Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.