NationStates Jolt Archive

Where did you get that from? You're right. God is not a physical presence. But that doesn't mean it isn't real. It's supernatural. It's metaphysical.

Its hokum

Originally posted by Relative Power.
People who believe in a single omnipotent god can believe anything they like about them.

The entire purpose of the god is to be the ultimate answer.

Don't try and figure out the laws of the universe because god made
them and can change them anytime he wants
The answer to any great question is because god did it

It's like some simpleton child whose only concept of numbers is 1
therefore the answer to any equation has to be 1
Other numbers are meaningless to them , there is little point in arguing with
them, as these people, at least the ones here, are not children and their
ignorance is wilful.

Why can't we know some of the nature of God? Maybe you should read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote.

Why can't we know some of the nature of God? Maybe you should read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote.


You can know everything about the nature of your god
he is your invention after all

Cool sight, UpwardThrust. Google is good.

The atheists have stopped talking about Fatima.


ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.


PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question]
(2) [Atheist answers question]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.

Originally posted by Feil.
ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.


PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question]
(2) [Atheist answers question]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.

If you looked, you would have seen that I was not continually asking the same question, but arguing with you about what you saw as flaws.

Hmm.... Have you ever Heard of Charlie Gordon? He was Happier stupid Than he Was A Genius... So I Some of my belifes may be stupid But I'm still Happy.
He almost commited suicide when he was smart.... He almost Killed his girlfriend.... And I live With my soul, Not my mind... My soul speeks to me In ways Yours cannot... You have Died spiritually And Your overanalysing Makes you lesser.. One last word Love conquers all.

Ok.. I Don't NEED Proof... That would spoil my eternal Happiness!! :) :)
And I'm sure there is proof But Even as I A Christian Belive Your wasting your time and effort I just SEE proof all around me... Athiest might have 120 years of happiness But I will have an eternity!! I Don't Care WTF you say!
And How God Created HImself? Well How did Nothingness Become everything according to the big Bang? There is a theory that There is one spot in the universe that fisics don't apply, Matter is created from nothing, And that my dear Watson Is the focal point of Where God came from.. Your scientists just Dumbly say "The Big Bang" but What Caused the big bang if there Where no Adams?? GOD!! God is a Force Like "The Force" But Waaaay cooler!!

Never, never, never proseletise while stoned.

Cool sight, UpwardThrust. Google is good.




ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.


PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question]
(2) [Atheist answers question]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.


Its a great site ... there is a christian knockoff of it somewhere out there ... but they were not really inventive they essentialy copied that one and just changed things around (where yes they put no and added atheist in there a couple of places)

Never, never, never proseletise while stoned.

Ignore this guy. He does not seem to want to apply any logic or reasoning to anything, at all.

But then again, some things are illogical. ;)

Originally posted by Ethitopia 20x6.
Hmm.... Have you ever Heard of Charlie Gordon? He was Happier stupid Than he Was A Genius... So I Some of my belifes may be stupid But I'm still Happy.
He almost commited suicide when he was smart.... He almost Killed his girlfriend.... And I live With my soul, Not my mind... My soul speeks to me In ways Yours cannot... You have Died spiritually And Your overanalysing Makes you lesser.. One last word Love conquers all.

I suppose you must be forgiven for that last post, as you appear to be a stupid monkey who doesn't know any better.

Ignore this guy. He does not seem to want to apply any logic or reasoning to anything, at all.
Was that directed at me, or the person I responded to..?


EDIT: To Kea (above post): At last we agree!

Ignore this guy. He does not seem to want to apply any logic or reasoning to anything, at all.
Ah thats fine we understand its probably a parody anyways

Hmm.... Have you ever Heard of Charlie Gordon? He was Happier stupid Than he Was A Genius... So I Some of my belifes may be stupid But I'm still Happy.
He almost commited suicide when he was smart.... He almost Killed his girlfriend.... And I live With my soul, Not my mind... My soul speeks to me In ways Yours cannot... You have Died spiritually And Your overanalysing Makes you lesser.. One last word Love conquers all.


Ignorance is bliss.

If it makes you happy may you live in ignorance to the end of your days,
may your days be long and your relatives slightly hard of hearing.

So now that you have started using strategic ignorage about Fatima, what about incorruptability?

Ok.. Have a nice life you haven't come up with one solution or answer for LIfe and lifes probloms You haven't Even attempted at defending Anything all you've done Is stupid hate.. You'll proboably still go on About How stupid this is and how you think I'm stonned And I belive you truly are a good person. And I simply wish the Best of Life for you. God Hath Giveth me an eternal High!!

Was that directed at me, or the person I responded to..?


EDIT: To Kea (above post): At last we agree!

Well, it was for you to ignore him, because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Ethitopia 20x6.
Ok.. Have a nice life you haven't come up with one solution or answer for LIfe and lifes probloms You haven't Even attempted at defending Anything all you've done Is stupid hate.. You'll proboably still go on About How stupid this is and how you think I'm stonned And I belive you truly are a good person. And I simply wish the Best of Life for you. God Hath Giveth me an eternal High!!

I am a religious person and I thing you're stonned.

If it is an illusion, then what is real? Something has to be.
you sound like Arjuna.

"Krishna: Thou canst not!—nor, with human eyes, Arjuna! ever mayest!
Therefore I give thee sense divine. Have other eyes, new light!

And, look! This is My glory, unveiled to mortal sight!


Sanjaya: Then, O King! the God, so saying,

Stood, to Pritha's Son displaying

All the splendour, wonder, dread

Of His vast Almighty-head.

Out of countless eyes beholding,

Out of countless mouths commanding,

Countless mystic forms enfolding

In one Form: supremely standing

Countless radiant glories wearing,

Countless heavenly weapons bearing,

Crowned with garlands of star-clusters,

Robed in garb of woven lustres,

Breathing from His perfect Presence

Breaths of every subtle essence

Of all heavenly odours; shedding

Blinding brilliance; overspreading—

Boundless, beautiful—all spaces

With His all-regarding faces;

So He showed! If there should rise

Suddenly within the skies

Sunburst of a thousand suns

Flooding earth with beams undeemed-of,

Then might be that Holy One's

Majesty and radiance dreamed of!


So did Pandu's Son behold

All this universe enfold

All its huge diversity

Into one vast shape, and be

Visible, and viewed, and blended

In one Body—subtle, splendid,

Nameless—th' All-comprehending

God of Gods, the Never-Ending

Deity!


But, sore amazed,

Thrilled, o'erfilled, dazzled, and dazed,

Arjuna knelt; and bowed his head,

And clasped his palms; and cried, and said:


Arjuna: Yea! I have seen! I see!

Lord! all is wrapped in Thee!

The gods are in Thy glorious frame! the creatures

Of earth, and heaven, and hell

In Thy Divine form dwell,

And in Thy countenance shine all the features


Of Brahma, sitting lone

Upon His lotus-throne;

Of saints and sages, and the serpent races

Ananta, Vasuki;

Yea! mightiest Lord! I see

Thy thousand thousand arms, and breasts, and faces,

And eyes,—on every side

Perfect, diversified;

And nowhere end of Thee, nowhere beginning,

Nowhere a centre! Shifts—

Wherever soul's gaze lifts—

Thy central Self, all-wielding, and all-winning!"

So now that you have started using strategic ignorage about Fatima, what about incorruptability?


Fatima was nonsense

would you care to expand upon what it is you are talking about now
with incorruptability.
---------------------------------------------------------


What now.... could this be about the untouchables
could be good

Originally posted by Relative Power.
Fatima was nonsense

would you care to expand upon what it is you are talking about now
with incorruptability.
---------------------------------------------------------


What now.... could this be about the untouchables
could be good

It is when someone doesn't rot. For hundreds of years.

hmm.... Even Religious people can and will be wrong! I still take no offence to any remarkes above or below And I still wish you the best of live DAMN THIS IS SOME GOOD WEED!!! LOL! anyone want some?

Where did you get that from? You're right. God is not a physical presence. But that doesn't mean it isn't real. It's supernatural. It's metaphysical.
met·a·phys·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fz-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to metaphysics.
2. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3. Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
So this "god" you keep banging on about seems to be more of an idea than an actual being.

You mean embalming..?

Ah, screw it. I'm going to sleep.

Just remember:

Every time Vin Diesel kills god, A kitten masturbates.

Have a very nice day.

It is when someone doesn't rot. For hundreds of years.


Which is meant to prove what?

That god exists because he causes that to happen on rare occasions?

or
that god doesn't exist because why would he tamper with the natural
laws he laid down?

or that sometimes you get particular conditions that delay or prevent the normal process of decay - proving absolutely nothing but that we still have a lot to learn?

YEP! sure am! :) :) :)

So this "god" you keep banging on about seems to be more of an idea than an actual being.

I think you have it backwards. WE are the idea, HE is the actual being. God is not of this world. He's infinite, self-existing, and always has been. HIS world is the real one, ours is only the beginning.

I think you have it backwards. WE are the idea, HE is the actual being. God is not of this world. He's infinite, self-existing, and always has been. HIS world is the real one, ours is only the beginning.


Are you the one smoking weed?


Or perhaps is he the one smoking and just imagining you are?

Originally posted by Feil.
You mean embalming..?

Ah, screw it. I'm going to sleep.

Just remember:

Every time Vin Diesel kills god, A kitten masturbates.

Have a very nice day.

Many of the people who are incorruptible look like they have not died.

Any way Weed is a gift from god But don't abuse it! Lsd is also! MMM gifts from god! LIKE BEER VODIKA WINE and my favorite WISKEY!!!!!!!
It's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
great to be a hippie!!!!!!!
Just don't Abuse these gifts PEACE OUT! :eek:

Are you the one smoking weed?

The bible says that death is just the beginning of life.

And I have been known to, on occasion (I know I probably shouldn't), but I am not right now.

I think you have it backwards. WE are the idea, HE is the actual being. God is not of this world. He's infinite, self-existing, and always has been. HIS world is the real one, ours is only the beginning.
what an answer. So since this world isn't real it doesn't matter whether people suffer or not becuase they don't really exist?

The bible says that death is just the beginning of life.

And I have been known to, on occasion (I know I probably shouldn't), but I am not right now.


The hobbit says that the road goes ever on and on

On the whole I feel the hobbit would be a better book to base your life and philosophy on.
At least it was originally written in english so you know it hasn't been mistranslated.

what an answer. So since this world isn't real it doesn't matter whether people suffer or not becuase they don't really exist?

Sigh.

That's not what I meant. I'm too damn tired right now. Basically, I mean that this world is nothing compared to the next.

the one with deamons and angels and all that?
how do you people know what the next world is like anyway? Is there some sort of ancient "new age" stuff like astral projection or something?

Originally posted by Relative Power.
Which is meant to prove what?

That god exists because he causes that to happen on rare occasions?

or
that god doesn't exist because why would he tamper with the natural
laws he laid down?

or that sometimes you get particular conditions that delay or prevent the normal process of decay - proving absolutely nothing but that we still have a lot to learn?

You mean someone can be perfectly preserved for hundreds of years? And all of these people just happen to be extremely holy?

the one with deamons and angels and all that?
how do you people know what the next world is like anyway? Is there some sort of ancient "new age" stuff like astral projection or something?

I don't know exactly what it's like. No one does. I simply know that it's spending an eternity with our Creator who loves us. That alone, to me, is worth all the pain and suffering in my life.

Woah Weed is acutually not for me.. Lsd=yes Weed=NO Heroine=NO Diet pills=NO Infact the only Drug thats right for me just happens to be LSD! It rymes! I only Take Lsd on Special occasians.. this ones from my hippie Girlfriend Who actually Shaves!! horay!!! Woah! Crap! Ive got to go back to my Dorm PEACE OUT! :p :) :p :)

I'm going to bed, unlike Feil, who keeps saying he's going to. Maybe we're just imagining what he says, and it isn't real. Anyway, if you want to know more about incorruptibility, look it up in Google, and be sure not to look at just the atheist doubt sites.

You mean someone can be perfectly preserved for hundreds of years? And all of these people just happen to be extremely holy?


OK here goes

name the people and tell us where we can view them
sorry but it should be obvious by now that I don't take things on faith

then
tell us why you say they were particularly holy

then demonstrate that nobody ever who didn't fit the criteria of holy
was preserved in like manner


and then
you will still have proved absolutely nothing.

But you will at least have created the starting point for an interesting discussion.

I don't know exactly what it's like. No one does. I simply know that it's spending an eternity with our Creator who loves us. That alone, to me, is worth all the pain and suffering in my life.


I hope your creator doesn't have a BO problem

5 minutes could seem an eternity so nonexistent being knows how long eternity could feel like

ok, how about this:
why did god create all those native americans and deprive them of the bible? do you still go to hell if you have never heard of jesus christ?

I'll put in a good word for you with God, I'm sure he'll understand....sorta, kinda, not really. Have fun with your chosen religion, cause that's all that atheism is, another religion.

Sorry, I just always wanted to use this quote.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

Sorry, I just always wanted to use this quote.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.


bald is the new black

ok, how about this:
why did god create all those native americans and deprive them of the bible? do you still go to hell if you have never heard of jesus christ?

I don't think so. If you've led a good life, and never had the oppurtunity to accept Jesus as your saviour, God won't let you suffer in the afterlife.

Jews don't belive in Jesus They go to Heaven So do Muslims and Islams They all go to Heaven! And belive in God! If your Still looking for answers but are too lazy to read the bible Consolidate A Church, Mouslim, Synagoge or... Whatever that is! or make a forum like this!! Anyway Mabey I should be Amish....

I don't think so. If you've led a good life, and never had the oppurtunity to accept Jesus as your saviour, God won't let you suffer in the afterlife.

Did your god tell you that or did you create him to be that way.

If he told you that, was it in person or by letter, email or some form of
broadcast media?
If he did not tell you it why do you feel the need to decide well
he probably would think this way?

Plus if all your invisible friend wants is to reward people who behave well
why would he care if they believe in him or not?

Would it not be egotisitical of him to expect anyone who has ever heard of him to think he is just the greatest thing since before the wheel?

What lack does he have that needs to be filled by the belief in him of mortals?

Eternity is quite a long time really, could anyone in all honesty want to exist
throughout eternity.

I don't think so. If you've led a good life, and never had the oppurtunity to accept Jesus as your saviour, God won't let you suffer in the afterlife.
That's nice of him. But alot of people cling to "false religions" because they were allowed cultivate them through the centuries and resist jesus christ as a "foreighn influence", or as a "tool of the powerful" which you can not doubt it is.

Sure, Jesus probably didn't support all those theocracies but he didn't shower the world with heavanly pamphlets to warn us. Now it becomes hard to distinguish between those that use religion as a tool and those that believe them and then think they are trying to save you while they are really leading you down the path of dambnation and those that love all.

I'm Inspired by "wierd" Al's Amish Paradice! Then I won't have to be in stupid forums like this.. I won't be tempted.. And.. I'll have to dump my Girlfriend... But still! I look good in Black!!! I'll Live in a loving community AND I'll GET to work. That's Right!! I WANT to work for no pay but my Family Religion And NEighbors!!
Then I'll Know "I'm A Million Times as humble as thou art!" " A local boy kicked me in the Butt last week, I just smiled at him and I turned the other cheek, I really don't Care in Fact I wish'em Well, Cause I'll be Laughing my Head off when he's burning IN HELL.

I like the tohught of us all just as figmants of a divine imagination. :D

I like the tohught of us all just as figmants of a divine imagination. :D

If true it would have to be at the very least
a slightly deranged imagination.

To be honest

on the question of any god and heaven
I'd have to misquote groucho marx and state
that I wouldn't want to be in any heaven that would have anything remotely
like the imaginary friend in it

As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain
I take a look at my wife and realize she's very plain
But that's just perfect for an Amish like me
You know, I shun fancy things like electricity
At 4:30 in the morning I'm milkin' cows
Jebediah feeds the chickens and Jacob plows... fool
And I've been milkin' and plowin' so long that
Even Ezekiel thinks that my mind is gone
I'm a man of the land, I'm into discipline
Got a Bible in my hand and a beard on my chin
But if I finish all of my chores and you finish thine
Then tonight we're gonna party like it's 1699

We been spending most our lives
Living in an Amish paradise
I've churned butter once or twice
Living in an Amish paradise
It's hard work and sacrifice
Living in an Amish paradise
We sell quilts at discount price
Living in an Amish paradise

A local boy kicked me in the butt last week
I just smiled at him and turned the other cheek
I really don't care, in fact I wish him well
'Cause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell
But I ain't never punched a tourist even if he deserved
An Amish with a 'tude? You know that's unheard of
I never wear buttons but I got a cool hat
And my homies agree, I really look good in black...fool
If you come to visit, you'll be bored to tears
We haven't even paid the phone bill in 300 years
But we ain't really quaint, so please don't point and stare
We're just technologically impaired

There's no phone, no lights, no motorcar
Not a single luxury
Like Robinson Caruso
It's as primitave as can be

We been spending most our lives
Living in an Amish paradise
We're just plain and simple guys
Living in an Amish paradise
There's no time for sin and vice
Living in an Amish paradise
We don't fight, we all play nice
Living in an Amish paradise

Hitchin' up the buggy, churnin' lots of butter
Raised a barn on Monday, soon I'll raise anoder
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like
On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife
So don't be vain and don't be whiny
Or else, my brother, I might just have to get medieval on your heinie

We been spending most our lives
Living in an Amish paradise
We're all crazy Mennonites
Living in an Amish paradise
There's no cops or traffic lights
Living in an Amish paradise
But you'd probably think it bites
Living in an Amish paradise

I don't think so. If you've led a good life, and never had the oppurtunity to accept Jesus as your saviour, God won't let you suffer in the afterlife.


yep same with lil kids who arent old enough to understand the concept of God


somewhere someone said science would keep answering things and there would be less room for religion....i dun think so

with everything science comes up with an answer for it brings up more questions


btw im tired n a lil busy so this is prolly outdated...*sigh* anyway....im gone

yep same with lil kids who arent old enough to understand the concept of God


somewhere someone said science would keep answering things and there would be less room for religion....i dun think so

with everything science comes up with an answer for it brings up more questions


btw im tired n a lil busy so this is prolly outdated...*sigh* anyway....im gone

Yes there are always more questions and they are quite big questions
but in a way in smaller and smaller areas

The first concepts of gods were the earth , the trees , rivers and springs
why corn grew , what the sun was.
Everytime science answers the questions the people who simply must believe
in their invisible friend move him further and further out, so now we are at the rather ridiculous stage of
well science may know much about the universe after the first 3 seconds
it doesnt have an answer for before then
so god must be what came before

and when theres an answer for that god will move again.

god , ghosts, ufos, fairies
they belong to the insane, the ignorant, the emotionally challenged and the retarded

which is all well and good
and doesn't bother me one bit

unfortunately gods etc
get used by the malicious, vindictive , violent and dangerous
and people suffer and die because of the great invisible friend

and that bothers me a lot

HA! I have the last Laugh!!! LOL HAHAHAHALHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHA HA!













Ha!

Why weren't there any Buhdists in this discussion? Or Pegans? Thats Wack!










-ps HA!

Haven't you kept up with recent experiments which support the existence of a conscience?


Really, all a conscience is is what you were raised to believe.

If you were raised to believe that hurting others to get what you want is ok, then you will have no problems with doing just that(that is, unless at some point in your life you change this belief).

Its more or less what you think is right and wrong. If I believed that it was wrong to eat a cheeseburger on a Wednesday afternoon, then my conscience would tell me that I shouldn't do it when someone puts a cheeseburger in front of me on Wednesday afternoon.

science may know much about the universe after the first 3 seconds
it doesnt have an answer for before then
so god must be what came before
and when theres an answer for that god will move again.

god , ghosts, ufos, fairies
they belong to the insane, the ignorant, the emotionally challenged and the retarded


Hey, I'm insane and I don't believe in any of that shit. that is so offensive to me, you should apologise to all the insane people here.

Actually I mentioned budhists, and it's not nice to pick on people when they aren't there. One of those guys was really very polite.

god , ghosts, ufos, fairies
they belong to the insane, the ignorant, the emotionally challenged and the retarded




err...i beleive in God, ghosts, and ufos

ufo=unidentified flying object

if you see something flying, n u dunno what it is...then its a ufo

cant prove anything, really...how is it that we know this isnt someones long dream, complex (maybe just a normal dream in wherever ...whoever is having it...is from)

ya, when i said i was gone i was incorrect :p

oh ya and for the retarded?
not quite sure the most mentally challenged can grasp the concept of God...so much better off they are

AND i never specified what i believe was God's responsibility...i cant say...i dont know....all i BELEIVE is that he had the largest part in creating the Earth....just some things (things science explain) change it in relatively (relative to how much God did) small ways

Atheism does not deny common sense, it only goes against your own personal interpretation of what constitutes "common sense".
(forgive my exaggerations-Not meant as personal attacks of any sort)
Everything's "your own personal interpretation" nowadays. The Law of the Excluded Middle states that something either is or isn't. A chair either is or isn't a chair. It's a chair, so it isn't a cat. Common sense either is or isn't. I can "interpret" that it's common sense to take a whole potato and shove it in my mouth and then try and eat it, but it's not. You cut the thing into pieces or mash it, or do any manner of things with it. Common sense is common sense-It's not open to interpretation, because then it wouldn't be something we have in common-It'd be unique sense.
"He has a unique sense of the idea that eating potatoes whole is a good idea."

What is, is.

Those cities were very deserving of the judgement passed onto them. If you research it, you will find that the cities God nuked or had Israel conquer were actually some of the worst places of their time.

Only according to the Hebrews.
Most of them were wiped out because they believed differently or because the Hebrews wanted their land.
The Hebrews behaved no better and sometimes worse than the Babylonians, Canaanites, Hittites or Assyrians.
If the Hebrew god really existed perhaps he died, because he has failed to wipe out America for believing differently than the ancient Hebrews.

I'd like to paraphrase Robert Ingersoll, one of my favorite writers.
God told the jews to kill anyone who belived differently or broke religious law. Then god made himself flesh, came down and preached against the jewish customs and laws. For this Jesus was killed. Does it not occur to you that god reaped what he had sown?

unfortunately gods etc
get used by the malicious, vindictive , violent and dangerous
and people suffer and die because of the great invisible friend

and that bothers me a lot


right, but also "gods etc" stop "malicious, vindictive, violent, and dangerous" behaivior...so it balances out...this is Earth...its (according to the Bible) in the middle of Heaven and Hell...thats what happens...if everything here was perfect then it would be Heaven and everyone would be able to get to it...so it wouldnt be a reward for having faith... just something else for man to take for granted

again..took me a while to post that

Then there is also a good argument that religion is merely mass insanity.
Whatever your opionion, you have to be crazy to believe in an invisible man in the sky.

No sign-up required. Reject spirituality, and Live!


But what happens after you die? Your poor soul. I shall pray for you ( ;) )
when you are cast into the fires of hell......save me a seat will you!

But what happens after you die? Your poor soul. I shall pray for you ( ;) )
when you are cast into the fires of hell......save me a seat will you!

Nothing happens after you die. You're just dead, that's it. You cease to exist. No heaven, no hell, no nothing.

2 things i notice about this thread that amuse me.

1. This thread was clearly made as a joke, and yet people are still arguing with one another... do any of you ever read carefully? :D

2. This is technically a duplicate thread, which I understand from NS Law is illegal. How come it is permitted to exist?

2 things i notice about this thread that amuse me.

1. This thread was clearly made as a joke, and yet people are still arguing with one another... do any of you ever read carefully? :D

2. This is technically a duplicate thread, which I understand from NS Law is illegal. How come it is permitted to exist?

1. What's wrong with debatting a joke if you feel like it? :D

2. How is this a duplicate? To what?

1. What's wrong with debatting a joke if you feel like it? :D

I guess you're right there. Theres no harm in debating a joke.

2. How is this a duplicate? To what?

A thread was made called "Wanna become a christian?" (Link is on 1st page).

This was made to humor it. Then loads of other duplicates sprung up and the mods started DEATing. But in my opinion, this thread still violates those rules.

A thread was made called "Wanna become a christian?" (Link is on 1st page).

This was made to humor it. Then loads of other duplicates sprung up and the mods started DEATing. But in my opinion, this thread still violates those rules.

But it's not a duplicate of that, it's a parody...

*sigh* After reading the verious opinions of this topic I am nothing other than appaled at the majorities narrowmind set.

Your all entitled to your religious beliefs and by all means continue to do so but when you call another religion ignorent your no better than the evangelists so common on day-time television. Claiming your religion is superior VS say atheism is extremely narrow minded I feel nothing short of disgust towards you people.

It's all quite possible that the world was created by some great aura, some almighty substance, but it's also entirely possible that the world was indeed created by scientific events transpiring outside the relm of spirituality.

I am neither condemning or endorsing a religion or lack of but denouncing another is the very reason I remain adamant that religion is a big waste of my precious time.

If we are all solopsistic humans (And anyone having a serious interest in the nature of religion should definitely know the word solipsism to help them understand the nature of belief) then it is impossible for anyone to truly *know* that God or Gods exist, as even the Almighty appearing incarnate before you could be explained as simply an hallucination (in fact there are many people in psychiatric wards who are told just that every day by incredulous, solopsistic doctors).

Anyone denouncing another's belief system is an exercise in irrationality...

Discuss.

I'd rather slash my own wrists than debate religious moralities or religion in general, I will however defend when defence is needed.

Roll all the worlds injustices into one little ball and you've got a powder keg of atomic destruction, and one hell of a conversation peice.

Jeez, you go to bed, and all this happens. This is my longest thread ever, and after only a few hours. :eek:

Regarding the existence of god - it is what is termed an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You see, for something to have any implications for observable reality, there must be some conceivable method of verification. It must be open to scientific inquiry. But this is not the case here. The existence of a god or many gods, can neither be proved, nor disproved. And no mechanism can exist which will achieve this. To the scientific mind, this does not say that there might be a god, it says that the question of whether there is one or not, is irrelevant.

Atheism is the rejection of spirituality on these grounds.

A religious individual also accepts that the existence or otherwise of god is not open to inquiry, but believes that not only there is one, but that the god has specific properties described by the teachings of his/her religion. Every religion's god comes with its own story, even though it is as likely that there are numerous gods, as there is one, or none at all, never mind the infinite range of possibilities when it comes to the details.

An atheist looks at these possibilities, and the fact that there are no implications for observable reality, and dismisses the notion as a waste of time. No amount of inquiry will ever bring anyone closer to the truth, so the whole question becomes meaningless.

Regarding the creation of the universe...what was before the Big Bang? Cosmology shows that time itself was created with the Big Bang. Therefore to ask what came before is meaningless, because there was no Before. One can speculate what might have existed before, had there been time, but that's all it can be, speculation. No amount of inquiry will ever reveal anything new. Similarly, what came before god(s)? An equally meaningless question.

Regarding morality...religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Morality is humanistic, a universal feature of humanity, as long as there have been communities. Sure, everyone could engage in a violent free-for-all, but as soon as a group of humans forms a society, or just forms a temporary group with a view to solve a problem, some kind of code is required to ensure the success of that group/society. Morality improves efficiency.

Could morality exist independently of religion? Of course. When a group of men join forces to ensure their survival in the struggle against their environment, it is good sense to avoid killing one of your associates, deception and stealing may have short-term uses but may quickly become counter-productive. No-one need stand on a mountain with stone tablets to give rise to some basic morals.

And indeed only a basic morality is required. A lot of what is called morality today, is political in nature, things which are not required to smooth the function of a society, but things which are desirable for some, and intolerable for others. Not killing is a humanistic moral, not having sex before marriage is not. That is a more political morality, man-made, not universal.

And now I must depart. Have fun debating, and remember, calling atheists stupid makes Baby Jesus cry. Because we are all God's Children or something. ;)

I already am an atheist, but not for the reasons posted (in the first post):

I'm an atheist because:

- Improves self-reliance, which is good for psychological health
- Logical, rather than wishful thinking appeals to me.
- Religions, like government and corporations are impersonal collectives, which I am against.

mmmmmm...marmite toast :D

er...where was i? oh yes...i'm an aetheist through and through

something to do with working in science for years although i know many scientists who are believers in some faith or other

Having doubts about some element of your faith? Not sharing your family's enthusiasm for church, or perhaps disillusioned with the idea of religion itself?

Give in today! :)

Become an atheist like me, or at least an agnostic.

Don't worry, you can keep your morals just the way they are now!

Benefits include:
- Priceless time freed by not attending religious services
- Fewer feelings of non-specific guilt
- Being taken seriously by more people
- Fewer restrictions on hedonistic behaviour :fluffle:
- And best of all, the secure knowledge that your errors will be consigned to oblivion!

No sign-up required. Reject spirituality, and Live!
Haha...

- Priceless time freed by not attending religious services
Except, of course, for those little rites and rituals that get practiced everyday, like shaving, dining and feeding the cat. (Everything a religious person does is religious, i.e. informed by their beliefs.)

- Fewer feelings of non-specific guilt
Replaced by feelings of specific guilt? :)

- Being taken seriously by more people
And for a fool by as many more, who wonder why you "fell".

- Fewer restrictions on hedonistic behaviour
Except, of course, for respecting your partner's beliefs.

- And best of all, the secure knowledge that your errors will be consigned to oblivion!
How does that work? Can you let my boss at work know?

No, it's a religion that doesn't worship anything. It's just a roundabout way of saying it's a lack of religion.

WHAT???? What kind of utterly, nonsensical remark is that?? :headbang:

Hell, while were at it, why do we even have morals? What are morals? Since there IS no God, no governing force of these morals, what purpouse do they serve? Aren't they purely subjective, then, if there is no force governing morals? Wouldn't they be a pile of bullshit invented by society? Why don't we just start running around, raping the women, murdering the innocent, and taking candy from babies?

Edit: I'm not trying to flame here, I'm just stating a point in a rather intrusive way. ;) IMO, Because we do have an innate sense of morality given by God, which is one of the things that separates us from animals, and which we cannot explain except in a divine sense - which we have even if we do not realise its source.

Well, that's my answer, which is not exactly ecumenical in its nature…

Having doubts about some element of your faith? Not sharing your family's enthusiasm for church, or perhaps disillusioned with the idea of religion itself?

Give in today! :)

Become an atheist like me, or at least an agnostic.

Don't worry, you can keep your morals just the way they are now!

Benefits include:
- Priceless time freed by not attending religious services
- Fewer feelings of non-specific guilt
- Being taken seriously by more people
- Fewer restrictions on hedonistic behaviour :fluffle:
- And best of all, the secure knowledge that your errors will be consigned to oblivion!

No sign-up required. Reject spirituality, and Live!

:D I'm not ready to do that, yet. I'm a born again (over and over) agnostic --- 'the just in case' religion. :p

No thank you, I've got better things to do than paying so much attention to something one doesn't believe to exist.

Because that is what you are doing as an a-theist. You are desperately trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

I've been an atheist for neary twenty years, until I realised what a waste of time it is, fighting Christians who themselves aren't impressed by your reasoning.

So, get al life :p

No thank you, I've got better things to do than paying so much attention to something one doesn't believe to exist.

Because that is what you are doing as an a-theist. You are desperately trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

I've been an atheist for neary twenty years, until I realised what a waste of time it is, fighting Christians who themselves aren't impressed by your reasoning.

So, get al life :p

Amazing you must have been doing it wrong or something

(your
ARGUMENT FROM STAR TREK
(1) You will be assimilated.
(2) All your salvations belong to us.
(3) Resistance is futile.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Arguement is still not all that impressive)

:D I'm not ready to do that, yet. I'm a born again (over and over) agnostic --- 'the just in case' religion. :p
Being agnostic has nothing to do with 'just in case'
It is the belief that god is an untestable quantity in this universe so can never be proven ... you could be everything from an atheist agnostic to a christian agnostic

(belief there is the christian god but he is unproveable)

IMO, Because we do have an innate sense of morality given by God, which is one of the things that separates us from animals, and which we cannot explain except in a divine sense - which we have even if we do not realise its source.

Well, that's my answer, which is not exactly ecumenical in its nature…

That "sense of moraltity" has evolved along with mankind. Apes have it, too, in a simpler form.
You can observe guilt in apes, as well as a feeling of fairness and a rejection of unfair behaviour.
Knowing "right" behaviour from "wrong" behaviour is paramount when living in a close social group, it's not essentially and exclusively human.

Jeez, you go to bed, and all this happens. This is my longest thread ever, and after only a few hours. :eek:

Regarding the existence of god - it is what is termed an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You see, for something to have any implications for observable reality, there must be some conceivable method of verification. It must be open to scientific inquiry. But this is not the case here. The existence of a god or many gods, can neither be proved, nor disproved. And no mechanism can exist which will achieve this. To the scientific mind, this does not say that there might be a god, it says that the question of whether there is one or not, is irrelevant.

Atheism is the rejection of spirituality on these grounds.

A religious individual also accepts that the existence or otherwise of god is not open to inquiry, but believes that not only there is one, but that the god has specific properties described by the teachings of his/her religion. Every religion's god comes with its own story, even though it is as likely that there are numerous gods, as there is one, or none at all, never mind the infinite range of possibilities when it comes to the details.

An atheist looks at these possibilities, and the fact that there are no implications for observable reality, and dismisses the notion as a waste of time. No amount of inquiry will ever bring anyone closer to the truth, so the whole question becomes meaningless.

Regarding the creation of the universe...what was before the Big Bang? Cosmology shows that time itself was created with the Big Bang. Therefore to ask what came before is meaningless, because there was no Before. One can speculate what might have existed before, had there been time, but that's all it can be, speculation. No amount of inquiry will ever reveal anything new. Similarly, what came before god(s)? An equally meaningless question.

Regarding morality...religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Morality is humanistic, a universal feature of humanity, as long as there have been communities. Sure, everyone could engage in a violent free-for-all, but as soon as a group of humans forms a society, or just forms a temporary group with a view to solve a problem, some kind of code is required to ensure the success of that group/society. Morality improves efficiency.

Could morality exist independently of religion? Of course. When a group of men join forces to ensure their survival in the struggle against their environment, it is good sense to avoid killing one of your associates, deception and stealing may have short-term uses but may quickly become counter-productive. No-one need stand on a mountain with stone tablets to give rise to some basic morals.

And indeed only a basic morality is required. A lot of what is called morality today, is political in nature, things which are not required to smooth the function of a society, but things which are desirable for some, and intolerable for others. Not killing is a humanistic moral, not having sex before marriage is not. That is a more political morality, man-made, not universal.

And now I must depart. Have fun debating, and remember, calling atheists stupid makes Baby Jesus cry. Because we are all God's Children or something. ;)
Exelent post :fluffle:

That "sense of moraltity" has evolved along with mankind. Apes have it, too, in a simpler form.
You can observe guilt in apes, as well as a feeling of fairness and a rejection of unfair behaviour.
Knowing "right" behaviour from "wrong" behaviour is paramount when living in a close social group, it's not essentially and exclusively human.

The extent of our morality is essentially and exclusively human. No animal has even close to as high a moral standard as we do. We know that it's wrong to harm people. Not just because we are told it is, because we know, naturally that it is wrong.

Now that we talk once again about morality I must say that once again our morality sometimes can include altruism which really does not help the individual survive. Scientists actually even wonder how altruism came about because it is detrimental. But the simple fact is that many people will do good things and not expect any reward in the future.

Now that we talk once again about morality I must say that once again our morality sometimes can include altruism which really does not help the individual survive. Scientists actually even wonder how altruism came about because it is detrimental. But the simple fact is that many people will do good things and not expect any reward in the future.

Doesnt seem that strange to me. Way back when, altruism would benefit people in your tribe, giving it an advantage over other tribes and therefore benefiting you.

Amazing you must have been doing it wrong or something

(your
ARGUMENT FROM STAR TREK
(1) You will be assimilated.
(2) All your salvations belong to us.
(3) Resistance is futile.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Arguement is still not all that impressive)

Are you sure you understand the nature of belief?

Rule numer one: it is voluntary.

So your 'star trek argument' makes no sense whatsoever. People who genuine believe, do so, because they choose for it. God has given us a free will: we have the freedom to choose against him, to live without him.

Sounds fair enough to me: heaven = the place were God is, hell = the place were God is absent. So if you don't want to be were God is, you can choose to be elsewhere. I don't really see a problem there.

So, it is a waste of time, opposing Christians. They go were they want to go, all the other people go were they want to go, too. Brilliant, isn't it? :)

The extent of our morality is essentially and exclusively human. No animal has even close to as high a moral standard as we do. We know that it's wrong to harm people. Not just because we are told it is, because we know, naturally that it is wrong.
we are uniquly able creatures ... I would assume our sence of right and wrong would be greatly extended by our abilitiy to reason

The extent of our morality is essentially and exclusively human. No animal has even close to as high a moral standard as we do. We know that it's wrong to harm people. Not just because we are told it is, because we know, naturally that it is wrong.

Wrong, we know it because we are told. When you observe toddlers' behaviour with each other or with smaller ones, you will find that they have no concept of "hurting the other one is bad", they simply fail to understand that the other one has feelings as well. But they are being told about it and imitate the behaviour of their parents/other guiding figures and in a normally developed child, you should find some sense of moral and compassion by the age of 3-4. It will develop further as the child grows up and comes to understand its environment and the predominant culture.

The fact that humans have a system of moral that is more complex than that of any other animal doesn't make it unique. After all, our system of communication is equally unique and it, too, developed over centuries from the same need to function as a group.
Our sense of morality is an evolutionary necessity, not god-given.

Umm.. not exactly the entire message. Altruism helps everyone except for maybe you. It is about helping people without possible reward. Only helping tribesman who will help you out later does not have to be altruism. However helping out strangers can often be altruism because most strangers that need help will not be able to reward you with future services or anything.

Are you sure you understand the nature of belief?

Rule numer one: it is voluntary.

So your 'star trek argument' makes no sense whatsoever. People who genuine believe, do so, because they choose for it. God has given us a free will: we have the freedom to choose against him, to live without him.

Sounds fair enough to me: heaven = the place were God is, hell = the place were God is absent. So if you don't want to be were God is, you can choose to be elsewhere. I don't really see a problem there.

So, it is a waste of time, opposing Christians. They go were they want to go, all the other people go were they want to go, too. Brilliant, isn't it? :)
I think an all loving god would understand why we would have problems buying into a lot of what is said on this earth.

And they THINK the will go where they want to and us elsewhere ... I am not convinced of that at all

Umm.. not exactly the entire message. Altruism helps everyone except for maybe you. It is about helping people without possible reward. Only helping tribesman who will help you out later does not have to be altruism. However helping out strangers can often be altruism because most strangers that need help will not be able to reward you with future services or anything.
Not nessisarily true ... we may get no direct reward but the species as a whole benifits from your actions. Not always but it deffinatly has the chance of coming back to greatly help the species (I.E saving someone important that makes changes later)

Or just the fact that you are saving another human who will live on to spread his genes

Now that we talk once again about morality I must say that once again our morality sometimes can include altruism which really does not help the individual survive. Scientists actually even wonder how altruism came about because it is detrimental. But the simple fact is that many people will do good things and not expect any reward in the future.

Whatever helps the group, is beneficial for the individual. The fact that you don't expect anything in return doesn't mean you don't expect things to get better for everybody because of your actions.
Helping others makes oneself feel good, that's natures incentive for the individual to work for the group rather than for himself, so that the group can survive. It's the same reward mechanism that makes you feel satisfied after you have eaten, that will let you have an orgasm when reproducing, that will make you happy when you eat sugar.

Umm.. not exactly the entire message. Altruism helps everyone except for maybe you. It is about helping people without possible reward. Only helping tribesman who will help you out later does not have to be altruism. However helping out strangers can often be altruism because most strangers that need help will not be able to reward you with future services or anything.

As I pointed out, feeling good about helping others is nature incentive to make you help others.
That reward mechanism can be exaggerated in some people, it originally served the purpose of helping your group/species, but some individuals have extended it to help strangers, even other species.
Still, if it didn't feel good to temselves, they wouldn't do it...

IMO, Altruism is psychologically beneficial (as long as it is not done out of a feeling of guilt or inferiority, but a genuine desire to be nice).

Well I mean Altruism as helping others that will never come to your benefit. Such as the good samaritan in my bible for children with all of the cartoon like pictures. The story was about someone helping out another person from a different tribe. Helping out people from different tribes may actually hurt your chances of survival because one the aid given comes with a cost as well other tribes can sometimes be enemies so that helping out a person from another tribe could be helping your enemies. I can also see the point about the overall survival of the human species but how would that evolve because altruism is harmful to the individual, creature are mostly concerned about the genes of their family group not the genes of their species because of the need to breed.

But altruism is contrary to the instinctive desire for self-preservation, as the animal world seems to know it. Humans are the only ones who have been shown to exhibit it.

Helping out people from different tribes may actually hurt your chances of survival because one the aid given comes with a cost as well other tribes can sometimes be enemies so that helping out a person from another tribe could be helping your enemies.

On the other hand, helping out a member of another tribe could improve relations between the tribes.

But altruism is contrary to the instinctive desire for self-preservation, as the animal world seems to know it. Humans are the only ones who have been shown to exhibit it.

Humans seem to do a very good of self-preserving, actually - people used to die around at around 30 years old, and now (thanks to co-operation with others) some people live to 120.

Yes or it could do little to nothing considering how americans give so much money in charity to the world yet are universally hated.

Yes or it could do little to nothing considering how americans give so much money in charity to the world yet are universally hated.

American donations are overshadowed by the foreign policies of the american government. I do think America gets too much criticism, and that you should not be judged by your government.

I think an altruistic attitude can be psychologically beneficially.

Our increased lifespans are due to our incredible brain power not our co-operation with other tribes. We only do well due to that brain power and besides how does a future success relate to evolution when altruism has been around for longer than good practitioners of medicine AKA people who were not just witch doctors doing random things to the body.

Our increased lifespans are due to our incredible brain power not our co-operation with other tribes. We only do well due to that brain power and besides how does a future success relate to evolution when altruism has been around for longer than good practitioners of medicine AKA people who were not just witch doctors doing random things to the body.

Co-operation with other people in general, not specifically other people. And all fields of study (not just medicine) would be nowhere if people weren't willing to work together.

That just describes social behavior. People in the same group work together. Really there is no way that altruism can effectively be explained as an evolutionary benefit because those who have the trait weaken themselves pointlessly helping others and those who don't have the trait can take advantage of that. As well the social nature of humans and altruism while they may be linked, altruism is only kindness and can not be described as being particularly helpful to an individual and possibly even harmful to a society that practices such, human social behavior is responsible for all of our great accomplishments our social behavior along with our keen minds and curiosity. Really there is not much benefit to having altruism but it is moral.

Yes. And when that happens my brain will shut down and I, meaning the complex human organism, will cease to exist. After which my body will decompose and my atoms will be recycled into other things (Scientists have predicted that each of us possess about 100 of Shakespeares atoms (A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson). All a human is is an arrangement of atoms, nothing more (not even a soul *gasp*). And in case you couldn't tell, I don't believe in an afterlife.

No, Every human, and every animal has a soul. Just because you can't X-Ray people, and see the soul, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The soul is invisible. No, there is a God, and an afterlife, and if you choose to not love, or even acknowledge God, I feel very, very sorry for you.

For me, Science doesn't give me less reason to believe God. Science is not slowly disproving religion. Anyone with an open mind, and a trace of common sense can know the truth. The truth is that God created the universe, possibly from the big bang, not in a week, but over millions of years. Why is it so hard to think that? There's no way the universe could've created itself, so why do you insist that out of a blind 1 in several billion chance, we would have a beutiful planet such as earth?

Ohhh Ohhh Yes Join us ... the power of logic compells you!

Oh! It all makes sense now! Logically, the universe created itself, and somehow, we live on a planet EASILY supporting 6 billion people, AND THIS ALL CAME BY BLIND FRIKKIN CHANCE!!!! :rolleyes:


Your a moron....

Yeah really science can not disprove religion due to the spiritual aspect. The simple fact is that a good sound religion should be in agreement with science. The reason being that both science and religion are part of man's attempts to understand and improve his world and himself. That is why I do not believe in the literal 7 days creating the earth thing it probably is some metaphor or something.

Yeah really science can not disprove religion due to the spiritual aspect. The simple fact is that a good sound religion should be in agreement with science. The reason being that both science and religion are part of man's attempts to understand and improve his world and himself. That is why I do not believe in the literal 7 days creating the earth thing it probably is some metaphor or something.

Noone really believes in the 7 days thing. Each "day" doesn't have to be understood as 24 hours. I'm glad you are at least open minded enough to think this way, as this is what I am saying. The more I know of science, the more I believe in God.

No, Every human, and every animal has a soul. Just because you can't X-Ray people, and see the soul, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The soul is invisible. No, there is a God, and an afterlife, and if you choose to not love, or even acknowledge God, I feel very, very sorry for you.


Well, I didn't mean it as flame, but Atheism is stupid. I have studied science, but I do not see the part where it says: 2+2=4, therefore, God does not exist!

I have studied science, but I do not see the part where it says: 2+2=4, therefore, God does exist and there is a soul in every human and animal.

So i guess you're a moron too.

No, Every human, and every animal has a soul. Just because you can't X-Ray people, and see the soul, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The soul is invisible. No, there is a God, and an afterlife, and if you choose to not love, or even acknowledge God, I feel very, very sorry for you.

For me, Science doesn't give me less reason to believe God. Science is not slowly disproving religion. Anyone with an open mind, and a trace of common sense can know the truth. The truth is that God created the universe, possibly from the big bang, not in a week, but over millions of years. Why is it so hard to think that? There's no way the universe could've created itself, so why do you insist that out of a blind 1 in several billion chance, we would have a beutiful planet such as earth?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

(1 in a bilion chance is NOTHING when you are dealing with billions of years)

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Oh! It all makes sense now! Logically, the universe created itself, and somehow, we live on a planet EASILY supporting 6 billion people, AND THIS ALL CAME BY BLIND FRIKKIN CHANCE!!!! :rolleyes:


Your a moron....
yeah and some magical deity creating itself out of nothing is a whole lot more logical :rolleyes:

thanks for the flame by the way

Noone really believes in the 7 days thing. Each "day" doesn't have to be understood as 24 hours. I'm glad you are at least open minded enough to think this way, as this is what I am saying. The more I know of science, the more I believe in God.
A dismaying amount of people do believe exactly what you claim they don’t

Well um... whether or not we have souls is not something science can ever determine, it is a spiritual idea. However, religion provides an answer to mysteries that science can never solve and that is part of its popularity. Honestly however, science and religion go together somewhat well so long as the people on both sides do not act like idiots. As well asking for science to determine everything is impossible. Belief is just belief, it might be right or wrong but hey it is just part of this otherwise pointless existence.

Even agnosticism takes faith can you prove there is a god of any kind?
Um, no... because it's not about proving.

The question of altruism versus selfishness in evolution is sort of a fallacious one. It is not the individual, nor is it the group, that is taking place in evolutionary fidelity, it is the genes. Richard Dawkins handled this in his "selfish gene theory" decades ago, and W.D. Hamilton in his "green beard theory" even before that.

Nature doesn't give a shit whether a member of a species is working for itself or for the species. All that matters is what gets passed along. Certainly rationality is not the cause of altruism as many other "non-rational" species have developed altruistic tendencies--some far greater than us. Take the ant, honeybee, or wolf, for example. Perhaps the elephant, actually, would be even better.

The green beard theory of Hamilton basically says that if a species develops an explosive gene set (that is two phenotypes that aid in each others reproduction, the tail of the South-African widow bird is a good example, the males have a phenotype for long tails while the females have a phenotype for being attracted to long tails, therefore in a short matter of time you've got the entire population either having or wanting long tails) say, a green beard and a want to help others with green beards, than soon enough you'll have a lot of animals with green beards. The genetic difference even in the most wildy disparate pair of human beings is still far less than in most species, so if a gene develops for altruism towards human beings, you get a whole lot of altruistic human beings being favored by each other for survival.

Thinking about only an individual's set of genes competing for dominance takes evolution on far too small a scale. It is my belief that altruism is a great thing, and whether or not that is simply because my genes tell me it is, I love it and wouldn't change my want to help people for the world.

But altruism is contrary to the instinctive desire for self-preservation, as the animal world seems to know it. Humans are the only ones who have been shown to exhibit it.

So, what would you call adoption in the animal kingdom? Giving motherly care to an small animal that's not yours (happens with elephants, apes, felines, etc) or even giving it to a creature that's not even your own species?
Dogs have been known to nurture kittens, for example. Human children have been raised by wolfs. These are very rare examples, but they exist.
And I don't see how this behaviour benefits the social group of even the species of the adopting mother...

Well um... whether or not we have souls is not something science can ever determine, it is a spiritual idea. However, religion provides an answer to mysteries that science can never solve and that is part of its popularity. Honestly however, science and religion go together somewhat well so long as the people on both sides do not act like idiots. As well asking for science to determine everything is impossible. Belief is just belief, it might be right or wrong but hey it is just part of this otherwise pointless existence.
So a god of the gaps explanation … religion steps in where we have no idea or any ability to know. Surprisingly close to a big part of why I think religion started in the first place

No, Every human, and every animal has a soul. Just because you can't X-Ray people, and see the soul, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The soul is invisible. No, there is a God, and an afterlife, and if you choose to not love, or even acknowledge God, I feel very, very sorry for you.


He sayss he believes he doesn't have any, you believe he does. Neither of you can prove the other wrong, so why would you try to get him to believe the same things as you do?


For me, Science doesn't give me less reason to believe God. Science is not slowly disproving religion. Anyone with an open mind, and a trace of common sense can know the truth. The truth is that God created the universe, possibly from the big bang, not in a week, but over millions of years. Why is it so hard to think that? There's no way the universe could've created itself, so why do you insist that out of a blind 1 in several billion chance, we would have a beutiful planet such as earth?


Oh! It all makes sense now! Logically, the universe created itself, and somehow, we live on a planet EASILY supporting 6 billion people, AND THIS ALL CAME BY BLIND FRIKKIN CHANCE!!!! :rolleyes:


Your a moron....

We live on this planet BECAUSE it can support life. If earth was further away from the sun or hadn't started to develop an atmosphere containing oxygen, we simply wouldn't be here. On the other hand, maybe then Mars would have provided the right conditions and life would have evolved there, and it would look nothing like life on earth.

We were a possibility in the univers and we happen to be here because the right circumstances coincided. Given that the univers is endless, it is very likely that some forms of life developed elsewhere, and maybe they're methan-based, who knows?
The fact that we evolved on a planet that offered the right environment proves nothing, neither that god exists nor that he/she/it doesn't exist.
You might as well ask why fish developed in water of all places and not on treetops.

I got about three pages into this thread when I got bored of reading it... I read threads occasionally, never reply. I may as well reply here...

- The original post seemed to be a simple jokey commentary on religious groups. It didn't appear to be aimed at being offensive or at actually converting people to atheism. Don't get worked up over small things.

- I hate to jump to any conclusions here, but I don't think anyone is all that interested in the definitions or stuff which are being heatedly argued over here... I apologise if I'm wrong or if that matter is already sealed.

- Noone is ever going to be converted by a forum post and any rational human being knows that... there's no point in arguing, muttering about eternal damnation or the idiocy of people who believe in X, Y or Z. State your opinion if you must and go about your buisness... arguments about religion will never end because an argument depends on give-and-take... it is rare for people to allow that on a topic which they stake their soul on.

that's all I have to say, and I know most likely it'll be ignored, ridiculed, cause offence or anger, or be deleted by mods for some obscure reason. I don't care. Believe what you believe, allow others to do the same, and mock every belief equally. This is true equality.

No, Every human, and every animal has a soul. Just because you can't X-Ray people, and see the soul, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The soul is invisible. No, there is a God, and an afterlife, and if you choose to not love, or even acknowledge God, I feel very, very sorry for you.

So far as I know there is no evidence for souals existing. In this situation you are the one required to provide evidence for a souls exisitance. This is known as burden of proof. And on a personal note I find loving and respecting the good parts of human kind and the natural world we live in far more inspiring and rewarding than a highly improbable, most likely mythical, God.


For me, Science doesn't give me less reason to believe God. Science is not slowly disproving religion. Anyone with an open mind, and a trace of common sense can know the truth. The truth is that God created the universe, possibly from the big bang, not in a week, but over millions of years. Why is it so hard to think that? There's no way the universe could've created itself, so why do you insist that out of a blind 1 in several billion chance, we would have a beutiful planet such as earth?

How is God magically creating the universe common sense? If there is no way that the universe created itself then it is equally improbable that God created himself/itself/herself. And before you claim that God exists outside such laws maybe you should read some work by stephen hawkings. There are many theories concerning the physical origins of the universe as we know it. Some including proposals that the universe is without beginning or end. Point is, the universe is definately here and thus it is infinately more likely (however improbable you want to say it is) the universe created itself than it is that (an unproven) God created himself. Or anything else for that matter.



Oh! It all makes sense now! Logically, the universe created itself, and somehow, we live on a planet EASILY supporting 6 billion people, AND THIS ALL CAME BY BLIND FRIKKIN CHANCE!!!! :rolleyes:


Your a moron....

Since you've insulted people anyway may i say on behalf of everyone (creationist and evolutionist alike) that you are the moron here.


1) I'm not sure the current estimates... But multiply the billions of galaxies in our universe, by the number of stars in an average galaxy. Then divide it by any numbers you feel fit to account for the probability of planets orbiting stars, suitable planets amongst these, planets that could have the chemicals to start life etc.. and you are still left with an exceedingly large number.
2) From the point of view of the evolutionists, who you are trying to mock, life evolved to SUIT THE ENVIRONMENT.... Life existing on another planet with different demands to our own would be abundant with life far different from life on earth because it would adapt to that environment. These planets would (most likely) be at least fairly similar to earth. However the point is the same. LIFE CAME TO SUIT THE EARTH, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Well hey if there were no gaps then why would we want a god. Besides its faith. Anyway ants are not really altruistic, they kill all that are not part of their colony, and most are infertile so that means that they are just extensions of their queen, that is just being nitpicky. Yeah I wish I had better answers but despite my intelligence I actually doesn't care enough to think on it and really only do this as a fun and relaxing way to waste time. That all said I am not that great at being religious but even worse as an atheist. But I do wonder why on earth we actually give a damn where we came from and why we actually do have our religions and the fact that religion actually benefits us according to many studies.

If you kept your morals the way they were, and you believed hedonism was wrong, then wouldn't you maintain the restrictions?





Bah! Humbug! People of faith are taken as seriously as people who lack it. :mad:
IT depends how radical they are, for instance, I don't take the views of a Jihadist seriously, I am against fundamentalism.

One problem with pure evolution is that there are too many gaps. We all are to a certain extent technology. No computer can create itself, no car can create itself yet somehow mankind is a powerful technology that was created by chance. Even considering all the opportunity that still seems improbable that genetic sequences that allow for life spontaneously generated even given the billions of years. Really a code that allows for life is something that it seems odd to spontaneously generate.

a·the·ism Audio pronunciation of "atheism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.


[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]


Take from that what you will. It seems like a religion to me, but the roots tell a different story. Immorallity? That dictionary definition is WRONG, just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't have morals.

One problem with pure evolution is that there are too many gaps. We all are to a certain extent technology. No computer can create itself, no car can create itself yet somehow mankind is a powerful technology that was created by chance. Even considering all the opportunity that still seems improbable that genetic sequences that allow for life spontaneously generated even given the billions of years. Really a code that allows for life is something that it seems odd to spontaneously generate.
And that whole thing has nothing to do with the theory of evolution :rolleyes:

Having doubts about some element of your faith? Not sharing your family's enthusiasm for church, or perhaps disillusioned with the idea of religion itself?

Give in today! :)

Become an atheist like me, or at least an agnostic.

Don't worry, you can keep your morals just the way they are now!

Benefits include:
- Priceless time freed by not attending religious services
- Fewer feelings of non-specific guilt
- Being taken seriously by more people
- Fewer restrictions on hedonistic behaviour :fluffle:
- And best of all, the secure knowledge that your errors will be consigned to oblivion!

No sign-up required. Reject spirituality, and Live!

HA I love when atheist claime to have 'secure knowledge'. You religion is just as faith-based as ours.

Oh, and the 'at least agnostic' bit is priceless. If you really believe reason trumps than agnostics kick the hell out of atheists and theists alike because they say the only thing that is provable "we don't know".

So far as I know there is no evidence for souals existing. In this situation you are the one required to provide evidence for a souls exisitance. This is known as burden of proof.
Um, no... she(?) is not required to provide proof of her opinion.

One problem with pure evolution is that there are too many gaps. We all are to a certain extent technology. No computer can create itself, no car can create itself yet somehow mankind is a powerful technology that was created by chance. Even considering all the opportunity that still seems improbable that genetic sequences that allow for life spontaneously generated even given the billions of years. Really a code that allows for life is something that it seems odd to spontaneously generate.
pure evolution is fine on that front. If you read about self-evolving computer programs you'll see that computer programs can in fact create better and more complex verions of themselves. Its the same basic principle for biological evolution. As for spontaneous generation... Thats abiogenesis, not evolution, which is a completely different story and way to complex for someone of my level of study to seriously discuss at the hour it currently is in my time zone.

HA I love when atheist claime to have 'secure knowledge'. You religion is just as faith-based as ours.

Oh, and the 'at least agnostic' bit is priceless. If you really believe reason trumps than agnostics kick the hell out of atheists and theists alike because they say the only thing that is provable "we don't know".
Depends on the form of atheism really for the belief part

and religion ... no ... hard atheism does require belief though

Immorallity? That dictionary definition is WRONG, just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't have morals.

You need to learn how a dictionary works. It would be like saying to be a homosexual (gay) you would have to be happy (gay) all the time. They are different definitions. When you say you are atheist you are referring to definition one and NOT definition three. It's mostly theists that use atheists in the third definition. That doesn't make the dictionary wrong. It makes those particular theists wrong.

pure evolution is fine on that front. If you read about self-evolving computer programs you'll see that computer programs can in fact create better and more complex verions of themselves. Its the same basic principle for biological evolution. As for spontaneous generation... Thats abiogenesis, not evolution, which is a completely different story and way to complex for someone of my level of study to seriously discuss at the hour it currently is in my time zone.
While I have death with evolving software it … still as of yet is … well lets just call it un predictable lol

Depends on the form of atheism really for the belief part

and religion ... no ... hard atheism does require belief though

What form of atheism requires no faith?

Um, no... she(?) is not required to provide proof of her opinion.

having the opinion is fine. everyone is entitled to an opinion. but if you want to definitively say that souls exist then you should be prepared to back it up with some decent reasoning for your belief.

If its simply a matter of faith than admit that and dont try to pass it off as truth.

What form of atheism requires no faith?
Soft ... there is a distinction

Soft has no belief in god

Hard believes there is no god

there is a difference one is an active belief one is just a "I prefer not to presume without more information" they dont really activly believe in a lack of deity

Your a moron....

HAHAHAHA that made me choke. I think I might put that in my signature.

- The original post seemed to be a simple jokey commentary on religious groups. It didn't appear to be aimed at being offensive or at actually converting people to atheism. Don't get worked up over small things.
It was also a self-depreciating commentary on popular perceptions of atheism. ;) I do not consider myself above taking a wry look at my own beliefs. Alas, so many people hold forth their dogma without a sense of humour.

I do not dispute that science cannot disprove god. Every religious person seems to assume that this is what atheists are saying. :confused:

But look closely. One cannot prove the existence of god. Once cannot disprove the existence of god. All accumulated evidence in favour is circumstantial or presumed, all accumulated evidence against merely proves the details of holy books wrong, rather than invalidating the core concept behind them.

And this is the state of the debate about the existence of god. What of the nature of god? If the very existence is closed to inquiry, what can be learned about the nature of god? Obviously, nothing.

Where you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, as far as observable reality is concerned, the question has no implications. Strictly speaking, it makes no difference whether the question is asked or not! It has no answer.

This gives an atheist such as myself sufficient reason to reject the question itself.

Where an unfalsifiable hypothesis does have currency is in the social realm, the realm of philosophy. There, people can speculate all they wish. They can even Believe in one system of speculation. But to an atheist's mind, that's all it is, for the implications for observable reality are null.

Soft ... there is a distinction

Soft has no belief in god

Hard believes there is no god

there is a difference one is an active belief one is just a "I prefer not to presume without more information" they dont really activly believe in a lack of deity

A - meaning no
theist - meaning believer in a supreme deity

Your soft atheists are agnostics. Atheism is a belief there is no God. Agnosticism is no belief in God. You can be an agnostic that leans toward believing or not believing but the difference is in whether you actually believe there is a God or no God. If you believe there is you are a theist. If you believe there isn't a god you are an atheist. Simple, no?

This thread is insanity; and I only made it through the first 10 pages.

A - meaning no
theist - meaning believer in a supreme deity

Your soft atheists are agnostics. Atheism is a belief there is no God. Agnosticism is no belief in God. You can be an agnostic that leans toward believing or not believing but the difference is in whether you actually believe there is a God or no God. If you believe there is you are a theist. If you believe there isn't a god you are an atheist. Simple, no?
No its not because agnosticism is actualy the belief in not being able to PROVE it in this universe

There is a difference I can be a deist agnostic and believe there is a god but we cant prove it or I could be a soft atheist agnostic (which is what myself am) where I dont think there is a god but i am pretty sure i it is not provable one way or another(god as an un falsafiable principal)

whereas soft atheism thinks they do not have enough proof now but that at some future time it could be possible to prove

And yes there probably should be a seperate term for soft and hard atheist but right now there isent that i know of ... make one up or something lol

Actually, it's the lack thereof.

It is a lack of religion, but the steps most people take to get rid of religion, are religious in themselves. spending every moment trying to prove me wrong of my faith, is just as religious as me trying to prove to you that my god does exist.

(forgive my exaggerations-Not meant as personal attacks of any sort)
Everything's "your own personal interpretation" nowadays. The Law of the Excluded Middle states that something either is or isn't. A chair either is or isn't a chair. It's a chair, so it isn't a cat. Common sense either is or isn't. I can "interpret" that it's common sense to take a whole potato and shove it in my mouth and then try and eat it, but it's not. You cut the thing into pieces or mash it, or do any manner of things with it. Common sense is common sense-It's not open to interpretation, because then it wouldn't be something we have in common-It'd be unique sense.
"He has a unique sense of the idea that eating potatoes whole is a good idea."

What is, is.


But that is the important bit really isn't it.
If you hold that atheism isn't common sense and atheists hold different
then by your own definitions - as it is not something you and the atheist in question have in common then it is not common sense.
You have a perception of sense that says attributing certain qualities and
deeds to your invisible friend and worshipping him/her/it is rational.
The atheist in question is perhaps suggesting that the potato may be too big to eat whole.

having the opinion is fine. everyone is entitled to an opinion. but if you want to definitively say that souls exist then you should be prepared to back it up with some decent reasoning for your belief.

If its simply a matter of faith than admit that and dont try to pass it off as truth.
George W. Bush is an idiot.

That's my opinion, stated as fact. Opinions are stated as fact. That's how we do it.

Ohh forgot to ad ... most believers in no god are actualy reffered to as anti-theists rather then atheists

Rather atheism which is no belief in god

But that is a distinction we tend to use ... a lot of believers tend to just lable us all heritics at least in their own mind lol

I did not expect atheism to be so controversial.

People really should be more tolerant of each others' religious beliefs. :p

I'll put in a good word for you with God, I'm sure he'll understand....sorta, kinda, not really. Have fun with your chosen religion, cause that's all that atheism is, another religion.


calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour ...... its stupid

I did not expect atheism to be so controversial.

People really should be more tolerant of each others' religious beliefs. :p
Lol now all we got to do is start a thread whining about how everyone on this board always bashes our beliefs :p

calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour ...... its stupid
LOL thats going in sig :)

Not trying to be mean or offensive in any way; but don't you think all of this is getting out of hand? I mean using a forum to convert people to whatever you believe. Believe what you want! As long as you're a good person, good shall await you in the after life (if there really is one). Doesn't anyone think that telling people what will make them happy and what they should believe in.. well wrong? Well that's all I have to say. Once again, if I did, I do not mean to offend anyone at all.

I hate it when people like this pull shit like this.

Why can't you just believe (or not believe) whatever you want, and quit bashing religion?


tell you what, when there arnt millions of people dying over the idea of "my god is mightier than thou's god" then we'll stop bashing until then we'll keep bashing until we bash some sense into you

This is kinda making me sick. The other thread was legitimate in purpose, as it was "do you WANT to". This thread is quite obviously here for the sole purpose of mocking itl

No its not because agnosticism is actualy the belief in not being able to PROVE it in this universe

There is a difference I can be a deist agnostic and believe there is a god but we cant prove it or I could be a soft atheist agnostic (which is what myself am) where I dont think there is a god but i am pretty sure i it is not provable one way or another(god as an un falsafiable principal)

whereas soft atheism thinks they do not have enough proof now but that at some future time it could be possible to prove

And yes there probably should be a seperate term for soft and hard atheist but right now there isent that i know of ... make one up or something lol

Then almost every Christian, Jew and Muslim is agnostic, because the original doctrine that they all base their beliefs on say that faith is the point (if you can prove it, it's not faith). Most believe that we will never be able to prove there is or is not a God. You are mixing up definitions.

And I have never met any atheist that didn't feel like God cannot fall under science because his/her/their existence cannot be disproven. How could one possibly believe that the nonexistence of a deity could ever be proven? How do we go about that?

Also, I'd like to point out that atheism falls under theology. It is a religion and as such atheists are protected by the first amendment.

George W. Bush is an idiot.

That's my opinion, stated as fact. Opinions are stated as fact. That's how we do it.
well i won't argue with the opinion about Bush.

Just seemed to me like he/she was stating it as absolute truth and directly denying the possibility of the other possibility. My mistake if i misinterpreted that.

This is kinda making me sick. The other thread was legitimate in purpose, as it was "do you WANT to". This thread is quite obviously here for the sole purpose of mocking itl
You saying atheists can want people to see the world in their light as well?

No its not because agnosticism is actualy the belief in not being able to PROVE it in this universe

There is a difference I can be a deist agnostic and believe there is a god but we cant prove it or I could be a soft atheist agnostic (which is what myself am) where I dont think there is a god but i am pretty sure i it is not provable one way or another(god as an un falsafiable principal)

whereas soft atheism thinks they do not have enough proof now but that at some future time it could be possible to prove

And yes there probably should be a seperate term for soft and hard atheist but right now there isent that i know of ... make one up or something lol
Then agnostics are pitting themselves in opposition to one very small minority of the religious folk on this planet, namely those who care about proving an actual existence for god. I don't think that definition does agnosticism justice.

I see it more as an indifference to the reality of gods, rather than a proving/disproving the existence of gods.

Become an Atheist?

Hmmm.... sorry, I do believe in a god. I don't believe he's anything like the crazystrict God of the Jews/Christians/Muslims, but I still think one exists. I guess I'm deist? Or spiritual? Don't know.

Oh, I have an idea for you! The Atheist Jehovah's Witnesses! It'd be great!

*Knock on their door*
"Would you like to take Jesus out of your life?"

last time I had a jehova's witness, he read me a passage from the bible, I read him one from God's Debris by Scott Adams ...... he went away

LOL thats going in sig :)

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair style. Oh, wait, it is.

Not trying to be mean or offensive in any way; but don't you think all of this is getting out of hand? I mean using a forum to convert people to whatever you believe. Believe what you want! As long as you're a good person, good shall await you in the after life (if there really is one). Doesn't anyone think that telling people what will make them happy and what they should believe in.. well wrong? Well that's all I have to say. Once again, if I did, I do not mean to offend anyone at all.

Partly you are right, but religion is not only about "believing whatever". It is also about judging about what is right and wrong.
Therefore you cant simply say: "Be good." For some BEING GOOD includes TELLING PEOPLE WHAT WILL MAKE THEM HAPPY, which you obviously think is bad.

The extent of our morality is essentially and exclusively human. No animal has even close to as high a moral standard as we do. We know that it's wrong to harm people. Not just because we are told it is, because we know, naturally that it is wrong.


Yeah, those damnable apes may act according to what looks like a moral
standard but I believe you are quite right.

Foolish apes, how they must envy humans who don't have to be trained
to know right from wrong but naturally know, without the benefit of
logic.

well i won't argue with the opinion about Bush.

Just seemed to me like he/she was stating it as absolute truth and directly denying the possibility of the other possibility. My mistake if i misinterpreted that.
:fluffle:
I like people who agree with me. Thank you! ;)

Actually, my opinion factors in, too, since I can only see talk about souls and gods and minds, etc. (namely, the entire scope of the metaphysical), as opinion. It's philosophical in nature.

calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour ...... its stupid

You got a good response to this once, so you figure posting this same point in every thread you can find makes it more witty. By the way, bald isn't a hair color but it is a hairstyle.

tell you what, when there arnt millions of people dying over the idea of "my god is mightier than thou's god" then we'll stop bashing until then we'll keep bashing until we bash some sense into you

If anything he's shown about twenty times more sense than you! In my earlier post I was being all nice cuz no one had really pissed me off. But just for you, I'll be a complete and total asshole. Now unless I've judged you wrong; I see you as some sorta relgious person (christian, catholic, doesn't matter which) who really has no idea what the fuck they're talking about! Threatening people because they think a little bit differently than you. Oh boy you have tons of spirituality! Let people believe what they want to believe, say what they want to say, and do what they want to do as long as it harms no living creature (not an exact, but close quote from the satanic bible). You're one of those people who makes me proud that I don't have a religion to get all worked up about. Sorry to those I probally did offend.

atheism is a classification of a belief. It means lack of belief in a god. It is completely dissociated, as a notion, with religion.

Think of it like this:
You can be in a religion with atheist belief (animism, buddhism, etc...)
You can be in a religion with theist belief (the majority of the religions)
You can have no religion with atheist belief (not beleiving in anything, basically)
You can have no religion with theist belief (believing in a God but not following a specific religion)

:fluffle:
I like people who agree with me. Thank you! ;)

Actually, my opinion factors in, too, since I can only see talk about souls and gods and minds, etc. (namely, the entire scope of the metaphysical), as opinion. It's philosophical in nature.

When it comes to the metaphysical, a belief that my destiny is influenced by mystical ephemeral gremlins who have a penchant for purple suede and old elvis movies, with whom i must eternally battle for control over my spirit would be just as valid as any other.... If not quite so convincing.

Either way i don't see why some atheists feel the need to try disproving religious stories. Just as i don't see why religious people try proving their religion is valid through scientific means.

I may as well try explaining what pizza tastes like by playing someone beethoven's 9th.

Why cant we all just get along and launch George Bush into space?

Originally Posted by Tograna
calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour ...... its stupid

I believe Don Hirschberg had a similar sentiment.
*Ahem*

atheism is a classification of a belief. It means lack of belief in a god. It is completely dissociated, as a notion, with religion.

Think of it like this:
You can be in a religion with atheist belief (animism, buddhism, etc...)
You can be in a religion with theist belief (the majority of the religions)
You can have no religion with atheist belief (not beleiving in anything, basically)
You can have no religion with theist belief (believing in a God but not following a specific religion)
I have trouble with even these simple definitions, however well-stated they are.

There was an interesting discussion on a prior thread about the difference between athe-ism and a-theism:
athe-ism is belief in no god, which is more sensible to me;
a-theism is no belief in god, which makes little sense since any opinion stems from a belief, and making a statement about something you cannot know "for real" is opinion.

I don't believe in "lack of belief" in god. ;)

Ohh forgot to ad ... most believers in no god are actualy reffered to as anti-theists rather then atheists

Rather atheism which is no belief in god

But that is a distinction we tend to use ... a lot of believers tend to just lable us all heritics at least in their own mind lol

You don't get to make up terms because you feel like it (especially when they are already used for an opposing viewpoint). Atheism does not mean no belief in God. It means belief in no God. It's in the dictionary and it's studied in sociology.

Atheist -
one who believes there is no deity.

www.m-w.com

Barnes and Noble encyclopedia has a similar description. American Atheists define atheists as a person who "...does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities."

Seems like you're trying to steal a word and apply it yourself. Anti-theist would be someone who is opposed to people believing in God. This is a significantly different belief than most atheist hold and nothing to do specifically with the the beleif that no God exists.

atheism is a classification of a belief. It means lack of belief in a god. It is completely dissociated, as a notion, with religion.

Think of it like this:
You can be in a religion with atheist belief (animism, buddhism, etc...)
You can be in a religion with theist belief (the majority of the religions)
You can have no religion with atheist belief (not beleiving in anything, basically)
You can have no religion with theist belief (believing in a God but not following a specific religion)

How can you have atheist belief and not believe in anything? Atheist means BELIEVING in no God.

By the way an atheist is as much an anti-theist as an asexual is anti-sexual.

I have trouble with even these simple definitions, however well-stated they are.

There was an interesting discussion on a prior thread about the difference between athe-ism and a-theism:
athe-ism is belief in no god, which is more sensible to me;
a-theism is no belief in god, which makes little sense since any opinion stems from a belief, and making a statement about something you cannot know "for real" is opinion.

I don't believe in "lack of belief" in god. ;)

atheism means belief in NO god according to every theological scholar, sociologist, dictionary and encyclopedia. No belief is agnosticism.

You don't get to make up terms because you feel like it (especially when they are already used for an opposing viewpoint). Atheism does not mean no belief in God. It means belief in no God. It's in the dictionary and it's studied in sociology.

Atheist -
one who believes there is no deity.

www.m-w.com

Barnes and Noble encyclopedia has a similar description. American Atheists define atheists as a person who "...does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities."

Seems like you're trying to steal a word and apply it yourself. Anti-theist would be someone who is opposed to people believing in God. This is a significantly different belief than most atheist hold and nothing to do specifically with the the beleif that no God exists.


Why in the name of <insert appropriate deity or personage here> are you people arguing over semantics?? You all know what each other means by the term atheist.. Whether your individual definitions differ is irrelevant as long as you can understand the meaning of the person using the term... This is nit-picking. On both sides.

Animals kill out of a need to kill, not because they feel like it.

Animals kill because they need to eat. Just because you buy your hamburger at McDonald's instead of slaughtering the cow yourself doesn't mean someone didn't have to kill it. I bet they killed it without compassion.

Animals kill because they feel threatened. If you had a choice to kill or be killed, you have to make a decision. Instinct kicks in and you fight back. It's basic animal nature, and even a god can't save you from it.As an addition to this, we have developed riles in our society to cope with the quick-kill mechanisms that we have created. Wolves and lions and such are born with teeth and claws to kill with - we were not, but yet we manufactured weapons to help us kill, such as guns. Lions and wolves have ritualistic methods within their species to help them keep from needlessly killing each other - when one is killed, it is typically for the good of the group, and to avoid confusion and further strife.
Since humans didn't have quick-kill mechanisms(think orangutans), we didn't need these ritualistic methods. But since we created them, we were forced to put down punishments within our society to keep these needless killings from occurring.

It isn't necessary for a higher power to decide we suddenly needed these rules - as our society developed, so did our need for the order that we now live in.

I have trouble with even these simple definitions, however well-stated they are.

There was an interesting discussion on a prior thread about the difference between athe-ism and a-theism:
athe-ism is belief in no god, which is more sensible to me;
a-theism is no belief in god, which makes little sense since any opinion stems from a belief, and making a statement about something you cannot know "for real" is opinion.

I don't believe in "lack of belief" in god. ;)
I see your point... It all falls down to the definition of atheism one uses, I guess. Either way, my point is that atheism is not a religion.

When it comes to the metaphysical, a belief that my destiny is influenced by mystical ephemeral gremlins who have a penchant for purple suede and old elvis movies, with whom i must eternally battle for control over my spirit would be just as valid as any other.... If not quite so convincing.
Oh, but that's not what "the metaphysical" is. Such views are uninformed, to say the least ;) --your first clue should be this: if it's silly and makes no sense, then it's probably wrong.

Second clue: the metaphysical is not the physical*, therefore it does not leave the area of the mind and its imagination.

Either way i don't see why some atheists feel the need to try disproving religious stories. Just as i don't see why religious people try proving their religion is valid through scientific means.

I may as well try explaining what pizza tastes like by playing someone beethoven's 9th.

Why cant we all just get along and launch George Bush into space?
I'm with you, there (even the George Bush part). A simply delve into the study of mythology can demonstrate how and why such stories exist, and give them a value quite literally "beyond belief" (i.e. touching on truth).



* Did you ever see the TV show "Dinosaurs" with the baby dinosaur who said, "Not the mama!" every time he saw daddy? Read it in that voice. ;)

Why in the name of <insert appropriate deity or personage here> are you people arguing over semantics?? You all know what each other means by the term atheist.. Whether your individual definitions differ is irrelevant as long as you can understand the meaning of the person using the term... This is nit-picking. On both sides.

No it isn't. It is very important to not that atheism means BELIEF in no deity. It's a faith-based initiative. It's significant because my reaction to the ideas of an Atheist who uses faith just like theists do and to an agnostic whose belief is entirely based on reason is different so the definition of terms is important.

I see your point... It all falls down to the definition of atheism one uses, I guess. Either way, my point is that atheism is not a religion.
Absolutely. For it to be a religion would require a whole set of mythology (and its corresponding customs, traditions and rituals) created to support the belief in a "no god" that transcends mankind.

:)

Originally Posted by Foxstenikopolis
For me, Science doesn't give me less reason to believe God. Science is not slowly disproving religion. Anyone with an open mind, and a trace of common sense can know the truth. The truth is that God created the universe, possibly from the big bang, not in a week, but over millions of years. Why is it so hard to think that? There's no way the universe could've created itself, so why do you insist that out of a blind 1 in several billion chance, we would have a beutiful planet such as earth?


Why is it so hard to think that?

It isn't hard at all to think that, thats why its been the explanation every
step along the way for anything people haven't understood.
What is the sun? will it come back tomorrow?
why doesn't the sky fall on our heads?

It belongs to the same hard to think of school as
the child's, what was that bump in the night, its the bogeyman or the closet monster or even the one that lives under the bed.

Its not a hard thought, its when ignorance, fear or whatever emotion
hits you and you answer with whatever image your mind throws up.

It's not hard to think of, it just isn't what people would normally refer to
as thinking at all.

However as I like to keep things on as even a keel as possible, I will
mention that I do agree with you when you say that science is not
slowly disproving religion.
Science per se and scientists in general, are expanding science without
the slightest regard for religion, even for those scientists who do have belief
religion is irrelevant to scientific advance.

People in the thread have simply pointed out that as religion in general
and christianity in particular keep placing god at the edge of knowledge,
it has become apparent to pretty much everyone over the years that the
process is the same each time.
god is in that bit we don't understand.
When a bit becomes understood, no it was silly to think we meant that
god was in that bit, god is that other bit we don't understand.

Its an argument that those who want to promote religion will be able to
use forever as it is highly unlikely that we will ever understand absolutely
everything.
The only problem with it is that you do insist on placing god on the
very edge of knowledge in fact in the areas most likely to have us make
a breakthrough. So you have to keep moving him and it becomes like
the claims in 2002 that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd and were busy building more, obvious lies.

Religion tends to be easiest for those who understand least.

Yeah, those damnable apes may act according to what looks like a moral
standard but I believe you are quite right.

Foolish apes, how they must envy humans who don't have to be trained
to know right from wrong but naturally know, without the benefit of
logic.
"Darn you!!" *Falls down on the sand, weeping. "Darn you all to heck!"

Absolutely. For it to be a religion would require a whole set of mythology (and its corresponding customs, traditions and rituals) created to support the belief in a "no god" that transcends mankind.

:)
Oh im shure I could make something up ... but I am lazy lets all just convert to googalism

No it isn't. It is very important to not that atheism means BELIEF in no deity. It's a faith-based initiative. It's significant because my reaction to the ideas of an Atheist who uses faith just like theists do and to an agnostic whose belief is entirely based on reason is different so the definition of terms is important.

The deist has a belief in the divine which is based on reason and nature rather than faith and revelation. Why can't the atheist have a lack of belief based on the same criteria?

i will pray for you and pray to God that you hange so you wont go to hell.

...Why?...

No it isn't. It is very important to not that atheism means BELIEF in no deity. It's a faith-based initiative. It's significant because my reaction to the ideas of an Atheist who uses faith just like theists do and to an agnostic whose belief is entirely based on reason is different so the definition of terms is important.

A leap of logic != A leap of faith.

A: No credible evidence for a god exists
B: Either god exists or he does not
C: God existing, but not generating evidence, is more complex and requires more unfounded assumptions than god not existing. Occam's Razor (a logical 'tool') tells us that the explanation with fewer unfounded assumptions and less unneccessary complexity is most likely correct.

Therefore, God does not exist.

logic!=faith. Logic is the proof or disproof of things unseen. Faith is the blind, unquestioning belief in them. There is a difference.

Yes, but once you realize that those are merely traits with no absolute foundation, then what is to stop you from committing crimes you can get away with? After all, there would be no consequences other than maybe some guilt...and, assuming there is no God, that guilt would be baseless and a mere annoyance that would gradually diminish into nothing.Call me uninformed, but there ARE a ton of crimes committed simply because people can get away with it. Ever looked at the statistics of teen shoplifting? Most do it not because they really need the thing they're taking, but because it's a thrill, and they know they can get away with it.
Done deal.

Partly you are right, but religion is not only about "believing whatever". It is also about judging about what is right and wrong.
Therefore you cant simply say: "Be good." For some BEING GOOD includes TELLING PEOPLE WHAT WILL MAKE THEM HAPPY, which you obviously think is bad.

Yes I think it's bad because some people really don't want to hear it, or are happier not knowing, not saying he shouldn't do it if that's really all that makes him happy in life, just saying that maybe people who are taking this too seriously should lighten up you know, and stop making argument over what's right and what's wrong. I still stand by the statment though, that as long as you do good, you will lead a good afterlife (once again, if there really is one. And I mean if this "God" or whatever you want to call it, decided because you didn't believe in him, even though you were a good person you should go to "Hell"... then well... God's a jerk, no offence since if there is a god I believe this to not be true at all.

The deist has a belief in the divine which is based on reason and nature rather than faith and revelation. Why can't the atheist have a lack of belief based on the same criteria?
That's a very good question, and I'll address it, although it wasn't directed at me. Let me ask you this: What does a "lack of belief" entail? If someone is informed about a subject, they formulate an opinion, and hence beliefs, about it. If it is an idea they will buy into, then they throw their belief behind it, in support of it. Most of the atheists I respect have as their reasoning that faith is simply not good enough, and scripture corrupt. I still do not see that as a "lack of belief", but as a belief that the religion falls flat, and there is no solid ground on which to believe in a god. This is not a "lack" of belief.

The deist has a belief in the divine which is based on reason and nature rather than faith and revelation. Why can't the atheist have a lack of belief based on the same criteria?

Atheists don't have a lack of belief. Atheists believe there is no god. Since it can't be proven through scientific method it is faith.

Same with deists. No matter how reasonable they are, the existence of God cannot be proven and falls under faith. Just because they don't base their belief on a book or books that they claim to be divine does not mean that their is no faith in their religion.

A: No credible evidence for a god exists
B: Either god exists or he does not
C: God existing, but not generating evidence, is more complex and requires more unfounded assumptions than god not existing. Occam's Razor (a logical 'tool') tells us that the explanation with fewer unfounded assumptions and less unneccessary complexity is most likely correct.

Therefore, God does not exist.
You logic limits itself to a physical existence for god, where evidence is left behind. Very few religous folk claim a physical existence for god.

Belief or no belief does not matter.

Athiesm is belief or unbelief based on logic. Religion is belief or unbelief based on faith. Belief does not require faith. See my above post.

Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
Yes, but once you realize that those are merely traits with no absolute foundation, then what is to stop you from committing crimes you can get away with? After all, there would be no consequences other than maybe some guilt...and, assuming there is no God, that guilt would be baseless and a mere annoyance that would gradually diminish into nothing.
Call me uninformed, but there ARE a ton of crimes committed simply because people can get away with it. Ever looked at the statistics of teen shoplifting? Most do it not because they really need the thing they're taking, but because it's a thrill, and they know they can get away with it.
Done deal.
My reaction to Neo Rogolia's post was, Isn't guilt enough?? It sure is for me, god or no god. I do not fear the wrath of god; I do fear the wrath of mum and dad. ;)

You logic limits itself to a physical existence for god, where evidence is left behind. Very few religous folk claim a physical existence for god.

Strawman. Leaving evidence does not require physical existence, only influencing the physical world.

That's a very good question, and I'll address it, although it wasn't directed at me. Let me ask you this: What does a "lack of belief" entail? If someone is informed about a subject, they formulate an opinion, and hence beliefs, about it. If it is an idea they will buy into, then they throw their belief behind it, in support of it. Most of the atheists I respect have as their reasoning that faith is simply not good enough, and scripture corrupt. I still do not see that as a "lack of belief", but as a belief that the religion falls flat, and there is no solid ground on which to believe in a god. This is not a "lack" of belief.

Still talking about agnostics.

A leap of logic != A leap of faith.

A: No credible evidence for a god exists
B: Either god exists or he does not
C: God existing, but not generating evidence, is more complex and requires more unfounded assumptions than god not existing. Occam's Razor (a logical 'tool') tells us that the explanation with fewer unfounded assumptions and less unneccessary complexity is most likely correct.

Therefore, God does not exist.

logic!=faith. Logic is the proof or disproof of things unseen. Faith is the blind, unquestioning belief in them. There is a difference.

If you make an assumption that no amount of scientific testing can support or disprove then you have faith, even if logical.

faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

See 2b(1) there. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. It's faith. Accept it.

Strawman. Leaving evidence does not require physical existence, only influencing the physical world.
Yes, it was, but I'm not the one who built it.

Tell me, what evidence do you have for the existence of a broken heart in a lover that is not physical? Influencing the physical makes it physical.

Belief or no belief does not matter.

Athiesm is belief or unbelief based on logic. Religion is belief or unbelief based on faith. Belief does not require faith. See my above post.

Hehe. Somebody doesn't use the dictionary.

Hehe. Somebody doesn't use the dictionary.
I thought so, too!! But it's really there... unbelievably so, at m-w.com.

I thought so, too!! But it's really there... unbelievably so, at m-w.com.

Yep, that's were I got it from. I stopped using dictionary.com because it's really very flawed in the definitions. Many definitions contain parts of the word.

E.g. Religion = beliefs of people who are religious

Disclaimer: I made that up. I didn't really get that from dictionary.com.

Hehe. Somebody doesn't use the dictionary.

(fallicious) Appeal to authority. Dictionaries disagree on semantics, but agree that an athiest believes in no god or has unbelief in all gods. I demonstrated above that logical analysis, not faith, leads to atheism.

EDIT: But then again, why do I expect someone who has been indoctrinated since birth to unquestioningly accept the authority of the bible to understand why an appeal to authority is fallicious...

(fallicious) Appeal to authority. Dictionaries disagree on semantics, but agree that an athiest believes in no god or has unbelief in all gods. I demonstrated above that logical analysis, not faith, leads to atheism.

No you didn't. Many faiths are logical. You have not shown that it is not faith according to the definition I gave you. It is in fact in the definition of the word faith and no amount of your offense to the word faith (and the connotations you lend to it) is going to change that. Logic != faith but the existence of logic does not negate the existence of faith. Your logical proof does not hold as it requires a specific definition of deity (one that would necessarily interact in the world that would leave evidence). What about the section of people that believe God pulled on string on the universe like a top and then just let it spin and hasn't touched it since? How does your 'proof' address that? It doesn't.

faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

See 2b(1) there. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. It's faith. Accept it.

Precisely my point. This is supposed to demonstrate that logic does not support atheism...how?

EDIT:
Screw it. Have fun with your imaginary friend.

(fallicious) Appeal to authority. Dictionaries disagree on semantics, but agree that an athiest believes in no god or has unbelief in all gods. I demonstrated above that logical analysis, not faith, leads to atheism.

EDIT: But then again, why do I expect someone who has been indoctrinated since birth to unquestioningly accept the authority of the bible to understand why an appeal to authority is fallicious...

Ha. Ad-hominem. I don't accept the authority of the Bible. Neither do my parents. You can't argue on points so you have to make up attacks. Sad really.

By the way, there is no such word as fallicious.

Oh and by the way, either you're saying that I intended to trick you, you know by using a dictionary, or my argument embodies a fallacy. I'll assume the latter since I know the truth of the former. So what fallacy is that, that a dictionary defines words? Yes, I know connotations exist that often aren't found in dictionaries, but you need to accept that you can't prove through logic or scientific testing the lack of existence of God no matter how much you claim you can. Your views are based on faith. And I'm very happy that this offends you.

Precisely my point. This is supposed to demonstrate that logic does not support atheism...how?

EDIT:
Screw it. Have fun with your imaginary friend.

When logic fails you, best to run. I wish more people would take this method.

Willamena, apparently he/she couldn't make this 'fallicious' argument anymore as we debunked many of their beliefs so they took off.

When logic fails you, best to run. I wish more people would take this method.

Willamena, apparently he/she couldn't make this 'fallicious' argument anymore as we debunked many of their beliefs so they took off.
I guess there's no one left, then, to argue with, but you!

:)

No! We cannot claim a debunking victory. He left in anger, and that's no fun.

ok, ill be damned to hell if you are going to turn agnosticism into an organized religion.
go die.
you do realize your a hypocrite, right?
atheist can do what they want, but agnostics don't go around "recruting" people, its just not our style
we don't even all have the same beliefs
if you want to do that, then start your own religion, and recrute ppl to that religion

ok, ill be damned to hell if you are going to turn agnosticism into an organized religion.
go die.
you do realize your a hypocrite, right?
atheist can do what they want, but agnostics don't go around "recruting" people, its just not our style
we don't even all have the same beliefs
if you want to do that, then start your own religion, and recrute ppl to that religion

Who are you talking to?

You are = you're

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)
The popularity of something doesn't make it a good thing. Pet rocks were once very popular, and still are, but that doesn't make them more "right" than cabbage patch dolls.

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)

Ridiculous. I think you need to a little more digging, my friend.

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)

How does the production of a human god make Christianity superior? Besides, only Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, therefore it is only one of their beliefs, not universal fact.

How does the production of a human god make Christianity superior? Besides, only Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, therefore it is only one of their beliefs, not universal fact.

Actualy Jesus is God, the holy trinity is all one being, in 3 forms, (the father, the son and the holy ghost) and they are all "God", or atleast that is how I understand it from RS lessons.

I personaly am an athiest, mainly because I want proof. Also I havent came across a religion that has came to existance that is all good, no corruption, and the beliefs are believeable.

Christianity isnt my type of thing because if God is so great why a a big reason people are christian is so they dont go to hell? I dont want to be a God fearer.

I would be religious if it focus around your intentions (Kind of like Islam, where the quality of your intentions is judged, not the effects of your actions) but I wont be worshipping all the time, because if there is a God why would he create all this world just to have its occupants squandering their time worshipping him, if you live your life to the full and be generaly good, the afterlife can be spent worshipping God(s).

But I believe in the steady state theory (everything has been around for ever, and always will be) of the creation of everything, as the big bang seems to speculatory, the big bang relies on everything coming from a super atom which exploded, but where did tha atom come from and where was it if there was nothing?

If God(s) created everything, who created them?

Anyway I am ranting, back to your opinions ;) .

Also, Athieism isnt wrong, and there have been nations that have been without religion, but clever people learnt that beliefs are very powerful, and can be very profitable. The Christian church is loaded.

Stepping away from atheism for a moment...

There are so many competing religions. Which one is correct? Which is the real god or gods? How can the truth of one's religion be verified? Surely believing in the wrong deity is just as foolish as believing in none at all?

These are important questions. One area where we must ask them is in the evolution vs. creationism teaching debate going on in the US. Some people reject evolution for reasons which we all know well. But which story of creationism should be taught in its place?

There is an unspoken assumption that it should be the Christian story of creation, but why? Because the majority of religious residents in those areas are Christian? That does not make them and their story correct. If evolution is denied, what is the standard of proof for creationism?

Which brings me back to atheism. There are arguments in science, but because they deal with falsifiable hypotheses, theories are discounted and a consensus gradually emerges. But in the realm of religion, no amount of inquiry produces new information, gives us a clue as to the nature of god(s). All theories remain equally valid, forever. Why believe, when the belief is arbitrary?

They are very good questions, and the only aswers are opinions. I dont think that the majority should be right, there have been many atrocitys that have happened before (I'm NOT calling Christianity an atrocity) just because it is the majority.

Also Christianity isnt supposed to be forced on people, being Baptised only gives the baby a fair chance, and the child inst Christian unless they decide to be confirmed. If there is that freedom why should it be forced onto scvhool children as the truth? That is just moving backwards, Darwinism had a hard task to get taught in schools when it had proof (fossils), and unless a religion gets proof it isnt going to change (in the US or UK anyway).

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)
That's about the silliest arguement I've seen on here. What exactly is your definition of wrong? And as far as I'm concerned, no religion has produced a living physical god. Please prove there was one without using a fictitious book about imaginary friends.

BTW, I gave up my imaginary friends when I was five. They were a family of ducks.

I'd just like to point out that science is not an Atheistic institution and has never been.

Those who say science vs. religion don't get it. They are not at war. Never were. In fact, most of the early scientists were religious. Even Einstein was a religious man. Some of the greatest discoveries have been made by Christians. There is no battle.

They are not mutually exclusive. Darwinism, though used as an anti-religious argument, does not disprove Christianity! Even if it were correct.

I think all christians out there believe that Gravity keeps them on the planet.

God is not the explaination of natural phenomenon by some superstitious tribal people, but the great Father of the human race. He set us here, and gave us an intellect and told us to use it. Science comes from His inspiration. Man has not learned any scientific principle without His divine inspiration.
(That doesn't mean we've all used the scientific priniples well...*points to war and guns* but there is a good purpose for all things)

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest.
How about France? France is secular. So that'S strike one right there.

Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it.
So, back then, Zeus was the one true leader of the Gods since it was the most popular religion?
And how about the fact that within this century Islam will have overtaken Christianity in number of followers. Will Islam become de facto the true religion?
I'm afraid that's a second strike against you there.

2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of.
Excuse me? I don't see England, Canada, Italy or the States trying to get rid of Christianity. For that matter, I would argue that the States are trying to get rid of Islam...

3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)
And neither is yours, if you ask people outside your faith. Besides, many religion like, say, Buddism, are not even based around a god.
Strike three, you're out!

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)

Isn't it interesting that all fanatics, regardless of religion, come up with the exact same, flawed and lame reasoning?

Actually, I believe Buddhism has the most followers.

I thought it was the muzlim faith which had the most....hmm..howver i could be wrong

You know why atheism is wrong? Because no entire nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. Every culture has some main religion. I can also prove what the right religion is. chrisianity. 1. Christianity has the most people in it. 2. It's the religion everybody is trying to get rid of. 3. No other religion has produced a living, physical, human god. :)

It has the most people in it but everybody is trying to get rid of it?

I can't be arsed to read through the rest of the replies, so I'll just reply to the one point which irritated me - the guy saying that life couldn't have occurred "just by pure freak chance".

Firstly, I would like to point out that it is perfectly possible for that to happen by chance. If the Earth is lifeless, and is that way for infinity, then life is *bound* to be created simply because in an infinite space of time, anything which is possible will happen.

However, that isn't really the point. It *isn't* freak chance, because as experiments have shown, any tends towards producing more complex structures over time. Scientists have shut chemicals which resemble closely the primordial stew of chemicals which existed in the early life of the Earth, and have shown that given a long expanse of time, those chemicals tend towards producing a bilayer of chemicals which resemble the first plasma membranes which would have surrounded early cells, as well as showing that those members began to regulate the mixture of chemicals inside them in such a way that defied the stew around them.

To sum up for the lazy amongst you - it is scientifically proven that given the right mixture of chemicals, life is not just possible, it is inevitable. Therefore, all arguments about life being too wonderful to have been created by anything other than a god or gods are effectively null and void.

The best thing about being an atheist is that it doesn't require you to do, or even to believe, anything.

I thought it was the muzlim faith which had the most....hmm..howver i could be wrong
No but they ARE by far the fastest growing

*mumbles about people not seeing his last post* :P

I can't be arsed to read through the rest of the replies, so I'll just reply to the one point which irritated me - the guy saying that life couldn't have occurred "just by pure freak chance".

Firstly, I would like to point out that it is perfectly possible for that to happen by chance. If the Earth is lifeless, and is that way for infinity, then life is *bound* to be created simply because in an infinite space of time, anything which is possible will happen.

However, that isn't really the point. It *isn't* freak chance, because as experiments have shown, any tends towards producing more complex structures over time. Scientists have shut chemicals which resemble closely the primordial stew of chemicals which existed in the early life of the Earth, and have shown that given a long expanse of time, those chemicals tend towards producing a bilayer of chemicals which resemble the first plasma membranes which would have surrounded early cells, as well as showing that those members began to regulate the mixture of chemicals inside them in such a way that defied the stew around them.

To sum up for the lazy amongst you - it is scientifically proven that given the right mixture of chemicals, life is not just possible, it is inevitable. Therefore, all arguments about life being too wonderful to have been created by anything other than a god or gods are effectively null and void.
You have a link for that?
That looks like it could belong to my list of link to keep at hand.

[QUOTE=


I would be religious if it focus around your intentions (Kind of like Islam, where the quality of your intentions is judged, not the effects of your actions) but I wont be worshipping all the time, because if there is a God why would he create all this world just to have its occupants squandering their time worshipping him, if you live your life to the full and be generaly good, the afterlife can be spent worshipping God(s).



;) .[/QUOTE]
In The christian faith (my faith) you don't have to worship him at all. As long as you believe Christ died for your sins, you can make it to heaven.

The best thing about being an atheist is that it doesn't require you to do, or even to believe, anything.
That is also true of religion. There, belief is not required, because it is given freely.

That's about the silliest arguement I've seen on here. What exactly is your definition of wrong? And as far as I'm concerned, no religion has produced a living physical god. Please prove there was one without using a fictitious book about imaginary friends.

BTW, I gave up my imaginary friends when I was five. They were a family of ducks.
Chek your little liberal encyclopedia you atheist asshole

That's about the silliest arguement I've seen on here. What exactly is your definition of wrong? And as far as I'm concerned, no religion has produced a living physical god. Please prove there was one without using a fictitious book about imaginary friends.

BTW, I gave up my imaginary friends when I was five. They were a family of ducks.
Chek your little liberal encyclopedia you atheist asshole. Duck f***er

What ever happened to "turn the other cheek" and "love for all man?"

And of course, by being atheist, you are more likely not to take foolish risks. If you don't believe in an afterlife, you wouldn't want to do anything that might kill you without a very good reason.

Chek your little liberal encyclopedia you atheist asshole


Estaga
most people posting here don't really expect to persuade anyone
about anything.

Your post however is different, most people who hadn't heard of you before
are now persuaded you are a champion twerp.

As you seem to be opposed to atheists, does that mean you belong
to some form of religion, I think we would all be interested in knowing
what religion would have you as a member

Chek your little liberal encyclopedia you atheist asshole. Duck f***er


From the comment involving sex with ducks
I would imagine you are some form of christian

But please do enlighten us

How about France? France is secular. So that'S strike one right there.

Many are christian. They still have churches. :eek:

So, back then, Zeus was the one true leader of the Gods since it was the most popular religion?
And how about the fact that within this century Islam will have overtaken Christianity in number of followers. Will Islam become de facto the true religion?
I'm afraid that's a second strike against you there.

Do you know for sure? Something cataclysmic might happen to Islam. Also, Muhammed was a pedophile. His youngest wife was 8. :eek:


Excuse me? I don't see England, Canada, Italy or the States trying to get rid of Christianity. For that matter, I would argue that the States are trying to get rid of Islam...

Most of them are slowly being overcome by it. And if Islam is going to overtake us, How can we get rid of them? :eek:

And neither is yours, if you ask people outside your faith. Besides, many religion like, say, Buddism, are not even based around a god.

Sadly, They follow the wrong religion. Though bhuddists do follow 9 of the 10 commandments :eek:

Strike three, you're out!

no, I'm not.

HA HA ! YOUV'E BEEN DISPROVED!

And of course, by being atheist, you are more likely not to take foolish risks. If you don't believe in an afterlife, you wouldn't want to do anything that might kill you without a very good reason.
Actually, the self-preservation instinct is primaeval and over-rides issues of religion and philosophy. Those who make a conscious decision to die, are not unique to any set of beliefs.

Chek your little liberal encyclopedia you atheist asshole. Duck f***er

LOL
Does that qualify as a flame?
Did her hurt you wittle feelings?
Oh, perhaps folks would take you more seriously if you learned how to spell.

It has the most people in it but everybody is trying to get rid of it?
Outside it

HA HA ! YOUV'E BEEN DISPROVED!
Oh where? surly not by you

Guys, how many kittens do I have to kill before you cut it out? :rolleyes:

LOL
Does that qualify as a flame?
Did her hurt you wittle feelings?
Oh, perhaps folks would take you more seriously if you learned how to spell.
First of all, you can't exactly focus when you're pissed off. Second, I misspell one word and you have to nit pick it. I guess when you've been mocked when the fact is true, you have to work hard to get back at someone.

First of all, learn to use quotes. At the very least, do try to separate your answers from my comments.


How about France? France is secular. So that'S strike one right there.

Many are christian. They still have churches.
You said that no nation, current or in the past, has been athiest. I posit to you that France is a nation. France is secular. As such, France has a strictly atheist government.

You don't like my example, here's another one:
China.
Any nation that has Buddism as an official religion is also an atheist nation as buddism is an atheistic religion.

So, back then, Zeus was the one true leader of the Gods since it was the most popular religion?
And how about the fact that within this century Islam will have overtaken Christianity in number of followers. Will Islam become de facto the true religion?
I'm afraid that's a second strike against you there.

Do you know for sure? Something cataclysmic might happen to Islam. Also, Muhammed was a pedophile. His youngest wife was 8.
What Muhammed did is not relevant to your argument, so I don't know why you mention it. Besides, if Islam is the one true religion by your definition that the religion with the most followers is the true religion, then marrying 8 years old will be the will of God!!!

Excuse me? I don't see England, Canada, Italy or the States trying to get rid of Christianity. For that matter, I would argue that the States are trying to get rid of Islam...

Most of them are slowly being overcome by it. And if Islam is going to overtake us, How can we get rid of them?
That's a great way to look at it :rolleyes:

And neither is yours, if you ask people outside your faith. Besides, many religion like, say, Buddism, are not even based around a god.

Sadly, They follow the wrong religion. Though bhuddists do follow 9 of the 10 commandments
And how do YOU know that? Maybe it's the other way aroung?
Strike three, you're out!

no, I'm not.

I'm afraid you are.

HA HA ! YOUV'E BEEN DISPROVED!
hardly. All you managed to do is find specious arguments that were somewhat related to what I was saying.

First of all, you can't exactly focus when you're pissed off. Second, I misspell one word and you have to nit pick it. I guess when you've been mocked when the fact is true, you have to work hard to get back at someone.


You don't have any facts.

Your being mocked because you have a foolish belief in an imaginary friend
AND think that other people should either join you in your belief
or at least respect you for being delusional.

btw christianity isnt being criticized here, except in as much as it is
one of many nonsensical belief systems for the frightened and ignorant,
that have a tendency to lead to acts of great evil, wars, murder, torture
etc.

Being Atheist can be a religion.

If you believe in evolution, then it is a religion

If you just dont believe, then it isnt

I myself hope that you convert to Christianism.
I will pray for you.

Give it up . There hasn't been atheism until people were infected with LIDS(Liberal Intelligance Deficiancy Syndrome, quoted from Michael Savage).

Bhuddism is a religion, moron
Erm, do you mind leaving my thread? You do not have to respect anyone's religious institution here, but you do have to show some courtesy to the people with whom you are talking.

Chek your little liberal encyclopedia you atheist asshole. Duck f***er

oh my

Bhuddism is a religion, moron
Never said it wasn't. It's a religion with atheistic belief.

And I shall let one ad-hominem attack pass. Do not do a second one.

First of all, you can't exactly focus when you're pissed off. Second, I misspell one word and you have to nit pick it. I guess when you've been mocked when the fact is true, you have to work hard to get back at someone.

First- I can. No problem. Speak for yourself.
Second- Because I knew it would make you nuts(er)
Third(that's the one that comes after second)-Yes, you're being mocked. Still.
Fourth(comes after third, in case you're lost)-What fact?
Fifth(counting still higher) You didn't work hard enough. I find you hilarious, almost as funny as JesusSaves.

You know what?

Religion is believing what you think is true.

Science is believing what is known to be true but doesn't always have the answers you want.

Therefore: This discussion is stupid. Believe what you want to believe and who cares what everyone else does.

Bhuddism is a religion, moron
You don't read well either.
East Canuck said buddism is an atheistic religion
and not that it is not a religion. He (she?) was pointing out that atheistic countries do exist and that any country which is Buddist is by nature athiestic.
Simple really. :rolleyes:

Bhuddism is a religion, moron

*cough* no it isn't... Buddhism is a religion though ^^
Oh, and the point he was trying to make is that although it is a religion, it is an atheistic religion because it incorporates philosophies rather than a belief in a god or gods...

The best thing about being an atheist is that it doesn't require you to do, or even to believe, anything.

Except that there is no god.

You don't read well either.
East Canuck said
and not that it is not a religion. He (she?) was pointing out that atheistic countries do exist and that any country which is Buddist is by nature athiestic.
Simple really. :rolleyes:
Thank you!

And it's he, for the record.

Thank you!

And it's he, for the record.


he he.

Give it up . There hasn't been atheism until people were infected with LIDS(Liberal Intelligance Deficiancy Syndrome, quoted from Michael Savage).
And you take that seriously? A virus or bacterium which is a vector for a recent political ideology? I'm serious, if this was last year, you'd have a week-long forum ban now. You are derailing what was a perfectly reasonable discussion for 24 pages. :mad: