A better understanding of Atheism...

[ddoubleez]

While reading over a thread on alternitive therories of religion, it was appearant to me that there maybe some misunderstandings about atheism.... I can argue that an atheist often follow a more difficult and moral life than a christian.. I can also argue the world would probably be better off without religion...

First, lets define atheism... Like asexual or asymmetrical, atheism maybe best understood if defined as non-theist or not believing in a god.....

Next, one that has not explored atheism may believe that someone that does not have a religion may be lazy and may not want to participate in elaborate customs or practices.

The thought that an atheist is lazy is easily dismissed by understanding that some of the greatest thinkers of human history were atheist and did not arrive in their belief this way... In fact, I would argue that it is much easier or 'lazier' to stop a thought process and lean on faith or give things up to god for answers or to solve problems.... A majority of Greek philosophers put tremendous effort into their existential beliefs or questions.... Most of these questions were so complex, they have remained unanswered by the church for centuries and even today....

I would argue that someone that does not want to go to church, because they are lazy would just stop going and do not change their beliefs... It could be much more difficult to become atheist to stop going to church, than just stopping.. After all, you have to tackle the biggest questions we have, after becoming atheist.....

It should be known that the US is not typical for a christian country... Switzerland is 80% athiest
France 40%
UK over 20%
The United States 8% and growing fast, fastest growing 'religious' group, currently is Atheism....

The US ties in the belief in a god with patriotism in this country, much more than in many other countries... This is evident in the thought processes of many US soldiers, and without it, many people would not make the sacrifices they do without this delision. History has even been changed to strengthen this bond.

It should be noted that the most intelligent people assembled, when polled, typically poll atheist. Very intelligent people more often than not, are atheist...


My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-- Abraham Lincoln

It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-- Thomas Paine

[zpr]

The US ties in the belief in a god with patriotism in this country, much more than in many other countries... This is evident in the thought processes of many US soldiers, and without it, many people would not make the sacrifices they do without this delision. History has even been changed to strengthen this bond.


I'm not going to argue most of your post, at least not yet. What I'd like is for you to explain this point a little further. I don't want to jump to conclusions without understanding what point you were trying to make.

[Juan.Camaney]

wow, what a steaming pile of poo

While reading over a thread on alternitive therories of religion, it was appearant to me that there maybe some misunderstandings about atheism.... I can argue that an atheist often follow a more difficult and moral life than a christian.. I can also argue the world would probably be better off without religion...
More moral? More dificult? What? You don't have to do anything to be atheist. Just stop believing. If you want to take a jab and scientifically disprove parts of the bible or other "story books" you choose the most literal translations and help it prove your point. Yeah, I guess that kinda takes work.

First, lets define atheism... Like asexual or asymmetrical, atheism maybe best understood if defined as non-theist or not believing in a god.....
Yeah...that is pretty self explanatory there guy. Not sure anyone else missed that part.

Next, one that has not explored atheism may believe that someone that does not have a religion may be lazy and may not want to participate in elaborate customs or practices.
Which atheism are you talking about? The one where you are content to say I don't think there is a God and live your life from birth to grave without praying or having a relationship with a superhuman being? Or the cult like group of people who seem to work feverishly to try to disprove things the religious deem as miracles, unite, go to rallies (a type of service) and basically formed a new kind of group to follow?

The thought that an atheist is lazy is easily dismissed by understanding that some of the greatest thinkers of human history were atheist and did not arrive in their belief this way... In fact, I would argue that it is much easier or 'lazier' to stop a thought process and lean on faith or give things up to god for answers or to solve problems.... A majority of Greek philosophers put tremendous effort into their existential beliefs or questions.... Most of these questions were so complex, they have remained unanswered by the church for centuries and even today....
So because some of the greatest "thinkers" of human history were atheist, it proves the rest of them are geniuses too? Look man, just because some smart guy tells you something and you follow it blindly because of your boner for science and "proof" doesn't mean that religious people throughout the history of time haven't contributed greatly to the advancement of man kind. I mean, we still call our calendar system BC and AD...at least here in the US where it matters.

I would argue that someone that does not want to go to church, because they are lazy would just stop going and do not change their beliefs... It could be much more difficult to become atheist to stop going to church, than just stopping.. After all, you have to tackle the biggest questions we have, after becoming atheist.....
What? I usually can decipher your english pretty well but, um...huh? You trying to say that someone who is religious and stops going to church is lazier than someone who just refuses to believe there is a God in the first place? Because they have to tackle the biggest question...which is, the meaning of life and how God is related to it? Its easy, without a God, the meaning of life is live and die eventually. :hay: You seem to think all religious people attend church...they don't. You also seem to think all atheist became this way by doing a huge ammount of work to go along with their suspiscion that God is all smoke and mirrors to control the weak minded. When it all boils down, religious people believe in ancient scriptures. And athiests believe in books by dudes who tried to disprove religion with modern science. As an engineer, I'm skeptical of most miracles and LOVE watching those debunking the bible stories because questioning my faith is kind of a thrill. Replete with "we believe..." and "if I had to guess...." I'm thinking to myself, why is man trying to disprove what took centuries to build? Say we are wrong and say we are following a religion blindly....if we lived a better life and helped the world be a better place, then sweet. Sure many wars are fought by religious extremist, but we have extremist in every facet of life that do the same...I mean a few months ago a bunch of queers, many of them atheist were raising hell when they didn't get to marry. Furthermore, modern religious people have come to terms that what we believed back then isn't what we believe now. We know MAry and Joseph couldn't possibly be walking around during december in that kind of weather. We know a seniro citizen couldn't possibly fit two of every animal in some canoe. But we do know that the bible was written through God by humans who did not have words to describe what we know now about or world. We also know that the scriptures we base our belief systems on were written in languages that are lost to man and were translated and meanings were lost.

It should be known that the US is not typical for a christian country... Switzerland is 80% athiest
France 40%
UK over 20%
The United States 8% and growing fast, fastest growing 'religious' group, currently is Atheism....
Hehe, France? That's not going to help your cause much. Fastest going religious group lol Nice. I've also heard of places that they all gather now and pray....they PRAY to no one. Giggity? No.


The US ties in the belief in a god with patriotism in this country, much more than in many other countries... This is evident in the thought processes of many US soldiers, and without it, many people would not make the sacrifices they do without this delision. History has even been changed to strengthen this bond.
:bowrofl: we brain wash our troops, eh. Nice.

It should be noted that the most intelligent people assembled, when polled, typically poll atheist. Very intelligent people more often than not, are atheist...
We get it, we get it, smart people tend to be athiest. Good. Doesn't mean all atheist are smart. ;)

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-- Abraham Lincoln

It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-- Thomas Paine
hehe maybe karma got lincoln shot in the head :dunno: Also if Paine doesn't realize that back when we made the leap from monkeys to men, that all a man had to do to fuck a girl was club her over the head while she wasn't looking and took her, and that monkeys in nature are known to form gangs, fight one another and even cannibalize their opponents, then he has no reason to blame the worlds problems on religion.

[Juan.Camaney]

I mean, seriously dude, mailing a religious person a used tampon because they believe that two guys or two girls shouldn't be recognized is more moral?

[ddoubleez]

I'm not going to argue most of your post, at least not yet. What I'd like is for you to explain this point a little further. I don't want to jump to conclusions without understanding what point you were trying to make.

The point I am trying to make is Americans have a stronger tendancy to believe in a god because it is woven into our politics and history, more so than most countries... Thus, we have more religious people and a greater tendency to be religious...

Our military has been so bold to produce posters and flyers that are titled:

"Christian? If you love jesus, then you could be air force material."

We, just like those that flew planes into buildings full of civilians, will do things that we would not do if we did not think we had the support or favor of our god. And our military and politicians use this.

'For God and country...'

The above quote is an excellent example of trying to combine morality with political action, through obligation and faith... I am not trying to say we are the only country that do this, but we do it the most....

The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is a good example:

The original and true version was:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

But when our government was trying to demonize the communists that were often times atheist, by policy, we changed the words in the mid 1950's to:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

In history books, the version of the settlement of this country was focused on religion... Here I am not implying that some settlers came to the US for religious freedom, but some historians will tell you that many more came here fleeing constriction of fighting a european war or serving in the military in their home country... Our country was founded by draft dodgers, but history books will not disclose this, because that is not 'patriotic'.

We can also look at the most recent war and religion had allot to do with the justification.....

[ddoubleez]

wow, what a steaming pile of poo

I wrote this tread to lend an understand of atheism to those that may not have thought much about atheism, now you may want to explain you statement like a scientist would.


More moral? More dificult? What? You don't have to do anything to be atheist. Just stop believing. If you want to take a jab and scientifically disprove parts of the bible or other "story books" you choose the most literal translations and help it prove your point. Yeah, I guess that kinda takes work.

An atheists will choose a moral route not out of fear of consequences or because he feels he is being watched, but because he feels it is the best outcome for society... I would argue that this is less self centered and more moral than choosing to do the right thing out of fear of consequence.....

Now this is where you argue your decision making processes are more moral if you want to have a constructive argument.. Or you disprove my statement with a counter philosophy or a flaw in my reasoning.

If you would like to make this about disproving Christianity or another religion we should make a new thread, and I will if you like, but as you see from the title this is not my goal...


Yeah...that is pretty self explanatory there guy. Not sure anyone else missed that part.

Well I am glad, once again, that you can speak for everyone else that will read this and what is you point please?


Which atheism are you talking about? The one where you are content to say I don't think there is a God and live your life from birth to grave without praying or having a relationship with a superhuman being? Or the cult like group of people who seem to work feverishly to try to disprove things the religious deem as miracles, unite, go to rallies (a type of service) and basically formed a new kind of group to follow?

I already defined who I would be speaking about, and for one who is critical about others communications skills, can you tell me how you first sentence makes any sense at all?

And many atheists do feel that religion needs to be exposed because it is counter productive and dangerous for the success of mankind, and there is a ton of evidence for this... In addition, many atheists are defensive, because of religious people and are only countering religious action....


So because some of the greatest "thinkers" of human history were atheist, it proves the rest of them are geniuses too? Look man, just because some smart guy tells you something and you follow it blindly because of your boner for science and "proof" doesn't mean that religious people throughout the history of time haven't contributed greatly to the advancement of man kind. I mean, we still call our calendar system BC and AD...at least here in the US where it matters.


Again, PLEASE stay on subject and argue like a scientist or the minimum an adult.... There was no implication made that all atheists are geniuses. This was a retort to the statement that atheists are atheists because they are too lazy to go to church and that many atheist are not lazy at all, but very accomplished instead.. And to say that we follow someone blindly to become atheist is very wrong, it is an assumption(something you banned me for) and is demeaning.... In addition, it is a very ignorant statement...

What? I usually can decipher your english pretty well but, um...huh? You trying to say that someone who is religious and stops going to church is lazier than someone who just refuses to believe there is a God in the first place? Because they have to tackle the biggest question...which is, the meaning of life and how God is related to it? Its easy, without a God, the meaning of life is live and die eventually. :hay: You seem to think all religious people attend church...they don't. You also seem to think all atheist became this way by doing a huge ammount of work to go along with their suspiscion that God is all smoke and mirrors to control the weak minded. When it all boils down, religious people believe in ancient scriptures. And athiests believe in books by dudes who tried to disprove religion with modern science. As an engineer, I'm skeptical of most miracles and LOVE watching those debunking the bible stories because questioning my faith is kind of a thrill. Replete with "we believe..." and "if I had to guess...." I'm thinking to myself, why is man trying to disprove what took centuries to build? Say we are wrong and say we are following a religion blindly....if we lived a better life and helped the world be a better place, then sweet. Sure many wars are fought by religious extremist, but we have extremist in every facet of life that do the same...I mean a few months ago a bunch of queers, many of them atheist were raising hell when they didn't get to marry. Furthermore, modern religious people have come to terms that what we believed back then isn't what we believe now. We know MAry and Joseph couldn't possibly be walking around during december in that kind of weather. We know a seniro citizen couldn't possibly fit two of every animal in some canoe. But we do know that the bible was written through God by humans who did not have words to describe what we know now about or world. We also know that the scriptures we base our belief systems on were written in languages that are lost to man and were translated and meanings were lost.

Maybe you can help me out here, you say you are not blindly following something, because you know it is full of mistakes? But, you continue to follow it..... And to say that everything was created by god answers nothing.... And science, usually, does not set out to disprove religion... You as a scientist, knows that any time you try to use the scientific method, you try to disprove a theory.... Religions provide us with theories, just like science, and it is science's job to try to disprove all theories, this is how scientific method works... It is just unfortunate that too many religious people misunderstand science and take this personally.


Hehe, France? That's not going to help your cause much. Fastest going religious group lol Nice. I've also heard of places that they all gather now and pray....they PRAY to no one. Giggity? No.

Demeaning another country does nothing for your argument.. Our government recognizes atheism as a 'religious' group.... And to pray is to meditate, and if you think the Greek philosophers did not meditate, you are very wrong....



:bowrofl: we brain wash our troops, eh. Nice.

Here, again, you are trying to invoke peoples emotions against me, instead of arguing your point, which you do not seem to be able to get across.

The military spends most of boot camp trying to brain wash troops, and yes they use religion with this as well....


We get it, we get it, smart people tend to be athiest. Good. Doesn't mean all atheist are smart. ;)

Please explain your point in stating this... The transverse to this statement maybe that there are a few intelligent believers, but most of them are not.....


hehe maybe karma got lincoln shot in the head :dunno: Also if Paine doesn't realize that back when we made the leap from monkeys to men, that all a man had to do to fuck a girl was club her over the head while she wasn't looking and took her, and that monkeys in nature are known to form gangs, fight one another and even cannibalize their opponents, then he has no reason to blame the worlds problems on religion.

First, karma is hindu and buddist, and it is clear that you do not understand what it is... So, are you saying a loving god smites Lincoln because he was angry or threatened by the man? Clarification here, too, please

Next, no man of science believes we made a leap from monkeys or any other creatures to become man... This is an idea that creationists keep alive, because they have to be deceitful to defened their pov. Next, you have no evidence that other creatures do not have the thoughts that would lead them to believe that they too have a god. Finally, as little as half a century ago, christian husbands would take their wives to have a lobotomy because they were frigid, and some christian religions arrange marriages, that is one hell of a club over the head..... And, here again, I never said religion is the only source of problems, I said it is a major source of problems, argument here is flawed too. I can go on endlessly on problems we have directly, because of religion, and thus argue we would be better off without it....

[BackdoorJesus]

Y'know, say we were in the perfect atheist world, where there was no religion & no one had faith in anything beyond what we could comprehend in this physical universe.

Do you REALLY think that we would not have had wars or genocide or any other conflicts & mass hysteria based upon our differing ideologies? Please.

Religion is not to blame here, people are. As long as people are flawed, so too will society be flawed, whether your god is an unknown supernatural being or an unproven scientific theory.

[ddoubleez]

Y'know, say we were in the perfect atheist world, where there was no religion & no one had faith in anything beyond what we could comprehend in this physical universe.

Do you REALLY think that we would not have had wars or genocide or any other conflicts & mass hysteria based upon our differing ideologies? Please.

I would not say that I would say we would have had far fewer, or that we would not have had most of the ones we have had. I can tell you that we would not be in iraq and we would have a higher skyline in new york if there was no religion.

Religion is not to blame here, people are. As long as people are flawed, so too will society be flawed, whether your god is an unknown supernatural being or an unproven scientific theory.

With the understanding that people are more flawed because of religion, it would be logical to say society would be less flawed.... If more people were scientific we would have more people working on solving problems and we would progess faster....

[BackdoorJesus]

"if"..."if"...for someone making an argument supporting atheism you seem to take an awful lot on faith.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what you do or don't believe in, you need to be committed to that belief or lack thereof with only one thing: faith.

And to say that people are flawed because of religion is a complete fallacy and yet another grand assumption - people are flawed because they are flawed. It is their practice of their religion which is inherently flawed, not necessarily the religion that they are practicing.

[Juan.Camaney]

I wrote this tread to lend an understand of atheism to those that may not have thought much about atheism, now you may want to explain you statement like a scientist would..
No, you are one sidedly trying to defend a group of people you belong to.

An atheists will choose a moral route not out of fear of consequences or because he feels he is being watched, but because he feels it is the best outcome for society... I would argue that this is less self centered and more moral than choosing to do the right thing out of fear of consequence.....
So you are assuming atheists do this. They don't ALL do this. You are also assuming people choose religion for fear of God or fear of the unknown, whereas Jews, who have no real hell or devil have been alive and well for ages and ages. In fact, Ha-Satan works FOR God. People do good for different reasons.

Now this is where you argue your decision making processes are more moral if you want to have a constructive argument.. Or you disprove my statement with a counter philosophy or a flaw in my reasoning.

If you would like to make this about disproving Christianity or another religion we should make a new thread, and I will if you like, but as you see from the title this is not my goal...
Buddy, the whole basis of atheism is to disprove religion. To believe in evolution and that the earth is older than what religious books say it is.

Well I am glad, once again, that you can speak for everyone else that will read this and what is you point please?
Thats a pretty stupid thing to say considering your topic here pretty much says you are speaking for all atheists. My point was anyone can go to dictionary.com or wikipedia and get what an athiests are.

I already defined who I would be speaking about, and for one who is critical about others communications skills, can you tell me how you first sentence makes any sense at all?
No you didn't. You are trying to define a large number of people under one label "athiest" and fail to realize that there are actualy several different types of them.

As far as my first sentence:
Which athiesm are you talking about?
it means exactly what it says and what I explained up there ^^^ athiests come in a wide variety of flavor. You have those that simply grew up without religion, you have deserters, you have people who don't care to follow rules and make their own...on and on and on.

And many atheists do feel that religion needs to be exposed because it is counter productive and dangerous for the success of mankind, and there is a ton of evidence for this... In addition, many atheists are defensive, because of religious people and are only countering religious action....
Counter productive? No. Religion on its own is pure and true. Distorting it under different views of it and using it to your advantage is an act of man, not God. So in essence, until you realize that MAN is destroying countries in the name of religion and not religion itself, you just wont understand. Your way of thinking can basically be compared to someone who blames cancer for having killed his spouse, and not his second hand smoking causing the sickness in the first place.

Again, PLEASE stay on subject and argue like a scientist or the minimum an adult.... There was no implication made that all atheists are geniuses. This was a retort to the statement that atheists are atheists because they are too lazy to go to church and that many atheist are not lazy at all, but very accomplished instead.. And to say that we follow someone blindly to become atheist is very wrong, it is an assumption(something you banned me for) and is demeaning.... In addition, it is a very ignorant statement...
I'm sticking within the rules. Please don't try to mod, I've warned you against that in the past. You don't have any data that says which athiests are in it because they actually did work and proved it to themselves, versus those who simply got lazy, so we are both wrong. I've dealt with athiests who simply picked up books that try to disprove religion and followed blindly and dismissed any sense of miracles etc. They are following about as blindly as those who have faith in literal interpretations of the good books because any time someone uses science, they all collectively follow and just go with it.

Maybe you can help me out here, you say you are not blindly following something, because you know it is full of mistakes? But, you continue to follow it..... And to say that everything was created by god answers nothing.... And science, usually, does not set out to disprove religion... You as a scientist, knows that any time you try to use the scientific method, you try to disprove a theory.... Religions provide us with theories, just like science, and it is science's job to try to disprove all theories, this is how scientific method works... It is just unfortunate that too many religious people misunderstand science and take this personally.
Sure, I'll try to explain my beliefs, even though this thread isn't about that. I'm a man of science. I am also religious. I believe in miracles and I believe that the earth is not at the center of the universe or even our solar system. I know neither can explain everything fully. I know the Bible was written by man, but I believe that God and the Holy Spirit was powering the hands that wrote the different parts of the Good Book. I know that back then, the word gravity didn't exist (just an example not really going anywhere with gravity) so that leads me to believe that many of the things that were experienced and then written down couldn't possibly have been explained in terms we humans of today speak. Kind of the same way we are trying to run a country with a constitution written a couple hundred years ago...abortion, internet, gays marrying...they couldn't possibly imagine those things then. So I take religion as what I want it to be and try to follow the rules that the God I believe in wants me to. The Bible is a guideline and the New Testament is simply that, a testament to the life of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

Get it now? I know the two (religion and science) can co-exist peacefully...I been this way for a while.


Demeaning another country does nothing for your argument.. Our government recognizes atheism as a 'religious' group.... And to pray is to meditate, and if you think the Greek philosophers did not meditate, you are very wrong....
Use your online dictionary and look up humor. Then save a few cents and buy a clue so you know when it is used.


Here, again, you are trying to invoke peoples emotions against me, instead of arguing your point, which you do not seem to be able to get across.

The military spends most of boot camp trying to brain wash troops, and yes they use religion with this as well....
I forgot...did you actually serve in the military? This is a serious question.


Please explain your point in stating this... The transverse to this statement maybe that there are a few intelligent believers, but most of them are not......
Very good. Now you understand what I been trying to do this whole time. You are trying to explain what you believe athiesm is. You are using your own opinions mixed in with some facts. You are failing to realize that atheism is converting itself into another ism. Pretty soon it will split into different levels and even you all will begin to fight amongst yourselves in the name of non-god-religion.

First, karma is hindu and buddist... Are you saying a loving god smites Lincoln because he was angry or threatened by the man?
I know what karma is, I watch My Name Is Earl. This is another attempt at that humor thing...did you look it up?

Next, no man of science believes we made a leap from monkeys or any other creatures to become man... This is an idea that creationists keep alive, because they have to be deceitful to defence their pov. Next, you have no evidence that other creatures do not have the thoughts that would lead them to believe that they too have a god. Finally, as little as half a century ago, christian husbands would take their wives to have a lobotomy because they were frigid..... I can go on endlessly on problems we have directly, because of religion, and thus argue we would be better off without it....
Funny, considering I just went to a lecture on evolution versus intelligent design and everyone there praised the missing link theory. Until I see a tick bowing down and praying on a ceremonial rug, I'm going to keep believing that animals don't think that way. Also, re-read your own words. "christian" husbands took their wives to get fixed. God didn't tell them this, did he? show me the part in the bible where it says if your wife won't blow you you need to cut a chunk of brain out. Yeah, you COULD go on endlessly and it seems like you almost did. Are you against religion or against God? Look back at your own definition of the word atheist. It mentions nothing about religion, it mentions a disbelief in a supreme being. Seems to me most of your problems with things is against what man has twisted God to be for their own benefits.

[ddoubleez]

"if"..."if"...for someone making an argument supporting atheism you seem to take an awful lot on faith.

faith (fth) KEY

NOUN:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

"The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what you do or don't believe in, you need to be committed to that belief or lack thereof with only one thing: faith.

If you have proof, you do not need to believe... So no...

Science is the search of truth.... To answer questions... Faith is to dismiss questions for the sake of faith....

"And to say that people are flawed because of religion is a complete fallacy and yet another grand assumption - people are flawed because they are flawed. It is their practice of their religion which is inherently flawed, not necessarily the religion that they are practicing.

The above does not match any statement I made... I said people are more flawed because of religion, and this is not an assumption, it is fact....

I will be back tomorrow to elaborate futher.........

[Juan.Camaney]

Dude, you really need to go to where you get your definitions from and find "fact" then "opinion" then compare and contrast, and THEN get back to us.

While you are at it, see how Santeria, Voodoo, and Wickans go into your equations...you are the proffesor after all.

[CD]

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what you do or don't believe in, you need to be committed to that belief or lack thereof with only one thing: faith.
I agree with this. I strongly believe that whatever happens in the end, we all need to be as comfortable with ourselves as possible when that time arrives. Whether that means you follow Christianity or Buddhism, Atheism or Hinduism, YOU are the one that has to live your life and hopefully have rewarding experiences and memories when it ends.

And to say that people are flawed because of religion is a complete fallacy and yet another grand assumption - people are flawed because they are flawed. It is their practice of their religion which is inherently flawed, not necessarily the religion that they are practicing.
Also true in my opinion. Just like Bruce Li said that there is no "best" martial art, only better martial artists. I, personally, do not believe in Christianity, but it's also very easy to see a Christian who barely qualifies to be called a Christian while other people are practically saints (Mother Teresa). Even Jews recognize Jesus as a very important and very good person. They may go all the way with the son of god, but they can at least see that he wasn't "flawed" like a lot of people seem to be nowadays. I generally don't judge anyone (religious or not), because it doesn't benefit me or anyone else to judge someone. I didn't learn that from anywhere other then others judging me, and guess what... I didn't care for it so I rarely do it.

Basically, if someone here isn't living the life they should (infidelity, stealing, etc...), that is between them and their god. I still think US laws apply to them if it's warranted, but at the end of their life, it doesn't matter what I think... it's all about how they feel about themselves.

Oh, and if the conversation is going to be about laziness or the easy way out, I'd like to mention that the Buddhist lifestyle is anything but easy. In fact, you could easily say that it's harder then the Christian lifestyle since it's not so easy to pray for forgiveness when you are banging your best friend's wife every Tuesday at lunch and never stop till you're caught.

[gemo]

So your saying if religion didn't exsist, we would be better off?
(If this isn't what your saying please correct me.)
Well, since people can be stupid blindly following some crazy belief system, whose to say people won't just blindly start doing something else, like racism.

What I mean is people like seperation and conflict. For example, people love racism it creates division and the us vs. them mentality. Conflict, boy do we love conflict, with out it there is no reason to live, thats why people love watching soap operas and the Hills.

Now if religion does one day completely vanish I am 100% confident that something else will take its place, maybe a new system political ideology (something along those lines), and it too will make fanatics. Like what I have seen in some people who were supporting Obama for election.
If all the guns and missiles and bombs and tanks all vanished from the face of the earth, do you think we will still be kill each other? Hells yes.

[Krasch]

"if"..."if"...for someone making an argument supporting atheism you seem to take an awful lot on faith.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what you do or don't believe in, you need to be committed to that belief or lack thereof with only one thing: faith.

And to say that people are flawed because of religion is a complete fallacy and yet another grand assumption - people are flawed because they are flawed. It is their practice of their religion which is inherently flawed, not necessarily the religion that they are practicing.
Pure genius brother!

That's why in the current environment we live in, it's important to remember it's not Muslims or people that believe in Islam we are in conflict with, but f'd up zealots who have taken Islam to a strange and dangerous place and who believe that everyone who doesn't share their twisted view should die.

[ravenshrike]

The point I am trying to make is Americans have a stronger tendancy to believe in a god because it is woven into our politics and history, more so than most countries... Thus, we have more religious people and a greater tendency to be religious...
How f***ing stupid are you? Since the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe was nothing but a series of religiously motivated clashes until right before the time of the American Revolution. There's more history in almost any podunk little corner of Europe than in the entire US.

[Krasch]

How f***ing stupid are you? Since the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe was nothing but a series of religiously motivated clashes until right before the time of the American Revolution. There's more history in almost any podunk little corner of Europe than in the entire US.
A fact I've always appreciated since for the most part my home Canada has even less history than the US does.

[ddoubleez]

Dude, you really need to go to where you get your definitions from and find "fact" then "opinion" then compare and contrast, and THEN get back to us.

While you are at it, see how Santeria, Voodoo, and Wickans go into your equations...you are the proffesor after all.

Clarification here, please... Or maybe a translator...

How f***ing stupid are you? Since the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe was nothing but a series of religiously motivated clashes until right before the time of the American Revolution. There's more history in almost any podunk little corner of Europe than in the entire US.


Resource and religion... And this is something I discuss a lot... It does not change my point, we are more motivated religiously than most developed countries... Can you please explain how having more history changes modern motivation techniques.....

I will clarify my statement if needed... Sense the 50's this government and those that are made up of it, are more influenced and use religion to influence than most developed countries.... Sorry if I was not clear, and explain you point now, please...

[Juan.Camaney]

Clarification here, please... Or maybe a translator...
Fact, 2 + 2 = 4, opinion (read everywhere you claim your assumptions are fact and reread until it makes sense. Translator? No seas imbecil.

[shiiboi]

Let me take a stab at explaining 'atheism.'

Theism is a proposition: the belief in the existence of 'supernatural' being(s) called god(s).

Atheism means 'not theism,' that is, the case of not accepting the theist proposition.

Atheism makes no proposition of its own. There is no belief that atheists share except that the proposition made by theists (i.e., there exists a supernatural being(s) called 'YHWH' or 'Thor' or 'Zeus') is false.

There is no atheist bible, nor atheist religion (although there are some religions, such as buddhism or ethical culture, which do not make specific theistic claims), nor atheist philosophy.

[Juan.Camaney]

So what you are saying, shiiboi, is that a true athiest is content enough in not believing, but the pissy wankers trying to disprove each and every little fact they think is in the bible should just get hobbies?

[shiiboi]

So what you are saying, shiiboi, is that a true athiest is content enough in not believing, but the pissy wankers trying to disprove each and every little fact they think is in the bible should just get hobbies?
I don't answer for all atheists.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the pissy wankers endlessly lobbying the government to insert the acknowledgement of a certain religion into official oaths or public school prayers in direct violation of the first amendent. Or the pissy wankers trying to insinuate judeo-christian mythology in to the science classroom.

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

There are many more theists bullying, intimidating, lobbying and proselytizing the non-believers into adopting their practices. Activist atheists, (i.e., Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris) are reacting to what theists, especially christians and muslims are doing.

[Juan.Camaney]

I don't answer for all atheists.
Perfect, and REP!

[edit]forgot to mention, I disagree with what you have said, but I respect the fact that its YOUR OWN opinion.

[Krasch]

I don't answer for all atheists.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the pissy wankers endlessly lobbying the government to insert the acknowledgement of a certain religion into official oaths or public school prayers in direct violation of the first amendent. Or the pissy wankers trying to insinuate judeo-christian mythology in to the science classroom.

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

There are many more theists bullying, intimidating, lobbying and proselytizing the non-believers into adopting their practices. Activist atheists, (i.e., Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris) are reacting to what theists, especially christians and muslims are doing.
But there is a problem.

The founding fathers NEVER intended the government or the Constitution to be religion free, in fact in their writings they say the exact opposite.

The establishment clause was originally designed to prevent a repeat of the formation of the Anglican Church in the U.S. where the President would not only be head of state, but head of the religion as well.

It has since been perverted in modern times, and wrongly so, into some atempt to completely separate religion from the state, in total abeyance with the intent of the country's founders.

You wouldn't even see people lobbying to put "God" (in whatever form that takes) back into the oaths and prayers back into the schools if they had not wrongly been removed by over zealous action to begin with.

[shiiboi]

But there is a problem.

The founding fathers NEVER intended the government or the Constitution to be religion free, in fact in their writings they say the exact opposite.
.
.
.

[The establishment clause] has since been perverted in modern times, and wrongly so, into some atempt to completely separate religion from the state, in total abeyance with the intent of the country's founders.
Which founding fathers do you mean? They all signed the constitution which contains the first amendment.

Thomas Jefferson explained the intent of the 1st amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god... that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the US Senate in 1797 and signed by President (and founding father) John Adams states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


You wouldn't even see people lobbying to put "God" (in whatever form that takes) back into the oaths and prayers back into the schools if they had not wrongly been removed by over zealous action to begin with.
They are not lobbying to put "God" BACK into the public schools. There was never a right to have such prayers and oaths.

The compulsory public school system was established in 1918. In 1925, the Catholic parochial school system was created BECAUSE the public school system prohibited prayer. It took a win in the Supreme Court "Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925" to permit catholic school attendance to substitute for the secular public school compulsory attendance requirement.

In 1951, the NY Board of Regents composed an optional non-denominational prayer which could used in districts that desired to pray. In 1958, one school district passed a resolution to read the prayer at the start of the school day. Parents were insensed, and with the help of the ACLU challenged the prayer's constitutionality in court, ending up in the Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale, 1962). The Supreme Court declared prayer in schools a violation of the 1st amendment.

A year later, a challenge was made to the supreme court ruling (Abington Township School District v. Schempp , 1963). The Supreme Court upheld it's ban on school prayer, revising it only to permit that individual students could not be prohibited from praying privately, but the school could not promote or endorse prayer.

These are, and have always been the laws or our land. YOU, sir, are the one attempting to rewrite history.

[Juan.Camaney]

There was never a right to have such prayers and oaths.
Do you, or anyone else for that matter, see the irony in using the 1st to defend your side but not religious peoples' side? The 1st applies to everyone, right? Athiesm is still a minority, that much we agree on, right? So why, if oaths were written many many years ago, do some people want them changed to remove any reference to religion because they are offended using the 1st as a basis but fortget the second part where it says no one can prohibit free exercise of religion either? I mean, if congress can't pass a law establishing religion (that much you can read) and can't pass a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof (where most people fail to read), then aren't they violating the rights of believers trying to remove religious context out of oaths?

Purely hypothetical, btw.

[shiiboi]

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, see the irony in using the 1st to defend your side but not religious peoples' side?.
The religious peoples' side wants to impose a particular religious practice on everyone. If I am required, by law, to place my hand on a christian bible and swear an oath 'so help me god' (i.e., in order to hold an elected office, or give testimony in a court) that is a violation of both Article VI of the consitution ("no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to an Office or public trust under the United States") and the first amendment.

So why, if oaths were written many many years ago, do some people want them changed to remove any reference to religion
God references in public oaths are a very recent addition. For instance, the US Presidential Oath, as written in the constitution does not contain the ending 'so help me god' nor require that the oath be taken with a hand on a bible. This tradition began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Public school prayer, god-references in official oaths, assorted christian holiday decorations, and religious plaques in judicial buildings didn't begin appearing in government places until the early 1950's during the anti-communist McCarthy era. Communists were 'godless' and so the McCarthyists lobbied for loyalty oaths that had an affirmation of christianity as a way of demonstrating that you weren't a communist.

The words 'under god' were added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954.

but fortget the second part where it says no one can prohibit free exercise of religion either? I mean, if congress can't pass a law establishing religion (that much you can read) and can't pass a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof (where most people fail to read), then aren't they violating the rights of believers trying to remove religious context out of oaths?
You are free to practice or not practice any religion of your choice. You may erect statues, slogans, decorations that demonstrate your religious convictions on any private property you own. You are free to attend private religious schools where you may pray to any god at any time you want.

You may NOT, however, force my children to pray to your god while attending public school, you may NOT use public property, such as courthouses, schools, police stations to erect statues, slogans, decorations, etc. that promote or celebrate your religion.

[Juan.Camaney]

The religious peoples' side wants to impose a particular religious practice on everyone. If I am required, by law, to place my hand on a christian bible and swear an oath 'so help me god' (i.e., in order to hold an elected office, or give testimony in a court) that is a violation of both Article VI of the consitution ("no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to an Office or public trust under the United States") and the first amendment.
I don't know if its the same nationwide, but the bible thing is court is pretty outdated and most don't even tell you to say "so help me God." I'm not sure that it is required by law, more like its tradition. I've testified in court a few times and most they tell you is that perjury BS they have to tell you.

God references in public oaths are a very recent addition. For instance, the US Presidential Oath, as written in the constitution does not contain the ending 'so help me god' nor require that the oath be taken with a hand on a bible. This tradition began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
There we go, see, you proved my point :bowrofl: tradition, not law. so when we elect shiiboi in 2012, you can swear on Darwins Theory or whatever.

Public school prayer, god-references in official oaths, assorted christian holiday decorations, and religious plaques in judicial buildings didn't begin appearing in government places until the early 1950's during the anti-communist McCarthy era. Communists were 'godless' and so the McCarthyists lobbied for loyalty oaths that had an affirmation of christianity as a way of demonstrating that you weren't a communist.
Yeah, so what does that have to do with religion? I'm not attacking you or your views as, honestly, I agree that religion is used by man to try and do crazy shit, but its man's choice, as I have already stated.

The words 'under god' were added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954.
Aye, the US is one of the few countries that even has a Pledge of Alliegence. Weirded the shit out of me when even us mexicans have a whole ceremony where we present our colors every week in public schools yet we didn't have a pledge. So, what I'm gathering from you is not so much religion itself, but americans using it as a tool.


You are free to practice or not practice any religion of your choice. You may erect statues, slogans, decorations that demonstrate your religious convictions on any private property you own. You are free to attend private religious schools where you may pray to any god at any time you want.

You may NOT, however, force my children to pray to your god while attending public school, you may NOT use public property, such as courthouses, schools, police stations to erect statues, slogans, decorations, etc. that promote or celebrate your religion.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=military+cemetery&gbv=2

Have a fun time telling these guys that.

[shiiboi]

so when we elect shiiboi in 2012, you can swear on Darwins Theory or whatever.

My first executive order will be to invade Mexico and root out their weapons of mass destruction (refried beans).

[Krasch]

I don't know if its the same nationwide, but the bible thing is court is pretty outdated and most don't even tell you to say "so help me God." I'm not sure that it is required by law, more like its tradition. I've testified in court a few times and most they tell you is that perjury BS they have to tell you.


There we go, see, you proved my point :bowrofl: tradition, not law. so when we elect shiiboi in 2012, you can swear on Darwins Theory or whatever.


Yeah, so what does that have to do with religion? I'm not attacking you or your views as, honestly, I agree that religion is used by man to try and do crazy shit, but its man's choice, as I have already stated.


Aye, the US is one of the few countries that even has a Pledge of Alliegence. Weirded the shit out of me when even us mexicans have a whole ceremony where we present our colors every week in public schools yet we didn't have a pledge. So, what I'm gathering from you is not so much religion itself, but americans using it as a tool.



http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=military+cemetery&gbv=2

Have a fun time telling these guys that.
Or the Capital Building which as I recall has several references to God in the Rotunda area, and does not the Supreme Court Building not display the 10 Commandments on its walls?

[Krasch]

Which founding fathers do you mean? They all signed the constitution which contains the first amendment.

Thomas Jefferson explained the intent of the 1st amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god... that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the US Senate in 1797 and signed by President (and founding father) John Adams states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



They are not lobbying to put "God" BACK into the public schools. There was never a right to have such prayers and oaths.

The compulsory public school system was established in 1918. In 1925, the Catholic parochial school system was created BECAUSE the public school system prohibited prayer. It took a win in the Supreme Court "Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925" to permit catholic school attendance to substitute for the secular public school compulsory attendance requirement.

In 1951, the NY Board of Regents composed an optional non-denominational prayer which could used in districts that desired to pray. In 1958, one school district passed a resolution to read the prayer at the start of the school day. Parents were insensed, and with the help of the ACLU challenged the prayer's constitutionality in court, ending up in the Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale, 1962). The Supreme Court declared prayer in schools a violation of the 1st amendment.

A year later, a challenge was made to the supreme court ruling (Abington Township School District v. Schempp , 1963). The Supreme Court upheld it's ban on school prayer, revising it only to permit that individual students could not be prohibited from praying privately, but the school could not promote or endorse prayer.

These are, and have always been the laws or our land. YOU, sir, are the one attempting to rewrite history.
Ah but John Adams also wrote "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There is a decided difference between believing in an organized religion, which many of the Fathers were against, and belief in a suipreme God. Most all the founding fathers were God-fearing believers, even if they were wary of a particular religion giving supreme power to one man, be he Pope or King, and rightly so given their history and situation.

To say they intended that government be completely devoid of "God", whichever God that happened to be, is revisionist history at best. They rejected the notion of a U.S. homegrown Anglican style church, not God itself. The whole "separation of church and state" is a modern invention, and it's continued enforcement is a violation of First Amendment rights for a majority of Americans which are supposed to specifically protect the free exercise of religion.

Let us not forget the Declaration of Independence itself, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Men CREATED equal? Endowed by their CREATOR? God is surely present there, as they intended.

[shiiboi]

Or the Capital Building which as I recall has several references to God in the Rotunda area, and does not the Supreme Court Building not display the 10 Commandments on its walls?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

[shiiboi]

Ah but John Adams also wrote "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There is a decided difference between believing in an organized religion, which many of the Fathers were against, and belief in a suipreme God. Most all the founding fathers were God-fearing believers, even if they were wary of a particular religion giving supreme power to one man, be he Pope or King, and rightly so given their history and situation.

To say they intended that government be completely devoid of "God", whichever God that happened to be, is revisionist history at best. They rejected the notion of a U.S. homegrown Anglican style church, not God itself. The whole "separation of church and state" is a modern invention, and it's continued enforcement is a violation of First Amendment rights for a majority of Americans which are supposed to specifically protect the free exercise of religion.

Let us not forget the Declaration of Independence itself, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Men CREATED equal? Endowed by their CREATOR? God is surely present there, as they intended.
I'm struggling to understand the point of your post.

Nothing you said contradicts the fact that the founders of our nation intended for our government to be secular and wrote it into the constitution, the supreme laws of our country. The constitution was ratified by all the states and adopted as the law of the land.

The declaration of independence is not a legislative document of the United States of America. The claim that humans are born with natural rights is not an endorsement of religion in government.

[BackdoorJesus]

I think his point is pretty clear - if you say you can't understand it then it seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to perpetuate this argument.

[Juan.Camaney]

:werd: I'll pretty much sum it up in this:

Understanding atheism is like understanding religion. It's a choice you have to come to terms with on your own in order to actually have a valuable opinion. If you follow either blindly based on the digestion of man, you are doomed to never understand it fully and ultimately sound like a dumb ass when trying to explain either. Religion, as well as science, has been based on theories and human experience. Neither can explain the wonders of the world and we have to have faith if we are to believe in either.

Awesome thread, guys.

[CD]

There we go, see, you proved my point :bowrofl: tradition, not law. so when we elect shiiboi in 2012, you can swear on Darwins Theory or whatever.
Yeah, but until he put that, Krasch would continue to feed the uninformed the opposite.

My argument would be that if someone wanted to add some Buddhist sayings to a courthouse that dealt with "morals", the Christians would be the most outraged group, even though they are asking for the same "traditions" to be started for their side.

Ah but John Adams also wrote "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I've had a discussion with a Christian before that centered on the assumption that without the Christian Religion, there are no morals. It's completely false, and frankly pretty funny. To say that only Christians have a firm grip on what is and isn't moral is a joke. With that said, I believe myself to be a morally good person. I also believe in God, but it's not the Christian God.

There is a decided difference between believing in an organized religion, which many of the Fathers were against, and belief in a suipreme God. Most all the founding fathers were God-fearing believers, even if they were wary of a particular religion giving supreme power to one man, be he Pope or King, and rightly so given their history and situation.

To say they intended that government be completely devoid of "God", whichever God that happened to be, is revisionist history at best. They rejected the notion of a U.S. homegrown Anglican style church, not God itself. The whole "separation of church and state" is a modern invention, and it's continued enforcement is a violation of First Amendment rights for a majority of Americans which are supposed to specifically protect the free exercise of religion.

Let us not forget the Declaration of Independence itself, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Men CREATED equal? Endowed by their CREATOR? God is surely present there, as they intended.
So a Buddhist's creator is the same as a Christian's creator? According to me they are, but if you don't agree, you can't use that argument for only the Christians side and not any other religion.

[Juan.Camaney]

My argument would be that if someone wanted to add some Buddhist sayings to a courthouse that dealt with "morals", the Christians would be the most outraged group, even though they are asking for the same "traditions" to be started for their side.
You ever taken a look at your money and other federal courthouses and buildings and seen shit like balance scales, pyramids with eyes on it, ying yangs, gargoyles, etc. :) Live and let live. A statue of confuscius stands tall at my alma mater and my and many others' religions say not to idolize anything or anyone else...I'm just content with believing what I do and letting everyone else do the same.

See, in school, they are trying to teach kids the joy of gay sex (saw it on fark today), the same gender marriage lifestyle, theory of evolution, muslim activities, on and on and on. We (people who think like me under many different denominations) are okay with that to a certain extent. Seems like a minority is pushing their beliefs in retaliation to the pluralities that push theirs on them; see The Goldan Compass (I guess two wrongs make a right) :jimi: . Difference is, we (again people who thinnk like me) are there to answer questions that these little people come up with. "Tio, in school they taught us about how we come from monkeys..." :bowrofl: Ever try to explain to a 6 year old what a theory is? People are too focused on what their poor snowflakes learn in school and forget that learning actually takes place at home. People everywhere push the idea that religion is supposed to be on a restraining order from the government and its buildings and anything that is funded by tax money, yet they fail to remember that the tax money came from people with views different than theirs'. Seems a lot of the times, atheists have no problem pushing their views publicly at schools and other government institutions yet scream bloody murder when someone with different views tries to do the same things.

[Juan.Camaney]

News Flash: Obama started his first full paid day with prayer service.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/inauguration/la-na-obama-prayer22-2009jan22,0,3404494.story

Do athiests really think they will ever get rid of religion?

another open ended question. Just trying to understand ya'll better.

[shiiboi]

Do athiests really think they will ever get rid of religion?
T27kB4BjbEg&hl=en&fs=1

[Juan.Camaney]

No offense, shiiboi, but I'd rather read a digested version of what your thoughts are, rather than some dude or guy compiled and threw onto youtube. Youtube videos in a discussion forum to me is like singing to deaf people.

[shiiboi]

No offense, shiiboi, but I'd rather read a digested version of what your thoughts are, rather than some dude or guy compiled and threw onto youtube. Youtube videos in a discussion forum to me is like singing to deaf people.
Fair enough.

Do athiests really think they will ever get rid of religion?


1. I don't believe that the judeo-christian religions as they have been interpreted and practiced in the western world for the past few hundred years are relevant any more. The statistics show that they are on the wane everywhere, although in the US there was a temporary surge during the cold war that put us on a slower path to their decline than in Europe.

2. I doubt that religion per se will ever go away completely. Mythologies play a valuable role in passing on emotional and (for lack of a better word) spiritual ideas from generation to generation in a way that the cold hard facts of science and literal history cannot. While christianity is in decline in the west, there is a rise in 'godless' spirituality, i.e., the 'new age' religions, neo-wiccan and other animist religions, buddhism and other eastern religions. When the Dalai Lama gave a talk at central park, ny a few years ago he drew as large a crowd as U2 when they gave a free concert there.

[Juan.Camaney]

Let me respond by borrowing from the FAQs section from http://www.atheist-community.org/
Thanks for the link...kinda weird how you don't speak for all athiests but do let websites explain things for you...just saying.

A: This assumption is rooted in the elementary logical fallacy that two opposite things--belief and disbelief--are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. For example, in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.
Negatory. We (again with the people that think like me) aren't saying that belief and disbelief are the same thing, I'm saying some of you try to disprove our beliefs with more beliefs! Its like the huge debate between evolution and adaptation.

To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense.
Common sense, eh. You believe in air, but can't see it. :josher: what about gravity? We see miracles, some of which science just cannot explain.

Here is an analogous situation: supposedly, as a Christian, you do not believe in the Roman or Aztec gods. Is it just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and Aztecs to believe in them? If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf? Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.
Thats great for those who are strictly Christian and as stubborn and hard headed and intolerant as those who disprove things. Some catholics in mexico (where the "aztecs" better known as mexica come from) actually allowed indigenous converts to keep their own idols. Its against the "rules" but its peoples' beliefs. Do I believe Neptune chills in the ocean and stirs shit up with his mighty pitch fork like Disney portrayed...no. do I believe there is a force that rules the oceans with as much might as the Romans and Greeks (Poseidon) think? Yeah...some atheist call her mother nature ;) and I don't take mythology literally, I believe things are just personafied differently. The elf thing here is just a stretch...unless the dude was on some bomb shrooms, meh. Finally, I absofuckingloutley HATE how athiest just think their way is the "smart thing to do." It's not. The smart thing to do is read read read and do your own goddamned research.

Finally, one can turn to the Bible's definition of faith--the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"--to see that this is a definition that excludes disbelief. So if you still don't agree with us that atheism is not a faith, then check your Bibles.
First, bibles are not dictionaries. One of faith does not simply read the bible, the bible reveals itself to the reader. Athiests are often synonimous with people who believe in theories. If you don't think so, look back and read how many "what ifs" are in this thread alone.

[shiiboi]

Athiests are often synonimous with people who believe in theories. If you don't think so, look back and read how many "what ifs" are in this thread alone.
In the 'global warming' threads, you've described yourself as a scientist.

So I'm disappointed that you are so loose with your terminology: A THEORY has a very specific meaning in science. You've been using the word 'theory' in thread when you really meant 'hypothesis.'

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Furthermore atheists don't try to 'disprove' religion. Because

1. We don't have to, we aren't the ones making a claim for the existence of something,

2. Something which doesn't exist leaves no evidence, therefore it's a logical fallacy to try to 'disprove' something which doesn't exist (i.e., can you 'disprove' my claim that there's a leprechaun sitting on your shoulder right now?),

3. when atheists quote cosmological or biological theories as evidence for the origin of the universe, or the existence of humans, this evidence is not trying to 'disprove' the bible, but merely providing an explanation for which there is well-documented evidence.

[Juan.Camaney]

We are arguing semantics now? I bow out. lol I meant what I said, athiests believe in the THEORY of evolution. Don't tell me what I mean, I know what I mean.


1. We don't have to, we aren't the ones making a claim for the existence of something,

2. Something which doesn't exist leaves no evidence, therefore it's a logical fallacy to try to 'disprove' something which doesn't exist,

3. when atheists quote cosmological or biological theories as evidence for the origin of the universe, or the existence of humans, this evidence is not trying to 'disprove' the bible, but merely providing an explanation for which there is well-documented evidence.
1. Could have fooled me with all the books being written about the myth of god

2. Again, miracles have left evidence.

3. Providing explanations with evidence...hehe didn't the global warming people try to do the same things? Well documented evidence....so taking samples millions of years old and using science hundreds of seconds old to prove THEORIES is evidence. Ok.

[BackdoorJesus]

theory, hypothesis, whatever - just names for assumptions heretofore unproven, just like the word "faith".

I'm disappointed that you continue to be deliberately obtuse merely for the sake of perpetuating an argument neither side can nor will win.

I think this thread's about played out...juan what do you think?

[Juan.Camaney]

I think this thread's about played out...juan what do you think?
Been dead for a while. We have athiests speaking for other athiests who do not speak for other athiests who want to argue semantics and who don't want to answer questions with their own words.

[shiiboi]

theory, hypothesis, whatever - just names for assumptions heretofore unproven, just like the word "faith".

I'm disappointed that you continue to be deliberately obtuse merely for the sake of perpetuating an argument neither side can nor will win.

I think this thread's about played out...juan what do you think?
1. The words are important because, for instance, referring to the THEORY of evolution as if it were the HYPOTHESIS of evolution is dismissive and unfair.

2. I don't see where I've been obtuse -- my posts #20 & #41 were very simple and direct answers to the questions.

My exchange with Krasch (where you first accused me of being obtuse) was filled with facts and evidence from both the constitution and explanatory writiing from the constitution's authors.

If you're bored of this discussion, fine, but if you want to ask direct questions and I'll be happy to answer them equally as directly.

Personally, I enjoy this kind of exchange, especially here rather than BOTH where it'd get mucked up with ad hominem attacks...

[Juan.Camaney]

1. The words are important because, for instance, referring to the THEORY of evolution as if it were the HYPOTHESIS of evolution is dismissive and unfair.
You want to bust a ddoubleez and use dictionary.com to look up theory and see if its actual fact? In leimans, theories are ideas that are backed by ther ideas taken as fact. Do you know how many theories get disproven every day? It's not dismissive IMO to call a theory false. Until someone invents a time machine or a means to travel several light years away and look at the earth through a giant telescope to see back in time, theories will always remain disprovable.

[shiiboi]

You want to bust a ddoubleez and use dictionary.com to look up theory and see if its actual fact? In leimans, theories are ideas that are backed by ther ideas taken as fact. Do you know how many theories get disproven every day? It's not dismissive IMO to call a theory false. Until someone invents a time machine or a means to travel several light years away and look at the earth through a giant telescope to see back in time, theories will always remain disprovable.
All I can do is refer you back to the link I provided earlier:

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

In science, for something to be defined as a theory it requires a rigorous process. Yes, theories are revised and tossed all the time, when tests of the theory fail or when new evidence requires it. That's how science works. Evolution may be discovered to be flawed, or completely wrong.

Do you apply the same rigor to the bible? What are all these 'miracles' you keep referring to? If you describe some event for which the scientific method has not come up with an explanation yet, it does not, by default, mean that the event was caused by a supernatural being who's existence remains at the level of hypothesis.

[Juan.Camaney]

Evolution may be discovered to be flawed, or completely wrong.
That's what I been saying.

Do you apply the same rigor to the bible? What are all these 'miracles' you keep referring to?
Yes I do. Refer back to me watching the disproving the bible programs on history chanel etc. There are a ton of miracles science can't prove. Stigmatas, for example. Experiments communicating between rooms when people are in delta waves portion of sleep. Do your own research!

If you describe some event for which the scientific method has not come up with an explanation yet, it does not, by default, mean that the event was caused by a supernatural being who's existence remains at the level of hypothesis.
Maybe to you who do not believe in a supernatural being. To us people who treat religion and energy and combine the two....well....I won't push my beliefs onto you. Again, you find your explanations and I'll keep mine.

[shiiboi]

Maybe to you who do not believe in a supernatural being. To us people who treat religion and energy and combine the two....well....I won't push my beliefs onto you. Again, you find your explanations and I'll keep mine.
It's not my intention to get you to abandon your faith-- this thread's purpose is to explain atheist positions.

But from my perspective, whether one believes in god(s) or not, it's a slippery slope to ascribe everything unexplained to (a) god(s). The unexplained is simply that-- unexplained.

Ancient peoples assumed that hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters were the work of god(s)-- today we know how they work. Someone today still living the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the amazon or africa assumes that an airplane flying overhead is a mystical creature and that a photograph taken of them has stolen their soul.

[ddoubleez]

1)So your saying if religion didn't exsist, we would be better off?
(If this isn't what your saying please correct me.)
Well, since people can be stupid blindly following some crazy belief system, whose to say people won't just blindly start doing something else, like racism.

2) What I mean is people like seperation and conflict. For example, people love racism it creates division and the us vs. them mentality. Conflict, boy do we love conflict, with out it there is no reason to live, thats why people love watching soap operas and the Hills.

Now if religion does one day completely vanish I am 100% confident that something else will take its place, maybe a new system political ideology (something along those lines), and it too will make fanatics. Like what I have seen in some people who were supporting Obama for election.
3)If all the guns and missiles and bombs and tanks all vanished from the face of the earth, do you think we will still be kill each other? Hells yes.

1) Probably.....

2) People like seperation and conflect, because they have learned to.... People enjoy keeping up with stars and soaps, because of tribal instints.... It is probably one of many reasons I am so intrested in politics, it is inherent or bread into us..

3) But without religion, it would be more difficult to convience people to do so... Passive people will do some very aggressive things if they are convienced it is god will....


And all the above are great points, thanks for perticipating!

[ddoubleez]

No, you are one sidedly trying to defend a group of people you belong to.

Are you really trying to convince me that you know my motivation... Lol...
I only want to bring an understanding to a group of people... Your comments on this thread and a couple of others indicates you are in need of this, but unwilling to conduct yourself in a manor that will be constructive....

And as far as arguing this one sidely, do really think I need to argue against atheists? How am I expected to argue this more than one sidedly, even though many on this thread need my help..... What the fuck, I will help you for shits and giggles.... earlier, you tried to tell me that religion did do some good things and you brought up the ad and BC marks on the calendar (that are not accurate). If we did not have these points on a calendar, or life would not be any worse than it is now.... But I will toss you a bone, had you brought up that we have a lot of art because of religion, you would have actually had an effective argument... There, two sided and you are welcome for the help!!

So you are assuming atheists do this. They don't ALL do this. You are also assuming people choose religion for fear of God or fear of the unknown, whereas Jews, who have no real hell or devil have been alive and well for ages and ages. In fact, Ha-Satan works FOR God. People do good for different reasons.

I dont assume people choose religion out of fear, most do not choose it at all, they are indoctrinated into it out of tradition, at an age before the capacity for reason or critical thinking... This is why religion is regional.... It is a social condition..

However, if you look at the bible, you will see threats of vicious executions for those who do not believe, and the fact that if you do not choose god you will burn for all eternity, is a good argument that fear is a major motivator for many religions.....

Buddy, the whole basis of atheism is to disprove religion. To believe in evolution and that the earth is older than what religious books say it is.

No... And this is a VERY INACCURATE comment.... If I do not believe in a god, what am I? an atheist.... If I try to disprove a god I am a teacher....

If you think an atheist wakes up one day and decides he will no longer believe in god, so he can devote a life to disproving god, you have a lot to learn.

If you think an atheist wakes up one day and decides he does not want to be apart of a system that rewards the good and punishes the evil, while heaping blessings on mankind, you are wrong as well. To say that I do not want this to be true is wrong, I just can not believe it, and this is true with most atheists that I have come to understand.

Thats a pretty stupid thing to say considering your topic here pretty much says you are speaking for all atheists. My point was anyone can go to dictionary.com or wikipedia and get what an athiests are.

I am speaking for a majority of atheists... And comments like the above make me believe you are not participating in this thread for any reason other than to provoke people and create mischief....

And just about all the topics addressed in the eoth can be looked up on wiki or a dictionary.. Are you saying you would like us to stop creating topics for discussion so that ad revenue will decrease and fewer people will come here? So far you have done well discouraging participation on most topics that you do not like...

No you didn't. You are trying to define a large number of people under one label "athiest" and fail to realize that there are actualy several different types of them.
As far as my first sentence:
it means exactly what it says and what I explained up there ^^^ athiests come in a wide variety of flavor. You have those that simply grew up without religion, you have deserters, you have people who don't care to follow rules and make their own...on and on and on.

Again, I defined who I was speaking about for this very reason, and the person that gives me a hard time about it seems to need the definition more than anyone else...

An atheist is defined by someone who does not believe in a god at all... That is who I am speaking of..... You adding labels does not change this at all... If someone tells you they are an atheist and you ask them. 'what kind?' they will not know what you are asking, because the question is not appropriate...



Counter productive? No. Religion on its own is pure and true. Distorting it under different views of it and using it to your advantage is an act of man, not God. So in essence, until you realize that MAN is destroying countries in the name of religion and not religion itself, you just wont understand. Your way of thinking can basically be compared to someone who blames cancer for having killed his spouse, and not his second hand smoking causing the sickness in the first place.

Well, naturally, I would argue that if religion is effective, this would not happen.. And if your god allows his religions to be manipulated or distorted, why would you call him god. You do know that paul wrote that god would not sound the trumpet of confusion, indicating that he (god) would protect his word.. There is also the numerous writings that there would be only one church.....

I'm sticking within the rules. Please don't try to mod, I've warned you against that in the past. You don't have any data that says which athiests are in it because they actually did work and proved it to themselves, versus those who simply got lazy, so we are both wrong. I've dealt with athiests who simply picked up books that try to disprove religion and followed blindly and dismissed any sense of miracles etc. They are following about as blindly as those who have faith in literal interpretations of the good books because any time someone uses science, they all collectively follow and just go with it.

If I wanted to be a mod, I would ask waldo.... There is no need to warn me of something I am not doing.... For the rest of the statement, I do not understand what you are saying....

I have stated that I am trying to lend understanding of what a disbeliever is.... And if you are trying to tell me that I am wrong about atheists because you know a few people that call themselves atheists but can not prove themselves, it is silly for a believer to ask a non-believer to explain why they do not believe...... It is for those that believe, to shoulder the burden....

I do not think it is logical to ask someone why they do not think there is life on other planets, when there is no proof that there is.... But it would be very logical to ask someone that does believe in life on another planet that has no proof.... Just as it would be if someone told me that there were unicorns, it is not my burden to explain why there are not unicorns, but the burden of the unicorn believer to make his case..

Sorry if the above is confusing, if so I will further elaborate if needed.

Sure, I'll try to explain my beliefs, even though this thread isn't about that. I'm a man of science. I am also religious. I believe in miracles and I believe that the earth is not at the center of the universe or even our solar system. 1) I know neither can explain everything fully. 2) I know the Bible was written by man, but I believe that God and the Holy Spirit was powering the hands that wrote the different parts of the Good Book. I know that back then, the word gravity didn't exist (just an example not really going anywhere with gravity) so that leads me to believe that many of the things that were experienced and then written down couldn't possibly have been explained in terms we humans of today speak. 3)Kind of the same way we are trying to run a country with a constitution written a couple hundred years ago...abortion, internet, gays marrying...they couldn't possibly imagine those things then. So I take religion as what I want it to be and try to follow the rules that the God I believe in wants me to. The Bible is a guideline and the New Testament is simply that, a testament to the life of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
Get it now? I know the two (religion and science) can co-exist peacefully...I been this way for a while.

1) Science has explained this!

2) Well I am glad you believe it.... So which parts were written by god's motivation and which ones are not...... The bible is supposed to be a standard and, from what you have just written, this is a contradiction...

3) There is a huge difference between a constitution written by man and a bible written by a perfect being that trans ends the boundaries of time.... Do you think an Omnipotent being could not write a rule book that takes this into consideration? Not much faith there!

Use your online dictionary and look up humor. Then save a few cents and buy a clue so you know when it is used.

Use you back arrow icon to look at the rules of this thread, and show me you are following the rules....



I forgot...did you actually serve in the military? This is a serious question.

No, just worked for them.... My uncle, my father, my grandfather, authors of books I have read, soldiers that I have watched interviews, etc...

I have also helped developed additives for fuel used in a vacuum, but never been in a vacuum, do you have a point...


Very good. Now you understand what I been trying to do this whole time. You are trying to explain what you believe athiesm is. You are using your own opinions mixed in with some facts. You are failing to realize that atheism is converting itself into another ism. Pretty soon it will split into different levels and even you all will begin to fight amongst yourselves in the name of non-god-religion.

An absence of belief can not become an ism... And atheism has been around sense the agricultural revolution, but you have the understanding that is it about to change how?

I know what karma is, I watch My Name Is Earl. This is another attempt at that humor thing...did you look it up?

OK so what is karma?



1)Funny, considering I just went to a lecture on evolution versus intelligent design and everyone there praised the missing link theory. 2) Until I see a tick bowing down and praying on a ceremonial rug, I'm going to keep believing that animals don't think that way. 3) Also, re-read your own words. "christian" husbands took their wives to get fixed. God didn't tell them this, did he? show me the part in the bible where it says if your wife won't blow you you need to cut a chunk of brain out. Yeah, you COULD go on endlessly and it seems like you almost did. Are you against religion or against God? Look back at your own definition of the word atheist. It mentions nothing about religion, it mentions a disbelief in a supreme being. Seems to me most of your problems with things is against what man has twisted God to be for their own benefits.


1) You may want to ask for your money back for the class, because the missing link argument was cast out by biologists about 30 years ago... Evolution is the mutation of DNA over very long periods of time... Mutations that do not benefit an animal do not continue, because the animal is not alive long enough to reach sexual maturity.. The missing link theory would need a fast change over just a few generations, and evolutionary biologists do not subscribe to this and have not for ages!!!
2) More humor that contributes nothing to this thread.
3) No but my argument is that if god wrote a book on morality 2500 years before this and this was going on 50 years ago, god is ineffective and so why worship him... In addition, if the bible was a book keeping us moral, I would expect better results by then.

Lastly, if you would like to start asking me questions about atheists, instead of childishly looking to discredit or contradict me, maybe we will all learn something and have fun with this thread...

THANKS!

[ddoubleez]

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus
I think this thread's about played out...juan what do you think?

Been dead for a while. We have athiests speaking for other athiests who do not speak for other athiests who want to argue semantics and who don't want to answer questions with their own words.


Maybe the members of the forum can make this decision by way of perticipation..... The few times that I have been on in the past week, the tread is on top! And I have not bumed it once!

[Juan.Camaney]

Are you really trying to convince me that you know my motivation... Lol...
No, I'm telling the reader what you are doing.

I only want to bring an understanding to a group of people... Your comments on this thread and a couple of others indicates you are in need of this, but unwilling to conduct yourself in a manor that will be constructive....
Listen to what shiiboi said when he said he doesn't speak for all atheists. I don't need you to explain this to me, I deal with athiest daily. True athiests who just don't believe because of the events they dealt with personally have led them to their BELIEF that there is no god...and are content to just leave that alone and not try to publish a billion books on "don't pray no one is listening."

And as far as arguing this one sidely, do really think I need to argue against atheists? How am I expected to argue this more than one sidedly, even though many on this thread need my help..... What the fuck, I will help you for shits and giggles.... earlier, you tried to tell me that religion did do some good things and you brought up the ad and BC marks on the calendar (that are not accurate). If we did not have these points on a calendar, or life would not be any worse than it is now.... But I will toss you a bone, had you brought up that we have a lot of art because of religion, you would have actually had an effective argument... There, two sided and you are welcome for the help!!
You want to give the reader a better understanding, you do that by just presenting data...you were trying to throw in your personal views and call them athiest...then another athiest came in here and pretty much said, uh, no. So, better luck next time I guess. Oh and thanks for the "help" :hahano:

I dont assume people choose religion out of fear, most do not choose it at all, they are indoctrinated into it out of tradition, at an age before the capacity for reason or critical thinking... This is why religion is regional.... It is a social condition..
I don't know what your experience is with other peoples' religions, but I can tell you are pretty ignorant about it. Many religions don't get "baptized" until they are able to vote. If what you want to refer to as indoctrination before you are cognizant of whats out there and tie it into catholics' baptism when they are infants, remember that it is not until you get confirmed at a later age that you are allowed to marry and be a "man" or "woman" capable of making their own life altering decisions. Christianity isn't a synonim of religion, guy, there are more out there than that. You going to try to explain santeria and all the other stuff I posted and argue the same post, or are you going to keep ignoring my question cuz you can't?



However, if you look at the bible, you will see threats of vicious executions for those who do not believe, and the fact that if you do not choose god you will burn for all eternity, is a good argument that fear is a major motivator for many religions.....
Burning for all eternity is christian. I mentioned to you that jews don't have a hell and you choose to ignore it. Listen man if your beef is with christianity, by all means, hate it, Lord knows some of us have bastardized the name to the point where it needs a good flushing out, but don't defend athiesm by attacking christianity. That is where ignorance comes in...

No... And this is a VERY INACCURATE comment.... If I do not believe in a god, what am I? an atheist.... If I try to disprove a god I am a teacher....
:graffin: An individual can try to disprove God in his own mind without preaching to other people.

If you think an atheist wakes up one day and decides he will no longer believe in god, so he can devote a life to disproving god, you have a lot to learn.
I didn't say all athiests do that, I said the whole basis for athiesm comes from that. If a true athiest wants to stop believing, he arrives to that conclusion. Going out and publishing books is marketing and setting up reunions to disprove the theory (sorry boi) HYPOTHESIS that there is no God...that's just downright moronic. You are doing the same thing...forcing beliefs...or disbelief as the case may be, I really don't want to argue semantics again.

If you think an atheist wakes up one day and decides he does not want to be apart of a system that rewards the good and punishes the evil, while heaping blessings on mankind, you are wrong as well. To say that I do not want this to be true is wrong, I just can not believe it, and this is true with most atheists that I have come to understand.
You do know there are those who are religious and belong to a church and disagree with the way they do "business" right? Just keep that in mind before you try and stereotype every jebus/bible humper.

I am speaking for a majority of atheists... And comments like the above make me believe you are not participating in this thread for any reason other than to provoke people and create mischief....
YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT YOURSELF. YOU DO NOT QUESTION OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVES ON THIS FORUM.

And just about all the topics addressed in the eoth can be looked up on wiki or a dictionary.. Are you saying you would like us to stop creating topics for discussion so that ad revenue will decrease and fewer people will come here? So far you have done well discouraging participation on most topics that you do not like...
BS, the topics I don't like usually go on for pages and pages and pages, with or without my participation. However the ammount of PMs I get from people complaining about "progressive behavior".... ah hell, how many times have you been banned now?

Again, I defined who I was speaking about for this very reason, and the person that gives me a hard time about it seems to need the definition more than anyone else...
And I and others corrected you and are telling you, you do not speak for everyone or anyone but yourself. There are different levels of athiesm, you can't argue that. You want to categorize your belief system under one label, fine. But don't discourage others by branding yourself with the label and behaving in a manner that others despise.

An atheist is defined by someone who does not believe in a god at all... That is who I am speaking of..... You adding labels does not change this at all... If someone tells you they are an atheist and you ask them. 'what kind?' they will not know what you are asking, because the question is not appropriate...
lol oh really? So again, you speak for all athiests. Great. This is getting tired.

Well, naturally, I would argue that if religion is effective, this would not happen.. And if your god allows his religions to be manipulated or distorted, why would you call him god. You do know that paul wrote that god would not sound the trumpet of confusion, indicating that he (god) would protect his word.. There is also the numerous writings that there would be only one church.....
Do you know the difference between man and God? This is the whole basis of original sin. The fall of man. God DOES protect His word. Man decides to interpret it.

If I wanted to be a mod, I would ask waldo.... There is no need to warn me of something I am not doing.... For the rest of the statement, I do not understand what you are saying....
Okay well listen up once cuz I will only say it once more. Stay on topic, don't question the motives of other people, don't speak of the rules or refer to how people are breaking them. If you decide to do this, one month ban. Should be permaban since you are on your 3rd, but yeah....I like your participation around here sometimes.

I have stated that I am trying to lend understanding of what a disbeliever is.... And if you are trying to tell me that I am wrong about atheists because you know a few people that call themselves atheists but can not prove themselves, it is silly for a believer to ask a non-believer to explain why they do not believe...... It is for those that believe, to shoulder the burden....
And I am telling you you are just explaining your beliefs and trying to label them as athiest. A disbeliever is also not synonimous with athiest. I don't know a "few" people that "call" themselves athiest, I know several people who are athiest, deal with their own kind and regret that there is only one word in an attempt to be a catch all. See, lemme explain. If asked what denomination I am, I'd say catholic. If they ask me if I go to fish frys, play bingo, eat the food they sell at church, rape boys, and all the other stereotypes that a catholic has come to acquire, I can't say yes. In essence, if you haven't already figured it out, I am against labels. Which is why I had a problem with the title of this thread. Which is why I repped shiiboi once or twice for some of his points because they were well presented as his own and not misrepresented by generalization.

I do not think it is logical to ask someone why they do not think there is life on other planets, when there is no proof that there is.... But it would be very logical to ask someone that does believe in life on another planet that has no proof.... Just as it would be if someone told me that there were unicorns, it is not my burden to explain why there are not unicorns, but the burden of the unicorn believer to make his case..
Why is the onus on the believer. We have our books. We have our beliefs. We don't all go door to door trying to convince you to convert to be JW. We don't all stand in corners with signs. In a party, if you were there and I was wearing my cricifix and you questioned my motives, I'd simply retort with a "mind your own business and go get me a juice box." You can't use logic when dealing with beliefs, either to believe in God or not. I think we might be saying the same thing here....in a way.

Sorry if the above is confusing, if so I will further elaborate if needed.



1) Science has explained this!

2) Well I am glad you believe it.... So which parts were written by god's motivation and which ones are not...... The bible is supposed to be a standard and, from what you have just written, this is a contradiction...

3) There is a huge difference between a constitution written by man and a bible written by a perfect being that trans ends the boundaries of time.... Do you think an Omnipotent being could not write a rule book that takes this into consideration? Not much faith there!
1. Science is not static, it is a dynamic study that is ever changing including "laws" that require ammending.
2. Refer to the mind your own business and get me the juice box. I did my work for me. I'm not trying to convince you to believe. You have arrived to your opinion through your work. Be at peace with that.
3. Do you know the language the many portions of the bible were written in? I don't. Do I know where the "published by" page is on bibles...yeah, man did that. I already said its been bastardized and picking one up is not the same as picking up a different one from a different denomination. Christians believe Jesus had brothers. Catholics don't yet they are still considered Christian.

Use you back arrow icon to look at the rules of this thread, and show me you are following the rules....
Scroll up and look at where you are trying not to be a mod. I'm very tempted just to act now.

No, just worked for them.... My uncle, my father, my grandfather, authors of books I have read, soldiers that I have watched interviews, etc...
So you mean you are ignorantly spouting off at the mouth again.

I have also helped developed additives for fuel used in a vacuum, but never been in a vacuum, do you have a point...
I'm scratching my head here wondering the same thing.

An absence of belief can not become an ism... And atheism has been around sense the agricultural revolution, but you have the understanding that is it about to change how?
Okay not to argue about the language, but how can you claim an absence of belief can not become an ism and then type atheISM in the next sentence?

1) You may want to ask for your money back for the class, because the missing link argument was cast out by biologists about 30 years ago... Evolution is the mutation of DNA over very long periods of time... Mutations that do not benefit an animal do not continue, because the animal is not alive long enough to reach sexual maturity.. The missing link theory would need a fast change over just a few generations, and evolutionary biologists do not subscribe to this and have not for ages!!!

It was a free lecture, bud. So the theory of evolution has changed again, I see. The way they presented it was a missing step inbetween the classifications when we split off from "monkey men" to homo-sapiens and modern man. They have no clue how long it took since studies of skeletons found were believed to be in bad health and can't find more proof. They also went through the different theories that have spouted off from the original theory of evolution and also explained intelligent design. It really was a good lecture.

2) More humor that contributes nothing to this thread.
Easy there, dude. You aren't the only one reading and some people appreciate a laugh inbetween debates.

3) No but my argument is that if god wrote a book on morality 2500 years before this and this was going on 50 years ago, god is ineffective and so why worship him... In addition, if the bible was a book keeping us moral, I would expect better results by then.
Hehehe, I see you aren't too familiar with the good book except for those parts that are contradictory. Read up on the fall of man. Read up on where God actually regrets having created man. Read the parts where God doesn't decide what man does for himself. The bible *IS* a book keeping us moral, but man is a sinner by birth.

Lastly, if you would like to start asking me questions about atheists, instead of childishly looking to discredit or contradict me, maybe we will all learn something and have fun with this thread...
Thanks, but if a topic started out as a better understanding of a atheism and I read what you had to say and already thought to myself, geeze, more propaganda, I'd rather ask someone like shiiboi here (yeah boi eat it up I'm praising you :coold: ) who knows he doesn't speak for everyone, presents his own ideas (except for the youtube vid and the quote) and maintains that the theories believed by athiest can't explain everything fully but are more scientifically provable.

[kulotsalot]

To sum it up, ddeeeezzz is acting like those door-to-door, "bring Jesus into your life!" Christians we all love to hate, except trade the word "Jesus" for "atheism," and then he is wondering why we are not participating in this thread a lot more.

I am personally very glad to NOT be an atheist because this redonkulous (yes, I deliberately misspelled that) display is very disappointing. A lot of prominent thinkers are atheist therefore atheists are smarter?! Um, yeah, no. They are smart and they just happen to be atheists. Atheism did not make them any smarter.

[BackdoorJesus]

OK guys this one has gone on for a while and everyone seemingly has had their say...I'm closing this thread but I do want to say it has been a great debate and thanks for the good read.

If anyone out there REALLY feels they have a point to make - that has not already been covered in the last 4 pages - you can PM me & I'll consider re-opening this for you.

To close this, I will selfishly have the last word.


In the beginning was the Word.... :)