Being Honest About Religious Beliefs Shouldn’t Be Offensive

Thorin 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

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?

No I fully support science, logic and reasoning
And I understanding it a lot better then you
which is why I am not an atheist

and unless you can supply mathematical evidence of that exclusively supports the big bang
YES atheism is a faith, like you just have faith that people smarter than you 'know'
when the people smarter than you are openly questioning the universe

and please explain "faith in non-belief"
so you believe nothing? therefore you don't believe in science?
please explain that statement.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


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?

No I fully support science, logic and reasoning
And I understanding it a lot better then you
which is why I am not an atheist    

and unless you can supply mathematical evidence of that exclusively supports the big bang
YES atheism is a faith, like you just have faith that people smarter than you 'know'  
when the people smarter than you are openly questioning the universe

and please explain "faith in non-belief"
so you believe nothing? therefore you don't believe in science?
please explain that statement.

Why do I need to explain the big bang?

That is just further misdirection.

Atheism is not faith, as its simple non-belief. I can have faith in people, but you don't require faith in nothing, of which atheism is.

Science is not nothing and again is an absurd comparison to make.

Science is not atheism either

I see you avoided the points on bad religious belief

So how did the universe start? Or are you now avoiding the question? since besides death that is the major thing religion answers... If you want to say religion is wrong and you have an answer (yes ZERO is a answer) then you need to justify it (that is the very basis of science) other wise you don't know.

Science is something, that is why you Saying non-belief and saying science is illogical.
They are incompatible, Science is a belief system in itself. It is a set of ideals. that of accepting what you know and can prove through repeated application of the same set of condition (experimentation) and acknowledging that which you don't know and the quest to discover it.

I give no shits about bad religious beliefs, just factually incorrect beliefs. You are trying to use a label to limit beliefs in to groups but beliefs are beliefs, they are either factually correct or they are not.

You are too focused on what a ridiculous violent hairless ape does or does not do to have a valid opinion on the universe. thus you have nothing but a faith since you do not even seek to answer the question, just trying to enforce some ridiculous ape dogma on the other apes.

veya_victaous wrote:So how did the universe start? Or are you now avoiding the question? since besides death that is the major thing religion answers... If you want to say religion is wrong and you have an answer (yes ZERO is a answer) then you need to justify it (that is the very basis of science) other wise you don't know.

Science is something, that is why you Saying non-belief and saying science is illogical.
They are incompatible, Science is a belief system in itself. It is a set of ideals. that of accepting what you know and can prove through repeated application of the same set of condition (experimentation) and acknowledging that which you don't know and the quest to discover it.

I give no shits about bad religious beliefs, just factually incorrect beliefs. You are trying to use a label to limit beliefs in to groups but beliefs are beliefs, they are either factually correct or they are not.

You are too focused on what a ridiculous violent hairless ape does or does not do to have a valid opinion on the universe. thus you have nothing but a faith since you do not even seek to answer the question, just trying to enforce some ridiculous ape dogma on the other apes.

1) No relevance as I do not care how the Universe started. It has no relevance to my atheism.
So again your bases for the Universes is the bases for religious belief, but I am neither religious or believe in a religion. So again what a stupid and irrelevant point to make.

2) Science is not a belief system, but based on working ideas and methods, of which scientists are happy to admit when wrong. I am not a scientists but interested in science and understand that some is facts and some is just theories. Hence no belief is required when you understand this. Again this has no relevance to athiesm and non belief

3) So you admit to not caring about the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, apostates, the forced marriage and abuse of children etc.

That says it all to me and you would rather do nothing about bad beliefs, further proving you back religious extremism

4) I am focused on the hairless ape who happens to be extremely thick here, that being you.

The point of the OP is about correcting religious beliefs

As seen you can find nothing to counter this but again invoke more bullshit about atheism, when you fail to understand its simple no belief.

The likes of Eddie and co wish to protect religious drivel from criticism.

Well they can get stuffed.

eddie wrote:I really think you're on dangerous ground telling people their religions are based on lies and I actually find atheists to be louder and in your face than religious people.

You have no idea if it's a bunch of lies or not. It's your opinion. And atheists sets of beliefs are their own religion, no?

Depends on the belief right?

What if your belief tells you to deny your child a blood transfusion? "Sorry, madame," I'd say, "you're wrong and that belief is ridiculous, I'm giving your child a blood transfusion like it or not."

And no, atheists do not have a set of beliefs.

We think god is unlikely to exist. That's it.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People can make up their own minds - they don't need you to "educate" them.

Well based on your ignorance of history, its clear, you need to change your stance on allowing others to educate you.

Love how you avoided every point and avoid how in every way, its the religious that constantly try to convert others. This you have no issue with and makes you the worst hypocrite going.

You see, I can literally turn your immature arguments on their head.

I'm not ignorant of history. You take everything at face value, and your attitude is a bit jejune. You're always banging on about religion and how you want people to stop having faith "for their own good". They will decide what's good for them, not you.

I haven't mentioned religious people trying to convert others - you invented that.

Atheists have their own "religion" and  spout it like a mantra. They really are the other side of the coin of the religious zealots they hate.

Except atheist zealots don't try to block human rights for minorities, control women's reproductive organs, or kill in the name of atheism.

We are pretty harmless, no sorry, extremely harmless, by comparison to religious zealots

But it's people that use religion the wrong way. In and of itself, religion is harmless.

And JW's can have blood transfusions at the discretion of their 'leader' in the community as far as I know, and in any case, I will repeat that I don't particularly like religion but I don't think it's nice to bash it all the time when most people practice it quietly and without causing harm to others.

eddie wrote:But it's people that use religion the wrong way. In and of itself, religion is harmless.

And JW's can have blood transfusions at the discretion of their 'leader' in the community as far as I know, and in any case, I will repeat that I don't particularly like religion but I don't think it's nice to bash it all the time when most people practice it quietly and without causing harm to others.

Gibberish, as they believe literally in these beliefs.

Like absolute morals, where they are commanded to do poor things

You neglect the fact that for thousands of years religions has been a problem based off absolute commands.

Are we all forgetting that just as it's caused strife, religion has been a force of good in the world? Many successful charities have had their genesis with religion.

HoratioTarr wrote:Are we all forgetting that just as it's caused strife,  religion has been a force of good in the world?   Many successful charities have had their genesis with religion.

Force for good?

You mean like the catholic charities in Africa, that have an ulterior motive with denying contraception?

Maybe you can show me religious charities that do not have ulterior motives

You don;t need to be religious to be charitable

Any of this good does not even come close to the evil done in the name of religion over thousands of years.

eddie wrote:But it's people that use religion the wrong way. In and of itself, religion is harmless.

And JW's can have blood transfusions at the discretion of their 'leader' in the community as far as I know, and in any case, I will repeat that I don't particularly like religion but I don't think it's nice to bash it all the time when most people practice it quietly and without causing harm to others.

I can't agree. You probably not need me to post endless lists of extracts from holy books that sound awful to any civilised ears. But if such horrible views exist in the foundation texts of major religions then I'd say the problem is with the doctrines, wouldn't you?

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:But it's people that use religion the wrong way. In and of itself, religion is harmless.

And JW's can have blood transfusions at the discretion of their 'leader' in the community as far as I know, and in any case, I will repeat that I don't particularly like religion but I don't think it's nice to bash it all the time when most people practice it quietly and without causing harm to others.

I can't agree. You probably not need me to post endless lists of extracts from holy books that sound awful to any civilised ears. But if such horrible views exist in the foundation texts of major religions then I'd say the problem is with the doctrines, wouldn't you?

Thorin's views sound terribly uncivilized to my ears
So Anti science he doesn't care about the universe making the rest of his opinions worthless

And lets no pretend Atheists like Thorin would not cause harm if they have sufficient number since in mind and attitude they are the same as the worse fundamentalists. Issuing absolute commands about what HE believes in right based on no questioning of reality on his own , He may as well be reading out of the Bible, sense the books he takes as gospel will one day be equally as obsolete.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I really think you're on dangerous ground telling people their religions are based on lies and I actually find atheists to be louder and in your face than religious people.

You have no idea if it's a bunch of lies or not. It's your opinion. And atheists sets of beliefs are their own religion, no?

Depends on the belief right?

What if your belief tells you to deny your child a blood transfusion? "Sorry, madame," I'd say, "you're wrong and that belief is ridiculous, I'm giving your child a blood transfusion like it or not."

And no, atheists do not have a set of beliefs.

We think god is unlikely to exist. That's it.

FACTUALLY INCORRECT

Atheism is NO GODS EXIST
it is a finite absolute statement
the word for people that think god(s) may not exist but allow some possibility of god(s) is Agnostic.

And the difference between the statements is critically important to science. 0 is not the same as (n!)
0 is an answer, if it has an answer than there is no need for further questions.
Science has not yet provided and answer so to claim atheism is based in science is clearly bullshit.

Atheism still needs to be proved like any untested belief
Atheism has No Morals rules, but it does have a set of beliefs around the definition of reality.
Christianity can be shown false NOT through it's moral rules but through Scientific analysis of it definition of reality.

To me is seems atheist are a free and easy with untruth as religious.

which is why i stopped being one, and Ironically i am the one raised atheist not a new convert like those that are atheist zealots.
they are Missing the point, as much as many Christian miss Christ point

I'll address all 3 points here.

1) We are not talking about Thorin. But as you did, I do not believe he would ever wish harm on any ordinary religious believer at all.

2) It is not factually incorrect. Even Richard Dawkins only claims to be 99% sure there are no gods. And only the most arrogant believer would claim to be 100% sure their god is real. Unless we go with the pointless view we are all agnostic then it is a waste of time trying to undermine the view of atheism based on that. I am as atheistic as a Christian is Christian, and we are equally agnostic.

3) Your reason for not being an atheist is because of other atheists? That's nonsensical. Either you think there are gods or you don't or you think there is as much chance there is as not. It isn't about the company you keep, but your view in that one single area.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I really think you're on dangerous ground telling people their religions are based on lies and I actually find atheists to be louder and in your face than religious people.

You have no idea if it's a bunch of lies or not. It's your opinion. And atheists sets of beliefs are their own religion, no?

Depends on the belief right?

What if your belief tells you to deny your child a blood transfusion? "Sorry, madame," I'd say, "you're wrong and that belief is ridiculous, I'm giving your child a blood transfusion like it or not."

And no, atheists do not have a set of beliefs.

We think god is unlikely to exist. That's it.

FACTUALLY INCORRECT

Atheism is NO GODS EXIST
it is a finite absolute statement
the word for people that think god(s) may not exist but allow some possibility of god(s) is Agnostic.  

And the difference between the statements is critically important to science. 0 is not the same as (n!)
0 is an answer, if it has an answer than there is no need for further questions.
Science has not yet provided and answer so to claim atheism is based in science is clearly bullshit.

Atheism still needs to be proved like any untested belief
Atheism has No Morals rules, but it does have a set of beliefs around the definition of reality.
Christianity can be shown false NOT through it's moral rules but through Scientific analysis of it definition of reality.

I have to disagree, I think you're looking at it from the standpoint of a believer. An atheist does not have to be a believer.

A believer would say, "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God." I've seen more atheists say, and my perspective is this as well, that I've never encountered any convincing evidence of the existence of God (etc.) so I don't think God exists.

If you use literally anything other than God, it's much easier to understand. Someone might say, "I believe the U.S. faked the moon landing." It's perfectly acceptable to reject that position by saying, "I've never seen anything that makes a convincing case for that idea, so I think the U.S. did land on the moon."

Atheism doesn't have the rigidity of religion, where you must believe exactly what the religion says you must believe. I can be an atheist and still admit that there's some small possibility that convincing evidence will come along some day proving God exists.

I can also, of course, point to the failure of countless theists for thousands of years to prove God does exist.

Addressing some other ideas in this thread:

* Preachyness or whatever else people hate about atheism isn't actually a part of atheism. Since there's no atheist code, the whole of atheism can be expressed in the statement, "I don't think God exists."

* I can't think of anything good religious people have done that outweighs the bad. Has a religious group ever stopped a war? No, but they've started plenty of them. About the single-best application of religion for good I can think of was the appeal by abolitionists against slavery on the basis of religion, but of course, slavery was also supported with religious arguments, so that's kind of a wash.

* If you analyze religion on the basis of how useful it is to humanity, you might come to the conclusion that it "keeps people in line." Well, let me be far from the first to point out that doing the right thing simply because you fear punishment is worthless. If we need to be threatened to keep us from hurting one another, we're basically dogs, right?

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I can't agree. You probably not need me to post endless lists of extracts from holy books that sound awful to any civilised ears. But if such horrible views exist in the foundation texts of major religions then I'd say the problem is with the doctrines, wouldn't you?

Thorin's views sound terribly uncivilized to my ears
So Anti science he doesn't care about the universe making the rest of his opinions worthless

And lets no pretend Atheists like Thorin would not cause harm if they have sufficient number since in mind and attitude they are the same as the worse fundamentalists. Issuing absolute commands about what HE believes in right based on no questioning of reality on his own , He may as well be reading out of the Bible, sense the books he takes as gospel will one day be equally as obsolete.

So again you just invent more gibberish, when no such view as made by me

So why is it you continually lie?

Show me anywhere, from the above claims made by you onto me, I have made?

I have never backed absolute commands, and it shows when you get your knickers in a twist, you turn this about me and not my points.

You were the one that idiotically claim I have to have a scientific view on the big bang in order to be an athiest

That was just plain idiotic.

The point is here, my atheist beliefs do not effect anyone

Religious beliefs do and can effect others through absolute morals and commands.

The fact you charge me with such lies, says everything that is wrong about the dishonesty you will use, in order to attempt to win a debate

Ben Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I really think you're on dangerous ground telling people their religions are based on lies and I actually find atheists to be louder and in your face than religious people.

You have no idea if it's a bunch of lies or not. It's your opinion. And atheists sets of beliefs are their own religion, no?

Depends on the belief right?

What if your belief tells you to deny your child a blood transfusion? "Sorry, madame," I'd say, "you're wrong and that belief is ridiculous, I'm giving your child a blood transfusion like it or not."

And no, atheists do not have a set of beliefs.

We think god is unlikely to exist. That's it.

FACTUALLY INCORRECT

Atheism is NO GODS EXIST
it is a finite absolute statement
the word for people that think god(s) may not exist but allow some possibility of god(s) is Agnostic.  

And the difference between the statements is critically important to science. 0 is not the same as (n!)
0 is an answer, if it has an answer than there is no need for further questions.
Science has not yet provided and answer so to claim atheism is based in science is clearly bullshit.

Atheism still needs to be proved like any untested belief
Atheism has No Morals rules, but it does have a set of beliefs around the definition of reality.
Christianity can be shown false NOT through it's moral rules but through Scientific analysis of it definition of reality.

I have to disagree, I think you're looking at it from the standpoint of a believer. An atheist does not have to be a believer.

A believer would say, "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God." I've seen more atheists say, and my perspective is this as well, that I've never encountered any convincing evidence of the existence of God (etc.) so I don't think God exists.

If you use literally anything other than God, it's much easier to understand. Someone might say, "I believe the U.S. faked the moon landing." It's perfectly acceptable to reject that position by saying, "I've never seen anything that makes a convincing case for that idea, so I think the U.S. did land on the moon."

Atheism doesn't have the rigidity of religion, where you must believe exactly what the religion says you must believe. I can be an atheist and still admit that there's some small possibility that convincing evidence will come along some day proving God exists.

I can also, of course, point to the failure of countless theists for thousands of years to prove God does exist.

Addressing some other ideas in this thread:

* Preachyness or whatever else people hate about atheism isn't actually a part of atheism. Since there's no atheist code, the whole of atheism can be expressed in the statement, "I don't think God exists."

* I can't think of anything good religious people have done that outweighs the bad. Has a religious group ever stopped a war? No, but they've started plenty of them. About the single-best application of religion for good I can think of was the appeal by abolitionists against slavery on the basis of religion, but of course, slavery was also supported with religious arguments, so that's kind of a wash.

* If you analyze religion on the basis of how useful it is to humanity, you might come to the conclusion that it "keeps people in line." Well, let me be far from the first to point out that doing the right thing simply because you fear punishment is worthless. If we need to be threatened to keep us from hurting one another, we're basically dogs, right?

Well said

Eilzel wrote:I'll address all 3 points here.

1) We are not talking about Thorin. But as you did, I do not believe he would ever wish harm on any ordinary religious believer at all.

2) It is not factually incorrect. Even Richard Dawkins only claims to be 99% sure there are no gods. And only the most arrogant believer would claim to be 100% sure their god is real. Unless we go with the pointless view we are all agnostic then it is a waste of time trying to undermine the view of atheism based on that. I am as atheistic as a Christian is Christian, and we are equally agnostic.

3) Your reason for not being an atheist is because of other atheists? That's nonsensical. Either you think there are gods or you don't or you think there is as much chance there is as not. It isn't about the company you keep, but your view in that one single area.

@2 dawkins is a simpleton, i had better arguments against god when i was 12  you don't even need science to prove the illogical nature of the bible  

@3
No it is logical because Atheism as my grandfathers saw it was supposed to be enlightenment when man would seek answers, not this jingoism that modern atheism is. merely replacing faith in black robes with faith in white coats. The point IS to question, not just accept what your told to seek understanding of the universe Yet many atheist like Thorin DO NOT GET THIS AT ALL even Dawkins doesn't really get it being too focused on the human experience. If this is atheism i want to part of it because it is NOT science it is counter intuitive to the scientific method of thinking and engaging with the universe.  


And in Fact even Dawkins has finally enlightened to the faults of his position and now claims Agnosticism. because it is more accurate and the point is always seeking more accurate definitions of reality. Like I said Atheism is an answer when we do not posses and answer therefore it is inaccurate. For mankind to be enlightened we must all be first and foremost dedicated to the scientific way of thinking in all we consider true.

What's the Big Idea?

Richard Dawkins, the most famous atheist in the world, created a stir when he recently declared that he was not an atheist after all, but an agnostic. The news, which came during a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury last month, seemed at first to be a big get for God. However, in The God Delusion Dawkins was frank about his agnosticism.

So, how does Dawkins square his public persona with his lack of certitude? Easily. No matter how strongly Dawkins is associated with atheism, he is first and foremost a scientist. Therefore, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other," he claims.

Similarly, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson claims the title "scientist" above all other "ists." And yet, Tyson says he is "constantly claimed by atheists." So where does Tyson stand? He tells Big Think: “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.”

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic

This is why Science is also a set of ideals similar to Buddhism in a way it is the constant searching for enlightenment.
Morality is not part of it, Evidenced by the science making the nuke and countless weapons of mass destruction

And BEN sorry your arguing from the position of a convert from Abrahamism.
there is a reason Dawkins is converted to the argument i am putting forward it is simple dedication to the mathematical truth.
I mean I started making scripture teachers cry when I was 8, I am dedicated to the logical truth which is what science is.  
Sure I play the devil's advocate with ideas like the rainbow serpent and 'suns as gods' but such is merely mental exercises because ceasing to question is what Buddhist did and their enlightenment stopped progressing. You can't leave it to a man in a white coat to tell you what is true any more than you could the man in black robes.


AND notice you all become offended and defend atheism from the truth just like the unscientific atheist claim theological people do? maybe because your treating it as theology and not a scientific hypothesis. It is not what you believe that is important it is how you question

Eilzel wrote:I'll address all 3 points here.

1) We are not talking about Thorin. But as you did, I do not believe he would ever wish harm on any ordinary religious believer at all.

2) It is not factually incorrect. Even Richard Dawkins only claims to be 99% sure there are no gods. And only the most arrogant believer would claim to be 100% sure their god is real. Unless we go with the pointless view we are all agnostic then it is a waste of time trying to undermine the view of atheism based on that. I am as atheistic as a Christian is Christian, and we are equally agnostic.

3) Your reason for not being an atheist is because of other atheists? That's nonsensical. Either you think there are gods or you don't or you think there is as much chance there is as not. It isn't about the company you keep, but your view in that one single area.

It's nothing to do with arrogance, it's to do with faith. If you have faith in something, you have 100% faith.

Being 100% sure you are right about something you cannot prove, and 100% sure others are wrong, is arrogant raggs.

Eilzel wrote:Being 100% sure you are right about something you cannot prove, and 100% sure others are wrong, is arrogant raggs.

No it's not. You don't understand religious faith. It's not about being "right", it's about having personal faith. It's those atheists who insist that those with religious faith are "wrong" who are arrogant.

Well that says it all, a qualified biologist, is a simpleton to Veya

Proving what a twat veya is

Veya just ruled himself out of a sensible debate

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Being 100% sure you are right about something you cannot prove, and 100% sure others are wrong, is arrogant raggs.

No it's not. You don't understand religious faith. It's not about being "right", it's about having personal faith. It's those atheists who insist that those with religious faith are "wrong" who are arrogant.

Really?
So what parts of the bible do you follow and which ones are right to you and which parts are wrong?

I tell you what Veya, lets see you put your money where your mouth is and take on those who spend their time debating this and lets see how easily you get taken apart  

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/

https://infidels.org/

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

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

Hence why it can be so dangerous.

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.

Thorin wrote:

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

Hence why it can be so dangerous.

A lot of beliefs and objects can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Not all religious people aren't nutters, are they?

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.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Hence why it can be so dangerous.

A lot of beliefs and objects can be dangerous in the wrong hands.  Not all religious people aren't nutters, are they?

Well can you show me how many non-religious beliefs are believed literally Eddie?

Never claimed all religious people are dangerous, but the literal beliefs lay open the door to much violence

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.

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 I was just going to say exactly that actually. Who believes in anything with 100% conviction?

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).

Exactly Eds x

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

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 I was just going to say exactly that actually.  Who believes in anything with 100% conviction?

Dibs for one and her husband two believe with a 100% conviction.

There are plenty that believe literally in their faiths

I would add. Its not even about disproving whether or not such a god exists, but whether or not people are thinking rationally at what kind of god they believe in.

Take the Abrahamic deity, which is nothing more than a vengeful barbaric, misogynistic wanker. I ask how and why people can allow fear to rule what they believe in. As it requires fear in order to follow this deity. Its based on conditional love. I mean for example. If any parents threatened their children with unimaginable torture, if their children did not follow their beliefs and with love. To then carry this torture out if they did not. We would cast such parents as child abusers and barbaric and yet people believe exactly this way about the Abrahamic deity. If such a deity does exist, then it is pure evil.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

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 I was just going to say exactly that actually.  Who believes in anything with 100% conviction?

Nobody. Or if they do, it wavers from time to time. Even Jesus had a wobble in the Garden of Gethsemane! It's my bet that most people might have a 'moment' just before death when they think 'Fuck, what if I'm wrong?'. Religion is a human thing. Something built around an inner feeling of something forgotten. Sadly, it's been used and abused as a tool of control. For me, the teachings of Jesus came the closest to what we should all try to aspire to spiritually. The 'Do as you would be done by' philosophy. Buddhism also resonates with me but some argue that it's not a religion but more a way of life. Whatever we believe in, the majority of people are good and compassionate.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes I was just going to say exactly that actually.  Who believes in anything with 100% conviction?

Nobody.   Or if they do, it wavers from time to time.   Even Jesus had a wobble in the Garden of Gethsemane!    It's my bet that most people might have a 'moment' just before death when they think 'Fuck, what if I'm wrong?'.      Religion is a human thing.   Something built around an inner feeling of something forgotten.  Sadly, it's been used and abused as a tool of control.    For me, the teachings of Jesus came the closest to what we should all try to aspire to spiritually.   The 'Do as you would be done by' philosophy.   Buddhism also resonates with me but some argue that it's not a religion but more a way of life.   Whatever we believe in, the majority of people are good and compassionate.  

Again ask Dibs is she believes with 100% conviction?

Many do

What gets me more than anything is why people aspire to be like others?

Its great to learn from others, but this should encourage people then to do good for themselves.

Can they not think for themselves as to what is good in how we should treat others?

As to others who seek meaning, is it not more of a fear of death itself people have? If people overcome this fear as I have, believe me your life feels that much more free and alive.

Yes there are great teachers out there, but why follow something, when we all have the capacity to make our own great philosophy.

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

If there was physical proof, there would be no need for faith.

Raggamuffin wrote:

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

If there was physical proof, there would be no need for faith.

Wrong, as you can have physical proof of human behaviour, and have faith in those humans.

I would add a further point to this

The miracles and stories or Jesus are based on supposed eyewitness accounts and it is faith in these stories through the Gospels and more the teachings of Paul. That Christianity flourished. If not for claimed accounts of the Resurrection, there would be no faith in Christianity. The faith is placed in humans again, in what they perceived to have seen.

Thorin wrote:Well that says it all, a qualified biologist, is a simpleton to Veya

Proving what a twat veya is

Veya just ruled himself out of a sensible debate

umm yes.
I did better in school than the ones that did biology at uni

you could get in to Bachelor of Science majoring biology with a lower admissions rank than what I got
I have dual degrees in Business and Information Systems.

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.

Thorin wrote:I tell you what Veya, lets see you put your money where your mouth is and take on those who spend their time debating this and lets see how easily you get taken apart  

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/

https://infidels.org/

LOL
Dawkins converted to My position
Cause I already understood it.
In fact I held the position before seeking out confirmation which I found in Neil de grasse Tyson. Which even Dawkins concedes in much more of the expert than he. being merely a biologist.

And that fact you think patheos is even relevant sort of speaks volumes about you naivety
LIKE You it is too focused on human aspect and Christianity, they are broken by them only being converts to science rather than raised on scientific principal.
I did a quick look NO quantum physics section at all, pointless.
Heaps Of Christian nonsense, pointless.
If you are arguing either side of Christianity you're way out of your depths with the concepts of 'old atheism' or modern agnosticism.

look at your rubbish assertion that fear of death is relevant, morals are relevant. my gods can you be anymore monkey brained

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%

veya_victaous wrote:And that fact you think patheos is even relevant sort of speaks volumes about you naivety
LIKE You it is too focused on human aspect and Christianity, they are broken by the only being converts to science rather than raised on scientific principal.
I did a quick look NO quantum physics section at all, pointless.

look at your rubbish assertion that fear of death is relevant, morals are relevant.

So you chicken out, so much for all your bullshit claims then

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:And that fact you think patheos is even relevant sort of speaks volumes about you naivety
LIKE You it is too focused on human aspect and Christianity, they are broken by the only being converts to science rather than raised on scientific principal.
I did a quick look NO quantum physics section at all, pointless.

look at your rubbish assertion that fear of death is relevant, morals are relevant.

So you chicken out, so much for all your bullshit claims then

you posted a link to debates about Christianity

Please tell me what relevance that has to reality?

Like I said the old atheist from 2 or more generations ago are rolling in the graves at the morons that call themselves theist today.

AND see OP you are offended by me mocking your faith. you are still abrahamist in you views of the universe.

Please try a site not filled with fools converted to atheism from ignorance that still practice ignorance instead of scientific principals. like I said many a times you cannot debate stupidity
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum.html


maybe in your next life you will be as smart as Dawkins and convert to Agnosticism ATLEAST he is intelligent enough and bases his opinion in science enough to admit when he was wrong