God

I dont if this has been discussed in the past, but I want to bring up my point that God is not real and was only made up so humans could have something to believe in.

To me now, it seems ridiculus to go to church and worship some invisible supreme being. It's basically like people going there and talking to themselves.
It's not that I am encouraging everyone who believes in god to disbelieve (that would be hard to accomplish) its just that if you look to science almost everything is explained logically. With the bible its all based on you believing, with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.

What are your veiws?

'how original'


honestly, do you enjoy trolling?

If by trolling you mean wandering, I don't wander, I think its a waste of time to make up a supreme being just to have something to cling to.

I am perfectly fine. How bout you?

I meant trolling in the "blatantly posting just to get replies" sort of way


I can't believe your first post was sincere

Originally posted by talontsi
with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.
Hardly! That right there is a belief as unfounded as the belief in god you criticize.

I'm not sure you appreciate the philosophy of science. Try reading some Karl Popper: http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/

Because the word 'God' means many things to many people, I frequently reply [to people who ask 'Do you believe in God?'] by asking what the questioner means by 'God.' To my surprise, this response is often considered puzzling or unexpected: 'Oh, you know, God. Everyone knows who God is.' Or 'Well, kind of a force that is stronger than we are and that exists everywhere in the universe.' There are a number of such forces. One of them is called gravity, but it is not often identified with God. And not everyone does know what is meant by 'God.'...Whether we believe in God depends very much on what we mean by God.

My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species.

-Carl Sagan "A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291.

fritz_269, do you really think he's serious?

I am just trying to start a intelligent conversation. Also I want to see what people think.

Yes, I'm serious. What would I gain from excessive replies? Not much, except for more input.

I'll be the first to admit that my idea of God is pretty different. I believe in a God with a long white beard, a gold crown, and a long robe with lots of shiny jewels on it. He sits on a big throne in the clouds, and He's about five hundred feet tall. He talks in a real deep voice like "I...AM...GOD!" He can blow up stuff just by looking at it. This is my own, personal idea of God.

-Jack Handey






Sorry, I had to do it ;)

yes, thats exactly what I'm looking for, thats what I want from everyone.

the original post just seems too simple and generic to be sincere, imo. fritz pointed out just one of the things that jumped out at me. I mean, its fine if thats what you believe and that's the full extent of your opinion, but it just doesn't seem like you care enough about it(from the post) to bother starting a conversation. Have you ever spent a solid 15sec even thinking about your belief in science?

just for the record, I don't have any views that are relevant in this thread

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


Oh gee another god thread! dosnt anyone have any real philosophy they want to discuss.






Fritz I was just thinking about sending you Brocas Brain after I finnished it. I found it in a 2nd hand book store the other day, and thought it looked interesting. What did you think of it?

fritz_269 said:
Hardly! That right there is a belief as unfounded as the belief in god you criticize. (bear with me, not used to the quote system here :))

I don't really understand what you mean? Popper clearly said that the only way a theory can be regarded true is that if it is falseifiable (able to be false). All current scientific theories can be proven false simply by finding signifigant evidence against it. The theory of God (as seen through the eyes of believers) is not fallible. It is to circular and does not allow the ability to ask question and get a good response in return.

I have read popper before this post and I agree with most all of what he says, but I am a little confused about what you are referring to.

Mabey if you are talking about the exact statement made by talontsi I agree with you, but that stance is the lawyer's stance: Look for some part of the stement that devalidates it. Because he sadi "incontroversial" his statement cannot be considered a 'Popper' theory.

incontrovertible* just to be accurate.

my bad

are we dicussing god or giving negative criticism on how insencere talontsi's post is? Don't rip on talon even I believe he is wrong. Lets talk about what this post's subject is.

No one has to agree with me but whatever makes you happy.:bandit:

Originally posted by higgimonster
I don't really understand what you mean? Popper clearly said that the only way a theory can be regarded true is that if it is falseifiable (able to be false). All current scientific theories can be proven false simply by finding signifigant evidence against it. The theory of God (as seen through the eyes of believers) is not fallible. It is to circular and does not allow the ability to ask question and get a good response in return.

I have read popper before this post and I agree with most all of what he says, but I am a little confused about what you are referring to.

Mabey if you are talking about the exact statement made by talontsi I agree with you, but that stance is the lawyer's stance: Look for some part of the stement that devalidates it. Because he sadi "incontroversial" his statement cannot be considered a 'Popper' theory. Cute pun. :D

You picked out my point exactly: the word "incontrovertible" means unquestionable, impossible to dispute. This is in total opposition to both Bacon's and Popper's ideas in the philosophy of science. Popper's main theory of Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified guesses followed by relentless criticism. Nothing incontrovertible about it. I do not know whether talontsi knows this or not - if he does, he was simply dropping a little flame bait - if he does not, he was making a unjustifiable (and false) statment. And because this is the Philosophy forum - I can pick on semantics if I like! ;) You don't have to be a lawyer to do that. Words have meaning! :D

However, I do agree with much of your reasoning; that many theories of god are tautologies, and thus useless in a scientific context. And I'm happy to know that someone else around here has read some Popper.
:cool:

I wasn't attempting to be in sync with Bacon's or Popper's theories, this is my theory or my thoughts at least.
The fact that it doesnt fit these men's theories means nothing. Its what you and other people think as individuals that really matters to me.

Peace

Originally posted by talontsi
I dont if this has been discussed in the past, but I want to bring up my point that God is not real and was only made up so humans could have something to believe in.

To me now, it seems ridiculus to go to church and worship some invisible supreme being. It's basically like people going there and talking to themselves.
It's not that I am encouraging everyone who believes in god to disbelieve (that would be hard to accomplish) its just that if you look to science almost everything is explained logically. With the bible its all based on you believing, with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.

What are your veiws?

FINALLY!!!!:D I won't argue with this one, it's been done a lot of times before. I mean, why argue when you're right?:)

why does being "right" matter on a subject(god) that can't be known?

Instead, how about having some sort of insight which is any way original or interesting? Also, how about not being arrogant about something you can't know(god), and not being blatantly wrong when describing science?

LOOK GOD DOESN'T EXIST GET OVER IT

if he did all the BAADDD people in the world wouldn't be here and all religions would be Christian.

Science is what people can work and find out using numbers and other devices created by the almighty human race which seems to be self destructive.


The randomness of the universe surpasses any attempt to think there is a god


I hate it when religious looneys try to get me to go to Church

I have been to church already and i hate it it is a waste of good working time i'd prefer to live in the present than the future

If i die I want to be riencarnated ever read Mort by Terry Pratchett

Death takes you to whatever you believe in thats sounds cool doesn't it ? Well he doesn't exist every one isd subject to certain laws and random consciequencies.

Just because you want some control in your life doesn't mean you have to push that religious crap on me.

Most wars were fought in the name of god.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
LOOK GOD DOESN'T EXIST GET OVER IT

if he did all the BAADDD people in the world wouldn't be here and all religions would be Christian.

ok.... Dude, I understand you dont believe in god. Chipper for you. However, you're acting as much a zealot about your lack of faith as the "religious looneys" you're quick to condem.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
Most wars were fought in the name of god.

Yup, WWI... now wait.... WWII, no not that one either..... Vietnam.... nope, how about Korea. Nope, not that one. Gulf, Spanish American, Civil, 1812, Revolutionary (American, French) 100 years war... None of those either.

hmmmm..... I hear a lot of people state that most wars are fought in the name of God. People certainly bring up the Cursades and others, and which claims its about god, but like most wars, it was about power. God was just an excuse.

Dont get me wrong, there are religous persecutors out there but that blanket statement that most wars were fought in the name of god is misleading.

Originally posted by YogsVR4




Dont get me wrong, there are religous persecutors out there but that blanket statement that most wars were fought in the name of god is misleading.


Now, please go easy on me. :D But religion is not my best subject. But when you say wars fought in the name of God are misleading, is that coming from your point of view, or the opposing forces? What I mean is, say the Gulf War for instance. Didn't Saddam declare that a Holy War? So wouldn't a Holy War in turn be fighting for God?

And to the creator of this topic, and those that say God is nothing but a fake, who are you to say what is fact or fiction?

Originally posted by kbslacker



Now, please go easy on me. :D But religion is not my best subject. But when you say wars fought in the name of God are misleading, is that coming from your point of view, or the opposing forces? What I mean is, say the Gulf War for instance. Didn't Saddam declare that a Holy War? So wouldn't a Holy War in turn be fighting for God?

And to the creator of this topic, and those that say God is nothing but a fake, who are you to say what is fact or fiction?

Now this is another item for a thread. He did say it was a holy war, but only to try and drum up support for himself. I dont for a minute believe that he truely felt that way. When a war is going on, most everyone tries to cast themselves as rightous or on the side of god.

As an additional point about the name of god being behind wars, how about wars fought by communist regimes? The commies (yup - I dont like that form of government) do not believe in a god or religion. I guess that would make them the most peaceful and tolerant people on the planet. ;)

Most wars are fought over religion just like every football game that follows a prayer is played with the help of god.

Originally posted by YogsVR4


As an additional point about the name of god being behind wars, how about wars fought by communist regimes? The commies (yup - I dont like that form of government) do not believe in a god or religion. I guess that would make them the most peaceful and tolerant people on the planet. ;)

so atheism isn't a religion then? If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Yup, WWI... now wait.... WWII, no not that one either..... Vietnam.... nope, how about Korea. Nope, not that one. Gulf, Spanish American, Civil, 1812, Revolutionary (American, French) 100 years war... None of those either.

hmmmm..... I hear a lot of people state that most wars are fought in the name of God. People certainly bring up the Cursades and others, and which claims its about god, but like most wars, it was about power. God was just an excuse.

Dont get me wrong, there are religous persecutors out there but that blanket statement that most wars were fought in the name of god is misleading.

all the recent wars stem from religous tensions

As far as i'm conscerned preach all you want just not to me OK ?

close this damn thread

Originally posted by kbslacker



Now, please go easy on me. :D But religion is not my best subject. But when you say wars fought in the name of God are misleading, is that coming from your point of view, or the opposing forces? What I mean is, say the Gulf War for instance. Didn't Saddam declare that a Holy War? So wouldn't a Holy War in turn be fighting for God?

And to the creator of this topic, and those that say God is nothing but a fake, who are you to say what is fact or fiction?

some people want to believe in a greator good thats fine but when they go about telling everyone about it then i get pissed...

I believe in solid fact Science is more solid than the bible so i#ll stick to that as for this thread it is too stupid you can't really talk about religion as neither side will give up unless you meet a person who i used to know who could easily make you drop your faith

Close it

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


some people want to believe in a greator good thats fine but when they go about telling everyone about it then i get pissed...

I believe in solid fact Science is more solid than the bible so i#ll stick to that as for this thread it is too stupid you can't really talk about religion as neither side will give up unless you meet a person who i used to know who could easily make you drop your faith

Close it


But see, when you all go about saying God is fake, is that not the same as a religous person telling you God is real? Just with a different outcome?

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


all the recent wars stem from religous tensions

As far as i'm conscerned preach all you want just not to me OK ?

close this damn thread

From religous tensions? Such as?

I have done no preaching what so ever. I just question blanket statements like those you have made.

If you dont want to be part of the thread then feel free not to visit it anymore.

As a test, I asked two random people what the most annoying religion was. They both said atheism. That's exactly what I was thinking at the time. Coincidence?

I'll chime in quickly with two quotations and leave it as that.

Quote 1:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensiveness." -- Albert Einstein

The fact that E=mc^2 or F=ma actually work is a testament to that.

Quote 2:
"The most ironic thing about science is that it is unable to determine what people are searching for the most... meaning" -- Carl Sagan. Some character in Contact.

Think about it. We can show how the stars move and under what conditions things melt, but we can't really say why.

There, my $0.02. I believe in God and always will. :)

where does the need to have something to believe in come from? i think I missed that bus

Originally posted by V.S.
where does the need to have something to believe in come from? i think I missed that bus

I'm with that really.

I have absolutely no problem with religion. Whatever you want to believe is for you to decide. I don't deny or accept the existence of god. I only believe in Me and the fact that I'm here and living. Everything else is irrelevant.

A lot of the posts around here seem to equate science and atheism and to term them both as a religion. These are all three completely seperate concepts:

Science - a system of knowledge covering the operation of general laws obtained through a general set of logical rules for formulating hypotheses and critiquing them. (Laid down primarily by Bacon and analyzed and refined most recently by Popper).

Atheism - The belief that no gods exist.

Religion - The service and worship of gods or the supernatural.

Neither atheism nor science can be a religion by definition. And a scientist can be a theist, atheist or agnostic. None of them can be equated.


As a side note - the whole religion/war thing is a really bad argument for either side. The large socio-politic causations cannot be well defined by either camp. Politics, religion, economics, genetics, history, and media are all jumbled up in the formation of every war - there is no way to pick one cause at the exclusion of others (or to exclude one at the inclusion of all others).
:cool:

yes, but that doesn't take into account the atheists vainly trying to use science to defend their position in this thread, nor the "religious fanaticism" they have. The dictionary definitions don't matter, the criticism remains the same.

Originally posted by fritz_269
As a side note - the whole religion/war thing is a really bad argument for either side. The large socio-politic causations cannot be well defined by either camp. Politics, religion, economics, genetics, history, and media are all jumbled up in the formation of every war - there is no way to pick one cause at the exclusion of others (or to exclude one at the inclusion of all others).
:cool:

That really depends on how broad the description is. I think the arguement can be made that most wars were over power. Either the establisment of it, defense from it or to extract oneself from it. But, thats a debate that should probably stay of these "religion" threads.

Originally posted by kbslacker



But see, when you all go about saying God is fake, is that not the same as a religous person telling you God is real? Just with a different outcome?


It is similar, I was just presenting my opinion, I wasn't attempting to force my beliefs on anyone. I wanted see what everyone thought.;)

Originally posted by V.S.
yes, but that doesn't take into account the atheists vainly trying to use science to defend their position in this thread, nor the "religious fanaticism" they have. The dictionary definitions don't matter, the criticism remains the same.
I'm trying to say the definitions of words absolutely do matter.

In no small part because this is the "philosophizing" forum. We can't have an intelligent conversation about these concepts until we agree on the meaning of words.

You certainly can have a 'fanatical atheist', but you can not have a 'religious fanatic atheist'. Why do you feel the need to add "religious" as a modifier? It makes no sense.

Also, both atheists and theists try to use science to defend their positions. Science is just a systematic way to gather and refine knowledge. It has no bias toward either atheists or theists. An atheist may use good science to refute a theist's assumption; and the theist can also use good science to refute an atheist's assumptions. You seem to have the notion that science is fundamentally biased towards atheism, and/or that atheist only use science to validate their beliefs. This assumption vastly limits your apologetics; and IMHO, is entirely incorrect.

Words have meaning!
:cool:

But if the atheists in question(within this thread) that initially misunderstood the meaning of science, then how is a reply against the use of science to support atheism inappropriate? Should we just keep repeating the definitions until they get it right, and then proceed with the discussion?

And notice I did say "in this thread". I don't remember many christians trying to "prove" their belief using science.

And when atheists bring their beliefs into a religious discussion, and are fanatical about it, I don't see how "religious fanaticism" is out of place at all. For all effective purposes they are being religious, the lack of a belief in god is irrelevant. And where did you get that definition of religion from? Yes, religions do tend to have gods, but I never thought of that as a necessity. And, in the case of this thread, the god of the "athiests" is most clearly science, so its all rather silly to begin with.

Generally, science helps the argument from an athiest point of view. If a person arguing that a god existed were to use science, they'd prove them self wrong.

Originally posted by MBTN
Generally, science helps the argument from an athiest point of view. If a person arguing that a god existed were to use science, they'd prove them self wrong. Prove it. :cool:
In any definition or philosophy of science or the scientific method, there is no mention or notion of theism or atheism. It is simply a framework for knowledge.

Many people attempt to use this framework to provide evidence for or against the existence or power of any number of deities, but there is little or no proof to be found either way. And there is a simple reason behind this: Science is a framework for knowledge about the natural world. The notion of gods by definition reside outside the natural world, in the realm of the supernatural.

Science can never prove or disprove anything in the supernatural realm. It is simply not equipped to do so.
:cool:

Originally posted by MBTN
Generally, science helps the argument from an athiest point of view. If a person arguing that a god existed were to use science, they'd prove them self wrong.


Do you believe in ghosts?

Originally posted by V.S.
But if the atheists in question(within this thread) that initially misunderstood the meaning of science, then how is a reply against the use of science to support atheism inappropriate? Should we just keep repeating the definitions until they get it right, and then proceed with the discussion?That seems to be what I'm attempting to do. :rolleyes: I do not understand how one can discuss a subject until at least some of the key terms have been defined in a common language. Particularly on a BBS where words are the only means of communication (no body language, no tone of voice).
And notice I did say "in this thread". I don't remember many christians trying to "prove" their belief using science.Yes. You'll notice that my original post on the subject (2/18) was not directed at you or anyone (theist or atheist) in particular - it was an attempt to define some terms that were being grossly misused.
And when atheists bring their beliefs into a religious discussion, and are fanatical about it, I don't see how "religious fanaticism" is out of place at all. For all effective purposes they are being religious, the lack of a belief in god is irrelevant. The disbelief of god is irrelevant to an atheist in a religious discussion? :lol2:
And where did you get that definition of religion from? Yes, religions do tend to have gods, but I never thought of that as a necessity. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
--"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. "
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
--"The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life."
WordNet 1.6
--"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; institution to express belief in a divine power."
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
--"The service and worship of God or the supernatural"
Encarta World English Dictionary
--"people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life"

If you'd like to provide another, more comprehensive definition that the dictionaries seemed to have missed; I'd be glad to entertain it. :)

And, in the case of this thread, the god of the "athiests" is most clearly science, so its all rather silly to begin with. I very much doubt that there are many atheists who would seriously say that. You are putting words in other mouths in order to make a straw man. It's a specious argument.
:cool:

But isn't it faster to show their flawed understanding of the words through arguement than through repition of the definition? although both would probably be useful together



Well my mistake, but I did want to point out that my response(to atheism specifically) was due to the contents of this thread, not to some bias.




The lack of belief in the existence of god is irrelevant to my calling them religious fanatics. They still have an opinion on a religious subject(god), and they're still argueing fanatically about it.




I'd say that any opinion relevant to a god or the supernatural is a religion. Athiests happen to believe there is no god, but the belief is no more or less scientific/spiritual than any other religion.




Did you read
Originally posted by talontsi
I dont if this has been discussed in the past, but I want to bring up my point that God is not real and was only made up so humans could have something to believe in.

With the bible its all based on you believing, with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.



Originally posted by MBTN
Generally, science helps the argument from an athiest point of view. If a person arguing that a god existed were to use science, they'd prove them self wrong.

?

I hardly think I'm putting words in their mouths. They might not want to admit it, but my comment is still valid.










*Sorry about the non-quotes, but its hard to do when you have so many in your message.

What exactly are you using my statement for? What do you mean by "?".:confused:

Originally posted by V.S.
I hardly think I'm putting words in their mouths. They might not want to admit it, but my comment is still valid.
Of course your comment is vaild. I just don't agree. :)

Here is your comment:And, in the case of this thread, the god of the "athiests" is most clearly science, so its all rather silly to begin with.I then replied:I very much doubt that there are many atheists who would seriously say that. You are putting words in other mouths in order to make a straw man.To which you smartly showed two examples which attempt to contradict that statement:Originally posted by talontsi
I dont if this has been discussed in the past, but I want to bring up my point that God is not real and was only made up so humans could have something to believe in. With the bible its all based on you believing, with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.
And: Originally posted by MBTN
Generally, science helps the argument from an athiest point of view. If a person arguing that a god existed were to use science, they'd prove them self wrong.

You make a very good point. There are obviously a lot of people (both atheists and theists) who have misunderstandings about the philosophy of science. And if you read the posts I made after each of the ones you quoted, I resoundingly challenge those statements. :)

I suppose my main objection to your statment lay more in the fact that you made an analogy from atheism to a belief in god. Generally, atheists do not have a church, a congregation, a priest, a sacrament, hymns, idols, saints, martyrs, or any of the many things that we often associate with a god and religion; the analogy is flawed. The main point here is that atheists have no belief in gods as opposed to belief in no gods. It may seem like a trick of semantics, but they are actually different logical statements. I actually doubt that either MBTN or talontsi would say "I do believe in atheism" - they are much more likely to say "I don't believe in god". Thus the analogy you make is false. Atheists don't have a different belief, they have a lack of belief.

The lack of belief in the existence of god is irrelevant to my calling them religious fanatics. They still have an opinion on a religious subject(god), and they're still argueing fanatically about it.
By that logic: If I have an opinion on a woman's rights in the workplace, and I argue fanatically about it, then I'm a radical feminist. Even if what I'm arguing is that they should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen at home? :rolleyes: That logic is non sequitur. :)


An aside:
Neither the statment "god exists" nor the statment "god does not exist" is falsifiable. This means, very simply, that they are outside the realm of science. There is nothing in the framework of science that can disprove either statement. I continue to be amazed at the seeming effort that goes into finding evidence for either one of those statments. To me, the concept is clearly a tautology and it is truly and logically impossible to show either statment as false. Why do people keep trying so hard?
:cool:

I'd like to give a big "screw you" to the god that made af go down just as a finished a huge post;)





I'm pretty sure you're confused as to what atheism is. What you're describing is (i think) agnosticism. Atheism is the belief in no god.

a·the·ism Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

ag·nos·ti·cism Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.











Your example is flawed. By making it contradictory you imply that mine is similarly irrational. But while feminists support womens right to choose rather than do what they "should", religious fanatics DO NOT support other religions. All religious fanatics, including the atheist ones, attack religions other than their own. Being fanatical about your religion and equally fanatical against others does seem to be enough to qualify, doesn't it?

Originally posted by V.S.
I'm pretty sure you're confused as to what atheism is. What you're describing is (i think) agnosticism. Atheism is the belief in no god.

a·the·ism Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

I'm not confused. The definition you quote says atheism is a "disbelief", and you state that it is a "belief". This is my exact point from my previous post:The main point here is that atheists have no belief in gods as opposed to belief in no gods. It may seem like a trick of semantics, but they are actually different logical statements. Disbelief is not belief! :)

Your example is flawed. By making it contradictory you imply that mine is similarly irrational. But while feminists support womens right to choose rather than do what they "should", religious fanatics DO NOT support other religions. All religious fanatics, including the atheist ones, attack religions other than their own. Being fanatical about your religion and equally fanatical against others does seem to be enough to qualify, doesn't it? I think you're drawing the line in the wrong place. Radical feminists are generally not too concerned with men's rights; just as any particular religion is generally not too concerned with atheist's rights. In my analogy, religion = feminists and atheism = men. Just because the word religion subsumes many faiths and denominations (which may have their own quarrels), doesn't make the analogy any less true.

If I argue against feminism vehemently, that does not make me a radical feminist; It makes me a radical anti-feminist. If I argue against religion vehemently, that does not make me a religious radical; it makes me a radical atheist.

Your statment was this:The lack of belief in the existence of god is irrelevant to my calling them religious fanatics. They still have an opinion on a religious subject(god), and they're still argueing fanatically about it. My point is very simply that I can argue fanatically about any '-ism' in the book, but that alone does not make me part of that '-ism', particularly if I'm arguing against that particular '-ism'.

:cool:

Originally posted by fritz_269
The main point here is that atheists have no belief in gods as opposed to belief in no gods. It may seem like a trick of semantics, but they are actually different logical statements.

Disbelief is not belief!
But this is where you're wrong. An agnostic has no belief in god, while an atheist has a belief that there is no god. That's the difference between agnosticism and atheists, as agreed to by most philosophers. Fundamentalist atheists usually have an added belief that there is nothing supernatural at all, not just no god. Agnostics are usually marked by scepsism, and are willing to admit the possibility of the existance of gods, tho they don't have any preference about which god might be real (as V.S. pointed out, the original doctrine is that such knowledge is impossible)

Oh no not this again....:bloated: I give up, believe whatever you want. That's why you have a brain.

ok there is alot of stuff in this thread alone to much really, but just to let you haters know....:) ......the christianity is different from other religions its based on love and not hate, and the original bible (before all the messed up translations) was full of prophecies (which most have been fulfilled)and well there are alot of different branches, most made b/c of a splitting of a church which really has nothing to do with God or someone with high enough authority doesnt like something in it and wants it changed,like that king a while back, what was his name? he wanted to divorce his wife and the church didnt like it, so he made a branch that says its ook, just because its christianty doesnt mean its correct, or a christian isnt always "good",i know ive forgot something ill think about it later,btw-how come ppl belive in satan but not god?lol great minds huh?:bloated:

Originally posted by darklightvr4
ok there is alot of stuff in this thread alone to much really, but just to let you haters know....:) ......the christianity is different from other religions its based on love and not hate, and the original bible (before all the messed up translations) was full of prophecies (which most have been fulfilled)and well there are alot of different branches, most made b/c of a splitting of a church which really has nothing to do with God or someone with high enough authority doesnt like something in it and wants it changed,like that king a while back, what was his name? he wanted to divorce his wife and the church didnt like it, so he made a branch that says its ook, just because its christianty doesnt mean its correct, or a christian isnt always "good",i know ive forgot something ill think about it later,

This thread should die a nice, peaceful death. You're not going to convince any atheists that they're wrong, and I'm not going to convince any non-atheists that they're wrong. All that's going to happen is a bunch of people are going to get offended.

Originally posted by darklightvr4
btw-how come ppl belive in satan but not god?lol great minds huh?:bloated:

I don't know about the rest of us, but I don't believe in either. Who are you referring to here?

these type of debates always end in a stale mate where neither party makes any significant leaps in convincing the other party.

Ok..he is my take on "god". God is something that was created to put people's mind at ease. In doing so, people would fear less of death and also have "faith" that god would help them in time of need. God was also created to give children an explanation as to why things are the way they are. Which is a pretty shitty excuse if you ask me, becuase you are basically saying "because that is the way it is". There has also been carbon-dating done on some artifacts from "jesus's time". Which dates are greatly different than that of "The Church's" said date. There is no REAL proof that god exist. Just becuase there is a bible, doesnt mean that is it hard evidence. I mean, have you seen the authors make it. Has anyone seen them make it? All you church-goers have is "faith" or whatever you want to call it, and think that it is real. And another thing, how can someone(anyone) become a priest? This is another thing that i think is a bunch of crap. If there is a God, only God should be able to tell who is going to become his servants. And what about the "collection plate"?? If God does exist, why doesnt he take care of his servants. Why does the priest rely on YOUR money! All the priest does is brainwash you, and tell you all this shit about how you are going to go to hell and etc. However, he tells you that your sins may be forgiven, if you give him some money and go for a confession. This is how they make their money.

You are all probably going to think that I never went to church when I was a little kid, but I did. And I went to a Catholic School too, however if you look at all the crap going on in today's churches, you will start seeing my way.

And what about the "collection plate"?? If God does exist, why doesnt he take care of his servants. Why does the priest rely on YOUR money!

You just answered your own question.

And as for your other question, God does call people to be ministers. But he calls humans, which are fallible. Some people think they're called, but they're not. Some are called and don't respond.

why you guys been draggin on for so long about aethism and all that? i always thought there either was a God, or there wasnt, simple as that.

there is no god, and everything can be explained with physics. The only question is who put the physics there? Anyway, thats my personal opinion so please dont go bustin my balls over it.

I haven't been on AF that long but I've seen so many "God' threads that i actually get annoyed! I believe in God and the reason Christians try toconvince people of the fact there is a God is because we are said that we should try.

Not so amazingly, there are stupid people that believe in Satan and not God.

Also, how can people say that science can explain everything. Man came up with science and for all we know it's a bunch of bull! We just follow what "higher beings" tell us and we believe! Who is there to say that science is correct!?!

Now I'm merging into politics. :D

For my last statement.......could God have created everything with the Big Bang theroy? Could science explain what God did.....only in human terms?

For the main reason of this thread....I do believe in God and just let people believe what they want....but don't go sayin whether he is there or not.....who are you to make such a decision!?!

Originally posted by Damien
I haven't been on AF that long but I've seen so many "God' threads that i actually get annoyed! I believe in God and the reason Christians try toconvince people of the fact there is a God is because we are said that we should try.

Not so amazingly, there are stupid people that believe in Satan and not God.

Also, how can people say that science can explain everything. Man came up with science and for all we know it's a bunch of bull! We just follow what "higher beings" tell us and we believe! Who is there to say that science is correct!?!

Now I'm merging into politics. :D

For my last statement.......could God have created everything with the Big Bang theroy? Could science explain what God did.....only in human terms?

For the main reason of this thread....I do believe in God and just let people believe what they want....but don't go sayin whether he is there or not.....who are you to make such a decision!?!

This can also be phrased for religion:
Also, how can people say that religion can explain everything. Man came up with religion and for all we know it's a bunch of bull! We just follow what "higher beings" tell us and we believe! Who is there to say that religion is correct!?!

Unfortunately, I doubt this debate will ever do anything but offend most or all of the parties involved. I understand why Christians would be upset with mine and others' non-belief. If you believe that a superior power created all that exists, to have others deny Him credit would be understandably upsetting. What you don't seem to understand is that our denial of a superior power is not a deliberate affront to you or your belief system. We just disagree.

What it all comes down to for me is this: You know how if you look deep down inside yourself, you know without a doubt that there is a supreme being, and He created you and everything else, etc..?? Well, when I look deep down inside myself, I just KNOW that there is no God. And maybe we're both right. Maybe you have a God and I don't.

My biggest arguments against organized religion in general are these:
1. The amount of hypocrisy demonstrated by religious followers. I've known too many people who were Sunday Christians, or Sunday Mormons, etc. They swear, steal, drink, speed, etc., but on Sunday go to church and claim to be good people.
2. That nearly every religion disagrees with every other religion. Not only do they disagree, but it seems most believe themselves to be the only "true" religion, and that followers of anything else are going to hell.
3. The idea that Satan is the root cause of evil. I don't go for this. Bad things happen, people are corruptible. A girl at my school once told a lengthy story about how she and her friends had been drinking and driving, and Satan tried to kill them by making the car run into a tree. That's not Satan. That's stupidity.
4. The fact that I've never been able to have an intelligent discussion with a religious person. They've all gotten their feelings hurt and become severely defensive. In addition, the only arguments I've heard so far are the "look around you, all this couldn't have happened by chance" (I believe it could) and "The (Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran, etc.) says so, therefore it is." Unfortunately this has no more effect on me than it would on you if I said "look here, it's all in my big book 'o' aetheism, therefore it is".

I realize that most religions encourage recruiting. I understand that it's considered your duty as followers. However, I've had many, many, many missionaries at my door, I've read the Bible, I've gone to church, and I'm not convinced. It just doesn't add up. If I'm ever ready to convert, I'll call YOU.