Bad analagy "OFF" is not even related to the concept of TV channels
Atheism however is related to the god question. In order to personally identify as an atheist you need to adopt a position on the god question. The theist and agnostic positions are taken. There are no known truths concerning the veracity of the theistic claim, all these postions are based on what is believed to be the case.
@compendiumgravemind blocked by a christian!, no way man. his well of love has surley dried up.they come on to atheist sites expecting to be treated seriously,then chuck the toys out of the pram when confronted by the reality that there self deception is a big insecure bubble of delusion. i blame the parents personally.
@kram83au might have to go back a few generations of parents to find the common ancestor with the asshole gene. i think hes a link between the Homo genus-ass and the neander-dicks.
That is complete horseshit. Rational people don't define love as an invisible thing. It's a concept of how two people relate to each other in a unique way and express their trust in each other. Love isn't a "thing". It's an idea. Nice straw man numbnuts.
By saying absence of belief its still inferring that the atheist makes a conscious and or intellectual choice to choose to believe in nothing or total disbelief of anything beyond whats visible. Yet they can love their partner? An invisible bond to someone? In that thinking atheists should never "love" but rather go right up to another person of the opposite sex and say its ok I'm an atheist I'm the absence of belief in love. But I'll say "love" just to lie my way into your heart :)
@GameLevelEditor Actually, most bonds are biological (pheramones, DNA and such). Attraction is also physical, as it is a chemical reaction happening within the brain. Love is not magic. If two people have that chemical reaction to each other, it is called love, and CONSIDERED to be a mystical experience. However, most of the time that reaction only happens with one person. No one considers that mystical.
A number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together. Now quote the religious definition. =P
"And "suddenly" deciding the someone was a witch didn't happen during the salem witch trials either."
They 'suddenly' decided people were witches all the time! What do you think you would accomplish even if you *could* prove the witch burners weren't at fault? =p
"then look at the evidence and quit ignoraning the hell people who share a belief of yours (not you, but people in general) or lack there of have done."
I challenge you to name one rule (aside from not currently believing in any of the gods they've come across, of course) that a non-believer must follow to be classified as such. It's rather difficult to do, because it is very rare indeed that any two non-believers believe the same things. It's like blaming non-pianists for Stalin's reign. ;p
@jaieet I don't even understand your quesiton. There are many things Chrisitans or religious peole in general get blamed for yet there was no religoius rule in place demanding, praising, or encouraging their actions. In some cases their were rules in the religion against what was done yet blame gets heaped on the whole group. If there are nations governed by Athiest/Human Seclurlism and they do something bad, it needs to be pointed out that's what the Athiest/Human Securlist have dne.
@jaieet [cont] if we are to remain consistent. But if we want to place blame where it should be placed then If a religious text says to do [something] like "Kill the Infidels" and their followers do that, then thats a problem with the religion. If a person who so happens to be religious kill someone thats a problem with that person. Its like blaming all dog lovers because 1 dog lover ran over 10 pedestrians when their house got forclosed on, it doesn't make sense.
@Anidominus "If there are nations governed by Athiest/Human Seclurlism and they do something bad, it needs to be pointed out that's what the Athiest/Human Securlist have dne."
If the government and the people do bad things in the name of that particular belief system, then yes - they need to be reprimanded/punished for what they've done.
"If a person who so happens to be religious kill someone thats a problem with that person."
I wasn't aware that I attributed most murders to the bible. ;p
You stated in absolute terms that there isn't a shred of evidence that God exists. To make such a claim you first would need to possess infinite knowledge, and we would both agree that you don't.
You do not require infinite knowledge to say there's no evidence - because we have found no evidence. Not even the people who 'know' god exists can provide evidence. The closest they ever come is wierd theories based on already existing scientific theories that rely on misinformation and 'well, if this is true, then this *might* be true as well...!'
At present, you can probably state that god does not exist and be forgiven.
@BT3701 Anything Carl Sagan might have said is excessively irrelevant. :P
In this particular case, the deity in question has been funded with millions upon billions of dollars every year; for the past 2000 years, and yet we still come up dry. There are universities *devoted* to Christian research that aren't any closer to concluding whether or not a god exists than the people who *lived* those 2000 years ago. ;p
It's entirely justified to assert that a deity - any deity - is imaginary.
@BT3701 What part do you assert is false? The various churches worldwide being funded by Government tax? Or the Christian Universities devoting entire funds to finding a god?
@jaieet where is your support for that claim? It's one thing to make such a claim, but an entirely different matter in proving it? So give me your proof.
The government provides churches with religious grants; and gives them tax exempt status simply for *being* a religion. That's a no-brainer. I don't think anybody has ever attempted to simply deny the taxation system's existence before. Kudos to you. =p
And the Evangel Christian University of America is a fantastic example of a church receiving educational grants to fund studies of a deity. You'll note that most studies include Jesus.
@BT3701 I honestly don't think you understand the difference between an opinion and a public taxation policy. :P
What exactly do you believe is opinion? Cause right now, you're just flat-out denying tax records and the information supplied on a University's home page. ;p
@jaieet Once again you failed to provide a link to a single source which supports your claim, which leads me to believe that you are fabricating lies.
@BT3701 Theoretical question; if I were to provide a link to the exact law showcasing tax exempt status details in the US (laws including religious tax exemption); and a 2nd link to a controversial article condemning the government/public funding of an Evangelical Christian University through tax, what would *you* do?
Is your desire for information what's driving you? Cause frankly, I can get these links from a google search using the terms I stated above. Or is this all an attempt at discredit?
@jaieet Tax exempt status isn't the same thing as government funding. Nevertheless, even atheist organizations receive religious tax exemptions. One of which is the American Humanist Association.
@BT3701 "Tax exempt status isn't the same thing as government funding. "
Hence the reason for referencing a Christian University that receives grants to hand out religious degrees. :P
Humanism tolerates religious belief. It is an ever-evolving philosophical outlook that does not require or encourage a deity's involvement. I'm not sure if it receives complete tax exemption, though. Irregardless, it shouldn't. Nor any other ideology. Only good deeds should be tax-free (charities and such)
@BT3701 That makes absolutely no sense. :P Why would you believe *giving* money to an organisation simply for being religious be defined as pro-separation of that organisation from government? =p
Separation of church and state lists that the government may not make laws--pro or con--directly effecting or influencing religious worship. If a church were to follow proper procedure to qualify for tax exemption, they would still be able to gain those benefits. But not for just *being* a church. :P
@jaieet You're still confusing tax-exemptions with giving an organization funding. The two are not the same. And once again even unchurched people receive tax exempt status as I have already shown you, because even the American Humanist Association which is atheist in nature also receives tax exemption. Guess you're unable to grasp the difference between a tax-exemption and government funding. Besides that, the government already takes in more taxes than necessary. Then they misuse what they get
@BT3701 Under George W Bush's direction, religious education (including education to become a pastor) now receives government grants. This is one of the several study options available at Christian Universities. The government *does* give the Church money in this way. You are making *tremendous* effort to ignore this. :P
The ASA is a humanistic organisation. If you read up on humanism, you'll note that followers can be religious. It's atheistic in the same way that law firms are atheistic. =p
@jaieet You continue to spout off your opinion, however you have failed to give a specific example as proof. And since you haven't been able to provide any specific example or source, you leave me no choice but to ignore your opinions. I searched the web and was unable to find any specific examples that might support your claim, and found none.
Replace the commas with full stops. The first article is Bush's religious grant policy (note thefunding of a church $1 million under this initiative.)
The second article relates to Humanism. If you scroll down to the 2nd point, you'll note conflicting views toward religion in general - some pro-theology
@BT3701 And I hate to be that jerk pointing out flaws in the other guy's argument ( :P ), but the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the Western world. It does *not* gain that much tax from its population as a quota. I can agree that it's misused - up until recently, the republican party was shilling out hundreds of millions of dollars for abstinence programs. =p
It's funny. I've talked to athiest after athiest after athiest and they all say the same thing, "God does not exist". Now all of a sudden we want to get technical and say, well, we don't mean God doesn't exist. We just don't believe God exists. lol.
@Anidominus Well the atheists you have talked to sound like strong atheist or gnostic atheists. This is a position that allows for many fallacies. I choose the stance of agnostic or weak atheism. This one states exactly what he says in the video. That we have no proof so we do not believe.lol
@atheistjacob If something is proven then there is no reason to believe it. I know thats probably hair pulling as i know what you mean. But.... I actually thought you were responding to something else I said on another board. It amazes me how athiesm is not a religion but you guys (some of you) spend as much time telling people what you don't believe as religious people spend telling peole what they do believe.
@atheistjacob I'd be willing to bet there are more sites dedicated to Athiesm vs Religion lead by athiest than there are sites dedicated to Christians vs Muslims or Budhist or Athiest or Anything else lead by anyone. I could be wrong.... but I doubt it.
@Anidominus Weeeell, you have to keep in mind that in certain countries - especially places like the 'red' states in the US and the middle East - being a non-believer basically makes you 'evil'. Untrustworthy, at least. That kind've statement can really make people mad. :P
It's also a bit of a knowledge debate. It's kind've like sending your kid to school, then finding out that they were taught the holocaust was a hoax. You're not gonna take that sitting down! =p
@jaieet Immoral Yes, Evil No. as far as "Red" States or Christians are concerned. I can only partly speak for this group. I have never in my life ever believe athiest were evil i.e. they would kill, steal, destroy like thugs. Was I taught that athiest would partake in a wider range of behaivors, with no thought of moderation, thought sinful by the church? Yes. In addition, I don't see many athiest sites dedicated to the "We are not evil\imoral" argument. I do see "God does not exists".
@Anidominus I can't really speak on the behalf of any other person - believer or no - when it comes to the question of a non-believer's morality, but if a person of any stature were to approach me and insinuate that I'm untrustworthy or uncouth because I don't believe what they believe, I would laugh them off. I *have* laughed them off. :P
That could be the reason you haven't seen many sites devoted to morality issues. It really can be waved to one side with little dispute.
@jaieet I don't think that's the case. I believe its beause some Athiest are indeed religious in their Athiesm and are seeking to promote Athiesm (the none-belief) as being better than Thiesm (the belief). I believe like you that "none Religious Athiest" (my words not yours) do just laugh off those "Immoral" claims and move on to something else the same way I laugh off an Islamic individual calling me an infedel and against God because I believe in Jesus.
@jaieet I said that wrong, it doesn't matter if the Athiest is religous or not, I think they [athiest] generaly laugh off the claim that they are immorral. But the religious Athiest promotes Athiesism as it it were some kind of religon.
@Anidominus You're almost right... but there's more to it than that. It's not promoted by the more eccentric like a religion - but like a philosophy (not that this detracts from the influence that it might have - darwinism, socialism, capitalism, humanism, vegetarianism, etc, etc, are all life-altering philosophies).
It has no basis of code or law, but revolves *solely* around a series of opinions.
When faced with something bad, people immediately and inevitably try to stomp it out. A small group of fanatic Catholics abusing children and arguably destroying africa; a minor collection of eccentric Christians (mostly in the US) spewing intolerance against competing beliefs (or non-beliefs); a fanatic selection of Islam terrorists blowing up hospitals...
A suggestive mind will quickly assume the simplest solution is the best - no more religion.
@jaieet Child abuse has nothing to do with Chrisitanity or being a Catholic. I can't find anywhere in my bible where it states we should abuse children. I don't see how the Catholics made Africa worse. Some "diffrent beliefs" need intolerance spewed againt it or do you suggest we don't speak out against child porn? So the question is, which beliefs are people spewing intolerance toward. Do you believe with out Religion no man made disaster would happen?
@Anidominus The big defense to the child abuse claim was that it was not said to be wrong *in* the bible - not that the bible stated it to be right. It shook the emotions of families all around the world to hear a priest defending his position with the bible.
As for Africa - the situation over there *is*, unfortunately, a direct result of Catholic intervention. Banning the use of condoms in a country with an immensely high percentile of the population infected with Aids? Terrible.
@jaieet And this is part of my issue with some Athiest. They claim to be so evidence oriented but they seem to point out "Christian misdeeds" that have nothing to do with the faith, and then ignore the fact that it was Chrisianity that drove the Europeon masses to start reading because then they could read the scripture for themselves. (among other things) Also during the old testiment days people didn't fight over religion. What Changed? Islam. That's one religion.
@Anidominus "do you suggest we don't speak out against child porn?"
Are you really comparing non-belief to child pornography? :P
"it was Chrisianity that drove the Europeon masses to start reading"
What?! =P The Papal Inquisition made translation of the Bible punishable by death!! From memory, it was also heretical to read from the scriptures unless you were a member of the clergy. This didn't change until some point in the... 15th? ...16th? century.
@jaieet I wasn't comparing Child porn to none-belief. I was merely stating that some things need to be spoken out against. You didn't specificy anything at all. Surley athiest (in a nation heavely influced by Christinaity) would speak out against child porn just as passonately as any Christian would speak out against having sex outside of wedlock. The Papacy isn't Chrisitanity, never has been. The Chrisianity consists of the church which is entire body of Christ.
@Anidominus "I was merely stating that some things need to be spoken out against"
You believe non-belief needs speaking out against? =P
"The Papacy isn't Chrisitanity, never has been"
They thought they were. The population thought it too. They read and rewrote the bible, and they campaigned in the Christian god's name. Whether or not they were what modern church-goers think are 'good' Christians is irrelevant. :P
@jaieet Speaking out against none-belief doesn't make any sense. Sharing the Love and Salvation of Jesus Christ does. Yes, you are correct some people do believe the pope is the authority of the church and whatever he says is Gold. Thank God for Martin Luther, a Christian, who broke those concepts. The issue is defining the diffrence between "Chrisitans" and Chrisanity. What does the bible say? When you know what the bible says, you'll know when its man vs Chrisitanity.
@jaieet I'm no history buff but in my brief readings of the Feb and Oct revolutions I don't see anything about God in either of them. Disebelif in God does not cause one to act like a moron. However, what I was trying to point out that Belief in God doesn't cause one to act like a moron either. Tyrants use whatever means that is available to spread their pain even if he has to give credit of his "madness" to a God.
@jaieet In the US today there is a lot of blaming and class warfare going on. The leadership in government is blaiming the tea party, banks, wall street, the rich, and any other financial minority that they can find for the US's ill's. People looking for someone to blame and a media not doing their job is creating a situaiton where anger is staring to fly. Violence is starting to break out and God is no where to be found.
In fact, Non-believers were found in 2008 to be the least trusted minority in America - even moreso than Muslims (who are *still* stereotyped as terrorists). Is there any other reason - aside from factionalism between religious beliefs/non-beliefs - that could cause such division?
The only other countries--to my knowledge--where similar intolerance is demonstrated regularly, are those in the Middle-East. Which brings me to my next point;
@jaieet But all it will take is for some leader to say, "This is just the Godly thing to do." and for a civil war to break out and all of a sudden it becomes a "religious" war which has nothing to do with "God". It was just man using it to his advantage. As far as Islam is cocern, the only oppressor it could have been that he was fighting against was Rome but Rome to my undertanding has never been consdidered an oppressor.
@jaieet During my brief reading about the beginings of Islam, Mohamod was doing what an upstart religion would do. He was trying to convince people his God was the one. And sure enough people resonded to him the same way they responded to Chrisianity until Constintine. They persercuted him. But unlike Christians, Mohamod took to the sword and eventually concouqued mecca giving Islam credence in that area.
When a Christian commits a misdeed, he is not a real Christian. When a church commits a misdeed, they are not following the tenants of the Bible. Never mind that they quote scripture; or have convinced their entire community that they're Christian, and that god loves dead soldiers. :P
"Violence is starting to break out and God is no where to be found."
And yet he's in most every slogan. Do you really not see a problem with that?
@jaieet When constintine made everybody Chrisitans it did two things. It created the catholic church which is basiclay a kind of European Union and it dilluted the message, power, and purpose of Chrisianity and it took over 1000 years to even begin to get it back right. The US was the first nation to ever really get it right as far as the relationship between the Church and State which is why its so hard to see the diffrence because the state was all ways minipulating the church for its purpos
@Anidominus "The issue is defining the diffrence between "Chrisitans" and Chrisanity"
Really? =P The definition of a Christian never really occurred to me. The big issue isn't what a 'real' Christian is; or what they believe; but what people who *say* they're Christians believe. Importantly, the vocal and intolerant ones. A study by the Uni of Minnesota showed nearly 40% of US citizens believed Atheists were detrimental to their ideal society. 47% would not allow their child to marry an Atheist
@jaieet The only thing I've been saying these last few post is that you can't blame "Religion" or say "Religion" has killed more people than all that natural disaters and therefore Religion needs to be elimianted while ignoring the real underlying reasons those "Religious Wars" occured. Perhaps I overstated my position to the point where you felt the desire to respond the way you did but with those reponseses you've completely left the ball park.
@jaieet I have attempted to get the point across that Athiest are not free from causing the bloodshed of millions however, their madness is never credited to their athiesm (and rightly so) (nor are they ever identified as athiest). However, the faith of Chrisanity gets blamed for things Chrisitans do even when those things have nothing to do with the Chrisitian faith. That is just a bad as blaming Athiesm for Joseph Stalin. That's all I've been trying to say.
@Anidominus I can understand that you're trying to imply that religion, in of itself, is not generally responsible for war and famine and disease and whatnot. It's an accurate statement.
But the big three; Christianity, Catholicism and Islam very much share the blame for the funding of - or the enablement of - a significant list of past and present problems and scandals. To ignore this isn't just 'annoying' or 'irresponsible' - it is, quite literally, a dangerous thing to do.
@jaieet People have always trusted people more who they have something in common with. So it has nothing to do with some higher level of intollerance. Do you know how many people in the world don't like America for whatever reason? Intollerance, as you seem to be defining it, is all over the place and covers many diffrent reasons.
@Anidominus "People have always trusted people more who they have something in common with. So it has nothing to do with some higher level of intollerance"
You are aware that Christian groups in the US have been found handing out pamphlets that inform children on how to spot an Atheist, right? :P
The US is very much the 'dumb man's joke' - it's gotten to the point where silly people can feel smart by pointing out the flaws in the country. Ironically, religion is in a similar category.
@jaieet Steven Hawkins is laughable when he starts talking about aliens and how they populated the earth. It doesn't get any press but its still funny. I'll take Hawkins and his "comedy" routine over any religous nutjob trying to tell us when the world is going to end. The religious guy is never taken seriously by the population at large and generally cost us nothing. Hawkins on the other hand is taken seriously and his (or peole like him rather) rhetoric can, and has cost us billions.
@Anidominus "Hawkins on the other hand is taken seriously and his... rhetoric can, and has cost us billions."
It's cost you money? How? When? I don't know about this, so you'll have to fill me in. =P
And though I don't know anything about the alien quote, I can quite safely assume that he's not implying that he believes a sentient species came down and populated the Earth. He's probably talking about the bacteria that penetrates our atmosphere from space now and then.
@jaieet Any time a bunch of "scientist" who are typically athiest, but religious on other issues, come up with something like global warming or cooling or global climate change which if we don't fix right now is going to end us all in a firey ball (much like hell) they are taken seriously and the government money starts to flow. Costing us billions.
@Anidominus "Any time a bunch of "scientist" who are typically athiest..."
Lol, what?! I'm sorry, but that's just silly. =P
Professionals in their field are still professionals irregardless of their religious beliefs. A religious background does *not* prevent you from becoming a master in your chosen field. ;p
Global warming is factually possible. And we *are* contributing to problems directly associated with temperature increases. Common sense dictates a need for preventative actions, yes?
@jaieet Call it silly, but when I see interviews of Scientiest I have found that they believe or know the pepole around them are indeed athiest. I didn't say they all were. What does this supposed professionalism have to do with anything? Are you implying that scientist are immune to poltical beliefs etc when it comes to how they interpret there work and what they look for? Common sense doesn't dictate you spend billions when you don't know if or how much we contribute.
@jaieet None that I know of. I'm having trouble determining what your point was with that question. As lack of the expression of one's values in one area of research has nothing to do with other areas of reasearch.... like... Global Warming\Cooling\Climate Change. Follow the government money.
The technology to determine how much polution we pump out and exactly, or nearly, how it affects the climate does not exsist. It's all guess work.
@Anidominus "The technology to determine how much polution we pump out and exactly, or nearly, how it affects the climate does not exsist. It's all guess work."
There are graphs detailing our atmosphere's carbon percentile; as well as the projected output into the atmosphere (based on current output). Even if we lacked this information, carbon emissions are both poisonous; and limited in many developed nations (India, for one). Do you know how much of your budget goes on weapons? =P
@jaieet So What? Any Tom Dick or Harry can put information in a Graph. It was scientist, not ordinary Americans that deemed Blacks were inferior to whites. Was it junk science? Yes. And Junk Science still exists. How did the come up with that information they put in the graph? Where did it come from?
@Anidominus "It was scientist, not ordinary Americans that deemed Blacks were inferior to whites"
=P
Psalms 33:12 Blessed is the nation....and people whom He hath chosen for His own. Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, ABOVE all people that are upon the face of the earth.
In relation to the Israelites;
Psalms 47:3 He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet.
@jaieet Plz don't try to interpret sqripture... you can't do it. God Choosing a people to be a special holy people set aside for his work has nothing to do with this same group of people being morally, spiritually, or mentally superior. God created all races.
@Anidominus "God Choosing a people to be a special holy people set aside for his work has nothing to do with this same group of people being morally, spiritually, or mentally superior. "
Ironically, that is *the* rationalisation the KKK used in the 1980s to justify their beliefs. :P They *have* quoted scripture from the traditional bible to prove their point. If it were not for the 'white man's bible', they'd just be regarded another christian group. Scary, right?
Not within professional circles - or not for very long, at least. Junk medicine also exists, but you don't go listening to doctors who don't know what a sterile needle is. :P
"How did the come up with that information they put in the graph? Where did it come from?"
Do a wiki search for global warming. It details sources and methods used. There are also links to provide validity/references to most major statements.
@jaieet Yes it still does exists in professional circles. Peer review and all this other stuff does not prohibit nonesense from being promoted especially when you dealing with things like the climate, origin of the universe, etc where the scienciest are only making educated guesses based on what they think they know. I know where the global warming info comes from. I've read extensivly were that information comes from and it isn't good.
@Anidominus "I know where the global warming info comes from."
From extensive amounts of isolated atmospheric tests you can do in your backyard with the right tools? You know you can do some of this at home, right? =P
"Yes it still does exists in professional circles."
Which circle? Who's involved? Which industry? There're fake professional results being promoted and you know which ones?! You could make millions if you can prove it.
@jaieet Many people have believed in the infallibility of the priesthood. You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientist. Both, ultimately, have the same consequence, needless suffering.
@Anidominus "Peer review and all this other stuff does not prohibit nonesense from being promoted especially when you dealing with things like the climate, origin of the universe, etc where the scienciest are only making educated guesses based on what they think they know."
I don't understand the origin of the universe, so I can't comment on that. Though climate change isn't an educated guess - it's demonstrable. We can duplicate results. ;p
@Anidominus "I'm having trouble determining what your point was with that question"
You generalised a majority of professionals involved with atmospheric observation as people who did not believe in any particular deity. If it has no relevance to (mainstream) research methods or the information gathered *from* those methods, then why did you feel inclined to bring it up? =P
@jaieet I was just making a scientific observation. BTW, it wasn't Stephen Hawkins. Hawkins is the guy in the wheel chair. It was another fellow talking about the Aliens but his name escapes me right now.
@Anidominus "Getting rid of "religion" istn't going to fix anything."
Wouldn't it? I'm sure the 9/11 victims might disagree if they had the capacity to do so. :P
Religion isn't the problem. After all; Jainism and Buddhism seem to be doing just fine. The problem is the way that religion is *treated*. Take homosexuality; a fanatic pastor is going to quote scripture from the bible as justification for his campaign to 'fix' gays through a process of intense reeducation and prayer.
@jaieet Really? So on one has ever attacked anyone else for a none-religious reason? Really? Now thats silly. As long as the pator isn't rounding up homosexuals and forcing them in to his prayer process or the government isn't spending our money funding his prayer process what business is it of yours or mine? Sure you can disagree with him fine. But I find it hypocriticle when homosexuals tell us they were born that way but the homophobe has to go through forced mental fixings.
@Anidominus "Are you implying that scientist are immune to poltical beliefs when it comes to how they interpret there work?"
I imply that observational and mathematical formula does not cater to belief systems. When something's show to be accurate, your personal beliefs cease to be relevant. The only alternative is denial. ;p
"So on one has ever attacked anyone else for a none-religious reason?"
It's okay to fight for religious reasons as long as people do it for other reasons too? ;p
@jaieet You're right.... observations nor mathematical formulas does not cater to a belief, but they'll keep searching for the right mathmatical formula to fit their need and they will logically gear their interpretation of their observation towards their idealogy.
@Anidominus "they'll keep searching for the right mathmatical formula to fit their need"
lol... really?
Math doesn't work that way. =P Even in circumstances where you can use formula to demonstrate falsehoods (2+2 = 5), every scientific community in the world is ready to stare down those findings. You get points-and paid-to prove theories false (or invalidate them). Do you *really* think the entire world would pass up earning global renown for saving entire governments billions of dollars? =P
@Anidominus "I don't understand this statement either."
You volunteered your opinion that people fight for other reasons besides religious ones. To what end does this validify forms of religious intolerance? ('there are other crimes besides speeding in a residential zone, y'dumb copper!' =P)
"If a homophobe comes out the closet its time to teach him to think diffrently."
'My child is bullying yours in school every day and destroying his self-esteem. But it's okay cause that's the way he is.' :P
@jaieet I still don't under your statmenet and it wasn't an opinion. It's a fact. One does not have to believe in God to go to War or hurt people.
What's your point? ;) Are you suggesting that you can believe and promote what you believe and not be considered "religious" but if another group of people do the same thing and believe in God they are "religious"?
I was just pointing out similairies in the promotion of religoius moral concepts vs your own "none-religious" pormotion of moral codes. This is a diffrent point all together. The point being... everybody has a religion. But its a side point.
You volunteered of your own free will that people don't only kill for religious reasons. I never expressed any rationale that they did. My question is; how do *other* murders excuse *religious* murders. I mean, seriously, what kind of statement is 'those guys weren't the only ones to do it!' in an argument? =p
@jaieet How many times do I have to say it? I wasn't trying to excuse anything. If you are going to blame a group of people for something then you must blame another group for the same something. This would be regardless if the group promoted such action.
@Anidominus "If you are going to blame a group of people for something then you must blame another group for the same something. This would be regardless if the group promoted such action."
... You're saying that we should blame an entire group of people if one of that particular group (let's say, a family of four) were to... say... drive drunk?
@Anidominus "Are you suggesting that you can believe and promote what you believe and not be considered "religious" but if another group of people do the same thing and believe in God they are "religious"?"
...No? =P Do you assume that I think religion is somehow bad? Cause I've been saying the opposite for a while now. ;p
"The point being... everybody has a religion"
Quite the assumption. Though I don't think religion has anything to do with what ends up being written down. ;p
@Anidominus "I find it hypocriticle when homosexuals tell us they were born that way but the homophobe has to go through forced mental fixings."
lol, are you comparing sexuality to bigotry and bullying? :P
Why on Earth would you assume the pastor is going to be put through forced reeducation? He's simply going to be discredited and opposed - as is any intolerant group (The KKK, pro-slavery groups, militant anarchists - even aggressive atheists (who are opposed by other atheists. =P)
@jaieet No, logic dictates if you can be born with one behavior and can not change then you can be born with another one that can not be changed. If a homosexual comes out the closet its time to celebrate. If a homophobe comes out the closet its time to teach him to think diffrently.
@Anidominus "what business is it of yours or mine?"
It's not your business unless you make it your business. The question is; *why* is it our business?
Well; if a man is organising a rally that directly demeans another group of people simply because of an attraction that is built into them at a base level, that is bullying and intolerance. And that is wrong. The right choice is to defend the victims; not enable the bully. =P
@Anidominus "Who gave you the authority to decide what is right or wrong?"
Errmm... everyone?
In case you haven't noticed, we've both been attempting to argue right and wrong for a while now. You made a pretty uninformed vote on global warming in that regard. =P
It is a mildly accurate statement that a person doing something to deliberately torment another person for no good reason is a bully. You argue that this is not within my scope to identify as wrong.
@Anidominus "Are you suggesting then that whatever the mob wants the mob gets?"
Nope.
"Can the mob ever be wrong?"
We stopped that wierd and costly abstinence program in the US, didn't we? :P
"And my point was there is nothing in scritpure that justifies any of this behavior."
Whaaaaat? Deuteronomy alone is *loaded* with all sorts of horrible lessons. I believe there are entire bible passages that directly relate to the practice of witchcraft. ;p
@Anidominus The appropriate response would be to berate that pastor for his intolerance toward the gay community; to actively spread word of his misdeeds and make it known that he is in the wrong. After all, children will hear that nonsense and accept it as truth!
But that's not what happens.
The general response is to ignore the man; to distance oneself from him ("He's not a true Christian, because...'). In any other aspect of life, a silly man is berated. Why not when quoting scripture?
@jaieet Salem witch trials (in which Christians lead the way to stop it) or the "Spanish Inquisition" (Which had nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with the Queen's greedy brother) and things of that nature.
Witches were burned in the name of god by self-proclaimed Christians all the time. They admit it. There are MASS amounts of historical information on the subject. Priests kept journals and ledgers, for god's sake. :P
"Spanish Inquisition"
The claimed to be Christians/Catholics working for god. Often. Again, there's journals and ledgers on the subject - in museums, in fact. =p
This happened at the hands of people who thought they were doing their god's work.
@jaieet And my point was there is nothing in scritpure that justifies any of this behavior. It was actually a kind of "mob rule" which you seem to support with your last statement. lol The only problem as it relates to Chrisanity is that those were done by Christian mobs and not secular mobs. If it had been done by a Secular mob it just would have been seen as another unfortunate incident .
@Anidominus "I agree with you that bullying is wrong, I was making another subtle point."
But the point is then moot; I never overstepped my own bounds. Free discussion is entirely justified. And in the case of the pastor imposing his will upon another group in a bullying fashion, *he* is the one turning belief into action/anguish. Action promotes reaction, and justifies annulment of his attempts to harm another.
Do you understand the dictionary definitions of religion? :P
"Yeah secular people probably wouldn't do it for witchcraft, even though they could, but they have other methods of acheiving the same goal. i.e. Elminating people who they think are a dredge on society."
Of course they could. But they wouldn't kill a random peasant because they suddenly decide he/she's practicing dark magic. Only a small no. of people can justify that sort of action. Understand?
@jaieet I think I understand the definition of religion better than you do. And "suddenly" deciding the someone was a witch didn't happen during the salem witch trials either. Unless you're just being over dramatic. My question is, do you understand?
@Anidominus "You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientist"
Which scientist? =P
I expect a scientist to do his job. Similar to the way I expect a doctor--or an engineer--to do their's. If they're particularly talented, and have been educated correctly, then I expect them to do that job *well*.
Have you ever completed a degree in a university/college before?
@Anidominus "If it had been done by a Secular mob"
But it wasn't. Not for 'witchcraft' (which teachers in the US *still* lose their jobs over).
Why on Earth are you attempting to defend the actions of a group of crazed medieval-time fanatics?
Do you think that conceding that those actions were wrong--or that they were done in the name of their version of god--somehow reflects badly on the modern version of christianity? =P
@jaieet Do you understand the diffrence between dending someone's action and pointing out the hypocracy of certain people to point out a fault in others and not pointing out the same fault in themselves?
Yeah secular people probably wouldn't do it for witchcraft, even though they could, but they have other methods of acheiving the same goal. i.e. Elminating people who they think are a dredge on society.
@Anidominus Religion is not perfect. In fact, as most religious texts contain several examples of lessons encouraging exclusion, bullying, violence and general intolerance. The 'bad' church preaches these messages, while the 'good' church simply ignores them! :P
What I try to convey is that religion isn't responsible for all the world's problems-and is entirely capable of solving problems. Unfortunately, it also causes problems. It is fallible-and must be treated accountable for its actions.
@Anidominus "When are we going to start holding Athiest accountable for the things they do?"
We already do. =P Trying to imply that having no particular belief in a god is the cause of their actions, though, is an inaccuracy. This is not impossible, however - if a self proclaimed atheist were to wipe out entire civilisations *because* they believed in a god (or practiced religious activities), that would be a rational example (though I think he would, technically, be an anti-theist ;p)
@jaieet Also, Judism, Chrisanity, and Islam make up 55% of the beliving world so of course there is going to be a lot of dirt done by people who claim either one of this faiths. All I'm saying is that there is enough blame to go around to EVERYBODY.
@Anidominus "All I'm saying is that there is enough blame to go around to EVERYBODY"
But not everybody is to blame-and we really shouldn't act otherwise. You seem to think I'm attacking your beliefs or your credibility; but this is simply not true. I attempt to convey that the fanatics who you try to distance yourself from are *not* safe to ignore. When a christian supports dead soldiers, you don't *ignore* that, dude - you organise your own side to put them in their place! =P
@jaieet And all I'm saying is if you're going to blame one side, blame the other side for what it does. Getting rid of "religion" istn't going to fix anything. If you (not you, but people in general) are going to profess to be a person of evidence, then look at the evidence and quit ignoraning the hell people who share a belief of yours (not you, but people in general) or lack there of have done.
@jaieet And it was Church people, up to and including Martin Luther, who put the papcey in its proper place. I agree tremendusly that a charimastic leader "In the Name of God" can deceive millions in to do something horrible. However you don't need "the name of God" to deceive millions in to doing something horrible as evident by Joseph Stalin and other leaders like him. "God" in those cases simply becomes a historical scapegoat.
Joseph Stalin is a good example and a bad argument at the same time. He did not apparently believe in a god, though he watched his country almost destroyed by the extended hand of one; working through the extended arm that was the German nation (Mass Catholic delirium ;p). He was wary of such power; as one would after witnessing something as awing as Hitler's Germany. So he turned his aggression on the Orthadox Church. And any others who threatened his supremacy.
@jaieet I can also look at many of the wars credited to "Chrisitans" and show that the situation would have happened regardless for example, the Spanish Inquisiton. That war started because one group of people didn't like the success of another group of people. It just so happen the group with the most power and least amount of success was Christians and the otherside were Jews. Anyway.....
The population was eager to follow his orders; because he had *saved* them from destruction at the hands of their oppressors. Religion was an easy target. It still is (anti-Islam propaganda).
Even if Stalin's disbelief in a god was the reason for his actions, it would never, ever, *ever* be enough to convince an entire nation to war on his behalf. Not even in a country where Atheism is the majority; like Sweden.
@jaieet Athiesm gets a break from is atrocities because history never defines mass murders being exhibited by Godless people to the fact that they were Godless people. However, anything a "Christian" does or other religious person is 99% of the time (with the exception of Islam) associated with the religion. But anyway....
Though after the Inquisition, yes - Christianity helped encourage mass literacy. :P As far as the war thing goes - if the army or the dictator chants or praises their god's name and claims to be doing their work (or working for them), it's not difficult to attribute their beliefs as a major cause. Some of these people were messed up to begin with - but the difference is that the population, itself, *believes* in the same god (ala the nazi party); making it easier to proceed.
Bible prophecy prooves Christ is true. The lord JESUS PREDICTED THE pope is the anti christ 2000 years ago. Christ predicted satan would hi jack the christian church would install a false religious man to sit in the christian church would come out of the divided roman empire after its collapse and would rule the world again with a new world order at the end would kill the saints would change Gods sabbath. The pope has done this and is doing this through the ten secret socities on his side
You are correct. That's why most (probably all) atheists do not assert that no gods exist. If you get answer the question "Do you belief in gods?" with a "No", then you are an atheist, by proper definition (some dictionaries will tell you different though). Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief. I am an agnostic atheist.
if atheism is a belief or not is only detracting from what we are saying and that is you have not gave us any reason to follow your or any gods, trying to hide the failings in what you believe by misinterpreting a word will not hide that fact
if atheism is a belief or not does not change the fact i say,,,no god,,, what difference does it make? christians, the bible and god have failed in proving your stance true to me, never mind any other form of god
@gklr:Bill Hicks in one of his comedy shows(parodying a bigoted Christian):"I´m Christian-i can´t stand you!"Well i said,then forgive me!
Never walk upon thin ice of arguing with bigoted irrational "Christians" they will do everything to mob you in the end. If you tell them:"What the fuck,i really don´t know if god exists",this will make them probably more speechless, than arguing in any other direction.
"I have the impression no one really believes in anything than own survival"(Schopenhauer)
The deities that have been presented to me during my lifetime have "failed the test." So don't believe in specifically them. I don't claim one thing when it comes to creation. I only CONSIDER explinations that are most logical for ME.
"And... you can't prove it so what you just said is a belief and isn't about you anyway."
Why do you need to know about me so much, hun? Lol. I'm staying on subject. What is so wrong with me not believing that a god exists?
Talk about you. Talk about atheists. Here you don't.
"I don't claim one thing when it comes to creation. "
Talk about you, that doesn't. Oh and atheists can claim a god created the universe and now does not exist, and many deists claim that exact thing. There is nothing wrong with an atheist saying he thinks god created the universe.
"Why do you need to know about me so much, hun? Lol"
"What is so wrong with me not believing that a god exists?"
Nothing. You are wrong when you think that saying so talks about you when it doesn't. You are wrong in thinking this statement talks about atheists when it doesn't. You didn't believe in a god 2 million years ago and you did not exist then either so you were not an atheist.
Saying what something is not, tells me nothing about what it is.
It's just the definition of atheism. If you don't understand this, then you're hopeless. By your logic, not believing in unicorns does not exist.
"Uh.... dude, I never suggested you said any such thing."
Then why would you bring this up?
"Talk about you. You didn't believe in them 2 million years ago."
I wasn't alive 2 million years ago. It's a good thing you went to bed. I think you need the rest. What part of "I don't claim to know the beginning," do you not understand?
"I don't claim to know the beginning," do you not understand?"
The part that assumes such a statemen is talking about you. Saying "I don't believe..." says nothing about "I". You didn't believe in a god 2 millin years ago and you were not an atheist.
People who hold their judgment to a claim or an idea generally do so because they are UNDETERMINED on their stance since each of the possibilities in their mind is PLAUSIBLE
Atheism is a belief only if "OFF" is a TV channel.
SierraBravoOneNiner 1 month ago
@SierraBravoOneNiner It's actually my favorite TV channel dude. Don't screw up my life.
WatchLearnSee 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SierraBravoOneNiner "Atheism is a belief only if "OFF" is a TV channel"
Bad analagy "OFF" is not even related to the concept of TV channels
Atheism however is related to the god question. In order to personally identify as an atheist you need to adopt a position on the god question. The theist and agnostic positions are taken. There are no known truths concerning the veracity of the theistic claim, all these postions are based on what is believed to be the case.
Sashajw12345 4 weeks ago
can someone help me please? i keep trying to find jesus, but everytime i ask someone they keep trying to kill me! WTF!?
compendiumgravemind 1 month ago in playlist Lies Christians Tell and why They Tell Them
@compendiumgravemind Too bad they failed. LOL that's OK your already dead in God's eyes. Just go with that.
JesusChristDaily 1 month ago
@JesusChristDaily hail mithras.
kram83au 1 month ago
@JesusChristDaily win win winning win! couldent handle it so JCD blocked me! lmao! woot! epic win!
compendiumgravemind 1 month ago
@compendiumgravemind blocked by a christian!, no way man. his well of love has surley dried up.they come on to atheist sites expecting to be treated seriously,then chuck the toys out of the pram when confronted by the reality that there self deception is a big insecure bubble of delusion. i blame the parents personally.
kram83au 1 month ago
@kram83au might have to go back a few generations of parents to find the common ancestor with the asshole gene. i think hes a link between the Homo genus-ass and the neander-dicks.
compendiumgravemind 1 month ago
That is complete horseshit. Rational people don't define love as an invisible thing. It's a concept of how two people relate to each other in a unique way and express their trust in each other. Love isn't a "thing". It's an idea. Nice straw man numbnuts.
chuckwagon1645 1 month ago
By saying absence of belief its still inferring that the atheist makes a conscious and or intellectual choice to choose to believe in nothing or total disbelief of anything beyond whats visible. Yet they can love their partner? An invisible bond to someone? In that thinking atheists should never "love" but rather go right up to another person of the opposite sex and say its ok I'm an atheist I'm the absence of belief in love. But I'll say "love" just to lie my way into your heart :)
GameLevelEditor 2 months ago
@GameLevelEditor Actually, most bonds are biological (pheramones, DNA and such). Attraction is also physical, as it is a chemical reaction happening within the brain. Love is not magic. If two people have that chemical reaction to each other, it is called love, and CONSIDERED to be a mystical experience. However, most of the time that reaction only happens with one person. No one considers that mystical.
skywize 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Both, ultimately, have the same consequence, needless suffering."
You think cancer research results in needless suffering? =p
jaieet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Do you understand that defintion of group? lol"
A number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together. Now quote the religious definition. =P
"And "suddenly" deciding the someone was a witch didn't happen during the salem witch trials either."
They 'suddenly' decided people were witches all the time! What do you think you would accomplish even if you *could* prove the witch burners weren't at fault? =p
jaieet 2 months ago
"then look at the evidence and quit ignoraning the hell people who share a belief of yours (not you, but people in general) or lack there of have done."
I challenge you to name one rule (aside from not currently believing in any of the gods they've come across, of course) that a non-believer must follow to be classified as such. It's rather difficult to do, because it is very rare indeed that any two non-believers believe the same things. It's like blaming non-pianists for Stalin's reign. ;p
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet I don't even understand your quesiton. There are many things Chrisitans or religious peole in general get blamed for yet there was no religoius rule in place demanding, praising, or encouraging their actions. In some cases their were rules in the religion against what was done yet blame gets heaped on the whole group. If there are nations governed by Athiest/Human Seclurlism and they do something bad, it needs to be pointed out that's what the Athiest/Human Securlist have dne.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@jaieet [cont] if we are to remain consistent. But if we want to place blame where it should be placed then If a religious text says to do [something] like "Kill the Infidels" and their followers do that, then thats a problem with the religion. If a person who so happens to be religious kill someone thats a problem with that person. Its like blaming all dog lovers because 1 dog lover ran over 10 pedestrians when their house got forclosed on, it doesn't make sense.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "If there are nations governed by Athiest/Human Seclurlism and they do something bad, it needs to be pointed out that's what the Athiest/Human Securlist have dne."
If the government and the people do bad things in the name of that particular belief system, then yes - they need to be reprimanded/punished for what they've done.
"If a person who so happens to be religious kill someone thats a problem with that person."
I wasn't aware that I attributed most murders to the bible. ;p
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet I didn't say that you did. I was just making a point about being consistent.
Anidominus 2 months ago
You stated in absolute terms that there isn't a shred of evidence that God exists. To make such a claim you first would need to possess infinite knowledge, and we would both agree that you don't.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 :P
You do not require infinite knowledge to say there's no evidence - because we have found no evidence. Not even the people who 'know' god exists can provide evidence. The closest they ever come is wierd theories based on already existing scientific theories that rely on misinformation and 'well, if this is true, then this *might* be true as well...!'
At present, you can probably state that god does not exist and be forgiven.
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet That's a very irrational reply. Even Carl Sagan once stated - " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 Anything Carl Sagan might have said is excessively irrelevant. :P
In this particular case, the deity in question has been funded with millions upon billions of dollars every year; for the past 2000 years, and yet we still come up dry. There are universities *devoted* to Christian research that aren't any closer to concluding whether or not a god exists than the people who *lived* those 2000 years ago. ;p
It's entirely justified to assert that a deity - any deity - is imaginary.
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet Where do you come up with this stuff? Wherever it comes from there isn't any truth in it.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 What part do you assert is false? The various churches worldwide being funded by Government tax? Or the Christian Universities devoting entire funds to finding a god?
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet where is your support for that claim? It's one thing to make such a claim, but an entirely different matter in proving it? So give me your proof.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 Wow, really? ;p
The government provides churches with religious grants; and gives them tax exempt status simply for *being* a religion. That's a no-brainer. I don't think anybody has ever attempted to simply deny the taxation system's existence before. Kudos to you. =p
And the Evangel Christian University of America is a fantastic example of a church receiving educational grants to fund studies of a deity. You'll note that most studies include Jesus.
What were you trying to prove? ;p
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet I asked for proof and so far all you have provided is your opinion. Opinion doesn't prove a thing.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 I honestly don't think you understand the difference between an opinion and a public taxation policy. :P
What exactly do you believe is opinion? Cause right now, you're just flat-out denying tax records and the information supplied on a University's home page. ;p
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet Once again you failed to provide a link to a single source which supports your claim, which leads me to believe that you are fabricating lies.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 Theoretical question; if I were to provide a link to the exact law showcasing tax exempt status details in the US (laws including religious tax exemption); and a 2nd link to a controversial article condemning the government/public funding of an Evangelical Christian University through tax, what would *you* do?
Is your desire for information what's driving you? Cause frankly, I can get these links from a google search using the terms I stated above. Or is this all an attempt at discredit?
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet Tax exempt status isn't the same thing as government funding. Nevertheless, even atheist organizations receive religious tax exemptions. One of which is the American Humanist Association.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 "Tax exempt status isn't the same thing as government funding. "
Hence the reason for referencing a Christian University that receives grants to hand out religious degrees. :P
Humanism tolerates religious belief. It is an ever-evolving philosophical outlook that does not require or encourage a deity's involvement. I'm not sure if it receives complete tax exemption, though. Irregardless, it shouldn't. Nor any other ideology. Only good deeds should be tax-free (charities and such)
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet If you're against religious tax exemptions then it follows that you're against separation of church and state as well.
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 That makes absolutely no sense. :P Why would you believe *giving* money to an organisation simply for being religious be defined as pro-separation of that organisation from government? =p
Separation of church and state lists that the government may not make laws--pro or con--directly effecting or influencing religious worship. If a church were to follow proper procedure to qualify for tax exemption, they would still be able to gain those benefits. But not for just *being* a church. :P
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet You're still confusing tax-exemptions with giving an organization funding. The two are not the same. And once again even unchurched people receive tax exempt status as I have already shown you, because even the American Humanist Association which is atheist in nature also receives tax exemption. Guess you're unable to grasp the difference between a tax-exemption and government funding. Besides that, the government already takes in more taxes than necessary. Then they misuse what they get
BT3701 4 months ago
@BT3701 Under George W Bush's direction, religious education (including education to become a pastor) now receives government grants. This is one of the several study options available at Christian Universities. The government *does* give the Church money in this way. You are making *tremendous* effort to ignore this. :P
The ASA is a humanistic organisation. If you read up on humanism, you'll note that followers can be religious. It's atheistic in the same way that law firms are atheistic. =p
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet You continue to spout off your opinion, however you have failed to give a specific example as proof. And since you haven't been able to provide any specific example or source, you leave me no choice but to ignore your opinions. I searched the web and was unable to find any specific examples that might support your claim, and found none.
BT3701 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BT3701 *facepalms* ;p
Replace the commas with full stops. The first article is Bush's religious grant policy (note thefunding of a church $1 million under this initiative.)
The second article relates to Humanism. If you scroll down to the 2nd point, you'll note conflicting views toward religion in general - some pro-theology
en,wikipedia,org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships
en,wikipedia,org/wiki/Humanism#Attitudes_toward_religion_and_atheism
jaieet 4 months ago
@BT3701 And I hate to be that jerk pointing out flaws in the other guy's argument ( :P ), but the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the Western world. It does *not* gain that much tax from its population as a quota. I can agree that it's misused - up until recently, the republican party was shilling out hundreds of millions of dollars for abstinence programs. =p
jaieet 4 months ago
It's funny. I've talked to athiest after athiest after athiest and they all say the same thing, "God does not exist". Now all of a sudden we want to get technical and say, well, we don't mean God doesn't exist. We just don't believe God exists. lol.
Anidominus 4 months ago
@Anidominus Well the atheists you have talked to sound like strong atheist or gnostic atheists. This is a position that allows for many fallacies. I choose the stance of agnostic or weak atheism. This one states exactly what he says in the video. That we have no proof so we do not believe.lol
atheistjacob 3 months ago
@atheistjacob If something is proven then there is no reason to believe it. I know thats probably hair pulling as i know what you mean. But.... I actually thought you were responding to something else I said on another board. It amazes me how athiesm is not a religion but you guys (some of you) spend as much time telling people what you don't believe as religious people spend telling peole what they do believe.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@atheistjacob I'd be willing to bet there are more sites dedicated to Athiesm vs Religion lead by athiest than there are sites dedicated to Christians vs Muslims or Budhist or Athiest or Anything else lead by anyone. I could be wrong.... but I doubt it.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus Weeeell, you have to keep in mind that in certain countries - especially places like the 'red' states in the US and the middle East - being a non-believer basically makes you 'evil'. Untrustworthy, at least. That kind've statement can really make people mad. :P
It's also a bit of a knowledge debate. It's kind've like sending your kid to school, then finding out that they were taught the holocaust was a hoax. You're not gonna take that sitting down! =p
Religion's an interesting issue!
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet Immoral Yes, Evil No. as far as "Red" States or Christians are concerned. I can only partly speak for this group. I have never in my life ever believe athiest were evil i.e. they would kill, steal, destroy like thugs. Was I taught that athiest would partake in a wider range of behaivors, with no thought of moderation, thought sinful by the church? Yes. In addition, I don't see many athiest sites dedicated to the "We are not evil\imoral" argument. I do see "God does not exists".
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus I can't really speak on the behalf of any other person - believer or no - when it comes to the question of a non-believer's morality, but if a person of any stature were to approach me and insinuate that I'm untrustworthy or uncouth because I don't believe what they believe, I would laugh them off. I *have* laughed them off. :P
That could be the reason you haven't seen many sites devoted to morality issues. It really can be waved to one side with little dispute.
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet I don't think that's the case. I believe its beause some Athiest are indeed religious in their Athiesm and are seeking to promote Athiesm (the none-belief) as being better than Thiesm (the belief). I believe like you that "none Religious Athiest" (my words not yours) do just laugh off those "Immoral" claims and move on to something else the same way I laugh off an Islamic individual calling me an infedel and against God because I believe in Jesus.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@jaieet I said that wrong, it doesn't matter if the Athiest is religous or not, I think they [athiest] generaly laugh off the claim that they are immorral. But the religious Athiest promotes Athiesism as it it were some kind of religon.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus You're almost right... but there's more to it than that. It's not promoted by the more eccentric like a religion - but like a philosophy (not that this detracts from the influence that it might have - darwinism, socialism, capitalism, humanism, vegetarianism, etc, etc, are all life-altering philosophies).
It has no basis of code or law, but revolves *solely* around a series of opinions.
jaieet 3 months ago
@Anidominus (pt 2 - sorry for space taking. :P)
When faced with something bad, people immediately and inevitably try to stomp it out. A small group of fanatic Catholics abusing children and arguably destroying africa; a minor collection of eccentric Christians (mostly in the US) spewing intolerance against competing beliefs (or non-beliefs); a fanatic selection of Islam terrorists blowing up hospitals...
A suggestive mind will quickly assume the simplest solution is the best - no more religion.
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet Child abuse has nothing to do with Chrisitanity or being a Catholic. I can't find anywhere in my bible where it states we should abuse children. I don't see how the Catholics made Africa worse. Some "diffrent beliefs" need intolerance spewed againt it or do you suggest we don't speak out against child porn? So the question is, which beliefs are people spewing intolerance toward. Do you believe with out Religion no man made disaster would happen?
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus The big defense to the child abuse claim was that it was not said to be wrong *in* the bible - not that the bible stated it to be right. It shook the emotions of families all around the world to hear a priest defending his position with the bible.
As for Africa - the situation over there *is*, unfortunately, a direct result of Catholic intervention. Banning the use of condoms in a country with an immensely high percentile of the population infected with Aids? Terrible.
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet And this is part of my issue with some Athiest. They claim to be so evidence oriented but they seem to point out "Christian misdeeds" that have nothing to do with the faith, and then ignore the fact that it was Chrisianity that drove the Europeon masses to start reading because then they could read the scripture for themselves. (among other things) Also during the old testiment days people didn't fight over religion. What Changed? Islam. That's one religion.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus "do you suggest we don't speak out against child porn?"
Are you really comparing non-belief to child pornography? :P
"it was Chrisianity that drove the Europeon masses to start reading"
What?! =P The Papal Inquisition made translation of the Bible punishable by death!! From memory, it was also heretical to read from the scriptures unless you were a member of the clergy. This didn't change until some point in the... 15th? ...16th? century.
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet I wasn't comparing Child porn to none-belief. I was merely stating that some things need to be spoken out against. You didn't specificy anything at all. Surley athiest (in a nation heavely influced by Christinaity) would speak out against child porn just as passonately as any Christian would speak out against having sex outside of wedlock. The Papacy isn't Chrisitanity, never has been. The Chrisianity consists of the church which is entire body of Christ.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus "I was merely stating that some things need to be spoken out against"
You believe non-belief needs speaking out against? =P
"The Papacy isn't Chrisitanity, never has been"
They thought they were. The population thought it too. They read and rewrote the bible, and they campaigned in the Christian god's name. Whether or not they were what modern church-goers think are 'good' Christians is irrelevant. :P
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet Speaking out against none-belief doesn't make any sense. Sharing the Love and Salvation of Jesus Christ does. Yes, you are correct some people do believe the pope is the authority of the church and whatever he says is Gold. Thank God for Martin Luther, a Christian, who broke those concepts. The issue is defining the diffrence between "Chrisitans" and Chrisanity. What does the bible say? When you know what the bible says, you'll know when its man vs Chrisitanity.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@jaieet I'm no history buff but in my brief readings of the Feb and Oct revolutions I don't see anything about God in either of them. Disebelif in God does not cause one to act like a moron. However, what I was trying to point out that Belief in God doesn't cause one to act like a moron either. Tyrants use whatever means that is available to spread their pain even if he has to give credit of his "madness" to a God.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@jaieet In the US today there is a lot of blaming and class warfare going on. The leadership in government is blaiming the tea party, banks, wall street, the rich, and any other financial minority that they can find for the US's ill's. People looking for someone to blame and a media not doing their job is creating a situaiton where anger is staring to fly. Violence is starting to break out and God is no where to be found.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus (pt 2)
In fact, Non-believers were found in 2008 to be the least trusted minority in America - even moreso than Muslims (who are *still* stereotyped as terrorists). Is there any other reason - aside from factionalism between religious beliefs/non-beliefs - that could cause such division?
The only other countries--to my knowledge--where similar intolerance is demonstrated regularly, are those in the Middle-East. Which brings me to my next point;
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet But all it will take is for some leader to say, "This is just the Godly thing to do." and for a civil war to break out and all of a sudden it becomes a "religious" war which has nothing to do with "God". It was just man using it to his advantage. As far as Islam is cocern, the only oppressor it could have been that he was fighting against was Rome but Rome to my undertanding has never been consdidered an oppressor.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@jaieet During my brief reading about the beginings of Islam, Mohamod was doing what an upstart religion would do. He was trying to convince people his God was the one. And sure enough people resonded to him the same way they responded to Chrisianity until Constintine. They persercuted him. But unlike Christians, Mohamod took to the sword and eventually concouqued mecca giving Islam credence in that area.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus (pt 3)
Lack of responsibility.
When a Christian commits a misdeed, he is not a real Christian. When a church commits a misdeed, they are not following the tenants of the Bible. Never mind that they quote scripture; or have convinced their entire community that they're Christian, and that god loves dead soldiers. :P
"Violence is starting to break out and God is no where to be found."
And yet he's in most every slogan. Do you really not see a problem with that?
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet When constintine made everybody Chrisitans it did two things. It created the catholic church which is basiclay a kind of European Union and it dilluted the message, power, and purpose of Chrisianity and it took over 1000 years to even begin to get it back right. The US was the first nation to ever really get it right as far as the relationship between the Church and State which is why its so hard to see the diffrence because the state was all ways minipulating the church for its purpos
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus "The issue is defining the diffrence between "Chrisitans" and Chrisanity"
Really? =P The definition of a Christian never really occurred to me. The big issue isn't what a 'real' Christian is; or what they believe; but what people who *say* they're Christians believe. Importantly, the vocal and intolerant ones. A study by the Uni of Minnesota showed nearly 40% of US citizens believed Atheists were detrimental to their ideal society. 47% would not allow their child to marry an Atheist
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet The only thing I've been saying these last few post is that you can't blame "Religion" or say "Religion" has killed more people than all that natural disaters and therefore Religion needs to be elimianted while ignoring the real underlying reasons those "Religious Wars" occured. Perhaps I overstated my position to the point where you felt the desire to respond the way you did but with those reponseses you've completely left the ball park.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@jaieet I have attempted to get the point across that Athiest are not free from causing the bloodshed of millions however, their madness is never credited to their athiesm (and rightly so) (nor are they ever identified as athiest). However, the faith of Chrisanity gets blamed for things Chrisitans do even when those things have nothing to do with the Chrisitian faith. That is just a bad as blaming Athiesm for Joseph Stalin. That's all I've been trying to say.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus I can understand that you're trying to imply that religion, in of itself, is not generally responsible for war and famine and disease and whatnot. It's an accurate statement.
But the big three; Christianity, Catholicism and Islam very much share the blame for the funding of - or the enablement of - a significant list of past and present problems and scandals. To ignore this isn't just 'annoying' or 'irresponsible' - it is, quite literally, a dangerous thing to do.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet People have always trusted people more who they have something in common with. So it has nothing to do with some higher level of intollerance. Do you know how many people in the world don't like America for whatever reason? Intollerance, as you seem to be defining it, is all over the place and covers many diffrent reasons.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus "People have always trusted people more who they have something in common with. So it has nothing to do with some higher level of intollerance"
You are aware that Christian groups in the US have been found handing out pamphlets that inform children on how to spot an Atheist, right? :P
The US is very much the 'dumb man's joke' - it's gotten to the point where silly people can feel smart by pointing out the flaws in the country. Ironically, religion is in a similar category.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Steven Hawkins is laughable when he starts talking about aliens and how they populated the earth. It doesn't get any press but its still funny. I'll take Hawkins and his "comedy" routine over any religous nutjob trying to tell us when the world is going to end. The religious guy is never taken seriously by the population at large and generally cost us nothing. Hawkins on the other hand is taken seriously and his (or peole like him rather) rhetoric can, and has cost us billions.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Hawkins on the other hand is taken seriously and his... rhetoric can, and has cost us billions."
It's cost you money? How? When? I don't know about this, so you'll have to fill me in. =P
And though I don't know anything about the alien quote, I can quite safely assume that he's not implying that he believes a sentient species came down and populated the Earth. He's probably talking about the bacteria that penetrates our atmosphere from space now and then.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Any time a bunch of "scientist" who are typically athiest, but religious on other issues, come up with something like global warming or cooling or global climate change which if we don't fix right now is going to end us all in a firey ball (much like hell) they are taken seriously and the government money starts to flow. Costing us billions.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Any time a bunch of "scientist" who are typically athiest..."
Lol, what?! I'm sorry, but that's just silly. =P
Professionals in their field are still professionals irregardless of their religious beliefs. A religious background does *not* prevent you from becoming a master in your chosen field. ;p
Global warming is factually possible. And we *are* contributing to problems directly associated with temperature increases. Common sense dictates a need for preventative actions, yes?
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Call it silly, but when I see interviews of Scientiest I have found that they believe or know the pepole around them are indeed athiest. I didn't say they all were. What does this supposed professionalism have to do with anything? Are you implying that scientist are immune to poltical beliefs etc when it comes to how they interpret there work and what they look for? Common sense doesn't dictate you spend billions when you don't know if or how much we contribute.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Call it silly, but when I see interviews of Scientiest I have found that they believe or know the pepole around them are indeed athiest."
Is there a negative impact directly associated between non-belief in a particular god and quantum-mathematics; or cancer research? :P
"Common sense doesn't dictate you spend billions when you don't know if or how much we contribute."
What? We know almost *exactly* how much pollution we contribute. :P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet None that I know of. I'm having trouble determining what your point was with that question. As lack of the expression of one's values in one area of research has nothing to do with other areas of reasearch.... like... Global Warming\Cooling\Climate Change. Follow the government money.
The technology to determine how much polution we pump out and exactly, or nearly, how it affects the climate does not exsist. It's all guess work.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "The technology to determine how much polution we pump out and exactly, or nearly, how it affects the climate does not exsist. It's all guess work."
There are graphs detailing our atmosphere's carbon percentile; as well as the projected output into the atmosphere (based on current output). Even if we lacked this information, carbon emissions are both poisonous; and limited in many developed nations (India, for one). Do you know how much of your budget goes on weapons? =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet So What? Any Tom Dick or Harry can put information in a Graph. It was scientist, not ordinary Americans that deemed Blacks were inferior to whites. Was it junk science? Yes. And Junk Science still exists. How did the come up with that information they put in the graph? Where did it come from?
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "It was scientist, not ordinary Americans that deemed Blacks were inferior to whites"
=P
Psalms 33:12 Blessed is the nation....and people whom He hath chosen for His own. Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, ABOVE all people that are upon the face of the earth.
In relation to the Israelites;
Psalms 47:3 He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Plz don't try to interpret sqripture... you can't do it. God Choosing a people to be a special holy people set aside for his work has nothing to do with this same group of people being morally, spiritually, or mentally superior. God created all races.
Anidominus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anidominus "God Choosing a people to be a special holy people set aside for his work has nothing to do with this same group of people being morally, spiritually, or mentally superior. "
Ironically, that is *the* rationalisation the KKK used in the 1980s to justify their beliefs. :P They *have* quoted scripture from the traditional bible to prove their point. If it were not for the 'white man's bible', they'd just be regarded another christian group. Scary, right?
jaieet 2 months ago
@Anidominus "And Junk Science still exists"
Not within professional circles - or not for very long, at least. Junk medicine also exists, but you don't go listening to doctors who don't know what a sterile needle is. :P
"How did the come up with that information they put in the graph? Where did it come from?"
Do a wiki search for global warming. It details sources and methods used. There are also links to provide validity/references to most major statements.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Yes it still does exists in professional circles. Peer review and all this other stuff does not prohibit nonesense from being promoted especially when you dealing with things like the climate, origin of the universe, etc where the scienciest are only making educated guesses based on what they think they know. I know where the global warming info comes from. I've read extensivly were that information comes from and it isn't good.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "I know where the global warming info comes from."
From extensive amounts of isolated atmospheric tests you can do in your backyard with the right tools? You know you can do some of this at home, right? =P
"Yes it still does exists in professional circles."
Which circle? Who's involved? Which industry? There're fake professional results being promoted and you know which ones?! You could make millions if you can prove it.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Many people have believed in the infallibility of the priesthood. You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientist. Both, ultimately, have the same consequence, needless suffering.
Anidominus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anidominus "Peer review and all this other stuff does not prohibit nonesense from being promoted especially when you dealing with things like the climate, origin of the universe, etc where the scienciest are only making educated guesses based on what they think they know."
I don't understand the origin of the universe, so I can't comment on that. Though climate change isn't an educated guess - it's demonstrable. We can duplicate results. ;p
jaieet 2 months ago
@Anidominus "I'm having trouble determining what your point was with that question"
You generalised a majority of professionals involved with atmospheric observation as people who did not believe in any particular deity. If it has no relevance to (mainstream) research methods or the information gathered *from* those methods, then why did you feel inclined to bring it up? =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet I was just making a scientific observation. BTW, it wasn't Stephen Hawkins. Hawkins is the guy in the wheel chair. It was another fellow talking about the Aliens but his name escapes me right now.
Anidominus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anidominus "It was another fellow talking about the Aliens but his name escapes me right now."
Indeed? So he, in fact, *wasn't* somebody of massive influence who was taken seriously and now has the scientific community backing his theories? :P
"Tell that to the people using math to explain String Theory."
Which people? What are their names? Are they taken seriously? =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Getting rid of "religion" istn't going to fix anything."
Wouldn't it? I'm sure the 9/11 victims might disagree if they had the capacity to do so. :P
Religion isn't the problem. After all; Jainism and Buddhism seem to be doing just fine. The problem is the way that religion is *treated*. Take homosexuality; a fanatic pastor is going to quote scripture from the bible as justification for his campaign to 'fix' gays through a process of intense reeducation and prayer.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Really? So on one has ever attacked anyone else for a none-religious reason? Really? Now thats silly. As long as the pator isn't rounding up homosexuals and forcing them in to his prayer process or the government isn't spending our money funding his prayer process what business is it of yours or mine? Sure you can disagree with him fine. But I find it hypocriticle when homosexuals tell us they were born that way but the homophobe has to go through forced mental fixings.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@jaieet [cont] so it seems "religious" or not some people want to force you in to their way of thinking.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Are you implying that scientist are immune to poltical beliefs when it comes to how they interpret there work?"
I imply that observational and mathematical formula does not cater to belief systems. When something's show to be accurate, your personal beliefs cease to be relevant. The only alternative is denial. ;p
"So on one has ever attacked anyone else for a none-religious reason?"
It's okay to fight for religious reasons as long as people do it for other reasons too? ;p
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet You're right.... observations nor mathematical formulas does not cater to a belief, but they'll keep searching for the right mathmatical formula to fit their need and they will logically gear their interpretation of their observation towards their idealogy.
I don't understand this statement either.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "they'll keep searching for the right mathmatical formula to fit their need"
lol... really?
Math doesn't work that way. =P Even in circumstances where you can use formula to demonstrate falsehoods (2+2 = 5), every scientific community in the world is ready to stare down those findings. You get points-and paid-to prove theories false (or invalidate them). Do you *really* think the entire world would pass up earning global renown for saving entire governments billions of dollars? =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Tell that to the people using math to explain String Theory.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus i.e. Once they found 1 formula to make it fit, they now have many formulas that fit albeit with diffrent inputs.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "I don't understand this statement either."
You volunteered your opinion that people fight for other reasons besides religious ones. To what end does this validify forms of religious intolerance? ('there are other crimes besides speeding in a residential zone, y'dumb copper!' =P)
"If a homophobe comes out the closet its time to teach him to think diffrently."
'My child is bullying yours in school every day and destroying his self-esteem. But it's okay cause that's the way he is.' :P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet I still don't under your statmenet and it wasn't an opinion. It's a fact. One does not have to believe in God to go to War or hurt people.
What's your point? ;) Are you suggesting that you can believe and promote what you believe and not be considered "religious" but if another group of people do the same thing and believe in God they are "religious"?
Anidominus 2 months ago
@jaieet
I was just pointing out similairies in the promotion of religoius moral concepts vs your own "none-religious" pormotion of moral codes. This is a diffrent point all together. The point being... everybody has a religion. But its a side point.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "It's a fact"
lol. An opinion can be a fact. =P
"I still don't under your statmenet"
You volunteered of your own free will that people don't only kill for religious reasons. I never expressed any rationale that they did. My question is; how do *other* murders excuse *religious* murders. I mean, seriously, what kind of statement is 'those guys weren't the only ones to do it!' in an argument? =p
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet How many times do I have to say it? I wasn't trying to excuse anything. If you are going to blame a group of people for something then you must blame another group for the same something. This would be regardless if the group promoted such action.
Anidominus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anidominus "But we still have this horrible climate change regulation and spending we need to reign in."
Which part of the funding do you believe needs to be reigned in? The green research? The rebates for citizen purchases of alternative energy sources?
"What horrible lessons in Deuteronomy? I wasn't going to do this but you need the education"
Deuteronomy 13:1-10
jaieet 2 months ago
@Anidominus "If you are going to blame a group of people for something then you must blame another group for the same something. This would be regardless if the group promoted such action."
... You're saying that we should blame an entire group of people if one of that particular group (let's say, a family of four) were to... say... drive drunk?
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Do you understand that defintion of group? lol
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Are you suggesting that you can believe and promote what you believe and not be considered "religious" but if another group of people do the same thing and believe in God they are "religious"?"
...No? =P Do you assume that I think religion is somehow bad? Cause I've been saying the opposite for a while now. ;p
"The point being... everybody has a religion"
Quite the assumption. Though I don't think religion has anything to do with what ends up being written down. ;p
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet No I don't. But some of your more "religious" athiest seem to think getting rid of Religion is the way to go.
Religions come in diffrent flavors. The minute you put it in a box you've left a religion out.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "I find it hypocriticle when homosexuals tell us they were born that way but the homophobe has to go through forced mental fixings."
lol, are you comparing sexuality to bigotry and bullying? :P
Why on Earth would you assume the pastor is going to be put through forced reeducation? He's simply going to be discredited and opposed - as is any intolerant group (The KKK, pro-slavery groups, militant anarchists - even aggressive atheists (who are opposed by other atheists. =P)
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet No, logic dictates if you can be born with one behavior and can not change then you can be born with another one that can not be changed. If a homosexual comes out the closet its time to celebrate. If a homophobe comes out the closet its time to teach him to think diffrently.
I didn't assume that.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "what business is it of yours or mine?"
It's not your business unless you make it your business. The question is; *why* is it our business?
Well; if a man is organising a rally that directly demeans another group of people simply because of an attraction that is built into them at a base level, that is bullying and intolerance. And that is wrong. The right choice is to defend the victims; not enable the bully. =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Who gave you the authority to decide what is right or wrong? Why are you trying to impose your moral beliefs on someone else? ;)
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Who gave you the authority to decide what is right or wrong?"
Errmm... everyone?
In case you haven't noticed, we've both been attempting to argue right and wrong for a while now. You made a pretty uninformed vote on global warming in that regard. =P
It is a mildly accurate statement that a person doing something to deliberately torment another person for no good reason is a bully. You argue that this is not within my scope to identify as wrong.
Why do you oppose my conclusion?
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Are you suggesting then that whatever the mob wants the mob gets? Can the mob ever be wrong?
I agree with you that bullying is wrong, I was making another subtle point.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Are you suggesting then that whatever the mob wants the mob gets?"
Nope.
"Can the mob ever be wrong?"
We stopped that wierd and costly abstinence program in the US, didn't we? :P
"And my point was there is nothing in scritpure that justifies any of this behavior."
Whaaaaat? Deuteronomy alone is *loaded* with all sorts of horrible lessons. I believe there are entire bible passages that directly relate to the practice of witchcraft. ;p
What *are* you talking about?
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet But we still have this horrible climate change regulation and spending we need to reign in.
What horrible lessons in Deuteronomy? I wasn't going to do this but you need the education. lol
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus The appropriate response would be to berate that pastor for his intolerance toward the gay community; to actively spread word of his misdeeds and make it known that he is in the wrong. After all, children will hear that nonsense and accept it as truth!
But that's not what happens.
The general response is to ignore the man; to distance oneself from him ("He's not a true Christian, because...'). In any other aspect of life, a silly man is berated. Why not when quoting scripture?
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Whoaa!!!! I mean really!! We suppose to chestize people for doing the things we think are wrong? How very religious of you.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "We suppose to chestize people for doing the things we think are wrong?"
Err.... yes? If someone does something wrong, they are reprimanded. A child steals; he is punished by his parents.
...do you outgrow doing the wrong thing? =P
"Chrisitans or religious peole in general get blamed for yet there was no religoius rule in place demanding, praising, or encouraging their actions."
Example? I'll need to know which particular actions you speak about. =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Salem witch trials (in which Christians lead the way to stop it) or the "Spanish Inquisition" (Which had nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with the Queen's greedy brother) and things of that nature.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "Salem witch trials"
Witches were burned in the name of god by self-proclaimed Christians all the time. They admit it. There are MASS amounts of historical information on the subject. Priests kept journals and ledgers, for god's sake. :P
"Spanish Inquisition"
The claimed to be Christians/Catholics working for god. Often. Again, there's journals and ledgers on the subject - in museums, in fact. =p
This happened at the hands of people who thought they were doing their god's work.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet And my point was there is nothing in scritpure that justifies any of this behavior. It was actually a kind of "mob rule" which you seem to support with your last statement. lol The only problem as it relates to Chrisanity is that those were done by Christian mobs and not secular mobs. If it had been done by a Secular mob it just would have been seen as another unfortunate incident .
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "I agree with you that bullying is wrong, I was making another subtle point."
But the point is then moot; I never overstepped my own bounds. Free discussion is entirely justified. And in the case of the pastor imposing his will upon another group in a bullying fashion, *he* is the one turning belief into action/anguish. Action promotes reaction, and justifies annulment of his attempts to harm another.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet So your "Religion" says. lol
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "So your "Religion" says."
Do you understand the dictionary definitions of religion? :P
"Yeah secular people probably wouldn't do it for witchcraft, even though they could, but they have other methods of acheiving the same goal. i.e. Elminating people who they think are a dredge on society."
Of course they could. But they wouldn't kill a random peasant because they suddenly decide he/she's practicing dark magic. Only a small no. of people can justify that sort of action. Understand?
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet I think I understand the definition of religion better than you do. And "suddenly" deciding the someone was a witch didn't happen during the salem witch trials either. Unless you're just being over dramatic. My question is, do you understand?
Anidominus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anidominus "You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientist"
Which scientist? =P
I expect a scientist to do his job. Similar to the way I expect a doctor--or an engineer--to do their's. If they're particularly talented, and have been educated correctly, then I expect them to do that job *well*.
Have you ever completed a degree in a university/college before?
jaieet 2 months ago
@Anidominus "If it had been done by a Secular mob"
But it wasn't. Not for 'witchcraft' (which teachers in the US *still* lose their jobs over).
Why on Earth are you attempting to defend the actions of a group of crazed medieval-time fanatics?
Do you think that conceding that those actions were wrong--or that they were done in the name of their version of god--somehow reflects badly on the modern version of christianity? =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Do you understand the diffrence between dending someone's action and pointing out the hypocracy of certain people to point out a fault in others and not pointing out the same fault in themselves?
Yeah secular people probably wouldn't do it for witchcraft, even though they could, but they have other methods of acheiving the same goal. i.e. Elminating people who they think are a dredge on society.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus Religion is not perfect. In fact, as most religious texts contain several examples of lessons encouraging exclusion, bullying, violence and general intolerance. The 'bad' church preaches these messages, while the 'good' church simply ignores them! :P
What I try to convey is that religion isn't responsible for all the world's problems-and is entirely capable of solving problems. Unfortunately, it also causes problems. It is fallible-and must be treated accountable for its actions.
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet When are we going to start holding Athiest accountable for the things they do?
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "When are we going to start holding Athiest accountable for the things they do?"
We already do. =P Trying to imply that having no particular belief in a god is the cause of their actions, though, is an inaccuracy. This is not impossible, however - if a self proclaimed atheist were to wipe out entire civilisations *because* they believed in a god (or practiced religious activities), that would be a rational example (though I think he would, technically, be an anti-theist ;p)
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Also, Judism, Chrisanity, and Islam make up 55% of the beliving world so of course there is going to be a lot of dirt done by people who claim either one of this faiths. All I'm saying is that there is enough blame to go around to EVERYBODY.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@Anidominus "All I'm saying is that there is enough blame to go around to EVERYBODY"
But not everybody is to blame-and we really shouldn't act otherwise. You seem to think I'm attacking your beliefs or your credibility; but this is simply not true. I attempt to convey that the fanatics who you try to distance yourself from are *not* safe to ignore. When a christian supports dead soldiers, you don't *ignore* that, dude - you organise your own side to put them in their place! =P
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet And all I'm saying is if you're going to blame one side, blame the other side for what it does. Getting rid of "religion" istn't going to fix anything. If you (not you, but people in general) are going to profess to be a person of evidence, then look at the evidence and quit ignoraning the hell people who share a belief of yours (not you, but people in general) or lack there of have done.
Anidominus 2 months ago
@jaieet And it was Church people, up to and including Martin Luther, who put the papcey in its proper place. I agree tremendusly that a charimastic leader "In the Name of God" can deceive millions in to do something horrible. However you don't need "the name of God" to deceive millions in to doing something horrible as evident by Joseph Stalin and other leaders like him. "God" in those cases simply becomes a historical scapegoat.
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus (pt 2)
Joseph Stalin is a good example and a bad argument at the same time. He did not apparently believe in a god, though he watched his country almost destroyed by the extended hand of one; working through the extended arm that was the German nation (Mass Catholic delirium ;p). He was wary of such power; as one would after witnessing something as awing as Hitler's Germany. So he turned his aggression on the Orthadox Church. And any others who threatened his supremacy.
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet I can also look at many of the wars credited to "Chrisitans" and show that the situation would have happened regardless for example, the Spanish Inquisiton. That war started because one group of people didn't like the success of another group of people. It just so happen the group with the most power and least amount of success was Christians and the otherside were Jews. Anyway.....
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus (pt 3)
The population was eager to follow his orders; because he had *saved* them from destruction at the hands of their oppressors. Religion was an easy target. It still is (anti-Islam propaganda).
Even if Stalin's disbelief in a god was the reason for his actions, it would never, ever, *ever* be enough to convince an entire nation to war on his behalf. Not even in a country where Atheism is the majority; like Sweden.
But the idea of a god's desires *can* be enough.
jaieet 3 months ago
@jaieet Athiesm gets a break from is atrocities because history never defines mass murders being exhibited by Godless people to the fact that they were Godless people. However, anything a "Christian" does or other religious person is 99% of the time (with the exception of Islam) associated with the religion. But anyway....
Anidominus 3 months ago
@Anidominus (pt 3)
Though after the Inquisition, yes - Christianity helped encourage mass literacy. :P As far as the war thing goes - if the army or the dictator chants or praises their god's name and claims to be doing their work (or working for them), it's not difficult to attribute their beliefs as a major cause. Some of these people were messed up to begin with - but the difference is that the population, itself, *believes* in the same god (ala the nazi party); making it easier to proceed.
jaieet 3 months ago
Bible prophecy prooves Christ is true. The lord JESUS PREDICTED THE pope is the anti christ 2000 years ago. Christ predicted satan would hi jack the christian church would install a false religious man to sit in the christian church would come out of the divided roman empire after its collapse and would rule the world again with a new world order at the end would kill the saints would change Gods sabbath. The pope has done this and is doing this through the ten secret socities on his side
vladimirkovalski 4 months ago
that's why i am agnostic
goldenageism 5 months ago
just because there is no evidence shoud we say there is no god? (that's fallacy in reasoning )
goldenageism 5 months ago
@goldenageism
You are correct. That's why most (probably all) atheists do not assert that no gods exist. If you get answer the question "Do you belief in gods?" with a "No", then you are an atheist, by proper definition (some dictionaries will tell you different though). Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief. I am an agnostic atheist.
gininginin 4 months ago
No my good sir, atheism is the lack o belief.
MATANUI720 5 months ago
Even if the poster in 0:53 was true it would still make more sense than Christianity.
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos Fail.
Onefleshabiding16 7 months ago
if atheism is a belief or not is only detracting from what we are saying and that is you have not gave us any reason to follow your or any gods, trying to hide the failings in what you believe by misinterpreting a word will not hide that fact
if atheism is a belief or not does not change the fact i say,,,no god,,, what difference does it make? christians, the bible and god have failed in proving your stance true to me, never mind any other form of god
333derick333 7 months ago
@gklr:Bill Hicks in one of his comedy shows(parodying a bigoted Christian):"I´m Christian-i can´t stand you!"Well i said,then forgive me!
Never walk upon thin ice of arguing with bigoted irrational "Christians" they will do everything to mob you in the end. If you tell them:"What the fuck,i really don´t know if god exists",this will make them probably more speechless, than arguing in any other direction.
"I have the impression no one really believes in anything than own survival"(Schopenhauer)
MrSKINFLICK 8 months ago
[FOUR]
The deities that have been presented to me during my lifetime have "failed the test." So don't believe in specifically them. I don't claim one thing when it comes to creation. I only CONSIDER explinations that are most logical for ME.
"And... you can't prove it so what you just said is a belief and isn't about you anyway."
Why do you need to know about me so much, hun? Lol. I'm staying on subject. What is so wrong with me not believing that a god exists?
[NEXT]
Vessoland 8 months ago
@Vessoland,
"So don't believe in specifically them"
Talk about you. Talk about atheists. Here you don't.
"I don't claim one thing when it comes to creation. "
Talk about you, that doesn't. Oh and atheists can claim a god created the universe and now does not exist, and many deists claim that exact thing. There is nothing wrong with an atheist saying he thinks god created the universe.
"Why do you need to know about me so much, hun? Lol"
That is what we are talking about.
gklr 8 months ago
@Vessoland,
"What is so wrong with me not believing that a god exists?"
Nothing. You are wrong when you think that saying so talks about you when it doesn't. You are wrong in thinking this statement talks about atheists when it doesn't. You didn't believe in a god 2 million years ago and you did not exist then either so you were not an atheist.
Saying what something is not, tells me nothing about what it is.
gklr 8 months ago
[THREE]
It's just the definition of atheism. If you don't understand this, then you're hopeless. By your logic, not believing in unicorns does not exist.
"Uh.... dude, I never suggested you said any such thing."
Then why would you bring this up?
"Talk about you. You didn't believe in them 2 million years ago."
I wasn't alive 2 million years ago. It's a good thing you went to bed. I think you need the rest. What part of "I don't claim to know the beginning," do you not understand?
[NEXT]
Vessoland 8 months ago
@Vessoland,
"I don't claim to know the beginning," do you not understand?"
The part that assumes such a statemen is talking about you. Saying "I don't believe..." says nothing about "I". You didn't believe in a god 2 millin years ago and you were not an atheist.
gklr 8 months ago
100% garbage in this video.
gklr 8 months ago
People who hold their judgment to a claim or an idea generally do so because they are UNDETERMINED on their stance since each of the possibilities in their mind is PLAUSIBLE
The exist