because I always think I'm right'.
Oh, wait. I'm not sure if guys think.
muahhahahaha!
Oh, and congrats.

i got a promotion???

and kicking action.... hehehe my arms are longer than your legs any day even with heels

blehr Catch me if you can. :p

It is disproportionate. Most NS users are from the US or Canada, and Canada has about 16% Atheism with the US having only about 5. Yet every time I go to a forum, and evenmention God, I'm called a "sheep" by at least six people, and a racist homophobe to boot.

Sheep! :rolleyes:

are you kidding??/ you've probably trained your kitten up to be an assassin ninja or something - got bored with that and now you're teaching it how to type :P

OH YEAH AND GUYS THINK - JUST A LITTLE SLOWLY IS ALL

Now, before I get flamed, I'm just curious. I'm not outraged or anything, just curiou as to why Nationstates is so predominantly Atheist, (with many militant atheists as well) especially considering that Atheists are generally a minority. Why are the numbers so out of proportion? (Oh and please don't say something like "Because Christians are ignorant hicks!" or on the other side ]"Atheists are obsessed with their megalomaniacal desires for a One World Government!" I want a civil debate.)[/QUOTE]

How many worlds are there any way? Isn't that what the United Nations does--offer world relief for the victims of the Tsunami. Would it be better to not have a World Government and let the victims fend for themselves?

No, most of the responders point out how "religion has led you to believe such oppressive dogma" and stuff like that.
'Oh? And the guy with the "Xtians" who "look at their bellybuttons" remark? I specifically said I want a civil debate. If you're going to flame, get the hell out.
Ah, and does this thread not prove my point? Not a single admitted religious person has come here.

You actually have gotten some religous folk on here.

Anyways, to answer why? I personally don't agree with the theory that aethiests are naturally drawn to power. I was aethiest from birth till just not long ago when I turned to the Goddess (Not Christian, still religous), and I have never had the urge to "take over the world". Me and some friends (most are deeply Christian people), used to joke about taking over the world (I would get Australia and Ireland w00t! XD), but that has no real bearing on this discussion, sorry.

Where was I?

Oh, yes. I believe that the reason you sense that NationStates is strongly Aethiest, possibly because it is. The way I see it, it was probably random chance that most of the people found this site and signed up for it (or fate/destiny if you don't like chance). So, should most of, or an equal number of people here be aethiest, it has nothing to do with an "Attraction" towards power.

Actually, I realised I am still Aethiest. I don't believe in God. XD. Dont you just love the dictionary? hehe...

heheh well the government in my mind seems very ineffectual - but mostly im just bitter about the public transport ... and am just absolutely dumbfounded that we managed to get such a bloody huge budget surplus and seem unable to give extra money to the state government for things liek "public transport" not that id be bitter... oh wait i said that i was. anyways it just seems to me that very little seems to get done in general, and it would appear we have the finances to start making a difference....

oh and yes he does have a big nose helen...
and i know very little about hinduism sadly... :(

The public transport is bad in Sydney! Come over to Canberra, it's practically non-existant.

Deuteronomy 14:8 :: You shall not eat ... the pig, which does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:10 :: Of the various creatures that live in the water ... all those that lack either fins or scales you shall not eat.
Yet I know a lot of Christians that eat pork and octopus. It seems to me as though they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow, a little like they choose which interpretation of certain sections they want to believe.
And yup, I think there are a lot of Christians who have never read the Bible.

Correction: There are a lot of 'Christians' who have never read the Bible.

I am not a believer myself, but I'm not an atheist either. I like Buddhism actually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Buddhists Atheists anyway?

Deuteronomy 14:8 :: You shall not eat ... the pig, which does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:10 :: Of the various creatures that live in the water ... all those that lack either fins or scales you shall not eat.
Yet I know a lot of Christians that eat pork and octopus. It seems to me as though they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow, a little like they choose which interpretation of certain sections they want to believe.
And yup, I think there are a lot of Christians who have never read the Bible.
If you read the New Testament as well as the Old, you will learn that the "grace of Christ" supercedes the law, thus "all things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient." :)

I doubt there are more atheists here than in the general population. Its just that atheists are generally the ones who want to push their unbeleif on others and thus be very loud about pushing their agendas. I think most christians just arent interested in the arguments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Buddhists Atheists anyway?
They're atheist in the sense that they don't believe in anything that they call "gods". But they believe in beings higher than themselves, which are kinda like gods. It's a grey area.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Buddhists Atheists anyway?

I realise that many people believe that Budhha did not believe in God or that Buddhist don't believe in God. But I think it just a misinterpretation of Buddhist concepts. Buddha in fact said he would "Return." I doubt if he meant the physical return, but rather a spiritual return.


...'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'
Ananda said,

If you read the New Testament as well as the Old, you will learn that the "grace of Christ" supercedes the law, thus "all things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient." :)

I always find it interesting that Christians, and those who take objection to Christian teachings, seem to forget that a new religion grew up around the teaching of Christ. The old social laws were put aside by the new teachings of Christ. The spiritual laws were not changed but renewed by Christ.

I doubt there are more atheists here than in the general population. Its just that atheists are generally the ones who want to push their unbeleif on others and thus be very loud about pushing their agendas. I think most christians just arent interested in the arguments.

Plenty of Christians push their beliefs on others. Johava's witnesses have no Atheist counterpart. Atheist institutions don't raise money so as to send people round knocking on doors and convert the believers.

I reckon it's just that atheist arguments are stronger than belief-based ones.

Plenty of Christians push their beliefs on others. Johava's witnesses have no Atheist counterpart. Atheist institutions don't raise money so as to send people round knocking on doors and convert the believers.

I reckon it's just that atheist arguments are stronger than belief-based ones.
I'm pretty sure he meant that atheists on this particular message board are very active proselytizers. I've noticed a similar trend on other message boards. When they can hide behind an internet persona, some atheists tend to become very militant.

I'm pretty sure he meant that atheists on this particular message board are very active proselytizers. I've noticed a similar trend on other message boards. When they can hide behind an internet persona, some atheists tend to become very militant.


Most of the threads I've seen on here related to the existence or otherwise of God have been started by believers. Atheists quickly take them over because belief-based arguments can't stand up in a proof-based debate.

Most of the threads I've seen on here related to the existence or otherwise of God have been started by believers. Atheists quickly take them over because belief-based arguments can't stand up in a proof-based debate.
This may be true, but the problem is when atheists become antagonistic in their arguments. Reason and logic lose a lot of their power when those who practice them become angry in a debate. (And yes, religious folk can be just as antagonistic.)

I reckon it's just that atheist arguments are stronger than belief-based ones.

Thats quite the ignorant statement. What would the strength of the arguments have to do with the number of people who post about it? If anything you would think it would have an invese relationship (a stronger argument requires less posts).

Thats quite the ignorant statement. What would the strength of the arguments have to do with the number of people who post about it? If anything you would think it would have an invese relationship (a stronger argument requires less posts).

It wasn't ignorant. It was a statement of fact related to the difference between belief and fact. Belief, by nature of being a belief, is an uncertainty. Fact, by nature of being a fact, is a certainty. Therefore there is a disparity in the strength of the arguments.

And a stronger argument only requires less posts with only two people in the debate. In a multi-sided forum you find lots and lots of posts on either side, many saying exactly the same thing.

Given that a belief-based argument cannot hold against a fact based one due to the difference in the value of certainty, it means that the religious side often abandons the discussion as hopeless, while varous Atheist viewpoints are different in themselves. Look at the 'Battle of the Religions' thread, and you'll find 20 pages of atheists debating amoung themselves about the nature of religion and the basis for various belief systems.

Most of the threads I've seen on here related to the existence or otherwise of God have been started by believers. Atheists quickly take them over because belief-based arguments can't stand up in a proof-based debate.

The proof that is demanded so often is a physical proof that is simply impossible to provide. And then when you do try to have a conversation about meta-physical concepts they "shout", "curse" saying that you have not provided proof. The proofs of religion are not the same as the proofs of much of science. The proof of Christ is the Civilization that grew up around it. And to me the real proof of Christ is the power of His words to even today change people.

The proof that is demanded so often is a physical proof that is simply impossible to provide. And then when you do try to have a conversation about meta-physical concepts they "shout", "curse" saying that you have not provided proof. The proofs of religion are not the same as the proofs of much of science. The proof of Christ is the Civilization that grew up around it. And to me the real proof of Christ is the power of His words to even today change people.


Hey, I'm just saying why it happens. It doesn't matter to me what nature the proof takes, or anything like that; I'm putting out an impartial statement relating to why there is a prevailence of Atheists visible. I never said if they were right or wrong.

Oh, and Civilisation was around some time before Christ. 38000 years, to be precise.

It wasn't ignorant. It was a statement of fact related to the difference between belief and fact. Belief, by nature of being a belief, is an uncertainty. Fact, by nature of being a fact, is a certainty. Therefore there is a disparity in the strength of the arguments.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion based on incorrect statements. Beleif can be based on facts or on uncertainty. I believe this chair I am sitting on is real because it is supporting my weight, I can feel it and feel its effects. That is a beleif based on facts. I believe that socialism is the best known economic system, that is a beleif based on opinion (or as you put it, uncertainty). Therefore your statement the very definition you attempt to use is false. Beleif is not based on uncertainty by definition. There are many facts that point to the existence of God, and there are quite a few good books written on the topic. There is more evidence of the resurrection of Jesus christ than there is of many historical events that we consider true (the reign of Alexander the great for example). Im not interested in debating that here though, just pointing out that your statement is false. You can argue in favor of christianity using feelings and uncertain statements, but you can also argue it using facts only. Some of us, however, simply choose not to argue it at all.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion based on incorrect statements. Beleif can be based on facts or on uncertainty. I believe this chair I am sitting on is real because it is supporting my weight, I can feel it and feel its effects. That is a beleif based on facts. I believe that socialism is the best known economic system, that is a beleif based on opinion (or as you put it, uncertainty). Therefore your statement the very definition you attempt to use is false. Beleif is not based on uncertainty by definition. There are many facts that point to the existence of God, and there are quite a few good books written on the topic. There is more evidence of the resurrection of Jesus christ than there is of many historical events that we consider true (the reign of Alexander the great for example). Im not interested in debating that here though, just pointing out that your statement is false. You can argue in favor of christianity using feelings and uncertain statements, but you can also argue it using facts only. Some of us, however, simply choose not to argue it at all.

No, you KNOW that there is a chair. You are sat on it. You BELIEVE that there is a God. Do you believe in the postman?

Belief based on fact has to be extrapolated to a stage beyond where you have facts to support it, otherwise it is knowledge, which is not based on belief.

Originally posted by Human OccupiedLandfill:
So far I've only converted one JW

You've converted a Jehova's Witness! This is truly a miracle sent by the gods of atheism :cool:

No, you KNOW that there is a chair. You are sat on it. You BELIEVE that there is a God. Do you believe in the postman?

Belief based on fact has to be extrapolated to a stage beyond where you have facts to support it, otherwise it is knowledge, which is not based on belief.

Know is just another word for beleif. I know there is a God too.

Hey, I'm just saying why it happens. It doesn't matter to me what nature the proof takes, or anything like that; I'm putting out an impartial statement relating to why there is a prevailence of Atheists visible. I never said if they were right or wrong.

Oh, and Civilisation was around some time before Christ. 38000 years, to be precise.

I didn't mean there was no Civ. before Christ just that his teaching changed it. gottago

I didn't mean there was no Civ. before Christ just that his teaching changed it. gottago

Would be a nice thought, but the civilisation that grew BEFORE Christ was the Roman Empire, and what came from Christianity was the Dark Ages and then the Medieval ages. The Renaissance was born out of Science.

Know is just another word for beleif. I know there is a God too.

No, it's not. To KNOW something is to be certain of it, like a chair. To BELIEVE something is to take it on face value but have no evidence to back it up.

I'm not an Atheist, I'm an agnostic. I know that there are forces at work in the world that are known, unknown, and unknowable. And the latter is probably the category that God fits into and I'm happy for Him that I will never properly understand His reason for existing. It certainly isn't the benevolent force Christians and Muslims would have you believe it is, so I'll stick with my "heathen" beliefs until He actually calls me to task.

Would be a nice thought, but the civilisation that grew BEFORE Christ was the Roman Empire, and what came from Christianity was the Dark Ages and then the Medieval ages. The Renaissance was born out of Science.

Thats not very fair. Civilization grew out of the Greek and Roman era, and that is a good thing. Keep in mind that even though people like to romanticise that era (which is fair, since the word romance comes from the word Rome), it was far from a glorious era. This was the era that brought us the vomitorium (where you would go to throw up during a meal so you could sit back down at the table and eat some more), gladiator matches to the death (where slaves were thrown into an arena to kill each other for peoples amusement), crucifixion (still one of the cruelest forms of execution, throwing people to the lions so they could be gored to death for peoples amusement, and institutionalised pederasty (a system whereby children were required to have sex with adults in return for being trained as a citizen). People evolved from that. The Dark Ages were brought about by the barbarian raids, it had nothing to do with christianity, barbarians were not christian they were pagan. The Renaissance was not born purely out of science either, go look at the great paintings of the renaissance and try to convince yourself that it was all science. No, the masterworks of the renaissance were religious in nature. This was the age of the great painters. Donatello, Michaelangelo. Look at the Sistine chapel, look at "David", "Moses" , look at the works of Boticelli, look at "The Last Supper". Yes, it was science that spurred on the Renaissance, but the renaissance was also a revival of christianity.

No, it's not. To KNOW something is to be certain of it, like a chair. To BELIEVE something is to take it on face value but have no evidence to back it up.

I am certain. So, the definition still holds true.

I am certain. So, the definition still holds true.
No, you're not. It's a nice thought, but to claim certainty is to claim ignorance.

Thats not very fair. Civilization grew out of the Greek and Roman era, and that is a good thing. Keep in mind that even though people like to romanticise that era (which is fair, since the word romance comes from the word Rome), it was far from a glorious era. This was the era that brought us the vomitorium (where you would go to throw up during a meal so you could sit back down at the table and eat some more), gladiator matches to the death (where slaves were thrown into an arena to kill each other for peoples amusement), crucifixion (still one of the cruelest forms of execution, throwing people to the lions so they could be gored to death for peoples amusement, and institutionalised pederasty (a system whereby children were required to have sex with adults in return for being trained as a citizen). People evolved from that. The Dark Ages were brought about by the barbarian raids, it had nothing to do with christianity, barbarians were not christian they were pagan. The Renaissance was not born purely out of science either, go look at the great paintings of the renaissance and try to convince yourself that it was all science. No, the masterworks of the renaissance were religious in nature. This was the age of the great painters. Donatello, Michaelangelo. Look at the Sistine chapel, look at "David", "Moses" , look at the works of Boticelli, look at "The Last Supper". Yes, it was science that spurred on the Renaissance, but the renaissance was also a revival of christianity.

I know I wasn't being entirely fair with it, but personally I like to think of the Renaissance as an ideal fusion of Science with Religion. Without science, religion gave us the Dark and Medieval ages, which, no matter how you try to justify them, were far far worse than the order and peace brought about by Rome. Without Religion to act as judicial tyranny from which even death is no escape, you end up with Science ranging out of control and providing dangerous experiments, usually rather ironically refered to as 'playing God'.
Remember that, while indeed the art of the Renaissance was mainly religious, none of the more applicable areas were. Politics rose from the ashes of 1000 years of religion-based barbarism. Science was born. Philosophy left behind the days of attempting to justify everything through the existence of God and was able to look at things impartially. Education ceased to be an exclusive thing of the Priesthood.

All this came about because religion finally had competition, and so had to wise up or be completely destroyed. And it's still struggling to align itself, with some aspects (arcane laws on birth control during a population explosion, pointless violence in Northern Ireland) lagging far behind the modern world (where we come up with good scientific excuses to go around murdering each other. Ho hum.).

Living in Britain, where we have a lot less people that are actually "religious" (go to church on a regular basis, or actually believe in a deity), I have actually found that the boards seem a bit too religiously fanatic to me.

I know that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the USA seems to be to be a long way backwards in the "Is there a god up there?" question. I think that Europe in general, and perhaps the rest of the world, is far less religious than the "Good ol' US of A".
I've laughed at some of the ridiculous statements that Christians have made, most of which show painfully obviously that they haven't thought up those words themselves, but are just spewing forth the words of some preacher that they heard.


"It's not muslim fanatics that you should be worried about, it's the christian fanatics from the USA."

I am certain. So, the definition still holds true.

You certainly aren't. Unless you are simple minded, in which case you are STILL wrong.

No, you're not. It's a nice thought, but to claim certainty is to claim ignorance.

Nope. I am certain based on solid proof and life experience. There is no ignorance involved. It is simply the only logical conclusion based on everything I know. Its amusing that you claim to be able to read my mind and know that I am not certain. THAT is ignorance. I know what I know, and at this point I have no doubts left in my mind. Ive gone past the doubting phase. Eventually you reach a point where there is no conclusion you can come to other than this is real. Yes, I am certain, I have no doubt whatsoever.

Intersting fact, in a survey done by Sponsership Research International across Britain, America, Australia, Germany, Japan and Indea it was found that more people could identify the McDonalds golden arches than could the Christian cross

I know that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the USA seems to be to be a long way backwards in the "Is there a god up there?" question. I think that Europe in general, and perhaps the rest of the world, is far less religious than the "Good ol' US of A".
I've laughed at some of the ridiculous statements that Christians have made, most of which show painfully obviously that they haven't thought up those words themselves, but are just spewing forth the words of some preacher that they heard.


That's dangerous flamebait, but it holds true in some respects.

A lot of Christian arguments (NOT ALL. Before I'm bombarded with "You believe we can't think now, you Atheist sub-pig!" replies, I am aware that many Christians can think for themselves) are actually someone else's opinion, being recycled endlessly. Many of them rely on arguments based on the existence of God to prove his existence, and so hold no validity. This is clearly based on a lack of thought into the issue. I have Christian friends who have decided, after much deliberation, that God must exist, I have atheist friends who, after similar periods, have come to the opposite conclusion. These people I can respect and discuss the issue with, as they are willing to look deeper into it than "God MUST Exist! The Bible says so!". There is no "must" about it, on either side. There is simply proof and lack of proof.

Intersting fact, in a survey done by Sponsership Research International across Britain, America, Australia, Germany, Japan and Indea it was found that more people could identify the McDonalds golden arches than could the Christian cross

Why does that not suprise me at all?

Nope. I am certain based on solid proof and life experience. There is no ignorance involved. It is simply the only logical conclusion based on everything I know. Its amusing that you claim to be able to read my mind and know that I am not certain. THAT is ignorance. I know what I know, and at this point I have no doubts left in my mind. Ive gone past the doubting phase. Eventually you reach a point where there is no conclusion you can come to other than this is real. Yes, I am certain, I have no doubt whatsoever.

Care to share your evidence? And remember that BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE are different.

Nope. I am certain based on solid proof and life experience. There is no ignorance involved. It is simply the only logical conclusion based on everything I know. Its amusing that you claim to be able to read my mind and know that I am not certain. THAT is ignorance. I know what I know, and at this point I have no doubts left in my mind. Ive gone past the doubting phase. Eventually you reach a point where there is no conclusion you can come to other than this is real. Yes, I am certain, I have no doubt whatsoever.
You can't make a logical conclusion about God. God can always be an answer, and no God can always be an answer. Whatever evidence you have, it can be explained from both perspectives. If you choose to ignore one, then, well, you know where the word ignorant comes from, right?

Without science, religion gave us the Dark and Medieval ages, which, no matter how you try to justify them, were far far worse than the order and peace brought about by Rome.

I think calling Rome "Peace" is a little far feched.

"To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire:
they make a desolation and call it peace"

(note: If someone know's exactly who said that I would be most grateful)

Also its a little far fetched to blame religion for the dark ages. They were dark because people rejected the Roman empires technology, not values. Religion and Roman advanced technology are not mutually exclusive concepts.

(note: If someone know's exactly who said that I would be most grateful)
How grateful? *wink wink*

Besides, it looks like you did.

(note: If someone know's exactly who said that I would be most grateful)
A quick Google search reveals: Caius Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.), Roman Historian.

Care to share your evidence? And remember that BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE are different.

Nope. But if you want to find out more about it there are some great books on the topic. Lee Strobel (formerly a legal editor of the Chicago Tribune), uses his training in law and journalism to present religious issues as if they were a legal case. His books The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, The Case for Easter, The Case for Faith, are all very good. Those are great books for people with a fact based logical mindset (like myself, and like you seem to be). If you dont like those, I can reffer you to others, there is alot of great material out there. But as for myself, Im not interested in debating that here.

You've converted a Jehova's Witness! This is truly a miracle sent by the gods of atheism :cool:
He just hadn't really been shown another way for the universe and humanity to come about without divine intervention. I explained the current scientific theories about paleoastronomy (is that a word?) and evolution. He went and read some books in the public library (something I understand that JWs are discouraged from doing) and he decided christianity wasn't for him.

The big breaker was the Cairns-Smith hypothesis for life from unlife. He hadn't found another explanation besides God's fiat.

I think calling Rome "Peace" is a little far feched.

Those under the Empire were kept in the enforced peace of military dictatorship. It was a time of peace based on the threat of overwhelming destrution.

Also its a little far fetched to blame religion for the dark ages. They were dark because people rejected the Roman empires technology, not values. Religion and Roman advanced technology are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I don't blame the Dark Ages solely on religion. However, when people say that Christianity has done great things for the world, or built a wonderful civilisation, then you really have to point out that it didn't. The Roman Empire fell shortly after becoming Christian, and there was no law other than that of "I've got the biggest army, so I'm the boss" until, um.....

Anyway, Rome managed to maintain order and peace within it's empire, which no-one else could for the following 1000 years or so.

You can't make a logical conclusion about God. God can always be an answer, and no God can always be an answer. Whatever evidence you have, it can be explained from both perspectives. If you choose to ignore one, then, well, you know where the word ignorant comes from, right?

Sure, but you just described the scientific process. Thats how science works, every experiment you do has several explenations, one of which is the hypothesis you are trying to prove. Thats why one experiment alone is not enough. You do multiple experiments to test different areas. Any one of those observations can be explained using an alternate theory but eventually you have enough of them that a solid case can be made that your theory is correct. Thats the essence of the scientific method. So, you have basically admitted that I used the classical scientific method. Great, I dont deny that.

The Roman Empire fell shortly after becoming Christian,.

Sure, but thats like saying the world trade center fell shortly after the George Bush took over (and thus implying its his fault). The Roman empire fell to the Barbarians. This had nothing to do with christianity. You should watch the History channel more often.

Sure, but you just described the scientific process. Thats how science works, every experiment you do has several explenations, one of which is the hypothesis you are trying to prove. Thats why one experiment alone is not enough. You do multiple experiments to test different areas. Any one of those observations can be explained using an alternate theory but eventually you have enough of them that a solid case can be made that your theory is correct. Thats the essence of the scientific method. So, you have basically admitted that I used the classical scientific method. Great, I dont deny that.

But science doesn't ignore one until it has been shown incorrect. Nothing shows Atheism to be incorrect, just as nothing conclusively shows religion to be. The only solid backing in a case for God is the creation of life.

Sure, but thats like saying the world trade center fell shortly after the George Bush took over (and thus implying its his fault). The Roman empire fell to the Barbarians. This had nothing to do with christianity. You should watch the History channel more often.

I read history books. The Empire fell due to corruption, beaurocracy, and the inability of it's leaders to adapt to new ways of warfare.

If, on the other hand, you had read my post, you would have noted that what I said was Christianity never built a civilisation of any note.

Oh, and remember that Georgey-boy spent more time on Holiday than any president since Nixon, ignored warning from the FBI that 9/11 was on the cards, massively defunded the anti-terrorism initiatives started by Clinton, and generally did nothing to prevent the disaster. He's more responsible for 9/11 happening that Christianity is for the fall of the Roman Empire.

Sure, but you just described the scientific process. Thats how science works, every experiment you do has several explenations, one of which is the hypothesis you are trying to prove. Thats why one experiment alone is not enough. You do multiple experiments to test different areas. Any one of those observations can be explained using an alternate theory but eventually you have enough of them that a solid case can be made that your theory is correct. Thats the essence of the scientific method. So, you have basically admitted that I used the classical scientific method. Great, I dont deny that.
No, you haven't. Science never claims certainty. Science knows better. In your case, there are two differing theories that explain EVERY experiment. You can never logically discredit one. Occam's razor states that you should choose the simpler explanation. However, no place in the process is the word "certainty" every brought into the discussion.

Some of the best scientists in the world are atheists. Some of the best scientists in the world are theists. Is it so difficult to imagine that they both know what they're doing?

This is the only time I will post on this thread. And what shall I say?

I smell angst.

*runs away really fast*

But science doesn't ignore one until it has been shown incorrect. Nothing shows Atheism to be incorrect, just as nothing conclusively shows religion to be. The only solid backing in a case for God is the creation of life.

Neither did I ignore atheism until it was proven to be incorrect. You assume a great deal yet know nothing about me. You have no idea what I have or have not experienced, what I have or have not witnessed, what I have or have not researched. You are assuming that I discarded the idea of atheism before it was shown to me to be incorrect. Your assumption is wrong.

In your case, there are two differing theories that explain EVERY experiment.


There are always differing theories to every single experiment in science. I already established that fact.

Neither did I ignore atheism until it was proven to be incorrect. You assume a great deal yet know nothing about me. You have no idea what I have or have not experienced, what I have or have not witnessed, what I have or have not researched. You are assuming that I discarded the idea of atheism before it was shown to me to be incorrect. Your assumption is wrong.

Given that you're unwilling to provide this undeniable proof, I'd have to say it would be at best only subjective, and at worst non-existent. Subjective knowledge is worthless in making a case. Regardless, it doesn't matter two hoots who you are or what you believe you have experienced, because we are not debating the nature or existence of God here. We are debating the nature of Proof, and that is where the fallacy in your logic lies.

I made no assumption that you discarded atheism as incorrect before you decided you had proof. I merely know that whatever proof you have is not conclusive, and thus you are wrong when you claim certainty.

Now, before I get flamed, I'm just curious. I'm not outraged or anything, just curiou as to why Nationstates is so predominantly Atheist, (with many militant atheists as well) especially considering that Atheists are generally a minority. Why are the numbers so out of proportion? (Oh and please don't say something like "Because Christians are ignorant hicks!" or on the other side "Atheists are obsessed with their megalomaniacal desires for a One World Government!" I want a civil debate.)

Atheists don't start wars because someone believes a different fictional book to theirs.
Atheists don't plant bombs that kill women and children because someone believes the SAME fictional book but reads it a bit differently.
Atheists don't tell a woman who's been raped she must carry a rapist's baby to full term or be judged as an evil murderer.
Atheists don't start organisations called "PRO LIFE" and then come out in support of people who murder Doctors and plant bombs at clinics that kill Doctors and pregnant women.
Atheists have never tortured and burned scientists at the stake for reporting their discoveries.

I know which side I'm happier on.

Atheists don't start wars because someone believes a different fictional book to theirs.
Atheists don't plant bombs that kill women and children because someone believes the SAME fictional book but reads it a bit differently.
Atheists don't tell a woman who's been raped she must carry a rapist's baby to full term or be judged as an evil murderer.
Atheists don't start organisations called "PRO LIFE" and then come out in support of people who murder Doctors and plant bombs at clinics that kill Doctors and pregnant women.
Atheists have never tortured and burned scientists at the stake for reporting their discoveries.

As far as I recall, Atheists have never burned anyone at the stake.

Neither did I ignore atheism until it was proven to be incorrect. You assume a great deal yet know nothing about me. You have no idea what I have or have not experienced, what I have or have not witnessed, what I have or have not researched. You are assuming that I discarded the idea of atheism before it was shown to me to be incorrect. Your assumption is wrong.
Sorry, but if you had logical proof that God exists, then this would not be the first place that we heard it.

As far as I recall, Atheists have never burned anyone at the stake.

We have microwaves now, saves time.

I made no assumption that you discarded atheism as incorrect before you decided you had proof. I merely know that whatever proof you have is not conclusive, and thus you are wrong when you claim certainty.

No, you simply assume that whatever proof I have is not conclusive. You know what they say about people who assume.

No, you simply assume that whatever proof I have is not conclusive. You know what they say about people who assume.
No, we're really not assuming. We have logical proof. You do not until you present it.

Psalm and vinegar crispies?

I prefer "Cheese A Nun Ian" flavour.

No, we're really not assuming. We have logical proof. You do not until you present it.

Uhuh....you dont know what proof I may or may not have, yet you claim you know the quality of that proof. How is that possible without making assumptions?


answer: it isnt

No, you simply assume that whatever proof I have is not conclusive. You know what they say about people who assume.

No, your proof is subjective, and therefore no more conclusive than claiming purple winged horses exist because I saw them on LSD. If you have objective conclusive proof, then why are you unwilling to reveal it? It would prove the existence of God without question, and so destroy all argument against it. Unless, of course, your worried it might be proven circumstantial, and therefore disprove your ASSUMPTION that God must exist.

Uhuh....you dont know what proof I may or may not have, yet you claim you know the quality of that proof. How is that possible without making assumptions?


answer: it isnt
Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm assuming that we're following the axioms of formal logic. This seems reasonable, since you're the one who first used the phrase "logical conclusion". Now, if you object to my reliance on the rules of formal logic, I will accept that as a valid argument. However, I will not accept that you have logically conclusive evidence of the existence of God because I can supply a valid proof, using the rules of logic and nothing else, that such logically conclusive evidence cannot exist.

Uhuh....you dont know what proof I may or may not have, yet you claim you know the quality of that proof. How is that possible without making assumptions?


answer: it isnt

Okay, I don't believe in God, so as far as far as you're concerned, that's pretty bad news for my immortal soul. So, if you have proof that God exists aren't you duty bound to spare us Godless heathens from the fires of Hell by letting us in on this proof so we too can bask in Godly grooviness?

Yes, you're absolutely right.


Thank you

Uhuh....you dont know what proof I may or may not have, yet you claim you know the quality of that proof. How is that possible without making assumptions?


answer: it isnt


So you're basically saying that you've proven God exists, and so he does, but we can't look at the proof? That means it is NOT counted in this. If you were falsely accused of a crime, and in court they said "We've got proof, but we won't tell you what it is. Just trust us and send him to jail", would you feel hard done by?

Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm assuming that we're following the axioms of formal logic. This seems reasonable, since you're the one who first used the phrase "logical conclusion". Now, if you object to my reliance on the rules of formal logic, I will accept that as a valid argument. However, I will not accept that you have logically conclusive evidence of the existence of God because I can supply a valid proof, using the rules of logic and nothing else, that such logically conclusive evidence cannot exist.


Pythag, we clearly aren't following any logic in this at all. We're misguided fools for trying to look at this sensibly.

Thank you
You're fired.

Not every person that is religious is excessively 'self righteous' or 'homophobic.' What I think you have to look at is, aren't we all 'self righteous' in our own little ways, no matter our opinion of religion. And apparently since some people can be against war but supportive of soldiers, some people can actually disagree with bedroom preferences (orientation discussion needn't apply here) and completely like a person nonetheless.

I mean, where are the heterophobes at? Hmmm? :headbang: blah blah blah blah...right? gotcha! lol

So you're basically saying that you've proven God exists, and so he does, but we can't look at the proof? That means it is NOT counted in this. If you were falsely accused of a crime, and in court they said "We've got proof, but we won't tell you what it is. Just trust us and send him to jail", would you feel hard done by?

Nope, Im not trying to prove God exists. Like Ive said before, Im not interested in that debate. Its more like someone who says I saw the crime, I know who did it but Im not telling.

Nope, Im not trying to prove God exists. Like Ive said before, Im not interested in that debate. Its more like someone who says I saw the crime, I know who did it but Im not telling.

Well, in that case I was right in the first place. Atheist arguments are based on PROOF, which, in order to be proof, must be presented to the discussion or cannot be relied upon. Your arguments are based on BELIEF, even if that belief is the belief of others that you have conclusive proof, and so cannot stand against one based on proof. QED.

Not every person that is religious is excessively 'self righteous' or 'homophobic.' What I think you have to look at is, aren't we all 'self righteous' in our own little ways, no matter our opinion of religion. And apparently since some people can be against war but supportive of soldiers, some people can actually disagree with bedroom preferences (orientation discussion needn't apply here) and completely like a person nonetheless.

I mean, where are the heterophobes at? Hmmm? :headbang: blah blah blah blah...right? gotcha! lol

Yeah, I think that whole christians are homophobes and whatever is a misconception. Its based on how vocal people are. Just like the misconception that started this thread. Because atheists are more vocal in their attacks on religion, it would appear that most people here are atheist. Because the christians who area against homosexuals and abortion and all of that are more vocal, it would appear that they represent most christians.

Im a christian, and I have several gay friends. One of them was actually my roomate for nearly a year. Im also a democrat, socialist, and against the death penalty (all things people consider the opposite of what christians believe). The only thing I really side with the more vocal christians on is abortioin because I do believe that a baby is a human being whether it is inside the womb or outside and therefore there is no excuse for killing it unless it is to save another life.

Well, in that case I was right in the first place. Atheist arguments are based on PROOF, which, in order to be proof, must be presented to the discussion or cannot be relied upon. Your arguments are based on BELIEF, even if that belief is the belief of others that you have conclusive proof, and so cannot stand against one based on proof. QED.
Nas, give it up. He told us from the very beginning that he was unwilling to listen to our beliefs. Why did we even bother?

Nas, give it up. He told us from the very beginning that he was unwilling to listen to our beliefs. Why did we even bother?

A vague hope that logic will get through. I was frankly disgusted when he ignored the meaning of your post and simply cut the quote down to "Yes, you're absolutely right.". That's the kind of thing that's given Christianity a bad name.

Nope, Im not trying to prove God exists. Like Ive said before, Im not interested in that debate. Its more like someone who says I saw the crime, I know who did it but Im not telling.

You don't want to save us Hell-bound infidels then? I hope Saint Peter is understanding when you meet him at the gate.

I think a major fact is that with Christianity, it's all freewill to follow God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. It's those humans there after the teachings of Jesus that have warped the message to the point of "Believe or serve, or be in Hell." I think the fact should be more of "Here's our points of view, if you think that way too, maybe you should [insert whatever here]. If you do and wish not to [whatever is said], bless you and your life nonetheless."

Do I, in my imperfect yet religious ideas, feel that everyone should follow Christian beliefs or similar beliefs from other religious groups? Yeah, that's the utopia I'd like to see. I'm not so stupid to think that'll ever happen though. I also think that like Religion is the opiate of the masses, so to can Logic be. Prove me wrong or prove me right. I'll respectfully disagree with people on some topics, no matter how frustrating to me or upsetting it is to me I allow it to show that they disagree with me.

That's the point of a debate, to present an argument for others to perceive the same views. If we all could say, "I see your point, but I respectfully disagree...," MOST arguments would subside. At least arguing or such would decrease by all our religious and non-religious LOGICS out there. Hehe. :D

THIS is the kind of post that draws atheists out of their normally tolerant shell. This kind of smug idiocy is what gets me worked up, and it's actually a small minority of religious people who are like this.

eh ... I still would like to know the R&D department who came up with things like the Optic Nerve, Photosynthesis, and Sex.

You'd be amazed how many million to one shots come off with 4.5 Billion years of trial and error. Yet again the anti-thinkers tell us "God did it" is a good enough explanation for everything we don't understand yet. So if that is an acceptable mind-set why bother trying to understand at all?

It isn't because it's an anti-evolution, or anti-science, or an anti-atheism stand point, it's because it's ANTI-THINKING.

If we allowed this we'd still be looking at maps of a flat Earth with "HERE BE MONSTERS!!" over where America is... now I think of it... no, too easy.

You don't want to save us Hell-bound infidels then? I hope Saint Peter is understanding when you meet him at the gate.

Again, more assumptions. Typical of atheists. What gives you the impression that I dont already minister in other areas? As a matter of fact, I do. But ministering on an online forum is not my calling.

Again, more assumptions. Typical of atheists. What gives you the impression that I dont already minister in other areas? As a matter of fact, I do. But ministering on an online forum is not my calling.
You somehow seem to mistaken a question for an assumption. In future you can use the interrogative sentence structure and the use of the question mark to spot the difference. It may prevent you from making more fatuous and erroneous statements about people's behaviour.

It's a shame you are not prepared to offer this proof of yours, I feel some religious authority should be informed that this proof exists as this would surely end atheism everywhere. I guess you want to keep it to yourself.

You somehow seem to mistaken a question for an assumption. In future you can use the interrogative sentence structure and the use of the question mark to spot the difference. It may prevent you from making more fatuous and erroneous statements about people's behaviour.

If it had been an honest question it would have not been followed by the statement that followed it. do you really think that anyone who reads this cant tell what you really meant?

i'm personnaly an atheist however i do not hate religion i respect other who do have a religion and follow it as it shows incredible dedication however i simply believe that i do not need to be spiritually enlightened to be happy or to make my life complete, one reason for the huge number of atheists may be that many people turn to god after a life changing experience this can often change a person and many people on NS arent very old so its less likely that they will have had a life changing exp.

religion is an incredible thing which can change lives and make the world in some cases better off however when people use religion to their own uses such as Bush with his votes or terrorists this is not necessary but there will always be people who want to take more than others.

fu

Hedex, quit citing grammar and such in your arguing. It shows some a possibility that you're 'grasping at straws' on being a heated debater. It's also not amusing at all, that and the fact you're trying to bait someone to 'prove' something just so you can sarcastically, or whatever the terminology is, state 'Well hell, that proof didn't sway me at all.'

From the logical to the ridiculous, gimme a break! And he probably things the religious folk are bad. Damn. :gundge:

If it had been an honest question it would have not been followed by the statement that followed it. do you really think that anyone who reads this cant tell what you really meant?

My question is dishonest? You seem very quick to think the worst of me. That doesn't seem a very Christian way to behave.

For someone who has proof God exists you seem pretty defensive about the whole thing.

Like other people, what I really meant IS quite obvious, you claim to have had the existence of God proven to you, yet are unprepared to share that proof. A claim unproven is of no worth and no merit and can therefore not be given any credibility here.

Hedex, quit citing grammar and such in your arguing. It shows some a possibility that you're 'grasping at straws' on being a heated debater. It's also not amusing at all, that and the fact you're trying to bait someone to 'prove' something just so you can sarcastically, or whatever the terminology is, state 'Well hell, that proof didn't sway me at all.'

From the logical to the ridiculous, gimme a break! And he probably things the religious folk are bad. Damn. :gundge:

If someone accuses me of being presumptuous, and then uses that to attack atheists, why should I let that go?

If I accused you of it and used it to attack your religion what would you have to say about it?

If there's proof God exists I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

And as for criticising me for challenging a post where myself and all other atheists are accused of typically making assumptions, I have to say that putting these 2 STAGGERINGLY huge assumptions...

"that and the fact you're trying to bait someone to 'prove' something just so you can sarcastically, or whatever the terminology is, state 'Well hell, that proof didn't sway me at all.' " and

"And he probably things the religious folk are bad."

...in the same post is completely taking the piss.

Last night I proved conclusively that God exists, but I accidentally left the piece of paper in my jeans when I washed them this morning. I really must stop doing that; that perpetual motion machine might have come in handy for something too.

Sorry :(

Would be a nice thought, but the civilisation that grew BEFORE Christ was the Roman Empire, and what came from Christianity was the Dark Ages and then the Medieval ages. The Renaissance was born out of Science.

The Christian civilization that grew up from the influence of Christ had its best moments before the Dark Ages. Clearly, there was a degradation of the civilization that is most apparent in the Dark Ages.The Renaissance which came about later can be traced to the Islamic civilization (science) that grew up around the teachings of Muhammed. So one could say that the religion of Muhammed created the Renaissance. This is not generally accepted by Christians or people from the west. Neither of these civilizations were or are perfect and there able ample examples of the fall of these civilizations today. Islam in paticular is shadow of it's former self. But in it's day it far exceeded anything that Europe had to offer. This is, in my opinion, is one proof of Muhammed being a Messenger of God.

Last night I proved conclusively that God exists, but I accidentally left the piece of paper in my jeans when I washed them this morning. I really must stop doing that; that perpetual motion machine might have come in handy for something too.

Sorry :(

That's okay, my dog ate my proof that God exists.

Ok, now let's really get childish.

Proof that God exists.....

"Hello, I'm known as Furisia on the Nationstates website. God exists because I said so. Why did I say so? Because I could. How is this proof that God exists? It's in Black and White type. Should it be questioned? Maybe, but like I made clear, I said God exists so he does. Who am I to say that God exists? I've told you, I'm known as Furisia on the Nationstates website. What says that someone else can't just say otherwise? They can't, because I'm the only one to give the answer to the question of God's existence. Why? Because I said so. Why did I say so? Because I could. ;)

Next topic.

Nationstates is advertised in M.A.Q.(Militant Atheists Quarterly). It's a small publication that deals with thinks that concern atheists. Like dentistry and stuff. *nod*
oh i thought it was that mention of NS in the "women of atheism" issue of playboy.

Ok, now let's really get childish.

Proof that God exists.....

"Hello, I'm known as Furisia on the Nationstates website. God exists because I said so. Why did I say so? Because I could. How is this proof that God exists? It's in Black and White type. Should it be questioned? Maybe, but like I made clear, I said God exists so he does. Who am I to say that God exists? I've told you, I'm known as Furisia on the Nationstates website. What says that someone else can't just say otherwise? They can't, because I'm the only one to give the answer to the question of God's existence. Why? Because I said so. Why did I say so? Because I could. ;)

Next topic.

Cool, I'm gonna find me a font and get me Christened!

Ok, now let's really get childish.

Proof that God exists.....

"Hello, I'm known as Furisia on the Nationstates website. God exists because I said so. Why did I say so? Because I could. How is this proof that God exists? It's in Black and White type. Should it be questioned? Maybe, but like I made clear, I said God exists so he does. Who am I to say that God exists? I've told you, I'm known as Furisia on the Nationstates website. What says that someone else can't just say otherwise? They can't, because I'm the only one to give the answer to the question of God's existence. Why? Because I said so. Why did I say so? Because I could. ;)

Next topic.

Whether you believe in God or not doesn't make it real. If there is a God He is not dependent upon your belief in Him. Anymore than evolution is dependent upon Christians believing in evolution.

I said God existed! I didn't say 'I believe God exists.' So, having said so, I am correct and thusly everyone has to deal with it.

Didn't I mention about also being just as childish as others were BEFORE my previous post?


Prove it, disprove it. IT doesn't matter, people go by the findings or they don't. That goes for ANYONE.

With this statement, I'm done with my casual debate on the subject. I thank you for your time.

Good day to you all. :D

The difference between NS and real life is that atheists have a support base here. We don't get together regularly for the very purpose of discussing our atheism in real life.

And THAT, I would say, is the heart of the matter.

There are no 'atheist churches', no 'atheist revivals', no 'atheist gospel festivals'.

Atheists don't get special allocations for atheistic-faith-based-initiatives.

Atheists don't have their own sacred city, with the throne of all earthly atheism, or a sacred atheist river, or a monument of atheism somewhere east.

So - where is the average atheist, in real life? Maybe he's at work... maybe she's playing on her computer... or vice versa.

But, as Pythagosaurus just pointed out... all those little atheist could be NS-ing around, giving a much higher PERCEIVED atheist population.

He just hadn't really been shown another way for the universe and humanity to come about without divine intervention. I explained the current scientific theories about paleoastronomy (is that a word?) and evolution. He went and read some books in the public library (something I understand that JWs are discouraged from doing) and he decided christianity wasn't for him.

The big breaker was the Cairns-Smith hypothesis for life from unlife. He hadn't found another explanation besides God's fiat.
Calling Jehova's witnesses Christian is like calling Muslims Jewish. Most Christians are just as pissed at the foolish JW as atheists are. GET OUT OF MY PORCH, DAMMIT!

And THAT, I would say, is the heart of the matter.

There are no 'atheist churches', no 'atheist revivals', no 'atheist gospel festivals'.

Atheists don't get special allocations for atheistic-faith-based-initiatives.

Atheists don't have their own sacred city, with the throne of all earthly atheism, or a sacred atheist river, or a monument of atheism somewhere east.
More importantly, I think, atheists don't have a nongod-centred areligious mythology to prepare their minds to not receive spiritual lessons and enlightenment.

It's not. You just see it that way.

Agrees.

More importantly, I think, atheists don't have a nongod-centred areligious mythology to prepare their minds to not receive spiritual lessons and enlightenment.

Exactly.

Although, of course, the atheist can still be enlightened... he/she just doesn't need a floaty figure wobbling around poking inspirations in through his/her ears.

:)

I LIKE the new Willamena. :)

I'm a Roman Catholic. There, happy? You don't have to be an atheist to think that you're a fool.

I'm a buddist. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to think that you're a fool. Of course, I'm a buddist, so all that makes me is an fool looking for enlightenment. Still just a fool though...

Equal rights for athiests!
(we are as god made us )

Exactly.

Although, of course, the atheist can still be enlightened... he/she just doesn't need a floaty figure wobbling around poking inspirations in through his/her ears.

:)

I LIKE the new Willamena. :)
I thought I got poked by inspiration once ... it turned out to be a broom

I thought I got poked by inspiration once ... it turned out to be a broom

Aha, but the important question is... was it a scientifically explainable broom, observable and repeatable?

Or was it a wobbly floating guy, 'miraculous' broom-encounter?

Evidence of the existence of god hinges on your answer...

I LIKE the new Willamena. :)
I wasn't aware there was a new one. *looks around* :p

I'm a buddist.
I'm a buddist too. I idolise my best bud in the whole world. He's da bomb.

How many people do you think say they are atheist are more agnostic in reality? (In terms of what they believe).

I mean I am technically Christian but in reality I am unsure whether or not God exists. In this respect I am more of an agnostic but many people would class me more as an atheist... Because I'm a bit of a fan of science...well you can't really take the Bible literally can you? Can you? oOoO Maybe you can...I mean just look at this pink leaflet I was given in London today..

How many people do you think say they are atheist are more agnostic in reality? (In terms of what they believe).

I mean I am technically Christian but in reality I am unsure whether or not God exists. In this respect I am more of an agnostic but many people would class me more as an atheist... Because I'm a bit of a fan of science...well you can't really take the Bible literally can you? Can you? oOoO Maybe you can...I mean just look at this pink leaflet I was given in London today..
I got a blue bible study handout today walking down the strete ... I should go :-) I dont think they would be happy with me though, I like to look at the WHOLE book not just thoes that prove my point lol

I like to look at the WHOLE book not just thoes that prove my point lol

Come on, they're gonna love you, after you've read the whole book you'll have hundreds more references to "pick and choose" from. Couldn't be better! (Unless of course you mean looking at the book objectively and as a whole...that would NOT be allowed...it has to be: this is meant literally; this is meant contextually; this is a bit of both; we're not sure about this bit yet but I'm sure we'll know when it's required..)

Come on, they're gonna love you, after you've read the whole book you'll have hundreds more references to "pick and choose" from. Couldn't be better! (Unless of course you mean looking at the book objectively and as a whole...that would NOT be allowed...it has to be: this is meant literally; this is meant contextually; this is a bit of both; we're not sure about this bit yet but I'm sure we'll know when it's required..)
Lol I ment objectivly

If you read the New Testament as well as the Old, you will learn that the "grace of Christ" supercedes the law, thus "all things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient." :)
"I came not to change the law, but to fulfill it."

Gee. I wonder who said that?

I got a blue bible study handout today walking down the strete ... I should go :-) I dont think they would be happy with me though, I like to look at the WHOLE book not just thoes that prove my point lol

I think that's some kind of sin, you know...

I don't think you're ALLOWED to read the whole thing.

At least, that's the impression I get from some of the 'local flavour'.

I think that's some kind of sin, you know...

I don't think you're ALLOWED to read the whole thing.

At least, that's the impression I get from some of the 'local flavour'.


Aww...I wouldn't go so far as to say not being 'allowed' to...it's just strongly discouraged!

Aww...I wouldn't go so far as to say not being 'allowed' to...it's just strongly discouraged!
On threat of ETERNAL DAMNATION

On threat of ETERNAL DAMNATION

Bah! Eternal damnation is underrated...from what I've heard anyway!

I suggest we proclaim the second coming of Christ, write a new testament...named The Newer Testament...and modernise it to accomodate for the unbelievers. Oh and as a little extra salt: "If you do not believe this testament you will be condemned to eternal damnation even worse than the last one...Hell comes 1000 degrees//fahrenheit (select appropriately - the newer testament does not take into account geopolitics!) hotter in the Newer Testament!"

Oh wait this is heresy! *sighs*...at least I won't be burnt at the stake anymore, (I'm not holding my breath on that though!).

On threat of ETERNAL DAMNATION

Not the THREATENING kind of damnation, mind you... just the VERY SUGGESTIVE damnation... :)

It is disproportionate. Most NS users are from the US or Canada, and Canada has about 16% Atheism with the US having only about 5. Yet every time I go to a forum, and evenmention God, I'm called a "sheep" by at least six people, and a racist homophobe to boot.
first of all, the christian % in most western countries is inflated with people who don't give a damn/dont' believe/don't practise et c yet still put christian down because that's what they are/were at some point in their lives.

secondly it has been my experience that the only religious people who get called racist or homophobic are the ones that are. so stop condmneing gay people to hell for their sin of sodomy or whatever the hell it is you people do and people will stop calling you a homophobe.

and at any rate, there really aren't a disproportionate amount of atheists on here. if anything, there's a large apathetic crowd who avoid religious discussions like the plague and thus you don't know what they believe.

Not the THREATENING kind of damnation, mind you... just the VERY SUGGESTIVE damnation... :)

The Newer Testament will have key socialist elements so no worries about that. The fundamentalists will be taxed that lil bit extra of their belief to make up for the non-believers!

Ah, and does this thread not prove my point? Not a single admitted religious person has come here.
the title specifically targets atheists... what the hell did you expect?

The Newer Testament will have key socialist elements so no worries about that. The fundamentalists will be taxed that lil bit extra of their belief to make up for the non-believers!

I like the way you think. :)

I like the way you think. :)

Think of the other benefits of the socialist Newer Testament. No longer could the Christians preach to others due to the "GUILT" they feel because we will suffer "ETERNAL DAMNATION"...instead they'd have that other amazing way to help us...they could become yet more devout, show yet more belief in God, and reap all the benefits of a healthy "HEAVEN PENSION"! Heaven is even healthier in the Newer Testament! ;)!

Ahhh...it even fits the Old Testament; no need to be jealous or "covet thy neighbour"...your worship will help them - you should feel happy for that.

Whoa...
Wasn't there a Monty Python skit about dentistry?
I'm gonna go dig through my DVD box and see if I can find it!

Yes, I was just watching it! Its either Episode #4 or #5.

I think a lot of it is that it is easier to be open on the internet since you are somewhat anonymous here. You wouldn't want to shout "I'm an atheist" in the US in public, but here it isn't quite as big a deal.

Think of the other benefits of the socialist Newer Testament. No longer could the Christians preach to others due to the "GUILT" they feel because we will suffer "ETERNAL DAMNATION"...instead they'd have that other amazing way to help us...they could become yet more devout, show yet more belief in God, and reap all the benefits of a healthy "HEAVEN PENSION"! Heaven is even healthier in the Newer Testament! ;)!

Ahhh...it even fits the Old Testament; no need to be jealous or "covet thy neighbour"...your worship will help them - you should feel happy for that.
Oh even healthier? just how much healthier is that ? not 100 *shouts* not even 200 percent healthier ... but THREE HUNDRED percent healthier! now through this special internet offer buy one heaven get a second one ... ABSOLUTLY FREE!

Think of the other benefits of the socialist Newer Testament. No longer could the Christians preach to others due to the "GUILT" they feel because we will suffer "ETERNAL DAMNATION"...instead they'd have that other amazing way to help us...they could become yet more devout, show yet more belief in God, and reap all the benefits of a healthy "HEAVEN PENSION"! Heaven is even healthier in the Newer Testament! ;)!

Ahhh...it even fits the Old Testament; no need to be jealous or "covet thy neighbour"...your worship will help them - you should feel happy for that.

So, in the Newer Testament... the sinner (or Godless Heathen) is actually a blessing to the fundamentalist, because he makes them be more pious, and because his sinful nature makes him far removed from being a 'covetable' entity... excellent... I can claimed to be Godless, by Divine Appointment... :)

So, in the Newer Testament... the sinner (or Godless Heathen) is actually a blessing to the fundamentalist, because he makes them be more pious, and because his sinful nature makes him far removed from being a 'covetable' entity... excellent... I can claimed to be Godless, by Divine Appointment... :)
Kind of like having the uguly guy stand next to you ... hansom by comparison

I think a lot of it is that it is easier to be open on the internet since you are somewhat anonymous here. You wouldn't want to shout "I'm an atheist" in the US in public, but here it isn't quite as big a deal.

Well I don't live in the USA. Without fear of opression, I shall faithfully uphold the Newer Testament, the greater religion, God's new mandate and that which it is our: will to choose; and our duty to follow. The only question is: who's the next Jesus?!

As for the post above: yes, your lack of belief is promoted by the church - it is this that shall sustain the devout; provide help to believers in their times of weakness; and to uphold the true, great and mighty religion which God has bestowed upon each and every one of us: the gift given as if it was our deserved right to know and hear the very shudders of God's voice itself.

Well I don't live in the USA. Without fear of opression, I shall faithfully uphold the Newer Testament, the greater religion, God's new mandate and that which it is our: will to choose; and our duty to follow. The only question is: who's the next Jesus?!

As for the post above: yes, your lack of belief is promoted by the church - it is this that shall sustain the devout; provide help to believers in their times of weakness; and to uphold the true, great and mighty religion which God has bestowed upon each and every one of us: the gift given as if it was our deserved right to know and hear the very shudders of God's voice itself.
Is the proliferation of colons and semi-colons in long run-on sentences some sort of secret code?