NationStates Jolt Archive

The one in Colorado Springs, a bastion of Christianity, says "Imagine No Religion." I love it!

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20081201/NEWS/812019953/1078&ParentProfile=1055&title=Boulder%20atheist%20launches%20billboard%20campaign

Imagine theres no heaven.

Its easy if you try.

That there is no hell below us...

God is just an imaginary friend for grown-ups.

:pYeah! Lets impose our views on everyone! Why let all the Evangelicals have all the fun?!:p

Yeah! Lets impose our views on everyone!

Why can't the Atheist do it? Religious people do it all the time.

Why can't the Atheist do it? Religious people do it all the time.

see edit--sorry for the pre-mature post

see edit--sorry for the pre-mature post

We all do it.

Yeah! Lets impose our views on everyone!

It's inoffensive, they paid for it, it's legal. Christians do it all the time. Just this morning I had a couple of Mormon Missionaries (young women, for a wonder) come to the door, with their version of up close and personal advertising. Why shouldn't atheists have equal time? Besides, I believe this is just a campaign to let atheists and agnostics in the area know where they can find like minded people, it includes a website.

Really, I wouldn't want Christians to come to a meeting of atheists - it would be disruptive.

(Sorry, Deef, missed your edit).

God is just an imaginary friend for grown-ups.

That is freaking perfect! :D

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1282/714286023_37d1294463.jpg
This should be the billboard!

I always liked that picture... I'm actually not an atheist but I am quite opposed to religion.

The one in Colorado Springs, a bastion of Christianity, says "Imagine No Religion." I love it!

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20081201/NEWS/812019953/1078&ParentProfile=1055&title=Boulder%20atheist%20launches%20billboard%20campaign

Meh. No different from Christian advertising.

I always liked that picture... I'm actually not an atheist but I am quite opposed to religion.

:confused: Uh? Care to explain?


Anyway... in before the foreseeable "Help! We're being oppressed!" rant from christians.

:confused: Uh? Care to explain?


Sure, I'll try.

If there is a supreme God like the biggest religions believe in. If he behaves anything like the New Testament makes him out; he is totally disenchanted with religion. Despite what its origins may be, and despite all the things that have been accomplished in the past, Religion has turned into a life sucking entity that promotes bigotry, closed mindedness, and ignorance.

All things that God according to my understanding, does not support.

Atheists are fools. They're definitely something out there, be it a deity or a force-like substance.

Atheists are fools. They're definitely something out there, be it a deity or a force-like substance.

got proof?;)

got proof?;)

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

Atheists are fools. They're definitely something out there, be it a deity or a force-like substance.

Atheists do not oppose the possible existence of a "force-like substance".

Hey I am new here but the topic caught my attention. If you didn't know we christians are firing back lol we got something to counteract that :P But anyway, its a shame people are so deadset against God. As if people aren't suppose to believe in Him because a few say He don't exist against the tons of proof that He does.



Jesus came to save all but so many reject His gift of eternal life. Just because people think they have to do something or go to church everday etc. They throw up walls as excuses not to believe. Here's one of the evidences all of us looney Christians have experience and the reason why we are so steadfast in our beliefs. Its because WE KNOW GOD unlike the world.

John 14

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

so, Zalidor, who's troll are you?

Atheists do not oppose the possible existence of a "force-like substance".

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Hey I am new here but the topic caught my attention. If you didn't know we christians are firing back lol we got something to counteract that :P But anyway, its a shame people are so deadset against God. As if people aren't suppose to believe in Him because a few say He don't exist against the tons of proof that He does.



Jesus came to save all but so many reject His gift of eternal life. Just because people think they have to do something or go to church everday etc. They throw up walls as excuses not to believe. Here's one of the evidences all of us looney Christians have experience and the reason why we are so steadfast in our beliefs. Its because WE KNOW GOD unlike the world.

John 14

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Unless these droids substantially like force!

Atheists do not oppose the possible existence of a "force-like substance".

All atheists I know strongly reject the existence of midichlorians.

Hey I am new here but the topic caught my attention. If you didn't know we christians are firing back lol we got something to counteract that :P But anyway, its a shame people are so deadset against God. As if people aren't suppose to believe in Him because a few say He don't exist against the tons of proof that He does.

Jesus came to save all but so many reject His gift of eternal life. Just because people think they have to do something or go to church everday etc. They throw up walls as excuses not to believe. Here's one of the evidences all of us looney Christians have experience and the reason why we are so steadfast in our beliefs. Its because WE KNOW GOD unlike the world.


I'd like to see the bolded part.

All atheists I know strongly reject the existence of midichlorians.

But force-like substances not midichlorians have to be, hmmmm, hmmmm?

All atheists I know strongly reject the existence of midichlorians.

Just wait till I own your ass with a lightsaber ;)

Hmm.
This doesn't sit right with me. But no billboard is going to make me question my faith and beliefs, so whatever.

Just wait till I own your ass with a lightsaber ;)

Sounds kinky... pics or it didn't happen!

Hmm.
This doesn't sit right with me. But no billboard is going to make me question my faith and beliefs, so whatever.

If this doesn't sit right with you, how can billboards put up by Religious groups sit right with you then? Doesn't everyone have the same right to express their philosophy whether or not its a ludicrous concept (ala Scientology)?

A bit of an off topic question, but...

Can anyone supply any evidence at all that there is a god? Any at all. Just so long as it isn't circumstantial or conjectural. Just a tiny bit of observation which can only, and only, be explained with the existance of a god. If such a thing does not exist, then I shall continue to be an atheist.

So, can someone find me a bit of evidence? Just a bit?

If this doesn't sit right with you, how can billboards put up by Religious groups sit right with you then? Doesn't everyone have the same right to express their philosophy whether or not its a ludicrous concept (ala Scientology)?

Because its coming from atheists.

A bit of an off topic question, but...

Can anyone supply any evidence at all that there is a god? Any at all. Just so long as it isn't circumstantial or conjectural. Just a tiny bit of observation which can only, and only, be explained with the existance of a god. If such a thing does not exist, then I shall continue to be an atheist.

So, can someone find me a bit of evidence? Just a bit?

Well there is the fact that most humans currently do, and have in the past believed in gods and had a religion or some form of spirituality.

Because its coming from atheists.

Shouldn't you be off living in a forest somewhere?

A bit of an off topic question, but...

Can anyone supply any evidence at all that there is a god? Any at all. Just so long as it isn't circumstantial or conjectural. Just a tiny bit of observation which can only, and only, be explained with the existance of a god. If such a thing does not exist, then I shall continue to be an atheist.

So, can someone find me a bit of evidence? Just a bit?

So how would you like your evidence, in the form of a book of Semitic myths, rewritten and translated several times by people with various, sometimes conflicting, agendas or in the form of observable facts?

Just wait till I own your ass with a lightsaber ;)

Powerjumps over Sudwestreich and neatly cuts him in half from behind using his fuchsia bladed lightsaber.

"I am AGNOSTIC!"

To the topic:
I'd like to see one of those billboard. If they are as described in the OP I really like the idea since they are not antagonizing anyone's beliefs while at the same time they spread information.

Well there is the fact that most humans currently do, and have in the past believed in gods and had a religion or some form of spirituality.

This is proof how?
Most humans in history have believed in false superstitions. It doesn't make them true either.

Well there is the fact that most humans currently do, and have in the past believed in gods and had a religion or some form of spirituality.

And those gods have been anything from the full moon, to the sun, with cats, jackels, some magic zombie, L. Ron Hubbard, to, well, anything really. I'd say that with such diversity, people just inherrently like someone to boss them around, not that there actually is some god.

So how would you like your evidence, in the form of a book of Semitic myths, rewritten and translated several times by people with various, sometimes conflicting, agendas or in the form of observable facts?

Observable fact please.

Atheists do not oppose the possible existence of a "force-like substance".

They sure don't act like it. They should call themselves "Anybody who has faith in anything is a moron" brigade.

And those gods have been anything from the full moon, to the sun, with cats, jackels, some magic zombie, L. Ron Hubbard, to, well, anything really. I'd say that with such diversity, people just inherrently like someone to boss them around, not that there actually is some god.



Observable fact please.

Says the atheist.

There is no point in trying to convince anyone to change their faith on the internet. It just doesn't happen. You don't have faith, and you won't gain faith from reading posts on the internet.

A bit of an off topic question, but...

Can anyone supply any evidence at all that there is a god? Any at all. Just so long as it isn't circumstantial or conjectural. Just a tiny bit of observation which can only, and only, be explained with the existance of a god. If such a thing does not exist, then I shall continue to be an atheist.

So, can someone find me a bit of evidence? Just a bit?

Can't prove it, God subsides off of faith, you can't have faith if you know for a fact he exists, that would basically be as much as an affront to our free will as most religions try to be.

Because its coming from atheists.

Really really bad argument.

Really really bad argument.

I don't care. I think atheists are completely wrong, so seeing them spreading their message doesn't sit well. I feel the same way about Scientology.

They do, however, have every right to try and spread their message, however. It just doesn't sit well with me.

I don't care. I think atheists are completely wrong, so seeing them spreading their message doesn't sit well. I feel the same way about Scientology.

They do, however, have every right to try and spread their message, however. It just doesn't sit well with me.

At least atheists can get their billboards right.

I saw a religious one that said jesus is the highest word or some such. on the reverse it had another billboard. I forget what it was selling, but do to the design a word or 2 went higher than jesus....

The one in Colorado Springs, a bastion of Christianity, says "Imagine No Religion." I love it!
I have to ask though, how do you know it's an atheist board and not a tribute to John Lennon? :p

At least atheists can get their billboards right.

I saw a religious one that said jesus is the highest word or some such. on the reverse it had another billboard. I forget what it was selling, but do to the design a word or 2 went higher than jesus....

I've seen some funny Christian billboards, too.

I don't care. I think atheists are completely wrong, so seeing them spreading their message doesn't sit well. I feel the same way about Scientology.

They do, however, have every right to try and spread their message, however. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Regardless of whether it sits well or not with anyone, we can at least agree its their privilege.

Because its coming from atheists.

more trustworthy than most christians.

more trustworthy than most christians.
Mao was more trustworthy? :rolleyes:

I don't care. I think atheists are completely wrong, so seeing them spreading their message doesn't sit well. I feel the same way about Scientology.

They do, however, have every right to try and spread their message, however. It just doesn't sit well with me.

You mean that the only thing that would sit well with you would be the spreading of your own brand of religion?

Mao was more trustworthy? :rolleyes:

more than phelps i think.

more trustworthy than most christians.

Doubtful.

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian who sin all week and then go to church on Sunday's who think they are good Christians. So can you really call them Christian if they don't follow their religion?

(I'm not Christian, btw)

You mean that the only thing that would sit well with you would be the spreading of your own brand of religion?

isnt that how it always is? arent the atheists doing this to counter the christian billboards?

Doubtful.

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian who sin all week and then go to church on Sunday's who think they are good Christians. So can you really call them Christian if they don't follow their religion?

(I'm not Christian, btw)

ah right. you are not my brand of christianity so you are not christian. right.


sorry, but there are versions of christianity (most imo) where you can kill people and rape babies, ask for forgivness and thats that. (i think with catholics there might ba a fee of sorts...)

You mean that the only thing that would sit well with you would be the spreading of your own brand of religion?

No.

I've never said that people of other religions are wrong, and that my religion is the only true religion.

isnt that how it always is? arent the atheists doing this to counter the christian billboards?

No, it isn't, at least not everywhere.
Most agnostics I know, some atheists and even some evangelical churches do not see this as a "war" to be somehow "won".

ah right. you are not my brand of christianity so you are not christian. right.


sorry, but there are versions of christianity (most imo) where you can kill people and rape babies, ask for forgivness and thats that. (i think with catholics there might ba a fee of sorts...)

I was raised Catholic. There isn't a fee.

No, it isn't, at least not everywhere.
Most agnostics I know, some atheists and even some evangelical churches do not see this as a "war" to be somehow "won".

i thought you were talking about billboards not setting right with people because they were not in agreement with the message. not that it was an all out war.

I was raised Catholic. There isn't a fee.

ah. i figured there was, because I heard if you pay them they will...forget...you were married/divorced and let you marry (though that might just be the more conservative churches. :confused:)

No.
I've never said that people of other religions are wrong, and that my religion is the only true religion.
Ahem, you just said:
I don't care. I think atheists are completely wrong, so seeing them spreading their message doesn't sit well. I feel the same way about Scientology.
So, by your own words, the religion of scientology and the religion of atheism are wrong.

the religion of atheism


Are you trying to start another debate? :tongue:

Ahem, you just said:

So, by your own words, the religion of scientology and the religion of atheism are wrong.

Scientology is a cult, and atheism is not a religion.

Scientology is a cult, and atheism is not a religion.

the only difference between a cult and a religion is numbers.






and poison kool-aid....

My main issue with religion is not the belief per se but the pushing of such beliefs, defined according to the religion or subset, into the public sphere.

I don't believe in churches that dictate how one should live one's life to gain entry into some heaven, nor those that judge others for living differently.

So, I'm not necessarily against this, people can spend their money how they like but I don't think I support it either.

Atheism means I just don't think about the issue, I'm not trying to attract anyone to any cause or castigating people for belief, if someone tramples on my perceived rights then I'm fighting for my rights, not against religion.

The whole point of atheism, at least for me, is that I don't live by a group creed, I live by my own as influenced by society as a whole.

I'd like to think that was how religion worked - and I know it does for some people - and then we'd all be pretty much the same, all with our own idea of how things work but no top-down decrees from some antiquated body that tries to interfere with how everyone lives.

After that, I'll set my eyes on government.

the only difference between a cult and a religion is numbers.

and poison kool-aid....

LOL, I might sig this one :D

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

doc·trine /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-trin] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.


Atheism is a form of religion. Atheists believe that there are no gods.

cult /kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Also catholicism is a cult, your point?

ah. i figured there was, because I heard if you pay them they will...forget...you were married/divorced and let you marry (though that might just be the more conservative churches. :confused:)

Huh?

Huh?

Last I heard catholics would not marry divorced couples until you paid them some money and sign some kinda form.

Last I heard catholics would not marry divorced couples until you paid them some money and sign some kinda form.

It's a little more complicated than that but you got the essence ;)

Last I heard catholics would not marry divorced couples until you paid them some money and sign some kinda form.

Depends on the parish.

Atheism is a form of religion. Atheists believe that there are no gods.

To use the old quote, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color"

and so it begins.

more than phelps i think.
Right, because one caused the deaths of millions and the other one is just annoying.

sorry, but there are versions of christianity (most imo) where you can kill people and rape babies, ask for forgivness and thats that. (i think with catholics there might ba a fee of sorts...)
Not really, no.

To use the old quote, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color"

and so it begins.
I would argue that belief that there is/are no god(s) would constitute a faith though.

Right, because one caused the deaths of millions and the other one is just annoying.


To be fair, Phelps never had the kind of power that Mao did, although Phelps is kind of running off nothing but hate here while Mao at least liked to pretend to people that he cared about them, which probably had something to do about that.

To be fair, Phelps never had the kind of power that Mao did, although Phelps is kind of running off nothing but hate here while Mao at least liked to pretend to people that he cared about them, which probably had something to do about that.
I dunno, towards the end there, Mao just got very paranoid and strange(r). :p

Oh well, the point being that I know of too many atheists who I wouldn't trust and many Christians whom I would (and vice versa) to conclude that one group is more trust worthy than the other. As with all things, it comes down to the individual.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the rejection of the God idea.

God is an idea to explain the universe. It is an untestable idea. Scientific method dictates that such ideas are rejected until they are testable, and if the tests do not agree with the hypothesis, we reject the idea. Thus, atheism is just the rejection of the unproven idea that god explains the universe. It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

An example.

I claim that I created the universe. There is no evidence either way. My claim does explain a lot of things. How did the universe begin? I did it. Why does the speed of light have the value it does? I set it to that. Simple. Everything explained. However, my idea has no supporting evidence at all. Scientific methodology dictates that we assume my idea to be false until supporting evidence is found. Otherwise, we would have to be considering every absurd idea that comes along, such as the notion that the sun is just a giant magic sky lemon.

Scientific methodology is what allows us to avoid having to pay attention to every crackpot bullshit idea out there. Scientific methodology has also given us EVERYTHING we have. Health, medicine, computers, healthy food, lifespans going beyond the late 30's, safer birthing for both baby and mother, decent clothing, shelter beyond just a stick hut, the ability to have this debate, and countless more. From all this, we can assume that scientific methodology is the best methodology for trying to figure out the universe (religious methods have given us NOTHING, and can therefore be assumed flawed at the very least), and scientific methodology dictates that we reject the God idea until it has supporting evidence. This is what atheism is - following of the most logical and empirically supported methodology out there. It is not a belief. It is common sense.

ah right. you are not my brand of christianity so you are not christian. right.

sorry, but there are versions of christianity (most imo) where you can kill people and rape babies, ask for forgivness and thats that. (i think with catholics there might ba a fee of sorts...)

Umm, no. In the end your soul is judged by God - whatever your faith may be. Neither you or I are qualified to say who will and who will not go to hell. It's unfortunate that so many "Christians" don't know, or follow their religion.

Btw. I AM Catholic and enough people already misrepresent my religion - so I'd thank you not to join the frey.

Atheists are fools. They're definitely something out there, be it a deity or a force-like substance.

Yes. ME.

Bow.

(religious methods have given us NOTHING, and can therefore be assumed flawed at the very least)
It's just inspired some of humanity's greatest works in art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy, law, and of course inspired a whole bunch of scientists.

Nope, nothing at all.

Yes. ME.

Bow.
I'll NEVER join you!

:wink:

I'll NEVER join you!

:wink:

You sure? My afterlife is the Bleach one. It has Matsumoto Rangiku:

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs9/i/2006/042/a/3/Matsumoto_Rangiku_by_Kaze_11.jpg

The article says a company declined putting billboards in Fort Collins and Loveland. Damn. I'd love to see one of those around here.

Could put it over near one of the mega churches. If only.

I dunno, towards the end there, Mao just got very paranoid and strange(r). :p

Well of course you could fly off your rocker once you get on top of the heap. There's nobody sane left to oppose you. But getting to the top at least takes some convincing of the populace that you care about them. Phelps got his order of business wrong. Which is fortunate I would say.


Oh well, the point being that I know of too many atheists who I wouldn't trust and many Christians whom I would (and vice versa) to conclude that one group is more trust worthy than the other. As with all things, it comes down to the individual.

Naturally. It also depends on what aspect you're trusting them with. Not to break their word, to be honorable, not to scarf down that last scone on the table that you've been eying. That sort of thing.

You sure? My afterlife is the Bleach one. It has Matsumoto Rangiku:

Who you will never lay a finger on since she'll be spending her leisure life behind the tall walls of the top society while you grub around on the outside trying to make ends meet.

I'll pass.

Who you will never lay a finger on since she'll be spending her leisure life behind the tall walls of the top society while you grub around on the outside trying to make ends meet.

I'll pass.

On the outside, you have Kuukaku Shiba:

http://www.geocities.com/b_mattys/artie/kuukaku.jpg

Plus you can go to Shinigami School (as Renji and Rukia did)... :p

On the outside, you have Kuukaku Shiba:

http://www.geocities.com/b_mattys/artie/kuukaku.jpg

Plus you can go to Shinigami School (as Renji and Rukia did)... :p

So, it's the afterlife of the otakus.

So, it's the afterlife of the otakus.

Well, duh. >.>

Well, duh. >.>

What about the afterlife for gamers or genrally nerds?

What about the afterlife for gamers or genrally nerds?

For RPG gamers, we have Forgotten Realms, with The Simbul:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/thumb/2/24/Simbul.jpg/250px-Simbul.jpg

For video-gamers, we offer King of Fighters, with Mai Shiranui:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj241/ultimask8er/MaiShiranui1.jpg

And for nerds in general, a classic:

http://numseiquela.zip.net/images/princess_leia_gold_bikini.jpg

We have other options, but these tend to be the most well-known ones.

You sure? My afterlife is the Bleach one. It has Matsumoto Rangiku:
I'll stick with mine, thanks. Because, my God, it's full of Reis! :tongue:

For RPG gamers, we have Forgotten Realms, with The Simbul

For video-gamers, we offer King of Fighters, with Mai Shiranui

And for nerds in general, a classic; Princess Leia

We have other options, but these tend to be the most well-known ones.

The Simbul? She's like 500 years old... ewwwww... She'd spread her legs and dust and moths would come out.

Mai Shiranui is getting better.

Leia? I don't want sloppy seconds after Jabba so no thanks ;)

I'll stick with mine, thanks. Because, my God, it's full of Reis! :tongue:

Dude, she's, like, (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle2zyyqezbehpc?from=Main.DudeShesLikeInAComa) 14. >.>

Dude, she's, like, (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle2zyyqezbehpc?from=Main.DudeShesLikeInAComa) 14. >.>
It's Heaven, does time or age have any actual meaning there? Especially with a being that's part Angel?

For RPG gamers, we have Forgotten Realms, with The Simbul:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/thumb/2/24/Simbul.jpg/250px-Simbul.jpg

For video-gamers, we offer King of Fighters, with Mai Shiranui:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj241/ultimask8er/MaiShiranui1.jpg

And for nerds in general, a classic:

http://numseiquela.zip.net/images/princess_leia_gold_bikini.jpg

We have other options, but these tend to be the most well-known ones.

I consider RPG gamers and video-gamers same thing. Granted, I don't know anyone who plays tabletop RPGs.

Why can't the Atheist do it? Religious people do it all the time.

Well maybe because atheists say that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on other people. So apart from the hypocrisy there is absolutely no reason why atheists can't do it.

To the OP

Yeah and?

Though why does one need to base their 'friends' on what your religious beliefs are? All very well to seek like minded people and nothing wrong with it but does it really matter if your best friend is a Jew while your a Muslim or that your a devout Christian while he is an atheist?

more than phelps i think.

So more trustworthy than one Christian. At least say some Atheists are more trustworthy than some Christians. No one can fault you there.

sorry, but there are versions of christianity (most imo) where you can kill people and rape babies, ask for forgivness and thats that. (i think with catholics there might ba a fee of sorts...)

funny.

ah. i figured there was, because I heard if you pay them they will...forget...you were married/divorced and let you marry (though that might just be the more conservative churches. :confused:)

Dude it had nothing to do about a fee, but rather that you think that it makes what they did was alright.

Last I heard catholics would not marry divorced couples until you paid them some money and sign some kinda form.

Oh I see living in the past.

Well maybe because atheists say that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on other people. So apart from the hypocrisy there is absolutely no reason why atheists can't do it.


Plenty of people are inherently hypocrites.

Plenty of people are inherently hypocrites.

Dude, I know and as I say they is nothing wrong with them doing it but then don't go around saying how bad it is and that they shouldn't do it when another group does it.

Sure, I'll try.

If there is a supreme God like the biggest religions believe in. If he behaves anything like the New Testament makes him out; he is totally disenchanted with religion. Despite what its origins may be, and despite all the things that have been accomplished in the past, Religion has turned into a life sucking entity that promotes bigotry, closed mindedness, and ignorance.

All things that God according to my understanding, does not support.

Clear, thanks. It's a position similar to my fiancee's (an extremely lapsed catholic and a believer).

Well maybe because atheists say that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on other people. So apart from the hypocrisy there is absolutely no reason why atheists can't do it.

Yea atheists seriously need to drop that idea and become bigots themselves. Especially for those who view religion as the symbol of evil, might as well go out and convert religious people into atheists. Or maybe take it up a level and start a revolution, a war, call it the second crusade or something, against organized religion.

If you took any of the above seriously you must have a lot of faith in your not believing.

Dude, I know and as I say they is nothing wrong with them doing it but then don't go around saying how bad it is and that they shouldn't do it when another group does it.

Just trying to get the point across that there are a lot of people who say one thing and do another. As you said, lots of Atheistic people say that nobody should force beliefs on anyone else... but look at a cross section of the Atheists on NS, and a cross section of the devoutly religious on NS... they are trying to do what?

No Offense is intended in the above post.


Clear, thanks. It's a position similar to my fiancee's (an extremely lapsed catholic and a believer).

Sure thing.

Yea atheists seriously need to drop that idea and become bigots themselves. Especially for those who view religion as the symbol of evil, might as well go out and convert religious people into atheists. Or maybe take it up a level and start a revolution, a war, call it the second crusade or something, against organized religion.

If you took any of the above seriously you must have a lot of faith in your not believing.

''crusade'' would imply that, it's religious.

Just trying to get the point across that there are a lot of people who say one thing and do another. As you said, lots of Atheistic people say that nobody should force beliefs on anyone else... but look at a cross section of the Atheists on NS, and a cross section of the devoutly religious on NS... they are trying to do what?

No Offense is intended in the above post.

Yeah for sure, I get your point mate.

''crusade'' would imply that, it's religious.

Well actually a defintion of crusade is "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse" nothing really to do with religion.

''crusade'' would imply that, it's religious.

You can always replace Crusade with Renaissance or something. But I fail to see how the label change the rationale of the action in any way.

Atheists are fools. They're definitely something out there, be it a deity or a force-like substance.
Proof that atheism is correct: Rusty says it isn't.

All atheists I know strongly reject the existence of midichlorians.
That's because they don't exist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisContinuity).

Shouldn't you be off living in a forest somewhere?

Has Troll ever been intellectually consistent?

Says the atheist.

There is no point in trying to convince anyone to change their faith on the internet. It just doesn't happen. You don't have faith, and you won't gain faith from reading posts on the internet.

I love when people say that people will never change their minds. I used to be a Christian, but debate(yes, including on the internet) slowly changed my mind. Perhaps you're just projecting your own close-minded anti-intellectualism?

Really really bad argument.
Ah, Troll's just a bigot, ignore him.

I don't care. I think atheists are completely wrong, so seeing them spreading their message doesn't sit well. I feel the same way about Scientology.

They do, however, have every right to try and spread their message, however. It just doesn't sit well with me.
Case in point.

Well maybe because atheists say that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on other people. So apart from the hypocrisy there is absolutely no reason why atheists can't do it.

Also, simply buying a billboard is not an imposition of belief like putting your religion into law is. Atheists typically don't put it into law that Christians can't follow their religion's moral code, though it's not at all rare for Christians to tell everybody else what to do.


To the OP

Yeah and?

Though why does one need to base their 'friends' on what your religious beliefs are? All very well to seek like minded people and nothing wrong with it but does it really matter if your best friend is a Jew while your a Muslim or that your a devout Christian while he is an atheist?

I agree, to an extent, but I do sometimes have a hard time being friends with more devout Christians, Muslims, etc, because it's hard to be friends with somebody who believes that I'm going to suffer the worst torment possible for all eternity, and that it will be a just thing.
Those who ignore that part, though, are typically much easier to get along with.

Well actually a defintion of crusade is "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse" nothing really to do with religion.

Really only because people have used the term to mean that. Originally, it referred to the holy wars, the word coming from the Medieval Latin cruciata, essentially, [a group of people] having been marked by a cross. After that, people wanted to liken their "worthy" causes to another "worthy" cause, the slaughter of Arabs in the name of Jesus.

It has everything to do with religion, people just assign the positive connotations to the word that they do because they are not sufficiently educated in history.

It's just inspired some of humanity's greatest works in art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy, law, and of course inspired a whole bunch of scientists.

Nope, nothing at all.

That wasn't religious methodology. That was religion. There is a difference.

Moreover, I would argue that art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy and law haven't given us medicine or computers or long life expectancies or any of the other things I listed. Sure, they are nice things to have, but they don't mark technological progress, and are entirely subjective. One can argue that a set of laws are bad, or that a piece of art is crap, or that a building is ugly, or many other things. But one cannot argue that a smaller mp3 player isn't technological progress. Technology is the only non-subjective metric we have.

Moreover, you could argue, hypothetically, that religion inspired Einstien to conjure up relativity. But if he didn't, someone else would have. It may have taken longer, it may have happened a year later. But it was scientific methodology that actually formulated the idea of relativity, not religious methodology.

I'm not arguing science vs. religion, I'm arguing the methodologies which create them. Religious methodology has given us NOTHING of measurable value, scientific methodology has.

On the outside, you have Kuukaku Shiba:


You can tell a man is behind the design for heaven when all it offers you is the vague premise of sex.

I'll stick with mine, thanks. Because, my God, it's full of Reis! :tongue:

The Reiquarium has it's own share of problems.

*waves le red button*

You can tell a man is behind the design for heaven when all it offers you is the vague premise of sex.

And fap, and fap, and fap...

And fap, and fap, and fap...

I rest my case, and also turn down your offer.

That wasn't religious methodology. That was religion. There is a difference.

Moreover, I would argue that art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy and law haven't given us medicine or computers or long life expectancies or any of the other things I listed. Sure, they are nice things to have, but they don't mark technological progress, and are entirely subjective. One can argue that a set of laws are bad, or that a piece of art is crap, or that a building is ugly, or many other things. But one cannot argue that a smaller mp3 player isn't technological progress. Technology is the only non-subjective metric we have.

Moreover, you could argue, hypothetically, that religion inspired Einstien to conjure up relativity. But if he didn't, someone else would have. It may have taken longer, it may have happened a year later. But it was scientific methodology that actually formulated the idea of relativity, not religious methodology.

I'm not arguing science vs. religion, I'm arguing the methodologies which create them. Religious methodology has given us NOTHING of measurable value, scientific methodology has.

Except, of course, he explicitly said that he was only religious in the sense that he thought the universe was pretty damn cool, and that the idea of a personal god seemed completely odd to him.

But overall, yeah, I tend to agree with the bit about methodologies.

They have as much right to put up atheist billboards as Christians have to put up religious ones.

Honestly, the Christian ones slightly amuse me if clever, but otherwise fill me with ennui or annoyance.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
I miss Douglas Adams.

They have as much right to put up atheist billboards as Christians have to put up religious ones.

Honestly, the Christian ones slightly amuse me if clever, but otherwise fill me with ennui or annoyance.


I miss Douglas Adams.

So do I.

Except, of course, he explicitly said that he was only religious in the sense that he thought the universe was pretty damn cool, and that the idea of a personal god seemed completely odd to him.

But overall, yeah, I tend to agree with the bit about methodologies.

I said hypothetically to imply that I was meerly raising a suggestion in a hypothetical universe where Einstien was religious or something. I know Einstien was, at best, an agnostic.

so, Zalidor, who's troll are you?
Actually, it's "whose", and unless he's been planning this post for some time, no one's.

Really only because people have used the term to mean that. Originally, it referred to the holy wars, the word coming from the Medieval Latin cruciata, essentially, [a group of people] having been marked by a cross. After that, people wanted to liken their "worthy" causes to another "worthy" cause, the slaughter of Arabs in the name of Jesus.

It has everything to do with religion, people just assign the positive connotations to the word that they do because they are not sufficiently educated in history.

I know what the original meaning was PC, but part of the meaning of the word has changed and is now used in different settings. That's the beauty of the English language it evolves and meanings change.

At least atheists can get their billboards right.

I saw a religious one that said jesus is the highest word or some such. on the reverse it had another billboard. I forget what it was selling, but do to the design a word or 2 went higher than jesus....
*rolls eyes*
Because of course people who rent billboards can control the design of the billboard behind it.

Please at least have an objection that's reasonable -- there must be hundreds of reasonable objections other than ohhh, the sign on the back of the billboard's design clashed! Therefore, Christians are dumb!

Really really bad argument.(Re: "Because it's coming from atheists.")
Yeah, agreed.

ah right. you are not my brand of christianity so you are not christian. right.


sorry, but there are versions of christianity (most imo) where you can kill people and rape babies, ask for forgivness and thats that. (i think with catholics there might ba a fee of sorts...)
Perhaps you should research rather than making wild presumptions? Assertions from a position of ignorance really make the debater look silly.

To use the old quote, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color"

and so it begins.
The absence of something is not the something described.

I'm a Christian, but as a believer in free speech... I believe that athiests have a right to make this billboard, no matter how vehemently I disagree with them.

I showed the article to the guy in the next office (who is an athiest). Frankly, it ticked him off that they were doing this (I, personally, don't care).. His personal stance is that a "fellowship of nonbelievers" is just foolish and it sounds like they're trying to form a religion without a god.

Considering he told me several times beforehand that he hates most of the athiest community, this doesn't really surprise me... His personal stance is that too many athiests are too concerned about crusading against religion rather than maintaining apathy towards it.

For RPG gamers, we have Forgotten Realms, with The Simbul:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/thumb/2/24/Simbul.jpg/250px-Simbul.jpg

For video-gamers, we offer King of Fighters, with Mai Shiranui:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj241/ultimask8er/MaiShiranui1.jpg

And for nerds in general, a classic:

http://numseiquela.zip.net/images/princess_leia_gold_bikini.jpg

We have other options, but these tend to be the most well-known ones.
Where are the guys for Otaku girls, Gamer girls, and Nerd girls?

I don't like your heaven. I don't believe in it! I reject your afterlife and substitute one of my own!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/1215514642k1cDdJg.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/han.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/JamesBond-vi.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/MoreDanielcraig-thumb.jpg

Who is the top one Kat?

Who is the top on Kat?

I can answer that, Antonio Bendaras.

I can answer that, Antonio Bendaras.

Oh, him, what do people see in him?

I know what the original meaning was PC, but part of the meaning of the word has changed and is now used in different settings. That's the beauty of the English language it evolves and meanings change.

Yes, but even in it's current form, it means, "A fight for a worthy cause, just like the Crusades."
When people use it to mean a fight for a worthy cause, they use it knowing that it's inherently a reference to the Crusades, which they think is a good thing, because they are either bigots or (more commonly) are historically ignorant.

Well maybe because atheists say that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on other people. So apart from the hypocrisy there is absolutely no reason why atheists can't do it.

To the OP

Yeah and?

Though why does one need to base their 'friends' on what your religious beliefs are? All very well to seek like minded people and nothing wrong with it but does it really matter if your best friend is a Jew while your a Muslim or that your a devout Christian while he is an atheist?
small fly in your atheist oinment...

atheists arent a homogeneous group. there is no handbook of atheism that we all have to follow, no ruling council, no guidelines. no way to punish those who dont follow the correct atheist way.

there is no "atheists say". there is only "this person or this group says"

so unless these particular people are preaching not to impose beliefs on others, they are not hypocrits. not that a billboard imposes any beliefs.

as long as their atheist club isnt their only source of social interaction, its not stupid to belong to a group based on one interest.

Oh, him, what do people see in him?
brooding spanish masculinity

I can answer that, Antonio Bendaras.

Banderas.

small fly in your atheist oinment...

atheists arent a homogeneous group. there is no handbook of atheism that we all have to follow, no ruling council, no guidelines. no way to punish those who dont follow the correct atheist way.

there is no "atheists say". there is only "this person or this group says"

so unless these particular people are preaching not to impose beliefs on others, they are not hypocrits. not that a billboard imposes any beliefs.

as long as their atheist club isnt their only source of social interaction, its not stupid to belong to a group based on one interest.

The same small fly when people go around talking as though Christians are all the same and think the same way. And I was going to clarify in my post if this guy had said it but I forgot about it, as long as he doesn't care then by all means. If he did or other people who did and then said he should be allowed to then yes even still they would be hypocrites.

brooding spanish masculinity

Is that all? He would have to be one of the most overrated person out there, just no accounting for taste I suppose.

The same small fly when people go around talking as though Christians are all the same and think the same way. And I was going to clarify in my post if this guy had said it but I forgot about it, as long as he doesn't care then by all means. If he did or other people who did and then said he should be allowed to then yes even still they would be hypocrites.
very true.

i find that "christians say" thing very annoying too.

Is that all? He would have to be one of the most overrated person out there, just no accounting for taste I suppose.
kevin costner is the most overrated.

but there is no accounting for taste. antonio has never been high on my list of men to drool over.

Yes, but even in it's current form, it means, "A fight for a worthy cause, just like the Crusades."
When people use it to mean a fight for a worthy cause, they use it knowing that it's inherently a reference to the Crusades, which they think is a good thing, because they are either bigots or (more commonly) are historically ignorant.

Well I would say more ignorant of what the term actually means rather than bigots. But as the meaning of the word has changed with the times, and they want to go on a crusade against something it will mean getting rid of it for whatever reason, and does not have to have religious undertones. For example the Parents Council goes on a crusade against supermarkets selling lollies at checkouts.

kevin costner is the most overrated.

I stand corrected.

but there is no accounting for taste. antonio has never been high on my list of men to drool over.

Yeah, I know people who do and I'm always left wondering why?

Well I would say more ignorant of what the term actually means rather than bigots. But as the meaning of the word has changed with the times, and they want to go on a crusade against something it will mean getting rid of it for whatever reason, and does not have to have religious undertones. For example the Parents Council goes on a crusade against supermarkets selling lollies at checkouts.

Then they are ignorant. You can no more separate "Crusade" from its history than you can, for example, "n*****." And yes, some people are amazingly ignorant of that history. Well, maybe they should actually read a book or something some day, instead of so proudly wallowing in their lack of knowledge. But people are rarely willing to do that in much of society, because it is improper or elitist to know things or think about things.

But I digress. The point is, "Crusade" inherently has a connection to the historical Crusades, and to use it in a positive light is as just about as odd as using the word "Holocaust" in a similar manner.

God is an idea to explain the universe. It is an untestable idea. Scientific method dictates that such ideas are rejected until they are testable, ...

No. This is wrong. Scientific method dictates that we cannot either reject or accept untestable ideas as they lie outside of the sphere of science.

Scientific methodology has also given us EVERYTHING we have. Health, medicine, computers, healthy food, lifespans going beyond the late 30's, safer birthing for both baby and mother, decent clothing, shelter beyond just a stick hut, the ability to have this debate, and countless more.

Scientific methodology did not exist until the seventeenth century or thereabouts. Now, the Romans who existed far earlier had interior plumbing, geometry, a legislative body, welding, and a host of other skills and technologies. because they predate science, we know that these technologies must also predate science. So your claim that science has given us everything, or even everything technological, is simply wrong.

From all this, we can assume that scientific methodology is the best methodology for trying to figure out the universe

The natural and quantifiable aspects of our universe, yes. But there is more than that to our universe.

(religious methods have given us NOTHING, and can therefore be assumed flawed at the very least)

Please explain to me what religious methodology is.

and scientific methodology dictates that we reject the God idea until it has supporting evidence.

Science dictates that we assume (http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm) that if god is supernatural, he has no impact on the natural world. Science does not dictate that we must reject the idea of god.

You should learn more about science.

Banderas.

Him too!


Thanks.

Then they are ignorant. You can no more separate "Crusade" from its history than you can, for example, "n*****." And yes, some people are amazingly ignorant of that history. Well, maybe they should actually read a book or something some day, instead of so proudly wallowing in their lack of knowledge. But people are rarely willing to do that in much of society, because it is improper or elitist to know things or think about things.

But I digress. The point is, "Crusade" inherently has a connection to the historical Crusades, and to use it in a positive light is as just about as odd as using the word "Holocaust" in a similar manner.

Look I am agreeing with you, though the term 'crusade' does not have the same connotation to it as "Holocaust" in society. But I was showing you that the usage and meaning of the term has changed over the years and can be used in different contexts, no matter how wrong. One of the problems with society but still.

Please explain to me what religious methodology is.

ritual, revelation, and a word for 'authority' that starts with 'r'

ritual, revelation, and a word for 'authority' that starts with 'r'

How is ritual part of the methodology?

Do all revelations become accepted by a religious community? Why or why not?

How is authority part of the methodology?

Ok. First of all, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, religion and God(s) aren't the same thing. God is not religion. Religion is not God. You can have God without religion. You can, and often do, have religion without God. Now, is that clear? If not, I don't know how I can get much clearer.

Second, this is not about finding friends per se. It does however recognize the fact that one is more likely to have friends with whom one has common beliefs and interests. Thus, the reason for the signs.

Third, just because I don't know whether deity exists or not, doesn't mean I have declared war against believers, I really don't care what anyone believes, but I do wish that they would stop trying to make me believe.

Fourth, belief in afterlife is not the same as belief in deity, you can have one without the other.

So, to all you believers out there, believe away and more power to you. Just stop trying to make me believe, I don't have the capacity for it and your efforts just annoy me. If, someday, I start to believe, it will not be because of you, it will be in spite of you.

I close with the following prayer. "Lord (or Lady), if you exist, please, save me from your followers. Amen and so mote it be."

How is ritual part of the methodology?
...
How is authority part of the methodology?

how aren't they?

religion always involves some ritualized aspects as part of their methodology for pretty much everything - its sort of what they do and often important for getting people in the right frame of mind for it to work. and effectively every religion that sticks around has some form of authority on which it relies and to which adherents can appeal. those that don't will quickly dissolve into as many incompatible and contradictory varieties as there are people involved.

Do all revelations become accepted by a religious community? Why or why not?

no. different communities use different criteria for judging whether something is a 'real' revelation or not. these criteria usually involve things like whether what is revealed is in keeping with already accepted revelation (fall too far outside and you wind up with schisms - if the other conditions are satisfied, at least), the standing of the person revealed to, how primed people are to accept whatever fool thing is being revealed (see the story of mormonism and how well it fits into the popular culture of the time (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/11/why_the_mormons.php)), and the raw force of personality of the person trying to convince others of the importance of what they say.

So, to all you believers out there, believe away and more power to you. Just stop trying to make me believe...

so that's "less power to you" then, yeah?

how aren't they?

religion always involves some ritualized aspects as part of their methodology for pretty much everything - its sort of what they do and often important for getting people in the right frame of mind for it to work. and effectively every religion that sticks around has some form of authority on which it relies and to which adherents can appeal. those that don't will quickly dissolve into as many incompatible and contradictory varieties as there are people involved.

That doesn't answer my question at all. Religion does use ritual, yes. That does not mean that ritual is part of the methodology.

no. different communities use different criteria for judging whether something is a 'real' revelation or not. these criteria usually involve things like whether what is revealed is in keeping with already accepted revelation (fall too far outside and you wind up with schisms - if the other conditions are satisfied, at least), the standing of the person revealed to, how primed people are to accept whatever fool thing is being revealed (see the story of mormonism and how well it fits into the popular culture of the time), and the raw force of personality of the person trying to convince others of the importance of what they say.

See, some this at least makes sense. The parts where you talk about consistency with previous beliefs and the standing of the person. It could actually be this way. Now, do you have any evidence that it is actually this way?

Are there other things ibnvolved in religious methodology?

That doesn't answer my question at all. Religion does use ritual, yes. That does not mean that ritual is part of the methodology.

ok, let me be more specific. when one seeks guidance from the gods/spirits, one engages in ritualistic behaviors. consuming various substances in particular settings, engaging in the trance dance, joining together with others in song and chanting, etc.

See, some this at least makes sense. The parts where you talk about consistency with previous beliefs and the standing of the person. It could actually be this way. Now, do you have any evidence that it is actually this way?

this is what observation of various religions in forming and in action leads me to believe. and it generally comports with what they say about themselves (though they wouldn't put it in exactly my sorts of terms) - for example the catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) has this to say on the subject:

if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants.

The criteria of Revelation are either external or internal: (1) External criteria consist in certain signs attached to the revelation as a divine testimony to its truth, e.g., miracles. (2) Internal criteria are those which are found in the nature of the doctrine itself in the manner in which it was presented to the world, and in the effects which it produces on the soul. These are distinguished into negative and positive criteria. (a) The immunity of the alleged revelation from any teaching, speculative or moral, which is manifestly erroneous or self-contradictory, the absence of all fraud on the part of those who deliver it to the world, provide negative internal criteria. (b) Positive internal criteria are of various kinds. One such is found in the beneficent effects of the doctrine and in its power to meet even the highest aspirations which man can frame. Another consists in the internal conviction felt by the soul as to the truth of the doctrine

Are there other things ibnvolved in religious methodology?

almost certainly, but i think this captures the cross-cultural core of it.

ok, let me be more specific. when one seeks guidance from the gods/spirits, one engages in ritualistic behaviors. consuming various substances in particular settings, engaging in the trance dance, joining together with others in song and chanting, etc.

When one seeks scientific truth, we also engage in ritualistic behaviour. We call it scientific methodology and it is uniquely designed for the purpose of attaining that truth. In that regard, we could then say that ritual is also an aspect of scientific knowledge.

But your examples above are attempts to use ritual to induce a revelation. And they are not the only ways to have a revelation. It also makes me wonder if it is the ritual or the revelation which is part of the methodology. If the ritual only exists to induce the revelation (drown the worm!) then it is not a necessary apret of the methodology if one can have revelations without the ritual.

This is different from many religious rituals. I don't think rituals like the Catholic Mass have anything to do with religous methodology.

That was an interesting excerpt from the Catholics. I wonder how they define a miracle.

Right, because one caused the deaths of millions and the other one is just annoying.

I would have used hitler, but I figured the thread had enough debates and do not want to cause godwin posts.


Not really, no.

really. yes.

So more trustworthy than one Christian. At least say some Atheists are more trustworthy than some Christians. No one can fault you there.

I thought I did say "most" not "all"



funny.

Thank you



Dude it had nothing to do about a fee, but rather that you think that it makes what they did was alright.

huh?



Oh I see living in the past.


well in the post I was trying to clear up I did say it might have just been the more conservative ones.

It's just inspired some of humanity's greatest works in art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy, law, and of course inspired a whole bunch of scientists.

Nope, nothing at all.

The exact same can be said for breasts. Given a choice of which to worship, I chose the one(s) I can "touch" :p

*imagines no religion*



Ahhhh yeah... that was some good fantasizing.

Oh, him, what do people see in him?
Sheer animal magnetism.... rowr.

Is that all? He would have to be one of the most overrated person out there, just no accounting for taste I suppose.
Oooh, spending a lot of time tearing him down... jealous?

He's also a spokesperson for St. Jude's Children's Hospital. So handsome and socially responsible.

<----Believes in God

<----Could care less if Atheists have put up billboards, Religious organizations do it too - equal rights and all that jazz.

When one seeks scientific truth, we also engage in ritualistic behaviour. We call it scientific methodology and it is uniquely designed for the purpose of attaining that truth. In that regard, we could then say that ritual is also an aspect of scientific knowledge.

sure, for sufficiently broad definitions of 'ritual'. of course, we might then have to include other things, like the acts of breathing and sleeping under the term 'ritual' as well. but that's fine, i'm perfectly willing to accept that some ritualistic behaviors are better than others - good, even.

But your examples above are attempts to use ritual to induce a revelation. And they are not the only ways to have a revelation. It also makes me wonder if it is the ritual or the revelation which is part of the methodology. If the ritual only exists to induce the revelation (drown the worm!) then it is not a necessary apret of the methodology if one can have revelations without the ritual.

there are other uses of ritual in religion as well, such as affirmation of prior revelation and teaching and in-group bonding and such. which are also part of the methodology of religion in so far as we are including belief perpetuation and transmission as important components in the whole (which i think we should, especially if we want to compare with the methodology of science, as doing so helps in part to explain the difference between standard inductive thinking and what happens after the scientific revolution).

That was an interesting excerpt from the Catholics. I wonder how they define a miracle.

they have some complex set of rules for determining what counts as a 'real' miracle. whatever it is, it hasn't slowed down the saint-making process.

I thought I did say "most" not "all"

Yes but most would imply a majority as opposed to some which only means more than one but not all.

Thank you

huh?

well in the post I was trying to clear up I did say it might have just been the more conservative ones.

Well first up, while in the past divorced Catholics were not allowed to get remarried that was changed over 40 years ago (hince living in the past) as for a fee many churches do charge people for the use of their premises and the use of the priest services. As for the "huh?" question you were saying they sin they ask for forgiveness and then that makes it alright, well no it doesn't and nor does the church say that, forgiving someone does not mean what they did was alright nor does it mean that everything is better it just means they were forgiven for what they did.

Sheer animal magnetism.... rowr.

ok, well I don't see it, but yeah each to their own I suppsose.
Oooh, spending a lot of time tearing him down... jealous?

He's also a spokesperson for St. Jude's Children's Hospital. So handsome and socially responsible.

lol how did I know someone was going to say I was jealous? But no Im not there are plenty more attractive men in the world than me and plenty more attractive men than Antoino, which is why I don't understand why so many people swoon at him, but people do for various reasons.