Orlanth wrote:Would you like to link a psycho killers ideologies to these faith groups?

Sure, why wouldn't I? In fact, some of them would encourage that kind of analogy.

dæl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?

Surely noone actually thought the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round (and even measured it) otherwise navigation at sea would have been impossible. We get told people thought that at school because it makes the whole Columbus thing a bit more romantic, but its pure BS.

The way I always understood the Columbus story was that the fight was not about flat earth vs. round earth. Everybody knew the Earth was round, they just didn't know how big it was. The establishment at the time thought the Earth was to big to reach the Indies from western Europe and Columbus thought it was smaller than it actually is. He was actually wrong (instead of being right which is the often cited flat/round version) and would have died long before reaching land if he wouldn't have happened to run into a continent nobody knew about.

But what do I know, I'm a dumb Christian

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Would you like to link a psycho killers ideologies to these faith groups?

Sure, why wouldn't I? In fact, some of them would encourage that kind of analogy.

Good point, well made.

This is why I love Bayonetta so much. At the end you get to punch God so hard she flies into the sun and explodes.

That and the main character is a sexy witch wearing nothing but glasses and her own hair. Which is awesome.

Kaldor wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kaldor wrote:
citation needed.
And that's another big 'ole citation needed.

I just gave you one, and told you where to find others.

Your a man of 'reason' and 'science'. Ok, show us you are. I told you where to look, see for yourself.

No, you don't get let off so easily.

Where are your citations? Such a common phenomena must be easily tested and verified, so where is your evidence? If no relevant studies have been made (remember, they need to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals) then where is your basis for your claim?

How many scientists have heard that same challange, only to be vindicated years, or even centuries later? I don't know of any reputable scientist who admits being privy to all the knowledge there is to be had.
Just because people didn't understand or see radio waves for thousands of years didn't mean they weren't there. I have faith that the same things are going to be true for a lot of religious beliefs, and it will be in the nature of something that's right in our face that we will finally be able to recognize as a whole people.

d-usa wrote:

dæl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?

Surely noone actually thought the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round (and even measured it) otherwise navigation at sea would have been impossible. We get told people thought that at school because it makes the whole Columbus thing a bit more romantic, but its pure BS.

The way I always understood the Columbus story was that the fight was not about flat earth vs. round earth. Everybody knew the Earth was round, they just didn't know how big it was. The establishment at the time thought the Earth was to big to reach the Indies from western Europe and Columbus thought it was smaller than it actually is. He was actually wrong (instead of being right which is the often cited flat/round version) and would have died long before reaching land if he wouldn't have happened to run into a continent nobody knew about.

But what do I know, I'm a dumb Christian

No, you are absolutely right. Just gets taught in schools over here as flat/round argument, which is stupid.

btw I never claimed you were dumb, mildly illogical, but not dumb.

dæl wrote:

d-usa wrote:

dæl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?

Surely noone actually thought the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round (and even measured it) otherwise navigation at sea would have been impossible. We get told people thought that at school because it makes the whole Columbus thing a bit more romantic, but its pure BS.

The way I always understood the Columbus story was that the fight was not about flat earth vs. round earth. Everybody knew the Earth was round, they just didn't know how big it was. The establishment at the time thought the Earth was to big to reach the Indies from western Europe and Columbus thought it was smaller than it actually is. He was actually wrong (instead of being right which is the often cited flat/round version) and would have died long before reaching land if he wouldn't have happened to run into a continent nobody knew about.

But what do I know, I'm a dumb Christian

No, you are absolutely right. Just gets taught in schools over here as flat/round argument, which is stupid.

btw I never claimed you were dumb, mildly illogical, but not dumb.

I think the majority of history taught at High Schools is crap. First thing you need to do when you go to a university is to hit the reset button on all the History you learned.

Relapse wrote:
How many scientists have heard that same challange, only to be vindicated years, or even centuries later? I don't know of any reputable scientist who admits being privy to all the knowledge there is to be had.
Just because people didn't understand or see radio waves for thousands of years didn't mean they weren't there. I have faith that the same things are going to be true for a lot of religious beliefs, and it will be in the nature of something that's right in our face that we will finally be able to recognize as a whole people.

Doesn't the proof of God invalidate faith though?

Douglas Adams sort of wrote:`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `We now have proof.' It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

dæl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?

Surely noone actually thought the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round (and even measured it) otherwise navigation at sea would have been impossible. We get told people thought that at school because it makes the whole Columbus thing a bit more romantic, but its pure BS. If you watch a ship coming over the horizon the mast appears first.

google the flat earth society and see where they get that idea from

Eventually everyone will realize God exists, just like everyone knows about radio waves. Faith will be rewarded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Faith preceeds the miracle.

I think the majority of history taught at High Schools is crap.

QTF.

And no, not that many people believed the world was flat. Ever, really. The Medieval Arabs also measured the Earths circumference and even the moons. They had to to start trying to calculate Earths orbit around the sun.

Then why in the name of any god which you may or may nit believe in doesn't he stop arsing around, pop his head out from the clouds, and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. I probably should have told you earlier. Sorry about that! Still, you came up with some very good theories, well done on using your heads."

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

(Edited away huge quote pyramid)

I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.

Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.

And last I checked fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well

Fixed that for you.

Again, that particular group does not speak for all Christians and certainly does not speak for all theists.

You were the one who started by saying all theists accept science with an open mind, so if its all of you, then you can't back out now. aren't you a christian, and a theist? just like those fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. So obviously you all believe the same thing. After all how could 1 god and 1 bible with 1 teacher be so contradictory?

sirlynchmob wrote:
google the flat earth society and see where they get that idea from

WTF. So the horizon is created by dark energy?

How can these people actually exist, that's the real question here.

Squigsquasher wrote:Then why in the name of any god which you may or may nit believe in doesn't he stop arsing around, pop his head out from the clouds, and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. I probably should have told you earlier. Sorry about that! Still, you came up with some very good theories, well done on using your heads."

Because we are his literal sons and daughters, put here to prove ourselves worthy of a divine inheritance. Everyone will have a chance to learn the truth of things in this life or the next and act according to their nature on what they learn. In this way everyone will prove to themselves where they belong, either in God's presence or out of it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

(Edited away huge quote pyramid)

I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.

Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.

And last I checked fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well

Fixed that for you.

Again, that particular group does not speak for all Christians and certainly does not speak for all theists.

You were the one who started by saying all theists accept science with an open mind, so if its all of you, then you can't back out now. aren't you a christian, and a theist? just like those fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. So obviously you all believe the same thing. After all how could 1 god and 1 bible with 1 teacher be so contradictory?

Can you please provide me the quote where I said that, because I honestly don't remember saying that. My recollection is that I said that being a theist doesn't mean you don't believe in science and that your statement that theist = non-scientist is incorrect.

Some atheists already formed a church, so atheism must be a religion. How can one group that doesn't believe in a god be so contradictory? See, absolutes don't work.

Relapse wrote:Because we are his literal sons and daughters

Her. Kali is female. We are her sons and daughters.

She is also blue, well endowed and has too many arms (as far as I know).

Maybe Hinduism is Slaaneshism in disguise.

Blue multi-armed chicks need love too

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

(Edited away huge quote pyramid)

I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.

Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.

And last I checked fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well

Fixed that for you.

Again, that particular group does not speak for all Christians and certainly does not speak for all theists.

You were the one who started by saying all theists accept science with an open mind, so if its all of you, then you can't back out now. aren't you a christian, and a theist? just like those fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. So obviously you all believe the same thing. After all how could 1 god and 1 bible with 1 teacher be so contradictory?

Because the true prophets were killed off when the last of the Apostles were martyred(except for John, who Jesus promised would be around to see the second coming). Even when the Apostles were around, they had to go around correcting those who were departing from the doctrines Jesus laid down. Check out the Acts and Letters section of the Bible to see what I mean.

Squigsquasher wrote:She is also blue, well endowed and has too many arms (as far as I know).

Kali is often described as black as well, and has just the right amount of arms.

LordofHats wrote:Blue multi-armed chicks need love too

Yep. I bet she gives great hugs.

Aww, now I'm getting warm fuzzy feelings...

Relapse wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Then why in the name of any god which you may or may nit believe in doesn't he stop arsing around, pop his head out from the clouds, and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. I probably should have told you earlier. Sorry about that! Still, you came up with some very good theories, well done on using your heads."

Because we are his literal sons and daughters, put here to prove ourselves worthy of a divine inheritance. Everyone will have a chance to learn the truth of things in this life or the next and act according to their nature on what they learn. In this way everyone will prove to themselves where they belong, either in God's presence or out of it.

I live a good life and judge my decisions on a form of hedonic calculus, I promote happiness to as many as possible, and do not cause suffering. I will not worship anything I deem selfish and immoral. For this I will burn for eternity.

What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

Hmmm... I think I'll be alright without religion, thanks anyway.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You were the one who started by saying all theists accept science with an open mind, so if its all of you, then you can't back out now. aren't you a christian, and a theist? just like those fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. So obviously you all believe the same thing. After all how could 1 god and 1 bible with 1 teacher be so contradictory?

Can you please provide me the quote where I said that, because I honestly don't remember saying that. My recollection is that I said that being a theist doesn't mean you don't believe in science and that your statement that theist = non-scientist is incorrect.

Some atheists already formed a church, so atheism must be a religion. How can one group that doesn't believe in a god be so contradictory? See, absolutes don't work.

Decided to go back and try to find where I said what you claim I said, here is what I found:

Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.

I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".

Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you claimed I said.

Really, other than the way religious groups have misused God to get their way and to oppress opposing thoughts there is only one major difference between atheists and theists:

Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.

Again, I make it clear that there are religious groups that have oppressed thoughts.

dæl wrote:

What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

That's not a reasonable characterization of the average Christian life at all.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

(Edited away huge quote pyramid)

I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.

Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.

And last I checked fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well

Fixed that for you.

Again, that particular group does not speak for all Christians and certainly does not speak for all theists.

You were the one who started by saying all theists accept science with an open mind, so if its all of you, then you can't back out now. aren't you a christian, and a theist? just like those fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. So obviously you all believe the same thing. After all how could 1 god and 1 bible with 1 teacher be so contradictory?

Can you please provide me the quote where I said that, because I honestly don't remember saying that. My recollection is that I said that being a theist doesn't mean you don't believe in science and that your statement that theist = non-scientist is incorrect.

Some atheists already formed a church, so atheism must be a religion. How can one group that doesn't believe in a god be so contradictory? See, absolutes don't work.

here you go, from page 11:
"Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had something to do with it though. "

You claim all theists are open to new ideas and hypothesis, yet when its pointed out the many theists that don't you start backing away from those groups within your religion.
see, you're using absolutes. so just because some atheists make a church of atheism, that in no way imply's all atheists. As I am not a part of that religion I am neither a theist or an atheist. See how fun this gets

dæl wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Then why in the name of any god which you may or may nit believe in doesn't he stop arsing around, pop his head out from the clouds, and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. I probably should have told you earlier. Sorry about that! Still, you came up with some very good theories, well done on using your heads."

Because we are his literal sons and daughters, put here to prove ourselves worthy of a divine inheritance. Everyone will have a chance to learn the truth of things in this life or the next and act according to their nature on what they learn. In this way everyone will prove to themselves where they belong, either in God's presence or out of it.

I live a good life and judge my decisions on a form of hedonic calculus, I promote happiness to as many as possible, and do not cause suffering. I will not worship anything I deem selfish and immoral. For this I will burn for eternity.

What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

Hmmm... I think I'll be alright without religion, thanks anyway.

First off, you are not in liklihood going to burn. We are the children of an all loving God, and as a loving father, he will not huck you into flames for making mistakes or not worshiping him.
I go to church, have children that I don't abuse, but love more than life, nor do I lay guilt trips on people. My story is repeated in millions of church going homes.
The child abuse guilt trip thing you mention is also repeated in millions of athiest homes, and is not exclusive to people who purport to be good Christians.

dæl wrote:What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

If this is really your understanding of Christian teachings, you have grossly misinterpreted and misunderstood them. The level of ignorance is almost criminal. I don't know how anyone could claim to cherish reason and logic, and then come to conclusions about a set of teachings that so completely disregards the primary text.

The whole flames thing is a huge misconception, by the way.

Vaerros wrote:

dæl wrote:

What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

That's not a reasonable characterization of the average Christian life at all.

No its an extreme, but valid one on the fact that faith means more than actions or intentions. I refer you to the first 4 commandments, they concern worship, not behaviour.

As is said, faith without works is dead. You have to back up what you say you believe with good works. On the other han, you have to do these works out of love and concern or they mean nothing, either.

Relapse wrote:
First off, you are not in liklihood going to burn. We are the children of an all loving God, and as a loving father, he will not huck you into flames for making mistakes or not worshiping him.
I go to church, have children that I don't abuse, but love more than life, nor do I lay guilt trips on people. My story is repeated in millions of church going homes.
The child abuse guilt trip thing you mention is also repeated in millions of athiest homes, and is not exclusive to people who purport to be good Christians.

The guilt for ones actions is pretty Catholic, but of course you are right that child abusers are not solely Christians, that would be absurd.

My point was that a good life without worship would not be rewarded, while a horrendous one with worship and repentance would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote: you have to do these works out of love and concern or they mean nothing, either.

Meta Ethics? There goes all those that bought into Pascals wager then.

Relapse wrote:

dæl wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Then why in the name of any god which you may or may nit believe in doesn't he stop arsing around, pop his head out from the clouds, and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. I probably should have told you earlier. Sorry about that! Still, you came up with some very good theories, well done on using your heads."

Because we are his literal sons and daughters, put here to prove ourselves worthy of a divine inheritance. Everyone will have a chance to learn the truth of things in this life or the next and act according to their nature on what they learn. In this way everyone will prove to themselves where they belong, either in God's presence or out of it.

I live a good life and judge my decisions on a form of hedonic calculus, I promote happiness to as many as possible, and do not cause suffering. I will not worship anything I deem selfish and immoral. For this I will burn for eternity.

What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

Hmmm... I think I'll be alright without religion, thanks anyway.

First off, you are not in liklihood going to burn. We are the children of an all loving God, and as a loving father, he will not huck you into flames for making mistakes or not worshiping him.
I go to church, have children that I don't abuse, but love more than life, nor do I lay guilt trips on people. My story is repeated in millions of church going homes.
The child abuse guilt trip thing you mention is also repeated in millions of athiest homes, and is not exclusive to people who purport to be good Christians.

Oh yes, the 2011 tsunami and just about every other natural disaster were such wonderful displays of love and kindness...

dæl wrote:

Relapse wrote:
First off, you are not in liklihood going to burn. We are the children of an all loving God, and as a loving father, he will not huck you into flames for making mistakes or not worshiping him.
I go to church, have children that I don't abuse, but love more than life, nor do I lay guilt trips on people. My story is repeated in millions of church going homes.
The child abuse guilt trip thing you mention is also repeated in millions of athiest homes, and is not exclusive to people who purport to be good Christians.

The guilt for ones actions is pretty Catholic, but of course you are right that child abusers are not solely Christians, that would be absurd.

My point was that a good life without worship would not be rewarded, while a horrendous one with worship and repentance would be.

And that doesn't just seem backwards to you? so your god is just so shallow he'd rather have people who worship him, then are good? So surely Hitler is up in heaven, because he worshiped, and I'm sure he repented before he died.

Squigsquasher wrote:
Oh yes, the 2011 tsunami and just about every other natural disaster were such wonderful displays of love and kindness...

sirlynchmob wrote:
And that doesn't just seem backwards to you? so your god is just so shallow he'd rather have people who worship him, then are good? So surely Hitler is up in heaven, because he worshiped, and I'm sure he repented before he died.

Common criticisms, of course -- "If God is so good and great, why doesn't he stop #{x} or help me out with #{y}.", but it's a not a valid criticism against my own beliefs(of course other posters, I can't speak for). That said, it's usually not a great idea, in the interest of communicating a point, to paint with such a broad brush.

Squigsquasher wrote:

Relapse wrote:

dæl wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Then why in the name of any god which you may or may nit believe in doesn't he stop arsing around, pop his head out from the clouds, and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. I probably should have told you earlier. Sorry about that! Still, you came up with some very good theories, well done on using your heads."

Because we are his literal sons and daughters, put here to prove ourselves worthy of a divine inheritance. Everyone will have a chance to learn the truth of things in this life or the next and act according to their nature on what they learn. In this way everyone will prove to themselves where they belong, either in God's presence or out of it.

I live a good life and judge my decisions on a form of hedonic calculus, I promote happiness to as many as possible, and do not cause suffering. I will not worship anything I deem selfish and immoral. For this I will burn for eternity.

What I should have done was , join the Church, abuse children so they grow up and abuse other children, cause people to feel guilty for their actions, promote self interest of my institution and bow in reverence to a hope. For this I would gain salvation.

Hmmm... I think I'll be alright without religion, thanks anyway.

First off, you are not in liklihood going to burn. We are the children of an all loving God, and as a loving father, he will not huck you into flames for making mistakes or not worshiping him.
I go to church, have children that I don't abuse, but love more than life, nor do I lay guilt trips on people. My story is repeated in millions of church going homes.
The child abuse guilt trip thing you mention is also repeated in millions of athiest homes, and is not exclusive to people who purport to be good Christians.

Oh yes, the 2011 tsunami and just about every other natural disaster were such wonderful displays of love and kindness...

We have been put here to be tested and to learn in order to become worthy inherators of that God has to give us. We all have different strengths and weaknesses that we need to learn to utilize or overcome. That is why these things happen. It's like the old saying about God where he declares that he never said it would be easy, but that it would be worth it.

Vaerros wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:
Oh yes, the 2011 tsunami and just about every other natural disaster were such wonderful displays of love and kindness...

sirlynchmob wrote:
And that doesn't just seem backwards to you? so your god is just so shallow he'd rather have people who worship him, then are good? So surely Hitler is up in heaven, because he worshiped, and I'm sure he repented before he died.

Common criticisms, of course -- "If God is so good and great, why doesn't he stop #{x} or help me out with #{y}.", but it's a not a valid criticism against my own beliefs(of course other posters, I can't speak for). That said, it's usually not a great idea, in the interest of communicating a point, to paint with such a broad brush.

Normally I refrain from all statements, but you must be new to this thread. Read through it, its all about all theists and all atheists. so if the hat fits, wear it. But you also didn't state that hitler did not end up in heaven.

Bollocks!

If god is so omnipotent and wanted worthy inheritors he should have just made us worthy in the first place and spared us a lot of bother. This god is clearly an illogical idiot who delights in complicating matters unnecessarily.

Also, I'm sure he could think of some tests that didn't involve millions of innocent people dying every year.

That or he's a spanker.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

(Edited away huge quote pyramid)

I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.

Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.

And last I checked fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well

Fixed that for you.

Again, that particular group does not speak for all Christians and certainly does not speak for all theists.

You were the one who started by saying all theists accept science with an open mind, so if its all of you, then you can't back out now. aren't you a christian, and a theist? just like those fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. So obviously you all believe the same thing. After all how could 1 god and 1 bible with 1 teacher be so contradictory?

Can you please provide me the quote where I said that, because I honestly don't remember saying that. My recollection is that I said that being a theist doesn't mean you don't believe in science and that your statement that theist = non-scientist is incorrect.

Some atheists already formed a church, so atheism must be a religion. How can one group that doesn't believe in a god be so contradictory? See, absolutes don't work.

here you go, from page 11:
"Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had something to do with it though. "

You claim all theists are open to new ideas and hypothesis, yet when its pointed out the many theists that don't you start backing away from those groups within your religion.
see, you're using absolutes. so just because some atheists make a church of atheism, that in no way imply's all atheists. As I am not a part of that religion I am neither a theist or an atheist. See how fun this gets

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

Edit: heck, after reviewing those posts I even prefaced the exchange you quoted with "other than the extreme who use science to repress thoughts". So if you are going to quote me at least be truthful.

sirlynchmob wrote:

dæl wrote:

Relapse wrote:
First off, you are not in liklihood going to burn. We are the children of an all loving God, and as a loving father, he will not huck you into flames for making mistakes or not worshiping him.
I go to church, have children that I don't abuse, but love more than life, nor do I lay guilt trips on people. My story is repeated in millions of church going homes.
The child abuse guilt trip thing you mention is also repeated in millions of athiest homes, and is not exclusive to people who purport to be good Christians.

The guilt for ones actions is pretty Catholic, but of course you are right that child abusers are not solely Christians, that would be absurd.

My point was that a good life without worship would not be rewarded, while a horrendous one with worship and repentance would be.

And that doesn't just seem backwards to you? so your god is just so shallow he'd rather have people who worship him, then are good? So surely Hitler is up in heaven, because he worshiped, and I'm sure he repented before he died.

I didn't say everyone was guaranteed a ticket to God's presence, but they most certainly won't burn in Hell in flames, either.
Consider this, God is all loving and all knowing. Why would an all loving and all knowing being create a race of intelligent beings when he knows some or most might fall short of his directions and punish those that fail with eternal torment in fire?

Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

Squigsquasher wrote:Bollocks!

If god is so omnipotent and wanted worthy inheritors he should have just made us worthy in the first place and spared us a lot of bother. This god is clearly an illogical idiot who delights in complicating matters unnecessarily.

Also, I'm sure he could think of some tests that didn't involve millions of innocent people dying every year.

That or he's a spanker.

What adult that you ever knew that was spoon f ed and coddled all his life was worth anything when put out on his own in the big wide world?
The same applies with our relationship to God. He put us here to learn how to become as he is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

To learn right from wrong and how to act on it.

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Relapse wrote:I didn't say everyone was guaranteed a ticket to God's presence, but they most certainly won't burn in Hell in flames, either.
Consider this, God is all loving and all knowing. Why would an all loving and all knowing being create a race of intelligent beings when he knows some or most might fall short of his directions and punish those that fail with eternal torment in fire?

God is the ultimate Troll? And His Trolliness delights in schadenfreude.

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

Squigsquasher wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It makes it more interesting for us. And didn't you read what Relapse wrote? What good would it do to be coddled?

Hordini wrote:What good would it do to be coddled?

It would be warm, and coddly, and there would be fewer tsunamis.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Vaerros wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:
Oh yes, the 2011 tsunami and just about every other natural disaster were such wonderful displays of love and kindness...

sirlynchmob wrote:
And that doesn't just seem backwards to you? so your god is just so shallow he'd rather have people who worship him, then are good? So surely Hitler is up in heaven, because he worshiped, and I'm sure he repented before he died.

Common criticisms, of course -- "If God is so good and great, why doesn't he stop #{x} or help me out with #{y}.", but it's a not a valid criticism against my own beliefs(of course other posters, I can't speak for). That said, it's usually not a great idea, in the interest of communicating a point, to paint with such a broad brush.

Normally I refrain from all statements, but you must be new to this thread. Read through it, its all about all theists and all atheists. so if the hat fits, wear it. But you also didn't state that hitler did not end up in heaven.

I don't have orthodox views on the concepts of heaven and hell, so I guess the hat doesn't fit(covering both points).

dæl wrote:

Relapse wrote:I didn't say everyone was guaranteed a ticket to God's presence, but they most certainly won't burn in Hell in flames, either.
Consider this, God is all loving and all knowing. Why would an all loving and all knowing being create a race of intelligent beings when he knows some or most might fall short of his directions and punish those that fail with eternal torment in fire?

God is the ultimate Troll? And His Trolliness delights in schadenfreude.

As I said earlier, we are put here to learn how to be worthy of God's inheratence. We aren't going to be like pampered pets in the next life, just sitting on a cloud somewhere. We have to learn compassion and wisdom in this life to handle the next.

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:What good would it do to be coddled?

It would be warm, and coddly, and there would be fewer tsunamis.

It doesn't sound like there'd be much need for growth and learning then, since everything would be peachy and there'd be no challenge or purpose to anything.

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It makes it more interesting for us. And didn't you read what Relapse wrote? What good would it do to be coddled?

I was coddled, silver-spoon fed, and treated like a child-prince. Overall, I turned out to be a fine human being, maybe a bit arrogant and lazy, admittedly, but otherwise I have no real big sins...

And this doesn't take in account all the situations were evil befall human beings that are incapable of learning from the tragic events, like kids and stuff.

Why would God make viruses?

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:What good would it do to be coddled?

It would be warm, and coddly, and there would be fewer tsunamis.

It doesn't sound like there'd be much need for growth and learning then, since everything would be peachy and there'd be no challenge or purpose to anything.

No, there would be more room for growth and learning, as we could concentrate on learning rather than worrying about god spilling another tsunami like a clumsy anime maid.

Hummm Giant clumsy anime maid in the sky...

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:What good would it do to be coddled?

It would be warm, and coddly, and there would be fewer tsunamis.

It doesn't sound like there'd be much need for growth and learning then, since everything would be peachy and there'd be no challenge or purpose to anything.

There's definitly going to be purpose. That's why we are here now, in the same way a father interested in his children growing to be adults capable of making intelligent decisions and being strong, so it is with God's relationship with us. The hardships we suffer in this life make us understand and be more compassionate to the harships others endure, Ideally, we should be taking care of each other and raising each other up. We have been given free will to choose what we do, though, and it is on these desicians that we basically make our choice on whether to be in God's presence or out of it, although I will hasten to add, there won't be a fiery hell awaiting those who fall short.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It makes it more interesting for us. And didn't you read what Relapse wrote? What good would it do to be coddled?

I was coddled, silver-spoon fed, and treated like a child-prince. Overall, I turned out to be a fine human being, maybe a bit arrogant and lazy, admittedly, but otherwise I have no real big sins...

And this doesn't take in account all the situations were evil befall human beings that are incapable of learning from the tragic events, like kids and stuff.

Why would God make viruses?

I guess he would make viruses to fill the role of a virus. Why would he make people who could become doctors and treat the sick? Why would he do anything? I'm not sure that "Why would God do this or that" is an argument that goes anywhere particularly useful.

@Kovnik

Were you entirely protected from every mischance that could befall you? Were you not allowed to do anything for yourself?

Hordini wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It makes it more interesting for us. And didn't you read what Relapse wrote? What good would it do to be coddled?

I was coddled, silver-spoon fed, and treated like a child-prince. Overall, I turned out to be a fine human being, maybe a bit arrogant and lazy, admittedly, but otherwise I have no real big sins...

And this doesn't take in account all the situations were evil befall human beings that are incapable of learning from the tragic events, like kids and stuff.

Why would God make viruses?

I guess he would make viruses to fill the role of a virus. Why would he make people who could become doctors and treat the sick? Why would he do anything? I'm not sure that "Why would God do this or that" is an argument that goes anywhere particularly useful.

Well then you refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Fine and all for you, but when people make a claim, other people try and work out the implications of the claim. Maybe you'd see how your position is precarious if you bothered to ask those questions?

@Relapse : No, of course not, but let's say at least that I have lived a VERY confortable life. But more importantly, I do not see how my worth, as a human being, is any more determined by the hardship I have lived through (and I have lived some pretty effed up stuff, just few moments in comparison).

In fact, I tthink it's quite the contrary. A person tend to lose hope when he lived through constant hardships/hardships he doesn't feel he has control over. The fact that I have had a very very good life prepared me better than quite a few 'rougher' people I have know, IMO. I never learned to accept those hardships as 'something okay' for starters.

This is turning into a really good discussion, but I have places to go and people to meet.
I'll try to get back to this thread as soon as I can.

@ Kovnik,

Why did God create viruses? Once again for us to learn by experience. As far as children being incapable of learning, we all learn something either in this life or the next.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Hummm Giant clumsy anime maid in the sky...

Yep. Makes him/her seem slightly more understandable.

This means that Satan is a well-meaning but unfortunate bandage girl moeblob.

Which sounds like a unit out of the Slaanesh section of Codex: Chaos Deamons if it was written by Matt Ward.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

What are you even trying to say anymore?

You educate me that theists mean everybody that believes in a god (which is the way I have been using it) while you have been using theists as "all theists hate science and think the earth is flat and want to teach a 6000 young earth creation theory" aka a very specific subset of Christians.

I think you are getting caught up in your own arguments and falling over the points you are trying to make while I have been pretty consistent in saying that the majority of theists (with the exception of the specirfic anti-science subsets which really only consists of a small subgroup of protestant Christians while Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity) don't have a problem with science.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It makes it more interesting for us. And didn't you read what Relapse wrote? What good would it do to be coddled?

I was coddled, silver-spoon fed, and treated like a child-prince. Overall, I turned out to be a fine human being, maybe a bit arrogant and lazy, admittedly, but otherwise I have no real big sins...

And this doesn't take in account all the situations were evil befall human beings that are incapable of learning from the tragic events, like kids and stuff.

Why would God make viruses?

I guess he would make viruses to fill the role of a virus. Why would he make people who could become doctors and treat the sick? Why would he do anything? I'm not sure that "Why would God do this or that" is an argument that goes anywhere particularly useful.

Well then you refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Fine and all for you, but when people make a claim, other people try and work out the implications of the claim. Maybe you'd see how your position is precarious if you bothered to ask those questions?

No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

Maybe atheists should start identifying themselves more specifically, be it Utilitarian, or Pluralist, or Marxist or whatever. Seems a lot of the issues religious people have is with anti-theists, and as atheists are just one giant amalgamated blob atm, they could stop accusing all of us of the actions of the few, Christianity does that by segregating off its fundamentalists, why don't we?

Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

what you don't know the verse?
matthew 6:1
Matthew 7:5
1 John 2:9
but really all of matthew.

using the word atheist implies all atheists, just like the word theist implies all theists.

and about heaven and faith:

James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Maybe atheists should start identifying themselves more specifically, be it Utilitarian, or Pluralist, or Marxist or whatever. Seems a lot of the issues religious people have is with anti-theists, and as atheists are just one giant amalgamated blob atm, they could stop accusing all of us of the actions of the few, Christianity does that by segregating off its fundamentalists, why don't we?

most atheists do, its the christians who focus on the atheist part. I myself am a metaphysical naturalist.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

using the word atheist implies all atheists, just like the word theist implies all theists.

I always thought saying "all atheists" implies all atheists and "all theists" implies all theists.

Especially when I preceded my generalizations with examples of how there are theists that don't believe in science.

I am going to assume that you are the only poster that is taking my words that way, since you are the only one that is so hung up on them. Maybe I am wrong, and if so I ask all the other atheists to please tell me so just to make sure of it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

what you don't know the verse?
matthew 6:1
Matthew 7:5
1 John 2:9
but really all of matthew.

using the word atheist implies all atheists, just like the word theist implies all theists.

and about heaven and faith:

James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Maybe atheists should start identifying themselves more specifically, be it Utilitarian, or Pluralist, or Marxist or whatever. Seems a lot of the issues religious people have is with anti-theists, and as atheists are just one giant amalgamated blob atm, they could stop accusing all of us of the actions of the few, Christianity does that by segregating off its fundamentalists, why don't we?

most atheists do, its the christians who focus on the atheist part. I myself am a metaphysical naturalist.

That's a good verse, thanks for posting it.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

What are you even trying to say anymore?

You educate me that theists mean everybody that believes in a god (which is the way I have been using it) while you have been using theists as "all theists hate science and think the earth is flat and want to teach a 6000 young earth creation theory" aka a very specific subset of Christians.

I think you are getting caught up in your own arguments and falling over the points you are trying to make while I have been pretty consistent in saying that the majority of theists (with the exception of the specirfic anti-science subsets which really only consists of a small subgroup of protestant Christians while Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity) don't have a problem with science.

If you were using theist properly, then why did you ask me to show you where you said all theists? you keep changing your argument with every post, please pick one and stick with it. show me any post you've made that said majority of theists?

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

What are you even trying to say anymore?

You educate me that theists mean everybody that believes in a god (which is the way I have been using it) while you have been using theists as "all theists hate science and think the earth is flat and want to teach a 6000 young earth creation theory" aka a very specific subset of Christians.

I think you are getting caught up in your own arguments and falling over the points you are trying to make while I have been pretty consistent in saying that the majority of theists (with the exception of the specirfic anti-science subsets which really only consists of a small subgroup of protestant Christians while Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity) don't have a problem with science.

If you were using theist properly, then why did you ask me to show you where you said all theists? you keep changing your argument with every post, please pick one and stick with it. show me any post you've made that said majority of theists?

Because "theists" =/= "all theists"?
Fine, I will repeat myself again:

From page 10:

don't think religion should be used to explain science, and science cannot be used to explain religion. Yet fundamentalist religious groups want to fight science and fundamentalist anti-theist groups want to use science as a weapon against God. To me science is amazing and I believe that it can be used to explain how God created things and how He made the universe happen.

Really, other than the way religious groups have misused God to get their way and to oppress opposing thoughts there is only one major difference between atheists and theists:

Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.

I made it clear that there are fundamentalist religioius groups that want to fight science (a subgroup of theists) and fundamentalist anti-theist groups (a sub group of atheists).

You then proceeded to only quote the Atheist/Theist argument to change it to what you think it should say so I quoted the portion that you changed. Nothing changed in my position during the mean time.

And I said the exact same thing again in page 11:

d-usa wrote:Decided to go back and try to find where I said what you claim I said, here is what I found:

Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.

I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".

Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you claimed I said.

Really, other than the way religious groups have misused God to get their way and to oppress opposing thoughts there is only one major difference between atheists and theists:

Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.

Again, I make it clear that there are religious groups that have oppressed thoughts.

If you keep on trying to twist what I am saying, or if consistency is too confusing, then I guess there is no further point to this back and forth.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04% (2009 est.)

So maybe not small, but "not a majority" would have been a better description.

Squigsquasher wrote:
Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

If God made men in his own image, why should it be such a surprise that he's a bit twisted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

Then if you throw in the other Abrahamics it works out to be around 50% of the global population.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

Then if you throw in the other Abrahamics it works out to be around 50% of the global population.

And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Hordini wrote:
No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God.

Indeed, one might argue that the only rational answer is to not ask the question.

How does one understand the motivations of the one theoretically doing the motivating?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

True.

I think that some use the word atheist in the same matter that the word "heathen" was used, so more of a 'not one of us' kind of way. So for some people atheists may not mean "no belief in a god" but instead "no belief in a Christian (or Abrahamic) God", so even if you believe in a deity they may still classify you as an atheist.

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

So what do you think the word atheist means?

theist = someone who believes in a god or gods.
atheist = someone who lacks a belief in god or gods.
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

When you say atheists, you are referring to all atheists. and theist = all theists.
If you don't want to address all of them, then you use quantitative words with it, few, little, lots, many, most, etc
a few atheists have formed a atheistic religion. most theists have never read the bible. etc.

atheism is not a religion, its a label used to indicate your answer to one question was no. that's it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

So what do you think the word atheist means?

theist = someone who believes in a god or gods.
atheist = someone who lacks a belief in god or gods.
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

When you say atheists, you are referring to all atheists. and theist = all theists.

So just a few lines apart you used theist to talk about "one person aka someone who believes in a god or gods" and then you jump to the definition of theist "all people that believe in a god or gods".

This is so confusing...

How about I use the quantitative word "all" if I want to talk about "all atheists" or "all theists".

sirlynchmob wrote:
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

No, that statement doesn't imply that all dictionaries are good. The phrase "Dictionaries are good." might refer to all dictionaries, or only some of them. Its nonspecific.

sirlynchmob wrote:
atheism is not a religion, its a label used to indicate your answer to one question was no. that's it.

I'm well aware of what the word means, I've had this argument on this site dozens of times, and dozens more on others. But the simple fact that I've had this argument dozens of times, in many different places, should show that the word, as used by the general public, is not much like the word as used by people in the know. Sort of like how "agnostic" is treated as a half-way point between atheism and theism.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

So what do you think the word atheist means?

theist = someone who believes in a god or gods.
atheist = someone who lacks a belief in god or gods.
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

When you say atheists, you are referring to all atheists. and theist = all theists.

So just a few lines apart you used theist to talk about "one person aka someone who believes in a god or gods" and then you jump to the definition of theist "all people that believe in a god or gods".

This is so confusing...

How about I use the quantitative word "all" if I want to talk about "all atheists" or "all theists".

Stay in school.

Its obvious you don't get it as you've been wrong in every post you've made.

Everyone needs to be sorted into their labels right? so you ask someone do you believe in a god? if yes, your a theists, if no your an atheists.
a theist is one theist, an atheist is one atheist.
When you use them in a sentence as just theists you are referring to all theists (everyone who answered yes). when you say atheists you are referring to all atheists (everyone who answered no). With another sub group in atheists which include anyone who hasn't answered yet. ie babies, because if they haven't answered yes, then they are not a theists, ergo babies are atheists.
'all theists' is redundant.

Hordini wrote:No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

The implications would be many. Viruses have no 'natural virtues', in the sense that they don't have any redeeming factors to them. They exists solely to destroy other beings and multiply themselves, thus creating more destruction. If life is a gift from God, why would he create something that has no embellishing value to it, and is only a destructive force? (and one that improves on itself on top of things).

You are the one coming up with a universal explanation for the World as it is. You have to make sense of all the empirical data we know about the World in accordance with your universal theory. The burden of proof is with the one that make a position assertion, so if you don't like us nitpicking at your thesis with a list of problematic implications, then fine, admit that you prefer to keep your belief as they are, unchallenged, and we'll keep calling them 'delusions'.

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

No, that statement doesn't imply that all dictionaries are good. The phrase "Dictionaries are good." might refer to all dictionaries, or only some of them. Its nonspecific.

sirlynchmob wrote:
atheism is not a religion, its a label used to indicate your answer to one question was no. that's it.

I'm well aware of what the word means, I've had this argument on this site dozens of times, and dozens more on others. But the simple fact that I've had this argument dozens of times, in many different places, should show that the word, as used by the general public, is not much like the word as used by people in the know. Sort of like how "agnostic" is treated as a half-way point between atheism and theism.

by the general public I'm assuming christians. quite a few christians just like assigning their own meaning to the word to suit their own agendas. Its why dictionary terms should be used whenever possible.

agnostic is its own can of worms. because you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist as well. its complicated.

So you didn't just use theist both ast "one theist" and "all theists" just sentences apart?

And you didn't just advocate to use a quantitative words (some, few, little) if you want to indicate a quality? So what makes you think that not using one (including not using "all") automaticall means all of them?

Heck, even the theist (me) and atheist (dogma) agree here, or would that mean all theists and atheists agree since I didn't say "the one theist and the one atheist" agree?

I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

d-usa wrote:So you didn't just use theist both ast "one theist" and "all theists" just sentences apart?

And you didn't just advocate to use a quantitative words (some, few, little) if you want to indicate a quality? So what makes you think that not using one (including not using "all") automaticall means all of them?

Heck, even the theist (me) and an atheist (dogma) agree here, or would that mean all theists and atheists agree since I didn't say "the one theist and the one atheist" agree?

I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

Fixed.
ya you go take a bunch of science classes to learn some english.

d-usa wrote:I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

The one thing I don't understand is why this is even still a point of contention. The history of knowledge for the last 3000 years as been a gradual separation of metaphysical explanations and scientific explanations. And still people think they are exclusive? Why is it so hard to realize that all religions are 90% myth, 9% morality, and 1% factual questioning (the existence of God), and so cannot contradict science in any way shape or form?

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:So you didn't just use theist both ast "one theist" and "all theists" just sentences apart?

And you didn't just advocate to use a quantitative words (some, few, little) if you want to indicate a quality? So what makes you think that not using one (including not using "all") automaticall means all of them?

Heck, even the theist (me) and an atheist (dogma) agree here, or would that mean all theists and atheists agree since I didn't say "the one theist and the one atheist" agree?

I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

Fixed.
ya you go take a bunch of science classes to learn some english.

Here is what I said:

With the exeptions that I have given (religious groups that are anti-science) theists don't have a problem with science.

Which you quickly turned into:

You said that all theists don't have a problem with science because you didn't use a quantifier before the word theists and it doesn't matter that there is an exeption in your post because you didn't say some/most/few/whatever.

And then you keep on repeating the "theists = all theists" like it is some sort of gospel.

Heck, even Dogma pointed out to you that dictonaries =/= all dictionaries. But keep on clinging to that mantra if it makes you feel better about calling me out for saying "all theists" even though I didn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

The one thing I don't understand is why this is even still a point of contention. The history of knowledge for the last 3000 years as been a gradual separation of metaphysical explanations and scientific explanations. And still people think they are exclusive? Why is it so hard to realize that all religions are 90% myth, 9% morality, and 1% factual questioning (the existence of God), and so cannot contradict science in any way shape or form?

I don't think that science has to contradict religion and religion has to contradict science. I was being a smartypants when I mentioned religion & science with that particular poster)

And I do not think that the majority of theists (to make some other posters happy) feel that they contradict each other.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

The implications would be many. Viruses have no 'natural virtues', in the sense that they don't have any redeeming factors to them. They exists solely to destroy other beings and multiply themselves, thus creating more destruction. If life is a gift from God, why would he create something that has no embellishing value to it, and is only a destructive force? (and one that improves on itself on top of things).

You are the one coming up with a universal explanation for the World as it is. You have to make sense of all the empirical data we know about the World in accordance with your universal theory. The burden of proof is with the one that make a position assertion, so if you don't like us nitpicking at your thesis with a list of problematic implications, then fine, admit that you prefer to keep your belief as they are, unchallenged, and we'll keep calling them 'delusions'.

I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

Hordini wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

The implications would be many. Viruses have no 'natural virtues', in the sense that they don't have any redeeming factors to them. They exists solely to destroy other beings and multiply themselves, thus creating more destruction. If life is a gift from God, why would he create something that has no embellishing value to it, and is only a destructive force? (and one that improves on itself on top of things).

You are the one coming up with a universal explanation for the World as it is. You have to make sense of all the empirical data we know about the World in accordance with your universal theory. The burden of proof is with the one that make a position assertion, so if you don't like us nitpicking at your thesis with a list of problematic implications, then fine, admit that you prefer to keep your belief as they are, unchallenged, and we'll keep calling them 'delusions'.

I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

We even use viruses to make vaccines and medications, and there is potential to use them to insert strands of genetic materials to cure cancer and whatnots.

So they are plenty useful.

Hordini wrote:I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

Death only makes sense because we do not regularly have examples of beings that do not die. There are a few examples, like the water hydra. Saying that death is an important part of life kinda obfuscate the fact that it actually isn't. Life is an important part of life. Death isn't the state of a being, its the nonexistence of that being (which isn't a state because you don't describe anything is you say that it's entirely made up of nothing).

And yes, that's why the Viruses are taken as an example ; contrarily to bacterias, they do not fulfill any constructive role in an ecosystem. They aren't properly alive ; a better way to describe them is to say that they are incredibly complexes and harmful vitamins capable of reproductions. They do not obey ecological constraints, so animals can't 'evolve' around them the same way cockroaches 'evolve' around bacterias and toxins.

@d-usa : Vaccines against the same viruses... That's kinda defeating the purpose. And we could've built amino-acids structures to carry the same genetic strands, the production of 'artificial viruses' was mentioned a few years ago as being ready/starting (07-08?).

Kovnik Obama wrote:@d-usa : Vaccines against the same viruses... That's kinda defeating the purpose. And we could've built amino-acids structures to carry the same genetic strands, the production of 'artificial viruses' was mentioned a few years ago as being ready/starting (07-08?).

Don't we use viruses to change genetics of bacteria and then use use those bacteria to make stuff (production of insulin as one example, using rDNA)?

And the real viruses can always tease the artificial viruses and claim "nature did it first".

I didn't know that it was in application, but I know that there are research done/has been done on the subject. But since we discovered a way to construct the same structures a few years ago, it does seems to defeat the purpose of God putting viruses, making thousands of generations of animals and humans to suffer, just to teach us now that we could reprogram them to do other stuff.

They are objects, and have for only purpose to reproduce, and only by harming other creatures. That's pretty damn cruel. At least the wolf eating me 'feels' something, and eats me so that it can live more and do more.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

Death only makes sense because we do not regularly have examples of beings that do not die. There are a few examples, like the water hydra. Saying that death is an important part of life kinda obfuscate the fact that it actually isn't. Life is an important part of life. Death isn't the state of a being, its the nonexistence of that being (which isn't a state because you don't describe anything is you say that it's entirely made up of nothing).

And yes, that's why the Viruses are taken as an example ; contrarily to bacterias, they do not fulfill any constructive role in an ecosystem. They aren't properly alive ; a better way to describe them is to say that they are incredibly complexes and harmful vitamins capable of reproductions. They do not obey ecological constraints, so animals can't 'evolve' around them the same way cockroaches 'evolve' around bacterias and toxins.

Death is an important part of the life cycle of all living creatures. It doesn't have anything to do with death being a state of being or not, but simply that the death of some organisms allows other organisms to continue living. Also, a brief google search should illustrate that your claim that viruses "do not fulfill any constructive role in an ecosystem" is false.

No, Death is the end of the life cycle of all (actually not all, but most) living creatures. That the ecosystem has integrated that fact isn't in any way descriptive of the fact that it's what ought to be... See that's another fallacy theist (but then again, a lot of people) do, finalist causality.

It's like those that accuse the transhumanists that works on anti-senescence methods of 'having problems with accepting reproduction as the natural process of continuation of life'. That this is our current state doesn't have any moral impact.

And think about it : "Yeah, your honor, I admit killing him, but there's a good side : I fed thousands of worms and beetles".

Kovnik Obama wrote:No, Death is the end of the life cycle of all (actually not all, but most) living creatures. That the ecosystem has integrated that fact isn't in any way descriptive of the fact that it's what ought to be... See that's another fallacy theist (but then again, a lot of people) do, finalist causality.

It's like those that accuse the transhumanists that works on anti-senescence methods of 'having problems with accepting reproduction as the natural process of continuation of life'. That this is our current state doesn't have any moral impact.

And think about it : "Yeah, your honor, I admit killing him, but there's a good side : I fed thousands of worms and beetles".

Who's bringing morals into it? Death is a part of the life cycle, because it is a part of the life cycle. You were the one who introduced some kind of moral judgement when you brought up viruses with the implication that they were inherently negative. And if I interpreted it wrong and that's not what you were implying, then what? I'm showing how viruses are involved in ecosystems. I never made the claim that because death has significant effects on ecosystems that that's the way it ought to be, I'm simply claiming that that's the way it is. I'm not even sure what you're arguing. Viruses are inherently negative, therefore God must either be inherently negative or not exist?

And just because murder is something our cultures consider a negative thing, that doesn't mean death on its own is something inherently negative.

sirlynchmob wrote:
by the general public I'm assuming christians.

No, I mean the general public, which is why I said "general public" and not "Christians".

sirlynchmob wrote:
quite a few christians just like assigning their own meaning to the word to suit their own agendas.

Funny coming from someone who just made a rather inelegant attempt at substituting a piece of terminology in order to suit his agenda.

Yes, many Christians do what you describe. Many atheists do it as well, as do many Muslims, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, and so on. We all do it, because its part of the language game. If we didn't do it, there wouldn't be words at all.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Its why dictionary terms should be used whenever possible.

Which dictionary? Its not like there's some all knowing arbiter of words floating around for us to consult. Sure, there are rules to the game, there have to be otherwise it wouldn't be a game, but they're far from rigid.

After all, dictionaries are written by people, and are essentially catalogues of common meanings.

So it's not just me then...

d-usa wrote:So it's not just me then...

Nah dude, it's definitely not just you.

There are militantly atheist ideologies that serve as a substitute to religions, Communism most notably. Writers such as Orlango Figes, Simon Montiforre, and Richard Pipes have all basically written quite well on this conclusion.

d-usa wrote: Do you know how many studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals turn out to be bogus?

If that is your main criteria for sorting out "truth and reason" from "crazy ignorant belief" then you might need to look at better places.

Oh, I'm sure it happens. I know it happens. But so what? We have to use some kind of vetting process to weed out the wheat from the chaff, or else we end up just accepting everything on face value. There's an invisible man in the sky who tells us all what to do? Oh, okay then.

Orlanth wrote: The man of science says 'show me'. The honest man says "I can't"

Fixed that for you.

Look, we may as well cut to the chase. You don't have any citations. I know you don't, you know you don't, so why do you persist in these ridiculous claims?

It's embarrassing, and you should feel embarrassed..

d-usa wrote: Either you are letting your prejudice of theists cloud your world view or you have definitive proof that there are no theist scientists

It's a curious phenomena that even otherwise rational, intelligent and logical people abandon all logic and reason when it comes to religion.

You yourself are a prime example. Obviously an intelligent person, yet as soon as it comes to god, your otherwise rational desire to have propositions backed up by evidence seems to just disappear. If I were to tell you there was a dragon outside tipping over rubbish bins and eating food scraps, you wouldn't believe me unless I had extremely convincing evidence that ruled out all the other possibilities. But god and the bible? Suddenly no proof required. You just take it on face value.

It boggles the mind.

d-usa wrote: I don't think that science has to contradict religion and religion has to contradict science.

They don't have to. But they still do it. Why? Because there is no reason to differentiate religion from any other supernatural belief. Just like science vs ghosts, or elves, or santa.

Lets not get side-tracked here with talk about viruses and whatnot.

Atheism is simply the logical extension of the scientific method: That all supernatural and outlandish claims have an extensive burden of proof, and until that burden of proof is satisfied they won't be taken seriously. Atheism is not anti-religion, it is anti-bullsquirt.

You say your god is real and exists. I say citation needed. Your move.

I have all the proof need. For me to belief in God I only need to examine the evidence I see around me and make my decision based on that. Contrary to what you might think I do not need you to believe for God to be valid.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to make fun of my faith and my belief in God, then go ahead. Feel great and superior because of your enlightenment. I'm not the one saying people are full of bullsquirt because they don't believe in a deity, actually I am not insulting anybody at all.

If you are only going to insult me for believing in God, then I do not see a single reason for even talking to you on that matter anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think we have moved pretty much past the initial point of this thread "is atheism a religion?" and are now back to the good old monthly "atheism vs. christianity" bash-thread where the name calling has already began.

Kaldor wrote:You say your god is real and exists. I say citation needed. Your move.

My move is to terminate the thread.

To all of you - if you can't accept that some people have beliefs that differ from yours, and you suffer from a compulsion to argue about it, please do it elsewhere.