NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading for some time now these athiest versus christians/jews/muslims/etc. threads. they all boil down to the Bible versus the atheists.

Since there was a command that says "Thou shalt worship no god before me" and athiesm worships no good at all, I'd say we got off on a Judeo/Christian technicallity.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

Absolutely nothing.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

It considers life meaningless

I have no real problem against atheists who don't have a problem with those who beleive in religion. The only problem is that everytime some atheists seem to hear the word 'god' or anything that may imply and/or sound like 'god' (such as bod) they act like it is burning their eardrums. Then they proceed to be inable to accept the fact that some people might actually rely on faith to make their life better, easier, or more fulfilled. I don't ever say anything about people having to believe in my god, yet I always have to hear about how I shouldn't believe in a god.

It considers life meaningless
No it doesn't. It takes no position with regard to the meaning of life except to say that since there's no god, the meaning of life has nothing to do with religion.

It considers life meaningless
We also consider it most precious … that’s one advantage of not having a belief in an afterlife

This life is all we have

Absolutely nothing.

The reason is, atheism is a minority. It is OK for a majority to pound the shit out of the minority. They can't really fight back; the minority is crushed by overwhelming numbers. And with atheism it is still rather politically correct to bash, unlike say with black skin color.

Hence I already answered the question, and yet this thread will continue for pages with people ripping on atheism.

It considers life meaningless
Begging your pardon?

Let's first define atheism, shall we? It is the belief that there are no god. There are religious beliefs out there that are atheist (like buddism) and they definitively do not think that life is meaningless.

Furthermore, those who think that life is meaningless are nihilists. A small part of the whole atheist movement. It's like thinking that mormon doctrine apllies to all those who are of the Christian faith. It is simply not true.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

Absolutely nothing. The only problem I've had is with people who say that all faith is stupid. (By no means the majority of atheists)

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it, in fact its against the law for us to force you to, just because you're atheist doesnt mean we should change everything to please you, if you want us to respect the fact that you are athiest please respect the fact that we want to believe in god.


NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything??? and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there??? if you cant explain that without saying, it always existed, the dont use science to disprove there is a god.

now this doesnt apply to all athiests, just the majority i met

The reason is, atheism is a minority. It is OK for a majority to pound the shit out of the minority. They can't really fight back; the minority is crushed by overwhelming numbers. And with atheism it is still rather politically correct to bash, unlike say with black skin color.

Hence I already answered the question, and yet this thread will continue for pages with people ripping on atheism. Ahem… what? Atheism a minority? It would be in many countries, but most likely not where you live.

As far as I've seen it's okay to bash Christianity or atheism but not anything else. Most unfair.

Atheism = Super Sexyness

No seriously, I have no idea.

How long before this thread turns into a Flamewar?

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it, in fact its against the law for us to force you to, just because you're atheist doesnt mean we should change everything to please you, if you want us to respect the fact that you are athiest please respect the fact that we want to believe in god.


NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything??? and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there??? if you cant explain that without saying, it always existed, the dont use science to disprove there is a god.

now this doesnt apply to all athiests, just the majority i met
see my point about some religious doctrine having an atheist view.

And the pledge has "under God" only since the Commie Scare of the McCarthy era. It's high time it goes back to his original form, without mention of God.

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it,

They aren't the only ones who do. I am for either taking it out or openning it up. The only thing we want is everyone to be treated fairly. How would you feel if the words, "one nation, under Gods" or "one nation, without God" were in there but you didn't have to say it?

Ahem… what? Atheism a minority? It would be in many countries, but most likely not where you live.

As far as I've seen it's okay to bash Christianity or atheism but not anything else. Most unfair.
Yes atheism is by far the minority

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it, in fact its against the law for us to force you to, just because you're atheist doesnt mean we should change everything to please you, if you want us to respect the fact that you are athiest please respect the fact that we want to believe in god.


NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything??? and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there??? if you cant explain that without saying, it always existed, the dont use science to disprove there is a god.

now this doesnt apply to all athiests, just the majority i met
1) Public money is being used to organize schoolkids for the recitation of the pledge. The pledge, when it contains "under god" is no longer a strictly secular statement, but a religious declaration of faith. Therefore public funds are being used to promote a declaration of faith in violation of the establishment clause.

2) The laws of physics came into being along with the matter, energy, time and space produced by the big bang, so by the time that law came into effect matter, or the energy that would become matter, already existed. Let me say it another way. Time started with the big bang, so there was no "before" the big bang. Therefore at the moment time started all the matter in the universe existed. No violation of the laws of thermodynamics there.

Ahem… what? Atheism a minority? It would be in many countries, but most likely not where you live.


:confused:

* A 1995 survey [11] attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

* the 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million US Americans (14.1%) self-describe as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.

* A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook [17] estimates about 12.5% of the world's population are non-religious, and about 2.4% are atheists.

* A 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center [18] showed that in the United States, 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 could be characterized as non-religious.

* A 2005 poll by AP/Ipsos [19] surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States had most certainty about the existence of god or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic) while France had the most skeptics (19% atheist, 16% agnostic). On the religion question South Korea had the greatest percentage without a religion (41%) while Italy had the smallest (5%).


And thats including anyone "not religious" under "atheist," a qualification which is definitely a stretching of the term atheist.

Minority.

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it, in fact its against the law for us to force you to, just because you're atheist doesnt mean we should change everything to please you, if you want us to respect the fact that you are athiest please respect the fact that we want to believe in god.


Sorry bucko but it was not in the origional and was added later ... we want the REAL pledge of alligence back

I've been reading for some time now these athiest versus christians/jews/muslims/etc. threads. they all boil down to the Bible versus the atheists.

Since there was a command that says "Thou shalt worship no god before me" and athiesm worships no good at all, I'd say we got off on a Judeo/Christian technicallity.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

yeah, it's almost like a war is brewing. lol

RELAX, people. Cripes. Christians and atheists can argue (although arguing about beliefs tends not to lead to resolution or compromise), but there's no need to get irate.

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it, in fact its against the law for us to force you to, just because you're atheist doesnt mean we should change everything to please you, if you want us to respect the fact that you are athiest please respect the fact that we want to believe in god.
Are you aware of the terms formal and informal laws? Formal laws are laws made by congress that if you break you are punished by the government. Informal laws are societal norms that if one breaks they are labeled deviant and ostracized. Now I do agree that the government does not expressly force people to say the pledge. However informally if you do not say the pledge you are not looked upon favorable and could be picked on or socially be avoided. Its a double standard really. Also athiests who are against having god being said in the pledge of alleigance are not against you believing in god. They just don't want the government having their kids say something that affirms a belief in a higher power which they don't.


NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything??? and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there??? if you cant explain that without saying, it always existed, the dont use science to disprove there is a god.
Now here is the problem with this statement. Science is not a tool to prove or disprove wheter a diety exists. Science is a way to explain the natural world around us. The theories about big bang, evolution and gravity are all attempts to understand why things have happened in the world around us. They make no claims to wheter there is or is not a god in any of these theories. And also there are plenty of people here who can better explain why the big bang does not really violate the whole matter can not be created nor destroyed thing.

1) Public money is being used to organize schoolkids for the recitation of the pledge. The pledge, when it contains "under god" is no longer a strictly secular statement, but a religious declaration of faith. Therefore public funds are being used to promote a declaration of faith in violation of the establishment clause.

2) The laws of physics came into being along with the matter, energy, time and space produced by the big bang, so by the time that law came into effect matter, or the energy that would become matter, already existed. Let me say it another way. Time started with the big bang, so there was no "before" the big bang. Therefore at the moment time started all the matter in the universe existed. No violation of the laws of thermodynamics there.


ok um first YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE YOU TO, therefore it is not the government supporting religion, and WHY DONT YOU ATHIESTS JUST LEAVE THE GOD PART OUT WHEN YOU SAY IT???BECAUSE I WILL ALWAYS SAY IT WITH GOD IN IT. And if you REALLY knew things about the big bang, you would know that THERE was dust before it, and it is just a THEORY, no way to prove or disprove anything you say.

NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything???

Well, it's a better theory than "A magic man made it all".

and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there???

How did God get there?

i'll tell you whats wrong with them, they want to take out god from from the pledge of alligence, well hey YOU dont have to say it, in fact its against the law for us to force you to, just because you're atheist doesnt mean we should change everything to please you, if you want us to respect the fact that you are athiest please respect the fact that we want to believe in god.

I have no problem with your god. Why do I have to say that MY country is under him? I can see my country, I understand it's ways and ideals. Your god however hasn't really done much for me, nor for anyone as far as I can see. Why are would you opress my beliefs by insisting your god be mentioned? And beyond, there are other gods people believe in, why must they pledge allegiance to the country under YOUR god?

NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything??? and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there??? if you cant explain that without saying, it always existed, the dont use science to disprove there is a god.

now this doesnt apply to all athiests, just the majority i met

First off...not all athiests are scientists (I am but that's beside the point). Some are naturalists (you'd call them hippies) or various other forms of belief that just don't deal with a god (you'd label them heathens). The big bang didn't necessarily "create" everything, so much as take what was a tiny conglomeration of matter and, due to forces exerted within it, explode and expand. What was there before, no scientist has attempted to answer yet. Science cannot disprove god as no god has never been proven to exist.

ok um first YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE YOU TO, therefore it is not the government supporting religion, and WHY DONT YOU ATHIESTS JUST LEAVE THE GOD PART OUT WHEN YOU SAY IT???BECAUSE I WILL ALWAYS SAY IT WITH GOD IN IT. And if you REALLY knew things about the big bang, you would know that THERE was dust before it, and it is just a THEORY, no way to prove or disprove anything you say.
Lol sorry but we preffer the REAL pledge before the god part was added during the cold war

ok um first YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE YOU TO, therefore it is not the government supporting religion,


Speaking in caps does not make it true. Would you be happy if the pledge said, "one nation, under Gods" or "one nation, without God"? All we want is eveyrone to be treated fairly, we're sorry if it makes you upset.

and it is just a THEORY

Yeah, kind of like gravity.

How long before this thread turns into a Flamewar?

Too late. And I was hoping to have a meaningful discourse.

ok um first YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE YOU TO, therefore it is not the government supporting religion, and WHY DONT YOU ATHIESTS JUST LEAVE THE GOD PART OUT WHEN YOU SAY IT???BECAUSE I WILL ALWAYS SAY IT WITH GOD IN IT. And if you REALLY knew things about the big bang, you would know that THERE was dust before it, and it is just a THEORY, no way to prove or disprove anything you say.

1. Refer back to my earlier post about the not being required part.
2. You say theory as if its something trivial. When in fact a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested numerous times by different people and the data corispondes with it. They are the best explainations we have now that if new information is discovered then they can be changed or discarded.

Speaking in caps does not make it true. Would you be happy if the pledge said, "one nation, under Gods" or "one nation, without God"? All we want is eveyrone to be treated fairly, we're sorry if it makes you upset.

If you want everyone to be treated fairly, take it out. The only people treated fairly with "under god" in the pledge is Christians.

If you want everyone to be treated fairly, take it out. The only people treated fairly with "under god" in the pledge is Christians.

And other monotheists, but that's what I'm arguing that it should be 1) Taken out or 2) Openned up and everyone encouraged to put what they value most in it.

Well, it's a better theory than "A magic man made it all".



How did God get there?

if you cant explain how anything is existed and you took a leap of faith to believe that theory, and i took a leap of faith to believe god exists, now i would advise you not to make fun of peoples belief in God by calling him a "MAGIC MAN" because hey, i am respecting your right to not believe in him please respect my right to believe in him and not make fun of it.

we are under God...

everyone has a god... be he Yahweh, money, love, a certain person, etc.

I don't like the idea of people monkeying with America's traditions... IE trying to take God off of currency, the pledge, etc.

as has been stated many times before... if you don't want to say it, you don't have to. nobody will ever be forced (nor should he) to say something he doesn't believe in.

but these same people shouldn't mess with MY right to say it, or the rights of others who view the Pledge as a sacred rite. BTW, it does not say "under Jesus" ... this God is non-denominational and may fit any belief system... or, like i said before, if your God is money (sex, etc.)... then you speak of your god.

ok um first YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE YOU TO, therefore it is not the government supporting religion, and WHY DONT YOU ATHIESTS JUST LEAVE THE GOD PART OUT WHEN YOU SAY IT???BECAUSE I WILL ALWAYS SAY IT WITH GOD IN IT. And if you REALLY knew things about the big bang, you would know that THERE was dust before it, and it is just a THEORY, no way to prove or disprove anything you say.
Get pissed!

LOL, I like how you put everything in caps. It's so cute!

"No way to prove or disprove [the Big Bang]"

LMAO. What are you, in fourth grade? Wouldn't surprise me, telling from your typing skills...but I digress. I'd type this out so your pea-brain can understand it, but I have a class to get to, so I'll just refer you to an article and I'll hash it out for you later when I have time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

What do you have to explain Creationism? Oh yeah, "The Bible told me so." Good game.

School is dismissed.

I don't like the idea of people monkeying with America's traditions... IE trying to take God off of currency, the pledge, etc.



Putting God in the pledge and on the currency WAS monkeying with America's traditions. We just want it back the way it was.

1. Refer back to my earlier post about the not being required part.
2. You say theory as if its something trivial. When in fact a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested numerous times by different people and the data corispondes with it. They are the best explainations we have now that if new information is discovered then they can be changed or discarded.
WOW one HUGE problem with that YOU CANT TEST THE BIG BANG

also if you take out god of the pledge, wouldn't you have to destroy the bill of rights and constitution, they make indirect references to the bible, and almost everything we believe morally acceptable, can be traced back to some religous paper.

I don't like the idea of people monkeying with America's traditions... IE trying to take God off of currency, the pledge, etc.
Alright, here we go:

The phrase "Under God" wasn't there in the first place.

if you cant explain how anything is existed and you took a leap of faith to believe that theory, and i took a leap of faith to believe god exists, now i would advise you not to make fun of peoples belief in God by calling him a "MAGIC MAN" because hey, i am respecting your right to not believe in him please respect my right to believe in him and not make fun of it.

You don't need to take a leap of faith to believe a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over again by many people and the data continuously supports the hypothesis. Evolution is a theory because the data has been show over and over again to support it. Faith is not involved. Also how can you make fun of someone for not believing in god? Are you going to go look at him everyone he doesn't believe in god and start laughing? Or would you just go with the they are going to burn in hell route? I respect your right to believe but that doesn't mean I dont have the right to voice my opinions on that belief.

ok um first YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE YOU TO, therefore it is not the government supporting religion, and WHY DONT YOU ATHIESTS JUST LEAVE THE GOD PART OUT WHEN YOU SAY IT???BECAUSE I WILL ALWAYS SAY IT WITH GOD IN IT. And if you REALLY knew things about the big bang, you would know that THERE was dust before it, and it is just a THEORY, no way to prove or disprove anything you say.
Who pays a public schoolteacher's salary? The government. Who teaches the kids the pledge? The public schoolteacher. So public money is being used to fund the teaching of religious beleif. Plus the schools endorse the religious beleif further by using school resoursces and time (which the teacher get's paid for) to provide a venue for the expression of religious beleif. Oh, quit putting most of your post in all caps. It's a little like shouting and is impolite.

Oh, and your statement that there was dust before the big bang, and calling it JUST a theory shows that you don't know enough science to participate in this discussion. Quit talking about subjects you know absolutely nothing about. Just go read your biblical fairytales or something.

also if you take out god of the pledge, wouldn't you have to destroy the bill of rights and constitution, they make indirect references to the bible, and almost everything we believe morally acceptable, can be traced back to some religous paper.
How so?

source please?

You don't need to take a leap of faith to believe a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over again by many people and the data continuously supports the hypothesis. Evolution is a theory because the data has been show over and over again to support it. Faith is not involved. Also how can you make fun of someone for not believing in god? Are you going to go look at him everyone he doesn't believe in god and start laughing? Or would you just go with the they are going to burn in hell route? I respect your right to believe but that doesn't mean I dont have the right to voice my opinions on that belief.
AGAIN YOU CAN NOT TEST THE BIG BANG THEORY CAN YOU???? no we can not RECREATE THE BIG BANG

we are under God...

everyone has a god... be he Yahweh, money, love, a certain person, etc.

I don't like the idea of people monkeying with America's traditions... IE trying to take God off of currency, the pledge, etc.

as ha been stated many times before... if you don't want to say it, you don't have to. but don't mess with MY right to say it.

Interesting turnaround. Who's messing with your "right" to say it?

And how "traditional" do you think the Pledge as it stands is anyway?

And why does EVERY thread have to be about God vs the Constitution of the US, God vs Evolution, God vs the Big Bang Theory??? Tell me that? Is it because you people can't debate? I think it is.

we are under God...

everyone has a god... be he Yahweh, money, love, a certain person, etc.

I don't like the idea of people monkeying with America's traditions... IE trying to take God off of currency, the pledge, etc.

as has been stated many times before... if you don't want to say it, you don't have to. nobody will ever be forced (nor should he) to say something he doesn't believe in.

but these same people shouldn't mess with MY right to say it, or the rights of others who view the Pledge as a sacred rite. BTW, it does not say "under Jesus" ... this God is non-denominational and may fit any belief system... or, like i said before, if your God is money (sex, etc.)... then you speak of your god.
Traditions? Those "traditions" are less than 60 years old. Calling something that's less than a lifetime old a "tradition" kinda cheapens the word.

AGAIN YOU CAN NOT TEST THE BIG BANG THEORY CAN YOU???? no we can not RECREATE THE BIG BANG

I'm not well versed in the theory so I would not be able to give you an accurate answer on how one could test it. Though I have heard things about singularity and such but then again I really am not a physicist here. ALSO TWO CAN PLAY AT THE CAPS LOCKS GAME. TRY TURNING IT OFF BECAUSE YOUR NOT MAKING YOURSELF LOOK ANY BETTER MAN. :p

WOW one HUGE problem with that YOU CANT TEST THE BIG BANG

4 Tests:
1) Stellar Expansion
2) Make up of the stars and planets
3) Cosmic Background radiation
4) Predicts a specific evolution of Universe which has corresponded to what we have seen "looking back in time" (1 light year = light travels in 1 year, therefore, when we look at somehting 8 billion light years away we are looking back in time 8 billion years

also if you take out god of the pledge, wouldn't you have to destroy the bill of rights and constitution, they make indirect references to the bible, and almost everything we believe morally acceptable, can be traced back to some religous paper.

What refferences do the DoI and Constitution make to the Bible? The DoI uses the phrase "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" which is a DEIST refference. God is totally absent from the Constitution except in the date, and if you argue that the date published is nescesary for the constitution you're being silly.

WOW one HUGE problem with that YOU CANT TEST THE BIG BANG

.
Sure you can. Make predictions of what the universe should look like if the big bang had occured, then look to see if the actual universe matches those predictions.

It considers life meaningless


Whee did you get such a stupid idea from? I am an atheist and my life if full of meaning and beauty. There are so many wonderful thigns like family, nature, helping others, music, truth, love. . . . . . now I sound like a Bohemian from Moulin Rouge.

Regardless, just because I don't rely on an outside source to give my life meaning, doesn't mean that I don't find meaning in my life.

we are under God...

everyone has a god... be he Yahweh, money, love, a certain person, etc.

I don't like the idea of people monkeying with America's traditions... IE trying to take God off of currency, the pledge, etc.

as has been stated many times before... if you don't want to say it, you don't have to. nobody will ever be forced (nor should he) to say something he doesn't believe in.

but these same people shouldn't mess with MY right to say it, or the rights of others who view the Pledge as a sacred rite. BTW, it does not say "under Jesus" ... this God is non-denominational and may fit any belief system... or, like i said before, if your God is money (sex, etc.)... then you speak of your god.


For the record...the pledge was already monkeyed with to add "under god"

AGAIN YOU CAN NOT TEST THE BIG BANG THEORY CAN YOU???? no we can not RECREATE THE BIG BANG
IT'S FALSIFIABLE IN THAT ONE CAN MAKE PREDICTIONS BASED ON WHAT A BIG BANG UNIVERSE WOULD BE LIKE THEN TEST THEM AGAINST REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS. I CAN USE CAPS JUST AS WELL AS YOU, SO LET'S BOTH CUT IT OUT.

Why do half the atheists here have to be so xenophobic? I mean, Christians aren't going to break into your houses and shoot you. Jews aren't going to rape your mothers and kill your fathers. Heck, I doubt that muslim down the street has it in for you. The problem with NS is that too many people using it are afraid of the different. Plus, under god didn't say which one. It could be a Roman god for all we know. Plus, it could mean that, while the US isn't perfect, it is close to it.

<snip>

Thanks for explaining that to him DCD

Drunk commies deleted, You rock

Putting God in the pledge and on the currency WAS monkeying with America's traditions. We just want it back the way it was.

Excuse me, but the founding fathers used God quite a bit... the use of God in America's traditional phrases/in America's songs/on currency is not a recent event.

Why do half the atheists here have to be so xenophobic? I mean, Christians aren't going to break into your houses and shoot you. Jews aren't going to rape your mothers and kill your fathers. Heck, I doubt that muslim down the street has it in for you. The problem with NS is that too many people using it are afraid of the different. Plus, under god didn't say which one. It could be a Roman god for all we know. Plus, it could mean that, while the US isn't perfect, it is close to it.
My take on this thread is very different from yours. Atheists here arent' being xenophobic. We've politely corrected some false statements about atheism, science, US traditions, and US law. Then the theists who made those false statements, well some of the theists, decided to try to shout us down by using the oh so brilliant tactic of typing in all caps and repeating their false statements over again.

Why do half the atheists here have to be so xenophobic? I mean, Christians aren't going to break into your houses and shoot you. Jews aren't going to rape your mothers and kill your fathers. Heck, I doubt that muslim down the street has it in for you. The problem with NS is that too many people using it are afraid of the different. Plus, under god didn't say which one. It could be a Roman god for all we know. Plus, it could mean that, while the US isn't perfect, it is close to it.
First part bolded: it says "under God" with a capital G. It refers to the Christian god.

Second part bolded: hahahaha!!!! :) :p :D . Dude, thanks for making me laugh. I needed that. Close to perfect... that's a good one.

IT'S FALSIFIABLE IN THAT ONE CAN MAKE PREDICTIONS BASED ON WHAT A BIG BANG UNIVERSE WOULD BE LIKE THEN TEST THEM AGAINST REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS. I CAN USE CAPS JUST AS WELL AS YOU, SO LET'S BOTH CUT IT OUT.

...would have looked more impressive in red. hehe

Excuse me, but the founding fathers used God quite a bit... the use of God in America's traditional phrases/in America's songs/on currency is not a recent event.
Not in the constitution. Not even on currency. I think it was added much later to the currency.

My eyes just started bleeding.

...would have looked more impressive in red. hehe
Maybe, but it seemed like a bit of overkill.

WOW one HUGE problem with that YOU CANT TEST THE BIG BANG

also if you take out god of the pledge, wouldn't you have to destroy the bill of rights and constitution, they make indirect references to the bible, and almost everything we believe morally acceptable, can be traced back to some religous paper.

Exactly what indirect references would those be?

1. I believe in God
2. I'm not a Christian, I follow my own beliefs.
3. I "believe" in science (believe isn’t the right word I know, maybe trust it or accept it would be better)
4. Big bang isn’t necessarily right (some Cosmologists dispute it and the accepted theory will probably change eventually)
5. Everyone has the right to believe what he or she wants.
6. No body has the right to remove that right (wow that was a bad sentence)
7. I don’t live in the US so I cant comment but I would say that does it really matter either way.
8. Please don’t yell at me, please?

hehe my bad

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...Oh and those atheists that are pricks...but i don't like pricks of any creed so ya...other than that I like atheists, and i support their beliefs..Oh and I am a christian too :eek:

1. I believe in God
2. I'm not a Christian, I follow my own beliefs.
3. I "believe" in science (believe isn’t the right word I know, maybe trust it or accept it would be better)
4. Big bang isn’t necessarily right (some cosmetologists dispute it and the accepted theory will probably change eventually)
5. Everyone has the right to believe what he or she wants.
6. No body has the right to remove that right (wow that was a bad sentence)
7. I don’t live in the US so I cant comment but I would say that does it really matter either way.
8. Please don’t yell at me, please?
Sorry, I usually don't make fun of typos, but I love the idea of a debate between the Avon lady and Steven Hawking.

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...Oh and those atheists that are pricks...but i don't like pricks of any creed so ya...other than that I like atheists, and i support their beliefs..Oh and I am a christian too :eek:
How so?

Do you mean to imply that Buddists (atheist belief)are depressed and have nothing to look forward to?

Even the DoI had "All men are CREATED equal", which is incinuating that we were created instead of being some freak accident like scientists believe, well, most of them. Even Einstein was Jewish. I'm not talking about ethnic Jewish. I mean precursor to Christianity and Islam Jewish.

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...Oh and those atheists that are pricks...but i don't like pricks of any creed so ya...other than that I like atheists, and i support their beliefs..Oh and I am a christian too :eek:
1) I haven't met a disproportionate number of depressed people who were atheist. Please show me a study that links atheism and depression.

2) This life isn't terrible. It's actually pretty wonderfull.

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...
Athiesm does not equal nihilism. :headbang:

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...Oh and those atheists that are pricks...but i don't like pricks of any creed so ya...other than that I like atheists, and i support their beliefs..Oh and I am a christian too :eek:

My depression is nothing to do with the fact that this is the only life I get. Stop generalising.

With the way society is today, i can guarentee you that Aethism and Non Religious people will not stay the minority, and it will increase at a steady pace over the next 100 years.

I will teach my children about biology, i will teach them about how the world was created millions of years ago. I will also teach them that some people believe in gods and different faiths, but i certainly wont raise my children religious.. If they choose to be Christian, Buddist, Jewish, Muslim whatever i have no problem with it.

But i wont raise them myself to be religious at all

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...Oh and those atheists that are pricks...but i don't like pricks of any creed so ya...other than that I like atheists, and i support their beliefs..Oh and I am a christian too :eek:


I've never known someone who was depressed because they were an Atheist. Why be depressed? For us, heaven and hell is right here, right now. We have nothing to worry about after we die, we only have to live good, happy lives now. If we make a mistake, we can learn from it and move on without worrying about being punished by some magical father figure with a beard wagging his finger at us from a throne in the sky. Sadly, I've known many Christians (though certainly not all) who live their lives in misery out of fear of what might happen later.

All this bieng said, I really don't have a beef with religion. I can see how it can beautify ones life and I'm all for that. No, my problem is with certain religion people who are so insecure they feel the need to foist their beliefs on everyone else. I mean really, is your belief in a god going to change because the government stops endorsing it in the Pledge? Or is your marriage going to fall apart if two gay men down the street get to inherit one another's property without taxation after they die?

I didn't think so.

How so?

Do you mean to imply that Buddists (atheist belief)are depressed and have nothing to look forward to?

actually there is a relm of gods in buddhism. i cant say too much about it because im currently taking a buddhism course, and im only 3 weeks into it...

Even the DoI had "All men are CREATED equal", which is incinuating that we were created instead of being some freak accident like scientists believe, well, most of them. Even Einstein was Jewish. I'm not talking about ethnic Jewish. I mean precursor to Christianity and Islam Jewish.
So what? Jefferson was a brilliant political thinker who advanced the cause of human rights, but he didn't have any more evidence than I do to determine if a god exists. Oh, and wind creates sand dunes. Does that mean that wind is a thinking being? Created could mean created by the forces of nature as well as by a god.

There's some debate on Einstein's beleif in god. Even if we assume he was convinced that god exists, there's no evidence to base such a beleif on, so atheism is as valid as theism, and one person's opinion on the subject has no bearing on the truth.

Even the DoI had "All men are CREATED equal", which is incinuating that we were created instead of being some freak accident like scientists believe, well, most of them. Even Einstein was Jewish. I'm not talking about ethnic Jewish. I mean precursor to Christianity and Islam Jewish.

Most scientists I know don't think that The Universe was created in some freak accident, they just know how to seperate personal belief from scientific evidence.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and
actions of human beings."
Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

Einstein's religious Judism was tenuis at best.

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...

Then stop making their lifes miserable :P

To the people that said the "In God we trust is original" - sorry. First US coin with that text was minted in 1864. Only as late as 1938 did all coins come to carry the inscription.
And of course - the original US motto is "e pluribus unum". Which I personally think is much prettier.

Sorry, I usually don't make fun of typos, but I love the idea of a debate between the Avon lady and Steven Hawking.
LOL

Was the O.P. made in all seriousness?

Honestly, anyone with even the slightest SHRED of knowledge (regarding Christianity) can understand where the "beef" is, between Christians and the athiestic mindset:

Christians believe there's one way to "heaven", and an athiest doesn't believe heaven exists, period - much less "one way" to get there.

That's pretty much what it boils down to, isn't it? Not that Christians would have ISSUES with the person the athiest, but rather with the thought processes and belief systems set up therein.

Once again - your average Christian doesn't have anything against athiests as people, but rather with the ideas set up within that subset.

And why not? As far as I know, everyone has "issues" with anyone else who would happen to be on an opposite side of the board - at least, an issue with the theology, if not the person proper.

Is it that hard of a concept to get around?

Then stop making their lifes miserable :P

To the people that said the "In God we trust is original" - sorry. First US coin with that text was minted in 1864. Only as late as 1938 did all coins come to carry the inscription.
And of course - the original US motto is "e pluribus unum". Which I personally think is much prettier.
They can make their own lives better. After all, I'm Christian and the crap on how I'm retarded for worshipping someone who kills people for kicks(reference to the smitings in the bible) and on how I'm completely ignorant of science for reading a book that teaches history and the idea that it might not always be a good idea to kill people. Yep. I'm not depressed and it's all my doing.

Does "e plurubus unum" mean "of one, many"?

Sorry, I usually don't make fun of typos, but I love the idea of a debate between the Avon lady and Steven Hawking.

hehe yeah my mistake corrected now, u knew what i ment

My biggest beef with atheism is the fact that to me it seems like they are a depressed people..They have no hope for anything after this very terrible life...Oh and those atheists that are pricks...but i don't like pricks of any creed so ya...other than that I like atheists, and i support their beliefs..Oh and I am a christian too :eek:

Umm...I'm an athiest that is rather upbeat and gets a huge kick out of life. I won't say I'm never depressed, that would be ridiculous. Sometimes life kicks back. Such is life. I need no hope of an afterlife to carry me through day to day.

I'm a minority in this one, but my beef with Atheists is that they have been too influenced by Christians. "With Christianity ridiculous, there can be no possible god at all" is a pretty common belief among many Atheists. They have a fundamentally irrational and profoundly Christian view of God that they "don't believe in" and fail to believe in considering it any other way. Otherwise, they'd be Agnostic. And if they are, in fact, Agnostic but merely calling themselves Atheist for lack of understanding of the gap between the two, then they're engaging in yet another Christian fallacy.

Atheism is Agnosticism warped by Christianity. That's my problem with it.

They can make their own lives better. After all, I'm Christian and the crap on how I'm retarded for worshipping someone who kills people for kicks(reference to the smitings in the bible) and on how I'm completely ignorant of science for reading a book that teaches history and the idea that it might not always be a good idea to kill people. Yep. I'm not depressed and it's all my doing.

The bible is not a book of history.

Does "e plurubus unum" mean "of one, many"?

I'm pretty sure that is the rough translation. I think the original meaning was to speak to "Though we are many, we stand as one".

Otherwise, they'd be Agnostic. And if they are, in fact, Agnostic but merely calling themselves Atheist for lack of understanding of the gap between the two, then they're engaging in yet another Christian fallacy.

Atheism is Agnosticism warped by Christianity. That's my problem with it.
Pure bullshit. I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in any supernatural beings.

Does "e plurubus unum" mean "of one, many"?

It means "out of many, one". Originally a reference to the colonies united in one nation, but you can of course associate the many with other things. Like religions, skincolours, sexual preferences, income and so on. And all together they can live in harmony as one people. One nation, despite their differences.

For that ideal I would salute a flag.

I'm a minority in this one, but my beef with Atheists is that they have been too influenced by Christians. "With Christianity ridiculous, there can be no possible god at all" is a pretty common belief among many Atheists. They have a fundamentally irrational and profoundly Christian view of God that they "don't believe in" and fail to believe in considering it any other way. Otherwise, they'd be Agnostic. And if they are, in fact, Agnostic but merely calling themselves Atheist for lack of understanding of the gap between the two, then they're engaging in yet another Christian fallacy.

Atheism is Agnosticism warped by Christianity. That's my problem with it.

I have to disagree. In my quest to find answers I examined (and attended services for) christian faiths of all kinds, judaism, the Tao, Buddhism (probably the only "religion" I agree with the tenets of), hinduism (had a tough time getting around that one), Islam, Jehovah's Witness (ism?), hell, I even went to Wicca covens and talked at length with a few Hari Krishnas (sic?).

My athieism stems from a view that all these systems that believe in any god(s) seem to lack in any clear answer other than faith, faith, faith. Which to me is not empirical. Therefore I reject them all as possibilities.

I'd considered that hardly as "warped by Chritianity". Agnotics and athiests are on the same level, and an athiest is really just an agnostic more or less that has said, "this isn't going to happen, so I suspend any belief in the possibility of god(s)"

I'm a minority in this one, but my beef with Atheists is that they have been too influenced by Christians. "With Christianity ridiculous, there can be no possible god at all" is a pretty common belief among many Atheists. They have a fundamentally irrational and profoundly Christian view of God that they "don't believe in" and fail to believe in considering it any other way. Otherwise, they'd be Agnostic. And if they are, in fact, Agnostic but merely calling themselves Atheist for lack of understanding of the gap between the two, then they're engaging in yet another Christian fallacy.

Atheism is Agnosticism warped by Christianity. That's my problem with it.
I'm a weak atheist. This places me very near the agnostic position. I beleive that there is no evidence of god, and because no evidence exists I beleive that there is no god. That second part of the statement separates me from agnostics. I take it on faith that if there was a god it would have left some evidence either on purpose or inadvertantly.

Pure bullshit. I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in any supernatural beings.

But the idea of God as a supernatural being is something advovated by Christianity and not all religions. (For another view, read "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." by Bishop John Spong.)

But the idea of God as a supernatural being is something advovated by Christianity and not all religions. (For another view, read "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." by Bishop John Spong.)
By definition, a deity must be supernatural.

I'm a weak atheist. This places me very near the agnostic position. I beleive that there is no evidence of god, and because no evidence exists I beleive that there is no god. That second part of the statement separates me from agnostics. I take it on faith that if there was a god it would have left some evidence either on purpose or inadvertantly.

I agree with the evidence concept. The question then is, since nothing is truly infinite, where would this god have come from and when did he die?

My answer is of course that he came about around 4000-5000 years ago among some slaves looking for a purpose and drive to revolt and free themselves. When he dies is up to the minds of those that created and perpetuate this idea. Many gods have already dies, Yahweh is just another.

By definition, a deity must be supernatural.

By your deffinition, not everyones. A Theist generally views his God as supernatural but not all believers are theists.

By your deffinition, not everyones.
Provide me with an example of a non-supernatural deity and I'll concede the point.

Does "e plurubus unum" mean "of one, many"?


The other way round... "e pluribus unum" means "of many, one" in the sense of many forming one.

By your deffinition, not everyones. A Theist generally views his God as supernatural but not all believers are theists.
A theist is someone who believes in a deity. Comes from the Greek 'theos', which means 'god'.

A theist is someone who believes in a deity. Comes from the Greek 'theos', which means 'god'.
Well there are some of us who believe in God, but are not theists. You can say what we believe in is not God, but we're going to need another word for what we do believe in.

Provide me with an example of a non-supernatural deity and I'll concede the point.

God is the Ground of All Existance. God is that which is made manifest in Freedom. God is what moves through Love.

3 deffinitions.

Well there are some of us who believe in God, but are not theists. You can say what we believe in is not God, but we're going to need another word for what we do believe in.
Hey, if you want to go the way of ignoring the definition of a word that has had the same meaning since its invention, go ahead. I'll join in. Now if you don't eat meat, you're still not a vegetarian.

God is the Ground of All Existance. God is that which is made manifest in Freedom. God is what moves through Love.

3 deffinitions.
Your point? You're postulating an entity that cannot be detected by any means. This makes it supernatural.

Hey, you want to go against the wayof ignoring the definition of a word that has had the same meaning since its invention, go ahead. I'll join in. Now if you don't eat meat, you're still not a vegetarian.

I'm up for a correction, but give me a word for what I do believe in. Until then I'll use God.

Hey, you want to go against the wayof ignoring the definition of a word that has had the same meaning since its invention, go ahead. I'll join in. Now if you don't eat meat, you're still not a vegetarian.


Actually, you can believe in a God and not be a theist. That is what Bishop Spong argues in his book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." The modern definition of a theist is someone who believes in a god with a personality. IE the idea of the Christian god being a tall, robed, white-man in the sky. A non-theist (note, not an atheist) is someone who believes in a non-personified god. . . something more like the ground of all being, or to put it in simple terms, someone who believes in something akin to the Force in Star Wars.

Your point? You're postulating an entity that cannot be detected by any means. This makes it supernatural.

What do you mean can't be dettected. There is existance, we know that one for sure. The ground of existance is what I call God, be it natural or supernatural.

Too late. And I was hoping to have a meaningful discourse.
The problem is that so many people care what other people think, as if the fact that someone disagrees with them will somehow destroy their ability to go on believing. There's a psychology at work here. Or maybe they think non-belief will destroy the thing they believe in -- is god like tinkerbell? Do we have to clap for him or else he'll die?

That's sarcastic, sorry, can't help myself. :p

And the same applies to some athiests, too -- the ones someone else mentioned who act like the word "god" burns their ears.

Sometimes, I wish people would just mind their own damned business. Of course, then we'd all have nothing to do on line but shop. :D

The problem is that so many people care what other people think, as if the fact that someone disagrees with them will somehow destroy their ability to go on believing. There's a psychology at work here. Or maybe they think non-belief will destroy the thing they believe in -- is god like tinkerbell? Do we have to clap for him or else he'll die?

That's sarcastic, sorry, can't help myself. :p

And the same applies to some athiests, too -- the ones someone else mentioned who act like the word "god" burns their ears.

Sometimes, I wish people would just mind their own damned business. Of course, then we'd all have nothing to do on line but shop. :D

I never have a problem hearing the word god (I know this isn't what you're saying, but just for the record...). The problem I have is when you ask why, there is a stunned look followed by an attempt to proselytize.

I came to my system of belief very throughly and logically (I think), and I love to logical arguments that don't boil down to "Because you are supposed to", "because the bible told me so", "because it's been that way for 2000 years (inaccurate by the way, I'll give you 1600 years but that's my limit), or "because I have faith." Those are not logical arguments, hence I must disregard them.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

First of all, a good Christian shouldn't have enmity towards anyone. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but it's against Christian principles to hate them.

As to what's wrong with atheism: Why, absolutely nothing is wrong with it! UNLESS, and this is a big UNLESS, some kind of god actually does exist.

Now then, if no god exists, then the theist is no worse off than the atheist at the end of time, and in the meanwhile his beliefs, even if false, will hopefully have done him no harm and may have even been a positive influence in his life.

However, if the atheist is wrong and God does exist ... well, it won't be the Christians to whom he'll have to answer.

I never have a problem hearing the word god (I know this isn't what you're saying, but just for the record...). The problem I have is when you ask why, there is a stunned look followed by an attempt to proselytize.

I came to my system of belief very throughly and logically (I think), and I love to logical arguments that don't boil down to "Because you are supposed to", "because the bible told me so", "because it's been that way for 2000 years (inaccurate by the way, I'll give you 1600 years but that's my limit), or "because I have faith." Those are not logical arguments, hence I must disregard them.

So you want a logical argument? I'll give you one.

Let's suppose there are three hypothetical possibilities concerning the higher power.
1) No god
2) Peaceful, loving god
3) Vengeful god

Lets look at the outcomes of believing in any one of them

1) No god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: You're forgiven and go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: Hope you like a deep, deep tan

2) Peaceful god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: He's happy and go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: Hope you like a deep, deep tan cause you beleived in another god.

3) Vengeful god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: You're forgiven and you go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: He's happy you believed in him and you go to heaven.

So in review:

Believing in no god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the peaceful god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the vengeful god has a 66 2/3 % chance of going to heaven

I have to go with odds on this one.

First of all, a good Christian shouldn't have enmity towards anyone. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but it's against Christian principles to hate them.

As to what's wrong with atheism: Why, absolutely nothing is wrong with it! UNLESS, and this is a big UNLESS, some kind of god actually does exist.

Now then, if no god exists, then the theist is no worse off than the atheist at the end of time, and in the meanwhile his beliefs, even if false, will hopefully have done him no harm and may have even been a positive influence in his life.

However, if the atheist is wrong and God does exist ... well, it won't be the Christians to whom he'll have to answer.

Not really. If you are referring to the Christian god, he is supposedly all forgiving, so even the athiests are acceptable. Maybe they need to go to some sort of heaven remedial class for a bit first, but in general, we've broken no commandments, if that is the god you find at death.

And just to spin this slightly...what id the Muslim god, Allah, is the correct god (the fundamentalist Muslim let's say)? Then all the christians and athiests are screwed.

So you want a logical argument? I'll give you one.

Let's suppose there are three hypothetical possibilities concerning the higher power.
1) No god
2) Peaceful, loving god
3) Vengeful god

Lets look at the outcomes of believing in any one of them

1) No god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: You're forgiven and go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: Hope you like a deep, deep tan

2) Peaceful god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: He's happy and go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: Hope you like a deep, deep tan cause you beleived in another god.

3) Vengeful god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: You're forgiven and you go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: He's happy you believed in him and you go to heaven.

So in review:

Believing in no god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the peaceful god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the vengeful god has a 66 2/3 % chance of going to heaven

I have to go with odds on this one.


Umm...Hem? That adds up to 133 1/3%. Umm...that's not possible. Nothing personal but maybe a mathematical god would work for you. ;)

Umm...Hem? That adds up to 133 1/3%. Umm...that's not possible. Nothing personal but maybe a mathematical god would work for you. ;)

:rolleyes:
Did you even read his post?
He's examining the odds, per set, given the rules he laid out in the beginning.

The numbers don't have to add up - in fact, if they did, he'd have done it wrong! :confused:

Not really. If you are referring to the Christian god, he is supposedly all forgiving, so even the athiests are acceptable. Maybe they need to go to some sort of heaven remedial class for a bit first, but in general, we've broken no commandments, if that is the god you find at death.

And just to spin this slightly...what id the Muslim god, Allah, is the correct god (the fundamentalist Muslim let's say)? Then all the christians and athiests are screwed.

That's why it's important to know for sure before you leave this planet. :)

So you want a logical argument? I'll give you one.

Let's suppose there are three hypothetical possibilities concerning the higher power.
1) No god
2) Peaceful, loving god
3) Vengeful god
Oops! Stop right there!
There are many more possibilities than those three. You haven't accounted for the fact that there are many religions which all make a claim that you will suffer if you don't believe in their god. What happens if you believe in the wrong vengeful god? Then there is the possibility of multiple gods, or an evil god, or warring gods, all sorts of other situations which are not accounted for.

But I'm going to Mars. What does leaving this planet have to do with it? (sorry I couldn't resist).

But I'm going to Mars. What does leaving this planet have to do with it? (sorry I couldn't resist).

LOL! I was wondering if you'd say something like that. :p

So you want a logical argument? I'll give you one.

Let's suppose there are three hypothetical possibilities concerning the higher power.
1) No god
2) Peaceful, loving god
3) Vengeful god

Lets look at the outcomes of believing in any one of them

1) No god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: You're forgiven and go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: Hope you like a deep, deep tan
2) Peaceful god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: He's happy and go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: Hope you like a deep, deep tan cause you beleived in another god.

3) Vengeful god
a)There's no god: we're maggot food.
b)There's the forgiving god: You're forgiven and you go to heaven
c)There's the vengeful god: He's happy you believed in him and you go to heaven.
So in review:

Believing in no god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the peaceful god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the vengeful god has a 66 2/3 % chance of going to heaven

I have to go with odds on this one.
Your review is incompatible with your analysis.
Would you care to modify your post?

Believing in no god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the peaceful god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the vengeful god has a 66 2/3 % chance of going to heaven

I have to go with odds on this one.
So you believe in Baal, eh?

Actually, the vengeful god would probably get you on a technicality ("aha, you didn't let your beard grow") and send you to hell anyway.

Get pissed!

LOL, I like how you put everything in caps. It's so cute!

"No way to prove or disprove [the Big Bang]"

LMAO. What are you, in fourth grade? Wouldn't surprise me, telling from your typing skills...but I digress. I'd type this out so your pea-brain can understand it, but I have a class to get to, so I'll just refer you to an article and I'll hash it out for you later when I have time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

What do you have to explain Creationism? Oh yeah, "The Bible told me so." Good game.

School is dismissed.

Your link says observational evidence. That's obviously not first hand observational evidence, as it was apparently however many billion years ago. Did you know that the, according to science, the Universe is aging at something like a year a minute? Due to the continous revision of how long it would have taken for life to evolve.

God is the Ground of All Existance. God is that which is made manifest in Freedom. God is what moves through Love.

3 deffinitions.

Let's try this in the same way you did: definition of myself.

I am what is Behind A Computer Keyboard.
I am what manifests through Typing On A Computer Keyboard.
I am what moves the mouse and the keyboard of a computer through Pushing them with His Fingers.

Oh yeah. Great definitions. :rolleyes:

What problem do I have with atheists?

As a whole? None. I am a bit pissed at my boyfriend right now because he's been acting like a jackass, and he is an atheist, but his actions have nothing to do with that distinction. =)

As a whole? None. I am a bit pissed at my boyfriend right now because he's been acting like a jackass, and he is an atheist, but his actions have nothing to do with that distinction. =)
Dump him. He's giving us all a bad name.

I've been reading for some time now these athiest versus christians/jews/muslims/etc. threads. they all boil down to the Bible versus the atheists.

Since there was a command that says "Thou shalt worship no god before me" and athiesm worships no good at all, I'd say we got off on a Judeo/Christian technicallity.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

isn't it simple ? as badly as Christians want to spread their belifs, so Atheists want to shoot them down, attacking the very ideology... I could pose the same question, What do atheist have against theists ? Many will say oh because they are pushing their ideas onto others. But when a theiest expresses his beliefs an athiests (and you know you do ~_^) cannot but help dispute it, trying to shoot it down.

So of course you have a conflict. And since science has as few concrete answers as theists have facts... there is a never ending conflict

Atheism contradicts and flatly denies what is to many people the central, most-important, and most-profound idea in their lives.

Atheism contradicts and flatly denies what is to many people the central, most-important, and most-profound idea in their lives.
Well, gosh, isn't that just too bad for them?

So what? If I think I look great in orange pants, but all my friends say they think I look fat in them, should I quit being their friend, yell at them every time they talk to me, badmouth them behind their backs, try to get laws passed to make them say orange pants are the best? Or should I just say, screw 'em, I like orange pants, and keep on wearing them?

If some uncool jerk who also happens to be an atheist goes around giving religious people a hard time about their beliefs, they are within their rights to tell said jerk to go F himself and get on with their lives.

But it just as uncool for religious people to return the insult by trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. And if they go so far as to try to turn their religion into law, that's incredibly uncool.

(ps: In Muravyets-speak, "uncool" is the worst thing to be in the universe.)

(ps: In Muravyets-speak, "uncool" is the worst thing to be in the universe.)
No, no. The worst thing in the Universe is that green slime they serve you in that restaurant by the falls in Beederbox III. Maaan, you really don't want to get close to that thing! Sentients order it just to see if it's really that bad. Believe, they're never dissapointed.

I'm Luthern, and I have absolutly NOTHING WHATSOEVER against athiests. I've got quite a few friends who are athiest and I never go up to them and go "switch to Christianity or go to hell" I just tease them by saying "UNDER GOD" really loudly but that's it. If anyone needs to be more respectfull it's the "Good Christians" in the south.

Dump him. He's giving us all a bad name.

It's ok. He's back to giving you a good name now. =)

(Apparently he was sick last night, and thus was being bitchy. I do the same thing sometimes, so I certainly can't stay mad about that - not that I manage to stay mad at him about anything for long.)

Well, gosh, isn't that just too bad for them?

So what? If I think I look great in orange pants, but all my friends say they think I look fat in them, should I quit being their friend, yell at them every time they talk to me, badmouth them behind their backs, try to get laws passed to make them say orange pants are the best? Or should I just say, screw 'em, I like orange pants, and keep on wearing them?

If some uncool jerk who also happens to be an atheist goes around giving religious people a hard time about their beliefs, they are within their rights to tell said jerk to go F himself and get on with their lives.

But it just as uncool for religious people to return the insult by trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. And if they go so far as to try to turn their religion into law, that's incredibly uncool.

(ps: In Muravyets-speak, "uncool" is the worst thing to be in the universe.)


Was simply providing an answer to why religious people are so opposed to the nonreligious.

Since there was a command that says "Thou shalt worship no god before me" and athiesm worships no good at all, I'd say we got off on a Judeo/Christian technicallity.
IF you are a non believer, then it would be impossible for you to "get off on a technicality"? Perhaps your reward would be purgatory?

“I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25–26)

IF you are a non believer, then it would be impossible for you to "get off on a technicality"? Perhaps your reward would be purgatory?

“I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25–26)

Never liked that quote which seemed to imply that the Jews sent to the ovens were doomed to Hell while the Nazi's who sent them there could be saved.

My thoughts? Spread the Good News, God is Love and there is no Hell!

Furthermore, those who think that life is meaningless are nihilists. A small part of the whole atheist movement.
I would hardly call atheism a 'movement'.

The reason is, atheism is a minority. It is OK for a majority to pound the shit out of the minority. They can't really fight back; the minority is crushed by overwhelming numbers. And with atheism it is still rather politically correct to bash, unlike say with black skin color.

Funny, conservative Catholics in Europe always whine about the secular majority bashing the shit out of them! I mean, how dare we want to live in our own way and not their way?

If you are referring to the Christian god, he is supposedly all forgiving, so even the athiests are acceptable. Maybe they need to go to some sort of heaven remedial class for a bit first, but in general, we've broken no commandments, if that is the god you find at death.
Kinda like a get out of jail free card? I don't believe that it works that way, and that it comes down to having a belief in the first place? If faith without works is dead, then what is life without faith?

So you want a logical argument? I'll give you one.

Let's suppose there are three hypothetical possibilities concerning the higher power.
1) No god
2) Peaceful, loving god
3) Vengeful god

So in review:

Believing in no god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the peaceful god has a 33 1/3 % chance of going to heaven
Believing in the vengeful god has a 66 2/3 % chance of going to heaven

I have to go with odds on this one.

Doesn't it worry you that your beliefs are based on you "covering your bases" so to speak?

So what? If I think I look great in orange pants, but all my friends say they think I look fat in them, should I quit being their friend, yell at them every time they talk to me, badmouth them behind their backs, try to get laws passed to make them say orange pants are the best? Or should I just say, screw 'em, I like orange pants, and keep on wearing them?

If some uncool jerk who also happens to be an atheist goes around giving religious people a hard time about their beliefs, they are within their rights to tell said jerk to go F himself and get on with their lives.

But it just as uncool for religious people to return the insult by trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. And if they go so far as to try to turn their religion into law, that's incredibly uncool.

(ps: In Muravyets-speak, "uncool" is the worst thing to be in the universe.)

You mean there is no law to say that orange pants are the best?
~looks down at pants~
Damn. Now I have to change.

Seriously though, myself and many of atheists & agnostics I know do not have any problems with Christianity. I have absolutely no problem attending church services and do sporadically for whatever occasion. I have no problem joining in with the hymns and after coming from a family of Roman-Catholics and having grown up that way I have a great respect for Christians. Their spirituality lies in their belief in God, mine lies elsewhere. And I respect that. We all find meaning in our lives in different ways. It seems a common belief in this forum is that atheists are Christian haters - but this is not the case. Some people just have a massive chip on their shoulder and give atheists a bad name. So keep the pledge of alligance and currency the same. The phrase "under God" has a different meaning to everyone. And if "God" is something which I don't personally believe in, I can still recognise and respect its use in the pledge just as I recognise and respect Christians for their beliefs. No Biggie.

Funny, conservative Catholics in Europe always whine about the secular majority bashing the shit out of them! I mean, how dare we want to live in our own way and not their way?

Is this to imply that Catholics, because they want people to live their way, deserve the majority bashing the shit out of them, and that your point is atheists do as well for the same reason?

I hope it isn't.

Provide me with an example of a non-supernatural deity and I'll concede the point.

In the ancient Norse beliefs, it's commonly held that every single one of their gods will die.

In the Inca beliefs, the gods and everything else have died tons of times and will die again (cyclical time).

AGAIN YOU CAN NOT TEST THE BIG BANG THEORY CAN YOU???? no we can not RECREATE THE BIG BANG

It may be hard for me to recreate the Big Bang to test that, but I'd have to say it's flat out impossible to recreate the Bible's version of creation. Unless you claim to have the powers of a god. In which case I wonder why you're arguing with the atheists and not zap-frying us or something.

Oddly enough, the creation myth (Not a stab at Christianity, the common term for a culture's explanation of how things began is "creation myth") in the bible was written by a collection of Hebrew clerics/priests/whatever-you-wanna-call-em during the Israelites' captivity (The name of their captors escapes me, but I want to say Babylon), so that the Israelites had a way to hold on to their faith around the "pagans" who worshipped many different gods. A lot of Israelites were converting to the belief of their captors' culture, so the creation story and many of the other things mentioned in Genesis and some of the earlier books of the Pentateuch (sp?) were their way of combatting this.

Furthermore, those who think that life is meaningless are nihilists. A small part of the whole atheist movement.

I'm not even sure nihilism is a strictly atheist thing. I know non-atheistic nihilists.

NOW athiests follow science to explain life correct, well with science we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet the big bang created everything??? and before that there was cosmic dust, well then how did that get there??? if you cant explain that without saying, it always existed, the dont use science to disprove there is a god.

now this doesnt apply to all athiests, just the majority i met

Dude, there is no law of conservation of mass in modern physics. Matter is created and destroyed all the time. Nuclear power is proof of this fact. You've heard the equation, unless you got your education in a dark closet: E=mc^2.
Literally, matter is just another form of energy.

Some examples of matter creation / destruction:
Protons and neutrons lose mass when joined together in a nucleus, and regain it when they are separated.
High-energy photons passing near highly charged nuclei can be converted into a positron and an electron.
Radioactive isotopes can spontaneously decay. In some types of decay, they emit electrons or positrons, creating them from the energy released.
The mass of all objects actually increases as they move faster. (This is only detectable at speeds greater then 20% of the speed of light, but the effect has been observed).

It's actually energy that's conserved, not matter. Where did the universe's energy come from? Nobody really knows. But science is trying to find out.

My Christian friends (and my one Sikh friend) tease me about being an atheist sometimes but it's never serious. Besides, I'm way too cool for anybody to hate me, atheist or not :P

Was simply providing an answer to why religious people are so opposed to the nonreligious.
I know. I was just using it to go off on a sort-of-on-topic rant. :)

You mean there is no law to say that orange pants are the best?
~looks down at pants~
Damn. Now I have to change.

Nah, the pants are great. Keep 'em. Your ass looks fine in them. ;)

I see atheistic people and religious people as different sides of the same coin. They're both idiots for believing in the existence, or believing in the non-existence or something that is inherently untestable at this stage. In my opinion, agnostics are the only truly 'areligious' people, and they're idiots for being so decisively indecisive.

In short, we're all stupid and we need to get over the senseless bickering and move on.

In short, we're all stupid and we need to get over the senseless bickering and move on.

That works for me. I love orange pants. They are sexy.

That works for me. I love orange pants. They are sexy.

Damn right. Orange is, after all, the best colour.

Is this to imply that Catholics, because they want people to live their way, deserve the majority bashing the shit out of them, and that your point is atheists do as well for the same reason?

I don't see atheists bashing Catholics, but maybe they do. My bias as an atheist might be interfering.

I see atheistic people and religious people as different sides of the same coin. They're both idiots for believing in the existence, or believing in the non-existence or something that is inherently untestable at this stage. In my opinion, agnostics are the only truly 'areligious' people, and they're idiots for being so decisively indecisive.

In short, we're all stupid and we need to get over the senseless bickering and move on.
A person after my own heart. Let's all go outside, get some air into our brains and a good lunch. The hell with this. :D

I don't know about the rest of you, but my religion-favouring posting (I'm a Christian myself btw) is motivated mainly out of concern for you. Now I know you won't agree with this, but obviously I believe that since you don't believe in Jesus/God/the Bible etc, you will be going to Hell, so by trying to convince you I'm trying to save you.

Btw I realise how incredibly cheesy that sounds :D But it's true though.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my religion-favouring posting (I'm a Christian myself btw) is motivated mainly out of concern for you. Now I know you won't agree with this, but obviously I believe that since you don't believe in Jesus/God/the Bible etc, you will be going to Hell, so by trying to convince you I'm trying to save you.

Btw I realise how incredibly cheesy that sounds :D But it's true though.

Let's say you see some old, frail looking man struggling to move his new refrigerator (or whatever) into his house. You go over and say that he looks like he could use a hand, and offer to help. He tells you that he's doing fine on his own and doesn't need your help. Do you pester him about it, and rant about how old he looks and how he might hurt himself trying to move the thing, or do accept that he doesn't want your help and move on?

Originally posted by Revasser
Let's say you see some old, frail looking man struggling to move his new refrigerator (or whatever) into his house. You go over and say that he looks like he could use a hand, and offer to help. He tells you that he's doing fine on his own and doesn't need your help. Do you pester him about it, and rant about how old he looks and how he might hurt himself trying to move the thing, or do accept that he doesn't want your help and move on?

Of course not - you say 'well if you're sure' and move on. But then that old man doesn't go around parading the fact that he's struggling with said fridge infront of people who are just trying to help, like many of the people who post on here do (only with the whole religion thing, not fridges :D) And that wasn't a flame or anything, just an abservation.

And the analogy isn't entirely satisfying - the two are very different situations, so comparing them isn't the best thing ever.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my religion-favouring posting (I'm a Christian myself btw) is motivated mainly out of concern for you. Now I know you won't agree with this, but obviously I believe that since you don't believe in Jesus/God/the Bible etc, you will be going to Hell, so by trying to convince you I'm trying to save you.

Btw I realise how incredibly cheesy that sounds :D But it's true though.

Once again, this view I can't understand since it means that Jews that went to the ovens were consigned to Hell while the Nazis who put them there could be saved.

This is a point I have argued over and over again and no one has given me a decent answer. For me belief is not a choice; I believe only what I must believe, only what my experience, reason and revelation allow me to believe.

To turn Pascals Wager back towards you, suppose I offer you $1,000,000 if you believe for just 1 second that Prometheus was tortured (chained to a rock while a vulture ate his liver every day(it grew back at night)) for helping humanity (Giving fire and tricking Zeus into accepting bones and fat as a sacrifice). It is only for a second so you can go back to believe Christianity right after. You have nothing to loose and $1,000,000 to gain. Can you do it?

For me I can not take this wager, my faith is not a game, I don't think God is like a crocked card shark saying, "Pick right and go to Heaven, pick wrong and go to Hell." And if belief is not a choice, what kind of mascacistic Deity would sentece His children to death for something they have no choice over?

Finally, to relate a story of a Universalist Minister from back in the day. This minister stops by a farm while traveling for the night. The farmer being a kind man allows him to stay and have dinner. Furring the dinner the Farmer reveals he is worried about his son. "My son gambles, drinks, and lies and does not ask for forgiveness. I am worried that he will go to Hell." The Minister responds, "These are serious things, I agree, but it is important they are adressed in the Spirit of Love. Do not let him do as he will but treat him lovingly." The farmer continues to pour his heart out, how he has tried everything that he can think of and he is affraid for his son's soul. Finally the Minister says, "Ok, then that is it. Tonight we will ambush your son on the road, tie him up and burn him in a bonfire."
"But he's my son and I still love him!!" shouts the Farmer.
And the minister replies, "If you in your finite, imperfect fatherly love can not let your son burn, why do you think our Father in His Infinte, Perfect Fatherly love will?"

That is probably the basis of my theology: I love my Mommy (of Daddy, it just that I'm feeling closer to the femanine aspects of God today), I know I can trust Her with anything, even my soul, even at the moment of my death.

Of course not - you say 'well if you're sure' and move on. But then that old man doesn't go around parading the fact that he's struggling with said fridge infront of people who are just trying to help, like many of the people who post on here do (only with the whole religion thing, not fridges :D) And that wasn't a flame or anything, just an abservation.

And the analogy isn't entirely satisfying - the two are very different situations, so comparing them isn't the best thing ever.

Heh, yeah I know, it was a pretty bad analogy. That's what you get when you combine on-the-spot analogy construction with being up for 20 hours with only 4 hours sleep the night before ;)

That and the fact that I wasn't being all that serious, strictly speaking.

And you're right that if people get involved in a debate about religion, they probably deserve everything they get.

Edit: You also get word omission. Ahh, the ol' brain don't be too worky at the moment.

Originally posted by UnitarianUniversalists
Once again, this view I can't understand since it means that Jews that went to the ovens were consigned to Hell while the Nazis who put them there could be saved.

This is a point I have argued over and over again and no one has given me a decent answer. For me belief is not a choice; I believe only what I must believe, only what my experience, reason and revelation allow me to believe.

To turn Pascals Wager back towards you, suppose I offer you $1,000,000 if you believe for just 1 second that Prometheus was tortured (chained to a rock while a vulture ate his liver every day(it grew back at night)) for helping humanity (Giving fire and tricking Zeus into accepting bones and fat as a sacrifice). It is only for a second so you can go back to believe Christianity right after. You have nothing to loose and $1,000,000 to gain. Can you do it?

For me I can not take this wager, my faith is not a game, I don't think God is like a crocked card shark saying, "Pick right and go to Heaven, pick wrong and go to Hell." And if belief is not a choice, what kind of mascacistic Deity would sentece His children to death for something they have no choice over?

Finally, to relate a story of a Universalist Minister from back in the day. This minister stops by a farm while traveling for the night. The farmer being a kind man allows him to stay and have dinner. Furring the dinner the Farmer reveals he is worried about his son. "My son gambles, drinks, and lies and does not ask for forgiveness. I am worried that he will go to Hell." The Minister responds, "These are serious things, I agree, but it is important they are adressed in the Spirit of Love. Do not let him do as he will but treat him lovingly." The farmer continues to pour his heart out, how he has tried everything that he can think of and he is affraid for his son's soul. Finally the Minister says, "Ok, then that is it. Tonight we will ambush your son on the road, tie him up and burn him in a bonfire."
"But he's my son and I still love him!!" shouts the Farmer.
And the minister replies, "If you in your finite, imperfect fatherly love can not let your son burn, why do you think our Father in His infinte, perfect fatherly love will?"

That is probably the basis of my theology: I love my Mommy (of Daddy, it just that I'm feeling closer to the femanine aspects of God today), I know I can trust Her with anything, even my soul, even at the moment of my death.

Yeah, I seem to recall you positng in that 'How do you justify Hell' thread - with much the same arguments.

I'd just like to say that Pascal's Wager really is bollocks; real faith isn't about money, and changing it doesn't depend on being offered money. The only thing that could get me to disbelieve would be real, irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist, and so far, I haven't seen any.

I'd also like to say that belief surely is a matter of choice - otherwise no-one would convert to any religion. You can change what you believe, you just have to be proffered the right evidence for/against whatever it is your arguing about. As I said, money really doesn't count as an argument.

Also, I'd like to say that I can't explain God's methods for dealing out afterlife to men, no-one can. That's the whole point about God; He's so far beyond us that we can't even begin to understand Him or His ways. The best we can do is make very rough estimations and guesses. Perhaps someone like the Pope would be able to give you better reasoning, but I, with my mortal understanding, and comparatively small theological basings (compared to the Pope for example I mean - i do have a fairly decent knowledge of the Bible and stuff) can't explain it any better than anyone else in my situation.


Originally posted by Revasser
Heh, yeah I know, it was a pretty bad analogy. That's what you get you combine on-the-spot analogy construction with being up for 20 hours with only 4 hours sleep the night before

That and the fact that I wasn't being all that serious, strictly speaking.

And you're right that if people get involved in a debate about religion, they probably deserve everything they get.

Hehe, tell me about it - I've had to construct all my arguments for the last few days in a state of haziness, caused by the fact that I got about 20 hours sleep in four days; not good for lucidity :D

Yeh, sorry if I took it a bit seriously :) It just sounded like you meant it lol, but it's all good now.

I'd also like to say that belief surely is a matter of choice - otherwise no-one would convert to any religion. You can change what you believe, you just have to be proffered the right evidence for/against whatever it is your arguing about. As I said, money really doesn't count as an argument.


But then belief isn't a choice if evidence is required. I can't just wake up and decided that I want to be Hindu today and a Pagan tomorrow. Can you? People convert because their beliefs are changed by evidence not because they choose to change their beliefs. As you said evidence (whether by experience or Revelation) is required. I have very little control over what evidence is presented to me.


Also, I'd like to say that I can't explain God's methods for dealing out afterlife to men, no-one can. That's the whole point about God; He's so far beyond us that we can't even begin to understand Him or His ways. The best we can do is make very rough estimations and guesses. Perhaps someone like the Pope would be able to give you better reasoning, but I, with my mortal understanding, and comparatively small theological basings (compared to the Pope for example I mean - i do have a fairly decent knowledge of the Bible and stuff) can't explain it any better than anyone else in my situation.

I understand, but with all do respect, I'm tired of that cop-out. To paraphrase a Buddhist saying, "There are two possibilities, 1) God's rules exist for a reason, and it is that reason the makes them good, not the fact they came from God. 2) God's rules are good because God says so, therefore rape and murder could be good if God said so.

I can't believe number 2 so I'm left with number 1. When a rule provided is repugnant to reason, strikes me as morally reprehensible and just plain EVIL, I have no choice but to disbelieve it and any God who would give that rule.

I'd also like to say that belief surely is a matter of choice - otherwise no-one would convert to any religion. You can change what you believe, you just have to be proffered the right evidence for/against whatever it is your arguing about. As I said, money really doesn't count as an argument.
Conversion is a choice. Belief is oftentimes unconscious. Choices are made consciously. (Sorry for the nitpick.)

Conversion is a choice. Belief is oftentimes unconscious. Choices are made consciously.

To a degree. Conversion is a choice in the first person. But let's say you are a child and your parents choose to convert. You will likely be converted with them whether you like it or not.

Conversion is a choice. Belief is oftentimes unconscious. Choices are made consciously.

It depends what you mean by conversion. I could go to a Baptist church, confess my sins and say that Jesus is the only begoten Son of God who died for our sins and take communion. As far as I'm concerned, that does not make me a Baptist if I don't believe what I am saying. As far as I'm concerned, I would still be a UU and not a Baptist, even if I went there for years and went through all the motions but my beliefs remained the same.

It depends what you mean by conversion. I could go to a Baptist church, confess my sins and say that Jesus is the only begoten Son of God who died for our sins and take communion. As far as I'm concerned, that does not make me a Baptist if I don't believe what I am saying. As far as I'm concerned, I would still be a UU and not a Baptist, even if I went there for years and went through all the motions but my beliefs remained the same.
Right; unless you believe it, no conversion is possible. Have to be clear, though, that the belief is not in itself conversion. The act of conversion is a wilful decision to commit to the religion (rites, rituals, robes, myths, traditions, and the people who make these things happen), not unlike the commitment made to marry. Both are by choice.

To a degree. Conversion is a choice in the first person. But let's say you are a child and your parents choose to convert. You will likely be converted with them whether you like it or not.
But then it's not YOUR conversion.

Right; unless you believe it, no conversion is possible. Have to be clear, though, that the belief is not in itself conversion. The act of conversion is a wilful decision to commit to the religion (rites, rituals, robes, myths, traditions, and the people who make these things happen), not unlike the commitment made to marry. Both are by choice.

I am sorry but I do not believe that Belief is a choice, at least for me. Again, I can not get up and think: "Today I will be a Hindu and believe everything they do," or "Today I will be a Orthodox Christian and believe everything they do." I believe only what I must believe, no more no less, and it is not something that I can change through force of will or choice. It may be different for you, (though I doubt it) but this is the way it is for me.

I am sorry but I do not believe that Belief is a choice, at least for me.
Then we are in agreeance; no need to be sorry. What I said was that conversion happens post-belief.

Again, I can not get up and think: "Today I will be a Hindu and believe everything they do," or "Today I will be a Orthodox Christian and believe everything they do." I believe only what I must believe, no more no less, and it is not something that I can change through force of will or choice. It may be different for you, (though I doubt it) but this is the way it is for me.
Sounds right.

Now, there may be people who do, as you say, simply act their way into a religion, but that's not conversion. Conversion requires the heart and belief and choice.

I am sorry but I do not believe that Belief is a choice, at least for me. Again, I can not get up and think: "Today I will be a Hindu and believe everything they do," or "Today I will be a Orthodox Christian and believe everything they do." I believe only what I must believe, no more no less, and it is not something that I can change through force of will or choice. It may be different for you, (though I doubt it) but this is the way it is for me.

I agree with you from a personal point of view.

But honestly, in considering the opposite standpoint that is suggested - I know that some people do actually make decision to believe and not on what they believe. I'm not supporting it though.
If you ask, all it means is that they don't really have any beliefs at all, just orders to follow.......... although maybe they have one belief - the belief that if they don't follow these orders they will be punished.

I've been reading for some time now these athiest versus christians/jews/muslims/etc. threads. they all boil down to the Bible versus the atheists.

Since there was a command that says "Thou shalt worship no god before me" and athiesm worships no good at all, I'd say we got off on a Judeo/Christian technicallity.

So why all the enmity toward athiests? Can anyone tell me (without using the bible as a source, as it isn't) what is wrong with athieism?

Probably been covered, but I can't be bothered to read all the pages.

I don't have anything against Atheists, so long as they come to their conclusions honestly and not as a response to belief in others. I used to be an atheist and still feel the only rational approach to the whole concept of divinity is agnosticism, so it's hard for me to "have anything against" them.

I do tend to get annoyed when they lay out their personal metrics as absolutes for everyone, which is exactly one of the things they criticize theists for. The diversity of human experience and human belief is an amazing and fascinating thing and should be celebrated and explored, not used to "score points," "make fun of god-botherers," or "convert godless atheists." It's too important for that. As long as the dialouge is fair and balanced (and not in a FOX way), there's much to learn from both sides.

The trouble is that it is rarely balanced. Neither camp wants to listen to what the other camp is saying, they just want to be right. That's when both theist and atheism get annoying and irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Willamena]/snip[QUOTE]

Doh, I really should read more carefully., I thought your original post was from Mooseica and I was referencing a previous statement. Re-reading the thread, I have agreed with everything you have said.