NationStates Jolt Archive

No, not really. It is scientitic observation of the physical world, and deduction that thought has been proven to be a chemo-electrical occurence, so cessation of the chemo-electrical reactions in the central nervous system would obviously end that specific consciousness. People always try to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religionist, but the only ones who claim that have a religion, and are just flat out wrong. Atheism is taking everything as one observes it. Since we can explain natural phenomena through science, and are constantly expanding knowledge, atheism no longer takes any faither at all.

Athiesm isnt just accepting the world as explained through science. It is also the certianty of the non existance of God. Since faith is defined as being certian about something you cannot prove, Athiests therefore have faith as they cannot be certian of God's non existance.

the earth is flat and it spins like a coin

Besides why do people attack religion its the only reason why europeans are the most advanced.

As someone posted a while back.. Go Agnostics! We are nice people, so We will go to Heaven, no matter what religion is right! :D

Athiesm isnt just accepting the world as explained through science. It is also the certianty of the non existance of God. Since faith is defined as being certian about something you cannot prove, Athiests therefore have faith as they cannot be certian of God's non existance.
I say it depends.
If someone is the sort of atheist that says "There is not a God, and I am sure of that," then that requires faith, or at least I's think so. But if one is the sort that says "I doubt there is a God," it may not, depending on how you view faith.

Athiesm isnt just accepting the world as explained through science. It is also the certianty of the non existance of God. Since faith is defined as being certian about something you cannot prove, Athiests therefore have faith as they cannot be certian of God's non existance.
Yes, there are some atheists like that, and they indeed require faith. But a majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, like myself, who don't believe in God, but do not say that there is not chance he exists or anything. It's just that all evidence points to no, so as far as I'm concerned he does not exist. My God is Nature, anywho.

As someone posted a while back.. Go Agnostics! We are nice people, so We will go to Heaven, no matter what religion is right! :D
Unless evangelicals are right.

Christ Jesus! I just went over this!


Propaganda, my friend. Propaganda. Note that I only mentioned organised religion, personalised religion does not include the propaganda that orangised religion does.

religion isn't propaganda its a way of life like atheism. Science doesn't explain everything and religion had some facts wrong during the age of corruption. Religious people can believe in the big bang by saying that God caused the matter to implode and expand or make the matter there. Science's reason is that it just appeared out of nothing like the religious believe God was like

*
Thirdly, oh this is great! Lets hear this again:
'The reason Christianity is quite complicated, and why such a grand drama was needed, was to make it possible for God to be both merciful and just.'
You have just admitted that Christianity made up God. From their own mouths they shall condemn themselves! The reason that Christianity is so complicated is because every time over the centuries their preachings have been proved false they've changed them.


OK, I probably deserved that. I put it badly. I'm not saying that Christianity made up God, I'm saying that God made up Christanity. The "grand drama" to which I refer to was Jesus' life and death, which changed the covenant between God and Man. I am saying that, if we take God's existence, mercy and justice as postulates, and free will as a common notion, then an atoning messiah was/is inevitable.

religion isn't propaganda its a way of life like atheism.
Why? Why will people not notice the fact that I keep saying "organised" religion. ORGANISED, DAMN YOU!!! I myself have a borderline religion, though atheistic. It is when there is a church that there is propaganda. And I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post because it's BS.

Although I am posting this without reading the whole thread...

Did anyone notice this site was endorsed by Kirk Cameron? Dude! I haven't heard of him since Growing Pains.

K. First of all, as religion is a matter of faith and spirituality, I find it impossible to believe in any religion simply as a plan B. I just don't feel the presence of any divine senient being in my life, so I can't really believe in one. Simple as that. This is why people of other faiths or athiesm or agnosticism are often angry at evangelicals and then practice "chrisitan-bashing," because it's sold to us as a matter of logic where religion is entirely faith-based. Beyond that, religion is inherently illogical. Ie-"The enemy of faith is reason" and "Faith by it's very nature must defy logic." So we disgruntled peoples bash the logic. Besides that, what really angers me is how inherently narrow almost all religion's viewpoints are. In the original post in this thread, Christianity was presented as being the only valid religion in the world, and that not having religion meant that you'd disseapear/go to hell after death. Questions about other religions or other possibilites are always refuted with one of two responses. Either, "because I said so" (I believe Christianity is the closest you can get to 100% sure) or "because people say that God said so" (bible). It's all circular logic, and if it is impossible for it to be disproven, it's impossible to accept logically. This is at the same time, science's greatest strength and weakness. Science accepts that it could be wrong, giving it a validity as objective observation, but also makes it vulnerable to religion, which cannot be wrong because God can't be wrong, and God can't be wrong because God says he can't be wrong. And round and round we go around the cursed mark on that pascal page...

Here is what I referred to in regards to atheism and faith:
No, not really. It is scientitic observation of the physical world, and deduction that thought has been proven to be a chemo-electrical occurence, so cessation of the chemo-electrical reactions in the central nervous system would obviously end that specific consciousness. People always try to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religionist, but the only ones who claim that have a religion, and are just flat out wrong. Atheism is taking everything as one observes it. Since we can explain natural phenomena through science, and are constantly expanding knowledge, atheism no longer takes any faither at all.
Faith is fidelity to an idea or concept that is held as being true, whether or not the truth of the idea has been demonstrated ("proven"). The person who decries, "The great thing about the choices of Atheism is you KNOW what will happen," is demonstrating faith the idea, held as true, that the cessation of consciousness is all that will happen. Yes, end of consciousness happens, but since no one has come back from the dead to tell us otherwise, we don't know that nothing else happens. It needn't be an afterlife, or reincarnation, or any such that *does* happen, but we cannot claim 'nothing else happens' with any certainty. We are on the outside, looking in. We do not have the advantage of the subjective viewpoint of the dying person. The cessation of the electro-chemical activity is *all* we, the objective observers, get to know.

Atheists don't necessarily want to just disappear when they die. That is just their belief. Christians don't want to go to hell, but they believe they will go there when they die.

Also, I would personally say that oblivion is a better option than living forever. After a few million years of eternal existence, I would just get tired, man.

And an atheist would probably argue that they won't believe in god to "cover their bases" because they want to make the most of the time they have.

Pretty much all of us, athiests included, believe in the afterlife that gives them the most comfort. Those who believe in the Islamo-Christian view of the afterlife find comfort in a view of God as a parent who doles out rewards and punishments and believe that they're in for the big payoff if they live a miserable life. Even a life that causes other misery. It provides a world of comfort to the spiritually childish, or the arrogantly sadistic.

Athiests find comfort in the idea of a world that is inherently understandable, even if they personally don't understand it. They believe that both physics and morality can be understood in human terms. This appeals to people who understand complicated concepts and are thus able to see the answers to complicated problems, such as world hunger and renewable energy, within reach of the human mind feel that there is no need to look to an imaginary afterlife for happiness if people would just pull their heads out of their asses and get to work making this world pleasant.

Agnosticism appeals to those who are secure enough in themselves or humble enough that they can acknowledge that they don't have all of the answers. Like the athiests they see the value making this life better and they have no fear of a world that may be inherently un-understandable so they are comfortable enough admiting that there may be an afterlife but there is no way to know for certain what it is really like.

I'd say this makes agnostics the real winners of Pasquals wager. An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being would not hold it against a human being for simply being humble enough to acknowledge that he didn't have all the facts and yet was willing to make the world a better place as He commands us to do. If there is no afterlife, he's still lived his life with a focus on stuff that actually exists, unlike Christians and Muslims who forego all the stuff that makes life pleasant in the hopes of getting a payoff that may never arrive. What they loose by believing in the afterlife is the duringlife.

religion isn't propaganda its a way of life like atheism. Science doesn't explain everything and religion had some facts wrong during the age of corruption. Religious people can believe in the big bang by saying that God caused the matter to implode and expand or make the matter there. Science's reason is that it just appeared out of nothing like the religious believe God was like
We just haven't got around to it yet...

I'd say this makes agnostics the real winners of Pasquals wager. An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being would not hold it against a human being for simply being humble enough to acknowledge that he didn't have all the facts and yet was willing to make the world a better place as He commands us to do. If there is no afterlife, he's still lived his life with a focus on stuff that actually exists, unlike Christians and Muslims who forego all the stuff that makes life pleasant in the hopes of getting a payoff that may never arrive. What they loose by believing in the afterlife is the duringlife.
that's what i always thought. who should a just God most favor: the humble human who admits the limitations of their own comprehension and decides to live based on what little they are capable of understanding, or the human who follows an arbitrary set of beliefs simply because he/she wants to get a spiritual cookie at the end of life? should the person who follows a religion out of habit or early indoctrination really be favored over the person who admits their own inability to ever know the nature or will of God?

Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die?


Speaking personally: yup.

Faith is fidelity to an idea or concept that is held as being true, whether or not the truth of the idea has been demonstrated ("proven"). The person who decries, "The great thing about the choices of Atheism is you KNOW what will happen," is demonstrating faith the idea, held as true, that the cessation of consciousness is all that will happen. Yes, end of consciousness happens, but since no one has come back from the dead to tell us otherwise, we don't know that nothing else happens. It needn't be an afterlife, or reincarnation, or any such that *does* happen, but we cannot claim 'nothing else happens' with any certainty. We are on the outside, looking in. We do not have the advantage of the subjective viewpoint of the dying person. The cessation of the electro-chemical activity is *all* we, the objective observers, get to know.

Agreed - except that, the loss of consciousness in other forms is observable - and never leads to a happy, heavenly place. Thus, without any logical extenuation to make that leap - some coldly realistic people will doubt the existence of any happy, heavenly places... especially those only accessed through the permanent loss of 'consciousness'.

Science accepts that it could be wrong, giving it a validity as objective observation, but also makes it vulnerable to religion, which cannot be wrong because God can't be wrong, and God can't be wrong because God says he can't be wrong. And round and round we go around the cursed mark on that pascal page...

And yet, some details of any given religion can, in general, be proven wrong. And if the religious deny that, then it is claimed that science has won, because it is demonstrably so. And if the religious admit it, it is claimed that science has won, because it is assumed that if one detail is wrong, all of them are. And round and round we go...

that's what i always thought. who should a just God most favor: the humble human who admits the limitations of their own comprehension and decides to live based on what little they are capable of understanding, or the human who follows an arbitrary set of beliefs simply because he/she wants to get a spiritual cookie at the end of life? should the person who follows a religion out of habit or early indoctrination really be favored over the person who admits their own inability to ever know the nature or will of God?

That's the way I see it.

A god that WANTS an intelligent race, seems unlikely to utterly disregard that aspect.

Thus, one skeptical believer, is worth a thousand 'professors-of-the-faith'.

"Science doesn't explain everything "
We just haven't got around to it yet...
In an infinite time, science might be able to explain the mechanisms of everything. It would still not be able to explain the reasons for anything.

In an infinite time, science might be able to explain the mechanisms of everything. It would still not be able to explain the reasons for anything.
given that the answers to pretty much all the "big question" are purely subjective, i don't see why that would count against science. indeed, i think that science gains a point by admitting that objective measures cannot answer subjective question, and religion loses a point by claiming that there is any objective answer to these "big questions" in the first place.

Here's a clue: the day bottle and I agree on anything, there must be some truth to it. ;-)

Did we take a wrong turn? Are we in the Twilight Zone again?

Athiesm isnt just accepting the world as explained through science. It is also the certianty of the non existance of God. Since faith is defined as being certian about something you cannot prove, Athiests therefore have faith as they cannot be certian of God's non existance.

Hey, Neo...

Did you know that christianity means "Believing that the world is made of jelly babies"?

It's true! I just said it, so it must be....

My point here - you are mis-defining atheism, in order to discredit it... which would be wonderful... except that you honestly believe that it is 'atheism' that you are attacking.

I am an atheist. I don't believe in any of the popular 'god' fairytales.

Note: THAT is VERY different to claiming an ABSOLUTE knowledge that there IS NO GOD.

"Hard" atheists actively disbelieve gods... which is why I refer to such as Anti-theists, rather than atheists.

For the rest, it's just a matter of not accepting the stories....

"Hard" atheists actively disbelieve gods... which is why I refer to such as Anti-theists, rather than atheists.
For the rest, it's just a matter of not accepting the stories....

That isn't atheism. a- and anti- mean the same thing.
If you believe that there may be a god, just not in the Bible that makes you agnostic, not atheistic.
A-theist - no God
A-gnostic - no knowledge of God

That isn't atheism. a- and anti- mean the same thing.
Oh really? That's quite interesting, because "a-" means "not" and "anti-" means "against". Oops, you're a little wrong there. They even have different derivations: "a-" comes from the Greek contratction a- for apo, "away from", and "anti-" comes from the Greek word anti, "against or opposed".

If you believe that there may be a god, just not in the Bible that makes you agnostic, not atheistic.
A-theist - no God
A-gnostic - no knowledge of God
Nope. Atheist means you don't believe in a god. Most atheists are agnostic.

Faith is fidelity to an idea or concept that is held as being true, whether or not the truth of the idea has been demonstrated ("proven").
No. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=0&y=0)", according to Merriam-Webster, and "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith)" according to Dictionary.com. You are just plain wrong, faith is completely reliant on whether there is proof or not.

The person who decries, "The great thing about the choices of Atheism is you KNOW what will happen," is demonstrating faith the idea, held as true, that the cessation of consciousness is all that will happen.
I do not claim to know whether there is an afterlife or not. I claim what I observe. There may very well be an afterlife, I have no way of knowing. But with all of the present data I have, there is no afterlife. That does not mean I know for certain.

It needn't be an afterlife, or reincarnation, or any such that *does* happen, but we cannot claim 'nothing else happens' with any certainty.
Exactly! Which is precisely why Christianity is so hard to believe in for true skeptics.

We are on the outside, looking in. We do not have the advantage of the subjective viewpoint of the dying person. The cessation of the electro-chemical activity is *all* we, the objective observers, get to know.
Umm...I think you have that backwards. We are from the inside, trying to look out. Humans are completely subjective. The only potential objective intelligence would be an Islamo-Christian god.

Pretty much all of us, athiests included, believe in the afterlife that gives them the most comfort.
I see where you're coming from, but that is not how atheists are, at least not myself. I believe in the afterlife that seems most likely, and since I have evidence that there is no afterlife, and no evidence contrary to that sans the Bible and other religious texts that hold no sway over me. If there was actual evidence that there was a heaven and hell, I would certainly believe in that if it was convincing enough.

Agnosticism appeals to those who are secure enough in themselves or humble enough that they can acknowledge that they don't have all of the answers. Like the athiests they see the value making this life better and they have no fear of a world that may be inherently un-understandable so they are comfortable enough admiting that there may be an afterlife but there is no way to know for certain what it is really like.
Again, you are only counting the hard atheists here. The soft atheists, which form the majority, are actually agnostic. I prefer to call them agnostic atheists, which I am. Most agnostics are actually apathetic agnostics, which just don't give a shit. They are typically the ones who never philosophise.

An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being would not hold it against a human being for simply being humble enough to acknowledge that he didn't have all the facts and yet was willing to make the world a better place as He commands us to do. If there is no afterlife, he's still lived his life with a focus on stuff that actually exists, unlike Christians and Muslims who forego all the stuff that makes life pleasant in the hopes of getting a payoff that may never arrive. What they loose by believing in the afterlife is the duringlife.
Again, you are forgetting the evangelical mindset. If I recall correctly, 1/3 of Christians are evangelical.

And good job Grave_n_idle. Very well done.

I think some of you guys are taking this thread in the wrong way. I saw lots of arguements claiming God doesn't exist, so I created this to argue that in a moderate manner. I'm not exactly trying to convert anyone but I just want to show that atheism isn't the only thing out there.

Although I am posting this without reading the whole thread...

Did anyone notice this site was endorsed by Kirk Cameron? Dude! I haven't heard of him since Growing Pains.
LOL! what?

I almost sprayed my drink all over my new monitor.

Agreed - except that, the loss of consciousness in other forms is observable - and never leads to a happy, heavenly place. Thus, without any logical extenuation to make that leap - some coldly realistic people will doubt the existence of any happy, heavenly places... especially those only accessed through the permanent loss of 'consciousness'.
Entirely understandable. Except that there is no reason to assume that the loss of consciousness that invovles death is identical to the loss of consciousness that does not involve death. We cannot know.

I think some of you guys are taking this thread in the wrong way. I saw lots of arguements claiming God doesn't exist, so I created this to argue that in a moderate manner. I'm not exactly trying to convert anyone but I just want to show that atheism isn't the only thing out there.
No, you were trying to say that people should be religious. Or did I take your quote the wrong way?

Except that there is no reason to assume that the loss of consciousness that invovles death is identical to the loss of consciousness that does not involve death. We cannot know.
What? Loss of consciouness with death and loss of consciousness without death are two completely different things. There is still plenty of brain activity. With death, electric activity in the brain ceases. Metabolic processes stop. They are completely different, and do know, physically, what happens. What an afterlife assumes is that there is a soul. There is no evidence that there is anything paranomal or supernatural about what we believe to be a soul. All thoughts have been proven to be chemo-electric reactions, and so there is no proof that anything exists outside of the body. Of course, there is a chance, again I have no way of knowing. I am just saying that with current evidence, that is what I believe.

Nope. Atheist means you don't believe in a god. Most atheists are agnostic.
to be even more specific, the classical definition of agnosticism means that you believe you cannot know about a given thing. an atheist is simply a person who disbelieves God, but they may believe that it is possible to know (one way or the other) if God exists...an agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether or not God exists.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

:rolleyes: Ugh....

to be even more specific, the classical definition of agnosticism means that you believe you cannot know about a given thing. an atheist is simply a person who disbelieves God, but they may believe that it is possible to know (one way or the other) if God exists...an agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether or not God exists.
And if you want to further define it there is soft and hard atheism

Soft = !(belief in god)

While
Hard =belief in !(god)


Basically boils down to one just has no reason to believe in god so they don’t they say we don’t know so we wont assume

Hard on the other hand actively believes that there cant be a god…

I am soft atheist leaning on agnostic myself

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.


So you are saying convert to Christianity because of a bet? Yeah, caus thats faith....

And i visited the website...no offence, but in the condescending tone it treats non christians i am not suprised some lash out against those who preach to them...

As a buddhist, when i die i will enter paradise with others of my kindred, safely guarded and guided by buddhavisitas throughout eternity.

As a buddhist, when i die i will enter paradise with others of my kindred, safely guarded and guided by buddhavisitas throughout eternity.

May i ask which of the two main types of buddhism (Theravada or Mahayana) you adhere to, as i believe there is a different approach to the afterlife in both?

I could easily counter-argument this guy, but everyone probably already did so.

May i ask which of the two main types of buddhism (Theravada or Mahayana) you adhere to, as i believe there is a different approach to the afterlife in both?
Ja, there is, but I can't quite remember it. Aren't there some other subsects with other slightly different beliefs too?

Ja, there is, but I can't quite remember it. Aren't there some other subsects with other slightly different beliefs too?

Yup, there is Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism and many other different aspects, varying between countries (both Japan and China have a few important sects). In fact many now believe that an new version, almost a 'western' version of buddhism is slowly coming into being as well.

That makes so much sense man! Down with Athiesim!

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

I don't know about all atheists, but the main reason I don't convert to Christianity has nothing to do with whether God exists, but because I see Christianity as an inherently evil organisation based upon the suppression of knowledge. Any Christians want to take me up on this?

I don't know about all atheists, but the main reason I don't convert to Christianity has nothing to do with whether God exists, but because I see Christianity as an inherently evil organisation based upon the suppression of knowledge. Any Christians want to take me up on this?
Yeah while I am atheist(soft leaning on agnostic)I would be diest rather then any of the organized religions (not just Christianity) having a formal organization to tell you what to believe (specially when it is made up of other humans) really would not sit well with me

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.

the idea is, that atheists are realistic, not morbid, and more strong-minded and self-reliant to need a higher all-powerful being whom you can't perceive in any way but conceptually to fall back on. We have ourselves to lean on.
But back to my point of realism; atheists accept the fact that we will die, and nothing will happen after that, we're fine with that. I'm sure you've heard the quote 'religion is the opium of the masses' and that is true in the sense that it helps people deal with the ultimate: death. But isn't it time to accept your death as what it is, rather than a gateway to further life? After all, once you appreciate that, you won't need a God, and you will ineluctably be a stronger person mentally.

Simply the healthier option.

I think some of you guys are taking this thread in the wrong way. I saw lots of arguements claiming God doesn't exist, so I created this to argue that in a moderate manner. I'm not exactly trying to convert anyone but I just want to show that atheism isn't the only thing out there.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Explain yourself. Explain, specifically, how exactly I was supposed to take your first post. Explain, exactly, how your first post was the appropriate openning for a moderate, dispassionate argument. Explain, logically, how I am supposed to think that you're not trying to convert people based on your first post. And yes, we atheists know that atheism isn't the only thing out there. That's what allows atheism to be defined clearly.

"If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
But given all the potential gods there are now, all the potential gods there have been that we've all forgotten about, and all the potential gods yet to come, the chances of picking the right one are pretty slim at best. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, blindfolded, where you're not allowed to even touch certain pieces of hay, and there's no guarantee that the needle isn't in one of the two other haystacks that you haven't been told about. So I just say "fuck it" and live however I want. Chances are we're both going to suffer in some horrific version of a hell anyway, but I'll bet I had a whole hell of a lot more fun while I was alive than you did.

It should be noted that the disbelief in some deities -is- faith, while it is otherwise in others.

The typical notion of the Judeo-Christian god, due to the many problems with anything omni-anything, leads to logical evidence against it, hence, disbelief is based on evidence rather than faith.

Other supernatural creatures, on the other hand, are merely massively improbable rather than logically impossible (Anyone ever read "Flight of Dragons?"), albeit largely as a 'not here/now' issue. Hard to claim that dragons fill the skies over New York, but they could be swarming all over a planet a few trillion light years from here.

given that the answers to pretty much all the "big question" are purely subjective, i don't see why that would count against science. indeed, i think that science gains a point by admitting that objective measures cannot answer subjective question, and religion loses a point by claiming that there is any objective answer to these "big questions" in the first place.

And yet, atheists seem sometimes to argue that objective measures *can* answer subjective questions. If they didn't argue that, then the whole "Religion vs. Science" "debate" would be seen as the non-issue it should be. "Atheism vs. Theism" would remain a valid debate.

Oh really? That's quite interesting, because "a-" means "not" and "anti-" means "against". Oops, you're a little wrong there. They even have different derivations: "a-" comes from the Greek contratction a- for apo, "away from", and "anti-" comes from the Greek word anti, "against or opposed".


Nope. Atheist means you don't believe in a god. Most atheists are agnostic.

I am aware that most atheists are agnostic. That doesn't alter the fact that atheists are people who work on the assumption that there is no god. (In the same way, Christians work on the assumption that Jesus' teachings are true. Technically, I and many others are agnostics, because we do not believe in that beyond all doubt, merely, humbly, on balance.) An assumption that can not be proven, though there will be some degree of evidence one way or another, is an assumption based on faith.

A side note: wouldn't "antitheist" refer to someone who believed there was a God but lived their life so as to oppose him?

You my friend, are an idiot. Buddists are beleiveers in reincarnation, IIRC.

Actually, every religion beleives in an afterlife, aside from Atheists/agonists.

Riiiggghhhtttt. But if I go to the wrong church, I just get God madder and madder each week.

But When I go into the third life, I will live for centuries.

just to point out, Buddhism, atheism, and agnostism aren't religions. :)

I am aware that most atheists are agnostic. That doesn't alter the fact that atheists are people who work on the assumption that there is no god. (In the same way, Christians work on the assumption that Jesus' teachings are true. Technically, I and many others are agnostics, because we do not believe in that beyond all doubt, merely, humbly, on balance.) An assumption that can not be proven, though there will be some degree of evidence one way or another, is an assumption based on faith.

A side note: wouldn't "antitheist" refer to someone who believed there was a God but lived their life so as to oppose him?
Not correct you discribe hard atheism (belief in no god) not soft (we dont know so we prefer not to assume anything)

just to point out, Buddhism, atheism, and agnostism aren't religions. :)
Buddhism is definitely a religion... the Buddhist religion is made up of a variety of sects that are united in faith in supernatural forces. Some sects do not believe in god but they are still spiritual and religious. Other sects have priests and believe in gods, angels, demons, and all the other aspects that one normally would associate with organized religion.

Buddhism is definitely a religion... the Buddhist religion is made up of a variety of sects that are united in faith in supernatural forces. Some sects do not believe in god but they are still spiritual and religious. Other sects have priests and believe in gods, angels, demons, and all the other aspects that one normally would associate with organized religion.
funny, I was always taught it was not considered a religion. It is deemed a philosophy or a morals code, but never a religion. Something to do with not believing in a god.

Buddhism is definitely a religion... the Buddhist religion is made up of a variety of sects that are united in faith in supernatural forces. Some sects do not believe in god but they are still spiritual and religious. Other sects have priests and believe in gods, angels, demons, and all the other aspects that one normally would associate with organized religion.

Buddhism is not a religion as the original form did not believe in a God. Hence why you have Christian Buddhists, Jewish Buddhists, Muslim Buddhists etc. Buddism is primarly a phillosphy.

Buddhism is definitely a religion... the Buddhist religion is made up of a variety of sects that are united in faith in supernatural forces. Some sects do not believe in god but they are still spiritual and religious. Other sects have priests and believe in gods, angels, demons, and all the other aspects that one normally would associate with organized religion.

all I'm saying is, by definition, a religion is a belief system which is primarily based on the belief of a God....so unless Buddha is a God...

all I'm saying is, by definition, a religion is a belief system which is primarily based on the belief of a God....so unless Buddha is a God...
perhaps you personally define "religion" to require God-belief, but that's not what either of my dictionaries has to say.

funny, I was always taught it was not considered a religion. It is deemed a philosophy or a morals code, but never a religion. Something to do with not believing in a god.
I think a religion does not have to have a god, as long as there is faith in some supernatural forces/circumstances. Buddhism definitely fits this definition of religion, as it has blind faith that people are reincarnated and believes in a spiritual state known as Nirvana. Furthermore, some schools of Buddhism, prevalent in Southeast and East Asia believe in gods and other divine beings. In many places in Asia, Buddha is worshipped as a God. Chinese and Japanese Buddhist mythology includes many angels, demons, patron gods, and saints.

perhaps you personally define "religion" to require God-belief, but that's not what either of my dictionaries has to say.

I assure you that when lexicographers are defining, they use the most easily understandable definition of close proximity to the real thing. The English language's version of 'religion' isn't nessecarily the perfect description of the concept of religion.


p.s. you needed a dictionary? lol

Buddhism is not a religion as the original form did not believe in a God. Hence why you have Christian Buddhists, Jewish Buddhists, Muslim Buddhists etc. Buddism is primarly a phillosphy.
One of the central and fundamental tenets of Buddhism is reincarnation, which you can only believe through blind faith. Of course you might reject reincarnation and call yourself a Buddhist and that's fine with me because labels are not as important as the material of your belief.

I assure you that when lexicographers are defining, they use the most easily understandable definition of close proximity to the real thing. The English language's version of 'religion' isn't nessecarily the perfect description of the concept of religion.


p.s. you needed a dictionary? lol
If you are going to argue usage of a word what better then a book that supposedly defines them?

One of the central and fundamental tenets of Buddhism is reincarnation, which you can only believe through blind faith. Of course you might reject reincarnation and call yourself a Buddhist and that's fine with me because labels are not as important as the material of your belief.

yeah that's very true, you could argue about definition forever, it's the faith in action that's important....my faith is of no God, but same applies.

If you are going to argue usage of a word what better then a book that supposedly defines them?


umm.......what did I just say about lexicography?

There's no need for profanity. Be still.

Anyhow, what the thread creator has exhibited is the raw nature of the theist. He has revealed you to the nature of religious belief in general: the negation of reason, the fear of nonexistance, the anti-intellectualism, and most of all the fear of punishment.

Christianity in any form, like Islam and any other religion placing emphasis on life after death, is entrapping its believers within a wall of ignorance and fear. We must help them escape from their cages. Do not hateful words upon them, but help to heal their minds in hopes that they might turn their eyes toward logic and see a brighter, healthier future.

Dude, you might want to take a nice long look at your own delusions and give people a break.

umm.......what did I just say about lexicography?
Was replying to the second comment about the you need a dictionary part. I understand they are not “know all’s” but very rarely are we experienced enough to know the whole definition. Why would she NOT use a dictionary?

Speaking personally: yup.

Speaking as a Christian, that would be my preference as well. Oblivion good. :D

I think a religion does not have to have a god, as long as there is faith in some supernatural forces/circumstances. Buddhism definitely fits this definition of religion, as it has blind faith that people are reincarnated and believes in a spiritual state known as Nirvana. Furthermore, some schools of Buddhism, prevalent in Southeast and East Asia believe in gods and other divine beings. In many places in Asia, Buddha is worshipped as a God. Chinese and Japanese Buddhist mythology includes many angels, demons, patron gods, and saints.
Well, it seems we were operating with different definition of religion, no biggie. ;)

Was replying to the second comment about the you need a dictionary part. I understand they are not “know all’s” but very rarely are we experienced enough to know the whole definition. Why would she NOT use a dictionary?

lol yeah that p.s. bit was a joke man.

I assure you that when lexicographers are defining, they use the most easily understandable definition of close proximity to the real thing. The English language's version of 'religion' isn't nessecarily the perfect description of the concept of religion.


p.s. you needed a dictionary? lol
if you use a word inappropriately, and if i wish to show you your error, should i simply say, "you're wrong, that word doesn't mean what you think"? or should i say, "here, see in this book, the book that defines English words, it says that you are incorrect"?

i used my dictionary out of courtesy, because i felt you wouldn't want to just have to take my word for it. i can only assume that the rudeness of your response was caused by your embarassment when you checked your own dictionary and found that God-belief is not required in ANY of the defintions of religion.* if the "concept" of religion inherently includes God-belief, why would God-belief not be required by ANY of the definitions of the word "religion"?


*belief in and/or worship of a supernatural force or forces of some kind is the primary definition, but "supernatural force or forces" does not at all equate to "God."

anyway, apologies for shifting the debate from religion to dictionaries!

if you use a word inappropriately, and if i wish to show you your error, should i simply say, "you're wrong, that word doesn't mean what you think"? or should i say, "here, see in this book, the book that defines English words, it says that you are incorrect"?

i used my dictionary out of courtesy, because i felt you wouldn't want to just have to take my word for it. i can only assume that the rudeness of your response was caused by your embarassment when you checked your own dictionary and found that God-belief is not required in ANY of the defintions of religion.*


*belief in and/or worship of a supernatural force or forces of some kind is the primary definition, but "supernatural force or forces" does not at all equate to "God."

actually, that wasn't the case at all, I just thought 'ah, maybe, just maybe, they'll find this funny'.

I assure you that when lexicographers are defining, they use the most easily understandable definition of close proximity to the real thing. The English language's version of 'religion' isn't nessecarily the perfect description of the concept of religion.


p.s. you needed a dictionary? lol

Ha, ha, ha!! I feel it necessary to inform everyone that this person once admitted to having 7 dictionaries, which he browses through. Oh, sorry, you were talking about religion.

Ha, ha, ha!! I feel it necessary to inform everyone that this person once admitted to having 7 dictionaries, which he browses through. Oh, sorry, you were talking about religion.

lol thought you might be reading, pyromanstahn!

hehe

actually

it was six...

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

You haven't actually studied the Bible (or any holy book of any religion, for that matter) if you think converting just for the hell of it counts as true religion.

The huge problem with Pascal's wager is that any omniscient God can see right through it.

my apologies

Pyromanstahn, are you impressed I managed to get dictionaries into the debate?

lol

Very impressed

You haven't actually studied the Bible (or any holy book of any religion, for that matter) if you think converting just for the hell of it counts as true religion.

The huge problem with Pascal's wager is that any omniscient God can see right through it.

Bad Reason # 87 For Believing In God - "Dude that would suck if I was wrong."

actually, that wasn't the case at all, I just thought 'ah, maybe, just maybe, they'll find this funny'.
? what was supposed to be funny?

? what was supposed to be funny?

the "you needed a dictionary? lol"

hence the 'lol'

the "you needed a dictionary? lol"

hence the 'lol'

Cressland, seriously, never try to be funny!

Cressland, seriously, never try to be funny!

You know me, a walking talking joke book

I can't believe that earlier in this forum I referred to Christianity as 'an inherently evil organisation' and not a single Christian has responded

I can't believe that earlier in this forum I referred to Chritianity as 'an inherently evil organisation' and not a single Christian has responded

I would have, but my horrible sense of ennui about nonsense like that prevented me.

I can't believe that earlier in this forum I referred to Chritianity as 'an inherently evil organisation' and not a single Christian has responded

I know, me neither, maybe they will now you've said that

I would have, but my horrible sense of ennui about nonsense like that prevented me.

ha, Pyromanstahn, they got you there!

Dunno why I'm taking their side though!

No. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=0&y=0)", according to Merriam-Webster, and "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith)" according to Dictionary.com. You are just plain wrong, faith is completely reliant on whether there is proof or not.
Well, you quote your dictionaries, and I'll quote mine. :)
"Complete acceptance of a truth that cannot be demonstrated or proven by the process of logical thought." - Webster's Encylopedic Dictionary, and "Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith)" according to Dictionary.com. People are loyal and show fidelity to concepts in which they have faith because they are believed to be completely and utterly true.

Umm...I think you have that backwards. We are from the inside, trying to look out. Humans are completely subjective. The only potential objective inteligence would be an Islamo-Christian god.
Humans are completely subjective unto themselves and their own self and thoughts; of others they have only an objective perspective.

ha, Pyromanstahn, they got you there!

Dunno why I'm taking their side though!

I appreciate the effort, but I don't know why you're taking 'their' side either.

I would have, but my horrible sense of ennui about nonsense like that prevented me.

I wasn't doing it just to be offensive. As a humanist I define anything that is damaging to the human race as a whole as evil, and in my opinion that includes Christianity. I have nothing against individual Christians.

I appreciate the effort, but I don't know why you're taking 'their' side either.

He is a very firm atheist too

I appreciate the effort, but I don't know why you're taking 'their' side either.

actually my last message was to pyromanstahn, but with oyur quote at the top, sorry for the confusion and lack of clarity

I wasn't doing it just to be offensive. As a humanist I define anything that is damaging to the human race as a whole as evil, and in my opinion that includes Christianity. I have nothing against individual Christians.

So? Ultimately, you think your nonsense is better than my nonsense. I think that's nonsense, ;) so why would I bother to respond to it unless I was in a really tolerant mood?

Humans are completely subjective unto themselves and their own self and thoughts; of others they have only an objective perspective.
???! how do you figure? we still can only perceive others using our subjective senses, our subjective personal interpretation of the input from those senses, and our subjective judgment to reach conclusions based on those interpretations. no human being is capable of objective perception, by definition.

What? Loss of consciouness with death and loss of consciousness without death are two completely different things. There is still plenty of brain activity. With death, electric activity in the brain ceases. Metabolic processes stop. They are completely different, and do know, physically, what happens.
Right. We know precisely what happens objectively, physically; we cannot know what happens metaphysically.

What an afterlife assumes is that there is a soul. There is no evidence that there is anything paranomal or supernatural about what we believe to be a soul. All thoughts have been proven to be chemo-electric reactions, and so there is no proof that anything exists outside of the body. Of course, there is a chance, again I have no way of knowing. I am just saying that with current evidence, that is what I believe.
All thoughts have been demonstrated objectively to be chemo-electric reactions, which says nothing about the subjectively known thought experiences, nor about metaphysical possibilities, however remote.

So? Ultimately, you think your nonsense is better than my nonsense. I think that's nonsense, ;) so why would I bother to respond to it unless I was in a really tolerant mood?

Because if both of us are talking nonsense, the only way to reach common sense is through discussion and argument.

Right. We know precisely what happens objectively, physically; we cannot know what happens metaphysically.

How can you be certain oyu know what happens physcially? If you were bieng particularly open-minded, you could say that physicality simply IS metaphysciality...

Because if both of us are talking nonsense, the only way to reach common sense is through discussion and argument.

Not bad. :)

Honestly, I still won't bother to respond to your comment because you used a horribly subjective term like evil. The problem with that is that while Christianity may not be evil in the context of my worldview, it may be in yours. So we would just end up shouting past each other.

Not bad. :)

Honestly, I still won't bother to respond to your comment because you used a horribly subjective term like evil. The problem with that is that while Christianity may not be evil in the context of my worldview, it may be in yours. So we would just end up shouting past each other.


by saying that, you ARE indirectly respomding to his comment...you know what would be really impressive? not responding at all...

by saying that, you ARE indirectly respomding to his comment...you know what would be really impressive? not responding at all...

And do you know what would be even more impressive?

I know, me neither, maybe they will now you've said that
It's called flame-bait. There is no reason any grown-up would respond to it.

Not bad. :)

Honestly, I still won't bother to respond to your comment because you used a horribly subjective term like evil. The problem with that is that while Christianity may not be evil in the context of my worldview, it may be in yours. So we would just end up shouting past each other.

Well I will agree not to shout if you do. Since you are right that evil is purely subjective, I admit it was not too wise to use it. It comes from being called evil myself a lot by some Christians.

Well I will agree not to shout if you do. Since you are right that evil is purely subjective, I admit it was not too wise to use it. It comes from being called evil myself a lot by some Christians.

I'm truly sorry that you were called evil by some Christians.

It's called flame-bait. There is no reason any grown-up would respond to it.

It was not flame-bait. It was an expression of my views. As you can see, I have admitted that 'evil' was a bad word to use but I stand by the other point I made in the original post that Christianity is based upon the supression of knowledge. If 'evil' offended you I apologise. But if 'suppression of knowledge' offended you I don't

I'm truly sorry that you were called evil by some Christians.

Don't be. I don't hold any Christian responsible for the acts of any other in the same way I won't be held responsible for the acts of any other atheist.

I have to say, Pyromanstahn's use of 'evil' would be unacceptable to use against individual Christians, because they're not at fault, it's the people [however rare they are, and thank god, they are fair] who purposefully want to purely make money out of religion, or any other personal want.

Don't be. I don't hold any Christian responsible for the acts of any other in the same way I won't be held responsible for the acts of any other atheist.

Nonetheless, their behavior reflects badly on Christianity, and it was inappropriate. I don't feel sorry because I hold myself responsible for the actions of others, but because that sort of rudeness in the world is most very unfortunate. I see what humankind could be, and it's hard to watch it fail to measure up time and again.

Nonetheless, their behavior reflects badly on Christianity, and it was inappropriate. I don't feel sorry because I hold myself responsible for the actions of others, but because that sort of rudeness in the world is most very unfortunate. I see what humankind could be, and it's hard to watch it fail to measure up time and again.

yeah, it's interesting that no matter what people's beliefs, everybody HAS to agree wiht the universal notion of humanity's disgusting side....a kind of possible unite?

Humans are completely subjective unto themselves and their own self and thoughts; of others they have only an objective perspective.
???! how do you figure? we still can only perceive others using our subjective senses, our subjective personal interpretation of the input from those senses, and our subjective judgment to reach conclusions based on those interpretations. no human being is capable of objective perception, by definition.
I was not talking about perception, I was talking about perspectives. Regardless of how subjective perception is, everything viewed through my eyes, that exists outside of myself, is objectively observed. What my thoughts are about that thing, those thoughts are subjective. My perception of it is subjective. But the perspective in which I see it is objective.

Objective: "of or pertaining to an object; having real, substantial existence external to the observer."

How can you be certain oyu know what happens physcially? If you were bieng particularly open-minded, you could say that physicality simply IS metaphysciality...
We can say with certainty that we know what happens physically because physical things can be observed and record with machines. Metaphysicality by defintion is regarding immaterial things, the non-physical.

We can say with certainty that we know what happens physically because physical things can be observed and record with machines. Metaphysicality by defintion is regarding immaterial things, the non-physical.

Think about what you're saying.....yes, they can be recorded with machines, and hwat are machines...........physical! Thus the physical world and machinery have the same properties, so if like I said we can't be certain of physicality, then the macghines come under that too!!

Some points:

1. Christianity looks down apon suicide and thus it's a sin and you're either in hell or this "Limbo" place.

2. We would all be happier if we all just gave up on this religion thing and "Who is the REAL creator/s?" and just worshiped the Jedi religion. :p You know you want too, young padawan. Sorry, don't take offence at that. Just joking. Really. :p

3. It seems to me that what ever god/s made the world has left it untended. A lot like how some people buy dogs for christmas and then leavr them on the road side because they got too big. All which is need to be done is a deiety to reappear and say that he/she/they are still there. But since that isn't happening, let's just get on with life. How much money do you think could go into the education and health budgets if the government didn't spend money on repearing churches?

Edit: I didn't catch what you said then. Please explain.

Some points:



2. We would all be happier if we all just gave up on this religion thing and "Who is the REAL creator/s?" and just worshiped the Jedi religion. :p You know you want too, young padawan.



Nerd Alert!

Think about what you're saying.....yes, they can be recorded with machines, and hwat are machines...........physical! Thus the physical world and machinery have the same properties, so if like I said we can't be certain of physicality, then the macghines come under that too!!
....yeah.....okay...... :confused:

....yeah.....okay...... :confused:

Too confusing?

Think about what you're saying.....yes, they can be recorded with machines, and hwat are machines...........physical! Thus the physical world and machinery have the same properties, so if like I said we can't be certain of physicality, then the macghines come under that too!!

You haven't actually yet proved that we can't be certain of physicality

Too confusing?
I'm just not sure what you're talking about.
Think about what you're saying.....yes, they can be recorded with machines, and hwat are machines...........physical! Thus the physical world and machinery have the same properties, so if like I said we can't be certain of physicality, then the macghines come under that too!!
Yes, physical things can be recorded with machines, and yes, the machines that record them are also physical.

Unless you are proposing a solely subjective understanding of the universe, we can be certain of physicality (it would be the solid stuff you bump into).

Pascal was a moron.Ignoring everything else on these posts, this part is unacceptable. Don't take this specifically as meaning you, I'd probably say it to anyone else that posted this, your personal opinions of his views aside, the man was smarter than you and anyone else you know combined.

[QUOTE=Nasopotomia]Pascal was a moron.[QUOTE]Ignoring everything else on these posts, this part is unacceptable. Don't take this specifically as meaning you, I'd probably say it to anyone else that posted this, your personal opinions of his views aside, the man was smarter than you and anyone else you know combined.
Judgment call. Equally as unacceptable. You might be talking to someone brilliant. Not to mention that the intelligence of Pascal is arguable.

Judgment call. Equally as unacceptable. You might be talking to someone brilliant. Not to mention that the intelligence of Pascal is arguable.

Arbitary insult without argumenet backing it up is stupid. If I was to say something like "Einstien was stupid" and refuse to back it up, you would think I was stupid. Thats his point. You cannot go around insulting obviously intellegent people who make intellegent points without arguements.

Judgment call. Equally as unacceptable. You might be talking to someone brilliant. Not to mention that the intelligence of Pascal is arguable.
On exactly what grounds would you say Pascal's intelligence is questionable?

Nerd Alert!

Damn right I am! ;)

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.


You have nothing to lose if you are wrong?. What if you are following the wrong religon? What if Islam is the true faith, or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism?

See what I'm getting at? If you are wrong you burn in hell for as long as any atheist will. :)

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

A religion isn't there so you can get into the good afterlife for free. You have to be faithful and devoted. You can't just say, "I'm a Christian, now let me into heaven," or something like that.

Also, telling someone to convert to a certain religion will usually only make them less attracted towards it. I find it offensive when someone walks up and tells me, "You're a Catholic and going to Hell. Come and be a Baptist!". You can show them your faith and let them make the choice on their own, but you can't force them into it with logic.

What if you're wrong and the Satan Worshipers or the Norse Pagans are right? Wouldn't it suck if the Ancient Romans were right after all?

What proof do you have that the Catholic faith is any better than all the other religions out there? What gives your religion more credibility than say, that of the ancient Mesopotamians?

I am religious, but trying to convert people is something I frown upon. At best it's arrogant, at worst it's dangerous to the other person's soul if it turns out that another religion is correct and followers of yours meet some ghastly fate in the afterlife. No one knows for sure what happens in the afterlife, as there's no possible way to get proof. Faith does not equal fact, and everyone has an equal chance of being right.

What if you're wrong and the Satan Worshipers or the Norse Pagans are right? Wouldn't it suck if the Ancient Romans were right after all?

What proof do you have that the Catholic faith is any better than all the other religions out there? What gives your religion more credibility than say, that of the ancient Mesopotamians?

I am religious, but trying to convert people is something I frown upon. At best it's arrogant, at worst it's dangerous to the other person's soul if it turns out that another religion is correct and followers of yours meet some ghastly fate in the afterlife. No one knows for sure what happens in the afterlife, as there's no possible way to get proof. Faith does not equal fact, and everyone has an equal chance of being right.

Exactly! No one has any proof whatsoever, and its foolish to think that you do. You may believe that you're right, and that is entirely up to you, but in the end you have no idea.

You haven't actually yet proved that we can't be certain of physicality

How on Earth would anyone ever PROVE we can or can't be certain of it, it's a ewver-ending loop

What if you're wrong and the Satan Worshipers or the Norse Pagans are right? Wouldn't it suck if the Ancient Romans were right after all?

What proof do you have that the Catholic faith is any better than all the other religions out there? What gives your religion more credibility than say, that of the ancient Mesopotamians?

Is that a rhetorical question?

I am religious, but trying to convert people is something I frown upon. At best it's arrogant, at worst it's dangerous to the other person's soul if it turns out that another religion is correct and followers of yours meet some ghastly fate in the afterlife. No one knows for sure what happens in the afterlife, as there's no possible way to get proof. Faith does not equal fact, and everyone has an equal chance of being right.

Everyone has an equal chance of being right? That may be true if they make up their own religion with no allowance for revelation of the truth... No, we don't know for certain, but if your religion has no more chance of being true than any other, why bother adhering to it? If you actually believe that, you should logically follow the "soft atheist" views expressed on this thread and act without regard for the hereafter.

Some points:
3. It seems to me that what ever god/s made the world has left it untended. A lot like how some people buy dogs for christmas and then leavr them on the road side because they got too big. All which is need to be done is a deiety to reappear and say that he/she/they are still there.


He did. People didn't believe him.

by saying that, you ARE indirectly respomding to his comment...you know what would be really impressive? not responding at all...

Yes, but that wouldn't be as much fun. This is a discussion, after all. ;)

ha, Pyromanstahn, they got you there!

Dunno why I'm taking their side though!

That would presumably be because you don't have to agree with someone's worldview to agree with them when they make a valid or amusing point... not unless you're a bigot in that respect, anyway.

Everyone has an equal chance of being right? That may be true if they make up their own religion with no allowance for revelation of the truth... No, we don't know for certain...

There is no ACTUAL evidence for ANY religion. No way to PROVE conclusively that truth was 'revealed'.

By your logic then... they are all made up.

You have nothing to lose if you are wrong?. What if you are following the wrong religon? What if Islam is the true faith, or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism?
See what I'm getting at? If you are wrong you burn in hell for as long as any atheist will. :)

What if Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are the same religion in different clothes? The same Body with different clothes. Now wouldn't that solve the problem with religious warfare.

What if Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are the same religion in different clothes? The same Body with different clothes. Now wouldn't that solve the problem with religious warfare.


I don't know about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, but Islam, Judaism and Christianity definitely are the same religion in different clothes, and that hasn't stopped them fighting worse against one another than any other religions.

I don't know about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, but Islam, Judaism and Christianity definitely are the same religion in different clothes, and that hasn't stopped them fighting worse against one another than any other religions.

But they don't recognize the above statement and violently disagree with the above statement. Islam recognizes Judaism and Christianity. The other two do not recognise Islam.

But they don't recognize the above statement and violently disagree with the above statement. Islam recognizes Judaism and Christianity. The other two do not recognise Islam.

I know they don;t recognise the statement. That's why I was saying it wouldn't solve problems of religious warfare if Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism turned out to be the same religion.

Judaism beleives that the messiah has not yet come. Christianity beleives Jesus is the messiah. Islam beleives in muhammad. they all have different forms of salvation. they cant be the same religion in different clothes.

Judaism beleives that the messiah has not yet come. Christianity beleives Jesus is the messiah. Islam beleives in muhammad. they all have different forms of salvation. they cant be the same religion in different clothes.
yes, they are. is protestantism not christian? cuz they have different belief specifics than catholics and catholics were an original sect

yes, they are. is protestantism not christian? cuz they have different belief specifics than catholics and catholics were an original sect

denominations vary on thier attitude toward the bible, toward christ and toward salvation. protestantism, southern baptists, catholics, they are all the same, they just look at the bible differently. like catholics perform more sacraments than protestantism. like in pre-reformation the church said that one must work to be saved, but Luther said it only relies on faith.

Judaism beleives that the messiah has not yet come. Christianity beleives Jesus is the messiah. Islam beleives in muhammad. they all have different forms of salvation. they cant be the same religion in different clothes.

What if Jesus and Muhammed spoke the message. How will you recognise when Jesus returns? You don't know what He looks like? So you will have to use spiritual eyes and ears. If the message is the same--the spirit is the same. There is only one religion, the religion of God.

If the message is the same--the spirit is the same. There is only one religion, the religion of God.

the message isnt the same. read revelation and you will know how to recognize Jesus when he returns.

the message isnt the same. read revelation and you will know how to recognize Jesus when he returns.

Read what Jesus said about recognizing His return. Let them with ears to hear, hear. Let them with eyes to see, see. It was a warning that you have to open up your spiritual heart. You have to make up your mind and judge for yourself. That is Armegedden, the spiritual battle that everyone must make when faced with the decision about the Return. Just like when Christ came the first time and people let the religious authorities decide for them. They wanted the physical kingdom and Christ promised them a spiritual kingdom. The Book of Revelations has been fulfilled.

I don't know about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, but Islam, Judaism and Christianity definitely are the same religion in different clothes, and that hasn't stopped them fighting worse against one another than any other religions.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, which is why they are more or less the same.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, which is why they are more or less the same.

There is only one differing factor in terms of their history. Thier reaction to Jesus.

Read what Jesus said about recognizing His return. Let them with ears to hear, hear. Let them with eyes to see, see. It was a warning that you have to open up your spiritual heart. You have to make up your mind and judge for yourself. That is Armegedden, the spiritual battle that everyone must make when faced with the decision about the Return. Just like when Christ came the first time and people let the religious authorities decide for them. They wanted the physical kingdom and Christ promised them a spiritual kingdom. The Book of Revelations has been fulfilled.

re-read revelation. you are confused.

There is only one differing factor in terms of their history. Thier reaction to Jesus.

And Muhammed; and today Baha'u'llah.

re-read revelation. you are confused.

Open your spiritual eye and re-read the NT. Christ promised He would return and He did. His name is Baha'u'llah. But enough of this for now. I have to go buy some tennis shoes.

A perfectly good reason for everyone to stop believing in any sort of God.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

Long story short:

Countries with high rates of 'organic' atheism (atheism not from being brought up that way, but by simply not having found any religion to be satisfactory - sorta like agnosticism) have better:
Societal health (low homicide rates, poverty rates, infant mortality rates, literacy rates)
Educational attainment
Per capita income
Gender equality
Individual and societal security

The only way more Christian countries are better is in that they have lower suicide rates.

So basically, the 'better' countries are the ones with more atheists than Christians, according to this report. Go figure. I knew that already.

"In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide.

Of course, it is essential to clearly state that I am in no way arguing that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. If anything, the opposite argument should be made: societal health causes widespread atheism, and societal insecurity causes widespread belief in God, as discussed by Norris and Inglehart (2004) above." (My emphasis.)

Oh, by the way - atheism is in the top four. It beats out Buddhism.

Something else to amuse you - the US has about 3-9% atheism rates. Canada and other European countries are closer to 50-75%. (Canada is 30%.) Everything makes sense now, doesn't it?

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Jesus, fascist. Just because you need a crutch doesn't mean I do.

hmmm eat well, stay fit, waste time on sunday, you still die. got plan C?

lol

There is only one differing factor in terms of their history. Thier reaction to Jesus.
Oh, well that's very interesting. Because I didn't know that.

And Muhammed; and today Baha'u'llah.
He didn't either! Though there are other Messiahs that he didn't list. Take Rastafarianism for instance. Rastas believe that Ja has three incarnations: Melchizedek, Jesus, and Haile Selassie I. Each is a Messiah. But they are just one of the many Abrahamic religions that are not Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and the Bahá'í Faith. Dan Bern is also one of the not generally recognised Messiahs.

That would presumably be because you don't have to agree with someone's worldview to agree with them when they make a valid or amusing point... not unless you're a bigot in that respect, anyway.

but what I meant was; I didn't agree with the person I was taking sides with.

but what I meant was; I didn't agree with the person I was taking sides with.

I know. But he made a good point, so you commented on that. Good for you.

Countries with high rates of 'organic' atheism (atheism not from being brought up that way, but by simply not having found any religion to be satisfactory - sorta like agnosticism) have better:
Societal health (low homicide rates, poverty rates, infant mortality rates, literacy rates)
Educational attainment
Per capita income
Gender equality
Individual and societal security

The only way more Christian countries are better is in that they have lower suicide rates.

So basically, the 'better' countries are the ones with more atheists than Christians, according to this report. Go figure. I knew that already.


To be fair, you quoted the author's cause/effect argument which counters this... but look at it in another way: countries with more "organic" atheism are those with a diversity of opinions, and thus, where people are free to decide what they believe for themselves. That's what you'd expect in a prosperous, free society, isn't it? Enforced atheist (such as communist) societies are going to have at least as many problems as forced religious ones.

There is no ACTUAL evidence for ANY religion. No way to PROVE conclusively that truth was 'revealed'.

By your logic then... they are all made up.

No, you can't prove it, which is why conjecture, faith and revelation takes over. There is evidence, however, just not conclusive evidence.

I believe what I believe because it was presented to me with evidence, and I find it the most convincing of the alternatives. I didn't just sit down and make up something I liked the sound of.

No, you can't prove it, which is why conjecture, faith and revelation takes over. There is evidence, however, just not conclusive evidence.

I believe what I believe because it was presented to me with evidence, and I find it the most convincing of the alternatives. I didn't just sit down and make up something I liked the sound of.

Actually, since there IS no evidence... you did really.

Someone told you a story, and you liked it. That's not the same as evidence, no matter how many times someone says "but look how pretty flowers are, man".

So - someone gave you their version... and, as people do, you conformed your religion to your perspective. You really DID make up something you liked the sound of, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you were mysteriously divinely-inspired in that 'creation'? Who knows? Not me - that's for sure... and you could never prove that to be the case.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

sure people don't WANT to die, but you can't just flip a 'belief' switch and suddenly take religion at face value. belief and true faith is much deeper than a simplistic desire to live forever. oh yeah!

sure people don't WANT to die, but you can't just flip a 'belief' switch and suddenly take religion at face value. belief and true faith is much deeper than a simplistic desire to live forever. oh yeah!

This conversation has 27 pages, 402 replies (without counting mine) and near 4,000 views. That part has more or less been touched upon.

sure people don't WANT to die, but you can't just flip a 'belief' switch and suddenly take religion at face value. belief and true faith is much deeper than a simplistic desire to live forever. oh yeah!
and would God really be HAPPY with people who could turn their faith on and off just like that? would God be glad to see that we are so focused on getting selifsh rewards (i.e. our own eternal life in Heaven) that we will abandon our reason, our current beliefs, and our own moral code? would he be pleased to know that we are following His religion simply because we are scared of the off chance we might be sent to Hell if we don't? will he look down upon us and say, "wow, that's a strong and worthy individual, because they left behind all their own beliefs in favor of hedging their bets"?

any God who would reward that kind of cowardice and selfishness is not a God i want anything to do with.

Actually, since there IS no evidence... you did really.

Someone told you a story, and you liked it. That's not the same as evidence, no matter how many times someone says "but look how pretty flowers are, man".

So - someone gave you their version... and, as people do, you conformed your religion to your perspective. You really DID make up something you liked the sound of, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you were mysteriously divinely-inspired in that 'creation'? Who knows? Not me - that's for sure... and you could never prove that to be the case.

There is plenty of evidence for some religions; how they started; who the founder was/is, those kinds of things. In paticular there is tons of evidence that Baha'u'llah was alive; how he died; where he was imprisoned; you name it, it is there. Proof of Divine knowledge is more difficult to show. But there are first hand accounts of some very amazing events. Bahai's do not consider miracles as proof of who Baha'u'llah is. Miracles are for those who experience them and are not proof of Prophethood. The history of the Baha'i was recorded by Baha'is and some important events by those who had no special connection to the Baha'i Faith.

You don't dissapear when you die. You get reancarnated. Satisfied?

There is plenty of evidence for some religions; how they started; who the founder was/is, those kinds of things. In paticular there is tons of evidence that Baha'u'llah was alive; how he died; where he was imprisoned; you name it, it is there. Proof of Divine knowledge is more difficult to show. But there are first hand accounts of some very amazing events. Bahai's do not consider miracles as proof of who Baha'u'llah is. Miracles are for those who experience them and are not proof of Prophethood. The history of the Baha'i was recorded by Baha'is and some important events by those who had no special connection to the Baha'i Faith.

There is evidence for the EXISTENCE of 'religion'. There is evidence for the EXISTENCE of some religious 'figures'.

There is no evidence for the TRUTH of any religion, except faith.

(By the way, I have nothing against the Baha'i faith - I happen to believe that Baha'u'llah matches certain Messianic prophecies very well... that were left unmatched by Jesus).

There is evidence for the EXISTENCE of 'religion'. There is evidence for the EXISTENCE of some religious 'figures'.

There is no evidence for the TRUTH of any religion, except faith.

(By the way, I have nothing against the Baha'i faith - I happen to believe that Baha'u'llah matches certain Messianic prophecies very well... that were left unmatched by Jesus).

I mentioned the divine truth part in my post. I was not trying to start a fight. And I was not upset by what you said. I was trying to show that the history of past religions can be/has been considered suspect by many people. Those same criticisms are not accurate for the Baha'i Faith.

You don't dissapear when you die. You get reancarnated. Satisfied?

I don't believe in reincarnation. God does not recycle souls.

I don't believe in reincarnation. God does not recycle souls.
Wasteful bastard!

Wasteful bastard!

Me or God? :eek:

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

I don't really want to vanish when I die. I don't really want to get up and go to work in the morning. I don't really have a choice. Of course you can delude yourself into believing that you come alive again after you die, but that doesn't make the delusion any more real.

How would you like to know that your entire life was based on a lie? That your soul has been controlled by those you trust the most, to further their own agenda over yours? To control masses of people and extract their very essence to use as their own in a way so effective Count Dracula would be envious?

Perhaps it would cause discomfort to you to feel that maybe, just maybe, some tiny little shred of logic buried deep in that brain of yours still listens to what your clergy are telling you and screams out, almost drowned out under the dogma indoctrinated into you over years, "error, error, does not compute"?

Would you still be able to carry on, knowing that every day, thousands more people fall under the spell of these conmen of the heart, bewitched by their sweet words, finally falling to the will of these vampires though their own selfish yearnings for life immortal?

Think about it.

You're not recycling the soul, the soul is traveling to a new vessel. Geeze, get it straight. :rolleyes:

You're not recycling the soul, the soul is traveling to a new vessel. Geeze, get it straight. :rolleyes:

One soul; one vessel. No more; no less. Your only here once, make the best of it. IMHO ;)

I am so not going to debate with you over this. I was answering the thread starter's question.You believe whatever you want to. See ya in the next life! :cool:

So - someone gave you their version... and, as people do, you conformed your religion to your perspective. You really DID make up something you liked the sound of, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you were mysteriously divinely-inspired in that 'creation'? Who knows? Not me - that's for sure... and you could never prove that to be the case.There is evidence for the EXISTENCE of 'religion'. There is evidence for the EXISTENCE of some religious 'figures'.

There is no evidence for the TRUTH of any religion, except faith.


There is no *proof* of the supernatural aspects of any religion, certainly (pretty much by definition), but *evidence* is a totally different thing. The fact that Jesus, or Mohammed, or Baha'u'llah, or Siddharta Gautama preached something is evidence. Whether or not a doctrine is self-consistent is evidence. Miraculous signs are evidence. Any of these can be accepted or rejected or dismissed as irrelevant, but they're still evidence.

There is no *proof* of the supernatural aspects of any religion, certainly (pretty much by definition), but *evidence* is a totally different thing. The fact that Jesus, or Mohammed, or Baha'u'llah, or Siddharta Gautama preached something is evidence. Whether or not a doctrine is self-consistent is evidence. Miraculous signs are evidence. Any of these can be accepted or rejected or dismissed as irrelevant, but they're still evidence.

Yes - but, as I said - they are only 'evidence' for the EXISTENCE of a religion, they provide NO evidence for the TRUTH of a religion.

I can preach something... it doesn't make what I preach true. I could write an internally consistent doctrine - but that still wouldn't verify TRUTH.

And, all a miracle shows, is a lack of information.

The purification of the well in Second Kings is scientifically sound - but would be a miracle to those unfamiliar with coagulation.

A perfectly good reason for everyone to stop believing in any sort of God.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

Long story short:

Countries with high rates of 'organic' atheism (atheism not from being brought up that way, but by simply not having found any religion to be satisfactory - sorta like agnosticism) have better:
Societal health (low homicide rates, poverty rates, infant mortality rates, literacy rates)
Educational attainment
Per capita income
Gender equality
Individual and societal security

The only way more Christian countries are better is in that they have lower suicide rates.

So basically, the 'better' countries are the ones with more atheists than Christians, according to this report. Go figure. I knew that already.

"In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide.

Of course, it is essential to clearly state that I am in no way arguing that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. If anything, the opposite argument should be made: societal health causes widespread atheism, and societal insecurity causes widespread belief in God, as discussed by Norris and Inglehart (2004) above." (My emphasis.)

Oh, by the way - atheism is in the top four. It beats out Buddhism.

Something else to amuse you - the US has about 3-9% atheism rates. Canada and other European countries are closer to 50-75%. (Canada is 30%.) Everything makes sense now, doesn't it?

Yep, thats how to judge a religion. By generalising about the entire countries that "Practicise" it. Rearly is... :rolleyes: