Atheism

I told one of my friends I was an atheist today and he looked at me weird and said ""Your going to be screwed the day you come face to face with God". Why do so many christians view atheists as heathens or satan worshipers?

Because they are not christians, but ignorant fascists who cannot accept that other people don't think like them.

I'm an ignorant facist because I don't beleive in a religion and/or god?

Sorry, I read that wrong. Disregard my last.

Because they are not christians, but ignorant fascists who cannot accept that other people don't think like them.
True.

And your friend wants to think that he's better than you.

But don't let that little stint twist your mind. Far less christians think that way than you may think. Or maybe more think that way than I think:uhoh: :dunno:

Well knowing my friend, I know he was saying it out of concern, but still.

yeah, ive actually gotten into a few debates over that same sort of thing, and with ministers and their families.. and yikes, those people go tso pissed off at me, becasue i wanst angry for them having an opinioon, nor was a swayed by the "you need to beleive to go to heaven"

Tell him he's going to be screwed when he comes face-to-face with Zeus.

:grinyes: Thats pretty funny and actually a good point. Obviously nobody can prove that their religion is correct... but I figure if there is a god, he will care less about who I worshiped and more about how i lived and helped/ hurt mankind and the rest of the earth.

most religions seem way to conveinent to be all true to me.

:grinyes:
most religions seem way to conveinent to be all true to me.

That is a very interesting statement... quotable almost. My wife would be impressed... she's agnostic or something... and I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic... yep, another religious travesty...

religions are broken down into one aspect...either you're a believer or not...I myself am a believer of God and you may not...like most things in this world, people cannot accept anyone who goes aginst the grain...i may not agree with you, but like it says in the bible...do not hate the person, but hate their ways...most people try and push their opnion on someone making the more resentful and that leads to posting threads like this

but many “Christians” don’t view atheists as heathens or satan worshipers…it’s just that with our belief, true or not, we know what the verdict will be on the dy of judgement

religions are broken down into one aspect...either you're a believer or not...I myself am a believer of God and you may not...like most things in this world, people cannot accept anyone who goes aginst the grain...i may not agree with you, but like it says in the bible...do not hate the person, but hate their ways...most people try and push their opnion on someone making the more resentful and that leads to posting threads like this

but many “Christians” don’t view atheists as heathens or satan worshipers…it’s just that with our belief, true or not, we know what the verdict will be on the dy of judgement
i WAS a catholic, not anymore. anyways, i have nothing against anyone's beliefs, i prefer to talk about religion rather than debate it. i like listening to what people believe in because i really can't change what they believe.

but if christians are right, then on judgement day people who don't believe will go to hell. jesus said it himself in the bible, that the only way to heaven is through him. so he's right if his religion is correct, and you said he was probably saying it out of concern rather than out of ingorance, anger, whatever, so he doesn't think you're a satan worshiper. in fact i don't really know of anyone who worships satan, and most people i know would accept other people's beliefs, otherwise they're not loving their neighbour as themselves so they're commiting a sin. my point is that if someone is truly christian, they shouldn't put you down for what you believe in because that in itself is against the religion.

That is a very interesting statement... quotable almost. My wife would be impressed... she's agnostic or something... and I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic... yep, another religious travesty...

Well thanks man, I read it off a fortune cookie! haha

seriously, im full of useless quotes to start riots by! and that goes for supporters and attackers of said quote :grinyes:

Im talking about this on AIM right now, how the younger generation has felt less of a need for religion and this seems to be having an adverse effect on the morals of society overall

my morals haven't changed much since i left the church. i don't think the same way about sex, the church was the only thing stopping me from having sex before marriage, or about drugs and drinking, but in terms of stealing, treating others, killing, that kind of thing, i still think the same way. i don't think religion is the big thing here, i think it's the parents that aren't teaching their kids good morals. parents are too lenient and the future society is going to pay the price. i know my parents were too easy on me, i realize that i got away with more than i should have, luckily it didn't fuck me up, but i know alot of people that are messed up because they weren't raised right. religion just gives a reason to be good, parents should teach kids to be good regardless of religion.

In the course of human history, there have been - oh, let's say for the sake of this discussion - five thousand (nice round number) deities that have been "revealed," "created," "discovered," "invented," or however else man finds a deity.

This would mean, that for the world's three major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that all of the followers of these believe only in Yahweh, God (plus also Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, which may technically challenege the definition of monotheism, but we can skip that for now), and Allah, respectively.

Setting aside the issue of whether or not Yahweh, the Christian Trinity and Allah are or are not refereing to the same deity(s), every believer that adheres to monotheism, is in fact also an atheist with regard to the other 4,999 gods that anyone has ever believed in.

Turns out that most major religions have a "this is the one true religion" clause in them somewhere. So, once you commit yourself to one, you can use that belief to dismiss all others out-of-hand.

The thing is, almost no one ever really rationally compares one religious worldview to another, without the bias that comes from already believing in one, which tends to contain the "everything else is wrong" clause I just mentioned.

---

This is all just my wordy version of a much simpler quote:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

In the course of human history, there have been - oh, let's say for the sake of this discussion - five thousand (nice round number) deities that have been "revealed," "created," "discovered," "invented," or however else man finds a deity.

This would mean, that for the world's three major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that all of the followers of these believe only in Yahweh, God (plus also Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, which may technically challenege the definition of monotheism, but we can skip that for now), and Allah, respectively.

Setting aside the issue of whether or not Yahweh, the Christian Trinity and Allah are or are not refereing to the same deity(s), every believer that adheres to monotheism, is in fact also an atheist with regard to the other 4,999 gods that anyone has ever believed in.

Turns out that most major religions have a "this is the one true religion" clause in them somewhere. So, once you commit yourself to one, you can use that belief to dismiss all others out-of-hand.

The thing is, almost no one ever really rationally compares one religious worldview to another, without the bias that comes from already believing in one, which tends to contain the "everything else is wrong" clause I just mentioned.

---

This is all just my wordy version of a much simpler quote:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

:1: nice post man, respect!

good quote also

I used to think about whether there was a god or not and would drive myself nuts over it.

I don't even think about it anymore. What does it matter. Maybe I'll find the answer when I die.

Or maybe I'll become fertilizer and then it won't matter anyway.

Ok, some of you arn't going to like me for saying this, but I somehow doubt that most so-called athiests really are athiests, and those that do call themselves athiests are in fact just as self righteous then many religious extremists.

First of all, I want to draw a distinction between athiesm and agnosticism. Athiesm is the complete denial of God, Gods, dieties, etc. They essentially say that there is absolutely no possibility that a greater being exists. The idea of athiesm peaked between the enlightenment era and World War I. Many self-proclaimed athiests only call themselves athiests out of ignorance. Agnosticism is much more prevelant, and is often confused with athiesm. Agnostics essentially say that because we cannot prove or disprove the existance of god, so why worship any. They acknowledge that there is a chance that god exists, but there is no way for us to know. I would argue that most people that call themselves athiests are, in fact, agnostic.

Now, this is my problem with athiests- they essentially say that no matter what, there is not even a chance that there is a god. Most modern conceptions of god would say that he/she/it is capable of doing things that would otherwise be impossible. One could even say that god exists in the things that science cannot prove. For if science cannot prove everything, isn't there a chance that there is a god? God is in what we cannot fully, logically understand. Thus, an athiest must believe that absolutely everything can be understood through science. Even among scientists, this belief is not very common today. If you truly belive this, that god cannot exist, then you are completely dismissing the verbal and written accounts of people since the beginning of civilization. You say that everyone from Egyptian scribes, to Budda, to the Gospel authors, to the little old lady that said she saw an angel is either delusional or full of crap. How is it better for someone to deny all religion, even agnosticism, then it is for a preacher to claim that only his religion is correct? Can you really deny that there isn't even a chance that there is something that humanity does not, did not, or will not understand? Athiesm isn't a question of who's religion is right, its saying that there is no right answer. I would venture to say, the Athiests are even more delusional then that little old lady that saw an angel.

I'm perfectly willing to elaborate on anything I wrote, I realize that some of it might be hard to follow.

Athiests are delusional? Such an argument lacks logic. Athiests do function on the basis of logical argument. It is impossible for a human to know everything, so athiests make their conclusion on a balance of evidence to support their position.

Your comment"Thus,It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge the cultural significance of thousands of year of religious teaching and not actually accepting that any of it is true! an athiest must believe that absolutely everything can be understood through science. Even among scientists, this belief is not very common today" requires a reference. Did you just make this up, or is this quantifiable fact?

God, in any form does not exist, except in the hearts and minds of believers. The proponderance of evidence does not support the existence of god.

Even religions whose task is to persuade humans to believe in god cannot get it right. The very notion of god is a mass of contradictions. Are all religions correct? Many contradict one another over the wishes/ desires of god and what god is responsible for. Obviously, a literal interpretation of all religions simply cannot logically co exist. So which one is correct? In the absence of any one defining, supportable argument, it is reasonable to conclude that all are wrong.

it is perfectly reasonable to accept the cultural value of thousands of years of religious teaching without actually believing that any of it is true. Thier literal instruction may be full of crap but the artistic/historical/cultural merit is very valuable. It is incorrect of you to claim that athiesm cannot accept this.

Finally, does god exist? Well lets see.......<shouting out loud> GOD YOU LYING, DECEIVING BASTARD, IF YOU EXIST, STRIKE ME DEAD RIGHT NOW!!!


hmmmmmmmm..................still here................................

Athiests are delusional? Such an argument lacks logic. Athiests do function on the basis of logical argument. It is impossible for a human to know everything, so athiests make their conclusion on a balance of evidence to support their position.

Your comment"Thus,It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge the cultural significance of thousands of year of religious teaching and not actually accepting that any of it is true! an athiest must believe that absolutely everything can be understood through science. Even among scientists, this belief is not very common today" requires a reference. Did you just make this up, or is this quantifiable fact?

God, in any form does not exist, except in the hearts and minds of believers. The proponderance of evidence does not support the existence of god.

Even religions whose task is to persuade humans to believe in god cannot get it right. The very notion of god is a mass of contradictions. Are all religions correct? Many contradict one another over the wishes/ desires of god and what god is responsible for. Obviously, a literal interpretation of all religions simply cannot logically co exist. So which one is correct? In the absence of any one defining, supportable argument, it is reasonable to conclude that all are wrong.

it is perfectly reasonable to accept the cultural value of thousands of years of religious teaching without actually believing that any of it is true. Thier literal instruction may be full of crap but the artistic/historical/cultural merit is very valuable. It is incorrect of you to claim that athiesm cannot accept this.

Finally, does god exist? Well lets see.......<shouting out loud> GOD YOU LYING, DECEIVING BASTARD, IF YOU EXIST, STRIKE ME DEAD RIGHT NOW!!!


hmmmmmmmm..................still here................................

Unfortunately I cannot provide a direct reference (much of my knowledge on this subject comes from conversation) regarding scientist demographics, I can provide quotations from many icons of science.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
-Albert Einstein

"God is subtle but he is not malicious"
-Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

" When I consider what marvellous things men have understood, what he has inquired into and contrived, I know only too clearly that the human mind is a work of God, and one of the most excellent."
-Galileo

"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
-Wernher von Braun

"It appeareth in nothing more that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man"
-Francis Bacon

""This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
-Isaac Newton

Hopefully this will convince you that there are at least some non-athiestic scientists, and some good ones at that.

While I think you missed the point of my original post, I will try to explain myself in different terms.

The core of athiestic beliefs is that we cannot scientifically prove or disprove a diety's existance. You are correct in saying that a lack of evidence that god exists does not mean that he does exist. That is not what I intend to disprove. You are correct in saying that science hasn't proven a god's existance. It must also be said that a lack of evidence that god does exist does not mean that he cannot exist. Just because there is a lack of evidence that there are space aliens does not mean that they do not exist. What athiests, as I defined them, say is that because science hasn't proven a god's existance there is not a god. This is not science, but, in fact, just another form of faith. It requires just as much faith to believe that there is not a god then to believe that there is one. The perfect, faithless, science only scientist, would be an agnostic, not an athiest.

Do not link athiesm with science, for they are not one. There is belief in god (thiesm), and belief that there is not god god (athiesm), but you cannot scientifically prove either, the only difference is that most religious people do not claim that science supports them, athiests mistakenly do make such claims. I disagree with anyone that would argue that they have the right answer regarding god, which is exactly what religious extremists and athiests do. I really do think that if most "athiests" really look hard at the definition of the word, they will find that they are in fact agnostics.

This is not a question of whether or not any one religion is right or wrong (if there is a right or wrong regarding god, but thats another philosophical question). It does not follow that if none of the religions are correct, there is no god. Just because I pick A on a multiple choice test, you pick B, and we are both wrong doesn't mean that C isn't right.

Again, I will expand upon anything I have written

Agnostics essentially say that because we cannot prove or disprove the existance of god, so why worship any. They acknowledge that there is a chance that god exists, but there is no way for us to know. I would argue that most people that call themselves athiests are, in fact, agnostic.

Okay, then I guess I'm Agnostic.

Finally, does god exist? Well lets see.......<shouting out loud> GOD YOU LYING, DECEIVING BASTARD, IF YOU EXIST, STRIKE ME DEAD RIGHT NOW!!!


hmmmmmmmm..................still here................................

You do realize of course that this has no meaning a all correct. In fact this statement actually attests to you own beleif in God becasued with it you are giving God characteristics and personality traits. You are in fact saying that i fthere was a god than he would be of the mind to smite someone who blaphems against him.

in other points, you can also actually count science as a sort of faith, becasue our scientific "truths" are actually only our faith in the correctness of the current theories. or instance, once all of europe beleived that the world was flat, becasue the scientific methods of the day had show it to be true. People then would have said that it was truth and science fact. However now we have faith in our theory that the world is in fact spherical. Now today our faith in the truth of science is related to the probability that our educated guess is correct.

the point being that an athiest could not use science to defend their arguments about the existence of God because science is a faith which is exactly what they are aguing against.:naughty:

Tell him he's going to be screwed when he comes face-to-face with Zeus.

^ is the correct reply.

Okay, then I guess I'm Agnostic.

I'm Agnostic. I say that it doesn't matter wheather or not there is a God or not, if you feel good about believing in it, then believe. If not, don't. The truth is irrelevant and would not do any good.

I'll throw in my :2cents: real quick.

I have no problem with athiest. Yes deep down I wish they felt different but I can't really force my views onto them now can I? There are a couple I know that are really nice and have no problems with my beliefs. We have debates every now and again.

Now, most athiest I have met though are ass suckers. They spew shit about me being a "tool" and "uneducated" and that's it. They can dish it out when an argument goes their way but when there's a counter-point they become little bitches.

So athiest in general I haven't had the best of luck with but a few of the nicest people I know are athiest so it goes both ways.

You do realize of course that this has no meaning a all correct. In fact this statement actually attests to you own beleif in God becasued with it you are giving God characteristics and personality traits. You are in fact saying that i fthere was a god than he would be of the mind to smite someone who blaphems against him.
Actually, I was being funny.

Your point, though, supports mine. Many people believe god IS venegfull and will smite the blasphemers. And many others believe this is not true.

Both views of the same god cannot be true at the same time. Religion is full of many such contradictions, with IMO proves religion is a mish- mash of fantasy and fairytales which cannot be taken literally as a meaningful guide to the nature of the things. In other words, god does not exist.


in other points, you can also actually count science as a sort of faith, becasue our scientific "truths" are actually only our faith in the correctness of the current theories. or instance, once all of europe beleived that the world was flat, becasue the scientific methods of the day had show it to be true. People then would have said that it was truth and science fact. However now we have faith in our theory that the world is in fact spherical. Now today our faith in the truth of science is related to the probability that our educated guess is correct.

the point being that an athiest could not use science to defend their arguments about the existence of God because science is a faith which is exactly what they are aguing against.:naughty:

Not quite true. Science is not faith. Faith, by definition, is a belief in the absence of supporting fact. True science uses fact to support theories. When the preponderance of facts achieves a certain level, that theory is considered to be fact.

Unlike religion, science is flexible in its 'beliefs'. As greater research/information is gathered, the 'beliefs' become facts. Your anecdote about the earth being round is a perfect example of this. Religion, as being fiction have no such refinement system, as they are solely based on the imagination of their (human) creators.

can't remember if I saw it here but someone once pointed out that it is next to impossible to prove something doesn't exist than it is to prove that it does.
You can't prove that there isn't a monster under your bed can you?
you can look and you won't see it there but is that proof that it isn't there?
is it faith that I don't believe in monsters?

can't remember if I saw it here but someone once pointed out that it is next to impossible to prove something doesn't exist than it is to prove that it does.
You can't prove that there isn't a monster under your bed can you?
you can look and you won't see it there but is that proof that it isn't there?
is it faith that I don't believe in monsters?

Define monster.

http://www.michael-jackson.com/mj2002.jpg

http://cuantoyporquetanto.com/images/planetasonoro/entrevistas/lordi/lordituskafestivalbajista.jpg

http://www.leninimports.com/adolf_hitler_biography_5.jpg

Monsters is not belief. It's Science.

he doesn't need to define monster...that's not what his statement was refering to...in any case...he could be refering to any type of monster hiding under "your" bed...mabey those are your monsters

and how is it science and not belief that some considers someone else a monster or that a monster (some mystical creature) is under their bed??

he doesn't need to define monster...that's not what his statement was refering to...in any case...he could be refering to any type of monster hiding under "your" bed...mabey those are your monsters

and how is it science and not belief that some considers someone else a monster or that a monster (some mystical creature) is under their bed??

Don't ruin the joke.. :frown:

Athiesm isn't a question of who's religion is right, its saying that there is no right answer. I would venture to say, the Athiests are even more delusional then that little old lady that saw an angel.

I'm perfectly willing to elaborate on anything I wrote, I realize that some of it might be hard to follow.


Having once considered myself an atheist, I quickly learned that everyone has to believe in something, whether is be (science, or self-gratification or the belief of nothingness); which at that point would classify you as an existentialist (of whom do not wish to be "classified") My point is that no matter what you believe or associate with, the paranormal is essentially just the unexplained that hasn't been understood. Just as people used to think that extreme whether was an act of God or a god, scienists have now explained through meteorolgy and the study of the atmosphere, why it happens. So it is no longer an act of higher power moreso than a natural occurence that is in text books. (by majority belief) I believe that in time, whether it be by death or over generations, that the "paranormal" and the unexplained will turn into "science" and "fact". It is all the same and all one, just clearly divided at the moment. The answer lies within death, either we know a little more when we die that when we were alive, or we die into nothingness. My belief is the first of the two.

i fthere was a god than he would be of the mind to smite someone who blaphems against him.

Many people believe god IS venegfull and will smite the blasphemers.

God no longer smites, nor does he smote. "Smite" is a word used in the 16th century when King James had the bible translated into a language more understandable to his people. Modern versions of the bible don't use terms like "He shall smite thee...". Instead newer bibles say things like "He'll bitch-slap your ass" or "He opened a can of whup-ass and it was good."

ILikeCars it is not true that everyone must believe in something, it's similar to believing that john is faster than steve. Sure that might be true it might not but if you don't know who john or steve are why does that even matter, why bother to alot it time in your conciousness, and especially important why would you base your actions off of this assumption that doesn't matter.

Ok, some of you arn't going to like me for saying this, but I somehow doubt that most so-called athiests really are athiests, and those that do call themselves athiests are in fact just as self righteous then many religious extremists.

First of all, I want to draw a distinction between athiesm and agnosticism. Athiesm is the complete denial of God, Gods, dieties, etc. They essentially say that there is absolutely no possibility that a greater being exists. The idea of athiesm peaked between the enlightenment era and World War I. Many self-proclaimed athiests only call themselves athiests out of ignorance. Agnosticism is much more prevelant, and is often confused with athiesm. Agnostics essentially say that because we cannot prove or disprove the existance of god, so why worship any. They acknowledge that there is a chance that god exists, but there is no way for us to know. I would argue that most people that call themselves athiests are, in fact, agnostic.

Now, this is my problem with athiests- they essentially say that no matter what, there is not even a chance that there is a god. Most modern conceptions of god would say that he/she/it is capable of doing things that would otherwise be impossible. One could even say that god exists in the things that science cannot prove. For if science cannot prove everything, isn't there a chance that there is a god? God is in what we cannot fully, logically understand. Thus, an athiest must believe that absolutely everything can be understood through science. Even among scientists, this belief is not very common today. If you truly belive this, that god cannot exist, then you are completely dismissing the verbal and written accounts of people since the beginning of civilization. You say that everyone from Egyptian scribes, to Budda, to the Gospel authors, to the little old lady that said she saw an angel is either delusional or full of crap. How is it better for someone to deny all religion, even agnosticism, then it is for a preacher to claim that only his religion is correct? Can you really deny that there isn't even a chance that there is something that humanity does not, did not, or will not understand? Athiesm isn't a question of who's religion is right, its saying that there is no right answer. I would venture to say, the Athiests are even more delusional then that little old lady that saw an angel.

I'm perfectly willing to elaborate on anything I wrote, I realize that some of it might be hard to follow.


I was under the impression that an agnostic was someone who beleived in some sort of superior being that started the universe but they dont know of the beings identity and that the being has no influence on their lives and does not ask to be worshipped. He kinda just got the ball rolling and then watches from the sideline.

I dont consider myself an athiest and i do not beleive in a god. Saying that someone is an athiest is like saying they have a religion thats about not having a religion. I just say that i dont have a religion, i dont need my beleifs to be classified in religious terms.

When it comes right down to it, I reserve the highest form of respect for only one kind of person: one who does not maliciously hurt (cheat, steal, lie, kill, harm) another, and if possible, benefits other people. Chistian, Muslim Jewish, Atheist, or Halo 2 worshipper. Doesnt matter to me one bit. At all. I believe in that ideology above any religion or belief. Everything else is secondary.

Athiests are delusional? Such an argument lacks logic. Athiests do function on the basis of logical argument...[your comment] requires a reference. Did you just make this up, or is this quantifiable fact?


Religion is full of many such contradictions, with IMO proves religion is a mish- mash of fantasy and fairytales which cannot be taken literally as a meaningful guide to the nature of the things. In other words, god does not exist.


Do you have a reference, or did you just make this up?

The very notion of god is a mass of contradictions.

How about this one?

Science is not faith.

This is a common misconception, but a very serious one. Unless YOU are a scientist who collects all your own data and observes everything yourself, you must have faith.

I believe that humans have DNA and RNA. Of course I have never seen them, nor would I even know where to look. But I believe scientists because I have faith in their abilities AND I have faith that they aren't lying to me.

Do you suppose the scientific community could band together and report false information, and the majority of "lay people" would be none the wiser? Would you know if your biology 101 textbook was full of lies? They could use their knowledge of the truth to skew our world view and control the masses. If any individual scientist broke off from the main flock, he would certainly be branded a crazy person, a heretic. They would use it to control people through fear, and make rational people believe irrational things!

Hmm, my paranoid delusion about scientists sounds familiar, kind of like the paranoid delusion some people have regarding modern day religion.

Do you have a reference, or did you just make this up?



How about this one?



This is a common misconception, but a very serious one. Unless YOU are a scientist who collects all your own data and observes everything yourself, you must have faith.

I believe that humans have DNA and RNA. Of course I have never seen them, nor would I even know where to look. But I believe scientists because I have faith in their abilities AND I have faith that they aren't lying to me.

Do you suppose the scientific community could band together and report false information, and the majority of "lay people" would be none the wiser? Would you know if your biology 101 textbook was full of lies? They could use their knowledge of the truth to skew our world view and control the masses. If any individual scientist broke off from the main flock, he would certainly be branded a crazy person, a heretic. They would use it to control people through fear, and make rational people believe irrational things!

Hmm, my paranoid delusion about scientists sounds familiar, kind of like the paranoid delusion some people have regarding modern day religion.


I like your 2nd point you make here, I've never thought of that before.

And about contradictions, the christian faith is chop full of them. I wont say them all but the main one for me is how god is supposed to love his children unconditionally but has no problem letting them suffer if hell for using rational and primal impulses that HE gave them.

given the right equipment and time and experience, anyone can go and replicate science to get the results for themselves.
that is what makes it different from religion :. science is not faith

Faith -noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Sounds like it involves plenty of faith to me.

The point is, YOU don't have the equipment time and experience, therefore you are placing your faith in the words and works of others. It really isn't a difficult concept.

If any of you remember The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy then consider the case of the Babel Fish and the paradox of being an agnostic...

Me, I have fundamental values about what I consider morally just and equitable that were shaped by my upbringing and personality - dominantly Judeo-Christian 'western' values but strong influences of humanism, Confucian dynamism and the concept of private & public benefit and cost.

I have scruples that prevent me for working say for the provision for sale or marketing of tobacco or gambling - and I don't have a price when it comes to this... but up until recently I'd have happily lit one up over a cold beer... I don't see capitalism as fundamentally wrong but I do see exploitation of labour as perverse - which means there is a sliding scale here rather than absolutes.

Faith is something we all hold in one aspect or another - whether it be faith in a deity, religion, belief system or expectations of how other folk will behave in certain situations and stimuli. I'm a pragmatist but an optmistic one who is regularly disappointed but unsurprised....

Faith -noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Sounds like it involves plenty of faith to me.

The point is, YOU don't have the equipment time and experience, therefore you are placing your faith in the words and works of others. It really isn't a difficult concept.

:rolleyes:
don't argue semantics when we all know what I am talking about.
if i did have the equipment, time and experience, I could.
The same is simply not true and cannot be true for religion. Religion is based purely on faith with no possible way for testing of, let's just call it, "truth". On the other hand, science is test-able and more importantly, replicable in that testing.
That isn't really a difficult concept either.

When it comes right down to it, I reserve the highest form of respect for only one kind of person: one who does not maliciously hurt (cheat, steal, lie, kill, harm) another, and if possible, benefits other people. Chistian, Muslim Jewish, Atheist, or Halo 2 worshipper. Doesnt matter to me one bit. At all. I believe in that ideology above any religion or belief. Everything else is secondary.

An that is being a rationalistic agnosticist who define the meaning of life as happiness. Come join the club.

I was under the impression that an agnostic was someone who beleived in some sort of superior being that started the universe but they dont know of the beings identity and that the being has no influence on their lives and does not ask to be worshipped. He kinda just got the ball rolling and then watches from the sideline.

I dont consider myself an athiest and i do not beleive in a god. Saying that someone is an athiest is like saying they have a religion thats about not having a religion. I just say that i dont have a religion, i dont need my beleifs to be classified in religious terms.

I think you are thinking about something along the lines of deism, which is the belief that God (generally the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) created the world but does not interact with it at all today. It is also called the Clockmaker theory of God.

I dont consider myself an athiest and i do not beleive in a god. Saying that someone is an athiest is like saying they have a religion thats about not having a religion. I just say that i dont have a religion, i dont need my beleifs to be classified in religious terms.

Thats pretty much how I feel. I just try to live by observing faults in others and trying not to repeat them.