1712 replies to this topic

[Billybear185]

I don't think you have any idea what I said. It had nothing to do with history. I was suggesting that science and religion are separate entities.

I ignored that because such a statement suggests that you neither understand what science is nor have even basic understanding of philosophical logic.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying at all. If you disagree with my statement about science then you have no idea what science is. Furthermore, your statement about philosophical logic is irrelevant.

This link should help your understanding of science.

http://dictionary.re...wse/science?s=t

Edited by Billybear185, 10 April 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[johnross47]

There's an awful lot of people here ploughing their own furrows. Religion and science are different; science needs evidence and religion needs delusion. I accept that atheism is a leap in the dark but it is an informed leap. Given the total lack of evidence for god and the fact that the religious deny the existence of the all the thousands of gods other than their own, it seems like a good bet to say that the one they want you believe in probably doesn't exist either.

[hooter]

With time, Science will displace everything in religion. Religion used to state that diseases are caused by demons. Science proved it's bacteria. Religion used to state mental illness was caused by possession, science shows that it's a brain disorder. Religion used to state that the world is 6000 years old, science proved otherwise. Religion said the sun revolves around the earth, science proved the opposite (but only after several scientists were executed by the church).

Religion is an ever-receding bubble of ignorance.

Edited by hooter, 10 April 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[gamesguru]

Even if science never can explain the origins of the universe, that still doesn't justify the religious attitude.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. ( So God is materialistic?) See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Sorry but I have continued this off topic "God" conversation elsewhere as i referenced above. Stick to the subject. You have already voted there is no evidence for Atheism. Want to talk about God? Sure. see below.

http://www.longecity...post__p__510269

http://www.longecity...post__p__510247

See I am completely on topic when I say that you cannot expect there to be evidence for atheism, even if the evidence consists of only not seeing a god. I am completely on topic, because when you ask a question, it has to be sensible to answer too, what I mean is the following:
Firstly, note that you seem to believe in an immaterial god, in which case detecting god would be impossible anyway. So in this way, the question of evidence, for atheism and for god-ism (or counterevidence for atheism) is a useless one, since god would not exist in the material world and can thus never be tested and neither can atheism. Yes discussing what is the definition of god is important to define atheism and thus this conversation on evidence for atheism. You first need to define god before you can talk about evidence that there is no god, so please just acknowledge that this is on topic. So please, give us a definition of your god, and then can we start talking 1. whether it is even a sensible question to talk about evidence for it. 2. (optional, if it has proven to be a meaningful question) if there is evidence for or counterevidence against atheism (yes counterevidence, so evidence for god is also relevant for this topic, do not deny this as well). On the first definition ("god is immaterial") I have already given my opinion, namely that we will never be able to test that he yes or no exists. If you have some other definition, then please insert it, so I can give my opinion on 1 and 2 (which are completely relevant to this topic).
Secondly, you are somehow trying to avoid that the question of "is there evidence against the existence of god" is independent of the question "is there evidence for the existence of god". If there was a way to prove the existence of god, it would be necessarily the proof that atheism is wrong, and vice versa: if there was a way to disprove the existence of good, it would be necessarily the proof that god-ism is wrong. Moreover, these proofs, would stem from the same question, namely: "does god exist?"
Another point why the question is pointless (a point relevant to this topic), is that you want evidence for the absense of something. Basically the question is "Is there evidence for the absense of god (in the entire cosmos (or beyond in the fictional "immaterial world"))?" Yes, there is, it is all around us, but somehow you claim that absense of evidence is not evidence for absense. Yes it is. Absense of god was the original question. And the evidence of his absense is all around us. That does not mean that it is a proof for his absense. It does mean that atheists beliefs are more based on present observations, and those observations can be verified by everybody. Whenever we should detect a god, atheism is an hypothesis easily rejected. However, we do not have any observational evidence for a god. So evidence is what you ask, but you seem to dismiss all of what we see as not even being evidence, without providing any reason, any other than perhaps 'god is invisible' or even 'god is immaterial'. While that may be the case, we will have a harder time finding evidence for god, than for the absense of god, perhaps also because would not be omnipresent, and rather located somewhere in the universe (if we are really talking about a material god that is, otherwise, the question is totally senseless to ask).
So if you like to interpret this as that there is no evidence for atheism, do know, that there is even less evidence for god-ism, since the absense of god is omni-present, so far as human inquiry has looked. Again, no absolute proof involved, but we will never be able to prove atheism: atheism claims the absense of something. This is much harder to proof than the existence of something. So, the evidence really is to be provided by the god-believers, since the evidence of the absense is omnipresent, yet is seems not enough to rationalize the non-existence of god for some. So if you ask evidence of the absense of god, it is all around us. However, when we ask: where is your god, you will respond: he is immaterial. In this case no evidence can ever be provided for both sides (atheism and god-ism), only wild speculation of some philosophers like the one in the video. So why, in this immaterial definition of god, even bother? If you have other definitions, you can provide them as well. Then the question becomes more meaningful, so, yes, talking what god is , is relevant to whether there is evidence.

I do not disagree with you, there is no evidence for Atheism though many Atheists would not agree with you. The universe is not capable of explaining itself, if it was than there would be evidence for atheism. Asking a completely different question is not an answer either. There are many issues we can discuss about God, elsewhere. You sure are desperate to not discuss the topic as an agnostic. It seems your stance says it all for atheism.

Saying you know there is no evidence for Atheism is a direct answer to the topic. Now if you are interested in another topic so am I and we can carry on at an appropriate place which follows the guidelines for use of the forum.

http://www.longecity...post__p__428913

“Members have the option to utilize moderation powers in their regimen thread. This can be useful for maintaining an up-to-date list in the first post, and keeping the discussion on-topic.

While you have discretion in deciding what constitutes appropriate discussion, I suggest using this ability with tact and restraint. Heavy moderation will reduce the likelihood that users will participate in your thread.

Several buttons should appear at the bottom of posts.

Edit allows you to edit all posts in the thread (note that there is no way to undo edits).
Unapprove will hide the post from view of users. This can also be useful for 'reserving' posts at the top of the thread for later use.
Delete will remove the post from active status: in the next dialog box, clicking Remove will allow the post to be toggled and restored by moderators, while Delete will remove it irreversibly. Using Remove, and typing a brief reason for deletion, is generally better practice.


If you wish to use this function, please PM me with a link to your thread. Implementation by the appropriate administrator may take several days, but feel free to inquire if you think you've been forgotten.

Registered users: please consider joining as a full member. Doing so will afford you several benefits, help with site upkeep, and show support for our mission! “

very creative misinterpretation of my post. and you also ignored the bulk of my points, by saying 'asking a completely different question is not an answer either'. moderate whatever you wish, I have explained why the definition of god is crucial to the question. I have also explained that evidence for god and for no god is an obsolete question to ask, if you define god as being immaterial. if you interpret not believing in 'immateriality' (the least evidence-based approach to the god-question possible) as atheism, then I am willing to subscribe to atheism.

I thought so. Nice try.

[mikeinnaples]

Can you guys stop quoting entire walls of text and just quote the portion you are responding to? Geesh

[johnross47]

You won't get shadowhawk to stop. He's religious and doesn't know any better. Notice how sensibly the conversation was going until he butted in. Don't respond to him. He's an attention whoring troll full of delusional selfrighteousness. He probably believes all that crap is actually evidence. There is no way through his armour of faith. No light gets in and no sense gets out. Just ignore him.

[shadowhawk]

You won't get shadowhawk to stop. He's religious and doesn't know any better. Notice how sensibly the conversation was going until he butted in. Don't respond to him. He's an attention whoring troll full of delusional selfrighteousness. He probably believes all that crap is actually evidence. There is no way through his armour of faith. No light gets in and no sense gets out. Just ignore him.

How profound. All you can do is call people names. Is this evidence for Atheism? Maybe so.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 April 2012 - 09:12 PM.

[hooter]

Delusional disregard for evidence on the part of every religious person is evidence that there is something wrong with that hypothesis and that it should be highly reconsidered. Behaviours such as that concerning non-spiritual matters are often referred to as schizophrenic.

Having a hate/love fear/praise slave/master masochistic relationship with an anthropomorphic extraterrestrial supposedly enacting absolute and total surveillance to the point of conviction for thought crime while not interfering to alleviate agony is not something I find "comforting". Not to mention that this being had a spermium corporeally assembled into the womb of a bronze age virgin in order to give birth to a human/deity chimera that has been condemned to death in advance. All this while for some reason or another completely refusing to provide unquestionable evidence of his existence, just so he can trick people into falling into his burning perpetual prison. Even if a person follows his rules to the dot, they are still sentenced to eternity of praise and grovelling. I fail to understand the necessity of endless and mind numbing compliments for an alien whose powers are supposedly effortless.

I find this whole ordeal to be quite frightening.

Edited by hooter, 10 April 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[shifter]

You forgot that North Korean kids are taught that Mr Il is above the need to defecate. :p Actually I've studied North Korea and even planned a trip there (temptation of the 'forbidden fruit')

My point is, the individuals (Stalin, Mao, Il family) might create a 'religion' but the individuals themselves are inherently Atheist 'belief'. The religion they create or enforce is just a guise. Do you really believe that Kim Jong Il believed the story of his birth?? He was probably well aware he was born in the soviet union and everything thats said is pumped out of his own 'propaganda machine'. he doesn't believe himself to be a 'God'. He makes sure his people do though. (and make sure they dont believe anything different! How else to retain power. That doesn't make him 'religious'.


Stalin burned everything with a hint of religion to the ground and destroyed anyone who had any sort of faith. Forget the mysticism surrounded what he created for a moment....Stalin as an individual - was he a Theist? or Atheist? In dictatorships, it's impossible to be powerful if people believe in something greater than mankind. (which means something greater than the dictator).

In China, 'Falun Gong' is like 'tai chi', but was banned and its followers killed and tortued.. Why? It's supposed to connect with ones spirituality. Atheist communist party thinking. Now if 'the party' were Agnostics.......

You say you dont like Stalin to be used as an example to atheism as he created a cult. Well, Hitler created a 'Nazi-ism' which is generally accepted as a 'cult' too. Do you think Christians identify with him??

Yeah, Stalin is at number one. He (and others like Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung) may have created a cult where they are revered as a 'God' but that came when 'absolute power' had corrupted them. Theism is stamped out and atheism is enforced to keep the dictators power absolute.

Is killing in the name of religion any better than killing in the name of stamping out religion (in all its forms)? Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il... 3 people responsible for at least more than 100 million deaths and hundreds of millions more in suffering. And all of them despised any kind of religion. Imagine if they were laid back Agnostics instead of Atheists. hehe

I don't know why you whine about the Old Testament, when all the quotes I provided are from the New Testament? Not to mention that Jesus personally says that one should never ignore the Old Testament. What exactly is differentabout today's slaves?

Stalin did not kill in the name of stomping out religion, he created his own religion as evidenced by the mythology. Mao did the same. Hitler would have been laughed out of the country if there weren't already existent anti-semitic ideals stemming from the Christianity in Germany. Talk to someone in a deeply catholic family and see what they have to say about the Jews. I've talked to many highly religious families in SLOVAKIA, and they despise the Jews and treat them as lesser people. Keep in mind these are folks who were thrown into ovens along with the Jews, so why would they sympathize with Hitler? The point is that they don't, they sympathize with the biblical perspective towards Jews. Please read more history books...

You do not seem to be familiar with North Korea or Kim Jong-il whatsoever. Here are some facts about NK, please try to convince me that this is not religion:

• North Korean children are taught to believe that Kim Sung-il created the world.
• North Korean's believe that Kim Jong-Il was born of a virgin and that his birth coincided with the appearance of a new star.
• The current president is Kim Sung-il, who has been dead since 1994. They believe that his spirit is eternally watchful.
• North Korean's believe that Kim Jong-il and his son have godlike powers and a healing touch, which is why people want to hold his hands in most photographs.

This is exactly like the trinity in Christianity. The father, the son and the Juche spirit. You can continue being ignorant as much as you want, but it's not going to change the facts. It's no sense arguing with someone who has not done their research.

Actually, I propose that you read something of real value instead rather than a work of fiction like the New Testament.

More people have given up their faith after an indepth reading of the Bible than any other book.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Edited by shifter, 11 April 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[shifter]

I agree with your picture, but the same could be true to anyone with an Agnostic belief thinking. There is no harm in Agnosticism or belief/subjugation to any doctrine. Just a 'maybe something?? who knows. Doesn't matter' attitude for some.

Delusional disregard for evidence on the part of every religious person is evidence that there is something wrong with that hypothesis and that it should be highly reconsidered. Behaviours such as that concerning non-spiritual matters are often referred to as schizophrenic.

Having a hate/love fear/praise slave/master masochistic relationship with an anthropomorphic extraterrestrial supposedly enacting absolute and total surveillance to the point of conviction for thought crime while not interfering to alleviate agony is not something I find "comforting". Not to mention that this being had a spermium corporeally assembled into the womb of a bronze age virgin in order to give birth to a human/deity chimera that has been condemned to death in advance. All this while for some reason or another completely refusing to provide unquestionable evidence of his existence, just so he can trick people into falling into his burning perpetual prison. Even if a person follows his rules to the dot, they are still sentenced to eternity of praise and grovelling. I fail to understand the necessity of endless and mind numbing compliments for an alien whose powers are supposedly effortless.

I find this whole ordeal to be quite frightening.

[gamesguru]

I can't tell if this thread is headed toward the end of a rainbow or is going down the drain, but I'm in for the ride.

[mikeinnaples]

You won't get shadowhawk to stop. He's religious and doesn't know any better. Notice how sensibly the conversation was going until he butted in. Don't respond to him. He's an attention whoring troll full of delusional selfrighteousness. He probably believes all that crap is actually evidence. There is no way through his armour of faith. No light gets in and no sense gets out. Just ignore him.

How profound. All you can do is call people names. Is this evidence for Atheism? Maybe so.

It isn't name calling when it is an accurate description.

[shadowhawk]

Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on the definition of atheism


http://www.youtube.c...n&v=SsyhpZxKa3I

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 April 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[shifter]

Actually, I dont know why this debate should be so nasty.. I dont see why it needs to be an either/or thing. I think that both Science and Religion can co-exist peacefully, especially in todays modern civilisation. Sure we had some stupid leaders in the past which lead to the dark ages and the horrors of what happens when we allow the doctrines of religion to be the complete ruler over us, but I think the possibility of a healthy balance is the best outcome.

One thing that differentiates humans over the rest of the animal kingdom is theism. Perhaps our ancient ancestors with their dreams and hope of 'what is out there' and 'who did this' would never have advanced mankind to venture out to the stars (or heavens). Perhaps our scientific discoveries could never have existed without humans developing a 'theism' or the idea of Agnostism in the first place. Of course that is just an IDEA. But maybe Atheists shouldn't be so quick to judge harshly people who are theist. (at least in todays modern more understanding times. the past is in the past, let it go and look forward to a better future) Spiritual beliefs could have been a catalyst to the first origins of scienctific discoveries. And Theism is a unique trait of mankind. Animals lack that ability and so are trapped forever in a mind which only believes what its eyes tell them. But even people who lack belief are still capable of a mind that can open to possibilities beyond our comprehension.


Everyone on this forum is here because they love science and believe in it. Someday mankind can be masters of the universe, but it's going to take a lot of faith and belief (in something, anything!) to get us there.

To make scientific discoveries requires a leap of faith too. How many 'theories' or hypotheses exist in science. Black holes, wormholes, string theory, alternate universes, quantum physics and the list goes on. All theorised by credible scientists. If these scientists lacked the ability for faith, then they wouldn't be able to make any hypothesis. And we wouldn't be able to make these tests that further our knowledge. Even when we find out we were wrong about something, we still learn something.

Make peace with each other people

Edited by shifter, 11 April 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Actually, I dont know why this debate should be so nasty.. I dont see why it needs to be an either/or thing. I think that both Science and Religion can co-exist peacefully, especially in todays modern civilisation. Sure we had some stupid leaders in the past which lead to the dark ages and the horrors of what happens when we allow the doctrines of religion to be the complete ruler over us, but I think the possibility of a healthy balance is the best outcome.

Sadly it cannot. For centuries, scientific progress has been both indirectly and directly hindered by misguided religious beliefs.

I would have NO problem with people and their religious beliefs if they did not have any impact in my life. The sad truth is that they 100% do. Even in the "land of the free" policy is determined by underlying religious values. Even in the modern world where we should have the wisdom and experience to know better, religious values negatively effect scientific research. It saddens me to think about how much of a negative impact that religion has had on the lives of people, when it is supposed to have to exact opposite effect.... how many lives it has cost.

John Lennon had it at least partially right:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

[mikeinnaples]

Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on the definition of atheism


http://www.youtube.c...n&v=SsyhpZxKa3I

Please stop spamming the thread with links and only post when you have something to contribute.

Seriously hoping a moderator steps in here at some point and puts a stop to it, because you are bringing nothing of value to the conversation or debate.

[hooter]

Actually, I dont know why this debate should be so nasty.. I dont see why it needs to be an either/or thing. I think that both Science and Religion can co-exist peacefully, especially in todays modern civilisation. Sure we had some stupid leaders in the past which lead to the dark ages and the horrors of what happens when we allow the doctrines of religion to be the complete ruler over us, but I think the possibility of a healthy balance is the best outcome.

?????
Thousands of people are dying as a result of religion. Even this year.

• Palestine / Israel conflicts
• Religious suicide bombings
• Belfast (Catholics vs Protestants)
• African religious genocide (Islam vs Christianity)
• Gay teenagers being bullied into suicide by Christians
• Abortion doctors being killed.
• Abortion outlawed by religious extremists.
• The catholic church condemning the use of condoms in overpopulated AIDS ridden Africa.
• Genital mutiliations by Islam.

Hello? Do you think if several groups of people believe that their book and their god is the right one, they will live peacefully with the others? Even if their books repeat that unbelievers should be treated with contempt or even murdered? (The Koran contains 120 quotes calling for the torture and murder of unbelievers, including the pouring of boiling water on their heads and ripping off pieces of flesh with hooks.)

Many Christians believe that Jesus will appear from heaven and magically fix everything, so why bother planning for the future? Why not just drain and poison the earth that will be left over to the unbelievers anyway? If you think that you are going to be lifted up into eternal life after death, nuclear war doesn't sound like such a bad idea!

Are you seriously thinking that such an egocentric belief of 'having a deity who agrees with you' can be anything but culturally detrimental?

Edited by hooter, 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[shifter]

Some of the points you make I can see (always did), however

[*]Palestine / Israel conflicts

If religion didn't exist it would be about land. Religion just gives someone an excuse to take over / defend themself. "God gave us this land so we'll fight to protect it". Without religion, there would still be wars. Land, power, wealth, resources......women!! We'll always find some reason to fight. Religion is just another reason among many.

[*]Gay teenagers being bullied into suicide by Christians
More individualistic behaviours. Gay people are tormented by people of any faith. I cant say growing up in a Catholic school and to teh churches I ever heard of a gay bashing sermon or to hate any people. I went to a government high school and my only friend there was gay. Suffice to say it was not an easy 4 years. Teenagers will be dicks no matter the religious or non religious persuasion. Religion gives people a 'tool' to vent already existent hatreds and makes their cause look 'just' in the yes of their peers. Religious or not, people will find a reason to torment minority groups

[*]The catholic church condemning the use of condoms in overpopulated AIDS ridden Africa.
The catholics are certainly backward in todays modern world ideals but I wouldn't say they are the reasons AIDS have proliferated in these countries. At the same time they condemn the use of condoms, they also preach monogamy and sex only with your wife (so only after you have married and gotten to know them for a while). If everybody actually followed that mantra, then the AIDS rate would be down. But I agree the catholic church needs to get with modern times and see over population as a problem and a threat.

A more powerful reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa is the extremely high incidence of rape. In South Africa, 1 in 4 men admit to have done it and

36,190 cases of rape were reported to the police between April and December 2007

http://www.time.com/...1906000,00.html

Thats an average of around 134 rapes per day or 1 every 11 minutes! And thats just the reported ones! There is no religious motivations for these rapes. I'd hardly blame a missionary preaching monogamy and sex only to your ONE AND ONLY wife as the reason AIDS proliferates.

If you think that you are going to be lifted up into eternal life after death, nuclear war doesn't sound like such a bad idea!

The nuclear bomb was not used in the past because it was inspired by God. The nuclear bomb was invented by scientists, it was used to defeat an enemy in a 'non religious' war (at least on the part of America and Japan). And it is tested around the world as a demonstration of a countries power and for deterrence. (again nothing to do with religion)


A lot of your other points deal with extremism and I agree that religion is a cause but again, it's only one tool people use to justify their hatreds and murderous impulses. Going to church every Sunday and reading the bible, is not going to make me go out and kill an abortionist doctor.

Are you seriously thinking that such an egocentric belief of 'having a deity who agrees with you' can be anything but culturally detrimental?

Most religious people stop and beg and pray forgiveness for the wrongs they have done. They do not believe everything they do is justified by some deity. The huge majority of them are probably the least egocentric people you'd ever meet. How does a belief of something beyond your comprehension and infinitely more powerful than yourself make all of those people' egocentric'? I could argue that I should be more worried about the people who believe that they answer to no one and that they are the most intelligent and powerful thing in the known universe. Power corrupts.
Sorry, but religion going away will not make things any better. Land, power, resources, wealth, women! etc, will just take the place.


here is a quote from the most famous scientist (and creator of the atom bomb)

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[14]

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained:

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.[6]

Edited by shifter, 17 April 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on the definition of atheism


http://www.youtube.c...n&v=SsyhpZxKa3I

Please stop spamming the thread with links and only post when you have something to contribute.

Seriously hoping a moderator steps in here at some point and puts a stop to it, because you are bringing nothing of value to the conversation or debate.

I did have something to say defining atheism. What have you said except this kind of nonsense. Not worth bothering with.

[mikeinnaples]

I did have something to say defining atheism. What have you said except this kind of nonsense. Not worth bothering with.

Then don't respond if it isn't worth bothering with. Since you took the time to type a response, it is obvious it IS worth bothering with in your mind.

Like I said, actually contribute your own thoughts to the conversation. When you do nothing but puke out google search results like you do most of the time, you are spamming.

...oh and stop being a bitch. Thanks

[gamesguru]

"Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."
~Protagoras

[Billybear185]

"Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."
~Protagoras

Could not agree more, this argument is somewhat useless in that too many assumptions need to be made in order for a point to be valid.

[hooter]

You missed a lot of my arguments. But I don't blame you, for they are indefensible. Read "God is not great: How religion poisons everything" if you want to see what's up.

[Billybear185]

You missed a lot of my arguments. But I don't blame you, for they are indefensible. Read "God is not great: How religion poisons everything" if you want to see what's up.

wow... did you really just validate your opinion of religion, as a whole, based on a book written by a well known atheist? I am not an atheist or a religious person. However, if one wishes to take on a better understanding of this issue it only makes sense to have a wide range of knowledge on the subject.

[steampoweredgod]

You missed a lot of my arguments. But I don't blame you, for they are indefensible. Read "God is not great: How religion poisons everything" if you want to see what's up.

wow... did you really just validate your opinion of religion, as a whole, based on a book written by a well known atheist? I am not an atheist or a religious person. However, if one wishes to take on a better understanding of this issue it only makes sense to have a wide range of knowledge on the subject.

if there is a god not only is he mostly absent in everything, but at most he resembles the enlightened scientist or a machine than anything a religious person may imagine. And if god boils to a machine, a scientist or an equation, than quite simply atheism is all but proven, whether through some convoluted ways this can reconcile with judaism, christianity and muslim belief, that is a different matter.

But man is drawing closer to the GUT, the grand unified theory, and while the gaps will be made infinite, it will be a gapless theory wherein the nature of the gaps is grasped, and god if is is forced out of the sheets of spacetime.

[johnross47]

There's a lot about this whole thread that pricks my curiosity. Shadowhawk is obviously obsessed by atheists....he keep attacking them on every thread he joins or starts. Did you study under Craig, Shadowhawk? Is that why you worship this guy. You're obviously not capable of taking a critical view of his "thinking" for some reason. You obviously think his arguments are wonderful, even though they are actually the most extreme case of sophistry I have seen in the modern world. He is highly intelligent and extremely learned in a very narrow field, but his credentials all come from religious colleges where you are rewarded for regurgitating fairytales. Did you study in one of those same colleges? He wins his debates by being an extremely skilled debater and by being much better prepared than his opponents who mostly have real jobs. He gets away with appalling non sequiteurs and leaps of faith instead of logic just by talking so fast and so much that his opponents are stupified. Like the traditional devil really; if his life was a hollywood movie he would be the devil. And he defends hideous acts by god that would land a real person in court for crimes against humanity. Why are you so obsessed by this shadowhawk? Why do you so worship this vile amoral charlatan?

[Slahzer]

shadowhawk is but yet another example of the severe indoctrination made possible by religion.

People like that believe God exists 100% without a doubt and that no amount of evidence can disprove that.

The lack of belief in a god is caused by the lack of evidence for that god. Thus the question of this thread is nulled and is void.

There are various theories and phenomena in science that make the existence of a god seem improbable:

• Evolution
• Red Shift
• The Big Bang

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for both the theories of evolution and the big bang. Both of these almost certainly disprove the existence of an intelligent creator.
Even if you were to fill a god into the gaps found in modern science it would be a deistic god, with no connection to Jesus Christ or any modern religion.

These are in no way evidence for atheism, because almost by definition there cannot be evidence for the lack of belief in something; but are good grounds to base the lack of belief in a god on.

EDIT:
Also, as Billybear185 points out you should read more than one book on Atheism, just as you should consider the vast amounts of evidence available that point against an intelligent creator rather than just reading the bible.

Edited by Slahzer, 22 April 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Ames]

I'm an agnostic.

I understand where the general perspective would be centered in such a forum as this. I understand it to a point.

However, from an objective perspective, the atheists here do realize that their arguments are so riddled with rhetorical fallacies that they are utterly unreadable to someone with a scientific mind, right?

If you want to argue against something that you beleive to be fallicious, then your arguments against must not contain fallacies, especially the quantity that they contain, and must be written within the strictest parameters of rhetorical integrity. Especially if you are trying to convince the world of your perspective, which by definition of your perspective, will approach your arguments with a very strict sense of analytical and rhetorical integrity. The irony is almost too much to bear, given the nature of this forum.

Second, for how smart that the people on this forum claim to be, they seem to not realize the limited nature of their own minds. You are taking in and processing such a minute amount of information about your environment and the universe that spawned it, over the course of your lifetime, that to be so pretentious that you state that you can understand said environment, and the nature of the origin of your existance, to the point that you can discount a 'god' force is so utterly ridiculous that you are akin to phoenician's looking up at the moon and pronouncing it god. In this case, you might be looking at the god and pronouncing it 'the big bang'. The point being, that you do not have the necessary information, nor will you likely ever have the necessary information, to arrive at an informed conclusion either way. To conclude differently is, ironically, unscientific.

Your minds are coffee filters in the Pacific Ocean of infinitely diverse information that comprises our universe. You have zero abiity to make a definate scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist. Conversely, people of faith are in the same position.

So, follow the parameters of your scientific method and admit the only thing that you can purport to know for sure, due to lack of evidence, and the thing that any man of wisdom comes to realize. That is: "All that I know is that I don't know".

Btw, pointing to religious myths as being untrue, such as the age of the earth, is a rhetorical fallacy as it avoids the central topic of the conversation and instead attacks a straw-man. The central topic is only whether or not god exists.

I find atheists just as close mided and frustrating to argue with as theists, primarily becasue it is very difficult to make the atheist see the truth of his 'lack of' belief: that he didn't give up belief at all. He just traded his belief that there is a god for a belief that there isn't a god. Atheists are still true believers. However, both perspectives are utterly unprovable, and therefore irrational, given our current knowledge. Only agnostics lack belief.

Edited by golgi1, 22 April 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[johnross47]

Pretty much the point I have been making all along. One side produces a story that goes back to the big bang and then hypothesises about the quantum phenomena that might have given rise to it, but the important word there is, hypothesise; there are no sound supported theories for what preceded the bang. Some people like Hawking have tried answers that make it unneccessary, but nobody has any evidence for now to settle the argument. On the religious side they go to great lengths to show that the world must have a begining on purely logical grounds, and then take a great leap in the dark and insist that this proves god exists and god did it. If you concede that something must have preceded the singularity at the bang, it certainly seems unlikely to me that it would be a being so small minded that he cares about what consenting adults do in bed. I wouldn't, of course, actually accept that the preceding state of affairs was a personal being, in the abscence of evidence, and I wouldn't accept that that position is akin to belief; it is an assertion of the abscence of grounds for any belief.

Edited by johnross47, 22 April 2012 - 09:46 PM.