Being Honest About Religious Beliefs Shouldn’t Be Offensive

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life.html
that is a good page to start on IF you wish to grow a brain

veya_victaous wrote:http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life.html
that is a good page to start on IF you wish  to grow a brain

You gives a shit

You came out with all this crap, none of which I find impressive and poor arguments.

So I put you to the test, you chickened out because you are full of  shit.

Full stop

I could care less about the Universe, that holds nothing on many arguments on gods

And look at the nonsense you posted a link to

Podcast 4: Is There Just One Christian Worldview or Many?

The Homeopathic Christ Problem

One Christian Worldview? Part 3: The Compendium

Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Part 2: Finishing Off Geisler’s Case

What the fuck is that scripture based bullshit !!!!!
please don't waste my time with further references to Christian fairytales

veya_victaous wrote:And look at the nonsense you posted a link to

Podcast 4: Is There Just One Christian Worldview or Many?

The Homeopathic Christ Problem

One Christian Worldview? Part 3: The Compendium

Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Part 2: Finishing Off Geisler’s Case

What the fuck is that scripture based bullshit !!!!!
please don't waste my time with further references to Christian fairytales

What scipture?

Again there are countless arguments that do not require speaking about the Universe.

So again you are full of shit

All can see you chickened out and the reason, you do n't know what you are talking about

The facts are this Veya, you know shit all about theological arguments

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:what i find more annoying is the hypocrisy or anti logic expressed by devotee of any faith (including the atheist faith)

Like Justifying something 'because it says so in the bible' but then ignoring the bit that don't suit, If some can be ignored then all can be. thus it being in the bible is not justification at all

Or Atheists trying to convert people using the justification that Religious try and convert people, Or atheist being intolerant of religion based in religions being intolerant.

In a nutshell!!! Exactly my point.

So in a nutshell, you cannot argue your own points

So you are against educating science then and reason?

Fail to see how that is converting, but opening peoples eyes up to the truth.

There is no atheist faith and such a view is illogical, as you do not need to have faith in non-belief.

The great thing about atheism, is there is no set beliefs. The beliefs the person has will be non religious.

Well are you tolerant of practices that effect the well being and equality of others?

For example, do you approve of stoning people to death for adultery?

for the record NO it is not me being offended by anything but your stupidity, my first post besides agreeing with wolf's assertion.

look at the abuse you posted to eddie because she questioned you

You are every bit the hypocrite

Here is one for you to see ho much you know about or will you plagiarize

Lets see

https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/why-did-god-create-the-material-universe-924.html

Thorin wrote:The facts are this Veya, you know shit all about theological arguments

Because I believe in science
I understand Science
have never for a moment, even as a toddler believed in Christianity

I was raised by atheist/agnostics

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So in a nutshell, you cannot argue your own points

So you are against educating science then and reason?

Fail to see how that is converting, but opening peoples eyes up to the truth.

There is no atheist faith and such a view is illogical, as you do not need to have faith in non-belief.

The great thing about atheism, is there is no set beliefs. The beliefs the person has will be non religious.

Well are you tolerant of practices that effect the well being and equality of others?

For example, do you approve of stoning people to death for adultery?

for the record NO it is not me being offended by anything but your stupidity, my first post besides agreeing with wolf's assertion.

look at the abuse you posted to eddie because she questioned you

You are every bit the hypocrite

This coming from the Israel hater who calls them terrorists

This coming from the person who thinks its acceptable to use violence against Free Speech

You claim I am stupid, hilarious

You are one thick dummy, how knows bugger all about theological arguments

I question bad beliefs.

If you dont like that, tough

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:The facts are this Veya, you know shit all about theological arguments

Because I believe in science
I understand Science
have never for a moment, even as a toddler believed in Christianity

I was raised by atheist/agnostics

I like and read about many different forms of science.

You do not even need them to show irrational forms of belief

Thorin wrote:Here is one for you to see ho much you know about or will you plagiarize

Lets see

https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/why-did-god-create-the-material-universe-924.html

Umm WTF are you still posting Christian nonsense for?
I don't believe that god created the universe, I was NEVER taught that ever
I was taught that time began with the big bang before I ever went to school

I Hypothesize that 'gods are part of the universe (multiverse)'  

From the link you posted

[1] Note that failure to address the question renders void the monotheist's allegation to have explained the origin of the universe (often expressed as "religion explains what science cannot"). Attributing a purposeful action to a being without supplying a motive deprives the action of prior causation, and brings the chain of causation to a premature end. A voluntary act performed by a human agent is not regarded as being explained by a statement of the form, "He did it just because he wanted to." If God does not act whimsically or irrationally, he must have had a reason for creating the natural realm.

which is all well and good but I am polytheist agnostic because according the branes theorem of the multiverse, even the universe is merely a slice of reality (that which vibrated between the 0 and the speed of light) so IF the universe itself does not exist in singularity than nothing does (gods included) so therefore if there is a god there is many gods
https://www.edge.org/conversation/lisa_randall-theories-of-the-brane-lisa-randall

You see you did not even read it did you?

Its a rebuttal of the claim

Talk about exposing you.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So in a nutshell, you cannot argue your own points

So you are against educating science then and reason?

Fail to see how that is converting, but opening peoples eyes up to the truth.

There is no atheist faith and such a view is illogical, as you do not need to have faith in non-belief.

The great thing about atheism, is there is no set beliefs. The beliefs the person has will be non religious.

Well are you tolerant of practices that effect the well being and equality of others?

For example, do you approve of stoning people to death for adultery?

for the record NO it is not me being offended by anything but your stupidity, my first post besides agreeing with wolf's assertion.

look at the abuse you posted to eddie because she questioned you

You are every bit the hypocrite

This coming from the Israel hater who calls them terrorists

This coming from the person who thinks its acceptable to use violence against Free Speech

You claim I am stupid, hilarious

You are one thick dummy, how knows bugger all about theological arguments

I question bad beliefs.

If you dont like that, tough

did you just try and prove my point?

Thorin wrote:You see you did not even read it did you?

Its a rebuttal of the claim

Talk about exposing you.

umm you didn't read it did you?

please copy and paste the section that reference polytheist agnostics

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:You see you did not even read it did you?

Its a rebuttal of the claim

Talk about exposing you.

umm you didn't read it did you?

please copy and paste the section that reference polytheist agnostics

I did read it, as its a rebuttal to the Christian claim

Your view on polytheist agnostics has zero interest for me.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


This coming from the Israel hater who calls them terrorists

This coming from the person who thinks its acceptable to use violence against Free Speech

You claim I am stupid, hilarious

You are one thick dummy, how knows bugger all about theological arguments

I question bad beliefs.

If you dont like that, tough

did you just try and  prove my point?

That you are stupid?

Yes

Thorin wrote:Here’s an entertaining compilation of atheists on television (or giving lectures) and being as blunt as ever:

And to those who take offense to things they’re saying, I’d love to know a nicer way to tell people their beliefs are based on lies.









http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/21/being-honest-about-religious-beliefs-shouldnt-be-offensive/

Now to get the debate back on track from the rude interruptions


Is it offensive to be critical of poor beliefs?

No

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I think people keep forgetting that having faith in something doesn't require physical proof.

My point wasn't really about that anyway.

My point to veya was the just because an atheist doesn't claim to be 100% certain there is no god, does not make them not an atheist.

My earlier point to you was that atheism is not a religion, because it requires no faith or codes to follow. Atheism only describes a lack of belief in one thing, god.

Quick point Les, if you are not 100% sure there us not a god, you aren't atheist, you are agnostic.

No. That would make most people on Earth agnostic. I bet every believer has times when they doubt god's existence, most are not 100% sure. Unless you want to tell a Christian they are not a Christian because they have some doubt then you cannot do the same with atheists.

yes to both

most people are actually agnostic
and I wish I could slap some brains into Christians that call them selves Christian without believing 100%

Sorry Veya but you're wrong. At the best you are playing ridiculously with semantics.

If myself and a Christian wanted to describe the differences is our view regarding our view of god/s then it would be stupid to say 'they are both agnostic'.

They would be offended because you outright rejected their faith based on a few occassional doubts they may have.

You would be implying I am way more unconvinced than I really am.

You are being pedantic. They is a spectrum of belief, I happen to fall heavily on the atheistic side of that. Raggs heavily on the Christian side. To say we cannot define ourselves a certain way because of doubt is nit picking and contrarian for the sake of it.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:To clarify. The idea I am agnostic is not giving a true impression of what I think. Agnosticism implies 50/50 chances or a 'honestly got no idea, maybe maybe not' view. That is not my position. I am fairly convinced there are no gods. But it would be arrogant to assume I know there isn't one, so I remain open to be proven wrong. There's no major uncertainty though. From all I've read and heard I am almost certain there is no god, at least as certain as most believers are there is one. Ergo I'm an atheist. A term that more accurately describes my belief on the matter (than agnostic).

umm NO
it is a thousand 0.1/0.1/0.1 etc

the Universe is not binary
in fact I think you just proved my Hypothesis that being raised Abrahamist permanently damages your ability to comprehend the universe.

BS. There are many Christian scientists out there (even if not as many as are agnostic and atheist) who are scientists and are more capable than any of us at understanding the universe. Don't get offensive just because people disagree

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:To clarify. The idea I am agnostic is not giving a true impression of what I think. Agnosticism implies 50/50 chances or a 'honestly got no idea, maybe maybe not' view. That is not my position. I am fairly convinced there are no gods. But it would be arrogant to assume I know there isn't one, so I remain open to be proven wrong. There's no major uncertainty though. From all I've read and heard I am almost certain there is no god, at least as certain as most believers are there is one. Ergo I'm an atheist. A term that more accurately describes my belief on the matter (than agnostic).

umm NO
it is a thousand 0.1/0.1/0.1 etc

the Universe is not binary
in fact I think you just proved my Hypothesis that being raised Abrahamist permanently damages your ability to comprehend the universe.

BS. There are many Christian scientists out there (even if not as many as are agnostic and atheist) who are scientists and are more capable than any of us at understanding the universe. Don't get offensive just because people disagree

Read the OP you're not supposed to get offended

And I 100% think that
I am friends with ben i still think that about him too, and dawkins
Being raised in a religious family damages the ability to think critically about the universe.
thus capacity to comprehend it is reduced.

Highlighted by even suggesting 50/50 between the religion you where raised in and nothing.
there are half dozen Branes theories alone, science provides dozens of highly established possibilities
to even suggest bible is an option is retarded and I do mean like being raised by alcoholic parents
including actual physical differences/damage to the brain.

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:Here’s an entertaining compilation of atheists on television (or giving lectures) and being as blunt as ever:

And to those who take offense to things they’re saying, I’d love to know a nicer way to tell people their beliefs are based on lies.









http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/21/being-honest-about-religious-beliefs-shouldnt-be-offensive/

Now to get the debate back on track from the rude interruptions


Is it offensive to be critical of poor beliefs?

No

Yes, demonstrated by You and Elizel being offended at having your poor beliefs pointed out

Should that matter NO, at least not to me. I don't care if i offend you by pointing out your poor beliefs

It's not a poor belief veya, what you are demonstrating is just arrogance. It is arrogant for instance to suggest you know more about the universe than a Christian physicist or an atheist physicist just because you deem their belief about god or gods to be 'damaging'.

And I never said 50/50 between no god or Biblical god. My atheism refers to any supernatural 'creator' whether that comes from the Bible, Hinduism, Taoism or anywhere else.

Shall we get down to the facts of denying God and the non-factual Biblical scripts, especially in Genesis:

There is no mention in the Bible of the Dinosaurs whose demise was caused by a 10 mile wide Asteroid slamming into the planet. Many species of animals suffered extinction but again, no mention of God starting new life-forms.

Talking of the Flood, it says 'the waters covered the highest mountain. That, my friends, is Everest at 5 miles high! Think about it, the whole world would have been covered in water 5 miles high, for 150 days, that means absolutely nothing on Earth would have survived, and there's no mention of God starting creation all over again. Then it says 'the waters began to recede.' Er, where to? If it poured down into volcanic vents etc there would have been massive explosions when the waters met the magma. Put a hot frying pan under a cold tap and see what happens.

Moving on a bit we come to Cain. Who was his wife? A sister? If so we have a classic case of insest, then it goes on to say 'Cain built a city.' A city? Who the heck for? There was just himself, his wife and baby!

I'll leave it there for the moment and see what reaction this brings. See ya later.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Now to get the debate back on track from the rude interruptions


Is it offensive to be critical of poor beliefs?

No

Yes, demonstrated by You and Elizel being offended at having your poor beliefs pointed out

Should that matter NO, at least not to me. I don't care if i offend you by pointing out your poor beliefs

Why would I be offended by you in any shape or form?

I know you back extremism and hence why I ridicule your beliefs

I don't have any poor beliefs, as they are based on the well being and equality of others.

stardesk wrote:Shall we get down to the facts of denying God and the non-factual Biblical scripts, especially in Genesis:

There is no mention in the Bible of the Dinosaurs whose demise was caused by a 10 mile wide Asteroid slamming into the planet. Many species of animals suffered extinction but again, no mention of God starting new life-forms.

Talking of the Flood, it says 'the waters covered the highest mountain. That, my friends, is Everest at 5 miles high! Think about it, the whole world would have been covered in water 5 miles high, for 150 days, that means absolutely nothing on Earth would have survived, and there's no mention of God starting creation all over again. Then it says 'the waters began to recede.' Er, where to? If it poured down into volcanic vents etc there would have been massive explosions when the waters met the magma. Put a hot frying pan under a cold tap and see what happens.

Moving on a bit we come to Cain. Who was his wife? A sister? If so we have a classic case of insest, then it goes on to say 'Cain built a city.' A city? Who the heck for? There was just himself, his wife and baby!

I'll leave it there for the moment and see what reaction this brings. See ya later.

Hi Stardesk

I will be interested if anyone can counter your views here.

Hi Throrin. I don't think there's much anyone can say because the evidence has been proved and can't be denied. If people try to, then they're saying the evidence is wrong and scientists have got it all wrong. But,
I know they haven't.

stardesk wrote:Hi Throrin. I don't think there's much anyone can say because the evidence has been proved and can't be denied. If people try to, then they're saying the evidence is wrong and scientists have got it all wrong. But,
I know they haven't.

I just fail to see why people cannot believe what is front of their own eyes?

The world is full of beauty and yet they seek that beauty else where, something that is not real.

People need to embrace their lives we have and see that there truly is beauty all around.,

I just fail to see why people cannot believe what is front of their own eyes?
The world is full of beauty and yet they seek that beauty else where, something that is not real.
People need to embrace their lives we have and see that there truly is beauty all around.
Quite right Thorin.

Of course, the world, like everything else, has both positive and negative events and issues. There are many beautiful places but they are countered by catastrophic events. You take somewhere like a lovely tropical island, suddenly all hell lets loose with a tsunami, tornado, or volcanic eruption.

I can't help saying: Where is God in this situation, lounging in his armchair with a cute angel on his lap?

+1

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:To clarify. The idea I am agnostic is not giving a true impression of what I think. Agnosticism implies 50/50 chances or a 'honestly got no idea, maybe maybe not' view. That is not my position. I am fairly convinced there are no gods. But it would be arrogant to assume I know there isn't one, so I remain open to be proven wrong. There's no major uncertainty though. From all I've read and heard I am almost certain there is no god, at least as certain as most believers are there is one. Ergo I'm an atheist. A term that more accurately describes my belief on the matter (than agnostic).

umm NO
it is a thousand 0.1/0.1/0.1 etc

the Universe is not binary
in fact I think you just proved my Hypothesis that being raised Abrahamist permanently damages your ability to comprehend the universe.

BS. There are many Christian scientists out there (even if not as many as are agnostic and atheist) who are scientists and are more capable than any of us at understanding the universe. Don't get offensive just because people disagree

Read the OP you're not supposed to get offended      

And I 100% think that
I am friends with ben i still think that about him too, and dawkins
Being raised in a religious family damages the ability to think critically about the universe.
thus capacity to comprehend it is reduced.

Highlighted by even suggesting 50/50 between the religion you where raised in and nothing.
there are half dozen Branes theories alone, science provides dozens of highly established possibilities
to even suggest bible is an option is retarded and I do mean like being raised by alcoholic parents
including actual physical differences/damage to the brain.

Come on, man -- just because I was raised a Christian doesn't mean I didn't question it; I was questioning it from age 6, but too scared to say anything to my parents (still am, actually). I've studied world religions both formally and informally and I know there are a lot of ideas about things beyond science out there, many of them quite different from the major world faiths.

I'm just saying, until someone proves them with actual empirical evidence, I don't believe them. And since I don't believe them, I do indeed get to call myself an atheist.

I'll call myself an agnostic if some highly suggestive but as-yet-unconfirmed evidence comes in. And if conclusive evidence comes in, I'll call myself a believer!

But you still believe in mermaids, right?

well eddie...he must....at least i have heard he dresses up as one at least once a month......

Ben Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:To clarify. The idea I am agnostic is not giving a true impression of what I think. Agnosticism implies 50/50 chances or a 'honestly got no idea, maybe maybe not' view. That is not my position. I am fairly convinced there are no gods. But it would be arrogant to assume I know there isn't one, so I remain open to be proven wrong. There's no major uncertainty though. From all I've read and heard I am almost certain there is no god, at least as certain as most believers are there is one. Ergo I'm an atheist. A term that more accurately describes my belief on the matter (than agnostic).

umm NO
it is a thousand 0.1/0.1/0.1 etc

the Universe is not binary
in fact I think you just proved my Hypothesis that being raised Abrahamist permanently damages your ability to comprehend the universe.

BS. There are many Christian scientists out there (even if not as many as are agnostic and atheist) who are scientists and are more capable than any of us at understanding the universe. Don't get offensive just because people disagree

Read the OP you're not supposed to get offended      

And I 100% think that
I am friends with ben i still think that about him too, and dawkins
Being raised in a religious family damages the ability to think critically about the universe.
thus capacity to comprehend it is reduced.

Highlighted by even suggesting 50/50 between the religion you where raised in and nothing.
there are half dozen Branes theories alone, science provides dozens of highly established possibilities
to even suggest bible is an option is retarded and I do mean like being raised by alcoholic parents
including actual physical differences/damage to the brain.

Come on, man -- just because I was raised a Christian doesn't mean I didn't question it; I was questioning it from age 6, but too scared to say anything to my parents (still am, actually). I've studied world religions both formally and informally and I know there are a lot of ideas about things beyond science out there, many of them quite different from the major world faiths.

I'm just saying, until someone proves them with actual empirical evidence, I don't believe them. And since I don't believe them, I do indeed get to call myself an atheist.

I'll call myself an agnostic if some highly suggestive but as-yet-unconfirmed evidence comes in. And if conclusive evidence comes in, I'll call myself a believer!

Has nothing to do with Questioning what you were told, but has to do with thinking you can hold an answer. this is why I said it seems to go back to the way the mind has structured itself which we know through science is deeply related to the early stages of life and learning.

there fact you expect empirical evidence of something but accept no empirical for nothing, when nothing is actually a very big thing. this is something I have noticed is almost universally in people that have been raised to believe that someone posses an answer(religious). it is like the brain cannot accept that it is ok to not know. also seems to struggle with simultaneously holding multiple things to be possible. I have noticed that this is very different in people raised in nonreligious families.

and there is no evidence either way for 'gods' so we can only refine about what they could or could not be
which is why is say 'if there is a god, there is probably multiple' based observations of the universe that nothing exists in singularity. notice there is not concrete in that statement in the hypothesis since we don't know, any statement on the topic should only be a hypothesis.

to say there is no god is as arrogant and as 100% based in faith as to state there is one.

And time and time again I have asked for some sort of reasoning behind the answer zero and people just refer back to the bible which is like referring back to red riding hood for it's relevance to the discussion. what does a fairytale have to do with it?
what in science make you think there is nothing when we see the insignificance of our own beings and indeed our species and planet? how can you feel so confident to even propose a very finite answer?

Like les still refers back to a creator but not all gods that man has imagined in the past are creators? the greek gods for example are not they are children of mother earth too, why take suck stock in the bible to continue to use it a definition when saying you know it is false? make no sense illogical in the extreme.

Lord Foul wrote:well eddie...he must....at least i have heard he dresses up as one at least once a month......

You've got bad intel, it's once every few years at most.

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:To clarify. The idea I am agnostic is not giving a true impression of what I think. Agnosticism implies 50/50 chances or a 'honestly got no idea, maybe maybe not' view. That is not my position. I am fairly convinced there are no gods. But it would be arrogant to assume I know there isn't one, so I remain open to be proven wrong. There's no major uncertainty though. From all I've read and heard I am almost certain there is no god, at least as certain as most believers are there is one. Ergo I'm an atheist. A term that more accurately describes my belief on the matter (than agnostic).

umm NO
it is a thousand 0.1/0.1/0.1 etc

the Universe is not binary
in fact I think you just proved my Hypothesis that being raised Abrahamist permanently damages your ability to comprehend the universe.

BS. There are many Christian scientists out there (even if not as many as are agnostic and atheist) who are scientists and are more capable than any of us at understanding the universe. Don't get offensive just because people disagree

Read the OP you're not supposed to get offended      

And I 100% think that
I am friends with ben i still think that about him too, and dawkins
Being raised in a religious family damages the ability to think critically about the universe.
thus capacity to comprehend it is reduced.

Highlighted by even suggesting 50/50 between the religion you where raised in and nothing.
there are half dozen Branes theories alone, science provides dozens of highly established possibilities
to even suggest bible is an option is retarded and I do mean like being raised by alcoholic parents
including actual physical differences/damage to the brain.

Come on, man -- just because I was raised a Christian doesn't mean I didn't question it; I was questioning it from age 6, but too scared to say anything to my parents (still am, actually). I've studied world religions both formally and informally and I know there are a lot of ideas about things beyond science out there, many of them quite different from the major world faiths.

I'm just saying, until someone proves them with actual empirical evidence, I don't believe them. And since I don't believe them, I do indeed get to call myself an atheist.

I'll call myself an agnostic if some highly suggestive but as-yet-unconfirmed evidence comes in. And if conclusive evidence comes in, I'll call myself a believer!

Has nothing to do with Questioning what you were told, but has to do with thinking you can hold an answer. this is why I said it seems to go back to the way the mind has structured itself which we know through science is deeply related to the early stages of life and learning.

there fact you expect empirical evidence of something but accept no empirical for nothing, when nothing is actually a very big thing.  this is something I have noticed is almost universally in people that have been raised to believe that someone posses an answer(religious). it is like the brain cannot accept that it is ok to not know. also seems to struggle with simultaneously holding multiple things to be possible. I have noticed that this is very different in people raised in nonreligious families.

and there is no evidence either way for 'gods' so we can only refine about what they could or could not be
which is why is say 'if there is a god, there is probably multiple' based observations of the universe that nothing exists in singularity. notice there is not concrete in that statement in the hypothesis since we don't know, any statement on the topic should only be a hypothesis.

to say there is no god is as arrogant and as 100% based in faith as to state there is one.

And time and time again I have asked for some sort of reasoning behind the answer zero and people just refer back to the bible which is like referring back to red riding hood for it's relevance to the discussion. what does a fairytale have to do with it?
what in science make you think there is nothing when we see the insignificance of our own beings and indeed our species and planet? how can you feel so confident to even propose a very finite answer?

Like les still refers back to a creator but not all gods that man has imagined in the past are creators? the greek gods for example are not they are children of mother earth too, why take suck stock in the bible to continue to use it a definition when saying you know it is false? make no sense illogical in the extreme.

I am completely comfortable with the fact that there are things I don't know, will never know, can't know, etc.

You notice I don't say, "There is no God." I say, "I don't believe in God (etc.)."

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God -- asserting that there is no God is different in a subtle but important way.

In other words, I'm saying there's no proof God exists -- not that I have proof God does not exist. I guess it's more of a reaction -- people out there assert that Jesus is a divine being, or that it's turtles all the way down, or whatever, but I'm saying I don't accept that version of reality because it hasn't been proven.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. Simple as that and well put Ben.

Veya, I am more than aware there are a bajillions gods man has thought up. My discussion rarely touches on the pantheons of Greek, Egyptian, Norse mytholgies etc since no one believes in those anyway. It isn't even entirely unreasonable to suppose they did exist but were merely kings who became gods as stories were passed down.

Nor am I really engaged in the discussion of gods that are not theist or at least deistic- since 'a' theism is only defined by lack of belief in a god that did create the world.

My atheist belief presumes nothing else about the universe and how it came to be other than that it was not created by a creator god.

You can demean that view all you like, but ultimately that is how atheism is defined. Is you want to define the term 'god' differently to the definition in the word atheist then so be it, but then your definition is not the one atheism refers to.

That's a good point about gods being mythologized versions of former rulers, and I bet there are a lot of them.

There's a very interesting theory that says that leprechauns, fairies and whatnot were the mythologized versions of people who lived in Ireland before the Celts took it over. To me, that makes a lot of sense.

I think we still do that a lot today, in fact -- Sasquatch might very well be a stand-in for the animals displaced from their homes by the spread of mankind, for example.

And notice how many people think aliens are coming here and trying to set us on the right path? Much like how thousands of years ago, angels "did" the same thing -- coming out of the sky to enlighten us. These enlightened beings always seem to come from a place that people are physically incapable of going -- the sky, the bottom of the ocean -- to remind us of our shortcomings, of course

Being honest about your religious beliefs is not offensive.
Ridiculing, belittling or calling other people stupid because of their religious beliefs is deeply offensive.

ALL religions are "pie in the sky" in my opinion there are no gods. Religions were invented by people who wanted to control others by fear, hence the saying "God fearing" and many other warnings about god watching you. After a Military career spanning 25 years or more and seeing the results of wars around the World, the death and suffering caused by cruel despots, there is no god. saying that , there are many whose faith in a god brings them comfort, and I would not dismiss them for that !!

Look I'll pay that you 2 are not the same as thorin, but i still hold that you have greater difficulty accepting man's irrelevance than me and my friend with a doctorate in Quantum mathematics that's father was a scientist in the field of chemistry would also state many of the same things I do (and hid father was just really smart, he is one of the individuals that put me on the path of technology as a pre 10 year old, his mum and mine where childhood friends so known each other our whole lives, he is about 6 months older than me) i will admit openly i am very fortunate to have grown up around free thinkers with scientific outlook on life and the universe

les you sometimes sink into that mentality that thorin is trapped in, (that of promoting the idea you posses an answer )
which is dangerous as in a few centuries it may make atheist zealots the same nonthinking individuals as Modern day Abrahamists

@ben
read Caiseal Mor's 'the circle and the cross' trilogy in regard to Ireland, Great read very interesting in the relations between catholic and pagan Ireland, in fact all his books really good
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/768066.The_Circle_and_the_Cross

nicko wrote:ALL religions are "pie in the sky"  in my opinion there are no gods.  Religions were invented by people who wanted to control others by fear, hence the saying "God fearing" and many other warnings about god watching you.  After a Military career spanning 25 years or more and seeing the results of wars around the World, the death and suffering caused by cruel despots, there is no god.  saying that , there are many whose faith in a god brings them comfort,  and I would not dismiss them for that  !!  

this i agree with this. (and religion is not what i defend)

what ever is divine does not concern itself with us, but if it brings comfort to those that need it fine, we are but violent hairless apes after all

IF we want to be more than apes than we need to embrace Science in it entirety and not just in relation to the parts of our upbringing we wish to reject. Which is the point, YES science says the bible is nothing but a fairytale BUT to allow the refutation of the lies you were taught as child to close your mind to the possibilities is 'retarded'

veya_victaous wrote:Look I'll pay that you 2 are not the same as thorin, but i still hold that you have greater difficulty accepting man's irrelevance than me and my friend with a doctorate in Quantum mathematics that's father was a scientist in the field of chemistry would also state many of the same things I do (and hid father was just really smart, he is one of the individuals that put me on the path of technology as a pre 10 year old, his mum and mine where childhood friends so known each other our whole lives, he is about 6 months older than me) i will admit openly i am very fortunate to have grown up around free thinkers with scientific outlook on life and the universe

les you sometimes sink into that mentality that thorin is trapped in, (that of promoting the idea you posses an answer )
which is dangerous as in a few centuries it may make atheist zealots the same nonthinking individuals as Modern day Abrahamists

@ben
read Caiseal Mor's 'the circle and the cross' trilogy in regard to Ireland, Great read  very interesting in the relations between catholic and pagan Ireland, in fact all his books really good
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/768066.The_Circle_and_the_Cross

Want to pick you up on a couple of points there.

1) When have I ever questioned man's irrelevance. In fact doesn't atheism kind of make man irrelevant by default? I do think we are as irrelevant as any other living being.

2) What answers have I ever implied about the universe other than not believing it was created by a god?

Eilzel wrote:An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. Simple as that and well put Ben.

Veya, I am more than aware there are a bajillions gods man has thought up. My discussion rarely touches on the pantheons of Greek, Egyptian, Norse mytholgies etc since no one believes in those anyway. It isn't even entirely unreasonable to suppose they did exist but were merely kings who became gods as stories were passed down.

Nor am I really engaged in the discussion of gods that are not theist or at least deistic- since 'a' theism is only defined by lack of belief in a god that did create the world.

My atheist belief presumes nothing else about the universe and how it came to be other than that it was not created by a creator god.

You can demean that view all you like, but ultimately that is how atheism is defined. Is you want to define the term 'god' differently to the definition in the word atheist then so be it, but then your definition is not the one atheism refers to.

If you want to define atheism in a manner other than mathematical, than you are a irrelevant to mankinds knowledge and scientific debate, since science is merely the pursuit of enlightenment supported but mathematical hypothesis.
Simple as that. mathematics in the language of universe, if you wish to illiterate in the language of the universe than that is the choice to be an ignorant monkey and that makes you no better than Abrahamist that also wishes to ignorant about what is actually reality. So you have no right to mock them    

Atheism in purest from is older than Abrahamism, you bring shame on the atheist by defining it solely by a 'creator of the universe', since it was proposed in writing before such an ignorant expectation of god was widely accepted

“We tend to see atheism as an idea that has only recently emerged in secular Western societies,” Whitmarsh said. “The rhetoric used to describe it is hyper-modern. In fact, early societies were far more capable than many since of containing atheism within the spectrum of what they considered normal.”

“Rather than making judgements based on scientific reason, these early atheists were making what seem to be universal objections about the paradoxical nature of religion – the fact that it asks you to accept things that aren’t intuitively there in your world. The fact that this was happening thousands of years ago suggests that forms of disbelief can exist in all cultures, and probably always have.”

The book argues that disbelief is actually “as old as the hills”. Early examples, such as the atheistic writings of Xenophanes of Colophon (c.570-475 BCE) are contemporary with Second Temple-era Judaism, and significantly predate Christianity and Islam. Even Plato, writing in the 4th Century BCE, said that contemporary non-believers were “not the first to have had this view about the gods.”

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion

http://www.conservapedia.com/History_of_Atheism

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Look I'll pay that you 2 are not the same as thorin, but i still hold that you have greater difficulty accepting man's irrelevance than me and my friend with a doctorate in Quantum mathematics that's father was a scientist in the field of chemistry would also state many of the same things I do (and hid father was just really smart, he is one of the individuals that put me on the path of technology as a pre 10 year old, his mum and mine where childhood friends so known each other our whole lives, he is about 6 months older than me) i will admit openly i am very fortunate to have grown up around free thinkers with scientific outlook on life and the universe

les you sometimes sink into that mentality that thorin is trapped in, (that of promoting the idea you posses an answer )
which is dangerous as in a few centuries it may make atheist zealots the same nonthinking individuals as Modern day Abrahamists

@ben
read Caiseal Mor's 'the circle and the cross' trilogy in regard to Ireland, Great read  very interesting in the relations between catholic and pagan Ireland, in fact all his books really good
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/768066.The_Circle_and_the_Cross

Want to pick you up on a couple of points there.

1) When have I ever questioned man's irrelevance. In fact doesn't atheism kind of make man irrelevant by default? I do think we are as irrelevant as any other living being. No, since zero is a very powerful answer, you claim our species to be greater than sun

2) What answers have I ever implied about the universe other than not believing it was created by a god? and how does that deny god that live within the universe, as stars do or the greek, aboriginal, norse etc gods do?)

atheism is the statement of NO gods not just and statement about Christian gods to which you constantly refer as your definition of the divine And in universal terms we are but days from worshiping the what our species calls ancient gods

I will add the arrogance of Atheists forces me to defend Christians, simply because you are both CHOOSING to be ignorant as far as i am concerned. neither is embracing the quest for knowledge and happy to accept what limited information is available today.

Neither is seeking the answers to what the universe ACTUALLY contains, until we are gods ourselves we must forever remain agnostic, those that admit we do not know

Quoting Nicko: 'ALL religions are "pie in the sky" in my opinion there are no gods. Religions were invented by people who wa'nted to control others by fear, hence the saying "God fearing" and many other warnings about god watching you.'
-----------------------
That's possible Nicko, but I believe it came about through very primitive humans sitting round their fire and chatting about how did it all come about. Thus came the idea that there must be a controlling person/being invisible and unobservable to them.
----------------------------------------
Moving on to my critique, brought about by comparing Biblical verses against reality and facts: Joshua 10 v. 11: 'God rained stones down on mankind.' This of course was a shower of meteorites. A natural occurance.
In Numbers we read of the many battles by the Israelites on their way to the so called Promised Land. On many occasions God instructs them to kill 'every breathing thing.' This would have included children as well. I can't find it at the moment but during one battle they were instructed by God to 'Kill the children as well.'
And poor old Lucifer is called evil.
Joshua blowing his trumpet and the walls of Jericho fell down? I think not. The Middle East is prone to earthquakes and it was probably the rumbling of a quake believed to be Joshua's trumpet, and the cause of the walls falling.
In Joshua 10 says 'The sun and moon stood motionless.' Now that is silly. The only way they could appear to be motionless is if the Earth stood still. And that, my friends, would have been a catastrophe beyond all proportions. It's the spinning of the planet which creates gravity, if it stood still everything would have flown off into space. Bye bye life on Earth!!!

stardesk wrote:Quoting Nicko: 'ALL religions are "pie in the sky" in my opinion there are no gods. Religions were invented by people who wa'nted to control others by fear, hence the saying "God fearing" and many other warnings about god watching you.'
-----------------------
That's possible Nicko, but I believe it came about through very primitive humans sitting round their fire and chatting about how did it all come about. Thus came the idea that there must be a controlling person/being invisible and unobservable to them.
----------------------------------------
Moving on to my critique, brought about by comparing Biblical verses against reality and facts: Joshua 10 v. 11: 'God rained stones down on mankind.' This of course was a shower of meteorites. A natural occurance.
In Numbers we read of the many battles by the Israelites on their way to the so called Promised Land. On many occasions God instructs them to kill 'every breathing thing.' This would have included children as well. I can't find it at the moment but during one battle they were instructed by God to 'Kill the children as well.'
And poor old Lucifer is called evil.
Joshua blowing his trumpet and the walls of Jericho fell down? I think not. The Middle East is prone to earthquakes and it was probably the rumbling of a quake believed to be Joshua's trumpet, and the cause of the walls falling.
In Joshua 10 says 'The sun and moon stood motionless.' Now that is silly. The only way they could appear to be motionless is if the Earth stood still. And that, my friends, would have been a catastrophe beyond all proportions. It's the spinning of the planet which creates gravity, if it stood still everything would have flown off into space. Bye bye life on Earth!!!

yeah read the links i posted to Eilzel, Atheism is far older than the clap trap about a universal monotheist creator

to even reference the bible in any way is to give it far more credence than a fairy tale deserves

additionally the Egyptian army happens to go through the area that became Israel expelling hittites in the age of moses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh

Atheism is a statement about theistic gods. If someone wants to call stars gods then fine. But they are obviously not the gods atheism refers to.

In your answer to the first point- what exactly are you talking about? Without twisting anything I've said, show me exactly where I said our species is greater than the sun...

Eilzel wrote:Atheism is a statement about theistic gods. If someone wants to call stars gods then fine. But they are obviously not the gods atheism refers to.

In your answer to the first point- what exactly are you talking about? Without twisting anything I've said, show me exactly where I said our species is greater than the sun...

by the mere suggestion that you know the divine is zero
you don't know that

Atheism is a finite answer which is why even the great atheists like Dawkins move away from Atheism
Such an assertion is simplely Unscientific....

If you wish to hold others to the rigors of science than the least you can do is hold yourself to the same standard

Hi Eilzel. I don't think Veya understands the depths of Atheism. It's a question of denying many of the claims in the Bible, and getting on with life without a faith which can hold you back in some ways. Yes, I will accept that many good people believe in God and through that belief they do good works and help each other. Fine! But then so do Atheists. We're not a selfish, self-centred bunch of evil people it's a
question of knowledge and facts compared to religious teaching which are, in many cases wrong and misleading.

Time for lunch, catch you later.