NationStates Jolt Archive

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.

eh, we attack religions simply 'cause most of you guys (religious types, usually fundamentalists) won't leave us (Atheists, agnostics) alone about our lack of religion.

If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone.


you know whats ironic? no one would give a rats ass about christianity if it would mind its own business
ie: All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

Those threads are intended to educate people.


I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks.

Go to a more christian forum then. We seem to believe in freedom of speech here.


If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much.
Many christians have far more negative attitudes to the unreligious.


All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

We're just trying to help you. Why can't you accept the compliment that we think you are worth the trouble?


If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.
I don't see why atheism has any less right to attempt conversion than religion.

The problem is that religious maniacs pose a great threat to civilized society.

In the US, christians lead the fight against gay civil rights and female reproducive rights and vital medical research.

In other countries muslims oppress women as well, even jewish fundementalists are to an extent misogynist.

Christians bear the brunt of the criticism in the US because christians stand against much of what reasonable america stands for, and because they are noisy and increasingly powerful in the immoral government.

:eek: i try to give religious threads a wide berth - its none of my business trying to change someone else's religious beliefs for a start. secondly, i get left alone, i leave religious-types alone.
(agnostic btw)

See, I think everyone is being a bit harsh. Not ALL Christians are out to get non-Christians. Let's face it, there are nutjobs in all religions, philosophical ideologies, political ideologies, and in just about anything that people stronly believe in. The media just likes to focus on these people and these people tend to be the loudest of the group because they're the most obnoxious (it's just like being in a bar and one guy is being all loud and stupid, ruining everyone's good time). I think people need to back off a bit and shrug it off. It's not worth getting all upset over; we have more important things to worry about.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

because, for me, it's not about being right, about winning, or about getting the best of believers. as i have said many times before, i regard believers in much the same way i regard drug addicts; i am sad for you, and i very much want to help you, but i know i can't do that until/unless you are ready and willing to be helped. i won't give up on believers, and i will take every oppotunity to expose them to healthier alternatives to their current lifestyle. i don't believe i can or should FORCE any believer to give up their stance, and therefore the only avenue left to me is to talk with them and help them reach new conclusions on their own.


I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much.

all we do is ask you to not believe; what's the difference? you tell us we are going to hell, or living in sin, or missing out on the glory of your God; we tell you that you are wasting your lives, constricting your sense of morality, and missing out on the fullness of your own existence. granted, your side of that equation is obviously less weighty and meaningful from our perspective, but from your perspective it's probably about a fair match up.


All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

i think you are missing out on the only life you will ever have, and i am trying to help you avoid that horrible outcome. why wouldn't you take that as a compliment?


If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.

replace "Christianity" with "atheism, agnosticism, etc" and read it back to yourself.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.
i don't take offense even though it is aimed at me and those like me; working at the clinic i have often had substance abusers lash out and say cruel, rude, or ignorant things to me, and this post of yours is quite gentle by comparison.

Two words: Christo-Islamic proselytism.

It's not worth getting all upset over; we have more important things to worry about.
yeah, like the religious right trying to dictate who we marry, what medical care we can get, what our children can be taught in school, and what our media programming will be :P.

yeah, like the religious right trying to dictate who we marry, what medical care we can get, what our children can be taught in school, and what our media programming will be :P.

Yeah, there are some nutjobs in the religious right, but do you honestly think they can win that easily? My point was more for this message board; should we really be getting all upset with each other over religion? Seriously, how old are the people here? Those in high school who believe hardcore in something may change their minds as they head into college and beyond. When I was in middle school, I was hardcore Christian; but things changed as I saw more and more of the world and experienced things for myself. Something tells me the people on here are younger and haven't fully yet experienced life. Leave them by themselves to learn and let them to their fates, it's better than any of us trying to preach or teach lessons to one another.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business.

No no, you do bother us...alot. We do say no thanks, about a trillion times and then you call us, and knock on our doors, and discriminate openly with this DEVINE JUSTIFICATION WOOOH. You bother us quite alot. A rather LARGE lot. Here's the deal, you STFU, I'll STFU. We'll all STFU.

Yeah, there are some nutjobs in the religious right, but do you honestly think they can win that easily?
Umm...yes? Did you notice that, in the U.S., there were something like 13 states that approved anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions? All of the states where it was proposed it was accepted.

Umm...yes? Did you notice that, in the U.S., there were something like 13 states that approved anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions? All of the states where it was proposed it was accepted.

This isn't abnormal from where I stand. Think about it, we had the liberal 20's until the Great Depression happened and then people turned to government and religion until the 1960's. The pendulum had swung so far right, it snapped. Then, once things calmed down a bit, it began to swing at a bit of a more normal pace, not too far in either direction. Let's face it, the 90's were kind of liberal again and then BOOM 9-11. The pendulum has once again swung far to the right and it will eventually snap again, just as it did after the 50's. Also, keep in mind there was a dark side to the 50's that was kept underground... the sex machine experiments, the roadside rest area studies.... it was there, the break was about to happen. It will happen again, be patient.

because, for me, it's not about being right, about winning, or about getting the best of believers. as i have said many times before, i regard believers in much the same way i regard drug addicts; i am sad for you, and i very much want to help you, but i know i can't do that until/unless you are ready and willing to be helped.

Good heavens, I do believe I feel highly insulted! Imagine that...faith, an addiction? Goodness me, what's next?

Okay, I understand that many of the "non-religious" persuasion don't agree with the way most monotheistic religions do place great value on the proliferation of the belief. And yes, I don't always agree with the methods of that proliferation - forced conversion and fearmongering are poor and immature tactics.

But really...comparing theists to drug users? For goodness' sake, Bottle, I really thought you were above such gutter tactics.

i won't give up on believers, and i will take every oppotunity to expose them to healthier alternatives to their current lifestyle. i don't believe i can or should FORCE any believer to give up their stance, and therefore the only avenue left to me is to talk with them and help them reach new conclusions on their own.

Precisely what about the lifestyle of the average person of faith is so unhealthy? Is it the somewhat more monogamous lifestyle? The...oh, I don't know...the value placed on marriage and marital fidelity? The importance placed on family? Or perhaps truth...certainly being honest has been shown to decrease the human life expectancy by at least 5 years!

all we do is ask you to not believe; what's the difference? you tell us we are going to hell, or living in sin, or missing out on the glory of your God; we tell you that you are wasting your lives, constricting your sense of morality, and missing out on the fullness of your own existence. granted, your side of that equation is obviously less weighty and meaningful from our perspective, but from your perspective it's probably about a fair match up.


I think you answer your own question by example, here. What's the difference? Well...

i think you are missing out on the only life you will ever have, and i am trying to help you avoid that horrible outcome. why wouldn't you take that as a compliment?

...there you have it, cut and dried. There seems to be the assumption from the non-religious side of this debate that the average religious person is in some way denying themselves...er...something (although I notice you don't say what, exactly), and what usually comes along with that is the assumption that the average religious person is in some way ignorant or under-educated.

Because, as we all should know by now, faith and reason just can't ever appear together.

Right. Sure. If you believe that, fine...it's not my place to tell you any differently. But if you believe that, then you're just as guilty as the average religious radical (and yes, I will admit they exist) in that you are perpetuating one side of a false dichotomy that need not exist.

replace "Christianity" with "atheism, agnosticism, etc" and read it back to yourself.

i don't take offense even though it is aimed at me and those like me; working at the clinic i have often had substance abusers lash out and say cruel, rude, or ignorant things to me, and this post of yours is quite gentle by comparison.

I think everyone in this debate needs to take a step back for a moment and consider, before posting anything else, whether they are actually contributing to the debate in a constructive manner or not, because there are two ways in which this discussion can go from its infantile state here.

What RhynoD has done on the religious side of the argument, and what Pure Science and Bottle, among others , have done on the non-religious side, is perpetuate a conflict, an unreasonable discourse in which both sides do not so much debate the merits of their own or the opposite position as poke fun and make snide comments. Witness:

Those threads are intended to educate people.

Because, of course, clearly all religious people are un(der)-educated ignorant morons.

Or again:

Go to a more christian forum then. We seem to believe in freedom of speech here.

Because, of course, religious people don't believe in freedom of speech, and non-religious people never attempt to censure religious language in public places.

And...well...Rhyno...what have I told you about going off half-cocked?

Anyhow...I don't post to the forums very much anymore for exactly this reason. Everyone in this debate is immature, or seems to be these days. The only posters I agree with, from the few that have already responded, are Bodhis and Pure Metal.

I think both sides need to accept that the other side is not disposessed of reason, or the capacity for it. Otherwise, in another 10 pages of this thread, people will still be saying utterly brilliant things like this:

Christians bear the brunt of the criticism in the US because christians stand against much of what reasonable america stands for...

Really? So apparently reasonable America is dead-set against social justice and equal treatment for people regardless of gender or socio-economic status, dead-set against the proliferation of peace throughout the world, dead-set against a stable family unit, dead-set against truth and love...

...or perhaps not. Perhaps some people in the world, perhaps an unfortunate many, do terrible things in the name of religion...but in the end are just using the name of religion to mask self-serving ends. Perhaps religion really stands for something beautiful, and reveals profound truths about where we're from and where we're going.

And perhaps people take that and mess it right up, like always happens.

Last I looked, the Pope thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and a grave sin. What a bloody facist warmonger.


Cheddar,
:( Aiera

Because, of course, religious people don't believe in freedom of speech, and non-religious people never attempt to censure religious language in public places.
I think you're reading a bit too much into that statement. The way I saw it, it sounded like s/he was just saying that people say whatever they want here, whether it's annoying or not. Of course, I don't know him/her well yet, so I'm not sure, it might actually have been a veiled insult as you assume.
Really? So apparently reasonable America is dead-set against social justice and equal treatment for people regardless of gender or socio-economic status,
Well, at the moment it does seem so, unfortunately...

In context, the message didn't read like it was a general observation, although in the end I don't suppose it matters too greatly.

My point is...people on both sides of the debate usually resort to name-calling, poking fun, gainsaying, and just general immaturity. I suppose it would be too much to ask to have a reasonable discussion on this topic, because hey...there are a lot of immature people.

But hey, I can hope and pray, right?
;) Aiera

What RhynoD has done on the religious side of the argument, and what Pure Science and Bottle, among others , have done on the non-religious side, is perpetuate a conflict, an unreasonable discourse in which both sides do not so much debate the merits of their own or the opposite position as poke fun and make snide comments. Witness:

I have no intention to perpetuate conflict, merely to give another side to the story. Surely that's fair?


Because, of course, clearly all religious people are un(der)-educated ignorant morons.

I educate myself every day. Does that mean I think that I am a moron myself? Not at all.


Because, of course, religious people don't believe in freedom of speech, and non-religious people never attempt to censure religious language in public places.

I was not making any statement about what religious people do. Please do not put words in my mouth. I merely said that if the thread-starter didn't like what was being said, then it would be in his best interest not to read it. That would prevent him from having to see it, with a minimum of effort.


Anyhow...I don't post to the forums very much anymore for exactly this reason. Everyone in this debate is immature, or seems to be these days. The only posters I agree with, from the few that have already responded, are Bodhis and Pure Metal.

Taking sides does not imply that one is immature.


I think both sides need to accept that the other side is not disposessed of reason, or the capacity for it.

I respect your right to think that, but disagree.

I think you need to understand that this is a debate forum, and in order to debate, people must take opposing sides, otherwise we'll just have threads where every post says "I agree".

Good heavens, I do believe I feel highly insulted! Imagine that...faith, an addiction? Goodness me, what's next?
Though they aren't direct analogies by far, I can certainly see where Bottle's coming from. But it does not refer to all religionists. Only some.

But really...comparing theists to drug users? For goodness' sake, Bottle, I really thought you were above such gutter tactics.
Bottle's been acting weird lately...

Precisely what about the lifestyle of the average person of faith is so unhealthy? Is it the somewhat more monogamous lifestyle? The...oh, I don't know...the value placed on marriage and marital fidelity? The importance placed on family? Or perhaps truth...certainly being honest has been shown to decrease the human life expectancy by at least 5 years!
To an atheist, it is mentally damaging for people to have blind faith.

I think you answer your own question by example, here. What's the difference? Well...
The point is that there really isn't a difference.



...there you have it, cut and dried. There seems to be the assumption from the non-religious side of this debate that the average religious person is in some way denying themselves...er...something (although I notice you don't say what, exactly), and what usually comes along with that is the assumption that the average religious person is in some way ignorant or under-educated.
And there is a view from the religious side that the average atheist is denying themselves the beauty of God, and that's because they do not put enough trust in religious texts.

Because, as we all should know by now, faith and reason just can't ever appear together.
True faith and true logic are antithetical to each other. I wouldn't use the word reason because that is too subjective.

Right. Sure. If you believe that, fine...it's not my place to tell you any differently. But if you believe that, then you're just as guilty as the average religious radical (and yes, I will admit they exist) in that you are perpetuating one side of a false dichotomy that need not exist.
Precisely the point, I believe.



I think everyone in this debate needs to take a step back for a moment and consider, before posting anything else, whether they are actually contributing to the debate in a constructive manner or not, because there are two ways in which this discussion can go from its infantile state here.
I think my answer, Christo-Islamic proselytism, is perfectly mature.

Because, of course, clearly all religious people are un(der)-educated ignorant morons.
You interpret this incorrectly. He means to show them how religion is wrong, not to educate in the academic sense.

Because, of course, religious people don't believe in freedom of speech, and non-religious people never attempt to censure religious language in public places.
Again, it should have been taken as a response to being told to shut up. It didn't mean that religionists don't believe in free speech, it meant that free speech is why each side can argue.

Anyhow...I don't post to the forums very much anymore for exactly this reason. Everyone in this debate is immature, or seems to be these days. The only posters I agree with, from the few that have already responded, are Bodhis and Pure Metal.
What was wrong with my answer? The reason that atheists try to convert Christians is because of Christians proselytising.

I have no intention to perpetuate conflict, merely to give another side to the story. Surely that's fair?


I educate myself every day. Does that mean I think that I am a moron myself? Not at all.


I was not making any statement about what religious people do. Please do not put words in my mouth. I merely said that if the thread-starter didn't like what was being said, then it would be in his best interest not to read it. That would prevent him from having to see it, with a minimum of effort.


Taking sides does not imply that one is immature.

You were making great points, and I was almost in the mood to agree with you...

I respect your right to think that, but disagree.

Until you said that.

I can acknowledge that I came in a little hot-headed (mostly because this needless dichotomy annoys the crap out of me) and perhaps read a little too much into what you said.

But as you have just seeminly refused to accept that theistic belief can in fact have basis in reason, and that rational and intelligent people can also be people of faith...I have been cast into doubt about the sincerity of your above statements.

I think you need to understand that this is a debate forum, and in order to debate, people must take opposing sides, otherwise we'll just have threads where every post says "I agree".

I assume you've seen the Monty Python "Argument" sketch at least once?

Yes, people take opposing sides in a debate...but that is very different from making personal attacks and gainsaying.

*sigh*
:( Aiera

I assume you've seen the Monty Python "Argument" sketch at least once?
I was about to say this forum reminds me of that sometinmes!
You beat me to it.

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone.
Sounds like someone's a little sensitive about their beliefs. Maybe their starting to fall apart and you don't like it because we're the "cause" of it?

All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?
No. You trying to "save" us has absolutely nothing to do with us. You just need someone to justify your belief system. You feed off of it.
Don't you think that THINKING someone is going to hell is dissing a religion or lack thereof?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business.
Ah, but see, we've tried that already.

Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.

I'll think you're stupid until you can prove otherwise, which would mean the rejection of your religion, but hey, you think we're all stupid sinners, right?

Good heavens, I do believe I feel highly insulted! Imagine that...faith, an addiction? Goodness me, what's next?

Okay, I understand that many of the "non-religious" persuasion don't agree with the way most monotheistic religions do place great value on the proliferation of the belief. And yes, I don't always agree with the methods of that proliferation - forced conversion and fearmongering are poor and immature tactics.

But really...comparing theists to drug users? For goodness' sake, Bottle, I really thought you were above such gutter tactics.

if you think being honest is a "gutter tactic" then that's really your loss. i regard relious belief in much the same way i do drug addiction: i believe both are unhealthy and inhibit the individual from experiencing the fullness of their life, and i believe that both are generally a symptom of more serious problems underneith. i don't hate users or believers, i don't try to force user or believers to give up their habits, and i don't expect users or believers to simply take my word for it. but i do work to help them treat the underlying problems, so they will no longer suffer from the dependency.


Precisely what about the lifestyle of the average person of faith is so unhealthy? Is it the somewhat more monogamous lifestyle? The...oh, I don't know...the value placed on marriage and marital fidelity? The importance placed on family? Or perhaps truth...certainly being honest has been shown to decrease the human life expectancy by at least 5 years!

i believe that if you need religion to be monogamous, loving, and honest, then you have a serious problem and should seek help. i believe that if you rely on religion to find value in your life and your family, then you have a serious problem and should seek help. i believe that if you use religion as a basis for your morals then you will never be able to have full moral awareness. that's my belief, and i don't expect anybody to simply adopt it or live by it because i say so.


I think you answer your own question by example, here. What's the difference? Well...

...there you have it, cut and dried. There seems to be the assumption from the non-religious side of this debate that the average religious person is in some way denying themselves...er...something (although I notice you don't say what, exactly), and what usually comes along with that is the assumption that the average religious person is in some way ignorant or under-educated.

just as religious people tend to believe that non-religious people miss out on heaven, connection with God, and higher spiritual awareness. yes, i believe it is impossible for religious people to have a full connection with their own lives; why should that bother you?


Because, as we all should know by now, faith and reason just can't ever appear together.

i don't believe i said anything about faith and reason being incompatible. but if you would like to tilt at straw men then be my guest.


Right. Sure. If you believe that, fine...it's not my place to tell you any differently. But if you believe that, then you're just as guilty as the average religious radical (and yes, I will admit they exist) in that you are perpetuating one side of a false dichotomy that need not exist.

you may believe it is a "false dichotomy," but (by definition of my beliefs) i cannot view it as either false or dichotomous. i don't see this as an "either or" cut-and-dried sort of thing; religious belief, like drug use, is often necessary for a person to find what they are seeking in their life. that isn't irrational at all...on the contrary, it is quite reasonable for a person to seek to satisfy their needs. i don't believe religion and rationality are totally incompatible, in that i believe many (if not most) religious people act quite rationally the majority of the time. i don't believe religion is evil, or that all people who practice it are evil. i don't even believe that religion is morally wrong, per se, just that basing morality on religion will stall an individual at an immature level of morality.

as for religious radicals, the only beef i have with them is when they attempt to force others to conform to their views. i don't object to them having strong convictions, or to the fact that they have beliefs different than mine, i simply object to them forcing those beliefs on others. i cannot be equivalent to them in that regard, since i believe it is totally impossible for me to force anybody to accept my views or to live in what i believe is a healthy and meaningful way; i cannot force my values on others, so i don't try.

if you think it will some how shut me up to compare me to religious radicals then i think you are the one subscribing to simplified dichotomies.

but then, you seem quite eager to reduce this to an us-versus-them scenario. please feel free to continue, since it's certainly not hurting my arguments :).


I think everyone in this debate needs to take a step back for a moment and consider, before posting anything else, whether they are actually contributing to the debate in a constructive manner or not, because there are two ways in which this discussion can go from its infantile state here.

if you feel the debate is at an infantile state then feel free to depart. i think it's progressing in a very interesting and productive manner, but i wouldn't want you to become upset or frustrated unnecessarily.


What RhynoD has done on the religious side of the argument, and what Pure Science and Bottle, among others , have done on the non-religious side, is perpetuate a conflict, an unreasonable discourse in which both sides do not so much debate the merits of their own or the opposite position as poke fun and make snide comments. Witness:

i have debated the issue at hand, by pointing out the inconsistency in the original post. you seem to be arguing that because you don't happen to like my personal beliefs that means that they have no value, or they are merely snide comments; that seems a little hypocritical, given the little lesson you seem to be trying to teach us all.

You were making great points, and I was almost in the mood to agree with you...

Until you said that.


All I can say is that perhaps you are a little oversensitive. Nothing I say is meant to be offensive, but that doesn't mean I'll censor myself to protect people from disliking my opinion.


But as you have just seeminly refused to accept that theistic belief can in fact have basis in reason, and that rational and intelligent people can also be people of faith...I have been cast into doubt about the sincerity of your above statements.

People can certainly be rational in some areas and also have a religious faith, but by no means do I have to agree that their faith is based on reason. It wouldn't be a faith if it was. A faith by definition is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". I shudder to think that the dictionary could be considered an offensive book.


I assume you've seen the Monty Python "Argument" sketch at least once?

Don't think so. I do like Monty Python, though.


Yes, people take opposing sides in a debate...but that is very different from making personal attacks and gainsaying.

I make no personal attacks, and again, using the dictionary, "gainsaying" is more or less equivalent to disagreeing, something I would consider my right.

Though they aren't direct analogies by far, I can certainly see where Bottle's coming from. But it does not refer to all religionists. Only some.

I can't see it, although I will go so far as to admit that I do think there is a wholly improper way to practice religion. I will discuss this later*.

Bottle's been acting weird lately...

I've only just come back for the day, but I think you are right. I've spoken with her before, and found the discussion rewarding. Not this time, though.

To an atheist, it is mentally damaging for people to have blind faith.

Ah, here we go.

* Is all faith blind faith?

Oh, I agree...there are many people who hold religious beliefs who have no clue what they believe in or why. But is that the hallmark of all religious people?

Clearly not, and in fact many believers can tell you very clearly and concisely why they believe what they do. More on this later, because you said something a couple lines on that works as a decent springboard**.

The point is that there really isn't a difference.

For the most part, I agree...although I think that for myself, when I'm stepping into a conversation with the intent of trying to help a person to choose Christ (Roman Catholic, just to get that out of the way), I generally make the assumption that the person I am speaking to has intelligence and relatively reasonable beliefs, and I don't attempt to pass those beliefs off as sinful tripe.

I think most people are very reasonable, and my usual reason for engaging a person in a somewhat more proselytical conversation (what the heck is so wrong about spreading the Word, anyhow?) is to see if they can recognize the greater truth behind what they already know to be true.

And there is a view from the religious side that the average atheist is denying themselves the beauty of God, and that's because they do not put enough trust in religious texts.

Here we go.

** I agree with you, and also disagree. Putting trust in religious texts along is usually not enough. Of course, I maintain that the message of the Gospel is the unerring Word of God...but at the same time I can acknowledge that the raw text of the Gospel is sometimes posessed of small errors. Is the size of the Army of the Hebrews (800,000 or over 1,000,000) in the early books of the Old Testament really that important to my faith in a am I saved or am I damned? sense of the word? Of course not!

But some people get hung up on such things, stumble over them, and lose sight of the real message behind the raw text.

The difference between blind faith and true faith is the ability to recognize the message in more than just the raw text, in more ways than because God said so in Romans 3:7-15. True faith recognizes God in the everyday, in the mundane and the profound both.

True faith and true logic are antithetical to each other. I wouldn't use the word reason because that is too subjective.

I suggest you read Thomas Aquinas' works, or if you prefer something more contemporary then try G.K. Chesterton.

Faith and logic, faith and science...they are not ahtithetical. You speak words of the needless dichotomy to which I refer, and in doing so conflate this argument into black-and-white banter.

I think my answer, Christo-Islamic proselytism, is perfectly mature.

I agree and disagree. What's so wrong with it in the first place? The action in and of itself is not a terrible thing...though many of the methods used are.

You interpret this incorrectly. He means to show them how religion is wrong, not to educate in the academic sense.

Which assumes that religion is indeed 'wrong'. ;)

Again, it should have been taken as a response to being told to shut up. It didn't mean that religionists don't believe in free speech, it meant that free speech is why each side can argue.

Fair enough, and I think I've already admitted that I may have come in a little hot in my reply to this. Of course, since then, Pure Science has said something else that I find objectionable.

What was wrong with my answer? The reason that atheists try to convert Christians is because of Christians proselytising.

So...let's fight fire with gasoline, then?

See above...what's so wrong with the action? With the methods people sometimes use, yes, I can see grevious error. But even I will occasionally try to speak to my friends of the great love and glory of God, and do so in a way that is complementary to what they already know in their hearts.

Is there a wrong way? Yes. Is there a right way?

I'd say so.
:) Aiera

Ok, first off, sorry 'bout that. I'm just tired of all the negativity. I have to deal with it so much from so many different places, it's rather frustrating, I'm sure you can imagine.


As for Christians, we're not attacking you, or at least, we shouldn't be. If a Christian does come up to you and batantly tell you you're a horrible person and you're going to hell, he's not doing what he's supposed to be doing. Personally, I do mind my own business, for the most part. You'll notice that I rarely make my own threads anymore, I just comment in others. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just defending my religion after other people have attacked it.
The example I can think of off the top of my head is the little fish bumper stickers: a fish bumper sticker isn't offensive, it's just showing that the driver is a Christian. If you're not a Christian, then just keep driving, it doesn't effect you whatsoever. It's not an attack on Atheism or any other religion, it's not trying to show that anyone's stupid, it's just a simple affirmation that the person is a Christian. It's not even aimed at the Atheists and other religions: it's aimed at other Christians.
But then there are the bumper stickers that are the fishes with legs. This is a direct attack on Christians. They're not just saying, "I'm an atheist," It's saying "I'm and Atheist and Christians are stupid." You can have a bumper sticker that says you're an atheist without attacking anyone. The legs are saying that, not only do you not believe in Christianity, but you're going to make fun of it as well, you're going to trivialize it and try to show that Christians are just stupid and niave. The fish doesn't bother you, them having it doesn't say anything at all about anyone other than Christians. Why do so many feel the need to make fun of it?

That's what I'm talking about. So many of the non-Christians, especially those at this site, feel the need to bait and flame and generally piss off the Christians that are here. If we're annoying, be the "better person" and rise above, just ignore it. Or, tell us to shut up because you're not interested. Our being annoying isn't offensive, it's just annoying.

And it's not like Atheists don't annoy Christians to become Atheists. We're both guilty of it.

It's like, some guy will make a thread, what do you feel about ___. A muslim will come on, "I think that ___." An atheist will say "I feel ___." And then a Christian comes on and says, "I think that ___." Then suddenly, the Christians are trying to convert everyone, and how dare they try to force me to believe what they believe, they're so stupid, I hate them. I've seen this time and time again, and frankly, it's petty, stupid, and immature.

Before you say anything, YES, Christians do it to, just not half as much.

Christians aren't doing any more or less than anyone else. We're no more stupid for our beliefs than anyone else. So many people keep talking about how making fun of gays for being gay is discrimination...well how is making fun of Christians because they're Christians any less of discrimination? You call us closeminded and narrow and stereotyping hypocrits, when at the same time you're condemning all Christians these things...How is that any more openminded? You say stereotyping is horrible and how dare we Christians do it, but at the same time you're stereotyping all Christians.

I'm not saying all nonChristians are stupid. I'm saying all nonChristians who think they're better than anyone else are stupid. I think that all Christians who think they're better than everyone else are stupid too. I'm not saying Atheism is such a stupid religion and how can anyone think that...I'm saying that I think Atheism is wrong. I don't think it's stupid, I just think it's misguided. Actually, I know a lot of very intelligent Atheists: I think no lessof them because they are atheists. I'm not calling all nonChristians closeminded...I'm calling the closeminded nonChristians closeminded. If you think that I'm calling you closeminded, that probably means you are, because you're so hell-bent on how stupid you think Christians are.

But really...comparing theists to drug users? For goodness' sake, Bottle, I really thought you were above such gutter tactics.
It's not a tactic when it is an earnest (even if mistaken) belief.

Precisely what about the lifestyle of the average person of faith is so unhealthy? Is it the somewhat more monogamous lifestyle? The...oh, I don't know...the value placed on marriage and marital fidelity? The importance placed on family? Or perhaps truth...certainly being honest has been shown to decrease the human life expectancy by at least 5 years!
It's hard to say really what is the average person of faith. I would gather that if someone believed that your thinking was not clear, or was in some way irrational, that this might be percieved as not entirely healthy. Just I suppose as many Christians believe that not knowing God is not entirely healthy.

I think you answer your own question by example, here. What's the difference? Well...
I dont think she did. If it is so obvious, you will no difficulty clarifying it for those of us who apparently are less than genius in the observation department.

...there you have it, cut and dried. There seems to be the assumption from the non-religious side of this debate that the average
religious person is in some way denying themselves...er...something
If you are implying, or believe that such a sentiment is not felt by many Christians that post on this site, you must not have been reading the same posts I have.

(although I notice you don't say what, exactly), and what usually comes along with that is the assumption that the average religious person is in some way ignorant or under-educated.
Whether or not they are representive of the average religious person (and frankly I suspect that they are not) there is an unfortunate tendancy of many of the 'louder' Christians to portray themselves in this fashion...it's probably not surprising since the louder of most groups one could categorise tend to display this trait. I note that many of the 'louder' Christians often appear to believe that non-believers are only so due to ignorance, or lack of education with regards to God and Christ.


Because, as we all should know by now, faith and reason just can't ever appear together.
You are correct, faith and reason are anethema. I believe that this is a central tenement of faith, that it supercedes reason, and thus takes primacy over it, or at least that is what many Christians tell me. Perhaps they bear false witness?

Right. Sure. If you believe that, fine...it's not my place to tell you any differently. But if you believe that, then you're just as guilty as the average religious radical (and yes, I will admit they exist) in that you are perpetuating one side of a false dichotomy that need not exist.
Kindly explain what you mean by faith, because you must have a very different definition to the one that Christians (including ministers and priests) have presented to me.

I think everyone in this debate needs to take a step back for a moment and consider, before posting anything else, whether they are actually contributing to the debate in a constructive manner or not, because there are two ways in which this discussion can go from its infantile state here.

What RhynoD has done on the religious side of the argument, and what Pure Science and Bottle, among others , have done on the non-religious side, is perpetuate a conflict, an unreasonable discourse in which both sides do not so much debate the merits of their own or the opposite position as poke fun and make snide comments. Witness:



Because, of course, clearly all religious people are un(der)-educated ignorant morons.
I dont see that the comment means that. In the first place there is no mention of who is educating who. I frankly agree with the comment. Even if no one walks away with new information, the very act of putting your views into typed words, clarifies those views. At worst people can come away better educated about themselves and what they believe, at best people may both learn and teach others.

Or again:



Because, of course, religious people don't believe in freedom of speech, and non-religious people never attempt to censure religious language in public places.
Well really, people do get miffed when others try to censor them, regardless of the topic or their point of veiw on it.
It's a passionate topic, and frankly, I'd be very surprised on a forum as busy and varied as this, everyone could keep a lid on their enthusiasm...

And...well...Rhyno...what have I told you about going off half-cocked?

Anyhow...I don't post to the forums very much anymore for exactly this reason. Everyone in this debate is immature, or seems to be these days. The only posters I agree with, from the few that have already responded, are Bodhis and Pure Metal.
Would it not be easier to just avoid the topics you dont think people can be mature about, or better still to continue on and hope your example spreads?

I think both sides need to accept that the other side is not disposessed of reason, or the capacity for it. Otherwise, in another 10 pages of this thread, people will still be saying utterly brilliant things like this:
I refuse to label those with a differing view to my own as being not dispossed to reason, or the capacity for it. I frankly dont find this suggestion to be at all productive. I would suggest in fact that we would all get along much better if we assumed the opposite.

Really? So apparently reasonable America is dead-set against social justice and equal treatment for people regardless of gender or socio-economic status, dead-set against the proliferation of peace throughout the world, dead-set against a stable family unit, dead-set against truth and love...
Apparently a number of Christians are, unfortunately they appear to be the squeaky wheels...the same is often true of most groups, the loudest are normatively the most fanatic, and often the least representitive of the whole (or at least that's my hope and until proved wrong, I am sticking with it).

...or perhaps not. Perhaps some people in the world, perhaps an unfortunate many, do terrible things in the name of religion...but in the end are just using the name of religion to mask self-serving ends. Perhaps religion really stands for something beautiful, and reveals profound truths about where we're from and where we're going.
Which is precisely why those who are reasoned have a duty to lead by example.

And perhaps people take that and mess it right up, like always happens.

Last I looked, the Pope thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and a grave sin. What a bloody facist warmonger.
And to many non-Christians this is veiwed as representitive of the whole. Which is why it can be constructive to discuss such issues. People dont have to agree on conclusions, but I fail to see why if both sides have valid points, people cant come to have empathy and understanding with regards to the disputed views of others. Admittedly historical evidence is against me here, but I'm an optomistic cynic...

Cheddar,
:( Aiera

if you think being honest is a "gutter tactic" then that's really your loss. i regard relious belief in much the same way i do drug addiction: i believe both are unhealthy and inhibit the individual from experiencing the fullness of their life, and i believe that both are generally a symptom of more serious problems underneith. i don't hate users or believers, i don't try to force user or believers to give up their habits, and i don't expect users or believers to simply take my word for it. but i do work to help them treat the underlying problems, so they will no longer suffer from the dependency.

You speak at length of the 'fullness' of life, but never seem to bother with the definition of the term. Please do so, as I think it critical to our continued discussion.

i believe that if you need religion to be monogamous, loving, and honest, then you have a serious problem and should seek help. i believe that if you rely on religion to find value in your life and your family, then you have a serious problem and should seek help. i believe that if you use religion as a basis for your morals then you will never be able to have full moral awareness. that's my belief, and i don't expect anybody to simply adopt it or live by it because i say so.

Oh, I have seen many examples of all of that outside of a religious environment, to be certain, and it was not my intent to apply otherwise (serves me right for coming in hot to this debate).

Certainly religious belief is not necessary in order to act in that way...although I am not so sure that a full explanation of why one would choose to act in that way is possible from within the purely secular world-view.

just as religious people tend to believe that non-religious people miss out on heaven, connection with God, and higher spiritual awareness. yes, i believe it is impossible for religious people to have a full connection with their own lives; why should that bother you?

Because I don't see what you mean by it, Bottle.

I'm very religious, yet I feel highly fulfilled, and I don't see any aspect of my life that I am not carrying through to its fullest potential. If you can think of anything, please let me know.

i don't believe i said anything about faith and reason being incompatible. but if you would like to tilt at straw men then be my guest.

Funny, I thought you likened faith to substance abuse. Or perhaps by shooting heroin into my arm I am acting in a reasoned and well-thought-out manner?

you may believe it is a "false dichotomy," but (by definition of my beliefs) i cannot view it as either false or dichotomous. i don't see this as an "either or" cut-and-dried sort of thing; religious belief, like drug use, is often necessary for a person to find what they are seeking in their life. that isn't irrational at all...on the contrary, it is quite reasonable for a person to seek to satisfy their needs. i don't believe religion and rationality are totally incompatible, in that i believe many (if not most) religious people act quite rationally the majority of the time. i don't believe religion is evil, or that all people who practice it are evil. i don't even believe that religion is morally wrong, per se, just that basing morality on religion will stall an individual at an immature level of morality.

I don't follow, I must admit, but only I think because I don't understand how the use of drugs in any way enables a person to come to a more complete understanding of life...to my understanding, such things would only thicken the cloud in the end.

Now, as you your statements on morality, I agree. I don't think doing things because God said so is a mature system of morality (although it probably won't steer you wrong!). But I think that the secular world-view does not fully explain the ultimate reason why we hold to the morals we do.

as for religious radicals, the only beef i have with them is when they attempt to force others to conform to their views. i don't object to them having strong convictions, or to the fact that they have beliefs different than mine, i simply object to them forcing those beliefs on others. i cannot be equivalent to them in that regard, since i believe it is totally impossible for me to force anybody to accept my views or to live in what i believe is a healthy and meaningful way; i cannot force my values on others, so i don't try.

i think you are missing out on the only life you will ever have, and i am trying to help you avoid that horrible outcome.

You have an odd definition of 'not trying'.

if you think it will some how shut me up to compare me to religious radicals then i think you are the one subscribing to simplified dichotomies.

Your initial post, and my reply, were a little hot-headed, methinks, and you came off as very...well, radical to my eyes. Sorry if I perhaps crossed the line a little myself.

but then, you seem quite eager to reduce this to an us-versus-them scenario. please feel free to continue, since it's certainly not hurting my arguments :).

Actually, that is not my interest, and I hope my subsequent posts have cleared that up somewhat. Again, I came in a little hot. I don't think anything I said was in error, but perhaps my word choice was a little strong and thus more easily misinterpreted. Apologies if this is so.

if you feel the debate is at an infantile state then feel free to depart. i think it's progressing in a very interesting and productive manner, but i wouldn't want you to become upset or frustrated unnecessarily.

I think it is starting to shape itself, although some of the posts on the first page were highly questionable.

i have debated the issue at hand, by pointing out the inconsistency in the original post. you seem to be arguing that because you don't happen to like my personal beliefs that means that they have no value, or they are merely snide comments; that seems a little hypocritical, given the little lesson you seem to be trying to teach us all.

Actually, what I would like is if you would more fully explain those personal beliefs, because it's left me scratching my head. So a religious person like myself is missing out on the full potential of his life?

I don't see it. Please clarify, so I don't have to try and guess.

:) Aiera

Peopleandstuff, I just wanted to touch on a couple of points you made. For the most part, I agree, and in subsequent posts I have addressed some of your other statements (and have no time left tonight to make lengthy repetition)...although I think you missed my meaning on one statement:

You are correct, faith and reason are anethema. I believe that this is a central tenement of faith, that it supercedes reason, and thus takes primacy over it, or at least that is what many Christians tell me. Perhaps they bear false witness?

Clearly my sarcasm does not translate well into textual form.

I do not think faith and reason are anathema. Read Thomas Aquinas' elegant proofs. Read Chesterton's subtle wit. Read C.S. Lewis' passionate testimony. There are a great many works and examples of where faith and reason stand not opposed, but hand-in-hand.

:) Aiera

Let me introduce my reponse by stating that I was, for 2+ years, very much Christian.
As for Christians, we're not attacking you, or at least, we shouldn't be. If a Christian does come up to you and batantly tell you you're a horrible person and you're going to hell, he's not doing what he's supposed to be doing.
It doesn't matter that he does or does not say it. They all ACT that way. It's degrading. Besides that, you shouldn't even be thinking it.
The example I can think of off the top of my head is the little fish bumper stickers: a fish bumper sticker isn't offensive, it's just showing that the driver is a Christian. If you're not a Christian, then just keep driving, it doesn't effect you whatsoever. It's not an attack on Atheism or any other religion, it's not trying to show that anyone's stupid, it's just a simple affirmation that the person is a Christian. It's not even aimed at the Atheists and other religions: it's aimed at other Christians.
BULL SHIT! The Darwin sticker you're thinking about is NO different, in terms of purposes, than the "Jesus Fish". Just fucking admit it that you don't want to see it. It has nothing to do with feeling "attacked".

Why do so many feel the need to make fun of it? Because it's stupid and wrong and we're tired of hearing about it.

If we're annoying, be the "better person" and rise above, just ignore it. Or, tell us to shut up because you're not interested. Our being annoying isn't offensive, it's just annoying.
I find your beliefs VERY offensive.

And it's not like Atheists don't annoy Christians to become Atheists. We're both guilty of it.
But see, athiests don't believe that someone could go to hell for their sexual orientation, or that women are subject to men, or that slavery can be justified.

Then suddenly, the Christians are trying to convert everyone, and how dare they try to force me to believe what they believe, they're so stupid, I hate them. I've seen this time and time again, and frankly, it's petty, stupid, and immature.
See above.

Christians aren't doing any more or less than anyone else. We're no more stupid for our beliefs than anyone else. So many people keep talking about how making fun of gays for being gay is discrimination...well how is making fun of Christians because they're Christians any less of discrimination?
Because your sexual orientation is not chosen, your belief system IS. An athiest belief system, does not, for the MOST part, spawn hatred. Religion does, especially Christianity
You call us closeminded and narrow and stereotyping hypocrits, when at the same time you're condemning all Christians these things...How is that any more openminded? You say stereotyping is horrible and how dare we Christians do it, but at the same time you're stereotyping all Christians.
Cause our stereotypes are based on facts, not out of a book written 2000+ years ago.

I'm saying that I think Atheism is wrong. I don't think it's stupid, I just think it's misguided. Actually, I know a lot of very intelligent Atheists: I think no lessof them because they are atheists. I'm not calling all nonChristians closeminded...I'm calling the closeminded nonChristians closeminded. If you think that I'm calling you closeminded, that probably means you are, because you're so hell-bent on how stupid you think Christians are.
On what grounds do you think it's "misguided"? Certainly on no factual grounds.
I'm bigoted. I have no problem admitting it. I hate religion with a passion, although I respect its entitlement to existance.
I do not, however, consider myself close-minded.
I'm just careful of what I take in.

Faith and logic, faith and science...they are not ahtithetical. You speak words of the needless dichotomy to which I refer, and in doing so conflate this argument into black-and-white banter.
I am too lethargic at the moment to argue any of the other points, though I read and noted them all. The thing is, faith, by definition, is believing in something in which there is no proof. Here, I shall provide evidence.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/), faith (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith) is derived from the Latin fidere, "to trust". Logic (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logic) is derived from the Greek logos, "reason".

All of the follwing are definitions of "faith". There are other etymologies listed on some of these sites as well, if you wish to look at them.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=0&y=0)
firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith)
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Infoplease Dictionary (http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/faith)
belief that is not based on proof

Encarta World English Dictionary (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861610309)
belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

I could go on, but I think you've got the point. These are for logic.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=logic)
a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic)
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events

Infoplease Dictionary (http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/logic)
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference

Encarta World English Dictionary (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861699377)
the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction

If those aren't antithetical, then I don't really know what is. Faith and logic are indeed antitheses.

My opinion on the matter:

People only pay attention to people outside their religion who give them a hard time about their religion. We wouldn't have this problem if people, especially those causing the hard time, would actually stop to think about the reasoning behind the beliefs of others.

Everybody has issues. Christians have issues of faith. Atheists and agnostics have issues of logic. The way I see it, our own issues with whatever we believe or don't believe in should keep us from proselytizing. I personally don't give a shit about somebody's attempts to change my religion or lack of one. Because if some day I decide to be a Hindu, or a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a Zoroastrian, or a Pagan, I'll decide that on my own terms and not because somebody else had a good feeling. There are way too many churches to say that the one true religion is this, or that, or that one way over there. And way too many people who believe that theirs is the only way. Life is about choices, and when the choices have less importance than the decisions, your life has become lessened. You have the right to decide what you believe in. You have the right to speak freely and without censorship. Or at least we think we do. Protect your rights to worship freely and keep talking about it.

If those aren't antithetical, then I don't really know what is. Faith and logic are indeed antitheses.

I completely agree.

Okk I just typed up a post and it screwed up so im going to redo it in minimal detal again.... because im lazy.

Christians should also learn to leave non christians alone.

Awhile ago when I was in town some random christian started talking his.... stuff at me. He didnt quite believe me when I said I didnt want to know. Does the bible not say you should treat others how you would like to be treat. I dont think he would like it if I started preaching my shit to him.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.

aren't you a mormon? don't most christians not even consider you a christian?

a point by point rebuttal may or may not follow, i just wanted to make the point that to mainstream christianity, your religion is not theirs and is blasphemy. hell, i think my dad would prefer if i was a satanist than a mormon (or a jehovah's witness for that matter)

I don't think faith and logic are necessarily antithetical, but I think it is important to define in which ways they are and are not.

Consider the elegant proofs put forth by Thomas Aquinas (they can be viewed here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html) for those who are interested in having a read). This is a shining example of high-end reasoning and, yes, logic applied to a fundamental religious tenet, the nature of the existence of God.

Or consider the works of G.K. Chesterton, or C.S. Lewis (both of whom I have mentioned previously). Both very reasoned, impeccably educated and highly reasonable gentlemen, who have time and again written wonderfully reasoned defenses of their faith.

On the other hand, if by saying I make a logical argument I am expected to procure and provide empirically observable evidence, then yes, there is antithesis there.

But are faith and logic always antithetical? No, I don't think so. In the end, both look to a common goal: truth.

When we present empirical evidence and use it as a basis for logical reasoning, we present a subset of truth - scientific truth. This is what logic has come to mean in our modern age. But the classical origin of the word speaks only of 'reason', and this can be applied to a broader spectrum of truth than the scientific subset. Indeed, reason can be applied to truth directly (since 'truth' as a quantity cannot be scientifically described).

Reason can indeed be found in faith, because there is more than just blind faith. There is cause and reason for faith, whether found in rational thought about the beliefs one holds (and questioning those beliefs), or through personal experiences.

Cheers,
:) Aiera

If those aren't antithetical, then I don't really know what is. Faith and logic are indeed antitheses.

You fail to grasp the fact that there are concepts for which there can be no proof. If faith is relegated to these areas, or at least changed when evidence indicates that logic should be used, they are not the antithetical in the least.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

i don't hate christians.

i greatly dislike it when people try to force their opinions on others. this includes harassing women at abortion clincs, trying to force prayer into schools, hell, harassing people on message boards about how wrong they are when it comes to religion because they don't believe in your god. et c.

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks.
and i'm tired of threads generalizing about non-christians. such as this one...

If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone.
how about you take your own advice?

All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much.
hahahahahahaha. yes, christians never insult atheists or members of other religions.. seriously, i tend to be an inbetween in religious discussions, i'll make points for whichever side has most unreasonable points against it. on this board, there are a disproportionate number of chrsitians who flame and attack non-christians.

All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?
perhaps you don't get the point... you think we're going to hell. we don't. you have as good an idea as any of us what happens after this life, which is no fucking clue whatsoever. your guess is as good as ours, so stop trying to force your guess on us.

[quote]If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.[/quote

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

right... that's hilarious. i visit an atheist board and at least once a week we're invaded by a group of christians who just flame us, but you guys are always the victims and never do anything wrong.

people force bibles into the hands of students at my school, and no, chrsitians never force anyone to do anything.

people stand on milk crates on street corners with microphones saying that we're all going to hell while their kids sell bibles and christians will accept a "no thanks"

Awhile ago when I was in town some random christian started talking his.... stuff at me. He didnt quite believe me when I said I didnt want to know. Does the bible not say you should treat others how you would like to be treat. I dont think he would like it if I started preaching my shit to him.

I don't normally do this, but here:

Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

If you really don't want to hear it, tell the person to consult that passage. Keep in mind that it's a bit of a double-edged sword, though.

aren't you a mormon? don't most christians not even consider you a christian?

No, Dak, RhynoD is a Southern Baptist.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Church maintains that Mormons are a Christian group. But that in and of itself opens another can of worms: many Christian groups don't think that the Catholic Church is Christian, so go figure.

Just something to consider if you get around to that rebuttal.

;) Aiera

You fail to grasp the fact that there are concepts for which there can be no proof. If faith is relegated to these areas, or at least changed when evidence indicates that logic should be used, they are not the antithetical in the least.

Nothing can be completely proven, but faith does not even try. I prefer to attempt logical thought than to throw it out of the window and use faith to decide whether something is true or false.

Nothing can be completely proven, but faith does not even try. I prefer to attempt logical thought than to throw it out of the window and use faith to decide whether something is true or false.

Maybe reading comprehension is hard for you, but there was nothing whatsoever in that post to state that logic should *ever* be thrown out the window. Would you care to try again?

Nothing can be completely proven, but faith does not even try. I prefer to attempt logical thought than to throw it out of the window and use faith to decide whether something is true or false.

I think analysis of both faith and science is necessary to understand those things in the world that can be empirically quantified.

As for those things that cannot be empirically quantified (what is the molar mass or wavelength of love?), science serves no use, and all understanding is based on faith.

:D Aiera

Mere Christianity? (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=assertions)

I don't think faith and logic are necessarily antithetical, but I think it is important to define in which ways they are and are not.
Thanks for the link to Aquinas, I will take a look at it.

But you seem to be equating faith with religion. I am going down to a more fundamental level. Believing in anything without empirical evidence is, by definition, faith. Yet logic requires belief in only that which is observable. Therefore they are antipodal. I am not trying to say that anyone can every be utterly logical, or that this is a good thing. I am trying to establish the basis of an argument so that I can go forward with it. Can anyone deny that faith and trust are indeed the antitheses of logic and reason? Completely objectively, without any positive or negative connotations to either.

And, just to pacify some, I myself have faith in some things. I am a physiolater, I worship Nature. Reverence of anything is not logical or reasonable at all. I think that there is a good point of balance between the two that humankind will always be fated to never reach.

You fail to grasp the fact that there are concepts for which there can be no proof. If faith is relegated to these areas, or at least changed when evidence indicates that logic should be used, they are not the antithetical in the least.
Yes, but this is going into individuals. I am trying to discuss purely the concepts of faith and logic right now, regardless of humanity.

No, Dak, RhynoD is a Southern Baptist.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Church maintains that Mormons are a Christian group. But that in and of itself opens another can of worms: many Christian groups don't think that the Catholic Church is Christian, so go figure.

Just something to consider if you get around to that rebuttal.

;) Aiera
is there someone with a similar sounding name who is a mormon then?

hmm... i coudl have sworn there was a mormon with an r----- name... *shrugs*

well, then sorry about that.

and i thought it was the baptists who didn't think the catholics were chrsitian. i used to go to a baptist message board and thats what they seemed to think. of course they thought that my clarification about their terrible assumptions regarding buddhism was an attempt to convert others to buddhism rather than an attempt to educate those who obviously did not know anything about it... (they claimed that buddhists worshipped idols and showed a picture of monks meditating facing a statue of buddha, which is usually used as something to focus on in meditation, rather than something to worship)

Taken in conjunction with some of Aquinas' assertions, yes, Mere Christianity is a wonderful read and a profound argument.

That article talks a little about free-thinking. Okay...well, a little 'free thought' on my part takes C.S. Lewis' observations on the universailty of some morals and considers...I believe it is proof three of the Aquinian proofs. Put together, a very strong argument for God.

:D Aiera

I think analysis of both faith and science is necessary to understand those things in the world that can be empirically quantified.

As for those things that cannot be empirically quantified (what is the molar mass or wavelength of love?), science serves no use, and all understanding is based on faith.

:D Aiera

I disagree. Rather than using faith to decide upon the wavelength of love, I would say that love has no wavelength. In programming terms, wavelength is not a property of love. In mathematical terms, wavelength as a function cannot take love as a parameter.

This however, does not mean that one is unable to discuss love without the use of faith, I see no such implication.

I do not believe faith is necessary to understand anything. Science aims to be sufficient to explain everything, and thus no other sources are necessary. The incompleteness, and flaws that exist in human science are irrelevant. The intention and spirit of science is to explain all. To take what we don't know and "explain" it with faith is to be afraid of admitting one's ignorance. Scientific thought is not about being knowledgeable, but rather being aware of one's ignorance, and using scientific methods to remove it where possible, rather than simply using faith to fill the gaps, emotionally comforting though it may be.

is there someone with a similar sounding name who is a mormon then?

hmm... i coudl have sworn there was a mormon with an r----- name... *shrugs*

I can remember who you're talking about, but the name eludes me at this time. Suffice to say, not RhynoD.

well, then sorry about that.

I don't imagine he'll mind.

and i thought it was the baptists who didn't think the catholics were chrsitian.

Some do. Witness Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com). And for all of you, Mr. Chick is my favourite example to use of a person who claims to be Christian but is really just using the term as an attempt to justify a message of hate.

i used to go to a baptist message board and thats what they seemed to think. of course they thought that my clarification about their terrible assumptions regarding buddhism was an attempt to convert others to buddhism rather than an attempt to educate those who obviously did not know anything about it... (they claimed that buddhists worshipped idols and showed a picture of monks meditating facing a statue of buddha, which is usually used as something to focus on in meditation, rather than something to worship)

I've noticed that too...well, not so much with Baptists specifically but with most people calling themselves Christian who are in some was associated with the southern United States (so I speak also of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, and several smaller Christian groups of a more non-denominational variety). There tends to be a more close-minded attitude prevalent in their discourse.

I've argued with RhynoD a few times about Mormonism

:D Aiera

As for those things that cannot be empirically quantified (what is the molar mass or wavelength of love?), science serves no use, and all understanding is based on faith.
Oh, really? So the chemo-electric qualities of human thought are to just be disregarded? It is my belief, and this is faith right here, that, given enough time, anything can be proven. All of the uni- or multiverse. Unless there are concepts that are actually beyond human understanding, but it doesn't matter since this is hypothetical. But, the thing is, you can never say that observable occurances can never be explained. Love is proven to exist, subjective though that proof may be. People used to think that there was no possible way to scientifically and empirically explain things like earthquakes and liquid stone bursting from the earth. Well, guess what? We now have seismology and volcanology, and can explain it. Never say that things have to be taken on faith, just say that to your knowledge there is no other choice. Though biology can explain love, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with that.

Some do. Witness Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com). And for all of you, Mr. Chick is my favourite example to use of a person who claims to be Christian but is really just using the term as an attempt to justify a message of hate.

yeah, that guy's a crazy.

those comics would be funny if i didn't think he meant them seriously... have you read the one with the buddhist who got some christian guy who was reting to convert him killed.... with monks as hitmen, nonetheless...

or the one with the hindhu who was preforming human sacrifice... or the one where the witches became witches through reading harry potter.

see, there's one thing we (theists and non-theists) can agree on. that man is insane.

I do not believe faith is necessary to understand anything. Science aims to be sufficient to explain everything, and thus no other sources are necessary. The incompleteness, and flaws that exist in human science are irrelevant. The intention and spirit of science is to explain all. To take what we don't know and "explain" it with faith is to be afraid of admitting one's ignorance. Scientific thought is not about being knowledgeable, but rather being aware of one's ignorance, and using scientific methods to remove it where possible, rather than simply using faith to fill the gaps, emotionally comforting though it may be.

I hold that reliance on science as the sole arbiter of truth is in fact willful blindness, because there is much that science cannot describe.

Like love. How could one hope to scientifically describe love? Or, because it cannot be scientifically described, shall we say it does not exist.

Hmmm...I think I'll call my girlfriend and tell her that it's just been about the sex all this time.


Digressions aside, I think you have a narrower understanding of my statements than I intended to convey. When I say that faith is in some way an integral part of analysis, I do not say it in a way that speaks to any specific faith denomination.

Faith certainly plays a role in empirical analysis, because the veracity of collected evidence must be in some way based on trust. There must be a measure of faith that the observed evidence is an accurate enough reflection of the reality of the observed process or object as to be useful in making statements about said process or object. There are uncertainty principles that abound in the scientific community. We cannot know both the velocity and location of an electron with concrete certainty at the same time - it is one or the other. Nor can we be certain that by observing some process, we are not by our presence as observer altering its normal function. Faith...trust...plays a role in empirical analysis.

And in analyzing non-empirical quantities, like love (or even truth!), then faith is all we have to go on. Not a specific faith, not the Christian faith or the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith or the Buddhist faith, but faith in a broader sense...a trust in something outside the ability of our five senses to quantify.

When I say to my girlfriend that "I love her", it really isn't about the sex, because our relationship has not become sexual yet. So the "love" is not just about the sex, nor about the possibility of sex. Love, to me, is real, but I can't prove it by saying that I can see it, smell it, hear it, or analyze it in any empirical method. I just believe it to be real, and know it to be real because I have experienced it in my heart.

Which is really not too different from the reason I believe in God, come to think of it.

:) Aiera

Yes, but this is going into individuals. I am trying to discuss purely the concepts of faith and logic right now, regardless of humanity.

You stated that they were absolutely antithetical. In truth, there are areas in which empirical proof is impossible and one must accept an axiom. Any such acceptance of an axiom is inherently faith-based, regardless of what kind of logical ideas you may have to back it up. This is true even in mathematics.

Love is proven to exist, subjective though that proof may be.

So is God.

;) Thanks, that made my day.

:) Aiera

You stated that they were absolutely antithetical. In truth, there are areas in which empirical proof is impossible and one must accept an axiom. Any such acceptance of an axiom is inherently faith-based, regardless of what kind of logical ideas you may have to back it up. This is true even in mathematics.
Exactly. Thus is the limit of our pathetic brains, as swollen and bulbous as they are. But this is human limitation, not the limitation of an ideal.

So is God.

;) Thanks, that made my day.

:) Aiera
So sorry, but how? There are physiological, psychological, and sociological proofs of love. I fail to see any for god, excluding some types of pantheistic paganism.

yeah, that guy's a crazy.

those comics would be funny if i didn't think he meant them seriously... have you read the one with the buddhist who got some christian guy who was reting to convert him killed.... with monks as hitmen, nonetheless...

or the one with the hindhu who was preforming human sacrifice... or the one where the witches became witches through reading harry potter.

see, there's one thing we (theists and non-theists) can agree on. that man is insane.


He's nuts. Truth be told, I rarely read his stuff anymore...it chills me too greatly. I can't believe anyone could be posessed of such vitriolic hatred and try to disguise it behind something so wonderful.

:( Aiera

So sorry, but how? There are physiological, psychological, and sociological proofs of love. I fail to see any for god, excluding some types of pantheistic paganism.

There are fabulous subjective proofs available. Follow my link to Aquinas for one of the best.

I could offer any number of testimonies of personal experience, if you would rather. I've had a couple of profound experiences of God's healing power in my life...was even cleansed of an addiction overnight.

:) Aiera

He's nuts. Truth be told, I rarely read his stuff anymore...it chills me too greatly. I can't believe anyone could be posessed of such vitriolic hatred and try to disguise it behind something so wonderful.

:( Aiera
yeah, he's obviosly in the closet about being gay too... what with the excessive homophobia and all.

Exactly. Thus is the limit of our pathetic brains, as swollen and bulbous as they are. But this is human limitation, not the limitation of an ideal.

Actually, logic itself must be predecated upon axioms. We created the system as such.

So sorry, but how? There are physiological, psychological, and sociological proofs of love. I fail to see any for god, excluding some types of pantheistic paganism.

The fact that you fail to see it is irrelevant. Many of us have proof of God.

There are fabulous subjective proofs available. Follow my link to Aquinas for one of the best.
I'm going to, but my mind isn't awake enough for philosophy at that level yet. I'll try it in the morning. Still, there is quite a large difference between proving god and proving love. I will fall back to the objective proof of love, that being the biochemical and physiological aspects, which can be empirically tested. Can that be done with god? I think not.

I could offer any number of testimonies of personal experience, if you would rather. I've had a couple of profound experiences of God's healing power in my life...was even cleansed of an addiction overnight.
Sure. They won't convince me at all, I'm sure, but I would listen. However, I can not help but think that many people do not realise the effects of such things as psychosomatics and tricking oneself. I am currently looking into some Wiccan practices, which seem to actually be testable. I am very well aware that there are certainly psychological benefits to things like faith and religion, but I curious to see hard cold evidence. And, if the author is truthful, then I suspect there will be evidence of an underlying form of pantheistic intelligence. However, this itself can be reduced down to quantum physics, and I personally have a strong suspiscion that what is considered god is actually what is occuring on a subatomic level.

I hold that reliance on science as the sole arbiter of truth is in fact willful blindness, because there is much that science cannot describe.

*Sigh* I explained in the very post you quoted that science cannot yet explain everything and that I accept that, but science is a method for finding explanations, and it is the method I agree with.


Like love. How could one hope to scientifically describe love?
I can hope very easily actually. I expect the field of psychology has made the most progress in this area. Your reverence of love does not put it beyond scientific analysis.


Faith certainly plays a role in empirical analysis, because the veracity of collected evidence must be in some way based on trust. There must be a measure of faith that the observed evidence is an accurate enough reflection of the reality of the observed process or object as to be useful in making
statements about said process or object.
Unlike faith, we do not simply assume our observations to be true. We use the logic and science we already have to decide if they are. That is part of the scientific analysis that follows. Faith does not involve these processes; it decides the conclusion arbitrarily.


There are uncertainty principles that abound in the scientific community. We cannot know both the velocity and location of an electron with concrete certainty at the same time - it is one or the other. Nor can we be certain that by observing some process, we are not by our presence as observer altering its normal function. Faith...trust...plays a role in empirical analysis.

Incorrect, actually. The uncertainty principle is not ignored by using faith to decide on the uncertain values. Scientists accept that they can only analyse the probability distributions.


And in analyzing non-empirical quantities, like love (or even truth!), then faith is all we have to go on.

We cannot use science to analyse whether the quality of love is apparent in someone because it is a fuzzy concept, with no clear defintion. That means that deciding if someone is in love is a matter of opinion. If someone bothered to make a clear definition, then they could say for certain whether someone was in love or not. However, this definition would only be their opinion, so would be a waste of time to construct.

As for truth, that is exactly what logic tries to ascertain! True and false are the basic values logic deals in. If we decided arbitrarily, rather than logically, what was true or not, we would have extreme difficulty in daily life.


Not a specific faith, not the Christian faith or the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith or the Buddhist faith, but faith in a broader sense...a trust in something outside the ability of our five senses to quantify.

I understand that. But my senses are my only source of information, except for "information" that I make up (i.e. not really information, but just ideas formed in my head).


When I say to my girlfriend that "I love her", it really isn't about the sex, because our relationship has not become sexual yet. So the "love" is not just about the sex, nor about the possibility of sex. Love, to me, is real, but I can't prove it by saying that I can see it, smell it, hear it, or analyze it in any empirical method. I just believe it to be real, and know it to be real because I have experienced it in my heart.

Love's effects on your behaviour are observable, however.


Which is really not too different from the reason I believe in God, come to think of it.

Well, your "feelings in your heart", are, in my opinion, ideas formed in your head. My lack of belief in God is based on my observations of the world.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, logic itself must be predecated upon axioms. We created the system as such.
Yes, this is true. See, this is why I was scared when you entered into the discussion. You make everyone else your whipping boys. So, apparently, logic is merely faith taken to another level. And now we're getting into subjectivist existentialism, which would just be awesome.

The fact that you fail to see it is irrelevant. Many of us have proof of God.
Such as...? Is there anything that offers sufficient proof of God? Are there occurances that can have no other equally or greater probability of causing what you call God? I am going to get 0wned so badly right now...

*Sigh* I explained in the very post you quoted that science cannot yet explain everything and that I accept that, but science is a method for finding explanations, and it is the method I agree with.

Is everything in this world black and white to you? There are shades of grey, and there is the ability to agree with more than one way to do things. I agree that I can clean my floors with a mop or a broom, depending on what type of cleaning I am attempting to do, for instance.

Unlike faith, we do not simply assume our observations to be true. We use the logic and science we already have to decide if they are. That is part of the scientific analysis that follows. Faith does not involve these processes; it decides the conclusion arbitrarily.

Actually, science does assume observations to be true. Without that assumption, empirical evidence means nothing.

Meanwhile, the statement that faith decides an arbitrary conclusion demonstrates your lack of knowledge here. Faith is often logic-based. As I pointed out, even science and mathematics must assume certain axioms. While there is certainly some reason and logic behind these axioms, the axioms themselves can never be proven and, as such, are accepted upon faith.

The fact that you fail to see it is irrelevant. Many of us have proof of God.

This isn't referring to what you were talking about, but has inspired me to ask a question.

Would you say that God's failing to give me proof of his existence means that he does not want me to believe in him?

Not saying you would do this, but please note that "God does want you to, but you're not listening/don't want his proof/etc." is not an adequate argument. I have absolutely no resistance to God's attempt to prove his existence. It is through lack of proof that he is either unwilling, or unable (impossible) to make me believe in him.

did i read that right? christians leave us alone? bullshit! i've had christians trying to convert at school, at work, at the mall, and even in front of my house (which isn't on a well traveled road either). so until all of you church people stop trying to convert us or "save" us from whatever kind of eternal torment your religion created get used to all the bashing and other shit. it works both ways pal. :mad:

I hold that reliance on science as the sole arbiter of truth is in fact willful blindness, because there is much that science cannot describe.

Well you are mis using science. Truth? As in what devine justice? The question of God?

Faith is bad science. We have the Dark Ages for the example when Religion ran everything.


Like love. How could one hope to scientifically describe love? Or, because it cannot be scientifically described, shall we say it does not exist.

Actually it can in the Biological sense. The chemical reactions that the human body.

There is the question of attraction in that people look for reatures they find attractive and would like their children to pocess.

Not a good choice to say science can't explain. ;)

*snip*


When I say that faith is in some way an integral part of analysis, I do not say it in a way that speaks to any specific faith denomination.

Faith certainly plays a role in empirical analysis, because the veracity of collected evidence must be in some way based on trust.

Faith is not part of the scientific method. In fact you don't use "trust" there is always mistrust. Why else are tests performed for the purpose of disprovening the hypothesis.


There must be a measure of faith that the observed evidence is an accurate enough reflection of the reality of the observed process or object as to be useful in making statements about said process or object.

No no no no. Again. Testing a hypothesis means trying to disprove it.


There are uncertainty principles that abound in the scientific community. We cannot know both the velocity and location of an electron with concrete certainty at the same time - it is one or the other. Nor can we be certain that by observing some process, we are not by our presence as observer altering its normal function. Faith...trust...plays a role in empirical analysis.


No it does not. What you call faith is simply something that hasn't been fully proven or disproven. Theory of Evolution and Gravity for example.

We didn't see atoms and DNA but the theory suggested they were there. The men didn't take it on "faith" they were there. They hypothesised there were there but they could not disprove there were not.


And in analyzing non-empirical quantities, like love (or even truth!), then faith is all we have to go on.

Again love is a bad choice as people have studied the chemical responses of people.


Not a specific faith, not the Christian faith or the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith or the Buddhist faith, but faith in a broader sense...a trust in something outside the ability of our five senses to quantify.

Actually these are more philosophical then science.


When I say to my girlfriend that "I love her", it really isn't about the sex, because our relationship has not become sexual yet. So the "love" is not just about the sex, nor about the possibility of sex. Love, to me, is real, but I can't prove it by saying that I can see it, smell it, hear it, or analyze it in any empirical method. I just believe it to be real, and know it to be real because I have experienced it in my heart.

Again the body has responses.


Which is really not too different from the reason I believe in God, come to think of it.

:) Aiera

Well science especially evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God......

Yes, this is true. See, this is why I was scared when you entered into the discussion. You make everyone else your whipping boys. So, apparently, logic is merely faith taken to another level. And now we're getting into subjectivist existentialism, which would just be awesome.

Sort of. Logic is begun with faith, with the statement of an axiom on which to base the rest of the logic. =)

Such as...? Is there anything that offers sufficient proof of God? Are there occurances that can have no other equally or greater probability of causing what you call God? I am going to get 0wned so badly right now...

There is no "proof of God", nor is there any "disproof of God". By definition, an omnipotent being exists outside of all proof that we could garner within the known universe, as it would exist outside the rules of said universe.

However, there is evidence that would back up the axiom that there is a God, just as there is evidence that would back up the axiom that there is not. Some of us see more evidence for the first, and thus accept that axiom. Others do not. None of us can objectively say that the other is wrong, although we may believe it very strongly.

((Don't worry about getting owned, this isn't really a discussion that can be "won"))

Would you say that God's failing to give me proof of his existence means that he does not want me to believe in him?

In truth, I wouldn't really claim to know. It may be that you have the same evidence as I, but interpret it differently. It could be that you have not yet had the experiences I have, but one day will, however you interpret them. It could be that I am wrong.

Not saying you would do this, but please note that "God does want you to, but you're not listening/don't want his proof/etc." is not an adequate argument. I have absolutely no resistance to God's attempt to prove his existence. It is through lack of proof that he is either unwilling, or unable (impossible) to make me believe in him.

Remember that there can be no true "proof" of God's existence. There is only evidence on which to base the axiom of belief or non-belief in said existence. And, as with all evidence, some of us will interpret it differently from others. The difference between this instance and most science is that there is no check for which interpretation is more correct, at least not until (a) death or (b) God appears in front of us, removing our free will to believe or disbelieve.

eh, we attack religions simply 'cause most of you guys (religious types, usually fundamentalists) won't leave us (Atheists, agnostics) alone about our lack of religion.
I can count the number of threads started by Christians blasting Non christians and agnostics on one hand(for the most part) but the anti christian threads are like nats on a hot summer night....

Is everything in this world black and white to you? There are shades of grey, and there is the ability to agree with more than one way to do things. I agree that I can clean my floors with a mop or a broom, depending on what type of cleaning I am attempting to do, for instance.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this black and white thing. I do believe that faith and science are used for different types of explaining. Irrational explaining and rational explaining. Unlike my floor, however, I do not need both of these to accomplish my desired task.


Actually, science does assume observations to be true. Without that assumption, empirical evidence means nothing.

Quite right. I forget what point I was making there, but I agree with you. Unless, of course, there is reason to believe the observation methods were flawed, but in concept the methods are assumed, within that theory to be reliable. It is if the theory as a whole fails to describe the phenomena that it is scrapped.


Meanwhile, the statement that faith decides an arbitrary conclusion demonstrates your lack of knowledge here. Faith is often logic-based. As I pointed out, even science and mathematics must assume certain axioms. While there is certainly some reason and logic behind these axioms, the axioms themselves can never be proven and, as such, are accepted upon faith.
As interesting as I find the topic of logic, I can't say this is even slightly convincing me that believing in God is a good idea. I do not consider the existence of God to be an axiom. I believe it is occam's razor that says it is best to have few axioms. I presume the only axioms I would accept were that my senses and memory are accurate, provided they are consistent with each other (and in the case of memory, with itself).

Sort of. Logic is begun with faith, with the statement of an axiom on which to base the rest of the logic. =)
Yes, that is what I meant to say if it didn't come out that way.

There is no "proof of God", nor is there any "disproof of God". By definition, an omnipotent being exists outside of all proof that we could garner within the known universe, as it would exist outside the rules of said universe.
Precisely why I think it is silly to say things likeMany of us have proof of God.Since God would be inexplicable in human terms. Because of what you said, I can not see how somone could possibly ever believe in something as incorporeal as that.

However, there is evidence that would back up the axiom that there is a God, just as there is evidence that would back up the axiom that there is not. Some of us see more evidence for the first, and thus accept that axiom. Others do not. None of us can objectively say that the other is wrong, although we may believe it very strongly.
Yes! The only thing is, I take it a step further and say that, since we can never prove it one way or the other, just ignore it. Thus why I append atheistic onto my status of physiolater. I also fail to see how anyone could believe that documents such as the Bible and the Koran, for the same reason. There is no proof of authenticity, and it is highly likely there is none in objective actuality.

((Don't worry about getting owned, this isn't really a discussion that can be "won"))
Oh, it's just that you, Dempublicents, are t3h l33t 0wnz0rz, and I am very fearful of arguing with you. Discuss, yes, but I can not do things like mock the likes of you. You are too far above myself to allow cheap and arrogant cop outs like that...

In truth, I wouldn't really claim to know. It may be that you have the same evidence as I, but interpret it differently. It could be that you have not yet had the experiences I have, but one day will, however you interpret them. It could be that I am wrong.

If I will receive the evidence later, I have nothing to fear - I will get the reward. If I interpret them differently, I would appreciate it if God would be less ambiguous in future. Being omnipotent, this, like any act, should not be difficult for him. If he doesn't want me to believe in him, then I hope I will get the reward anyway, but if not, there's nothing I can do about it.


Remember that there can be no true "proof" of God's existence. There is only evidence on which to base the axiom of belief or non-belief in said existence. And, as with all evidence, some of us will interpret it differently from others. The difference between this instance and most science is that there is no check for which interpretation is more correct, at least not until (a) death or (b) God appears in front of us, removing our free will to believe or disbelieve.
I know there's no true "proof", but you say "some of us have proof", and I couldn't be bothered to correct you, so used the term as you had.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this black and white thing. I do believe that faith and science are used for different types of explaining. Irrational explaining and rational explaining. Unlike my floor, however, I do not need both of these to accomplish my desired task.

This is due to your own bias, not logical thinking. There is no reason to describe faith as irrational. Faith in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is irrational. For instance, if I were to state that I have faith that there is no sun, I would be acting irrationally. However, having faith in an area which can have no proof is not irrational.

As interesting as I find the topic of logic, I can't say this is even slightly convincing me that believing in God is a good idea.

Of course it isn't, you have chosen the opposite axiom.

I do not consider the existence of God to be an axiom.

By definition, belief or non-belief in a God is axiomatic.

I believe it is occam's razor that says it is best to have few axioms. I presume the only axioms I would accept were that my senses and memory are accurate, provided they are consistent with each other (and in the case of memory, with itself).

You are also taking the axiomatic statement that there is no God. This is based upon your previous axiom that only that which you have hard and fast proof of can possibly be correct.

I have taken the axiom that there is a God, which is obviously the opposite to yours. I have taken this axiom because I have personal evidence of said existence.

(it's just like being in a bar and one guy is being all loud and stupid, ruining everyone's good time

ya. except that in this bar, the loud and stupid guy is trying to warn evry1 that the bar's about to explode and they should get out, but they wont listen cuz they think he's an idiot.

This is due to your own bias, not logical thinking. There is no reason to describe faith as irrational. Faith in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is irrational. For instance, if I were to state that I have faith that there is no sun, I would be acting irrationally. However, having faith in an area which can have no proof is not irrational.

And your bias lies on the opposite axiom. By the way, how many times can you say axiom before it becomes old?

ya. except that in this bar, the loud and stupid guy is trying to warn evry1 that the bar's about to explode and they should get out, but they wont listen cuz they think he's an idiot.
Yeah...umm...it's people like this that are the reason I have kind of gotten irritated by religionists. Besides the fundamentalists who want to restrict my social and civil liberties, of course.

I know there's no true "proof", but you say "some of us have proof", and I couldn't be bothered to correct you, so used the term as you had.

Actually, I was using the term as it was used in the post I was replying to. The post I replied to used "proof" interchangeably with "evidence".

And your bias lies on the opposite axiom. By the way, how many times can you say axiom before it becomes old?

An axiom automatically biases your thinking. However, I at least can understand and see the ideas behind the opposite axiom and thus have made a logical decision between them. Most have not even bothered.

Sorry if my use of the word bothers you, but there aren't really very many synonyms for it.

Actually, I was using the term as it was used in the post I was replying to. The post I replied to used "proof" interchangeably with "evidence".

That's what I thought. I was just carrying on the theme.

Sorry if my use of the word bothers you, but there aren't really very many synonyms for it.
Though axiom is the best of all, there are of synonyms. Postulate, principium, theorem, dictum, and truism might work.

did i read that right? christians leave us alone? bullshit! i've had christians trying to convert at school, at work, at the mall, and even in front of my house (which isn't on a well traveled road either). so until all of you church people stop trying to convert us or "save" us from whatever kind of eternal torment your religion created get used to all the bashing and other shit. it works both ways pal. :mad:
I am sorry if the 1st Amendment covers even us stupid Christians but guess what it is about everyone having the right to speak their minds...You do not have to listen...Above all I am sorry that some have tried to force their beliefs on you.Christ would have never condoned that behaviour...He would have condoned loving you and speaking to you but you have the right to ignore or walk away...I am very sorry honestly...

Though axiom is the best of all, there are of synonyms. Postulate, principium, theorem, dictum, and truism might work.

Truism holds other connotations, but yes, the others would certainly work. It's been so long since I took a theoretical math class.... =)

Some good points, but i think the biggest reason christians get attacked is devout religious people have a hard time believing in things like peopel dont give a shit about wasting there life devoted to principles developed when people were murdering each other over women or damn mammoth tusks and also developed in a time when humans were too simple to understand..why there was a sky lol. i have some very fundamentalist religious friends...and we cant talk about alot of things cause it degenerates...one of my faves is evolution is wrong cause we cant be monkeys lmao. Or the Best Islam and christianity arent the same religion lol lol thats funny but my fave of all time is *drum roll*. Did you all know that christianity is simply the cult of Zeus/jupiter/marduk..thats right the angels are gods [prometheus/satan] see even down to the god wanted humans dumb animals but satan thought we deserved a chance to learn. Same thing as Prometheus...even start talking about that in front of religious people...uh oh! and did you know in Islam Issa is the most important person and Issa translates to...Jesus. :) and this is why people dont leave one god religionists alone 2000 years of them messing up history. And i dont like Buddha either, he left his wife and child to rot sat under a tree and declared himself enlightened lol. Got ALOT more respect for mohammed and Jesus in fact alot of respect for them as men but not that roman fairie tale about him so many believe now. So remember dont get worked up and we wont bug you but sit there and try to influence our laws *cough* bush admin..and we will defend ourselves :).
Oh and the first amendment covers non christians too..but that doesnt stop bush from stomping out things non christians want like stem cell research, health care, medical learning..cheap mediicine. I am from canada and i can tell you for a devout christian nation...US doesnt act very christian at all.

Now go and tell that to all of your evangelical friends on the street corners, then we'll be happy and leave you alone.

Yeah...umm...it's people like this that are the reason I have kind of gotten irritated by religionists. Besides the fundamentalists who want to restrict my social and civil liberties, of course.
What of the secularlist who want all mentio nof religion particularly Christianity out of all public arenas...?Or is that ok?

This is due to your own bias, not logical thinking. There is no reason to describe faith as irrational. Faith in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is irrational. For instance, if I were to state that I have faith that there is no sun, I would be acting irrationally. However, having faith in an area which can have no proof is not irrational.

If one uses "rational" and "logical" interchangeable (as I have, correctly to my knowledge) then a decision made without logic is by defintion illogical disregarding the principles of logic.


Of course it isn't, you have chosen the opposite axiom.

Not at all. I do not have "there is no God" as an axiom. It is a decision I reached through careful though. I was not brought up as an atheist, it was a decision I made, and not arbitrarily.


By definition, belief or non-belief in a God is axiomatic.

A belief to me, is just something that is true in my opinion. It can be reached through logic or decided arbitrarily.


You are also taking the axiomatic statement that there is no God. This is based upon your previous axiom that only that which you have hard and fast proof of can possibly be correct.

Either you are using a different meaning of "axiom" to the one I am, or you are making the mistake of putting words in my mouth.
An axiom to me is something you start with assuming is true. I do not begin by assuming there is no God. It is something that I found out.


I have taken the axiom that there is a God, which is obviously the opposite to yours. I have taken this axiom because I have personal evidence of said existence.
Well, if there is a God, he is denying me access to that evidence, and therefore presumably wants me to not believe in him. In that regard I shall not disappoint.

or (b) God appears in front of us, removing our free will to believe or disbelieve.

Ironically, by not providing any proof or sufficient hint to me of His excistence, He has already taken away my free will to believe in Him or not.

What of the secularlist who want all mentio nof religion particularly Christianity out of all public arenas...?Or is that ok?

Nobody has stated that all mention of religion should be removed from "public arenas." However, government-funded mention of religion (of any sort) certainly should be removed, as it violates the 1st Amendment.

What of the secularlist who want all mentio nof religion particularly Christianity out of all public arenas...?Or is that ok?
Wow, umm, you don't realise just what secularists want, do you? We want religion out of government. As the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That's what I want. Saying what you are saying is kind of like saying that all Christians want nothing to be taught in school but scripture classes.

I think a belief is more of something that you think is true, and not necessarily true. For example: I can believe that the Illuminati is secretly influencing the American Government to create a fascist dictatorship, but that's not necessarily true(although they are ;) ).

Now go and tell that to all of your evangelical friends on the street corners, then we'll be happy and leave you alone.
I actually am an Evengelical Baptist(fundamenatlist) and all of the ppl i assoiate with are of the same mind...See the squeeky wheel gets the grease...The ones you notice are the extremists(of every philosophical persuasion) You should not lump all of us into the same catagory...But we should celebrate any one who has the nerve to stand up for the things the ybelieve without being vitriolic or neanderthal like in our responses(ie: constant swearing to make ones point)

As to the original post.

There are several things that could be done to stop the "oppression" of Christians. At least stop nasty comments.

1) Stop trying to "forcibly" convert everybody. If a person is not interested, then let it go. The big man gave us free will and we should be able to make good or bad choices. The threat of Hell is a poor indicator to measure your faith. If you are afraid of Hell, does that mean you are faithful? A person should make the choice on their own. The truely faithful are those that learn about it on their own and decide they want to be a Christian.

2) Stop trying to control my TV viewing. Decency laws should not exist. If you leave it to interpretation then just about everything is offensive. Let common sense dictate in such matters. Just about everybody will agree that sex and vulgarity should be associated with childrens TV and cartoons. In the matters of content and children, the parents should decide such matters. Just because you may find it offensive, does not mean I will. I decide what my little girl will watch an experience, not you.

3) Stop trying to control my reading topics. See above.

4) Stop trying to redefine the founding fathers and their views. James Madison himself used the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" so the claims of anti-christianity are bogus. The goverment of this country is supposed to be neutral but the evangalistas and the shrub are working hard to change that. It's especially scary when hearing Justice Scalia lying about "the seperation of chruch and state" The downfall of this nation will begin when the establishment clause is repealed.

5) Stop trying to force your Religious symbols on everybody. The 10 commandments would not have changed Columbine. I look at the description of those two animals and I fit much of the same mold when I was their age. Why did they kill and I did not?

6) Stop being babies. When you are denied posting your symbols because you don't want other religions, it isn't about oppressing Christianity.

7) Leave gays alone. Homosexuality is not pedophillia. Homosexuality is not a sexual choice. Even if it is wrong, it's between that person and God. Not you.

8) Admit there are bad Christians. You only discredit yourselves when you argue "Well they aren't really Christians."

9) Stop terrorizing women and Docters over abortion. It's not an easy choice for women. It's not birth control. It's not something they simply forget. Sorry to disappoint you all but all women who have gone through it have various levels of regret to the end of their days. You want to solve the problem. When there are no kids in the system. When women get a support system. Adoption can work.

10) Finally, stop trying stealth conversion in the school system. Relgious choices belong to the parents. Not you. Stop trying to control the subjects taught. Education is supposed to teach the child to use it's mind. Even in the matters of sin, who is the best follower? The one that is sheltered from sin and never is confronted with it or the one that is and chooses not to do it.

Finally, evolution. It has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Just my .02

Actually i know a few christians who want it taught in class and think it should be, and evollution theory banned...i love that one..you can watch evolution under a micro scope [and De evolution in the bible belt] so how the hell can the god placed all of us here 5000 years ago work..especially when we have scientific evidence earth is much older..i mean i heard one story that space is simply a painting made by god.

(ie: constant swearing to make ones point)
Or perhaps complete apathy to the wants and ideas of others?

If one uses "rational" and "logical" interchangeable (as I have, correctly to my knowledge) then a decision made without logic is by defintion illogical

You are still making the unfounded statement that any decision having to do with faith is made without logic.

Not at all. I do not have "there is no God" as an axiom.

The statement that there is no God is, by definition, an axiom. The only viewpoint which cannot claim an axiom in this argument is agnosticism.

It is a decision I reached through careful though. I was not brought up as an atheist, it was a decision I made, and not arbitrarily.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes an axiom. An axiom *should* be decided through careful thought.

A belief to me, is just something that is true in my opinion. It can be reached through logic or decided arbitrarily.

It should not be decided arbitrarily, however.

Either you are using a different meaning of "axiom" to the one I am, or you are making the mistake of putting words in my mouth.
An axiom to me is something you start with assuming is true. I do not begin by assuming there is no God. It is something that I found out.

In a particular discussion, an axiom is something you start out by assuming. However, you generally arrive at that axiom trhough logic. In a discussion of God, you begin with the assumption that there is no God.

Meanwhile, claiming that you "found out" that there is no God is ludicrous, as there is no evidence which can prove such a claim. As such, you refute your own statement that you only believe that which comes from evidence and logic.

Well, if there is a God, he is denying me access to that evidence, and therefore presumably wants me to not believe in him. In that regard I shall not disappoint.

Not in the least. As I pointed out before, you may simply be interpreting that evidence in a different manner.

how about we teach atheism and evolution, or just living life to it's best instead of wasting it following principles of some 2000 yr old book.
(No flame intended, just stateing my opinion)

Ironically, by not providing any proof or sufficient hint to me of His excistence, He has already taken away my free will to believe in Him or not.

Not in the least. You have made prior decisions as to what type of evidence you will accept - decisions that were made with your own free will.

how about we teach atheism and evolution, or just living life to it's best instead of wasting it following principles of some 2000 yr old book.
(No flame intended, just stateing my opinion)

Teaching atheism would violate the first amendment.

Teaching evolution does not, as it is the leading scientific theory on the origin of today's species.

Teaching atheism would violate the first amendment.

Teaching evolution does not, as it is the leading scientific theory on the origin of today's species.
Sorry, I'm not American. What's the first amendment?

Teaching atheism would violate the first amendment.

Teaching evolution does not, as it is the leading scientific theory on the origin of today's species.
Only with public funds, however. Private schools can have atheism or religion taught, or whatever they want. And this is just in the U.S. I am unaware what the laws for secularity in other developed nations are.

how about we teach atheism and evolution, or just living life to it's best instead of wasting it following principles of some 2000 yr old book.
(No flame intended, just stateing my opinion)

No, Atheism does not belong in a Biology class either.

Sorry, I'm not American. What's the first amendment?
Ah, a perfect example already! The 1st Amendment states this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My problem is that the bible was originally written over 5000 years ago by a group of people living in the black sea to explain things becuase peopel had no science...now we do have science and uhhh i dont really see a need to tell people things we can see with out own eyes to be false. And Faith and logic do not mix, period...blind faith that what the bible says is right is wrong. Considering it is quite literally bastardised. Jesus called himself the son of man people NOT the son of god he said we were All the sons of god. Now see jesus was the first Socialist..he wanted to tear down churches. This is how we can tell organised religions are cults. Jesus said a church should be simple. In fact he said church should be where you are and to talk to god on your own terms. Here comes catholicism...massive cathedrals priests as go to guys not allowed to read the bible. Protestants are even worse [ i know i was raised that way ] as they believe we all need to suffer as we are evil. Now another wonderfulk topic...Jesus and his exact words on homosexuality. "those that choose not to have children should serve there fellow man in other ways" not "God hates the fags" pardon my french.

Only with public funds, however.

Of course, although I would argue that any school which indoctrinates children in religious beliefs is stepping outside the bounds of education.

Private schools can have atheism or religion taught, or whatever they want. And this is just in the U.S. I am unaware what the laws for secularity in other developed nations are.

Most *Western* nations require some amount of secularity. Some, to an extreme bordering on militant atheism.

No, Atheism does not belong in a Biology class either.
which is why atheism isn't taught in biology class.

No, Atheism does not belong in a Biology class either.
Well atheism is usually associated with evolution, either that or people don't really care.

Not in the least. You have made prior decisions as to what type of evidence you will accept - decisions that were made with your own free will.

And God knows what those are. So if He wanted me to choose, I can't stop Him.

You are still making the unfounded statement that any decision having to do with faith is made without logic.

If it was made using logic, why call it faith? If it was made using some logic, but has holes in it, then I would not call it logic. Just as I would not call a "bulletproof window" with holes in a bulletproof window.


The statement that there is no God is, by definition, an axiom. The only viewpoint which cannot claim an axiom in this argument is agnosticism.

Ok, so the conclusion of a logical process is an axiom. Fair enough. I was under the impression that "axiom" meant the start point of the process.

I'm sick of discussing logic, quite frankly.


Not in the least. As I pointed out before, you may simply be interpreting that evidence in a different manner.
Well if God is giving me evidence that I cannot interpret properly (for it is not for lack of desire that I fail to interpret it) then either: he is unable to give me evidence I can interpret correctly, or he is unwilling to give me evidence I can interpret correctly.

And Faith and logic do not mix, period...blind faith that what the bible says is right is wrong.

Note the difference between faith and "blind faith," then examine why these two statements do not follow from one another.

Non-Christians: Leave the hard working Epsilons alone, to each their own. One's philosophical path is for said individual to take, alone, without guidance. To force is to spoil, and to bring out of the fold may result in freeing one who is not mentally ready or capable. Besides, it's speculated that dogma is genetic.

Christians: Stay the fuck out of civil rights and private social issues --- hell stay out of politics. Start acting more like moral upstanding atheists instead of money grubbing fascists and exploitive preists who think they can disregard this world if they can cheat their way into the next one. Stop having so many children.

Some good points, but i think the biggest reason christians get attacked is devout religious people have a hard time believing in things like peopel dont give a shit about wasting there life devoted to principles developed when people were murdering each other over women or damn mammoth tusks and also developed in a time when humans were too simple to understand..why there was a sky lol. i have some very fundamentalist religious friends...and we cant talk about alot of things cause it degenerates...one of my faves is evolution is wrong cause we cant be monkeys lmao. Or the Best Islam and christianity arent the same religion lol lol thats funny but my fave of all time is *drum roll*. Did you all know that christianity is simply the cult of Zeus/jupiter/marduk..thats right the angels are gods [prometheus/satan] see even down to the god wanted humans dumb animals but satan thought we deserved a chance to learn. Same thing as Prometheus...even start talking about that in front of religious people...uh oh! and did you know in Islam Issa is the most important person and Issa translates to...Jesus. :) and this is why people dont leave one god religionists alone 2000 years of them messing up history. And i dont like Buddha either, he left his wife and child to rot sat under a tree and declared himself enlightened lol. Got ALOT more respect for mohammed and Jesus in fact alot of respect for them as men but not that roman fairie tale about him so many believe now. So remember dont get worked up and we wont bug you but sit there and try to influence our laws *cough* bush admin..and we will defend ourselves :).
Oh and the first amendment covers non christians too..but that doesnt stop bush from stomping out things non christians want like stem cell research, health care, medical learning..cheap mediicine. I am from canada and i can tell you for a devout christian nation...US doesnt act very christian at all.
See the USA is not as devout as it used to be thanx to government interfernce in our day to day lives...Before social programs reared their ugly heads Churches did more for the poor the nthe government does now...And I do not see anything wrong with anyone person allowing their philosophical beliefs to influence their political actions...So you feel as if Christians should not vote based on their principals...What should they vote on?And I agree the 1st Amendment protects all...I never implied otherwise....I believe many one the secularlist side would silence us if the ycould and are trying all over the country as we speak...Save the stem cell comments for another site...And the Bush Admin. only wants to stop fetal stem cell research which as of today has not shown any evidence at all of being effective in any treatment of any malady where as adult stem cells are productive...

And God knows what those are. So if He wanted me to choose, I can't stop Him.

So God should watch every decision you make and change to suit you?

Non-Christians: Leave the hard working Epsilons alone, to each their own. One's philosophical path is for said individual to take, alone, without guidance. To force is to spoil, and to bring out of the fold may result in freeing one who is not mentally ready or capable. Besides, it's speculated that dogma is genetic.

Christians: Stay the fuck out of civil rights and private social issues --- hell stay out of politics. Start acting more like moral upstanding atheists instead of money grubbing fascists and exploitive preists who think they can disregard this world if they can cheat their way into the next one. Stop having so many children.
Whos should be allowed to be active in politics?

Note the difference between faith and "blind faith," then examine why these two statements do not follow from one another.

Faith is inherently blind.

To have knowledge is to know nothing absolute.
To have faith is to know absolutely nothing.

Question all till your mind screams and begs for you to stop.
Question all till you destroy all: symbols, ideologies, hopes, dreams, loves, hates, desires.
Question all till you feel you losing your sanity, then go the extra step for kicks.

Have no confidence. Have no faith. Have no fear other than fear of faith, dogma, and indoctrination.

Free your mind.

You dont think its as devout as it used to be eh? really now so 20 million devout fundamentalists afforded george bush the win..the fact that religion is wining over law in almost all the red states...get your facts straight and about faith and logic...now blind faith is the worst end but faith is not logical..becaues faith assumes you think something will be well without evidence it will be..if there is evidence it will be well...then its not faith but an educated guess or estimate :)
Ohhh shoot lol actually fetal stem cells are more effective period they just are. Now did you know that when Gubernor arnold schwarzenneger gave 75 bil to stem cell research he got chastised VERY badly for it by the upper echelons...they thought they had a chrony in him and instead they found a moderate.

If it was made using logic, why call it faith? If it was made using some logic, but has holes in it, then I would not call it logic. Just as I would not call a "bulletproof window" with holes in a bulletproof window.

You can use logic to arrive to a conclusion about something which can never have hard and fast evidence. You have already done so by stating that a lack of evidence can be equated to the statement that there is no God.

Ok, so the conclusion of a logical process is an axiom. Fair enough. I was under the impression that "axiom" meant the start point of the process.

Axiom is the startpoint of a process, but you must always have backing for your assumptions.

Well if God is giving me evidence that I cannot interpret properly (for it is not for lack of desire that I fail to interpret it) then either: he is unable to give me evidence I can interpret correctly, or he is unwilling to give me evidence I can interpret correctly.

You do understand the difference between ability and actuality, correct? I have the ability to get up and go to the store right now, but I do not. It does not mean that I have a lack of desire to go to the store - I simply am not doing it. Those who determined that the Earth was flat had no desire to misinterpret evidence. However, they came to the conclusion that the Earth was flat based on faulty interpretation. This is not to say that your interpretation (or mine) is faulty. However, we must both admit that possibility.

Whos should be allowed to be active in politics?

People who can be objective and not subjective.
Only a select few can be like that, striving for truth, justice, and balance without personal interest or agenda.

Faith is inherently blind.

Incorrect. As such, everything you say afterwards is mindless babble.

People who can be objective and not subjective.
Only a select few can be like that, striving for truth, justice, and balance without personal interest or agenda.
So basically you want a fascistic oligarchy?

You do understand the difference between ability and actuality, correct? I have the ability to get up and go to the store right now, but I do not. It does not mean that I have a lack of desire to go to the store - I simply am not doing it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you could be both able and willing to go to the store and not do it. Unless you mean you will go later, but then the going in still accomplished. God, on the other hand could do things instantly, so would not put things off.


Those who determined that the Earth was flat had no desire to misinterpret evidence. However, they came to the conclusion that the Earth was flat based on faulty interpretation. This is not to say that your interpretation (or mine) is faulty. However, we must both admit that possibility.
I have no problem with the idea that my interpretation is faulty. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be my fault, and that God is omnipotent, that must be the way he likes it.

LOL funny story...i have a friend well a group of friends who believe the US would be better off without democrats...just the republicans one person one party one vote for the future and apparently the view is shared by many many people.

People who can be objective and not subjective.
Only a select few can be like that, striving for truth, justice, and balance without personal interest or agenda.

well we better ban blacks and latinos from voting too since they typically vote in large voting blocks.

My problem is that the bible was originally written over 5000 years ago by a group of people living in the black sea to explain things becuase peopel had no science...now we do have science and uhhh i dont really see a need to tell people things we can see with out own eyes to be false. And Faith and logic do not mix, period...blind faith that what the bible says is right is wrong. Considering it is quite literally bastardised. Jesus called himself the son of man people NOT the son of god he said we were All the sons of god. Now see jesus was the first Socialist..he wanted to tear down churches. This is how we can tell organised religions are cults. Jesus said a church should be simple. In fact he said church should be where you are and to talk to god on your own terms. Here comes catholicism...massive cathedrals priests as go to guys not allowed to read the bible. Protestants are even worse [ i know i was raised that way ] as they believe we all need to suffer as we are evil. Now another wonderfulk topic...Jesus and his exact words on homosexuality. "those that choose not to have children should serve there fellow man in other ways" not "God hates the fags" pardon my french.I recommend the book The Evolution of a Creationists by Dr. Jobe Martin...It is very well written and thoughtful....And by the by the Bible is only about 2000yrs. old...

You can use logic to arrive to a conclusion about something which can never have hard and fast evidence. You have already done so by stating that a lack of evidence can be equated to the statement that there is no God.

You sir, are at your wits end. Embrace the darkness and emptiness. After a few years of depression, it'll all go away, and you'll feel better and saner than ever, and certainly be treated with more respect from the intellectually elite.

Your logic is faulty beyond remonstration.

May the goddesses and gods have mercy on you.

People who can be objective and not subjective.
Only a select few can be like that, striving for truth, justice, and balance without personal interest or agenda.
So by that you mean only ppl who agree with you...Christians need not apply or register...How sad...

Well atheism is usually associated with evolution, either that or people don't really care.

Well many of the "faithful" link the two since Evolution obviosly seeks to discredt God.

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove God.

As creationism does not belong; so does atheism.

No the Bible is not merely 2000 years old the new testament is...the majour basis for almost all the religious belief is old testament which is at LEAST 5000 years old. and i have read many books by theoligans that state that jesus was a man and just that see ok Christianity is a roman religion..so it needed ceremony take Romulus and Remus and mix it in to jesus
This is why it has the holy trinity and jesus son of god and all that bull lol he was a mna people and in fact... a rebel who believed in living for...oh my god this is gonna blow some heads right up...yourself..believeing in....yourself and loving...yourself...and listening to...your heart, not believing in the church, loving god and listening to the priest..thats exactly what he fought against and died for freedom not god

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you could be both able and willing to go to the store and not do it.

I can be willing to do something and not do it. There is no inconsistency there. Of course, it is much easier to see in a closer analogy.

I am willing to interpret the results of my experiments correctly. In fact, I very much want to. I am able to interpret them correctly. However, there is a chance that I will not interpret them correctly, for whatever reason.

God, on the other hand could do things instantly, so would not put things off.

We are not talking about God's actions here. We are talking about human interpretation.

I have no problem with the idea that my interpretation is faulty. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be my fault, and that God is omnipotent, that must be the way he likes it.

It wouldn't be your fault in much the same way that it wasn't the Flat-Earther's fault that they interpreted evidence incorrectly. However, you must be willing to at least understand and examine other interpretations to be sure that yours is correct. Anyone who ever states that they have THE answer is most likely wrong, as they have stopped questioning. You then freely choose between the possible interpretations.

well we better ban blacks and latinos from voting too since they typically vote in large voting blocks.

Probably. Nobody likes sheep, especially colonized sheep.

I see no reason why they should vote anymore than the other 60% of Christian America (that isn't a minority) and votes with their mental disabilities and not with their mental faculties.

And the 17% of coastal Atheists that vote like sheep probably shouldn't have a say either. It's a two way street of despicable ignorance.

But then again, I'm only half-serious.

LOL funny story...i have a friend well a group of friends who believe the US would be better off without democrats...just the republicans one person one party one vote for the future and apparently the view is shared by many many people.

What they probably mean is the country would be better as a theocracy......

You sir, are at your wits end.

Ahem, ma'am.

Embrace the darkness and emptiness. After a few years of depression, it'll all go away, and you'll feel better and saner than ever, and certainly be treated with more respect from the intellectually elite.

Funny, I am among the "intellectually elite," by pretty much anyone's definition - and I have never been treated with anything but respect amont them.

Your logic is faulty beyond remonstration.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you have a different kind than the rest of the world? Do teach us, oh master.

You dont think its as devout as it used to be eh? really now so 20 million devout fundamentalists afforded george bush the win..the fact that religion is wining over law in almost all the red states...get your facts straight and about faith and logic...now blind faith is the worst end but faith is not logical..becaues faith assumes you think something will be well without evidence it will be..if there is evidence it will be well...then its not faith but an educated guess or estimate :)
Ohhh shoot lol actually fetal stem cells are more effective period they just are. Now did you know that when Gubernor arnold schwarzenneger gave 75 bil to stem cell research he got chastised VERY badly for it by the upper echelons...they thought they had a chrony in him and instead they found a moderate.
The burden of proof on the fetal stems lies on you friend...Give me the research papers and labs that are showing results...(Besides the rats that develope cancer due to the fetal stems)And why should we destroy the unborn when we can use the cells from adult stems?And the Dems rejected Zell Miller because he did not toe the party line as they saw it...Or is that ok?

lol no the friends i talked to believed it would be better if only right wing strongly christian views were tolerated by any nation then and only then can we get back to the garden.

It wouldn't be your fault in much the same way that it wasn't the Flat-Earther's fault that they interpreted evidence incorrectly. However, you must be willing to at least understand and examine other interpretations to be sure that yours is correct. Anyone who ever states that they have THE answer is most likely wrong, as they have stopped questioning. You then freely choose between the possible interpretations.

I wouldn't say I have "the" answer, just that I have the best answer so far. All I'm saying is that since it's obviously not my fault, I couldn't take the blame. That is to say that if I'm wrong it doesn't matter.

I recommend the book The Evolution of a Creationists by Dr. Jobe Martin...It is very well written and thoughtful....And by the by the Bible is only about 2000yrs. old...
That would be the New Testament. The Torah was around for much, much longer.

Embrace the darkness and emptiness. After a few years of depression, it'll all go away, and you'll feel better and saner than ever, and certainly be treated with more respect from the intellectually elite.
If only! Nihilism is not condusive to sanity at all! I am sure my sanity has dropped dramatically recently, though the clarity should be worth it. Oh, but it is such a delicious feeling...I can not wait until the next wave of nihilistic revelation...they make me feel so...so...alive!

So by that you mean only ppl who agree with you...Christians need not apply or register...How sad...

How incredibly Christian of you to fail to see the obvious, be unable read, and make up things that aren't there: "... How sad..."

I'm saying politics in general. Not just voters. Anyone voting anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-blacks rights or anti-women's rights or pro-slavery, etc. is voting subjectively, not objectively.

People are things, they die. Notwithstanding, when they are alive, they have certain rights, so long as they don't get in the way of others.

Noone likes lunatics voting.

Oh did i mention i really hate the US political system...it stanks its only got two parties one extreme right and one etreme left and you do know that replacing damaged cells work better when the stem cells are from fetal tissue for one reason..they can be molded easier and in to any cell, adult ones are limited, thats why.. but then the argument is flawed there cause they dont get fetal tissue from abortion clinics...but fertility clinics 4/5 pre embryos are thrown in the garbage cause they are invalid so what are we going to waste them? oh its terrible its wrong its life..so what we wrap it in a bio hazard garbage bag and toss it..shows how much we love life here eh

No the Bible is not merely 2000 years old the new testament is...the majour basis for almost all the religious belief is old testament which is at LEAST 5000 years old. and i have read many books by theoligans that state that jesus was a man and just that see ok Christianity is a roman religion..so it needed ceremony take Romulus and Remus and mix it in to jesus
This is why it has the holy trinity and jesus son of god and all that bull lol he was a mna people and in fact... a rebel who believed in living for...oh my god this is gonna blow some heads right up...yourself..believeing in....yourself and loving...yourself...and listening to...your heart, not believing in the church, loving god and listening to the priest..thats exactly what he fought against and died for freedom not god
I stand corrected but as a Christian my beiefs are focused all most totally on the NT...The OT is very important to me but I follow Christ's teachings wholly...

If only! Nihilism is not condusive to sanity at all! I am sure my sanity has dropped dramatically recently, though the clarity should be worth it. Oh, but it is such a delicious feeling...I can not wait until the next wave of nihilistic revelation...they make me feel so...so...alive!

Don't worry. Once you get passed the years of torture (3 or so in my case + chronic depression), you find life a thousand times more spectacular than you would in any cult religion or mass delusion out there.

It all turns out alright in the end. The gods bestow happiness to those who provide it for themselves to the god who bestow... (I am God).

I'm saying politics in general. Not just voters. Anyone voting anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-blacks rights or anti-women's rights or pro-slavery, etc. is voting subjectively, not objectively.
Which is subjective in itself. Though I agree with your social libertarianism compeltely, I do not quite support it in that way. Restricting the freedom of some in order to give freedom to others does not seem just to me.

Well unfortunately if you read the bible you dont get christs teachings...see they killed ulrich Zwingli for saying the truth and they killed everyone else that did too till now. Fact is the king james bible is messed right up and not a good basis only literally what jesus said can be taken everything else is not valid.

Oh did i mention i really hate the US political system...it stanks its only got two parties one extreme right and one etreme left and you do know that replacing damaged cells work better when the stem cells are from fetal tissue for one reason..they can be molded easier and in to any cell, adult ones are limited, thats why.. but then the argument is flawed there cause they dont get fetal tissue from abortion clinics...but fertility clinics 4/5 pre embryos are thrown in the garbage cause they are invalid so what are we going to waste them? oh its terrible its wrong its life..so what we wrap it in a bio hazard garbage bag and toss it..shows how much we love life here eh

Who cares? Too many people in the world. 2.3 net increase in world population. I got zillions of sperm in me and I'm not going to use it. I could --- but that would be FAR more neglectful of life than if I had abstained from it.

Point and case, the world should only have about 2 billion people in it.

Kill babies like you kill calves and chicks.

Oh did i mention i really hate the US political system...it stanks its only got two parties one extreme right and one etreme left and you do know that replacing damaged cells work better when the stem cells are from fetal tissue for one reason..they can be molded easier and in to any cell, adult ones are limited, thats why.. but then the argument is flawed there cause they dont get fetal tissue from abortion clinics...but fertility clinics 4/5 pre embryos are thrown in the garbage cause they are invalid so what are we going to waste them? oh its terrible its wrong its life..so what we wrap it in a bio hazard garbage bag and toss it..shows how much we love life here eh
Nope I do not like that either...And I do not like fertility clinics... I think we should adopt if we can not conceive...And I wish that people did not vote party lines either merely their morals and conscience...

Ok so you want us to stop bustin on yall well.........actually..........thank you all u religious nuts out there.............I really appreciate it. my frined is always trying to turn me into a christian and the other day i asked him why. He said it rly doesnt care to him if I go to church everyday or what not. H said because he worries about me. I sometiems have trouble believing in a faith, religion, w/e but he is worried about me. Im sure he is not the only one so in turn i say thankyou much.

Which is subjective in itself. Though I agree with your social libertarianism compeltely, I do not quite support it in that way. Restricting the freedom of some in order to give freedom to others does not seem just to me.

Enlightened despotism is closer to a utopia than any [non-socialist] democracy will ever be. Especially in the presence of overwhelming ignorance (religion) in a region such as America.

Kill babies like you kill calves and chicks.
Hear, hear! :D

Probably. Nobody likes sheep, especially colonized sheep.


Actually the Scots do! Why else do they wear kilts! :D

Anybody offended; one side of my family is Scots and I have a kilt! ;)

Enlightened despotism is closer to a utopia than any [non-socialist] democracy will ever be. Especially in the presence of overwhelming ignorance (religion) in a region such as America.
Eh, I certainly see your logic, but corruption is far too common and easy to risk any type of despotism, in my mind.

Good heavens, I do believe I feel highly insulted! Imagine that...faith, an addiction? Goodness me, what's next?

Okay, I understand that many of the "non-religious" persuasion don't agree with the way most monotheistic religions do place great value on the proliferation of the belief. And yes, I don't always agree with the methods of that proliferation - forced conversion and fearmongering are poor and immature tactics.

But really...comparing theists to drug users? For goodness' sake, Bottle, I really thought you were above such gutter tactics.



Precisely what about the lifestyle of the average person of faith is so unhealthy? Is it the somewhat more monogamous lifestyle? The...oh, I don't know...the value placed on marriage and marital fidelity? The importance placed on family? Or perhaps truth...certainly being honest has been shown to decrease the human life expectancy by at least 5 years!



I think you answer your own question by example, here. What's the difference? Well...



...there you have it, cut and dried. There seems to be the assumption from the non-religious side of this debate that the average religious person is in some way denying themselves...er...something (although I notice you don't say what, exactly), and what usually comes along with that is the assumption that the average religious person is in some way ignorant or under-educated.

Because, as we all should know by now, faith and reason just can't ever appear together.

Right. Sure. If you believe that, fine...it's not my place to tell you any differently. But if you believe that, then you're just as guilty as the average religious radical (and yes, I will admit they exist) in that you are perpetuating one side of a false dichotomy that need not exist.



I think everyone in this debate needs to take a step back for a moment and consider, before posting anything else, whether they are actually contributing to the debate in a constructive manner or not, because there are two ways in which this discussion can go from its infantile state here.

What RhynoD has done on the religious side of the argument, and what Pure Science and Bottle, among others , have done on the non-religious side, is perpetuate a conflict, an unreasonable discourse in which both sides do not so much debate the merits of their own or the opposite position as poke fun and make snide comments. Witness:



Because, of course, clearly all religious people are un(der)-educated ignorant morons.

Or again:



Because, of course, religious people don't believe in freedom of speech, and non-religious people never attempt to censure religious language in public places.

And...well...Rhyno...what have I told you about going off half-cocked?

Anyhow...I don't post to the forums very much anymore for exactly this reason. Everyone in this debate is immature, or seems to be these days. The only posters I agree with, from the few that have already responded, are Bodhis and Pure Metal.

I think both sides need to accept that the other side is not disposessed of reason, or the capacity for it. Otherwise, in another 10 pages of this thread, people will still be saying utterly brilliant things like this:



Really? So apparently reasonable America is dead-set against social justice and equal treatment for people regardless of gender or socio-economic status, dead-set against the proliferation of peace throughout the world, dead-set against a stable family unit, dead-set against truth and love...

...or perhaps not. Perhaps some people in the world, perhaps an unfortunate many, do terrible things in the name of religion...but in the end are just using the name of religion to mask self-serving ends. Perhaps religion really stands for something beautiful, and reveals profound truths about where we're from and where we're going.

And perhaps people take that and mess it right up, like always happens.

Last I looked, the Pope thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and a grave sin. What a bloody facist warmonger.


Cheddar,
:( Aiera

You make me happy.
As for religion, I never had any use for it. Faith is faith. I have faith in the lack of a god, and in the wondrous miracle fo human life. I have faith in life, the universe and everything. I don't have faith in god. I can't explain why or why i don't believe these things. At the end of the day, it's about you. It's not about the rationale you formed after coming to your decision, it's about what explanation for existence sits best with you. which one doesn't cause you to raise your eyebrows in general distaste and confusion.

Meaningless emoticons, go!
:p :fluffle: :mp5: :sniper: :rolleyes: :mad: :headbang: :gundge: :eek:

Ok I am a christian believe it or not and it goes fully against his teachings to disallow fertility clinics and medicines. God gave us the intelligence to discover these things..then god wants us to end of story. If god wanted us to stop with stem cells and fertility clinics he would damn well come out of the clouds on his flaming chariot drawn by 15 headed ponies with lizard s for toes and tell us to stop. The fact we can figure it out is the biggest proof god wants us too.

The burden of proof on the fetal stems lies on you friend...Give me the research papers and labs that are showing results...(Besides the rats that develope cancer due to the fetal stems)And why should we destroy the unborn when we can use the cells from adult stems?And the Dems rejected Zell Miller because he did not toe the party line as they saw it...Or is that ok?

First of all, no one has really used fetal stem cells much - and there has been no controversy there. The controversy is with *embryonic* stem cells.

You demonstrate clear ignorance of the actual issue here, as you have in other threads.

Adult stem cells have different capabilities than embryonic stem cells, being lineage specific. We do not have adult stem cells capable of becoming all types of somatic cells, as some cells are simply terminally differentiated.

Meanwhile, use of the term "unborn" is incorrect, as no embryonic stem cells have been derived from any embryo that was ever going to be born. Implantation in a womb is necessary long before implantation.

And as for results:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15630449

And as for cancer being induced by embryonic stem cells, there are two points to make:
(a) Undifferentiated cells expressing telomerase are likely to cause cancers. As such, most have come to the conclusion that any cell therapy developed out of embryonic stem cells would necessitate differentiated cells being used in the therapy.

(b) Most of the studies you have heard of were most likely attempting to induce cancerous masses in rodents - as early proofs of pluripotency were carried out using this method.

How incredibly Christian of you to fail to see the obvious, be unable read, and make up things that aren't there: "... How sad..."

I'm saying politics in general. Not just voters. Anyone voting anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-blacks rights or anti-women's rights or pro-slavery, etc. is voting subjectively, not objectively.

People are things, they die. Notwithstanding, when they are alive, they have certain rights, so long as they don't get in the way of others.

Noone likes lunatics voting.
So I ask again ...Answer the question...How do you decide who votes with out eliminating everyone?

Nothing personal because I realize that its probably not you doing this (you seem clueless about it), however the vast majority of atheists I know would be perfectly happy to go about their lives not concerning themselves with religion and only discussing it in civil conversation. However, many Christians and members of other religions can't let that be. They refuse to let us alone and constantly villify us by their words and actions.

Does this mean that we should seek retribution against all religious people? Certainly not. I have some great friends that are very religious and don't mind my ex-Christian state at all.

However, don't just point the finger at us. Make sure you include the people in your camp too.

Also, while I am on the subject--try to realize how much things you say and do that you might not mean as offensive can come across that way. It might be a trivial example, but the idea of "One Nation Under God" can be rather offensive. It basically says that the government values one set of beliefs over another. You might not think its a big deal--but I bet you'd jump to defend it.

How incredibly Christian of you to fail to see the obvious, be unable read, and make up things that aren't there: "... How sad..."

How nice of you to use idiotic stereotypes...

Oh Atheists dont get it the worst they arent blaspheming heretics like me. Those who believe in christs teachings as what they are teachings...and not the mystic mumbo jumbo that roman pontifex's invented to keep themselves powerful..and believe me i have gotten ALOT of flack over it even in canada. Basically i try to tell the truth and i get screamed at worse then those who say he doesnt exist.

First of all, no one has really used fetal stem cells much - and there has been no controversy there. The controversy is with *embryonic* stem cells.

You demonstrate clear ignorance of the actual issue here, as you have in other threads.

Adult stem cells have different capabilities than embryonic stem cells, being lineage specific. We do not have adult stem cells capable of becoming all types of somatic cells, as some cells are simply terminally differentiated.

Meanwhile, use of the term "unborn" is incorrect, as no embryonic stem cells have been derived from any embryo that was ever going to be born. Implantation in a womb is necessary long before implantation.

And as for results:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15630449

And as for cancer being induced by embryonic stem cells, there are two points to make:
(a) Undifferentiated cells expressing telomerase are likely to cause cancers. As such, most have come to the conclusion that any cell therapy developed out of embryonic stem cells would necessitate differentiated cells being used in the therapy.

(b) Most of the studies you have heard of were most likely attempting to induce cancerous masses in rodents - as early proofs of pluripotency were carried out using this method.
First of all define what you mean by my ignorance in other threads and answer the question about Zell Miller...And do you mean to suggest friend that no aborted baby has ever been used in any research?

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

Well, conversely you could leave us alone.... in my experience it is the Christians that try to convert the non-religious first.


If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.

You know I get really pissed off when I, minding my own business, get approached by some Born Again Bible Toting Christian Nut job who tries to convert my soul to the "eternal bliss".... why do I have to say "no thank you?" Why can't you all just mind your own F***ing business and leave me the F*** alone! You should take it as a compliment that I don't slam your head into a brick wall when you ask to save my soul. *calms down* Sorry, I don't like having to go through unnecessary nuisances.

And if you aren't one of those people who try to convert, even though by this thread you implied that we should all turn to your side....don't take offense (but if you could pass it on to the rest of the folks in your faith that would be great :D ).

*waits for a time when she can walk down the streets of Salem, MA without being stopped by a Bible toter*

First of all define what you mean by my ignorance in other threads and answer the question about Zell Miller...And do you mean to suggest friend that no aborted baby has ever been used in any research?

You have stated the same drivel that demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about stem cells more than once.

Why answer the question about Zell Miller? I don't care about political parties one way or another. As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes party lines is using a cop out to keep from having to think for themselves.

I am stating, very clearly and truthfully, that no aborted embryo has ever been used in obtaining embryonic stem cells, yes.

Eh, there's too much mindless drivel here to keep my attention. I'm going to go to bed now, and leave you all with this quote by Jean-Paul Sartre:

"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal."

Do you mean to suggest an aborted baby should also be thrown away rather then be used to help...oh my god how can you call yourself christian!!!!! you dont allow for choice, you oppose healing the sick and ummm if i remember i think jesus went around and healed the bloody sick didnt he...thats why i hate truly religious christians...they make no sense and they ignore everythign jesuss did to oppose change...what are you afraid of? what exactly are you afraid of happening if we advance as a society..abortion is bad but i am sorry 9/10 children dont die before the age of 3 nowadays so we dont need 16 kids a family . Whats wrong with living longer..think you wont get in to heaven if you do...that eager to die? my god..this is the reason its when you intrude on the holy sanctity of medicine and healing the thing jesus was MOST famous for.

Argh, religion arguments.
Well I suppose it is a lot for my first post here, but as it is, I think the religious/antireligious arguments of today and the past are generally shouting contests, whereas the supposedly "reasonable" and "scientific" athiests dogmatically spew anti-spiritual filth whilst completely and utterly missing the main point of religion, and the religious folks attack the athiests as heartless sinners with no source of motivation or hope in their lives. Personally I am not religious, and while I am aware that many Christians consider me to be going to hell, or purgatory, I really don't care, as long as they don't bother me about it. I would rather not be bothered by Buddhists who say I will be stuck in Samsara for all eternity because of my materialistic lifestyle, etc, you get the idea. However, unlike a vast majority of athiests, I respect those who are religious, because basically everyone is "religious" in some way or another.If to be religious is to believe in something without cause or scientific proof, then guess what athiests: You're just as religious as that Christian standing in front of you that you're soaking in spittle. Here's a question? Are the mind and the brain the same? Do you have an answer? You could be a dualist, and believe that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain, or say that the brain and the mind are one. Regardless, you're making an assumption, because science has neither the resources nor the comprehension to quantificate consciousness as it does with natural elements, energy, matter, etc. If religion is believing in the unseen, that is religion, because you cannot see your own consciousness as a physical substance. Regardless, then there is the issue of supreme beings. Athiests attack religious people as being "addicted" to an outmoded idea that has no place in the modern, scientific world. How ironic that many of history's most prominent scientists, inventors, philosophers, men of reason, did what they did for the glory of *gasp* the G word. Issac Newton believed he was discovering a more perfect universe that properly befitted a supreme being that was all knowing and all seeing, breeding the new form of Christianity known as Deism. Gregor Mendel was a freaking MONK and he discovered heredity; the connection to evolution with inherited traits does not need to be explained, as it is quite obvious. So when other atheists claim there is an inherant conflict between science and religion, I can barely contain my laughter.
And what about religion in the definition of dogma? Couldn't you read some of the posts in this thread here and discover how dogmatic both the spiritual and the athiest sides of the argument are? You are so absolutely sure there is no God in the universe, why don't you proove it then? Go to the smallest form of matter and scan it for His fingerprints and proove to us the others that it is not there. You are so certain there is a supreme being in the universe; go forth then, and expose Him so that He cannot hide any longer, playing with people as if on a cosmic chess board.
The fun thing about this is, I just felt like saying it, and there is no doubt in my mind that it will be lost upon all of you. But that's cool. The essence of humanity is conflict.
It's true that spirituality is a big part of religion, and the texts of any religion have logical fallacies in them that disproove the works in the eyes of a skeptic. But, and this is what is lost on the great majority of athiests, the real purposes of religion is to give hope, to tell a compelling story, to provide a moral basis for day to day life, to allow people to associate with others with beliefs like them, and to believe in something outside of the physical relm, to break free of the mind forged manacles of sensational perception. That is something the intolerant atheist, who believes in nothing but the molecule and the gene, could never understand. I on the other hand, am not so handicapped.

Do you mean to suggest an aborted baby should also be thrown away rather then be used to help...

Material from abortions really can't be used for much, due to the chemicals and procedures commonly used.

Did you mean to say discarded embryos from IVF?

Hope is gained from within not belief that a god and his angels are helping you

no lol just saying that even if they did research on aborted fetuses, which i heard was impossible due to trauma but i mean come on you dont waste life no matter the form right?

First of all do you mean to suggest friend that no aborted baby has ever been used in any research?

stem cells come from embryos, typically defined as <3 monthes "old". however, stem cells must be taken before they differentiate, i don't remember exaclty when, but i believe once the egg and sperm unite, researchers allow them to divide 4-6 times before they 'lock' them from differentiating. so the answer is no aborted baby has been used as a stem cell source.

as a side note, the gov't has outlawed the use of public funds to experiment on embryonic cell lines (not lines from other sources like foreskin, umbilical cord, etc.). if stem cells were going to revolutionize medicine, don't you think private industry would be privately funding research efforts (they are doing effectively no provate research). the biomedical engineers i know think most of teh stem cell hype is BS and doubt it will ever live up to it, no matter how far away.

Hope is gained from within not belief that a god and his angels are helping you
Perhaps you are fine with that. But if you ask many christians, I doubt they would think that angels are watching over them, simply because that is illogical by Christian standards. The bible states the angels and their purpose as God's messengers. There is a limited number of them. Since they are not like God, and are not everywhere and nowhere at the same time, they cannot watch over everyone. Christians generally recognize that they do what they can on their own, that's why when they think they have witnessed a miracle or a spiritual event, it is so amazing to them.

I just remembered something else. Now remember that I don't hold anything against atheists, as I am one myself. But since it seems to be the popular side, and the atheists here are of garden variety, I feel like I have to sort of side with the Christians, for many of them are being actually far more reasonable.
I remember an atheist once said something along the lines of "The existance of God cannot be quantificated or proven with any visible, empirical evidence. Therefore, all statements about the existance of God are baseless and should not be taken seriously." Well that's all fine and dandy, except for one thing: It's a self defeating statement. The atheist is in fact making a statement about the existance of God indirectly through targeting statements saying that God exists. This is why in order to truely be atheist, certain assumptions must be made that make the difference between atheism and religion purely on a basis of ideas. In reality, they are one in the same: Making statements about the nature of the universe, both sides making assumptions about things they do not know.

Material from abortions really can't be used for much, due to the chemicals and procedures commonly used.

Did you mean to say discarded embryos from IVF?

She is correct on that.

Also, depending on how old, you have to get permission from the parents. Some states have age requirements in that you have to make arrangements with a funeral home for disposal of the remains.

For Americans:

1) Religious people vote.

2) Religious people reproduce a -lot-.

3) We live in a democratic system.

Figure it out.

stem cells come from embryos, typically defined as <3 monthes "old". however, stem cells must be taken before they differentiate, i don't remember exaclty when, but i believe once the egg and sperm unite, researchers allow them to divide 4-6 times before they 'lock' them from differentiating. so the answer is no aborted baby has been used as a stem cell source.

Embryonic stem cells are removed from the blastula at approximately day 8. This is well after 4-6 times, as scientists wait for the inner mass of the blastula to develop. However, it is before cells begin any significant differentiation.

as a side note, the gov't has outlawed the use of public funds to experiment on embryonic cell lines (not lines from other sources like foreskin, umbilical cord, etc.). if stem cells were going to revolutionize medicine, don't you think private industry would be privately funding research efforts (they are doing effectively no provate research). the biomedical engineers i know think most of teh stem cell hype is BS and doubt it will ever live up to it, no matter how far away.

Private industry rarely puts money into basic science research. Meanwhile, there is much more private money in embryonic stem cell research right now than there is in any other basic science research that I can think of.

And, as a bioengineer, I can state that while *everything* is hyped in the media beyond belief, there is quite a bit of potential for embryonic stem cells. And this is coming from someone working on the use of adult stem cells.

Do you mean to suggest an aborted baby should also be thrown away rather then be used to help...oh my god how can you call yourself christian!!!!! you dont allow for choice, you oppose healing the sick and ummm if i remember i think jesus went around and healed the bloody sick didnt he...thats why i hate truly religious christians...they make no sense and they ignore everythign jesuss did to oppose change...what are you afraid of? what exactly are you afraid of happening if we advance as a society..abortion is bad but i am sorry 9/10 children dont die before the age of 3 nowadays so we dont need 16 kids a family . Whats wrong with living longer..think you wont get in to heaven if you do...that eager to die? my god..this is the reason its when you intrude on the holy sanctity of medicine and healing the thing jesus was MOST famous for.
Christ would not have approved of aborting babies...Christ would not have approved the death penalty either...And if we did not abort babies we would not have to answr the question of what to do with their bodies.I am all for healing the sick.I have never seen so much hatred in my life as what I have seen on this web site it does make me sad. I do not hate any one I wish all of us could learn a little more grace...Myself included...God bless you Tannelorn

stem cells come from embryos, typically defined as <3 monthes "old". however, stem cells must be taken before they differentiate, i don't remember exaclty when, but i believe once the egg and sperm unite, researchers allow them to divide 4-6 times before they 'lock' them from differentiating. so the answer is no aborted baby has been used as a stem cell source.

as a side note, the gov't has outlawed the use of public funds to experiment on embryonic cell lines (not lines from other sources like foreskin, umbilical cord, etc.). if stem cells were going to revolutionize medicine, don't you think private industry would be privately funding research efforts (they are doing effectively no provate research). the biomedical engineers i know think most of teh stem cell hype is BS and doubt it will ever live up to it, no matter how far away.


Funny, cause I'm in medicine and most doctors I know seem to think that they have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of a variety of congential and chronic diseases.

3) We live in a democratic system.


Actually we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. . there is a difference. But eh, that's not the point here so why I am being OCD?

Christ would not have approved of aborting babies...Christ would not have approved the death penalty either...

Good to know you have a time machine and got to talk to Christ yourself.

Granted, I would agree with you, but don't make blanket statements about something you cannot possibly know for sure.

And if we did not abort babies we would not have to answr the question of what to do with their bodies.

Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with embryonic stem cell research. Tissue from abortions is incinerated.

Ok Stem cell is not and i repeat NOT hype... They bloody work...i have a friend who would be alive today if not for the temp ban...and believe me on this the treatments for MS work..and work well. My friend died, and 4 month later due to the bans lifting they developed a treatment that worked..the ban was in place for a year and a half. Where is religion in this..where is the great moral superiority of the christians..I honestly believe jesus would support it you know..wholly and utterly with all his heart. Because the more you read of jesus the man the more you know about the false hood most of us grew up being forced to attend every sunday..the abomination that is church. I only said the aborted fetus thing to say honestly...its done and what are you going to do give new life or make people suffer? And there is a difference between hatred and righteous wrath...i never said jesus would support abortion but i cant say i oppose abortion or he would too...after all its a womans choice not his or yours or even gods..we have free will. What i say is jesus would support medicine hell the pharmeceutical companies are the money lenders of today and we all know jesus was put up on the cross for killing dozens of them with his followers. Kind of like fight club with sticks.

How nice of you to use idiotic stereotypes...
I love you friend...you are atleast consistent in your defenses...Email lme some time I would love to talk with you... airbornvet2gen@yahoo.com

Ok Stem cell is not and i repeat NOT hype...

Now, to be perfectly honest, the media has hyped stem cell research, as they do with all scientific advances. In truth, although I know we can't with free speech and all, sometimes I wish we could block the media from reporting about science at all. All they do is report half-truths, hype, and a general lack of information that doesn't really help the public at all, and hurts science a great deal.

Funny, cause I'm in medicine and most doctors I know seem to think that they have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of a variety of congential and chronic diseases.

please, doctors are nothing but glorified technicians. firends of mine do stem cell research at the university and doubt they will ever realize the miracle potentail that is hyped in the popular press.

please, doctors are nothing but glorified technicians. firends of mine do stem cell research at the university and doubt they will ever realize the miracle potentail that is hyped in the popular press.

You do realize that there is a difference between "miracle potential hyped in the popular press" and "medical potential", correct?

Meanwhile, many doctors perform such research themselves, so referring to them as "glorified technicians" is pretty idiotic.

please, doctors are nothing but glorified technicians. firends of mine do stem cell research at the university and doubt they will ever realize the miracle potentail that is hyped in the popular press.

Doctors are not all technicians--especially in an academic setting where many of them are doing research. Further, I didn't say that there wasn't hype--but its hardly going to be a totally fruitless search. There is great promise in stem cell research.

But you know. . .I have tests on Monday. Why am I awake? Night all.

Ok Stem cell is not and i repeat NOT hype... They bloody work...i have a friend who would be alive today if not for the temp ban...and believe me on this the treatments for MS work..and work well. My friend died, and 4 month later due to the bans lifting they developed a treatment that worked..the ban was in place for a year and a half. Where is religion in this..where is the great moral superiority of the christians..I honestly believe jesus would support it you know..wholly and utterly with all his heart. Because the more you read of jesus the man the more you know about the false hood most of us grew up being forced to attend every sunday..the abomination that is church. I only said the aborted fetus thing to say honestly...its done and what are you going to do give new life or make people suffer? And there is a difference between hatred and righteous wrath...i never said jesus would support abortion but i cant say i oppose abortion or he would too...after all its a womans choice not his or yours or even gods..we have free will. What i say is jesus would support medicine hell the pharmeceutical companies are the money lenders of today and we all know jesus was put up on the cross for killing dozens of them with his followers. Kind of like fight club with sticks.
Christ killed no one and he allowed himself to die...

I really don't know what to think about the whole stem cell thing. On one hand, I know it would help a lot of people.
But then again, I don't know, I think it's pushing it almost in a way. Say you believe that the baby isn't a baby until the moment it emerges from its mother. How about a milisecond before then? Or a second. Try a minute then? How about 30 minutes? An hour? How about all the way back to the milisecond that the egg is fertilized? I'm afraid of what we will discover once we have the scientific knowledge to know whether the embryo is conscious while we abort it, or kill it for its stem cells, or if it can at least experience pain. What will we have done? It would essentially be the most expansive genocide on the earth ever, except targeted against infants, instead of ethnic groups.
I'm not religious or anything, but I've never found the idea of killing a child, or anyone for that matter, except maybe a disgusting criminal, to be tasteful. If embryos can be considered children, we should stop while we still have a chance. Now of course, this is a little far-fetched, but if we reach cloning before the government changes legislation, we will actually have a new slave class. Currently, you may copyright a genetically modified lifeform as intellectual property, such as a bacterium with a special gene in it for culturing, like in most biotech companies. A clone is the property of its master, since it was made by genetic engineering in a way.

Well i am done before i actually get mad lol. and that i have to go lol. Anyways honestly no hard feelings just i get REALLY worked up over stem cell research to be blunt...Stem cells are ambrosia and will lead to alot of cures and i just dont like christianity as it is now cause i know the difference...it hasnt been the same since jesus died, just like Islam. Honestly i dont believe jesus would support say george bush at all and would probly be considered evil and a rebel today by our governments for believing in things such as freedom. The bible has no sayings or say on that subject..period and in fact all the bible does say would support fertility clinics and the use of the unused embryos in Stem cell research...i mean honestly jesus would be all for that. ok night guys and try not to get to mad at each other lol

I'm afraid of what we will discover once we have the scientific knowledge to know whether the embryo is conscious while we abort it, or kill it for its stem cells, or if it can at least experience pain. What will we have done? It would essentially be the most expansive genocide on the earth ever, except targeted against infants, instead of ethnic groups.

Just so you know, we already know whether an embryo is conscious - it is not, as it does not have the organs necessary to be conscious. We also know whether it can experience pain. It cannot, as it does not have the organs necessary to feel pain.

WHOA one sec...christ killed no one? Are you NUTS that is the exact charge in the ancient records revolt involving death of citizens sorry the idea jesus was a pacifist well ok maybe in 2000 years they will say that about the IRA too...

Just so you know, we already know whether an embryo is conscious - it is not, as it does not have the organs necessary to be conscious. We also know whether it can experience pain. It cannot, as it does not have the organs necessary to feel pain.
We can't quantificate consciousness. I've been through this already. Science does not have the know-how to proove that the mind and the brain are one in the same.
Whether or not the embryo has organs, it is obviously not just part of the mother's body, as many people suggest. It still is arguable that it is human. We need to tread lightly with this issue.

You have stated the same drivel that demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about stem cells more than once.

Why answer the question about Zell Miller? I don't care about political parties one way or another. As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes party lines is using a cop out to keep from having to think for themselves.

I am stating, very clearly and truthfully, that no aborted embryo has ever been used in obtaining embryonic stem cells, yes.
In defense of myself you introduced the political thing aspect first that is why I asked the question...I will admit tha t Iam not the scientist that you seem to be but is there not a diacotomy in destroying potential life to maybe save life? I ask that honestly...Did you have to call it drivel? I try to be logical at all times...

[QUOTE]You do realize that there is a difference between "miracle potential hyped in the popular press" and "medical potential", correct?

of course i realize the difference, but don't you get tired of people (as posted above) claiming that a loved one would be alive today if it wasn't for the ban. at the absolute earliest, i don't see any stem cell-related therapeutic treatment available to the public for a minimum of 10 years. they are no where close to application, let alone testing, fda approval etc.

Meanwhile, many doctors perform such research themselves, so referring to them as "glorified technicians" is pretty idiotic.

yes, i work with some--i did overstep, but most doctors do not do research and almost none do basic research. however, the overwhelming majority do not do stem cell research and would therefore not be an authority. (nor am i as a lowly chemistry graduate student, but as i mentioned before, i know most of our biomedical engineering dept. so i have a rather bona fide source).

And now for something completely different!

For Americans:

1) Religious people vote.

2) Religious people reproduce a -lot-.

3) We live in a democratic system.

Figure it out.

Except for the obvious mistake(3), I will give that an "Ahhhh oookay?"

WHOA one sec...christ killed no one? Are you NUTS that is the exact charge in the ancient records revolt involving death of citizens sorry the idea jesus was a pacifist well ok maybe in 2000 years they will say that about the IRA too...
Christ was not a pacifist he just never killed anyone...

In defense of myself you introduced the political thing aspect first that is why I asked the question...I will admit tha t Iam not the scientist that you seem to be but is there not a diacotomy in destroying potential life to maybe save life? I ask that honestly...Did you have to call it drivel? I try to be logical at all times...

The embryos used in stem cell research are not even really "potential life." Those from IVF clinics are slated to be destroyed anyways. Meanwhile, the newer method of therapeutic cloning involves "embryos" that have little to no chance of ever making it past the blastoma stage in the first place.

Meanwhile, we must remember the difference between "potential life" and "actual life." Every egg and sperm is a "potential life", as are the 50-80% of fertilized eggs that never make it to birth. However, a person with Parkinson's, or diabetes, or any of numerous other diseases that may be helped with stem cell therapies are *actual* lives.

Edit: By the way, what are you talking about? I never once mentioned politics.

In defense of myself you introduced the political thing aspect first that is why I asked the question...I will admit tha t Iam not the scientist that you seem to be but is there not a diacotomy in destroying potential life to maybe save life? I ask that honestly...Did you have to call it drivel? I try to be logical at all times...
You have a point.
See this is what frustrates me. If we just knew the nature of human consciousness, and whether a soul existed or not for absolute 100% sure, we wouldn't have this problem with stem cells. I mean, if we begin to harvest human beings, what does that kind of thing say about humanity? People generally come to the agreement that a human life is, except in the case of murderers and criminals, worth something. We can't just use people like that. But if it's just a bunch of cells, and cannot at all be considered human, it is alright. It's such a difficult issue.

Dempublicents: How far along in a fetus' development are you comforable with an abortion/ extraction of stem cells occuring?

of course i realize the difference, but don't you get tired of people (as posted above) claiming that a loved one would be alive today if it wasn't for the ban.

Yes, as such people only provide further ammo to those who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

at the absolute earliest, i don't see any stem cell-related therapeutic treatment available to the public for a minimum of 10 years. they are no where close to application, let alone testing, fda approval etc.

In truth, there are already clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells with therapies in ischemic heart tissue. They are not in the US, mind you, but they are occurring. However, you are correct that most therapies related to *embryonic* stem cells will not be available for at least 10 years. ((This is not, of course, a valid argument against them. Nearly all treatments take that amount of time and longer to develop.))

Meanwhile, stem cell-related therapeutic treatment has been going on for years. Ever heard of a bone marrow transplant?

yes, i work with some--i did overstep, but most doctors do not do research and almost none do basic research. however, the overwhelming majority do not do stem cell research and would therefore not be an authority. (nor am i as a lowly chemistry graduate student, but as i mentioned before, i know most of our biomedical engineering dept. so i have a rather bona fide source).

Most of the biomedical engineering department probably doesn't do stem cell research either. I know most of ours doesn't.

Dempublicents: How far along in a fetus' development are you comforable with an abortion/ extraction of stem cells occuring?

In truth, I'm not really "comfortable" with abortion at all. However, I cannot objectively give a reason for banning any reason for abortion until around the end of the first trimester, when the fetus meets all of the biological requirements to be deemed a living organism.

As for extraction of stem cells, embryonic stem cells can really only be extracted at the blastocyst stage - roughly around 8 days.

And with that, I really must get to bed. How the heck did this conversation get onto stem cell research anyways? We were talking about the nature of religion and knowledge before... Oh well, I guess it got hijacked.

In truth, I'm not really "comfortable" with abortion at all. However, I cannot objectively give a reason for banning any reason for abortion until around the end of the first trimester, when the fetus meets all of the biological requirements to be deemed a living organism.

As for extraction of stem cells, embryonic stem cells can really only be extracted at the blastocyst stage - roughly around 8 days.
You are articulating your argument very well. I still don't know, I mean, how can you pinpoint the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a child? Down to the last second, there cannot be any room for error, because it's basically a line between what some people see as murder, and the harvesting of cells.

And now for something completely different!



Except for the obvious mistake(3), I will give that an "Ahhhh oookay?"

While I'm aware that the US is technically a democratic socialist republic, it's still a democratic system: IE, voting happens by the populace. Religious persons tend to have many children (partially due to education, partially due to fear of abortion, partially due to religious traditions of massive families).

Since religious persons are not always going to keep their religion out of government, it does, in fact, matter to non-religious persons in this country what they think, because their vote counts just as much as mine, and thus can screw my life up.

I'm going to, but my mind isn't awake enough for philosophy at that level yet. I'll try it in the morning. Still, there is quite a large difference between proving god and proving love. I will fall back to the objective proof of love, that being the biochemical and physiological aspects, which can be empirically tested. Can that be done with god? I think not.

And I don't see why not...is a profound religious experience in any way different than a profound experience of love? I would think not, and I would expect that in both cases you would see both a pronounced psychological affect on the experiencing person, and also changes in biochemicals and hormones in the brain and body in general.

Sure. They won't convince me at all, I'm sure, but I would listen. However, I can not help but think that many people do not realise the effects of such things as psychosomatics and tricking oneself. I am currently looking into some Wiccan practices, which seem to actually be testable. I am very well aware that there are certainly psychological benefits to things like faith and religion, but I curious to see hard cold evidence. And, if the author is truthful, then I suspect there will be evidence of an underlying form of pantheistic intelligence. However, this itself can be reduced down to quantum physics, and I personally have a strong suspiscion that what is considered god is actually what is occuring on a subatomic level.

A few years ago, I was wrestling with sexual addiction, and was invited to attend what might be called the eccleastical equivalent of bar-hopping. A youth group based out of the Ukranian Catholic church in which I was baptised held an Easter 'road trip' around the city that ran late into the night, moving from Ukranian church to Ukranian church in a roughly spiral pattern (there are a number of Ukranian parishes in my home city).

We didn't start at my parish, but when we came to it the priests there were offering confession, and so I sat down and began talking with one priest. In the course of our dialogue, we talked at length about my addiction, and he suggested that I spend the remainder of the evening praying about it, and he suggested a few specific prayers I might say.

I started to pray, and while I don't remember most of the rest of the evening, I remember a feeling of...euphoria coming over me, and I felt clean. Like stepping out of a shower, but better...it was on the inside as well as the outside. And when I returned home, I slept.

Since I awoke the next morning, I have been free of the addiction.

Hopefully you can understand why I find it laughable when people attempt to tell me there is no God.
:) Aiera

Trick is, the same story is in every religion.

And it's also something an atheist can reach through talking with friends and the like, or, hell, having a good cry.

There is, in fact, a psychological effect of various practices common to many religions, they've even found a part of the brain that reacts here.

Thing is, you don't need faith to utilize it.

Argh, religion arguments.
Well I suppose it is a lot for my first post here, but as it is, I think the religious/antireligious arguments of today and the past are generally shouting contests, whereas the supposedly "reasonable" and "scientific" athiests dogmatically spew anti-spiritual filth whilst completely and utterly missing the main point of religion, and the religious folks attack the athiests as heartless sinners with no source of motivation or hope in their lives. Personally I am not religious, and while I am aware that many Christians consider me to be going to hell, or purgatory, I really don't care, as long as they don't bother me about it. I would rather not be bothered by Buddhists who say I will be stuck in Samsara for all eternity because of my materialistic lifestyle, etc, you get the idea. However, unlike a vast majority of athiests, I respect those who are religious, because basically everyone is "religious" in some way or another.

Ah. The "is atheism a religion" argument?

If to be religious is to believe in something without cause or scientific proof,

Isn't there much more to being religious than that? I believe the world is round, does that make me religious? I believe that the US did indeed land men on the moon, does that make me religious?

then guess what athiests: You're just as religious as that Christian standing in front of you that you're soaking in spittle.

"Just as" religious? That claim implies that there are gradations of being religious.

If no such gradations exist, then saying that someone is religious is a tautology - everyone believes things for which they have no proof. Does that make anybody in the world religious by definition?

If such gradations do exist, then I would make a case for claiming that atheists are not as religious as Christians. ...actually, I could make no such claim, because I can't speak for all atheists. Atheism is "the belief that there is no God." There are no other beliefs that are standard to all Atheists. We don't standardize our beliefs in any way. There may be some that, in ways, are just as religious as christians; there may be some that are not. Who are you to say that you know all atheists?

Here's a question? Are the mind and the brain the same? Do you have an answer? You could be a dualist, and believe that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain, or say that the brain and the mind are one.

I think that the mind and the brain are probably one and the same. I can't be certain, since we don't know how the brain or mind work, but I can present evidence to support my point of view.

Regardless, you're making an assumption, because science has neither the resources nor the comprehension to quantificate consciousness as it does with natural elements, energy, matter, etc.

But science CAN find out some things about the brain which would support the claim that it is, in fact, the source of thoughts and emotions. For example, people with Alzheimers generally display certain measurable changes in how the brain works. People with depression also often have the same abnormalities in brain chemistry. We can even make medicines to, sometimes, change these abnormalities and correct the disorder. And of course, there are the interesting cases where a patient suffers severe damage to his brain and afterwards his personality changes. There've been occasional cases like that, though obviously not very common - it's pretty hard to damage the brain enough to change anything major but not kill you.

Is this conclusive proof that the mind and the brain are one and the same? Of course not. But it seems to me to be evidence pointing towards the claim that the brain could be the same as the mind. Hence, I will believe that it is. I think my belief is founded; not conclusively proven, but having some basis in evidence.

What assumptions am I making here?


If religion is believing in the unseen, that is religion, because you cannot see your own consciousness as a physical substance.

And if religion is eating carrots, then bunnies are religious.

If religion is believing in the unseen, then the electrical engineers that built the computer you're typing on were religious, because they've never seen electrons.

If religion is believing the unseen, then a vast majority of the world is religious, since they've never seen Australia but yet believe it exists.

If religion is believing the unseen, then everybody who talks to you over the forums and assumes that you're human is being religious, since they've never seen you.

...I'm not sure why you're claiming that "religious" means "believing in the unseen." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religious dictionary.com says nothing of the sort.

Regardless, then there is the issue of supreme beings. Athiests attack religious people as being "addicted" to an outmoded idea

The militant ones, at least.

that has no place in the modern, scientific world.

Not in the scientific world. There's much more to the world than science.

How ironic that many of history's most prominent scientists, inventors, philosophers, men of reason, did what they did for the glory of *gasp* the G word. Issac Newton believed he was discovering a more perfect universe that properly befitted a supreme being that was all knowing and all seeing, breeding the new form of Christianity known as Deism. Gregor Mendel was a freaking MONK and he discovered heredity; the connection to evolution with inherited traits does not need to be explained, as it is quite obvious.


So when other atheists claim there is an inherant conflict between science and religion, I can barely contain my laughter.

Of course, because there's nothing "inherent" in the conflict between science and religion. The conflict arises when religion tries to impose its will on science - when it tries to say "the physical world works like X because the bible says so." As long as scientists are dealing with topics unrelated to church policy, their personal beliefs don't matter in the slightest.


And what about religion in the definition of dogma? Couldn't you read some of the posts in this thread here and discover how dogmatic both the spiritual and the athiest sides of the argument are?

Again. There's no standard of belief among atheists besides "God does not exists."

You are so absolutely sure there is no God in the universe, why don't you proove it then? Go to the smallest form of matter and scan it for His fingerprints and proove to us the others that it is not there.

Because God is by definition unprovable. An omnipotent being could, by definition, create a universe which disproves his existence - hence, by definition, it is not possible to disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.

I just believe that the fact that something is defined to be undisprovable doesn't make it true. I could make a lot of statements that could not be disproven, but would probably not be true.

"In the space between the galaxy clusters, there's a giant game of rugby going on! Except the players have shielded themselves from all sorts of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions so that it doesn't interfere with their game, and so we can't see them. They're the product of an advanced civilization so they've found ways to evade the laws of physics as we know them. "

I would hope that most people would say that that statement is downright stupid. It's nondisprovable - these rugby players have been defined to be powerful enough to avoid the laws of physics as we know them, so they can never be detected, and thus can't be disproven. But I'd never think of calling the person that says "no, that's stupid" religious.


You are so certain there is a supreme being in the universe; go forth then, and expose Him so that He cannot hide any longer, playing with people as if on a cosmic chess board.


That's to the religious, not to the atheists...


The fun thing about this is, I just felt like saying it, and there is no doubt in my mind that it will be lost upon all of you.

Oh, not at all. You made me think a little bit, if only to recall the same thing I've said and heard said in response to all those people who claim atheism is the same thing as religion.

But that's cool. The essence of humanity is conflict.
It's true that spirituality is a big part of religion, and the texts of any religion have logical fallacies in them that disproove the works in the eyes of a skeptic. But, and this is what is lost on the great majority of athiests, the real purposes of religion is to give hope, to tell a compelling story, to provide a moral basis for day to day life, to allow people to associate with others with beliefs like them, and to believe in something outside of the physical relm, to break free of the mind forged manacles of sensational perception.

And not do describe the physical world, which is what science aims to do. So where's the conflict? When religion tries to make claims about the world. I have no problem with "You should live life such-and-such a way because then you'll be a good person." I DO have a problem with "You should live life such-and-such a way because the big man in the sky told us to" because, well, I don't think that any sky-father said any such thing. I disagree with the implied claim about the physical world.

The contradictions in religions texts do not matter if the texts are interpreted metaphorically and used as a guideline for morality. They DO matter if these texts are used to make claims about physical matter - "there was a time when it rained for x amount of time and the entire world was covered in water." "The earth was created before the sun."

It's all well and good that it gives people hope and people WANT to believe in it, but that doesn't mean it's literally true.

That is something the intolerant atheist, who believes in nothing but the molecule and the gene, could never understand. I on the other hand, am not so handicapped.

Sure, the intolerant atheist who believes in nothing but the molecule and the gene could not understand plenty of things. Among others, he won't be able to understand biology, since we're finding that DNA sequences that are not part of genes also have some sort of roles, though it's uncertain what they are.

But your old garden-variety tolerant atheist could definitely understand, but still disagree with, plenty of what you're saying.

...and please, even though you want to end on a dramatic note, the phrase "believes in ... the molecule and the gene" is completely devoid of content. What does it mean to "believe in the molecule and the gene" ? I think most atheists, as well as most religious people, would agree that molecules and genes exist. And also that plenty of other things exist, too. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that turn of phrase.

I personally think that you're being arrogant and assuming you're better than everyone on the basis of unfounded generalizations.

200th post

I personally think that you're being arrogant and assuming you're better than everyone on the basis of unfounded generalizations.

Took you a while to get to the conclusion I reached in the first sentence :)

*Sigh* I explained in the very post you quoted that science cannot yet explain everything and that I accept that, but science is a method for finding explanations, and it is the method I agree with.

However, I note your word choice, specifically the use of the word 'yet'. That in turn implies that science can explain everything, which it cannot.

I can hope very easily actually. I expect the field of psychology has made the most progress in this area. Your reverence of love does not put it beyond scientific analysis.

Perhaps, but I doubt that a satisfactory explanation will come from the scientific community, because love is not a quantity, and cannot be measured by any accepted empirical standard. In the end, only the experience of love can determine its truth, and we've already covered how the experience of God is not sufficient evidence that God exists, apparently.

Of course, there is more than just love that I might cite. Take the aforementioned concept of truth, another thing that is not quantifiable by science. Science can tell us things which are true, yes, but science cannot tell us what truth itself is, and there is a very real distinction that needs to be made. Truth exists outside of science, and scientific truth is but a subset of truth. There are many other truths that science cannot describe, not the least of which is the truth in my telling my girlfriend that I love her.

Unlike faith, we do not simply assume our observations to be true. We use the logic and science we already have to decide if they are. That is part of the scientific analysis that follows. Faith does not involve these processes; it decides the conclusion arbitrarily.

Sometimes, but not always, and certainly my own faith experience has been vastly different. Much of my faith practice has been the evaluation, examination, and (yes) questioning of my beliefs. And those beliefs have come away all the stronger for it.

I think you paint a very poor picture of faith, perhaps because of a lack of understanding of it. It really can be a fulfilling and beautiful thing, and is by no means an abdication of reason.

Incorrect, actually. The uncertainty principle is not ignored by using faith to decide on the uncertain values. Scientists accept that they can only analyse the probability distributions.

You misread me.

My contention was that the existence of uncertainty requires that science rely, at some point, on a judgement call. And yes, that can be based on probability distrubutions, but in the end a judgement call, a "leap of faith" has to be made before any concrete conclusion can be drawn. Because at the end of the day, any guess made on a probability distribution is still just a guess, and so to make assertions based on it requires a measure of trust in one's ability to guess.

That's what I mean by faith in this context - I am keeping the definition narrow so as to avoid conflating the issue.

We cannot use science to analyse whether the quality of love is apparent in someone because it is a fuzzy concept, with no clear defintion. That means that deciding if someone is in love is a matter of opinion. If someone bothered to make a clear definition, then they could say for certain whether someone was in love or not. However, this definition would only be their opinion, so would be a waste of time to construct.

And yet, if someone says they love us, do we not know in an instant if they are telling the truth, if they do in fact love us or are just saying it for their own selfish ends? Whether there is a consciously recognized definition of what love is doesn't matter as much as our ability to regognize it for what it is unconsciously.

As for truth, that is exactly what logic tries to ascertain! True and false are the basic values logic deals in. If we decided arbitrarily, rather than logically, what was true or not, we would have extreme difficulty in daily life.

Yes, logic is predicated on truth. That is because logical truth, as scientific truth, is a subset of truth in a more absolute and over-arching sense. Moreover, logic can be used to analyze the truth in part, although it has yet failed to (and will continue to fail to) fully describe it, much as any subset cannot fully describe the superset.

I understand that. But my senses are my only source of information, except for "information" that I make up (i.e. not really information, but just ideas formed in my head).

Love is not experienced in the senses, nor is truth. Are they "made up ideas" too?

Love's effects on your behaviour are observable, however.

As, I'm sure you would agree, are the effects of belief in God. Of course, I think we would disagree on what we mean by the term 'effects', because for myself the effects are a greater sense of peace and fulfillment.

Well, your "feelings in your heart", are, in my opinion, ideas formed in your head. My lack of belief in God is based on my observations of the world.

My academic field is scientific (engineering, just so it be said). That said, and looking back to your earlier statement that science cannot describe everything, there are things that I have experienced in this world that science would be woefully unable to fully explain...not the least of which is love. Truth also...because I find that all that I have learned through the five years I've spent on my degree thus far only describes snippets of the truth, small segments of it, giving only a fragmented view of a larger superset and leaving me very unfulfilled.

Well you are mis using science. Truth? As in what devine justice? The question of God?

Truth in an absolute sense, a superset for the subsets of truth that are science and logic.

Faith is bad science. We have the Dark Ages for the example when Religion ran everything.

Well, for one, faith and science are quite different areas of study.

For two, religion was as much the solution to the dark ages as the cause of it. Or do I need to point out that it was the Church in those days that ran the universities, that educated the people who later came to be the architects of society's escape from those dark days. Do I need to mention that it was the Catholic Church that preserved the accumulated knowledge and histories of that day and age, and it is only because of their dilligence that we can today know of the ancient civilizations that preceded our modern ones?

I hope not...I'd hope you already knew that.


Actually it can in the Biological sense. The chemical reactions that the human body.

Yes, chemical and hormonal reactions in response to a perception, an experience. See above.

There is the question of attraction in that people look for reatures they find attractive and would like their children to pocess.

That's not love, that's attraction. There's a profound difference.

Not a good choice to say science can't explain.

Science can only explain the effects, not the cause. So not a bad choice at all.

Faith is not part of the scientific method. In fact you don't use "trust" there is always mistrust. Why else are tests performed for the purpose of disprovening the hypothesis.

See above.

Furthermore, since science is a logical field of study, where there is mistrust there must also be trust. I realize that my explanation was not concise enough, but I use the term 'faith' in a somewhat more narrow sense. Again, see above.

No it does not. What you call faith is simply something that hasn't been fully proven or disproven. Theory of Evolution and Gravity for example.

We didn't see atoms and DNA but the theory suggested they were there. The men didn't take it on "faith" they were there. They hypothesised there were there but they could not disprove there were not.

And yet we largely accept them to be truth, at least enough so that we are willing to teach our children about it.

It seems so strange to me that you will accept a lack of evidence for a scientific principle but will not accept a lack of evidence for a religious one. What a strange contradiction that is.

Personally, I accept that both are likely true, both because I experience gravity and experience God.

Again the body has responses.

I'm not quite sure what you meant when you replied to my statement with this, although I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. This is one reason I hate my scientific education, because whenever I try to think about love as just a scientist I don't find much joy in it. Love seems to be a shallow farce, an illusion concocted by chemical reactions in the brain to further the cause of procreation.

The reason I don't take a lot of joy in that is because love is more than that to me, and in fact I could care less about procreation at this point. My 'love life' consists not of base sexual/procreative desire, but of a higher desire to understand and bring joy to the person I call my girlfriend. In a certain sense, I think my expression of love for her is anti-procreative, precisely because I think a sexual relationship at this point in time would not serve to further that higher appreciation of who she is.

Am I devoid of sexual feelings towards her? Certainly not. But out of love I'm not acting on them.

So I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think that the response of the body has even the least bit to do with it in many cases.

Well science especially evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God......

Very true. Very TRUE! What is more, I don't think science could ever prove/disprove the existence of God, and I think very highly of you for saying it.

Science can observe some of the effects of certain things, like love and religious experiences of a profound nature, but under no circumstances can science prove/disprove that such things actually exist.

To say otherwise is to conflate the argument.
:) Aiera

Trick is, the same story is in every religion.

And it's also something an atheist can reach through talking with friends and the like, or, hell, having a good cry.

There is, in fact, a psychological effect of various practices common to many religions, they've even found a part of the brain that reacts here.

Thing is, you don't need faith to utilize it.

True, very true. But in my experience, the secular world view does not fully allow for the understanding of the greater meaning and purpose behind such things.

Bertrand Russel, a noted atheist scholar, even went so far as to state that unless one assumes a God, discussions of purpose are a waste of time.

:) Aiera

You make me happy.

Glad to be of service! ;)

As for religion, I never had any use for it. Faith is faith. I have faith in the lack of a god, and in the wondrous miracle fo human life. I have faith in life, the universe and everything. I don't have faith in god. I can't explain why or why i don't believe these things.

That's admirable, although I have to admit I'm a little puzzled to hear both the admission of a disbelief in God and the admission of belief in the miraculous nature of human life in the same sentnce.

Still, very admirable, and I applaud your convictions. May you continue to seek an ever greater understanding of these things you hold to be true...you may be surprised at where it leads you to.

At the end of the day, it's about you.

This is the one thing you said that I disagree with. I don't really think it is all about number one. I think life's purpose is anything but self-centred. Each of us has been given gifts and talents for a reason, and that reason is not our own benefit, but the benefit of others.

It's not about the rationale you formed after coming to your decision, it's about what explanation for existence sits best with you. which one doesn't cause you to raise your eyebrows in general distaste and confusion.

Well said.

:) Aiera

I hate God.

For Americans:

1) Religious people vote.

2) Religious people reproduce a -lot-.

3) We live in a democratic system.

Figure it out.

I like statement #2 myself.

One of my favourite inconsistencies in criticisms of my Catholic faith is that:
1) Catholics supposedly have a dim view of sex and
2) Catholics reproduce like rabbits

Sex is great (and yes, I'm Catholic).
:) Aiera

Christ was not a pacifist he just never killed anyone...

Christ was very pacifistic and openly critical of the rebels.

Those who live by the sword shall die by it. Wonder who said that?
:) Aiera

I hate God.

That's nice. Did you have something more constructive to add?

:) Aiera

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.

Well, most of this is probably repetitive, but...here goes

1. Replace the words in the argument and it can be used against anyone

2. They have as much right to try to make you deviate from your religion, as you do to try to convert them, prefarably none, but that isn't the case. If you manage to stop attempted conversion, then maybe blasting will stop, or at least slow.

3. Not all religious people are Christian, or even monotheistic. I think your ways are wrong so I try to "save" you with mine, not a cool thing, from anybody.

4. True all people are entitled to their beliefs, and while this remains a font to express those ideals, people will. What those ideals are for will change, but you are not alone in wanting belief bashing OF ANY KIND to stop. It isn't going to happen.

5. No thank you does not work. If you say no thank you to the atheist conversion tactics, do they stop?

6. From what I have read of these forums, select group targeting isn't a strong point here.

7. Finally, yes this should stop, but so should all conversion. Bashing the beliefs of others (yes believing that there is no greater force is still a belief) is the primary conversion tactic. So my message to everyone out there who will hear it is, keep the conversion to those who seek to be found, not those who have found their own way.

If you really wanted an answer, all you had to do was read your post, I bolded it to make it easier for you.

But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof
How can we leave you alone when you won't get out of our face?

we don't bother you all that much.
Just like telemarketers who don't take no thanks for an answer. My last run in with some "polite" christians it took 5 minutes of "I'm not interested" before I finally gave up and asked them why they figured their upstart, unsupported, inconsistant new mythology was any more intelligent than any other currently or previously in existance.

For me it's just the crosses. Anyone carrying something that phallic around their neck can't be trusted.

True, very true. But in my experience, the secular world view does not fully allow for the understanding of the greater meaning and purpose behind such things.

Bertrand Russel, a noted atheist scholar, even went so far as to state that unless one assumes a God, discussions of purpose are a waste of time.

:) Aiera

Your understanding has no basis in evidence. There's no reason to believe that there is a meaning to having a part of the brain that reacts equally well to screaming in tongues, praying to Zeus, or meditating after a nice warm bath. You can do what makes you feel good, but its a groundless assumption.

And his point, I wager, is that there is no innate purpose. You feel you need a purpose, fine and dandy. Not everyone has that issue.

I like statement #2 myself.

One of my favourite inconsistencies in criticisms of my Catholic faith is that:
1) Catholics supposedly have a dim view of sex and
2) Catholics reproduce like rabbits

Sex is great (and yes, I'm Catholic).
:) Aiera

...Okay, lass, your statement is unrelated to mine. The horniest person I know in person is Catholic. She tries to get me to develop a "Catholic School Girl" fetish on occassion

And it's a comparison thing. Education and Religion tend to have opposite effects on reproduction, and education and religion tend to be opposed. Not saying it's an omni-present thing, or that it's even the majority, but the tendancy is strong enough to matter. Last I checked, there was no stereotype of athiests having double digits worth of offspring.

Of course, if you think that Catholics are the entire spread of -religious persons-... then you're already on a seriously different page.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?
I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?
If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.
If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.
No. Faith is not your own personal business. It affects whatever you do and how you behave towards others. And if Christians weren't trying to define moral and other values for societies, they could indeed be left alone. But Christians actually try to spread their braindead and unfounded message all over the globe. Christianity is dangerous and it keeps killing.

This reminds me of my brother. He is on me all the time, saying: "Comb your hair, get a new haircut, fix your clothes, be cooler, and so on." When I get really mad at him, he only says: "I'm only trying to help you!" That's the way some religous people work.

Thomas Aquinas is an interesting read, but his logic kind of falls apart at one point. He argues that all events must have causes, but also that God is the first cause. Well, you can't have it both ways. The question is, then, what caused God?

You are articulating your argument very well. I still don't know, I mean, how can you pinpoint the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a child? Down to the last second, there cannot be any room for error, because it's basically a line between what some people see as murder, and the harvesting of cells.

"What some people see as...." is subjective. In order to restrict people under law, you need an objective reason. That can be provided.

We didn't see atoms and DNA but the theory suggested they were there. The men didn't take it on "faith" they were there. They hypothesised there were there but they could not disprove there were not.

For many of us, we hypothesized that God is there, due to evidence that suggested God was there. We then could not disprove that God was there.

Okay, I know the thread has died a bit...but since when has that ever stopped me. Right, so first thing's first. I am neither athiest nor Christian. I'm not necessarily on either person's side. I am a pagan. An ecletic one at that. So here's my two cents. Since my conversion from Christianity to paganism, I have been approached repeatedly by my Christian friends, in hopes of getting me to come back to the flock. Some have been quite aggressive, others just starring at me sadly, others ceasing to be my friend. Since my conversion to paganism, not one atheist has walked up to me and pleaded with me for my foolishness. In my mind, Christians do tend to interfere more in the religious lives of others. And as my experiences prove, just saying "no thank you" doesn't always (or even often) work.

The problem is that religious maniacs pose a great threat to civilized society.

In the US, christians lead the fight against gay civil rights and female reproducive rights and vital medical research.

In other countries muslims oppress women as well, even jewish fundementalists are to an extent misogynist.

Christians bear the brunt of the criticism in the US because christians stand against much of what reasonable america stands for, and because they are noisy and increasingly powerful in the immoral government.
Either way --religious "maniac" or atheistic moralism --you still have people trying to fit everyone else into their idea of what everyone should be.

Intolerance of any kind is A Bad Thing. Unfortunately for tolerant people, they are going to tolerate it.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.


If saying "no thank you" worked I would do it. It usually doesn't.
I would be a lot more tolerant of Christians if they would stop trying to convert me. I personally follow a religious path that doesn't believe in hell, so a Christian preaching at me and saying they are doing me a favor by "Saving" me from it is, to my mind, like someone breaking into my house to "Save" me from Santa Clause.
I am a good little girl and I don't preach MY beliefs at people unless it is retaliatory preaching cause I am being buried under someone else's preaching. Freedom of Religion people, look it up.

Christ was very pacifistic and openly critical of the rebels.

Those who live by the sword shall die by it. Wonder who said that?
:) Aiera


I've always found that verse interesting because of this verse in Luke 22:36 (New International Version),

36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Thomas Aquinas is an interesting read, but his logic kind of falls apart at one point. He argues that all events must have causes, but also that God is the first cause. Well, you can't have it both ways. The question is, then, what caused God?

everything that comes to existance needs a cause. God didnt come to exist, he was, is and always will be. God didnt need a cause.

Agreed, the polite no-thank-you routine never works around here. If Evangelical Christians and others that insist on active conversion would leave us happy non-Christians alone, we'd get along better.

I understand that devout religious beliefs are hard to keep private, because they affect everything you do, but that doesn't have to mean preaching to everyone you meet. I nearly rented an apartment last year from a guy who answered his telephone "Praise the Lord!". I found that highly annoying. You don't see me answering my phone "Hail Eris", do you?

At least my close friends leave me alone about being Pagan, except for mutual razzing.

everything that comes to existance needs a cause. God didnt come to exist, he was, is and always will be. God didnt need a cause.
that's not the First Cause argument; if you argue that everything that is must have a cause, then if God is He must have been caused by something. alternatively, if not all things require causes, then there is no need for God as a First Cause...in other words, somebody could just as easily say that the material that formed the universe is, was, and always will be, so that (by your own statement) it did not need a cause, and therefore God is an unnecessary theory.

For many of us, we hypothesized that God is there, due to evidence that suggested God was there. We then could not disprove that God was there.
ahh, but is your God model a testable one? by and large, the God theories that are proposed cannot be disproved because they are simply untestable, and therefore the scientific method cannot act upon them at all.

ahh, but is your God model a testable one? by and large, the God theories that are proposed cannot be disproved because they are simply untestable, and therefore the scientific method cannot act upon them at all.

However, I test it all the time. It may not be a *scientific* test - it isn't something I could have printed up in a journal. However, I do test it. And when evidence comes along that seems in conflict with my idea of God, I reexamine said model.

However, I test it all the time. It may not be a *scientific* test - it isn't something I could have printed up in a journal. However, I do test it. And when evidence comes along that seems in conflict with my idea of God, I reexamine said model.
that's perfectly fair, i'm just saying that you can't use the scientific concept of a working theory if you aren't going to make it scientifically accessable. in other words, if your theory cannot make testable predictions that can be observed by beings other than yourself, or if those predictions can just as easily be explained by another phenomenon, then it's a waste of time to try to "test" your God theory the way you would test a scientific theory. if it's just for your own personal benefit that's totally chill, but it couldn't be fairly compared to scientific examination.

But you seem to be equating faith with religion. I am going down to a more fundamental level. Believing in anything without empirical evidence is, by definition, faith. Yet logic requires belief in only that which is observable. Therefore they are antipodal. I am not trying to say that anyone can every be utterly logical, or that this is a good thing. I am trying to establish the basis of an argument so that I can go forward with it. Can anyone deny that faith and trust are indeed the antitheses of logic and reason? Completely objectively, without any positive or negative connotations to either.
You are looking at faith and logic as methods. The thing is, a human mind can utilize two methods at the same time, multitasking. Both faith and logic being subjective concepts, it is possible for them to "exist together", to be utilized at the same time. They are as "antipodal" as love and hate, which can also exist together at the same time in one person.

Agreed, the polite no-thank-you routine never works around here. If Evangelical Christians and others that insist on active conversion would leave us happy non-Christians alone, we'd get along better.

I understand that devout religious beliefs are hard to keep private, because they affect everything you do, but that doesn't have to mean preaching to everyone you meet. I nearly rented an apartment last year from a guy who answered his telephone "Praise the Lord!". I found that highly annoying. You don't see me answering my phone "Hail Eris", do you?

At least my close friends leave me alone about being Pagan, except for mutual razzing.

I have a roommate who says "Praise God" if he gets around a computer error. But he got in to Christianity as a new addiction, so, eh.

And its actually fairly common, from what I've seen, for Pagans and atheists/agnostics to get along. My best friend is a Pagan herself, and, though I don't believe in the same things she does, we have absolutely zero conflict.

Of course, the crazy-ass Christian preacher who keeps showing up on campus thinks, honestly, that I am the devil. So one quickly learns which religion has sanity...

that's perfectly fair, i'm just saying that you can't use the scientific concept of a working theory if you aren't going to make it scientifically accessable. in other words, if your theory cannot make testable predictions that can be observed by beings other than yourself, or if those predictions can just as easily be explained by another phenomenon, then it's a waste of time to try to "test" your God theory the way you would test a scientific theory. if it's just for your own personal benefit that's totally chill, but it couldn't be fairly compared to scientific examination.

No, but it can be fairly compared to those who try and use it in the opposite direction, which is equally unprovable.

I don't claim to be able to claim "correctness" in my idea of God, nor do I attempt to force that idea upon others. As a general rule, I get the same respect from those who have come to a different conclusion - through equally subjective means. However, sometimes, militant atheism runs just as strongly as fundamentalist religion.

Well there are many Christians who misionise, and for example demand that people convert to christianity to recieve help, even in the tsunami-struck areas of south Asia. And I'd just like to point out to you that in all, Christians have killed more people than died in WWII, including the Jews killed by Hitler! That might be the reason why some people thing that Christians are the worst of the religious groups.

No, but it can be fairly compared to those who try and use it in the opposite direction, which is equally unprovable.

I don't claim to be able to claim "correctness" in my idea of God, nor do I attempt to force that idea upon others. As a general rule, I get the same respect from those who have come to a different conclusion - through equally subjective means. However, sometimes, militant atheism runs just as strongly as fundamentalist religion.
oh, no arguments here. i view any assertion about the existence of God as equally "irrational," since such claims cannot ever be proven or disproven, but i think there are some ways of holding God-belief or God-disbelief that are far more honest and rational than other ways.

irrational wasn't quite the word i wanted there, but i can't seem to come up with the one i wanted...

Oh, really? So the chemo-electric qualities of human thought are to just be disregarded? It is my belief, and this is faith right here, that, given enough time, anything can be proven. All of the uni- or multiverse.
But what sort of understanding of an idea is accomplished by a chemo-electrical analysis of the thought-process?

But what sort of understanding of an idea is accomplished by a chemo-electrical analysis of the thought-process?
well, for one thing, if you were able to analyze those processes in extreme detail then you could pinpoint their origin. that could give significant insight into what gave rise to the idea in the first place, and what factors in human consciousness mediate the development of that idea. for instance, if an idea "began" in the lymbic system then it could be significantly different than if the same idea "began" in the frontal cortex. if an idea is "modulated" by memory structures, or sensory systems, or emotion centers, all those things could give a lot of insight into what the idea really is and what it really means (both to the individual and to the empirical world outside the individual).

Well there are many Christians who misionise, and for example demand that people convert to christianity to recieve help, even in the tsunami-struck areas of south Asia. And I'd just like to point out to you that in all, Christians have killed more people than died in WWII, including the Jews killed by Hitler! That might be the reason why some people thing that Christians are the worst of the religious groups.
Lol if you count Hitler a Christian you got to count Stalin an atheist (a point I do not concede) if so atheism killed more in that “era” then Christianity

(personally I don’t find either even approaching what could be considered a belief in their respected philosophy’s)

ahh, but is your God model a testable one? by and large, the God theories that are proposed cannot be disproved because they are simply untestable, and therefore the scientific method cannot act upon them at all.

Thank you! ;)

eh, we attack religions simply 'cause most of you guys (religious types, usually fundamentalists) won't leave us (Atheists, agnostics) alone about our lack of religion.
Always handy when you find your opinion in the first response.

You make me happy.
As for religion, I never had any use for it. Faith is faith. I have faith in the lack of a god, and in the wondrous miracle fo human life. I have faith in life, the universe and everything. I don't have faith in god. I can't explain why or why i don't believe these things. At the end of the day, it's about you. It's not about the rationale you formed after coming to your decision, it's about what explanation for existence sits best with you. which one doesn't cause you to raise your eyebrows in general distaste and confusion.
And you make me happy. :)

So God should watch every decision you make and change to suit you?

Now where the heck did I say that?

Now where the heck did I say that?

You made a personal decision on how to interpret the data provided to you. You then stated that, since your decision precludes any evidence of God you may already have, God should know that and provide you with some other data that you might take.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.

This argument doesn't work for strong Humanists, like myself, who believe that religion is positively damaging to the human race. If Christians are allowed to attempt to convert atheists to Christianity on the grounds that they belive otherwise the atheists will go to hell, then atheists are allowed to attempt to 'deconvert' Christians (or any other religions) on the grounds that we believe that religion holds back humanity.
Despite this, I agree with you that people who simply attack religion with no justification or logical argument are not helping anyone. However, rational discussion will only be productive, whatever the outcome.

You made a personal decision on how to interpret the data provided to you. You then stated that, since your decision precludes any evidence of God you may already have, God should know that and provide you with some other data that you might take.

God wants me to choose right? Since according to you, appearing in front of me would take away my free will to believe in Him or not, so would not providing any clues to His excistence.
So He *has* to provide something, otherwise He breaks His own rule of free will.
He, being all-knowing, knows what I'd consider a clue and what not.
And I know damn well that I never looked at something and went "Yeah, that might be evidence of God, but I'll choose not to believe in Him anyway."

He, being all-knowing, knows what I'd consider a clue and what not.

In other words, God should suit you personally.

So, if you think religion is stupid and Christians are the stupidest and all that other stuff, why not just leave us all the hell alone and stop trying to "trap" us with supposed inconsistencies and make all these threads about how horrible Christianity is, and how much you hate them, and all that?

I'm tired of seeing all these blasted threads about much Christianity, and religion in general, sucks. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe it. But leave us alone. All we do is ask you to believe, we don't diss your religion or lack thereof, we don't bother you all that much. All we're doing is trying to help: since we think you're going to go to hell, don't you think it's more of a compliment that we're trying to get you to not go?

If you don't like Christianity, fine, all you have to do is kindly say "no thank you" and go about your business. Stop acting like you're the smartest thing ever and you're always right and we're so stupid.


If you aren't one of the people who does things like that, then this thread isn't aimed at you, and please don't take offense.

Fair enough. I understand how you would feel defensive in this forum which has more than a few anti-religious and anti-Christian people.

I'm sure different people have different reasons for their aversion to Christianity, but one of the sources of conflict is the proselytizing aspect of the religion. Because of the call for Christians to "share the good news" many people feel a degree of resentment that someone is telling them what to believe or even that their own religion is wrong. That is a sure fire way to get someone's hackles up. You may notice that there is less resentment toward non-proselytizing religions such as Judaism or Buddhism.

In other words, God should suit you personally.

God, being an all-knowing, all-powerfull and above all all-loving divine being who wants me to choose to believe in and love Him?
A God who knows perfectly well why I do not believe in Him, and how that lack of belief was not of my own choice?
A God who chooses not to appear in front of me, for fear of robbing me from my free will forever?

If you want to call that 'suiting you personally', be my guest.

God, being an all-knowing, all-powerfull and above all all-loving divine being who wants me to choose to believe in and love Him?
A God who knows perfectly well why I do not believe in Him, and how that lack of belief was not of my own choice?
A God who chooses not to appear in front of me, for fear of robbing me from my free will forever?

If you want to call that 'suiting you personally', be my guest.

All of those relate to your own free will. You have decided what will and will not constitute evidence. That was your decision, not mine, and not God's. It is your choice.

All of those relate to your own free will. You have decided what will and will not constitute evidence. That was your decision, not mine, and not God's. It is your choice.

So show me where I 'chose' to say "I will not accept this as proof of God.".

All of those relate to your own free will. You have decided what will and will not constitute evidence. That was your decision, not mine, and not God's. It is your choice.
But I come across the problem that if I lower my bar of “proof” so low as to accept the “evidence” presented supporting god I will have to believe in just about anything (not to mention the problem reconciling all the separate religions out there)

Got to draw the line somewhere to remain sane (I’m not arguing that it is free choice to set the “acceptable” bar rather it is necessary to do so and I personally see it as set higher then the level then proof in god ) personal choices I know but hard to wrap my mind around seeing some of the fluff that people present as proof as god as anything but a fairytale

So show me where I 'chose' to say "I will not accept this as proof of God.".
Do you accept the bible as proof of god?