NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Why not ask the christians?

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Christians, Atheists, and Agnostics are all equally annoying. +1

I think you're confusing atheists with men who drive Corvettes.

If you didnt put it so calmly id say that was a flame.
Your attacking atheists. Wheres your evidence were loud?
(smirks)

I'm an atheist and I've been here for 2 months, but I have never started a thread about it.
I would consider myself to be a very quiet atheist.

I'm an atheist and I've been here for 2 months, but I have never started a thread about it.
I would consider myself to be a very quiet atheist.

A quiet atheist... yes... thats makes sense.
Btw the other day i met an intelligent republican.

If you didnt put it so calmly id say that was a flame.
Your attacking atheists. Wheres your evidence were loud?
(smirks)
A quiet atheist... yes... thats makes sense.
Btw the other day i met an intelligent republican.
Congratulations! You've just won Quickest Self Rebuttal of the Year! Have a gold star. No seriously, take it. Before I smite you. >_<;

Well, there's always the psychological theory that radical atheists are made so by a reaction against an abusive/absent father figure.. but I don't think that was the question.. was it? :confused:

Congratulations! You've just won Quickest Self Rebuttal of the Year! Have a gold star. No seriously, take it. Before I smite you. >_<;

The first post was Sarcasm.

It's because we have small genitals. What else could it be?

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
I'm not noisy about it. Therefore, how about you start using a smaller brush for tarring?

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

I could ask the same thing of you. You're obviously religious: why are religious people and organization so noisy about evangelizing and incorporating their specific tenets into government? Why are you specifically being so noisy about not liking vocal atheists? There's no atheist equivalent of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the 700 Club, etc. etc. No atheist tries to get religious worship banned, but plenty of Christians take every chance to try to make us a theocracy.

Atheists are compensating for Christians. And agnostics compensate for both.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
I have on numerous occasions been invited to Church, either prayer services, celebrations or "praise and worship" music evenings. I have never been invited to an atheist gathering, nor have I ever issued such an invitation. Indeed, I am not aware of any atheist meeting halls.

Well, there's always the psychological theory that radical atheists are made so by a reaction against an abusive/absent father figure.. but I don't think that was the question.. was it? :confused:

What idiocy. Psychologists need to get real jobs or find real knowledge and quit the make-pretty-stories-up profession.

I have on numerous occasions been invited to Church, either prayer services, celebrations or "praise and worship" music evenings. I have never been invited to an atheist gathering, nor have I ever issued such an invitation. Indeed, I am not aware of any atheist meeting halls.

Oh, they happen in the basement of the local Unitarian church, down the hall from the International Zionist Cosnpiracy planning sessions and across from the Masons...

Well, there's always the psychological theory that radical atheists are made so by a reaction against an abusive/absent father figure.. but I don't think that was the question.. was it? :confused:

Abusive father figure = Priest?
Absent father figure = God?

I believe my philosophy is superior? News to me. I just don't give a damn about any supreme beings, whether or not they exist, and it makes more sense to me to assume they don't. I honestly couldn't care less what other people believe, I barely even care what I believe. Just don't shove it down my throat.

Oh, they happen in the basement of the local Unitarian church, down the hall from the International Zionist Cosnpiracy planning sessions and across from the Masons...
:D We should demand government grants too, just to even out the playing field.

No atheist tries to get religious worship banned, but plenty of Christians take every chance to try to make us a theocracy.

I agree with you about evangelical Christians, who I'm not a big fan of, but I don't think this second statement is accurate.. Secularists have defeated some public religious observances that needed to go (forced school prayer, etc.).. but lawsuit after lawsuit later, most schools won't even allow optional time before school for prayer, or (until recently) religious clubs, in some states.. or won't let the class Valedictorian thank God in their commencement speech, etc. There certainly are some atheists who want to outlaw any mention of religion on public property, although I don't assume they speak for the majority.

What idiocy. Psychologists need to get real jobs or find real knowledge and quit the make-pretty-stories-up profession.

Yeah. Like scientology personality test administrator, or pastor at a Pentacostal church. ;)

Yeah. Like scientology personality test administrator, or pastor at a Pentacostal church. ;)

:D Maybe they can all get together and have a Subjectivity and Mythology Convention....

Abusive father figure = Priest?
Absent father figure = God?

Eh, no.. not necessarily..

Many radical atheists (people with an engrained hatred of religion, rather than those who simply dont believe) seem in many cases to have had abusive or absent male figures in their lives at young ages.. that's the theory.. psychologists point to writers like Camus and Freud as examples..

What idiocy. Psychologists need to get real jobs or find real knowledge and quit the make-pretty-stories-up profession.

Now that's an ignorant comment. My psychologist is a very intelligent woman who has helped me through alot of painful times. Physcology isn't an exact science, but it's an important one.

I could ask the same thing of you. You're obviously religious: why are religious people and organization so noisy about evangelizing and incorporating their specific tenets into government? Why are you specifically being so noisy about not liking vocal atheists? There's no atheist equivalent of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the 700 Club, etc. etc. No atheist tries to get religious worship banned, but plenty of Christians take every chance to try to make us a theocracy.

What about Penn and Teller (http://www.pennandteller.com/)?

Well, I don't know if it's exactly an athiest 700 club, but I think that's because they already know that organized religion is Bullshit. Or disorganized religion for that matter.

Eh, no.. not necessarily..

Many radical atheists (people with an engrained hatred of religion, rather than those who simply dont believe) seem in many cases to have had abusive or absent male figures in their lives at young ages.. that's the theory.. psychologists point to writers like Camus, as an example..

I've been an aethiest for longer than the four or five months that my father has been absent.

:D We should demand government grants too, just to even out the playing field.

Hows about we just make churches pay income tax?

Now that's an ignorant comment. My psychologist is a very intelligent woman who has helped me through alot of painful times. Physcology isn't an exact science, but it's an important one.

You're being glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, OK Cakes?. That's what I've done.

That's a much better impersonation in person, when I'm able to pretend I'm drunk on my own narcissistic self-satisfaction.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

We're compensating for the fact that Christians have controlled the world for approx. 2000 years.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

What are you bitching about? It is monotheists who are NOISY. For 3500 years you believe your philosophy is superior while it is only a bad copy and re-interpretation of the real stuff. Those who invented the type of monotheism that has poisened humankind ever since that time are in fact those who try to compensate something.

I've been an aethiest for longer than the four or five months that my father has been absent.

Like I was saying, the theory isn't meant to apply to the average adult atheist.. it's meant to explain irrational hatred of religion.

You're being glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, OK Cakes?. That's what I've done.

That's a much better impersonation in person, when I'm able to pretend I'm drunk on my own narcissistic self-satisfaction.

I don't remember mentioning Ritalin (a drug used in cases of ADD, correct?) or chemical imbalances. My pyschologist (who cannot legally perscribe drugs) is simply a person with whom I can discuss my difficulties in life.

Some atheists feel the need to distinguish themselves from the overwhelming majority, which is completely antithetical to their beliefs. In this society, the atheist is assumed to be a christian until stated otherwise, so it is due to their minority status that they are forced to explain this to the majority.
But that's just my theory.

Eh, no.. not necessarily..

Many radical atheists (people with an engrained hatred of religion, rather than those who simply dont believe) seem in many cases to have had abusive or absent male figures in their lives at young ages.. that's the theory.. psychologists point to writers like Camus and Freud as examples..

Well. I point to Douglas Adams.

I suppose at this point I should point out that I'm not an athiest myself. But given the choice between someone who "found" Jesus or someone who just got the joke, I'll take the laugher. Hitchhiker's Guide > Left Behind.

Left behind may have sold better, but the Backstreet Boys outsold the Beatles.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

It is how they get their weak minded useful idiots to do things like this.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1577978

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Any religious group has no room to speak. I seriously think atheists and non-religious people are the least focused on the subject simply because we don't really care. I, for one, never think about god unless a religious person talks about him/it/whatever. Besides, simply saying atheists in general is considered a serious generalization.

It is how they get their weak minded useful idiots to do things like this.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1577978

There isn't anything there to indicate that the crime was motivated by radical athiesm. Actual religions do more damage to eachother than those without it ever do to it.

Left behind may have sold better, but the Backstreet Boys outsold the Beatles.

I seriously doubt the Left Behind series has outsold the Hitchiker's "Trilogy." At least I hope it hasn't.. "end times" fiction is usually a notch lower than Archie comics in terms of literary merit.. :p

It is how they get their weak minded useful idiots to do things like this.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1577978

Methinks that might not have been the work of athiests...I dunno, church burnings tend to make me think of kids in bad makeup or guys in white hoods, depending on if it happens in the American south or northern Europe.

Hows about we just make churches pay income tax?

Yes, make them pay taxes.

I don't remember mentioning Ritalin (a drug used in cases of ADD, correct?) or chemical imbalances. My pyschologist (who cannot legally perscribe drugs) is simply a person with whom I can discuss my difficulties in life.

I was going for the Tom Cruise quote when he chastized Matt Lauer for asking him if he could admit that "some people have been helped by psychiatry."

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
Noisy? How so?

I seriously doubt the Left Behind series has outsold the Hitchiker's "Trilogy." At least I hope it hasn't.. "end times" fiction is usually a notch lower than Archie comics in terms of literary merit.. :p

What? You mean Kirk Camron would appear in a movie based on a book of less than stellar quality? :D

Left Behind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190524/)

It is how they get their weak minded useful idiots to do things like this.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1577978

Yeah, it's always those damn atheists that commit acts of violence in the name of... no god.
Last time I checked, the 9-11 hijackers, abortion clinic bombers, Waco cult members, heaven's gate members, etc. were all theists... but my memory's a little hazy; I could be wrong.

I was going for the Tom Cruise quote when he chastized Matt Lauer for asking him if he could admit that "some people have been helped by psychiatry."

Oh, that makes more sense. I was trying to figure out exactly how I had been glib.

Yeah, it's always those damn atheists that commit acts of violence in the name of... no god.
Last time I checked, the 9-11 hijackers, abortion clinic bombers, Waco cult members, heaven's gate members, etc. were all theists... but my memory's a little hazy; I could be wrong.

Here's what I don't understand about abortion clinic bombers: If it's wrong to abort un-born fetuses, why isn't it wrong to burn fully grown people?

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

atheists are just a noisy as any members of any other religion (granted, atheism isn't a religion but you understand what i mean)

actually, compared to christians/catholics, they are quiet, peaceful, upstanding members of society
basically, i believe anyone who forces their beliefs upon someone else (whether they are atheist, catholic, jewish, christian, or any other denomination) are wrong for doing so

people should believe what they want to believe, and people who disagree with is should shut up

What? You mean Kirk Camron would appear in a movie based on a book of less than stellar quality? :D

Left Behind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190524/)

Him, I could care less about.. it's when they dragged Micheal York into that awful Megiddo series that I started to get fed up with the whole genre.. it's just a race to the bottom anymore.

Now that's an ignorant comment. My psychologist is a very intelligent woman who has helped me through alot of painful times. Physcology isn't an exact science, but it's an important one.

That's a psychiatrist. There's a difference: one is (or should be) primarily intended to simply help people through their problems with experience, skill at beneficial manipulation, and listening. The other is [supposedly] a scientist who tries to come up with theories of how and why people think certain things. This isn't inherently problematic, but the way the profession goes about it is stupid - they make up nice-sounding stories instead of examining brain scans, using objective experimental evidence without overinterpreting it or baselessly elaborating on the results, etc. etc.

Is it just me or has the OP gone very quiet? ;)

Is it just me or has the OP gone very quiet? ;)

Maybe it was a drive-by argument..

Allah can save you too, but he’ll have to charge
Damn right Allah is mightier than yours
And I’m like, you’re all infidels
My deity is better than yours

Just a hunch.. but.. that *may* be considered blasphemous to some in the Muslim community.. just a guess. :(

Just a hunch.. but.. that *may* be considered blasphemous to some in the Muslim community.. just a guess. :(
I tried Jesus, but it didn't sound as good.

Dude... my god could totally kick your god's ass.

That's a psychiatrist. There's a difference: one is (or should be) primarily intended to simply help people through their problems with experience, skill at beneficial manipulation, and listening. The other is [supposedly] a scientist who tries to come up with theories of how and why people think certain things. This isn't inherently problematic, but the way the profession goes about it is stupid - they make up nice-sounding stories instead of examining brain scans, using objective experimental evidence without overinterpreting it or baselessly elaborating on the results, etc. etc.

No, she's definately a pyschologist. Some pyschologists work with patients; others do research. It depends on the branch of pyschology. As for the difference, pyschiatrists are actually physicians specialising in the study and diagnosis of mental and emotional disorders, while pyschologists are NOT medical doctors and specialise in the science of mental processes and behavior.

Maybe it was a drive-by argument..
well this is a UK Fourm :p

No, she's definately a pyschologist. Some pyschologists work with patients; others do research. It depends on the branch of pyschology. As for the difference, pyschiatrists are actually physicians specialising in the study and diagnosis of mental and emotional disorders, while pyschologists are NOT medical doctors and specialise in the science of mental processes and behavior.

Ah. Well, let's send the psychologists packing, replace them with neurobiologists, and keep the psychiatrists as they are.

Maybe it was a drive-by argument..

Or maybe he's setting an example of being quiet.

Just to clear this up, I am not noisy myself, you just assumed I was because of my topic neither did I say that your views are flawed, and that you will be condemned to a fiery afterlife. I live in a large secular community and I'm one of the few people I know who is Christian. I live near D.C. if your wondering.

Also this wasn't a thread that was supposed to be bash religion, or lack thereof. As I respect the atheist point of view I just get irratated that the very noisy group don't seem to respect religious views the same way.

Islam got completely messed up when the 'last' prophet stepped in and contradicted hiimself in every way possible.

Ah. Well, let's send the psychologists packing, replace them with neurobiologists, and keep the psychiatrists as they are.

Actually, the whole thing is pretty simple. A psychiatrist is an M.D. who did specializes in pyschiatric disorders. They are generally quite well versed in medicating patients, but they do not have as much theoretical or practical training as a psychologist. A psychologist is someone who has earned either a PhD or a PsyD, met the post-doc requirements for licensure, and then passed the liscensing exam. Earning one of those degrees generally requires several years in the classroom after earning your bachelor's degree, followed by research, followed by a dissertation, followed by a defense of that dissertation, followed by a supervised internship period that takes around a year. Before applying for an internship a student spends hundreds (or even thousands) of hours with clients in a highly supervised practicum. Thats more training than most pill pushers see.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Thank you for the well reasoned question. Is it the decibel level to which you are referring, or the numerous postings?

The decibel level is usually consistent with the desire to be heard over the "noise" of others.

The enumerable postings are usually in response to questions or in the joy of debating a subject for the pleasure of arguing.

Was that too loud?

Just to clear this up, I am not noisy myself, you just assumed I was because of my topic neither did I say that your views are flawed, and that you will be condemned to a fiery afterlife. I live in a large secular community and I'm one of the few people I know who is Christian. I live near D.C. if your wondering.

Also this wasn't a thread that was supposed to be bash religion, or lack thereof. As I respect the atheist point of view I just get irratated that they don't respect religious views the same way.

I certainly try to respect other peoples views and generally speaking I'll never start an argument about religion. If someone else starts the argument I'll leap in with gusto but I won't start it.

Oh, and just some advice friend: starting any thread by accusing a whole group of being intolerant is often seen as hypocritical and won't receive a good response.

Thank you for the well reasoned question. Is it the decibel level to which you are referring, or the numerous postings?

The decibel level is usually consistent with the desire to be heard over the "noise" of others.

The enumerable postings are usually in response to questions or in the joy of debating a subject for the pleasure of arguing.

Was that too loud?

Yes

I don't know about compensating for something. I think they're just following the natural human inclination to drown out opposing viewpoints, however reasoned or not reasoned they might be with more volume of their own.

I know quite a few integrous atheists who reason their way to their conclusion, and those atheists, while I disagree vehemently, at least have my respect. Most atheists seem to join that bandwagon the same way Avril Lavigne attracts followers: it's a facile and popular way of proving how anti-establishment you are. Never mind that your opinions are usually just parroting the words of your bottom-of-the-barrel-education-major teachers who wouldn't know where their ideas came from if they tripped over books by Kelsen and Derrida, but never mind.

Actually, the whole thing is pretty simple. A psychiatrist is an M.D. who did specializes in pyschiatric disorders. They are generally quite well versed in medicating patients, but they do not have as much theoretical or practical training as a psychologist. A psychologist is someone who has earned either a PhD or a PsyD, met the post-doc requirements for licensure, and then passed the liscensing exam. Earning one of those degrees generally requires several years in the classroom after earning your bachelor's degree, followed by research, followed by a dissertation, followed by a defense of that dissertation, followed by a supervised internship period that takes around a year. Before applying for an internship a student spends hundreds (or even thousands) of hours with clients in a highly supervised practicum. Thats more training than most pill pushers see.

It's more what they're being trained in, rather than how much.

The first post was Sarcasm.It was also horribly spelt/punctuated...

But you are forgiven.

(No, honestly. I didn't understand it first time I read it. Which might mean more about me than you, but who knows.)

Why not ask the christians?

Its in the Bible. Its built into the Christian faith. The same cannot be said of Athiesim

Its in the Bible. Its built into the Christian faith. The same cannot be said of Athiesim
So, you admit Christians are noisy by mandate. Don't you think there would be a reaction to your noisiness?

So, you admit Christians are noisy by mandate. Don't you think there would be a reaction to your noisiness?

Debate yes, but there is no need for Athiests to come out with the kind of stuff they do. Actively making athiest groups etc is not nessecary for them in the same way it is for Christians.

Debate yes, but there is no need for Athiests to come out with the kind of stuff they do. Actively making athiest groups etc is not nessecary for them in the same way it is for Christians.
Why not? Why shouldn't Atheist be able to discuss their philosophies between themselves and also expose their ideas in an open manner? Sure, they're not mandated to do so by any holy document, but there's still the free exchange of ideas that they can participate in, isn't there? To do so is necessary for every human being, it's part of human nature.

Besides, when have you had an Atheist coming to your house asking you if you had heard the message of Atheism?

I just get irratated that the very noisy group don't seem to respect religious views the same way.

why should we show respect when we get none ourselves?

Here's what I don't understand about abortion clinic bombers: If it's wrong to abort un-born fetuses, why isn't it wrong to burn fully grown people?First of all, I regard these guys as at least plain fruit-loop crazy, and actually most probably criminally insane (if not just criminal), but the reasoning seems to be:

'Innocent babies' (their term, their loaded emotions): Haven't done anything wrong.
Doctors/fellow staff: Choose to do the work of Satan/blah-blah-blah and have thus sown the seeds of their own undoing...

By their logic, this makes the latter fair game. They may even convince themselves that if there are no abortion clinics (because nobody wants to publicly provide that service) then there will be no abortions. But discussion of that has been dealt with (resulting only in the normal polarisation of opinions) in other threads of past, so let's now talk about it more here.
(Ok, I've let my own opinions slip by the choice of words above, but it's just a statement of my opinion. I don't seek a pissing-contest.)

First of all, I regard these guys as at least plain fruit-loop crazy, and actually most probably criminally insane (if not just criminal), but the reasoning seems to be:

'Innocent babies' (their term, their loaded emotions): Haven't done anything wrong.
Doctors/fellow staff: Choose to do the work of Satan/blah-blah-blah and have thus sown the seeds of their own undoing...

By their logic, this makes the latter fair game. They may even convince themselves that if there are no abortion clinics (because nobody wants to publicly provide that service) then there will be no abortions. But discussion of that has been dealt with (resulting only in the normal polarisation of opinions) in other threads of past, so let's now talk about it more here.
(Ok, I've let my own opinions slip by the choice of words above, but it's just a statement of my opinion. I don't seek a pissing-contest.)

Sorry about that. I don't really want an arbotion thread, either. I'm just notorious for saying things that provoke people.

Besides, when have you had an Atheist coming to your house asking you if you had heard the message of Atheism?"Have you heard the Bad News?"
"We were just wondering if you wanted to let Jesus out of your heart?"
"Have you ever felt like the whole world was just a chance product of physical laws acting upon a universe that, by current scientific thinking, might well have arisen from a quantum fluctuation in the fabric of the metaverse, or possibly through the creation of a 10-dimensional surface at the interface of two bubbles of existence that themselves drift within an 11-dimensional pseudo-mathematical construct, thus allowing the initiation of modes of vibration within a medium that transfer energy quanta in a manner that (as observed by our consciousnesses) presents the illusion of macroscopic structures to our sensory inputs, whereas they actually only consist of the collapsed waveforms of the probability curves that dictate the underlying sub-Plank nature of the universe? Well, so do we!"

;)

ya i had like 100 of those guys last week!;) ;) ;) :rolleyes:

ya i had like 100 of those guys last week!;) ;) ;) :rolleyes:
"Hey TG, you know we're having a little get-together at the Town Council building, Meeting Room 2.1, and there's going to be food and drink, and some music from a live band celebrating the cold indifference of the universe to all human endeavour. I was thinking maybe you'd like to come down... Don't worry, it's all friendly people, and the music is great, you don't have to listen to the message if you don't want to." :rolleyes:

"Hey TG, you know we're having a little get-together at the Town Council building, Meeting Room 2.1, and there's going to be food and drink, and some music from a live band celebrating the cold indifference of the universe to all human endeavour. I was thinking maybe you'd like to come down... Don't worry, it's all friendly people, and the music is great, you don't have to listen to the message if you don't want to." :rolleyes:

Hey... that sounds pretty cool, actually... maybe we should do that...

Hey... that sounds pretty cool, actually... maybe we should do that...
[Strums acoustic guitar and starts singing an endorsement of recreational sex, before moving on to praising the uplifting properties of the arbitrary nature of fate.]

Doubt it's going to catch on.

loud?? intresting choice of terms. If i understand your question and many of the responsise the core thread is that the athiests and christians and everyone else is so noisy about there beliefs that they dont let anyone elses beliefs exsist. Well im pagan and really dont care what faith everyone around me is... the fact is if you term your Deity as "God" or "Ahlla" then most people look at you on one side of the fense and everyone else (including me on teh other) facts of life is that most of us arnt even near the fense and dont care only the extreams care. If you want prayer in school but only your type of prayer then your an extream but if you think all forms of faith should be alowed in school equaly then your just like rest of us. If you want to practice your faith all i ask is that you do it in a place of your faith and leave me alone to practice the way i want... thanks peeps and remember :fluffle: we all just want some loven

We're compensating for the fact that Christians have controlled the world for approx. 2000 years.

They have? I was unaware of Christian domination in China in 5 AD, but whatever you say dude.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

I'm not noisy about it, i just believe that there is no life after death and it's rather foolish and slightly ego-centric to think otherwise.

i hardly trumpet this belief however, as i work with several born again christians that my job depends on keeping sweet...

They have? I was unaware of Christian domination in China in 5 AD, but whatever you say dude.

Yeah man, those christians were there, St Thomas headed east didn't he? ignoring the fact it would have taken him a good ten years to get to China if he was using biblical methods of transport...ignoring that, i'm sure China knew the word of our lord mere minutes after the poor f*cker was dragged down off the cross.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior...
then why do most all Christians try to make everyone else Christian?

Cough{cortez}Cough
Cough{columbus} Cough
Cough{every chiastain from 1600-1900}Cough

Frankly, it's laughable for anyone professing Christianity to accuse atheists or agnostics of being 'loud.' There was some guy, I'm told, who a long time ago said something about logs and eyes...

Consider: If I flip on the TV, then I can find The 700 Club or several different Christian networks. Turn it on some Sunday morning, and several channels will be airing sermons. If I flip off the TV, I'll still be hearing church bells whether I want to or not, or have complete strangers come up to the door and want to talk about it. Nor is that last effect limited to Sundays - just walk along the street in a city and you stand a fair chance of finding someone delivering a Holy Harangue with a worn Bible in hand.
Meet someone religious, and one of their first questions will often be (at least in some areas), "Where do you go to church?" in the full expectation of finding another Christian. If you care about education, you have to fend off the fanatics whose end goal is eliminating the science curriculum entirely - reference the Discovery Institute's infamous 'wedge' memo, detailing their desire to use Evolution to chip away at the entire rationalist concept of science. And then let's not forget the passive-aggressivists who're just so hurt and can't understand why you don't want their 'help' in accepting Jesus when they so kindly offer.
And of course without the religionists raising the issue in the first place, there wouldn't even be a discussion - as has been noted in this thread, atheists don't go looking to convert people, though most are perfectly willing to explain their logic to those who ask. If nobody is religious, then nobody has any reason whatsoever to explain why they don't believe in the Magic Beard In The Sky. Look at it as a social form of Newton's Laws - there's an equal and opposite reaction to discussing deities.
But the ultimate reason religious types think atheists and agnostics are loud? Not because nonbelievers are in fact loud, but because their message of rationalism clashes so intensely with the constant clamor of belief that permeates society.

then why do most all Christians try to make everyone else Christian?

This is so up my alley :D

Matthew 28:19-20, "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Proverbs 11:30, "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

Luke 15:10, "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth."

Jude 1:22-23, "22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."

Now onto the subject matter itself, the first reason that Christians should bring the truth to all nations is, well, Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus directly commands us to. Nextly, the Bible says that all those who love Christ will obey Him, so that same verse comes into play once again, if we didn't obey, we would be sending a message of hatred for Christ. Then, the Bible is quite clear that all who do not believe in the savior will go to Hell. Let me ask you this, what kind of person would just sit idly by if a blind man was slowely walking towared a cliff for example? You'd pull the person back from the edge, or at least try to, right? So why must Christians feel as though they should not try to save people when we know what will happen if we fail, just because people call it annoying and feel offended, and countries keep passing separation of church and state laws? This is serious business, we're not fooling around in the slightest, at least we're not supposed to be. I know im not.

You see, how it works is that nobody is perfect, and God is. Since He is infinitly just due to being perfect, He must punish all sins, and our imperfect selves sadly fit the bill for sins. All you have to do is ask yourself if you've ever told a lie, ever stolen something, even something small, ever used God's name like a cuss word, something most people don't do even with people like Hitler, ever lusted after someone (Adultery of the heart, Matthew 5:27-28) or ever hated your brother, (considered Murder) and if you answer yes to any of it, im afraid your pretty much stuck in the same boat as the rest of us. That Jesus Saves saying? That comes in right here. Its from the punishment a just God must deliver on our sins and therefore us that Christ was sent down to save us from, by taking the punishment upon Himself. His infinite goodness made him the only candidate for this self-sacrifice, and His infinite power allowed Him to withstand it, since he was not just man, but also God. Through faith in Christ, one recieves this forgiveness, and is "born again" so to speak, (John 3:3) as through total faith in Christ, all old things die away (2 Corinthians 5:17). And through this, you are not punished for your sins, and therefore gain eternal life. (John 3:16) Altogether, I do not see how this is unreasonable, accepting Christ is not a drawn out process, you believe in Him, (Not just that He existed, there's a big difference.) and then you are saved. I ain't making this stuff up, you can check verses if you like at www.biblegateway.com .

what i don't understand is why believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are NOT so loud? Surely if ANYONE were going to be loud, it would be the FSM's true devout.

This is so up my alley :D

Matthew 28:19-20, "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Proverbs 11:30, "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

Luke 15:10, "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth."

Jude 1:22-23, "22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."

Now onto the subject matter itself, the first reason that Christians should bring the truth to all nations is, well, Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus directly commands us to. Nextly, the Bible says that all those who love Christ will obey Him, so that same verse comes into play once again, if we didn't obey, we would be sending a message of hatred for Christ. Then, the Bible is quite clear that all who do not believe in the savior will go to Hell. Let me ask you this, what kind of person would just sit idly by if a blind man was slowely walking towared a cliff for example? You'd pull the person back from the edge, or at least try to, right? So why must Christians feel as though they should not try to save people when we know what will happen if we fail, just because people call it annoying and feel offended, and countries keep passing separation of church and state laws? This is serious business, we're not fooling around in the slightest, at least we're not supposed to be. I know im not.

You see, how it works is that nobody is perfect, and God is. Since He is infinitly just due to being perfect, He must punish all sins, and our imperfect selves sadly fit the bill for sins. All you have to do is ask yourself if you've ever told a lie, ever stolen something, even something small, ever used God's name like a cuss word, something most people don't do even with people like Hitler, ever lusted after someone (Adultery of the heart, Matthew 5:27-28) or ever hated your brother, (considered Murder) and if you answer yes to any of it, im afraid your pretty much stuck in the same boat as the rest of us. That Jesus Saves saying? That comes in right here. Its from the punishment a just God must deliver on our sins and therefore us that Christ was sent down to save us from, by taking the punishment upon Himself. His infinite goodness made him the only candidate for this self-sacrifice, and His infinite power allowed Him to withstand it, since he was not just man, but also God. Through faith in Christ, one recieves this forgiveness, and is "born again" so to speak, (John 3:3) as through total faith in Christ, all old things die away (2 Corinthians 5:17). And through this, you are not punished for your sins, and therefore gain eternal life. (John 3:16) Altogether, I do not see how this is unreasonable, accepting Christ is not a drawn out process, you believe in Him, (Not just that He existed, there's a big difference.) and then you are saved. I ain't making this stuff up, you can check verses if you like at www.biblegateway.com .

If you make that statement to an atheist, there are two possible states. If the atheist grants you the conviction of your beliefs, then he can reasonably expect the same openness on your part; in this case, the atheist is perfectly justified in pointing out that all of your justification requires believing in the book you quote from, and that since he does not share your belief, your argument is empty.
The second case is where the atheist refuses to grant you the conviction of your beliefs, in which case your talk of the bible is meaningless prattle and he can dismiss them out of hand.
In either case, all you've done is be loud about Christianity and annoy an atheist. In the first case, the atheist in question can appreciate your good will, and in the second case, the atheist is simply bothered. In either case, you could be expected to have figured out that you won't accomplish anything - unless his rationalism is shaky enough to be swayed to belief. Therefore, you must have believed you could convert him or you wouldn't have tried it at all - and that means you just challenged the integrity of his belief system.
You could certainly use your tactic on an agnostic, though; if that's your target, then your attempt could be depicted as trying to provide persuasive evidence, or at least alter the risk/reward ratio in favor of your position, which is at least not inherently insulting to your audience.

If you make that statement to an atheist, there are two possible states. If the atheist grants you the conviction of your beliefs, then he can reasonably expect the same openness on your part; in this case, the atheist is perfectly justified in pointing out that all of your justification requires believing in the book you quote from, and that since he does not share your belief, your argument is empty.
The second case is where the atheist refuses to grant you the conviction of your beliefs, in which case your talk of the bible is meaningless prattle and he can dismiss them out of hand.
In either case, all you've done is be loud about Christianity and annoy an atheist. In the first case, the atheist in question can appreciate your good will, and in the second case, the atheist is simply bothered. In either case, you could be expected to have figured out that you won't accomplish anything - unless his rationalism is shaky enough to be swayed to belief. Therefore, you must have believed you could convert him or you wouldn't have tried it at all - and that means you just challenged the integrity of his belief system.
You could certainly use your tactic on an agnostic, though; if that's your target, then your attempt could be depicted as trying to provide persuasive evidence, or at least alter the risk/reward ratio in favor of your position, which is at least not inherently insulting to your audience.

A 3rd possible state is that the Atheist won't risk going to Hell even when they earnestly believe there is no God and will listen to what I have to say. I do however admit the first 2 are indeed very likely as well and admittedly probably more likely, as i've learned, generally when you debate with an atheist, you have to first turn them at least into a quasi-agnostic before they will normally listen to you. Normally however, one would find out what the person believes first before starting, because if the other person is, say, is a member of a Christian cult, all their definitions of words like Christ, Sin, Salvation, Repentence, etc. etc., will all be very different many times, so it would be hard to evangelize when you are effectively speaking different langauges almost, you have to treat each person as their own individual on one-on-one cases because, after all, individuals often have very individual beliefs :D.

I shouldn't have to get into an argument over Bible authenticity though, or anything else, the thing about really Biblical evangelism is you notice whenever Jesus went and got disciples or followers such as the woman at the well, He never got into an argument over Evolution, Creationism, Bible authenticity, etc. etc, He addressed the concience by revealing people's sin to them, and then He could share the good news. Not that Jesus wouldn't of totally rocked any such debate with His infinite knowladge, but that just wasn't how He did things. Personally, I don't like getting into arguments over Bible authenticity-type things unless I know what im talking about or see an opening to change the focus, otherwise there often isn't a point, arguments are often difficult to change people's views in :/.

What's with all the atheist hate all of a sudden?

Did my deletion cause that much of a stir? :p

What's with all the atheist hate all of a sudden?

Did my deletion cause that much of a stir? :p

I don't hate Atheists, if I did, why would I be posting the way to eternal life? :/

I don't hate Atheists, if I did, why would I be posting the way to eternal life? :/

...

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

I believe my atheist philosophy to be superior to that of Chistianty. If I believed Chistian philosophy to be superior I'd be a Christian as a prefer superior philosophies over infiorior ones.

I'm so noisy about my philosophy becuase I want to spread the "Good News" the gospel. I want every one to share in my happyness, my freedom, my joy. I'd also like to see a reduction in witch hunting, inquazitions, and crusades.

I just don't believe in god or any religions, and feel that most religious writings are downright silly, and I am not a big fan of all the wars, prejudice, and hatred which arises from disagreements on religion, which I feel is all a lie anyway.

Does wanting peace mean that I must have a small wang?

A 3rd possible state is that the Atheist won't risk going to Hell even when they earnestly believe there is no God and will listen to what I have to say. I do however admit the first 2 are indeed very likely as well and admittedly probably more likely, as i've learned, generally when you debate with an atheist, you have to first turn them at least into a quasi-agnostic before they will normally listen to you. Normally however, one would find out what the person believes first before starting, because if the other person is, say, is a member of a Christian cult, all their definitions of words like Christ, Sin, Salvation, Repentence, etc. etc., will all be very different many times, so it would be hard to evangelize when you are effectively speaking different langauges almost, you have to treat each person as their own individual on one-on-one cases because, after all, individuals often have very individual beliefs :D.

I shouldn't have to get into an argument over Bible authenticity though, or anything else, the thing about really Biblical evangelism is you notice whenever Jesus went and got disciples or followers such as the woman at the well, He never got into an argument over Evolution, Creationism, Bible authenticity, etc. etc, He addressed the concience by revealing people's sin to them, and then He could share the good news. Not that Jesus wouldn't of totally rocked any such debate with His infinite knowladge, but that just wasn't how He did things. Personally, I don't like getting into arguments over Bible authenticity-type things unless I know what im talking about or see an opening to change the focus, otherwise there often isn't a point, arguments are often difficult to change people's views in :/.

First, an atheist who won't risk going to hell is by definition one who's not strongly convinced of his atheism - so you've still challenged his beliefs without providing justification for your own, but because you succeeded you get away with it. As for turning an atheist into a quasi-agnostic - once more, that's challenging your audience's position, and if you do it without being invited to debate the topic it's likely to be considered rude and annoying. If the matter comes up in debate, though, if you want your opposite number to assume quasi-agnostic status (with a probability estimate of nonexistence at a high value), you yourself have to accept the same status, with a low probability estimate of deific nonexistence. If you demand an atheist consider the possibility of deific existence, you must grant the possibility of nonexistence. Anything else is simply a verbal assault.

As for why you shouldn't have to get into an argument about biblical validity - very true, it's not a particularly well-supported document in many respects and is at times quite self-contradictory, so if you believe in its contents then you believe in the Bible and if you don't accept its contents then you have no reason to view it as anything more than a multiply-garbled agglomeration of texts written by unreliable sources. It's also not relevant to the question of whether atheists and agnostics are 'loud,' so if you don't like to talk about it, why did you bring it up in the first place?

All in all, I like the story of the Rabbi Hillel. A young man came to the Rabbi Hillel and demanded, "Teach me the Torah while I stand on one foot." The Rabbi replied, "Do not do to another what you would not have done to you." This is the key thing that makes evangelicals annoying: they take the opposite interpretation and call it the Golden Rule. It is not a command to act; it is a stricture against acting.

Because evangelicals believe, they would want someone to come and help them believe, so they do unto others as they would have done unto them. But evangelicals would *not* want someone of another religion to come to them and demand that they change their beliefs - and that is why they're prone to evoke hostile receptions when they honestly believe they're doing good deeds.

Cough{cortez}Cough
Cough{columbus} Cough
Cough{every chiastain from 1600-1900}Cough

What's a Chiastain and how do they all coordinate together flawlessly without any divisional sects/beliefs?

What's a Chiastain and how do they all coordinate together flawlessly without any divisional sects/beliefs?
A Chiastain is a believer in the Holy Blemish. Their sect originated in New Jersey three years ago, when a simple housewife discovered that her ceramic grass-growing cow had turned brown. Hoping to re-use it, she cleaned away the organic materials and discovered a large brown stain on the ceramic that just wouldn't go away no matter what she did.
So she started a religion about it and promptly overtook the then-dominant paradigm, something about a guy getting nailed. QVC is the official Holy Channel of Chiastain, and all Chiastain prayers end with their traditional phrase: "Ch-ch-ch-Chia!"

can't be arsed to read the entire thread, but just checking, has no one said "yes, atheists are compensating for the non existence of God"?

can't be arsed to read the entire thread, but just checking, has no one said "yes, atheists are compensating for the non existence of God"?


Damn, you win the thread.

Damn, you win the thread.

WHOOP!

is there a prize attached?

WHOOP!

is there a prize attached?


I might remember you if I see you in another thread, and I might act nicely towards you even if you have a viewpoint hostile towards me or a point of my own.


The problem is, I have bad memory for names.

I might remember you if I see you in another thread, and I might act nicely towards you even if you have a viewpoint hostile towards me or a point of my own.


The problem is, I have bad memory for names.

Me too. And i often wander off the point and forget what i was sayi...umm, nice weather for this time of year, don't you think?

Me too. And i often wander off the point and forget what i was sayi...umm, nice weather for this time of year, don't you think?


Well it was really warm a couple days ago, but it has been mostly cold, grey, and unpleasant.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

I'm not.

...Next!

Well it was really warm a couple days ago, but it has been mostly cold, grey, and unpleasant.

Reminds me of an ex girlfriend or two.

Reminds me of an ex girlfriend or two.

Deep

Well it was really warm a couple days ago, but it has been mostly cold, grey, and unpleasant.
I can't be bothered to go see what you're referring to, so I'm just going to assume the thread has wandered into discussions of a dying elephant.

I can't be bothered to go see what you're referring to, so I'm just going to assume the thread has wandered into discussions of a dying elephant.



That is one of the most badass things anyone has ever said to me :)

Deep

deep, with hidden shallows.

deep, with hidden shallows.

Where you will find hidden portals to hell.

Where you will find hidden portals to hell.

Hell is other people...misquoting Sartre.

Hell is other people...misquoting Sartre.


Or hell is here, if you're buudhist.

Or hell is here, if you're buudhist.

I don't like buddhists. In fact i fear them.

Thats right, I'm zenophobic

arf.

I don't like buddhists. In fact i fear them.

Thats right, I'm zenophobic

arf.
You are, arrown't you. :D

I don't like buddhists. In fact i fear them.

Thats right, I'm zenophobic

arf.


What if you find a million people who are all exactly like you physically, but just all buudhist?

What if you find a million people who are all exactly like you physically, but just all buudhist?

If i find a million people exactly like me physically, i take it as final proof that i was wrong all along, there is a god, and BOY does he have a perverse sense of humour.

If i find a million people exactly like me physically, i take it as final proof that i was wrong all along, there is a god, and BOY does he have a perverse sense of humour.


Personally, that wouldn't change my views on God, but it'd be really cool to have an army of me... I'd take over my home town.

If i find a million people exactly like me physically, i take it as final proof that i was wrong all along, there is a god, and BOY does he have a perverse sense of humour.
Actually, he does have the perverse sense of humor. It turns out that he exists, was a fan of Nirvana, is a sacred cow named Moo-hammed, passes out hamburgers made from his own body, can never satisfy his mother, and really really likes weed. Everybody got it partially right - he's Rastajuddhislamindistian.

Actually, he does have the perverse sense of humor. It turns out that he exists, was a fan of Nirvana, is a sacred cow named Moo-hammed, passes out hamburgers made from his own body, can never satisfy his mother, and really really likes weed. Everybody got it partially right - he's Rastajuddhislamindistian.

God is everywhere.

But the devil is in the details.

I never worked that one out.

Actually, he does have the perverse sense of humor. It turns out that he exists, was a fan of Nirvana, is a sacred cow named Moo-hammed, passes out hamburgers made from his own body, can never satisfy his mother, and really really likes weed. Everybody got it partially right - he's Rastajuddhislamindistian.

Oh my...:p

[Life flashes in front of eyes]

It's more what they're being trained in, rather than how much.

And you take offense to the what because?

Actually, he does have the perverse sense of humor. It turns out that he exists, was a fan of Nirvana, is a sacred cow named Moo-hammed, passes out hamburgers made from his own body, can never satisfy his mother, and really really likes weed. Everybody got it partially right - he's Rastajuddhislamindistian.I call BULL...

after all, if it was a cow, it would be a SHE. :D

*snip*

Centuries of conversion by the sword and the systematic rape and destruction of "heathen" cultures has made any justification for evangelism moot. Yours was a religion of peace, you made it into a religion of war. Take your prefect god elsewhere, I've heard the schtick and I'm not interested, I'll keep my graven idols. I look to your Satan as a parable of how hateful your God can be, cursing the first individual for daring to want a life of it's own. The law does not allow me to express how deeply you are not welcome.

A 3rd possible state is that the Atheist won't risk going to Hell even when they earnestly believe there is no God and will listen to what I have to say.

And a fourth possible state is that you'll run into someone who is sickened by your faith on such a basic level that they would rather discover your God is real and go to hell then bow. Not every human on earth has such servile desires as you.

As long as we are making cliche quotations

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen"

But truly, first I guarantee that noone here can identify my spirituality. I did once consider myself an atheist, right after I moved away from my parents teachings of christianity. I found more christians stepping up to damn me to hell than I ever found atheists telling me that I was wrong. Today, I do not subscribe to either, because I firmly do not believe in the tenants of christianity, but I also cannot define myself as an atheist or agnostic by their semantic definitions.

Moreover, I don't care what you believe. Your spirituality is one of those unique things that one you get to define, noone can tell you deep down where your spiritual convictions lay. You can either explore spirituality and arrive at a determination on you own, or you can swallow whatever you were fed in your adolescent development. Sometimes both of these paths arrive at the same conclusion, however I would endorse the former.

What I grow tired of is people trying to make their spirituality or religion the guiding force in my life. Your religion is you own, and you should cherish it. But please stop trying to make me live by your dogma.

Especially so in government, keep your religions out of my laws. Following a religion is a choice, and I do not choose any of yours. Stop trying to make it compulsory by putting your religion into the laws of my country.

for the Athiests out there,

if you are so against someone preaching to you, have you ever just looked them in the eye and said.
"sorry, I do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I do not subscribe to your beliefs and I don't plan on it." then walk away?

if they do persist, you can have them arrested for harrasement.

if you see a thread about religion, why do you click on it and participate?

Why do you find the symbols of religion so threatening?

why do you believe that Religion cannot interferre with Government yet, not have the same idea that Government cannot interferre with Religion?

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Maybe vocal atheists compensating for everyone thinking they're evil sinners who deserves to burn in a place of eternal suffering?

We're just fighting against what we consider to be a harmful falsehood. It's not about compensation, but trying to wake people up from the System, as it were. Sometimes, that takes the form of noise, but then again, so do the tactics of Christians.

for the Athiests out there,

if you are so against someone preaching to you, have you ever just looked them in the eye and said.
"sorry, I do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I do not subscribe to your beliefs and I don't plan on it." then walk away?

if they do persist, you can have them arrested for harrasement.

if you see a thread about religion, why do you click on it and participate?

Why do you find the symbols of religion so threatening?

why do you believe that Religion cannot interferre with Government yet, not have the same idea that Government cannot interferre with Religion?

I understand that your question was for the athiests out there, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway. I like a good debate and I'm having a bad day. More to the point, aggressive evangelism needs to be confronted. It is not a difference of opinion, it is a war. There are people in this country, and around the world, that seek to impose their faith upon others, people who believe that their way is the only way. Evangelism comes from that point of view, it comes from a need to justify your own beliefs by gaining converts, by bringing others to the fold.

It is not enough to say you are not interested and walk away. At their best these people protest abortion clinics and attempt to intimidate the government into censoring television to suit their morals, at their worst they murder doctors and fly airplanes into buildings. Along the way there are mullahs who incite riots over pictures and people like Fred Phelps who protest funerals and scream about how fags should die. Most alarmingly there are people like Pat Robertson who comfort millions of followers a week by telling them that hurricanes were sent by god to punish sinners and their government should murder the leaders of other nations. You'll excuse me if in light of the world we live in I do not view questions like "have you accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior" as anything short of low level terrorism or intimidation.

for the Athiests out there,

if you are so against someone preaching to you, have you ever just looked them in the eye and said.
"sorry, I do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I do not subscribe to your beliefs and I don't plan on it." then walk away?

if they do persist, you can have them arrested for harrasement.

if you see a thread about religion, why do you click on it and participate?

Why do you find the symbols of religion so threatening?

why do you believe that Religion cannot interferre with Government yet, not have the same idea that Government cannot interferre with Religion?

1. Yes I have, and yes I have walked away

2. I have filed in court against a local church on two matters. One, for the unsolicited mail they send to my house and for not stopping after repeated requests via mail and phone. Two for sending my child home from school with christian literature encouraging him to attend their church, again this was given to my son in his school

3. Normally the threads on religion that I read, I do so from a stand point of wanting to broaden my experience. Sometimes I learn something from the debate, and other times I reaffirm familiar convictions.

4. It is not the symbol of a religion that I find threatening at all. It is me funding it with my tax dollars that I find threatening to my civil liberties. You can do whatever you like with your religious symbols, as long as you are paying for it, not my tax dollars.

5. My stance is that the government should be free from religion, meaning there should not be religious influence in laws, nor should the government make endorsements, direct or implied, of one religion over the other. This means that the bible should not be used as a tool of argument for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, nor can it be used in the abortion debate, nor should the government use the phrases "under god" on our money or in the pledge.

As for Governement interfering with religion, well with religion and its teachings, they have no right to interfere. If gay marriage was legalized, the gov't has no right to force churches to perform gay marriages against their teachings. However institutions of religions must operate within the law, such as election campaign finance law (i.e. they are tax free organizations and therefore cannot fund a political candidate) There is a difference. Government should not be able to shape the teachings of a religion, and relgions have no place influencing the laws of our country.

for the Athiests out there,

if you are so against someone preaching to you, have you ever just looked them in the eye and said.
"sorry, I do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I do not subscribe to your beliefs and I don't plan on it." then walk away?
Yes, I have. They often relinquish after a bit. Unless I'm bored, in which case we'll engage in a nice teological discussion over a cup of coffee or something.

if you see a thread about religion, why do you click on it and participate?
Erm... because it's called "Are Atheists compensating for something?" Or "For all those who don't believe in God," or "proof that Atheists are wrong" or some other titles like that.

There was a thread not too long ago titled "I love my Bible group" or something like that. And although there was some Atheist participation, this was mostly a knee-jerk reaction and died out rather soon when it was clear that the poster really had no interest in that kind of discussion and instead wanted to share his/her experiences with the religious group.

Why do you find the symbols of religion so threatening?
No one does. It's the use of public space to propagate a religion that's often fought against. Personally I have no problem if there's a mangler during Christmas season. I also don't have a problem with calling it Christmas season. I don't have a problem with Ramadan or Diwali either, and I believe that public space should be a celebration of the diversity of the people living in that community and, therefore, display the symbols of that diversity.

Some people are a tad touchier than that, though.

why do you believe that Religion cannot interferre with Government yet, not have the same idea that Government cannot interferre with Religion?
Government has to ensure the peaceful working of society. This means that messages of hate and intolerance should not be allowed. Government is also in charge of protecting individual freedoms, at least in the West. This means that no group must be given preeminence to imposse their ideologies over other groups.

I don't know about you, but this hardly seems like government interventionism.

what i don't understand is why believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are NOT so loud? Surely if ANYONE were going to be loud, it would be the FSM's true devout.

Shh! Believe and you may be touched by his Noodly Appendage.

Erm... because it's called "Are Atheists compensating for something?" Or "For all those who don't believe in God," or "proof that Atheists are wrong" or some other titles like that.

There was a thread not too long ago titled "I love my Bible group" or something like that. And although there was some Atheist participation, this was mostly a knee-jerk reaction and died out rather soon when it was clear that the poster really had no interest in that kind of discussion and instead wanted to share his/her experiences with the religious group. but look at all the religion (not just christianity) bashing that goes on.
Do christians know the bible Really is a lie? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464771)
Do Christians, Jews and muslims all realise that their books make bad ethical bases? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466968)
Does religion make you angry too? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466507)
and there are others buried in the past pages where Athiests come in and complain when it's a serious discussion going on.

I don't mind anyone participating if they are honest in wanting to know, but there are those that just wanna stir the pot and it's those that I'm asking about.Government has to ensure the peaceful working of society. This means that messages of hate and intolerance should not be allowed. Government is also in charge of protecting individual freedoms, at least in the West. This means that no group must be given preeminence to imposse their ideologies over other groups. thus the 'Fear of Religious symbols.' While I do agree that "Kill The Heathen" type messages are wrong, why the fear of the cross or the star of david or anything else? Granted the Government cannot support one religion over the other, but that doesn't mean it has to remove any and all religious symbolism.

I don't know about you, but this hardly seems like government interventionism.not saying it is. but the fact that if someone donated a statue with a religous theme on it, why not display it as well as encourage other religions to "show their beliefs off." instead of tying a gag to all religions?

and while I do admit it should have a non threatening work environment, isn't censoring what one can say and have displayed at their workareas against freedom of speech, expression, as well as religion.

I may hate dogs (I dont) But I won't be offended by someone who has their cubical wall plastered with their dog pictures.

for the Athiests out there,

if you are so against someone preaching to you, have you ever just looked them in the eye and said.
"sorry, I do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I do not subscribe to your beliefs and I don't plan on it." then walk away?

if they do persist, you can have them arrested for harrasement.

if you see a thread about religion, why do you click on it and participate?

Why do you find the symbols of religion so threatening?

why do you believe that Religion cannot interferre with Government yet, not have the same idea that Government cannot interferre with Religion?

I'm not against people preaching to me. If they stand there in the street proclaiming the 'truth', they have opened themselves to argument as to just what the truth is. If they can't handle polite disagreement with their views, as they often can't, well...I've exercised my right to free speech, and they've undermined themselves.

If I see a thread on religion, I exercise my right to free speech and participate. Politely. Unless and until I'm insulted for my views. I took part perfectly peacably in a Christian Union group at my school...just gently showing that there is another way. I wasn't looking for converts, just a little more understanding and respect for my views. And i got that.

I don't find religious symbols threatening, I find the people wielding them threatening. And even then only sometimes. Our national flag is made of three crosses of three national patron saints. Don't get much more religous and symbolic than that.

Just a thought...maybe some of the American Christians to be found round here are unaccustomed to other viewpoints and so as soon as they come across professed atheists on discussion boards, think that the atheists are being noisy...when they're just having the freedom from an overbearing cultural assumption of Christianity. I don't know. I've never experienced it myself. Just an idea...

First, an atheist who won't risk going to hell is by definition one who's not strongly convinced of his atheism - so you've still challenged his beliefs without providing justification for your own, but because you succeeded you get away with it. As for turning an atheist into a quasi-agnostic - once more, that's challenging your audience's position, and if you do it without being invited to debate the topic it's likely to be considered rude and annoying. If the matter comes up in debate, though, if you want your opposite number to assume quasi-agnostic status (with a probability estimate of nonexistence at a high value), you yourself have to accept the same status, with a low probability estimate of deific nonexistence. If you demand an atheist consider the possibility of deific existence, you must grant the possibility of nonexistence. Anything else is simply a verbal assault.

As for why you shouldn't have to get into an argument about biblical validity - very true, it's not a particularly well-supported document in many respects and is at times quite self-contradictory, so if you believe in its contents then you believe in the Bible and if you don't accept its contents then you have no reason to view it as anything more than a multiply-garbled agglomeration of texts written by unreliable sources. It's also not relevant to the question of whether atheists and agnostics are 'loud,' so if you don't like to talk about it, why did you bring it up in the first place?

All in all, I like the story of the Rabbi Hillel. A young man came to the Rabbi Hillel and demanded, "Teach me the Torah while I stand on one foot." The Rabbi replied, "Do not do to another what you would not have done to you." This is the key thing that makes evangelicals annoying: they take the opposite interpretation and call it the Golden Rule. It is not a command to act; it is a stricture against acting.

Because evangelicals believe, they would want someone to come and help them believe, so they do unto others as they would have done unto them. But evangelicals would *not* want someone of another religion to come to them and demand that they change their beliefs - and that is why they're prone to evoke hostile receptions when they honestly believe they're doing good deeds.

Ok, I think you might have a good point on that first sentence, I suppose they wouldn't be very Atheist :/. I don't see why I would have to lose faith in Christ to bring an agnostic to Christ though, challenging a position does not require believing in the other side's position. By quasi-agnostic, I mean that at least their not totally atheist, probabilities don't have anything to do with it, as long as they slightly dought the non-existance of God, we have the capability to make sense in a discussion. Of course, that's still not guarenteed, but it's a capability at any rate. I'd also think the title of this thread sort of sends out a screaming "Please, everyone, we invite you to come into this debate!" signal, yea it's not directly implied, but I can hope, can't I? Im also not demanding that an Atheist acknowladge God can exist (Yet) because I simply haven't gotten that into the conversation, not everyone here is atheist, why not throw out the bulk of the stuff now, and address Atheism later? There's a certain series of logical steps I like to go through with Atheism though, mostly because im using the way of the master, (www.wayofthemaster.com) and well, im not very inventive at arguing big old philosophical stuff, so why not borrow someone else's argument? I spent days watching that series, im not going to waste it heh. I also shouldn't have to grant the possibility of non-existance either, as I would think it's pretty clear that the entire reason i'd be debating the issue is that I firmly believe that God does exist, if I admitted my position was not rock-solid to me, why should anyone listen to my argument if they know I don't even believe in it compleatly?

on the second point, err, im not saying I wouldn't want to argue because I don't think it's possible to win, it's just that those kind of arguments take hours, (I spent 8 hours with a Buudhist in a game more than a month ago, I know what it feels like, and I didn't even succeed because we both got silenced for talking religion -___-) and even if you do win it, that only makes a person trust you on one point, not on trusting in Christ. The reason I brought this up was because it's, well, important, I have a memory of suffering through 8 hours straight of debate with a Buudhist because I didn't think that addressing his concience would be right since he seemed to not like the idea of the 10 commandments, and worse to boot, I failed to convince him of anything apparently. We started at about 6 P.M. and went to 2 A.M. the next day, that wasn't fun. You've got to tackle the moral issues and not get distracted by arguments or nobody will understand why Christ did what He did, if there was no moral problem with humans, why would God sacrifice Himself for us to save us from sin?

On the last point, remember, not all people who call themselves Christian are the same. Sometimes people get angry, it happens to everyone, Christian or not, and well, im sorry, but sometimes the other side just plain makes you angry, either through sheer arrogance or threatening nature, and that's not just limited to the non-Christian side. We're not perfect by any means just because we're Christian after all :/. Personally, if someone came up to me to try and convince me of their religion, i'd just turn the tables, it's real easy to start evangelizing if the other side brings up religious things first heh.

for the Athiests out there,

if you are so against someone preaching to you, have you ever just looked them in the eye and said.
"sorry, I do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I do not subscribe to your beliefs and I don't plan on it." then walk away?

if they do persist, you can have them arrested for harrasement.

if you see a thread about religion, why do you click on it and participate?

Why do you find the symbols of religion so threatening?

why do you believe that Religion cannot interferre with Government yet, not have the same idea that Government cannot interferre with Religion?

Why shouldn't we be able to click on a thread and participate? It's fun.

I don't find symbols of religion threatening...I'm not a vampire.

Your last statement makes no sense...how else are we supposed to keep religion out of government? Start a mob? Of course we use the law to prevent religion from interfering with law.

but look at all the religion (not just christianity) bashing that goes on.
Do christians know the bible Really is a lie? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464771)
Do Christians, Jews and muslims all realise that their books make bad ethical bases? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466968)
Does religion make you angry too? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466507)
and there are others buried in the past pages where Athiests come in and complain when it's a serious discussion going on.

Wow, three buried threads. Two of them by the same poster and the other one very tongue in cheek.

Shall we go looking for Atheist bashing threads now? Mmmh? Shall we?

thus the 'Fear of Religious symbols.' While I do agree that "Kill The Heathen" type messages are wrong, why the fear of the cross or the star of david or anything else? Granted the Government cannot support one religion over the other, but that doesn't mean it has to remove any and all religious symbolism.
What fear? When has there been any fear? At most the discussion centers on whether tax money should be used to pay for the display of these religious symbols and whether it constitutes government endorsement of religion. No one's ever said they're afraid when they see these symbols, or that people shouldn't have a right to display them. Simply that they shouldn't do it with government money or in government space.

not saying it is. but the fact that if someone donated a statue with a religous theme on it, why not display it as well as encourage other religions to "show their beliefs off." instead of tying a gag to all religions?
I agree. Let people show their diversity in an open and free manner. But the government should also be careful not to appear to be endorsing any religion. This is a difficult thing to do and I think many government prefer not to get involved at all.

and while I do admit it should have a non threatening work environment, isn't censoring what one can say and have displayed at their workareas against freedom of speech, expression, as well as religion.
Well, that up to the employer's policies. By definition, rights can only be violated by the government. Your employer can regulate your behaviour in the premises.

I may hate dogs (I dont) But I won't be offended by someone who has their cubical wall plastered with their dog pictures.
I know. I work with some Muslims, and our office receives Muslim visitors from time to time. Yet, I have a pig in full view on the top of my monitor (because it's my Chinese zodiac sign and I also like pigs), well, it's actually more of a hog. And no one's ever said anything about it. And I had never thought about it until now. But if my employer received complaints and asks me to take it down, I will have to take it down. It's not my computer, or my desk. It's my employer's.

You have to accept that the other side's viewpoint may have some validity to debate, rather than just hold a slanging match. Call it suspending your (dis)belief. If you don't reason on the grounds that what they say might be true, you're just repeatedly stating your view. If they're weak enough to be swayed by someone basically saying "This is what I think" then that'll work. If not, you should have engaged in reasoned argument. Which requires accepting that their view may be reasonable.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

We are not. Anyway the deity religions are compensating for a father-figure.

I just read through this whole thread and I think most of it's been said.

However, who says you have to be a Christian to go to heaven? I've sat through 3 years of Catholic theology and I've come to the conclusion that can't be the case--even the church agrees. I mean, is it right for god to eternally damn a bunch of tribesman deep in the amazon just because they've never heard of Christ? And if he doesn't that means the whole 'you must believe in Christ' concept goes out the window. With that the bible is proven fallible and it pretty much just becomes a guide to our lives. I mean can you honestly say Ghandi will burn in hell for not believing in Christ? Hell, he was the best Christian I can think of off the top of my head in the modern era...

Oh yeah, I'm athiest by the way

Centuries of conversion by the sword and the systematic rape and destruction of "heathen" cultures has made any justification for evangelism moot. Yours was a religion of peace, you made it into a religion of war. Take your prefect god elsewhere, I've heard the schtick and I'm not interested, I'll keep my graven idols.

Yeah, I like my graven idols too.

I look to your Satan as a parable of how hateful your God can be, cursing the first individual for daring to want a life of it's own. The law does not allow me to express how deeply you are not welcome.

Are we talking the law, or the Law, here?

It's kinda funny that seeing as this topic has gone on for 10 pages, Kreen has more or less proved his point.:D

I don't mind anyone participating if they are honest in wanting to know, but there are those that just wanna stir the pot and it's those that I'm asking about. thus the 'Fear of Religious symbols.' While I do agree that "Kill The Heathen" type messages are wrong, why the fear of the cross or the star of david or anything else? Granted the Government cannot support one religion over the other, but that doesn't mean it has to remove any and all religious symbolism.

First off, I see you didn't want to reply to my fair and even headed assessment.

Yes Gov't must remove any and all religious symbolism from its offices, currency, and practices, otherwise it implies endorsement of one religion over another in violation of the 1st Amendment. For instance Displays of the Ten Commandments in Court Buildings implies a gov't endorsement of applying the tenants of christian law onto the decisions of that court. While individual judges may not do so, the implication and endorsement of the individual relgion is there and is illegal.

Wow, three buried threads. Two of them by the same poster and the other one very tongue in cheek.not buried... look at the last date of postings yesterday was as far back as I went.

Shall we go looking for Atheist bashing threads now? Mmmh? Shall we?we can. but shall we look back a month or two? get a real feel of the topic trends? Hmmm? OH and I am not bashing Atheists. I'm just curious as to their feelings when some of them claim Religion is being crammed down their throats. that's all. No insult meant and deep apologies if any was taken.

What fear? When has there been any fear? At most the discussion centers on whether tax money should be used to pay for the display of these religious symbols and whether it constitutes government endorsement of religion. No one's ever said they're afraid when they see these symbols, or that people shouldn't have a right to display them. Simply that they shouldn't do it with government money or in government space.I agree with that, but at the same time, tax payers monies are being used to silence religion also. a form of censorship perhaps?


I agree. Let people show their diversity in an open and free manner. But the government should also be careful not to appear to be endorsing any religion. This is a difficult thing to do and I think many government prefer not to get involved at all.I Agree that it is a very fine line to walk.


Well, that up to the employer's policies. By definition, rights can only be violated by the government. Your employer can regulate your behaviour in the premises.except in Government Buildings.


I know. I work with some Muslims, and our office receives Muslim visitors from time to time. Yet, I have a pig in full view on the top of my monitor (because it's my Chinese zodiac sign and I also like pigs), well, it's actually more of a hog. And no one's ever said anything about it. And I had never thought about it until now. But if my employer received complaints and asks me to take it down, I will have to take it down. It's not my computer, or my desk. It's my employer's.but if that area is assigned to you, shouldn't you be able to make that area comfortable to you?

On an interesting side note, the Jeudo-Christian God does a very perverse sense of humor.


I'm not sure how familliar all of you are with the concept of 'the ban.' Basically, back in ancient times when the Jews were moving into the promised land, whenever they took an area/village, they would kill off everyone (I believe just the males) in the area, basically genocide. As a matter of fact, God actually punished one of their judges (General type person) for not following out a ban, but don't quote me on that one.

Does genocide against a religious group in the 20th century sound familliar?

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
As an atheist, I'm very quiet on religious matters. I think people should be allowed to believe and practise whatever religion they want as long as they don't stomp on anyone else's rights.


No atheist tries to get religious worship banned, but plenty of Christians take every chance to try to make us a theocracy.
I smell America-centrism! There are several countries which ban all religions, e.g. China.

I agree with you about evangelical Christians, who I'm not a big fan of, but I don't think this second statement is accurate.. Secularists have defeated some public religious observances that needed to go (forced school prayer, etc.).. but lawsuit after lawsuit later, most schools won't even allow optional time before school for prayer, or (until recently) religious clubs, in some states.. or won't let the class Valedictorian thank God in their commencement speech, etc. There certainly are some atheists who want to outlaw any mention of religion on public property, although I don't assume they speak for the majority.
Ah, the refreshing voice of reasonable moderation.

It is how they get their weak minded useful idiots to do things like this.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1577978
Burning down churches is just stupid not to mention cruel and criminal. But why blame anyone other than the people who actually set the fires? Even if the arsonists were atheists who hated Christianity (the attacks appear not to be racially motivated), why are all atheists collectively to blame?

Here's what I don't understand about abortion clinic bombers: If it's wrong to abort un-born fetuses, why isn't it wrong to burn fully grown people?
You probably won't get an answer here. Even conservative Christian theocrats overwhemingly condemn bombings.

First off, I see you didn't want to reply to my fair and even headed assessment..Apologies, I didn't reply because it was Fair and even headed. so I understood what you were saying. Should've said something. Sorry.

Yes Gov't must remove any and all religious symbolism from its offices, currency, and practices, otherwise it implies endorsement of one religion over another in violation of the 1st Amendment. For instance Displays of the Ten Commandments in Court Buildings implies a gov't endorsement of applying the tenants of christian law onto the decisions of that court. While individual judges may not do so, the implication and endorsement of the individual relgion is there and is illegal.now if... and this is hypthetical. two statues were delivered to a government building by two loyal and religous constituants. one is the 10 commandments and the other... well let's use Islam because it's another large religion.

Is it better to offend both by refusing a gift that took time and effort to make? or to display both as a symbol that the government is fair to all. even allowing other religions to donate symbols of their faith. No ONE religion is supported and since Athiesm isn't a religion... maybe place all the symbols on one side of the walkway? dunno.

People make too many generalisations of religious groups these days.
Just cause some religious people are a bit crazy doesn't mean they all are. Some, the majority, are very nice people.
People go on about Sep 11th and July 7th, and forget that most religious people are very nice and only some are extremists, who like to kill people.

Yeah, I like my graven idols too.



Are we talking the law, or the Law, here?


The law. The Law doesn't yet factor into this for me. Even if it did, I'm not about to go telling people what it says ;) .

You probably won't get an answer here. Even conservative Christian theocrats overwhemingly condemn bombings.

Only in public, and even then not without equivocation.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

"Today's uncontested absurdity is tomorrow's accepted slogan."-Ayn Rand

I'm not a fundamentalist. I was curious, nor did I realize how many people would:
A)think that I was trying to assault their beliefs with my question...
B)respond quickly

Through this thread I've become semi apathetic once more and am going back to mind my own business.

Since this was long, I'll reply section by section.

Ok, I think you might have a good point on that first sentence, I suppose they wouldn't be very Atheist :/. I don't see why I would have to lose faith in Christ to bring an agnostic to Christ though, challenging a position does not require believing in the other side's position. By quasi-agnostic, I mean that at least their not totally atheist, probabilities don't have anything to do with it, as long as they slightly dought the non-existance of God, we have the capability to make sense in a discussion. Of course, that's still not guarenteed, but it's a capability at any rate. I'd also think the title of this thread sort of sends out a screaming "Please, everyone, we invite you to come into this debate!" signal, yea it's not directly implied, but I can hope, can't I? Im also not demanding that an Atheist acknowladge God can exist (Yet) because I simply haven't gotten that into the conversation, not everyone here is atheist, why not throw out the bulk of the stuff now, and address Atheism later? There's a certain series of logical steps I like to go through with Atheism though, mostly because im using the way of the master, (www.wayofthemaster.com) and well, im not very inventive at arguing big old philosophical stuff, so why not borrow someone else's argument? I spent days watching that series, im not going to waste it heh. I also shouldn't have to grant the possibility of non-existance either, as I would think it's pretty clear that the entire reason i'd be debating the issue is that I firmly believe that God does exist, if I admitted my position was not rock-solid to me, why should anyone listen to my argument if they know I don't even believe in it compleatly?

Again, your position applies only if you're talking to an agnostic, someone who concedes the possibility of deity without any belief in the matter. In that case, you are attempting to present evidence in favor of a position that your target already accepts as possible. If you're talking to an atheist, though, who actively believes that there is not a deity, then the starting parameters of the debate are that he denies any possibility of deity and you deny any possibility of non-deity. Asking them to take a quasi-agnostic perspective while refusing to do the same is demanding that the debate be set up such that your position is within bounds but theirs is not. Turn your final argument around - why would an atheist bother talking to you unless he too was completely convinced of his position?
This isn't a matter of rejecting your faith, it's a matter of both individuals granting what they consider a condition-contrary-to-fact. The atheist is certain that there is no deity, but grants the possibility there is in order for the debate to be possible. You are certain there is a deity, but would have to grant the possibility there isn't in order to have the debate. It's the difference between "Okay, there might not be a God" and "Okay, if there were not a God..." An agnostic already concedes the possibility of your conclusion, so you can start right in. The atheist does not concede that, just as you do not concede the possibility of the atheist's position, so if you want to have a debate, logically both you and the atheist must agree to for the sake of argument concede the possibility your position is wrong.

on the second point, err, im not saying I wouldn't want to argue because I don't think it's possible to win, it's just that those kind of arguments take hours, (I spent 8 hours with a Buudhist in a game more than a month ago, I know what it feels like, and I didn't even succeed because we both got silenced for talking religion -___-) and even if you do win it, that only makes a person trust you on one point, not on trusting in Christ. The reason I brought this up was because it's, well, important, I have a memory of suffering through 8 hours straight of debate with a Buudhist because I didn't think that addressing his concience would be right since he seemed to not like the idea of the 10 commandments, and worse to boot, I failed to convince him of anything apparently. We started at about 6 P.M. and went to 2 A.M. the next day, that wasn't fun. You've got to tackle the moral issues and not get distracted by arguments or nobody will understand why Christ did what He did, if there was no moral problem with humans, why would God sacrifice Himself for us to save us from sin?

Uh-uh. You were talking about Biblical validity. If you want to talk Biblical validity, you talk the historical evidence, internal contradictions, and so forth. If you want to talk the morality issues, that's another kettle of fish. Your final sentence there reiterates the arguing-from-your-conclusion problem, too; if you want to convince someone that the Bible conveys meaningful moral messages, then you need to make an argument that doesn't depend on your target already believing the Bible. Pretend for a minute I'm a Martian hearing it for the first time and I think your little story about an omnipotent being needing to sacrifice himself in mortal incarnation to himself to earn his own mercy for his creations is silly. Talking about the meaningfulness of the sacrifice when your target doesn't believe it even happened isn't going to convince him that it happened.

On the last point, remember, not all people who call themselves Christian are the same. Sometimes people get angry, it happens to everyone, Christian or not, and well, im sorry, but sometimes the other side just plain makes you angry, either through sheer arrogance or threatening nature, and that's not just limited to the non-Christian side. We're not perfect by any means just because we're Christian after all :/. Personally, if someone came up to me to try and convince me of their religion, i'd just turn the tables, it's real easy to start evangelizing if the other side brings up religious things first heh.

On the last point, you're entirely missing the concept. The atheist does not want the evangelizing in the first place, nor do most agnostics. A religious person has to initiate that conversation in the first place: the initial unwanted act must be taken by the evangelizer. By way of analogy: you're in a nice restaurant, enjoying a pleasant dinner, when someone walks up to your table and starts telling you about all the fun times you're missing at the combination brothel/crackhouse next door which you didn't know or want to know existed. Most people would consider that person to have done something unwelcome, even if they're doing it in the sincere belief that you'd have a great time there.
As for getting angry not being limited to non-Christians? You've got to be making a joke, right? The religion of the Crusades and the KKK and two millennia of generally horrific violence has no need whatsoever to modestly admit the vague possibility of its own imperfection, thank you.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
I don't think my philosophy is superior, I just choose it over the other because I don't/can't believe in the other.

Atheists are compensating for Christians. And agnostics compensate for both.
Then who compensates for the agnostics?! AHHHHHHHHHHHH, I'm going crazy again!

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
Because we look around and see how religions seem to be involved in so much war and hatred. Its not like we are looking at the world from pluto and can just let the ignorant kill each other. We live among you. At least thats my take on the subject, I am not doing "missionary work" here, believe what you like. But could we calm the killing? Please.

A quiet atheist... yes... thats makes sense.
Btw the other day i met an intelligent republican.

lol thats great:p

1. Yes I have, and yes I have walked away

2. I have filed in court against a local church on two matters. One, for the unsolicited mail they send to my house and for not stopping after repeated requests via mail and phone. Two for sending my child home from school with christian literature encouraging him to attend their church, again this was given to my son in his school
3. Normally the threads on religion that I read, I do so from a stand point of wanting to broaden my experience. Sometimes I learn something from the debate, and other times I reaffirm familiar convictions.

4. It is not the symbol of a religion that I find threatening at all. It is me funding it with my tax dollars that I find threatening to my civil liberties. You can do whatever you like with your religious symbols, as long as you are paying for it, not my tax dollars.

5. My stance is that the government should be free from religion, meaning there should not be religious influence in laws, nor should the government make endorsements, direct or implied, of one religion over the other. This means that the bible should not be used as a tool of argument for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, nor can it be used in the abortion debate, nor should the government use the phrases "under god" on our money or in the pledge.

As for Governement interfering with religion, well with religion and its teachings, they have no right to interfere. If gay marriage was legalized, the gov't has no right to force churches to perform gay marriages against their teachings. However institutions of religions must operate within the law, such as election campaign finance law (i.e. they are tax free organizations and therefore cannot fund a political candidate) There is a difference. Government should not be able to shape the teachings of a religion, and relgions have no place influencing the laws of our country.
Hehehe, a group came to our school giving us free bibles, half the school is atheist, the other half Christian, well, those bibles weren't treated well.:D

Because we look around and see how religions seem to be involved in so much war and hatred. Its not like we are looking at the world from pluto and can just let the ignorant kill each other. We live among you. At least thats my take on the subject, I am not doing "missionary work" here, believe what you like. But could we calm the killing? Please.
Not to mention that when the religious folk start going at each other, it's not like atheists are immune to the weapons. A lot of us get caught in the crossfire, and it's not even our fight.

Hehehe, a group came to our school giving us free bibles, half the school is atheist, the other half Christian, well, those bibles weren't treated well.:DI got a free bible at school, from visitors who unsuccesfully tried to 'answer our questions' about God. It wasn't technically a school thing (though there was obviously a condoning of some kind) and (strangely/naturally, depending on your POV) was totally separate from our standard Religious Education class, which was of the comparitive type (well, mainly comparative between the classic monotheistic trilogy of Abrahamic religions, touching lightly upon the Egyptian ideas when Moses was looked at). I still must have the book (or 'Book') somewhere, but it's neither well thumbed nor damaged in any way. (I tend to like books, and don't tend to damage them if I can help.)

Sorry, I wrote a lot more there than necessary. Perhaps I ought to explain that this is the UK I'm talking about too. Strange that while we do have an official state/regional religion, we seem to be a lot more secular as people (and no worse for it, IMHO).

Oh, and the bible was New Testament only, I'm afraid. Pity the really juicy bits were in the Old Testament. (Not that I'm swayed much by the old stories, so if you think I'm getting circumcised on the say of Pascal, you are very much mistaken... ;) Maybe I ought to thank God for St. Paul, on that front..!)

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
Yeah, and why do those silly Newtonists have to be so loud about their belief in gravity? Whenever I try to get a permit for my skyscraper design, those stupid gravity-believers shoot me down. Whenever I throw knives into the air, the idiotic gravitationists yell about how the knives will fall to earth and injure somebody. Whenever I insist that I can soar through the air, the gravity-lovers restrain me from leaping off the rooftop.

Why do they have to be so damn noisy about their beliefs? My beliefs are just as valid as theirs, after all, and they should bloody well respect my opinion. They shouldn't keep on trying to make everybody agree with them, especially since they can't even explain all the holes in their little theory.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

I'm curious, if you believe being "noisy" is bad, why are you being so noisy about others being noisy?

Who's being noisy? I don't run around screaming I'm an atheist I just occasionnally pee against a church, but I do it really quiet

I'm curious, if you believe being "noisy" is bad, why are you being so noisy about others being noisy?
Why are YOU being so noisy about him being noisy about other people being noisy?

ARE YOU COMPENSATING FOR SOMETHING?!

Christians, Atheists, and Agnostics are all equally annoying. +1
agreed

Why are YOU being so noisy about him being noisy about other people being noisy?

ARE YOU COMPENSATING FOR SOMETHING?!

Why are you being so noisy about him being noisy about other people being noisy?

Are you compensating for something?!

Atheists are compensating for Christians. And agnostics compensate for both.

ive never met a noisy agnostic. what would they yell about?

I'm not noisy about being an athiest.

I'll leave you alone if you'll leave me alone

i'm quite happy to have a debate about it.

but if you try to convert me i'll convert you back (so far i'm on five nill to me)

I have on numerous occasions been invited to Church, either prayer services, celebrations or "praise and worship" music evenings. I have never been invited to an atheist gathering, nor have I ever issued such an invitation. Indeed, I am not aware of any atheist meeting halls.

thats because they are generally known as pubs! and anyway many people say that people with flashy expensive cars are compensating for something but nobody wrote a thread about that did they!

The law. The Law doesn't yet factor into this for me. Even if it did, I'm not about to go telling people what it says ;) .

Heh, it's not like people can't find out for themselves fairly easily, anyway. Is it strange that I always thought it was basically common knowledge? :confused:

Oooo, I feel like I'm in a secret club! :p

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

FREE SPEECH YEEHAWW I'M LOUD... *sigh*

Look, why do you even care about what other people believe?
If someone wants to be an atheist, agnostic or a theist (or religious) let them be.

I myself am a theist (occasionally), but I do not follow a religion, and know hardly anything about the God(s) up there, and life is too short in my opinion to worry about that, so I live like an atheist.

but if you try to convert me i'll convert you back (so far i'm on five nill to me)

Oh give me a high five my brotha!

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
This makes no sense. Why is someone who belongs to a religion that sends leaflets to peoples houses, harrasses people in the streets, launches massive protests if someone who doesnt even belong to their group does something they feel is wrong and has been known to invade entire countries and kill large numbers of people in the past to convert others complaining about atheists?

I'm not noisy about being an athiest.

I'll leave you alone if you'll leave me alone

i'm quite happy to have a debate about it.

but if you try to convert me i'll convert you back (so far i'm on five nill to me)

Fair enough (to a point).
But I reckon it is impossible for a human to 'convert' another human. The convert is the one making the decision, so converts are converting themselves. Thus you are safe from conversion by anyone else, but not from yourself.
You don't sound like you are about to convert yourself, so I would say that you are relatively safe from conversion. As for being left alone, that's no fun. How can one have a decent debate when everyone leaves you alone?

As for being noisy, some people are noisy, some people are quite, regardless of what they believe and don't believe. I have been trying to figure out whether the thread starter was making a point about being noisy, or about having a particular world view, or about having a particular world view and being noisy about it.

Look, why do you even care about what other people believe? If someone wants to be an atheist, agnostic or a theist (or religious) let them be.

It was just a sudden question which I no longer am begging for an answer. The truth is, in real life I really don't care what theology someone believes, and as I have said before I am not one of those annoying evangelicals that throws a bible at innocent bystanders. And about free speech, you're right, everyone is entitled to speak their mind.

This makes no sense. Why is someone who belongs to a religion that sends leaflets to peoples houses, harrasses people in the streets, launches massive protests if someone who doesnt even belong to their group does something they feel is wrong and has been known to invade entire countries and kill large numbers of people in the past to convert others complaining about atheists?

Because all humans make large assumptions I will not criticize you on your huge generalization of Christians. I will say this though "Because I can."

Because all humans make large assumptions I will not criticize you on your huge generalization of Christians. I will say this though "Because I can."
Oh I have generalised nothing, sir. I have not said that all Christians do these things (it would probably bring the US economy to its knees if they did), but I am saying that Christians do do these things. Christianity is an expansionist religion that puts a lot of emphasis on converting people - denying this is ludicrous - whereas "atheism" is not even a unified body of people, let alone one that actively tries to recruit people. If anyone is generalising, it is you sir. In addition, if you have by admission no justification for your allegations against atheists, why do you make them?

Why are you being so noisy about him being noisy about other people being noisy?

Are you compensating for something?!Curses, foiled again!

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

that's saying people who believe in gravity are cocky when they tell others they can't jump off a building and fly.

Since this was long, I'll reply section by section.

Again, your position applies only if you're talking to an agnostic, someone who concedes the possibility of deity without any belief in the matter. In that case, you are attempting to present evidence in favor of a position that your target already accepts as possible. If you're talking to an atheist, though, who actively believes that there is not a deity, then the starting parameters of the debate are that he denies any possibility of deity and you deny any possibility of non-deity. Asking them to take a quasi-agnostic perspective while refusing to do the same is demanding that the debate be set up such that your position is within bounds but theirs is not. Turn your final argument around - why would an atheist bother talking to you unless he too was completely convinced of his position?
This isn't a matter of rejecting your faith, it's a matter of both individuals granting what they consider a condition-contrary-to-fact. The atheist is certain that there is no deity, but grants the possibility there is in order for the debate to be possible. You are certain there is a deity, but would have to grant the possibility there isn't in order to have the debate. It's the difference between "Okay, there might not be a God" and "Okay, if there were not a God..." An agnostic already concedes the possibility of your conclusion, so you can start right in. The atheist does not concede that, just as you do not concede the possibility of the atheist's position, so if you want to have a debate, logically both you and the atheist must agree to for the sake of argument concede the possibility your position is wrong.


Uh-uh. You were talking about Biblical validity. If you want to talk Biblical validity, you talk the historical evidence, internal contradictions, and so forth. If you want to talk the morality issues, that's another kettle of fish. Your final sentence there reiterates the arguing-from-your-conclusion problem, too; if you want to convince someone that the Bible conveys meaningful moral messages, then you need to make an argument that doesn't depend on your target already believing the Bible. Pretend for a minute I'm a Martian hearing it for the first time and I think your little story about an omnipotent being needing to sacrifice himself in mortal incarnation to himself to earn his own mercy for his creations is silly. Talking about the meaningfulness of the sacrifice when your target doesn't believe it even happened isn't going to convince him that it happened.


On the last point, you're entirely missing the concept. The atheist does not want the evangelizing in the first place, nor do most agnostics. A religious person has to initiate that conversation in the first place: the initial unwanted act must be taken by the evangelizer. By way of analogy: you're in a nice restaurant, enjoying a pleasant dinner, when someone walks up to your table and starts telling you about all the fun times you're missing at the combination brothel/crackhouse next door which you didn't know or want to know existed. Most people would consider that person to have done something unwelcome, even if they're doing it in the sincere belief that you'd have a great time there.
As for getting angry not being limited to non-Christians? You've got to be making a joke, right? The religion of the Crusades and the KKK and two millennia of generally horrific violence has no need whatsoever to modestly admit the vague possibility of its own imperfection, thank you.

Ok, first, sorry it was so long you had to quote it all out, it's just I like to be clear on things, yet I guess I just type too long, i'll probably do it again unfortunently :(. Anyway, the thing of it is, I don't plan to simply ask real nicely to an Atheist to concede that God might exist, people often have far too strong opinions to just go for that kind of thing, it's not something you can really expect to rely on, and it's kind of insulting to make light of people's strong opinions like that. Like if someone asked me to stop considering myself a Christian for a moment just to hear their argument, I would never agree to such a thing, so why should I expect someone else to consider themself differently just to hear what I have to say? Generally, there's a series of logical steps to go through, such as asking them if a building has a builder, and a car has a car maker, why is it impossible creation cannot have a creator, especially if said creator is not inside the universe, and thusly not bound by universal laws? To tell you the truth, I don't read everything on this forum about Atheism, I sort of expected to see some sort of argument rebutting this before, if anyone knows one, i'd like to see it personally, not that I don't think people can't make one, it's just i'd like to be informed :/.

Next, the thing about moral issues is that deep down, everyone has a sense of right and wrong, you can radically oppress it, but it's always there. You can also always address this part of people, because everyone has a conscience, yes, I know, with some types of criminals and whatnot many people feel it is impossible for them to have a concience, but i've never personally met someone yet who doesn't think something is wrong or right morally. The problem with humans that Christ came to save us from is a problem of morality, we cannot be perfectly moral, so therefore we could not escape hell without something radical happening, such as Christ sacrificing Himself to take that punishment on our flawed morality and take it Himself for those who will believe in Him. If I asked people if they thought murder, rape, racism, lying (any form, white or big) etc. etc., were wrong, I don't see many people saying that, absolutly, none of that stuff is wrong in any form that they can think of. And that's why you shouldn't get into arguments over the Bible or whatnot, even if you win, it doesn't actually show anyone that they've done anything wrong to deserve hell and absolutly need Christ.

Finally, your last thing assumes that I am a cotton candy evangelist, no offense, it just kinda does :/. When you say that evangelism is like going up to people and talking to them about the benefits of that brothel across town, your referring to the kind of Evangelism that goes: "You've got a God shaped hole in your heart, and only Christ can fill it. Now, Christ will give you peace, love, joy, happiness, a new car, a bigger house, that promotion you've always wanted, will cure your hangnail, will make your hair grow back, make you win the lottery, etc. etc. etc." and that all sounds nice, (And somewhat un-Biblical) but like just randomly espousing the supposed merits of a brothel, there isn't actually a real reason to feel like any of that stuff is important. But when you can get people to understand what Christ was saving us from and why we needed to be saved from it, then there's a reason behind it, and that makes all the difference. What if I walked up to those people in the restaraunt and told them that the kitchen just set fire, and if they don't leave, they'll die from the smoke? Now there's a reason to listen to what I have to say, even when im just randomly butting in, I would be showing them that what I have to say can save them from getting killed. And likewise, Evangelism shouldn't be about proclaiming the benefits of Christianity, it should be warning people of the wrath to come, like I said earlier, this isn't a game by any means.
On the last point, I get it that many people might call that an understatement, but seriously, I could go on a rampage for miles about how increadibly un-Biblical the KKK's actions are, despite how amazingly Christian their main mantra sounds. The crusades, also, had their own problems, as the entire focus was on killing, they could of at last tried to send ministers in first, come on. Most death-dealing things people do in the name of Christianity are not Christian at all, has anyone asked an abortion clinic bomber whether they feel their bomb is killing all the babies inside or saving them?

Generally I'm more interested in converting people to my political views than to my atheistic views.

Ok, first, sorry it was so long you had to quote it all out, it's just I like to be clear on things, yet I guess I just type too long, i'll probably do it again unfortunently :(. Anyway, the thing of it is, I don't plan to simply ask real nicely to an Atheist to concede that God might exist, people often have far too strong opinions to just go for that kind of thing, it's not something you can really expect to rely on, and it's kind of insulting to make light of people's strong opinions like that. Like if someone asked me to stop considering myself a Christian for a moment just to hear their argument, I would never agree to such a thing, so why should I expect someone else to consider themself differently just to hear what I have to say? Generally, there's a series of logical steps to go through, such as asking them if a building has a builder, and a car has a car maker, why is it impossible creation cannot have a creator, especially if said creator is not inside the universe, and thusly not bound by universal laws? To tell you the truth, I don't read everything on this forum about Atheism, I sort of expected to see some sort of argument rebutting this before, if anyone knows one, i'd like to see it personally, not that I don't think people can't make one, it's just i'd like to be informed :/.

For a start most Atheists don't believe that there can't be a god, we simply don't believe there is one.

My personal response would be to concede that it was a possibility but not a very likely one. While I cannot disprove the existance of a creator you cannot prove the existance of one.

Sorry if this isn't very helpful but the argument is fairly weak, did you find it somewhere or did you make it yourself?

Next, the thing about moral issues is that deep down, everyone has a sense of right and wrong, you can radically oppress it, but it's always there. You can also always address this part of people, because everyone has a conscience, yes, I know, with some types of criminals and whatnot many people feel it is impossible for them to have a concience, but i've never personally met someone yet who doesn't think something is wrong or right morally. The problem with humans that Christ came to save us from is a problem of morality, we cannot be perfectly moral, so therefore we could not escape hell without something radical happening, such as Christ sacrificing Himself to take that punishment on our flawed morality and take it Himself for those who will believe in Him. If I asked people if they thought murder, rape, racism, lying (any form, white or big) etc. etc., were wrong, I don't see many people saying that, absolutly, none of that stuff is wrong in any form that they can think of. And that's why you shouldn't get into arguments over the Bible or whatnot, even if you win, it doesn't actually show anyone that they've done anything wrong to deserve hell and absolutly need Christ.


I would argue that a sense of right or wrong is dependant on culture and upbringing. For example, female genital mutilation is considered the norm in many parts of Africa wheras it is (quite reasonably) reviled in the west. I doubt there is any moral viewpoint that cannot be ingrained in a child. During the middle ages killing your enemies was considered the norm wheras nowadays it would be considered morally repugnant. During the crusades some crusaders even resorted to cannibalism as at the time it wasn't considered wrong to eat the flesh of a Muslim. An even more modern example would be the taboo that used to exist towards pregnancy outside of wedlock until very recently, today it is accepted as fine.

From these examples we can see that the ingrained sense of right and wrong are dependant on the general views of the culture at the time and especially the views of the individual raising the child.

The only problem is that your argument depends on the kitchen actually being on fire. You've never seen the kitchen, you've only been told about it.

You've chosen to believe that the kitchen is on fire, but you've never seen the kitchen. You haven't seen anyone who's seen the kitchen. You haven't seen anything that definitely came from the kitchen. And yet you're interrupting peoples' meals to tell them what you think about the kitchen.

The only problem is that your argument depends on the kitchen actually being on fire. You've never seen the kitchen, you've only been told about it.

You've chosen to believe that the kitchen is on fire, but you've never seen the kitchen. You haven't seen anyone who's seen the kitchen. You haven't seen anything that definitely came from the kitchen. And yet you're interrupting peoples' meals to tell them what you think about the kitchen.
Dude, it's well beyond that. These people are insisting that not only is the kitchen on fire, but it's been set afire by magical invisible pixies.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
Ummm...
Maybe because you religious freaks have been fucking up the world for centuries now? If we could just wrest the world from your atrophied hands maybe we could make it a better place with a little common sense and some morals not gleaned from some stupid book or some idiot in a pulpit but formed of the inate human feelings of compassion and our instincts for companionship.

Ummm...
Maybe because you religious freaks have been fucking up the world for centuries now? If we could just wrest the world from your atrophied hands maybe we could make it a better place with a little common sense and some morals not gleaned from some stupid book or some idiot in a pulpit but formed of the inate human feelings of compassion and our instincts for companionship.

Way to prove the OP right.:rolleyes:

Way to prove the OP right.:rolleyes:
Just for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate (yes, I realize that's an ironic choice of term), try taking his post and replacing "religious" with "racist." Would you feel that his sentiments were worthy of rebuke in that situation? Keep in mind how your personal biases may be coloring your vision.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to discuss the kitchen now and then. Just between courses, okay? When I'm not busy with the meal...

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Doesn't this demonstrate it well enough? You seem to be asking a question about beliefs, perhaps a bit critically. I'm an atheist, and I do enjoy discussing beliefs of all sorts, religious or otherwise. I've never learned why we should hide from discourse, especially concerning things that matter to us as thinking humans; maybe I'm just naive.

Just for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate (yes, I realize that's an ironic choice of term), try taking his post and replacing "religious" with "racist." Would you feel that his sentiments were worthy of rebuke in that situation? Keep in mind how your personal biases may be coloring your vision.

Apples and oranges: racism is always bad, religion has the potential to do good and the potential to do evil.

And what do you mean when you refer to my personal biases?

For a start most Atheists don't believe that there can't be a god, we simply don't believe there is one.

.


The reason I dont believe there is a god is that (I believe) there can't be. If there could be, there might be, and I'd be an agnostic.

In the same way, I believe that there is no horse in my kitchen, but I know there is no unicorn in there. there could be a horse but there probably isnt.

Oh I have generalised nothing, sir. I have not said that all Christians do these things (it would probably bring the US economy to its knees if they did), but I am saying that Christians do do these things. Christianity is an expansionist religion that puts a lot of emphasis on converting people - denying this is ludicrous - whereas "atheism" is not even a unified body of people, let alone one that actively tries to recruit people. If anyone is generalising, it is you sir. In addition, if you have by admission no justification for your allegations against atheists, why do you make them?

How many times have I seen this argument on these boards before... I will not deny that Christianity does put emphisis on converting others, as it is in the bible, however when you say Christians you are refering to the religious group in general not a specific sect devoted to evangelizing to the masses. And as far as atheism not being a unified body of people you are forgetting that there are many small groups that strongly support atheism such as Communism according to Karl Marx, Objectivism according to Ayn Rand, and such groups as American Atheists. None match that of the Christian church, but that is because Atheists are a much smaller group. And my allegations against atheists being noisy, here are two:
a)an article in my school newspaper (http://my.highschooljournalism.org/md/bethesda/wj/article.cfm?eid=4619&aid=68424)
b)this thread has 13 pgs now, and it hasn't even been 3 complete days yet

Way to prove the OP right.:rolleyes:Right about what? That atheists are noisy? i don't know about that, but I am. :)

I wish more were. :)

The reason I dont believe there is a god is that (I believe) there can't be. If there could be, there might be, and I'd be an agnostic.

In the same way, I believe that there is no horse in my kitchen, but I know there is no unicorn in there. there could be a horse but there probably isnt.

No, an agnostic is somebody who doesn't think it is possible for us to know whether god exists or not.

I am an implicit Atheist, ergo I have no belief in god(s).
An explicit Atheist has belief in no god(s).

The distinction is subtle but important, the first position is a logical one which requires no faith, the second requires just as much faith as theism.

You make noise, people yell back at you and then you wonder how it got so loud?
And how is that article an example of anything besides entitlement to an opinion?

How many times have I seen this argument on these boards before... I will not deny that Christianity does put emphisis on converting others, as it is in the bible, however when you say Christians you are refering to the religious group in general not a specific sect devoted to evangelizing to the masses. And as far as atheism not being a unified body of people you are forgetting that there are many small groups that strongly support atheism such as Communism according to Karl Marx, Objectivism according to Ayn Rand, and such groups as American Atheists. None match that of the Christian church, but that is because Atheists are a much smaller group. And my allegations against atheists being noisy, here are two:
a)an article in my school newspaper (http://my.highschooljournalism.org/md/bethesda/wj/article.cfm?eid=4619&aid=68424)
b)this thread has 13 pgs now, and it hasn't even been 3 complete days yet
Okay, so some atheists are noisy? What's wrong with that? There are a lot more noisy Christians, Muslims etc... Are we not allowed to be noisy, too, sometimes? Is this much like being Christian in a Muslim country? You can be one but don't talk about it? :confused:

Then who compensates for the agnostics?! AHHHHHHHHHHHH, I'm going crazy again!

The Stonecutters
Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the Metric System down?
We do! We do!

Who leaves Altantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!

Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!

a)an article in my school newspaper (http://my.highschooljournalism.org/md/bethesda/wj/article.cfm?eid=4619&aid=68424)

You have articles like that in your school newspaper? Cool.

b)this thread has 13 pgs now, and it hasn't even been 3 complete days yet

And if we hadn't responded then you could have argued that we obviously couldn't refute your claim.

For example:
A: You're always contradicting me.
B: No I'm not.
A: See? There you go again.
B: *remains silent*
A: Well at least you admit it.

;)

The Stonecutters
Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the Metric System down?
We do! We do!

Who leaves Altantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!

Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!

Gotta love the Simpsons.:p

Right about what? That atheists are noisy? i don't know about that, but I am. :)

I wish more were. :)

Why? From my experience evangelising Athesim serves only to push people further into their faith.

Wow, I just noticed how much alliteration I used there.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?

Belief in gods is not only silly but dangerous. Look at the conflicts in the past and the mess we’re in now due to rulers and governments thinking they’re getting instructions either directly or indirectly (bible, koran, etc.) from some imaginary being. How many people have been killed, disenfranchised and imprisoned due to this god nonsense?

You make noise, people yell back at you and then you wonder how it got so loud?
And how is that article an example of anything besides entitlement to an opinion?
It was on the back of the school newspaper, granted it is an editorial based on opinion, but its still pretty noisy.

You have articles like that in your school newspaper? Cool.
I told you I lived in a highly secular area.

Okay, so some atheists are noisy? What's wrong with that? There are a lot more noisy Christians, Muslims etc... Are we not allowed to be noisy, too, sometimes? Is this much like being Christian in a Muslim country? You can be one but don't talk about it?
No be as noisy as you want, I'm for freedom of speech, I'm not for people trampling over other peoples opinions simply because they don't agree with them.

Belief in gods is not only silly but dangerous. Look at the conflicts in the past and the mess we’re in now due to rulers and governments thinking they’re getting instructions either directly or indirectly (bible, koran, etc.) from some imaginary being. How many people have been killed, disenfranchised and imprisoned due to this god nonsense?
Maybe, but think about all the charity programs that wouldn't exist without religious purposes?

Why? From my experience evangelising Athesim serves only to push people further into their faith.

Wow, I just noticed how much alliteration I used there.
regardless of the contention you and I have had in other threads, I think we can both agree that religion has been a particularly painful thorn in the side of history. Though I do not believe in religious wars, I think at their base all wars are actually resource wars, there is little doubt that religion has often been used to justify the most horrendous of man-made catastrophies. It provides an easy escape from reason in the face of conflict. Its much easier for people to say, "we need those resources and god says they're ours," than it is to say, "we both need these resources so lets work on an equitable solution." As long as religion is driving the car I think we'll always be driving down the first road.

Whereas discussing it politely and rationally gives a better chance of winning people round. But you need to be noisy enough that people know what you are so that you can discuss it.

I think about five posts in the time i'm writing my short one...this is a hot topic, lol.

I'm curious, if you believe your philosophy is superior, then why do you have to be so noisy about it?
I'm not atheist, but I think it's the fundies that are being too noisy.

No be as noisy as you want, I'm for freedom of speech, I'm not for people trampling over other peoples opinions simply because they don't agree with them.
Why? Isn't that what debate is? :confused: As long as its your opinion I'm trampling on and not your corpse I think its healthy and fun. :) Unfortunately many religious people think its necessary to kill people that disagree. :( I've never seen an atheist advocate violence in the name of their beliefs. :)

I think about five posts in the time i'm writing my short one...this is a hot topic, lol.
Oh yeah lol I knew it would arouse some posts but not this many :p

Belief in gods is not only silly but dangerous. Look at the conflicts in the past and the mess we’re in now due to rulers and governments thinking they’re getting instructions either directly or indirectly (bible, koran, etc.) from some imaginary being. How many people have been killed, disenfranchised and imprisoned due to this god nonsense?


Well at least Creationism makes more bloody sense then a big bang o_o And just because idiot humans used religon as an excuse, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true -_-

If you can blame religion for the wars, it can take credit for the charity. If you can't blame religion for the wars and persecution, it means that you can't credit charity to religion. It's part of the same thing.

There is no atheism. Even a disbelief is a kind of belief.

1.Everyhing that starts to exist has a cause.
2.Universe started to exist.
3.Hence, universe has a cause. Since universe cannot be its´own cause, the real cause has to be placed outside universe itself. For this, a creator (of the universe) is of necessity.

Big Bang theory was first introduced by a catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre).
The great philosopher and Atheist Anthony Flew, is now a strong believer of a creator, and according to himself, latest discoveries in science and debates on philosophy has lead him to this logic conclusion.

Well at least Creationism makes more bloody sense then a big bang o_o
No it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Creationism flies in the face of common sense. The Big Bang makes perfect sense of the observable universe. :)

Maybe, but think about all the charity programs that wouldn't exist without religious purposes?
Really?

Hey everybody, fund our charity and give poor African children a nice Christian education. Even if they starve to death because we don't provide food, we'll be able to pocket some of the money and it'll be good for your soul.

I actually did see something similar to this except for the starving and pocketing money parts.

regardless of the contention you and I have had in other threads, I think we can both agree that religion has been a particularly painful thorn in the side of history. Though I do not believe in religious wars, I think at their base all wars are actually resource wars, there is little doubt that religion has often been used to justify the most horrendous of man-made catastrophies. It provides an easy escape from reason in the face of conflict. Its much easier for people to say, "we need those resources and god says they're ours," than it is to say, "we both need these resources so lets work on an equitable solution." As long as religion is driving the car I think we'll always be driving down the first road.

I would agree with you that most wars are caused by competition for resources and for this reason attacking religion is simply attacking the symptons of the problem rather than dealing with the problem itself. Soviet Russia and the PRC show that atheist countries are just as guilty of starting wars for resources when it is convenient to them.

No it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Creationism flies in the face of common sense. The Big Bang makes perfect sense of the observable universe. :)
I agree. It's like physics vs. magic. Creationism has nothing in it that can be stated as fact. It's natural to think we were all created. It's also natural to think the earth is flat.

And some psychology professor from Harvard agrees. I fact, I copied his quote.

Why can't the cause of the Universe be (say) a collision of 'branes in hyper-space? Who knows? It doesn't need a creator.

There is no atheism. Even a disbelief is a kind of belief.

1.Everyhing that starts to exist has a cause.
2.Universe started to exist.
3.Hence, universe has a cause. Since universe cannot be its´own cause, the real cause has to be placed outside universe itself. For this, a creator (of the universe) is of necessity.

Big Bang theory was first introduced by a catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre).
The great philosopher and Atheist Anthony Flew, is now a strong believer of a creator, and according to himself, latest discoveries in science and debates on philosophy has lead him to this logic conclusion.
I don't really believe in the Big Bang theory because I, as a Jain, think the universe was here forever, but I shall prove this wrong from the viewpoint of an atheist.
Postulate 3 is wrong. The cause was physics.

And a Catholic priest proposing the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with this.

I would agree with you that most wars are caused by competition for resources and for this reason attacking religion is simply attacking the symptons of the problem rather than dealing with the problem itself. Soviet Russia and the PRC show that atheist countries are just as guilty of starting wars for resources when it is convenient to them.

Correctamundo!
Religion, race, nationalism, and so forth, are the strongest excuses for wars. They are used to get a lot of people to grasp what they actually don´t understand. Wars are over resources, and leaders use religion/nationalism/creed/race/togetherness as excuse.
There has never been a holy war and never will be.
All wars are over resources.

Well at least Creationism makes more bloody sense then a big bang o_o And just because idiot humans used religon as an excuse, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true -_-
If you saw the Big Gun, the Big Bang would make a lot more sense to you.
http://www.timewarptoys.com/jupiter2.jpg

And yes, the Big Gun which shot the Big Bang was created in Newark, NJ.

I don't really believe in the Big Bang theory because I, as a Jain, think the universe was here forever, but I shall prove this wrong from the viewpoint of an atheist.
Postulate 3 is wrong. The cause was physics.

And a Catholic priest proposing the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with this.

Your forgetting that physics didn't exist until the universe was created.

There is no atheism. Even a disbelief is a kind of belief.

1.Everyhing that starts to exist has a cause.
2.Universe started to exist.
3.Hence, universe has a cause. Since universe cannot be its´own cause, the real cause has to be placed outside universe itself. For this, a creator (of the universe) is of necessity.

Big Bang theory was first introduced by a catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre).
The great philosopher and Atheist Anthony Flew, is now a strong believer of a creator, and according to himself, latest discoveries in science and debates on philosophy has lead him to this logic conclusion.

That's just a remake of the cosmological argument and is easily crushed:

Let us call a thing that began to exist a BE.
Let us call a thing that did not begin to exist a NBE.

Either god is the only NBE or he isn't.
If he isn't then the argument is useless for proving the existence of god.
If he is then the first line of the argument can be rewritten to say 'Anything which isn't god has a cause'.
If we continue this to the second line then we can see that it is effectively just saying "the universe is not god".

So the argument is actually running:

1. Everything except god has a cause.
2. The universe isn't god.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. Therefore god exists.

This is clearly circular so we can dismiss it.

Right, so if there has never been any such thing as a holy war, then there is never any such thing as holy charity. It's natural human compassion.

No be as noisy as you want, I'm for freedom of speech, I'm not for people trampling over other peoples opinions simply because they don't agree with them.
That is part of freedom of speech. It's not nice, but it's fair.

Right, so if there has never been any such thing as a holy war, then there is never any such thing as holy charity. It's natural human compassion.

Very nice comeback.

I don't really believe in the Big Bang theory because I, as a Jain, think the universe was here forever, but I shall prove this wrong from the viewpoint of an atheist.
Postulate 3 is wrong. The cause was physics.

And a Catholic priest proposing the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with this.

All right then; you believeing in universe as an eternal, what creation? organism? is also a kind of religious belief.
What is physics? Answer: based on beliefs. We have never ever according to physics and its´laws proved the most basic assumptions. They rely on simple beliefs. Therefore, it is not possible to rely on physics as absolute. Physics is based on a belief, for instance our own existance is never physically proved. therefore, physics are ruled out in this matter of discussion. Physics are just one of several instruments to grasp what we BELIEVE is current knowledge.

Well at least Creationism makes more bloody sense then a big bang o_o And just because idiot humans used religon as an excuse, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true -_-

Have you never heard of 'red-shift' friend?

Gotta love the Simpsons.:p

Yes.....the simpsons.....*calls off snipers*

1.Everyhing that starts to exist has a cause.
2.Universe started to exist.
3.Hence, universe has a cause. Since universe cannot be its´own cause, the real cause has to be placed outside universe itself. For this, a creator (of the universe) is of necessity.


Your postulates are flawed. Saying that the universe or its predecessor conditions "started" to exist is like saying you can see the end of the real number line.

Why can the universe, in whatever cycles it undergoes, not be as ontologically primal as any concept of God might be?

Imagine that your God has the property of never having been created, and never being destroyed. If your idea of God can be assigned this property, so can the idea of the universe in some form or other, without God.

If the Big Bang can be viewed as merely a point in a continuous cycle, then saying it must have a cause is like saying a true circle must have a starting point.

The rest of your post was just an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, so I won't address it.

All right then; you believeing in universe as an eternal, what creation? organism? is also a kind of religious belief.
What is physics? Answer: based on beliefs. We have never ever according to physics and its´laws proved the most basic assumptions. They rely on simple beliefs. Therefore, it is not possible to rely on physics as absolute. Physics is based on a belief, for instance our own existance is never physically proved. therefore, physics are ruled out in this matter of discussion. Physics are just one of several instruments to grasp what we BELIEVE is current knowledge.

Physics is disprovable and it hasn't been disproved.

It is based on empirical fact rather than just a book.

You what? "Our existence is never physically proved"? Are you lapsing into solipsism here?

All right then; you believeing in universe as an eternal, what creation? organism? is also a kind of religious belief.
What is physics? Answer: based on beliefs. We have never ever according to physics and its´laws proved the most basic assumptions. They rely on simple beliefs. Therefore, it is not possible to rely on physics as absolute. Physics is based on a belief, for instance our own existance is never physically proved. therefore, physics are ruled out in this matter of discussion. Physics are just one of several instruments to grasp what we BELIEVE is current knowledge.

There is a profound difference between

a) fluid beliefs subjected to evidentiary examination and continuous revision consistent with observable tests

and

b) absolute beliefs based on old stories

There is no atheism. Even a disbelief is a kind of belief.

1.Everyhing that starts to exist has a cause.
2.Universe started to exist.
3.Hence, universe has a cause.
No it doesn't. Time is a function of a spatial universe. It did not exist before the big bang.

Einstein, my friend. :) Time and space are relative. They exist in relation to one another.

You what? "Our existence is never physically proved"? Are you lapsing into solipsism here?
I've always thought that solipsists thought too highly of their imaginations.

This is also my favorite and over quoted quote on the subject:

"I'm a solipsist and, I have to say, I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
from a letter to Bertrand Russell

Your postulates are flawed. Saying that the universe or its predecessor conditions "started" to exist is like saying you can see the end of the real number line.

Why can the universe, in whatever cycles it undergoes, not be as ontologically primal as any concept of God might be?

Imagine that your God has the property of never having been created, and never being destroyed. If your idea of God can be assigned this property, so can the idea of the universe in some form or other, without God.

If the Big Bang can be viewed as merely a point in a continuous cycle, then saying it must have a cause is like saying a true circle must have a starting point.

The rest of your post was just an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, so I won't address it.

Oh, quite right, I appealed to Authority. That was made in order to get readers curious of the Authorities and search furter of their arguments for the existance of a creator (not necessarily a God, but creator). As you surely noticed, I mentioned their names not as arguments, but as links to wider knowledge. I will make that more clear next time I post an argument.

I have not read the entire debate on this ver interesting post, and do not know wheather you have bebated Intelligent Design theory, but I find it rather funny, that evolution theory, through evolution, is being questioned. Surely, Darwins therories sooner or later will have to yield to something else. Especially when the theory itself is proven insufficient to explain all the various forms of life, whose function and form clearly speaks against evolution.

And regarding the fundamentalist question: I have never met anyone so fundamentalist in my life as most of the so called belivers of science, physics, evolution, aso.

Other opinions?

"I'm a solipsist and, I have to say, I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
from a letter to Bertrand Russell

Heh, hadn't heard that one before. Solipsism, it seems pragmatic, at least.

I simply don´t have the time to parry all messages. I do apologize for this.

I have to withdraw, but I appeal to you all to actually read on Anthony Flew and his journey from a total athesit, and quite a master on the subject and all of its arguments, into a believer of a creator.

"So called believers of science, physics" etc...

It's not something you believe.....that's the whole point of it. It's something that is shown to be (best approximation of) true...

No it doesn't. Time is a function of a spatial universe. It did not exist before the big bang.

Einstein, my friend. :) Time and space are relative. They exist in relation to one another.

But oh, I believe Einstien also ended up as a believer (of God), and that was his latest conclusions in life.

Oh, quite right, I appealed to Authority. That was made in order to get readers curious of the Authorities and search furter of their arguments for the existance of a creator (not necessarily a God, but creator). As you surely noticed, I mentioned their names not as arguments, but as links to wider knowledge. I will make that more clear next time I post an argument.

I have not read the entire debate on this ver interesting post, and do not know wheather you have bebated Intelligent Design theory, but I find it rather funny, that evolution theory, through evolution, is being questioned. Surely, Darwins therories sooner or later will have to yield to something else. Especially when the theory itself is proven insufficient to explain all the various forms of life, whose function and form clearly speaks against evolution.

And regarding the fundamentalist question: I have never met anyone so fundamentalist in my life as most of the so called belivers of science, physics, evolution, aso.

Other opinions?

You wrote all of that, and made no real answer to the point.

You're playing a clumsy shuffle game between physics and biology. Evasiveness does not complement conviction.

By the way, the "Authorities" that you think others should be aware of may not endure a diligently skeptical analysis the same way they conquered yours.

I'll look into Anthony Flew. But an anecdotal case is essentially irrelevant.

And Einstein was only a Deist. That's just like one step up from an agnostic.

You wrote all of that, and made no real answer to the point.

You're playing a clumsy shuffle game between physics and biology. Evasiveness does not complement conviction.

By the way, the "Authorities" that you think others should be aware of may not endure a diligently skeptical analysis the same way they conquered yours.

...but surely, you are really enjoying the self-obtained role as authority yourself. And by the way, I may not always be obliged to answer what you demand. I am created with a free will.

I simply don´t have the time to parry all messages. I do apologize for this.

I have to withdraw, but I appeal to you all to actually read on Anthony Flew and his journey from a total athesit, and quite a master on the subject and all of its arguments, into a believer of a creator.


Laughable.

You don't have the time to examine the errors in your own reasoning that are illustrated by others, but you wan't us to take the time to read somebody else's argument.

And Einstein was only a Deist. That's just like one step up from an agnostic.

On this, I do give you right. But peckish is it.

...but surely, you are really enjoying the self-obtained role as authority yourself. And by the way, I may not always be obliged to answer what you demand. I am created with a free will.

If you don't want to answer, what are you here for?

...Say something worth listening to, or be quiet. You hurt my brain cells. ~_~

...but surely, you are really enjoying the self-obtained role as authority yourself. And by the way, I may not always be obliged to answer what you demand. I am created with a free will.

False, again.

I made no statement about my qualifications or authority. I presented axioms and their associated logical propositions.

But, yes, you do have the right to totally dodge the question.

A most impressive excercise of free will...

And Einstein was only a Deist. That's just like one step up from an agnostic.
That's a myth. He also didn't ever fail math.

:)
And he could tie his shoes.

On this, I do give you right. But peckish is it.

You didn't think it was peckish when Einstein was brought and you thought it supported your point.

Once somebody corrected you, it was suddenly peckish.

I think you're confusing "Free Will" with "Double Standard".