Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

In my case I've found that its of no use to try and have a discussion with someone who refuses to accept logic unless it supports his own position.

I'm hurt, denuseri! I'm willing to accept logical arguments, I think. But they have to have some basis in reality. And I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people.

[denuseri]

Dear Thorne:

(or to whom it may consern)

Sometimes to have a debate one must be willing to use terms that we can all accept as common...thankfully the english language has a number of dictionaries to choose from, and 99% of them have a consensus when it comes to definitions of the words used within them even if 99% of them have more or less words contained within them. My faviorte dictionaries are the "unabridged" variety becuase they ussually have the largest number of words and definitions.

According to allmost every dictionary I have looked in:

An atheist: is one who believes that there is no deity or takes a position that a deity (or deities) does not exist.

One can say its not a belief all they wish becuase they cant stand the word belief becuase they believe it to be a religious word in and of itself or they wish to somehow change what the word believe means via sophistry for the purpose of twisting things in a discussion...but that doesnt change what the word actually means in the slightest....at least not in so far as the commonly accepted standards of the english language are agreed upon to be by the experts who wrote the dictionaries we all use.

Again according to the same dictionary:

To Believe: is to have a firm conviction of somethiing, to hold an opinion on something, to consider something to be true or someone to be honest, to accept the word or evidence of someone or something, to have faith that what one believes is true and right.

Here are some examples of the word believe when used correctly in a sentence:

• Some scientists believed the reports of their peers considering climate change without double checking the data.
• Many people seem to believe that theory, but I find it hard to believe.
• You shouldn't believe everything you read.
• He says he'll help us, but I don't believe what he says.
• They were tricked into believing that he was a doctor.
• He says he'll help us, but I don't believe him.
• She went to church because her family expected it, but she didn't really believe in God. (Probabely becuase she was an atheist imho lol)
• I have watched the many ways that teachers demonstrate pleasure in what students have said or done. I used to believe that teachers needed to present a stoic face for fear of losing control—as if smiling caused bad behavior. —Nancy Mack, English Journal, September 2008

Philosophical or otherwise...points of view..or thoughts of an individual on any given subject are by definition beliefs.

They may or may not have believable evidence supporting them which can be a determining factor as to how much faith one puts in the beliefs of another on a given topic.

But a lot of times (as with the "scientists who had faith in their peers status...and didnt bother to double check the data) prestigue of the bearer of the message precludes one to have more or less faith in the expoused beliefs conserning a given thing.

That they are provable or not has very little to do with the fact that they are still beliefs with varying degrees of faith in said beliefs all the same.

If you Thorne can acept these above facts conserning the english languange then we can perhaps procced to have an actual logical conversation conserning this topic in so far as our respected beliefs and our faith in them may apply.

Hopefully without resorting to calling one side or the other full of doo hickie, or being purposfully insulting (which btw calling anyone who believes in god an idiot by defualt or associating their belief with that of fairy tales and spagetti monsters is in fact very deliberatly "insulting" I might add.)

Otherwise it will be just as pointless as it has been in the past to continue with you again or for that matter any further.

Respectfully,

denuseri

[Thorne]

An atheist: is one who believes that there is no deity or takes a position that a deity (or deities) does not exist.

Note that second part, denuseri. There are two possibilities here, not just one. There are atheists who proclaim the first definition, they believe there are no gods. But I have repeatedly stated that this is NOT my position.

One can say its not a belief all they wish becuase they cant stand the word belief becuase they believe it to be a religious word in and of itself

When speaking of doorbells or puppies or almost anything else, the word belief is relatively innocuous. No one is going to claim you're a "puppiest" because you believe puppies are cute.

However, when you are involved in religious discussions, "belief" automatically assumes a religious connotation. Unfortunately the English language does not have a simple word that implies "belief" based on evidence and trust, especially in religious discussions. Therefore I try to avoid the use of the word, preferring to say that something is my opinion, based on learned trust of the evidence.

To Believe: is to have a firm conviction of somethiing, to hold an opinion on something, to consider something to be true or someone to be honest, to accept the word or evidence of someone or something, to have faith that what one believes is true and right.

And your definition just confirms my statement. The last part of the definition brings the word "faith" into the definition, which is another word fraught with religious overtones in any argument over religion, or atheism.

That they are provable or not has very little to do with the fact that they are still beliefs with varying degrees of faith in said beliefs all the same.

This comment underlines my contentions exactly. Saying "I believe the Earth is flat" does not have the same credence as saying "I believe the Earth is round." There is tremendous evidence for the latter, and none at all for the former. So I am saying that I KNOW the Earth is round, and you are claiming that this is a belief system.

If you Thorne can acept these above facts conserning the english languange then we can perhaps procced to have an actual logical conversation conserning this topic in so far as our respected beliefs and our faith in them may apply.

I can accept the definitions as you have described them, but that does not mean that every part of those definitions applies to everyone who "believes" something. So if you are willing to concede that the words "belief" and "believe" used in these discussions does NOT necessarily imply a religious-like, or faith-like, system then yes, I can go along with that. I "believe" that all religions are fiction, based on the lack of any evidence for the existence of the gods those religions worship. Show me good and proper evidence and I will renounce my belief and admit that yes, there just might be gods after all.

What would it take for you to renounce YOUR beliefs?

Hopefully without resorting to calling one side or the other full of doo hickie, or being purposfully insulting (which btw calling anyone who believes in god an idiot by defualt or associating their belief with that of fairy tales and spagetti monsters is in fact very deliberatly "insulting" I might add.)

I do try not to call anyone an idiot just because of their beliefs. But if someone says something idiotic, I will call them on it.

As for fairy tales, Dictionary.com says:
fairy tale
–noun
1. a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures.
2. an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: His story of being a millionaire is just a fairy tale.
(Emphasis mine)

So if someone has incredible beliefs, they would qualify as a fairy tale. And by MY definition, belief without evidence is not credible! The above mentioned story of being a millionaire is NOT a fairy tale if he can show you his bank statements.

[denuseri]

Note that second part, denuseri. There are two possibilities here, not just one. There are atheists who proclaim the first definition, they believe there are no gods. But I have repeatedly stated that this is NOT my position.

Both are still beliefs all the same.


When speaking of doorbells or puppies or almost anything else, the word belief is relatively innocuous. No one is going to claim you're a "puppiest" because you believe puppies are cute.

We are not talking about puppies though are we.

However, when you are involved in religious discussions, "belief" automatically assumes a religious connotation.

No it doesnt, you just want it too.

Unfortunately the English language does not have a simple word that implies "belief" based on evidence and trust, especially in religious discussions. Therefore I try to avoid the use of the word, preferring to say that something is my opinion, based on learned trust of the evidence.

Same difference.

And your definition just confirms my statement. The last part of the definition brings the word "faith" into the definition, which is another word fraught with religious overtones in any argument over religion, or atheism.

Only becuase your choosing to see it that way. Faith and belief do not nessesarally = ashereance to any religious doctrine.


This comment underlines my contentions exactly. Saying "I believe the Earth is flat" does not have the same credence as saying "I believe the Earth is round." There is tremendous evidence for the latter, and none at all for the former. So I am saying that I KNOW the Earth is round, and you are claiming that this is a belief system.

I didnt say anything about systems. And the analogy your using isnt applicable to a discussion conserning beliefs conserning weather or not there is or is not a god or gods.


I can accept the definitions as you have described them, but that does not mean that every part of those definitions applies to everyone who "believes" something. So if you are willing to concede that the words "belief" and "believe" used in these discussions does NOT necessarily imply a religious-like, or faith-like, system then yes, I can go along with that. Im not the one who keeps insisting that they do. I "believe" that all religions are fiction, based on the lack of any evidence for the existence of the gods those religions worship. Show me good and proper evidence and I will renounce my belief and admit that yes, there just might be gods after all.

Show me good and proper evidence that there are no gods or a god and perhaps I will renounce my own beliefs conserning this topic. See the catch 22 yet?


I do try not to call anyone an idiot just because of their beliefs. Really...you could have fooled me, you know exactly how insulting your being when you do it, its been pointed out to you numerous times and yet you keep on.

But if someone says something idiotic, I will call them on it.

And when someone is useing sophistry and hypocricy in their arguments I will do the same.

As for fairy tales, Dictionary.com says:
fairy tale
–noun
1. a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures.
2. an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: His story of being a millionaire is just a fairy tale.
(Emphasis mine)

So if someone has incredible beliefs, they would qualify as a fairy tale. And by MY definition, belief without evidence is not credible! The above mentioned story of being a millionaire is NOT a fairy tale if he can show you his bank statements.

So your willing to conclude that atheism is just as much a fairy tale? Just as lacking in credibility? Since there is no good and proper evidence, no bank statements per say to prove it correct? I mean by your own difinition belief without evidence is not credible.

You will note no where in the definition of a fairy tale does the word religion come into play. Still wonder why making analogies of that kind are insulting?

[Thorne]

Both are still beliefs all the same.

And here is where we seem to disagree. They are NOT both beliefs. Just like KNOWING that the Earth is round is not a belief. Just like KNOWING that the planets revolve around the Sun is not a belief.

Faith and belief do not nessesarally = ashereance to any religious doctrine.

I didn't say anything about religious doctrine, only religious overtones.

Show me good and proper evidence that there are no gods or a god and perhaps I will renounce my own beliefs conserning this topic. See the catch 22 yet?

The only evidence is negative, a lack of evidence. EVERY action or event ever attributed to a god has been shown to have a natural explanation: lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, disease. All of these, and so much more, were once claimed to be judgements from gods. And every time they were shown to be natural events, theists retreated to some other event of as-yet-unknown cause. Even so-called demonic possessions have been shown to be mental illnesses, made worse by theistic treatments of shunning and prayer rather than medicine. NO explanations/excuses for gods have ever been shown to have any basis in fact. But you will just retreat into "supernatural", "beyond science", "unable to be understood by human minds" excuses. People nowadays tend to forget that at one time the gods were quite personal, having almost daily interactions with their disciples, causing all kinds of miraculous events for all to see. Where are those gods now?

So your willing to conclude that atheism is just as much a fairy tale?

Here again, you are implying that atheism is something more than a simple statement of non-belief. There are no stories of magical creations, no walking on water, no miracles. Just four simple words: "I do not believe." That's it.

You will note no where in the definition of a fairy tale does the word religion come into play.

No, but the word "belief" does! Can you define a religion WITHOUT belief? A religion is just a codification of beliefs, an organizing of people with common beliefs into a community.

Still wonder why making analogies of that kind are insulting?

No, I know why it's insulting. Whenever you poke fun at someone's beliefs they tend to get a bit touchy. Especially when they have nothing to support those beliefs other than "it feels good to me."

So let me ask you this. Assuming that you don't accept the ancient Roman, Greek and Egyptian religions as being true (or perhaps, even if you do), can you honestly claim that the stories of those ancient gods and goddesses are anything more than myths and fairy tales? And if not, how are your own beliefs any different?

[TwistedTails]

If there were a God it would be laughing at all the pitiful humans claiming to know the "Truth and the Way". It would have no more intrest in us than we do in ants. Let abrahamic religion die. It is nothing more than a discredited and obsolete form of Government.

[denuseri]

So you do not agree even with your own past statements conserning the english language then?

Are we back to beating a dead horse?

Do you agree that atheism is an idea?

That the idea is...there are no god/s? (which is exactly the same as having the idea of "your idea that there is a god/s is a false one". Basic english 101 here remember.

See when you say your trying to say that aethism is nothing more than a statement of dis-belief just becuase you dont like the word belief...I see that what your actually doing is trying to avoid the use of logic...just like a sophist to be occlusive when logic gets in the way of your argument or anyone wants to peg you down with it.

...when to be able to make said statement you have to have a working thought proccess and functioning nervous system at work.

You have to have formed an opinion on what your speaking about when you make a statement conserning something like that about believing in something or not...you dont just up and blather the sounds that corolate to I dont believe such and such...without holding a belief (an idea) one way or the other on the topic in your head!

Thats what language is all about...the exchange of ideas.

In other words...a statement of dis-belief is in effect: a belief in and of itself; in that: its a belief in "not believing" what ever it was that it was made against. Again this is basic english word usage.


If you wont agree to at least abide by the rules of the english language than there really isnt much point in continueing you know.

Aethism is just as much an idea (belief) ~ whatever other applicable word in the thesarus you wish to use~ as any other idea or belief etc.

In that regard...your idea that there are no gods (athiesm) and my idea that there perhaps are (theism) are both ideas, they are both beliefs that we hold, they are both concepts that we hold in our minds etc!

You have zero direct credible evidence to support your idea.

The people who have the idea that your idea is in opposition too, in your opinion also have zero direct and or credible evidence.

So there is nothing to support eaither side in the matter that can be consider scientifically credible (something in and of itself that requires faith in ones peers findings unless everyone everywhere is going to be running around trying to disprove /prove eveything all the time for confirmation) other than how they each feel about the topic.

How much faith one side or other has (ie how much merit eaither side holds in it) in their idea is really a moot point as well.

So ...nieather idea has anything to back it up and both ideas are in direct opposition...which one is right?

Which one is right should only matter to the theist yes?

Since it is the theists that say there may be something after death or that our actions on this world may have consequences in the next?

And that idea only matters if the idea of paticular theists is the correct one (since the athiest idea concludes that one is just as dead after death and doesnt transend into anthing or get punnished/rewareded etc)...and even then only if certian sub-sections of some theists ideas prove to be correct in so far as whats waiting one after death. (cuase not every theist believes in the same afterlife if at all).

But outside of that consideration whats the point to blathering on and on about it?

Unless an athiest is on some kind of psudeo religious crusade or trying to make his or her idea somehow mean more? I mean are you trying to be just as zealous as the people whose ideas your trying to replace once were?Whats the point when it doesnt matter after your dead anyways as an athiest? Shouldnt the athiest if they are sooooo enlightened be content to just be silent and not care one way or the other since in their mind it must not really matter?

And since it doesnt matter to them...whats wrong with allowing people who have ideas that are equally credible by any test of science or logic of being the right ones to continue to have those ideas etc so long as they are not harming each other?

Whats wrong with being tolerant and respectful of each others ideas when it comes to this topic?

[Thorne]

Do you agree that atheism is an idea?

<sigh> Okay, yes, atheism is an idea.

That the idea is...there are no god/s? (which is exactly the same as having the idea of "your idea that there is a god/s is a false one". Basic english 101 here remember.

But I've never claimed that your idea is a false one, only that you have no evidence to support your idea, either positive OR negative.

See when you say your trying to say that aethism is nothing more than a statement of dis-belief just becuase you dont like the word belief...I see that what your actually doing is trying to avoid the use of logic

<deeper sigh> Okay, okay, you want to call a non-belief a belief, fine, go right ahead. If you want to be pedantic about word usage, after I have already admitted the lack of flexibility in English, be my guest. I don't see how it helps your argument anyway.

you dont just up and blather the sounds that corolate to I dont believe such and such...without holding a belief (an idea) one way or the other on the topic in your head!

Wait, now. Are you saying that an idea is equivalent to a belief? So if I have an idea to, say, separate people from their money by scaring them about, oh, say life after death, then it's the same as my believing in life after death?

Thats what language is all about...the exchange of ideas.

Not quite, but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion. Still doesn't equate to belief, though. A person can argue about any topic, from either side, without necessarily believing in it.

In other words...a statement of dis-belief is in effect: a belief in and of itself; in that: its a belief in "not believing" what ever it was that it was made against. Again this is basic english word usage.

I think you're taking a torturous route to try to establish your "idea", but for the sake of discussion, sure, go ahead. I believe in atheism. Whatever that means.

Aethism is just as much an idea (belief) ~ whatever other applicable word in the thesarus you wish to use~ as any other idea or belief etc.

You're again equating an idea to a belief. I don't see the correlation.

In that regard...your idea that there are no gods (athiesm) and my idea that there perhaps are (theism) are both ideas, they are both beliefs that we hold, they are both concepts that we hold in our minds etc!

And again you misrepresent my position. I don't claim that there are no gods, only that there is no credible evidence FOR the existence of gods. So using your torturous rules of language you can say that I believe there is no evidence of gods, therefor no reason to believe in them.

You have zero direct credible evidence to support your idea.

I've already admitted that. All the evidence is indirect. Just like all the evidence against the existence of pink unicorns is indirect. Just as all the evidence against an invisible planet orbiting on the other side of the sun from Earth is indirect. There is no evidence for ANY of these things, and all evidence we collect says that these things cannot exist. Of course, evidence could turn up tomorrow FOR any or all of them. I won't hold my breath.

So there is nothing to support eaither side in the matter that can be consider scientifically credible (something in and of itself that requires faith in ones peers findings unless everyone everywhere is going to be running around trying to disprove /prove eveything all the time for confirmation) other than how they each feel about the topic.

Again, I disagree. The evidence which denies the existence of gods IS scientifically credible:

"Lightning is God's punishment for sin."

Uh, no, sorry. Lightning is a discharge of static electricity. It strikes saints as often as sinners. In fact, more churches than brothels are struck by lightning . No god.

"Well, volcanoes are Gods punishment for sin."

Uh, no, sorry again. Volcanoes are natural emissions of molten rock, steam and gases from deep underground. They harm everyone, indiscriminately, good or bad. No god.

"Well, at least praying to God can help us get better."

Actually, in the largest study ever done on prayer, people recovering from heart surgery who knew they were being prayed for did markedly worse than those who weren't prayed for. No god.

"You damned atheists just hate God!"

Which one is right should only matter to the theist yes?
. . .
But outside of that consideration whats the point to blathering on and on about it?
. . .
Shouldnt the athiest if they are sooooo enlightened be content to just be silent and not care one way or the other since in their mind it must not really matter?
. . .
Whats wrong with being tolerant and respectful of each others ideas when it comes to this topic?

That depends on what the theist is trying to do with his beliefs. If he is trying to force his beliefs on others then it matters to me, too. If it harms others, then it matters to me. If it could affect the lives of my grandchildren, it matters to me!

In this country today, we have people denying the validity of global warming not based on science but on the premise that, "God will protect us."

In this country today, there are children dying of curable illnesses because their parents think praying for them will work better than medicine.

In this country today, there are loving couples who are being persecuted just because they happen to be the same sex, and "the Bible says that's wrong."

In this country today, a gay man lies dead, beaten to death by a young man who claims, "The Bible says we should stone homosexuals to death."

In this country today, there are people who want to strip away all of science and return us to the Dark Ages, because "God loves us."

In this country today, I would be considered a pariah, a demon, unable to be elected (if I wanted to be), and in some places targeted for death, just because I don't believe in their gods.

Those reasons, and so many more, is why it matters to me.

[MMI]

As to the burnt bush, there might be some ashes to sift through, but what would science learn from it? Anyway, when God left, he might not leave any traces behind, and because you weren't there, you would say, it didn't happen because there's no evidence.

You seem to find it interesting that I placed faith and belief above science. We are discussing something science cannot contribute to, so, so far as I can see, science has no place in the debate.

You ask how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith because it is neither. I know you are discussing this point with den, so I'll just say here, it is perfectly possible to hold negative beliefs: there are no honest politicians, for example. How is that different from, there are no supernatural beings?

In your description of the development of science, you allow scientists to invent explanations of how things are, yet you say religion is baloney because it is invented. I'm confused.

Finally, you suggest that someone could make up a much more believable story which would convince me, even without proof. I guess that's true, if convinced, I would believe and have faith, and the absence of proof would not signify at all. That's yet to happen, though.

[Thorne]

As to the burnt bush, there might be some ashes to sift through, but what would science learn from it? Anyway, when God left, he might not leave any traces behind, and because you weren't there, you would say, it didn't happen because there's no evidence.

So you're saying I should accept some lunatic's word that he spoke with God? Why should I? At least if there were ashes I would know that there was a burning bush. Wouldn't mean God did it, though.

You seem to find it interesting that I placed faith and belief above science. We are discussing something science cannot contribute to, so, so far as I can see, science has no place in the debate.

But if a god were to intervene in the natural world, science DOES become involved. That would be something we could measure, classify, study. And if the gods do NOT intervene in the natural world, then their existence doesn't matter to us anyway, does it?

You ask how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith because it is neither. I know you are discussing this point with den, so I'll just say here, it is perfectly possible to hold negative beliefs: there are no honest politicians, for example. How is that different from, there are no supernatural beings?

Yes, you can hold negative beliefs. The question then becomes, is NOT believing something the same as believing something is NOT? I contend (though denuseri denies it) that claiming, "I do NOT believe in gods" is very different from saying "I believe there are no gods."

In your description of the development of science, you allow scientists to invent explanations of how things are, yet you say religion is baloney because it is invented. I'm confused.

Scientists invent explanations to describe how things work, then search for evidence to support those explanations. If they find evidence against the explanations then they have to either change or scrap the explanations. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations. Religions provide explanations, yes. But where is the evidence? And how many of those explanations have been shown to be false? (Hint: Damned near all of them!)

Finally, you suggest that someone could make up a much more believable story which would convince me, even without proof. I guess that's true, if convinced, I would believe and have faith, and the absence of proof would not signify at all. That's yet to happen, though.

I was saying that your comment implied that, yes. And that's where we differ. I can accept that someone could make up a more believable story, but without proof, or at least confirming evidence, it's just another fiction.

Maybe, as a start, we could ask God to heal a couple amputees?

[MMI]

Moses and the Burning Bush

You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith? Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

Try a little harder.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Actually, according to the story, the bush was unharmed, so they would not be able to say why the bush burned at all. Likewise, scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?


Is Not Believing Something the Same as Believing Something is Not?

An interesting question, and I'm not sure I know. My instinct tells me it's a distinction without a difference.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

What I think you are trying to suggest is a difference between someone who has an opinion, and someone who has not formulated one. That is an easy distinction to make, however. The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."


Evolving Science: Evolving Religion

You say scientists invent explanations to describe how things work. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations.

I don't believe that is quite accurate. Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one. How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception. Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

[thir]

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

However, there are scientists -believers as well as non-believers - searching for proof of what is said in the bible. Mostly, I think, archeologists, but also other kinds.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.

Religions are not generally 'shown to be false'. This is not possible, as you pointed out earlier.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

What has that got to do with evolution?

[MMI]

@ thir

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source. Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.

I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can. Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

What has [tossing virgins into volcanoes] got to do with evolution?

I simply meant that religions change. Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.

[Thorne]

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.

Exactly! And in these kinds of discussions it always seems to lean far more heavily to the side or religion than logic. Which is why I try to avoid using it in that manner.

[Thorne]

Moses and the Burning Bush
You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith?

Not because of his faith, but because of his claims. Outside of the Bible there is no historical evidence that Moses even existed. All the evidence shows that the Jews were NOT slaves in Egypt, and that there was no Biblical Exodus. As far as I can tell, Moses was a fiction. And if he were alive today and claimed to be speaking with God, who took the form of a burning bush, where do you think he would end up?

Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

I don't think a fictional character would be upset by being called a lunatic.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Then by the same token, religious belief has no business in science classrooms. But look into what they are doing, and trying to do, in the Texas school system.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Who knows what they might have found, if indeed it had been God. If nothing else, as I said, you have the ashes, which at least tells you that Moses saw SOMETHING. Doesn't necessarily mean God, of course, but at least it is something. Even if this event had taken place, however, there were no witnesses except Moses! And we are to accept his word, without reservation? Why?

scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?

But also according to the story, the pharaohs priests were able to duplicate at least some of Moses' "tricks", which doesn't say much for the power of God.

The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."

And what of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so." Not a matter of indecision, but a statement of fact.

Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one.

Only if the current explanation successfully explained observed phenomena.

How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

If a theory has withstood the test of time, because it explained observations and made predictions which were shown to be accurate, it would naturally take a lot of pressure to have scientists just toss it aside. They would want proof that the new theory is better at explaining reality than the old one did. And sometimes, the old one is not tossed aside but only modified.

A good example is Newton's laws of gravity. For a long time these laws were accepted by scientists because they worked. They described the motions of the planets almost perfectly, and at least one planet (Neptune) was discovered because of discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. But some perturbations in the orbit of Mercury could NOT be explained by Newton's laws, and scientist were going absolutely nuts over it! Until Einstein put forth his theory of relativity, which accounted for Mercury's perturbations. So instead of scrapping Newton's laws, which worked perfectly well in almost all circumstances, it was modified to exclude its use in high gravity/high energy areas, such as near a star!

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.

The difference is that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. They are handed down as dogma, something you MUST believe in, and questioning that dogma is a religious crime. It's only when change is FORCED upon them, from the outside, that they reluctantly change. And historically, they were far more likely to suppress the reality in favor of the fantasy.

Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

I don't get this one. Geology is why we don't toss virgins into volcanoes.

[MMI]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction. Clearly, he feels that is a stronger line of attack against believers. I do agree with his contention that religion has no place in science classes, however. Religion should be taught in religious education classes - which should be compulsory - as it is here (or was when I went to school).

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.


You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other

I enjoyed you explanation of how Newton's laws have been replaced to some extent by the Relativity Theories. And these in turn are under critical scrutiny now . You make the point that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. Yet there have been countless of conversions - both individual and en masse People believed in other gods before they began to worship Jehovah. Christianity started out among Jews who felt that their old religion has been superseded by the new one, and millions of pagans of different hues embraced it too. Mithraism is said by some to have been a "rehearsal" for Christianity. Islam also grew up from Judaism, Christianity and sundry pagan beliefs. Religions evolved and changed to reflect changing beliefs. Human sacrifice, for example, no longer occurs, because volcanoes no longer hold gods who need to be bought off. The Mormons represent a more recent evolution; Scientology another.

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.

And finally,

But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!

... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang, a supremely massive singularity came into existence from nowhere by bursting into equally massive amounts of matter and anti-matter (and, presumably, energy and an equivalent amount of anti-energy). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a magician's conjuring trick - there would have had to be a magician and an anti-magician, of course) lots of the anti-matter disappeared so that, after it had all been annihilated again by collisions with matter, there was still enough matter and energy left behind to form the universe.

What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found. It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own. That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.

[denuseri]

Without your all convincing evidence Thorne, the position of the atheist holds no more actual bearing of validity over any of this than that of any given theist.

And its not just me who thinks dis-believing in something is in and of itself a belief honey...I didnt create the english language, or philosophy and ethics, or the very basic logic that draws that very conclussion.

Sounds pretty high and mighty fanciful to me that an atheist minority having no evidence what so ever to support it's claims expects a religious majority to up and abandon their own long standing assumptions on said topic.

Im also not the one who made anything up when it came to what a state run by atheists looks like btw we have allready seen that happen in not one but in several countries...as much as you wish to deny it, which does in deed prove that alltough religions can be twisted by individuals to bad ends...so can any idea or belief system or lack there of.

I am glad however I live in a country were we dont have to do as any one person says and that we are all free to believe what we wish so long as its not hurting anyone else.

I just wish you could do the same and respect the beliefs of others in the same way you wish for them to respect your own.

[Thorne]

Without your all convincing evidence Thorne, the position of the atheist holds no more actual bearing of validity over any of this than that of any given theist.

Agreed, at least in principle. I disagree about the lack of evidence, though. I think (or, as you would claim, "believe") the amount of negative evidence, AGAINST the existence of gods is overwhelming, while the amount of positive evidence, FOR the existence of gods, is non-existent.

And its not just me who thinks dis-believing in something is in and of itself a belief honey...I didnt create the english language, or philosophy and ethics, or the very basic logic that draws that very conclussion.

Well, I have already spoken of the inadequacies of the English language to formulate this idea. And it's still my contention that, based on logic, your conclusions are wrong.

Sounds pretty high and mighty fanciful to me that an atheist minority having no evidence what so ever to support it's claims expects a religious majority to up and abandon their own long standing assumptions on said topic.

Again, misreading what I have claimed. I do NOT expect anyone to "up and abandon" their faith. I DO expect them to keep it private, among themselves and their fellow theists. Keep it in church, where it belongs, and not in politics or the law.

Im also not the one who made anything up when it came to what a state run by atheists looks like btw we have allready seen that happen in not one but in several countries...as much as you wish to deny it, which does in deed prove that alltough religions can be twisted by individuals to bad ends...so can any idea or belief system or lack there of.

These so-called "atheist states" were no worse than many of the so-called "Christian states" or "Islamic states" that exist, and have existed, over the centuries. Surprisingly, they were run by people, just like any other political entity.

I am glad however I live in a country were we dont have to do as any one person says and that we are all free to believe what we wish so long as its not hurting anyone else.

Yeah? Tell that to the children dying from religious ignorance. Tell that to the gays being denied their rights, and killed, because of religious intolerance. Tell that to the abortion doctors being killed because of religious fanaticism. Tell that to the children who's minds are being turned into jello by religious education.

I just wish you could do the same and respect the beliefs of others in the same way you wish for them to respect your own.

By this rationale, I must give the same respect to the hateful Westboro nuts as I would to yours. I would have to stop laughing at the hysterical idiocy of the science fiction cult of Scientology. Must I give respect to the hick Baptist down the road who spouts badly misquoted biblical texts to support his blatant hatreds?

Sorry, but I won't do that. I give respect where it has been earned. I certainly respect your beliefs, for example, since in my view
it's obvious you have given a lot of thought to what you believe, and why you believe it. I may not agree with it, but I respect your understanding of it.

I honestly don't care whether anyone respects my disbelief. I only complain about those who misrepresent that disbelief, because of a dogmatic belief that everyone MUST believe something.

[denuseri]

If your contention was that you dont believe in something that no one has mentioned, per say a hypothetical thing that is beyound the horizon as yet to even be formented as a posibility...then a statement of dis-belief is in and of itself simply that, and not and idea that something specifically does not exist.

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...that suposition is not possible in so far as a simple statement of dis-belief would be conserned, (at least not for anyone having knowledge of the possibility) for the idea it'self is in opposition too an allready known factor...however hypothetical it may be in your opinion.

I am glad your finally coming to the understanding that its not any given belief system itself thats at fualt so much as the evil acts of individuals who distorte such systems for their own gain over others or misinterpet their meaing to poorly consieved ends or to fuffil a less than inclusive agenda.

Like Goreans or Headonists or Communists, or Capitalists or Enviromentalists or Scientists or Buddists or adherents of the "actual tenents" any of the majior faiths or philosophies that promote good virtures over bad ones for instance.

I would postulate then conserning "respect" that the atheists if they wish to earn any then must not fall into becoming exactly like that which they claim to oppose...for if as has been shown in the past with state sponsered atheism turns out to become a situation thats overall no different than state sponsered theism...we again have no reason to abandon the one for the other.

[Thorne]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...that suposition is not possible in so far as a simple statement of dis-belief would be conserned, (at least not for anyone having knowledge of the possibility) for the idea it'self is in opposition too an allready known factor...however hypothetical it may be in your opinion.

Sorry, but atheism has existed since the first shaman invented gods. There have ALWAYS been non-believers, and there always WILL BE non-believers.

So what you're saying here, if I understand correctly, is that it is possible to NOT believe something that nobody has ever thought of, but when a lot of people already believe in something, you can't NOT believe in it? That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from this statement. Please elaborate?

I am glad your finally coming to the understanding that its not any given belief system itself thats at fualt so much as the evil acts of individuals who distorte such systems for their own gain over others or misinterpet their meaing to poorly consieved ends or to fuffil a less than inclusive agenda.

It's not only those who distort the systems, but those who INVENT the systems to begin with! We have seen this happen. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. (He translated golden tablets which only he could see, right? Yeah, I'll believe that one!) L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology, as a spoof of religions! Jim Jones, David Koresh, all manner of glib, fast-talking frauds who take advantage of vulnerable people. The apostles and Mohammed weren't any different, either. Just because they've lasted as long as they have doesn't make them any less of a cult.

Like Goreans or Headonists or Communists, or Capitalists or Enviromentalists or Scientists or Buddists or adherents of the "actual tenents" any of the majior faiths or philosophies that promote good virtures over bad ones for instance.

Goreans? Are you actually going to claim that as a faith, or the foundation of a philosophy? A rather badly written series of psycho-sexual science fiction? That's almost as bad as Scientology!

I would postulate then conserning "respect" that the atheists if they wish to earn any then must not fall into becoming exactly like that which they claim to oppose...for if as has been shown in the past with state sponsered atheism turns out to become a situation thats overall no different than state sponsered theism...we again have no reason to abandon the one for the other.

Why do you keep harping on the evils of "state-sponsored atheism?" No one is advocating that! All we want is for the government to adhere to the separation of church and state. Keep religion out of government, out of the public schools and off of public property. That is NOT an atheist state!

[denuseri]

Sorry, but atheism has existed since the first shaman invented gods. There have ALWAYS been non-believers, and there always WILL BE non-believers.

You dont actually know that...you were not there...there is no written evidence to support any such claim, its pure speculation on your part.

So what you're saying here, if I understand correctly, is that it is possible to NOT believe something that nobody has ever thought of, but when a lot of people already believe in something, you can't NOT believe in it? That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from this statement. Please elaborate?

In the case of a pre-established idea, or belief or what ever you wish to call it, where you the thinker allready have a preconcieved knowledge thereof in common standing with the other individual...your stating a counter belief when you make a statement of dis-belief. The counter belief may be "I just dont believe that" or it may containt all sorts of stipulations like: "I dont believe that becuase of this and that and this other thing" etc; but, it is still a statement of "counter belief".


It's not only those who distort the systems, but those who INVENT the systems to begin with!

So you have a beef with anyone coming with an idea for any system of religion or philosophy of anykind?

We have seen this happen. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. (He translated golden tablets which only he could see, right? Yeah, I'll believe that one!)

No one said you had too...last time I checked the Mormons were not running around doing evil things in the name of their faith eaither.

L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology, as a spoof of religions! Jim Jones, David Koresh, all manner of glib, fast-talking frauds who take advantage of vulnerable people. The apostles and Mohammed weren't any different, either. Just because they've lasted as long as they have doesn't make them any less of a cult.

So once again, you have zero respect for the beliefs of others? Just becuase you disagee with the premise upon which they are founded?


Goreans? Are you actually going to claim that as a faith, or the foundation of a philosophy?

Why yes I do claim it as a philosophy of virtue ethics, if you havent noticed by now honey I am a real life practiconer of Gorean Philosophy. I dont call myself a kajira for roleplaying purposes or shits and giggles hon. I guess you forgot I was a Gorean? You did participate in the thread I linked bellow wher I pretty clearly stated my beliefs on Gor if I recall.


A rather badly written series of psycho-sexual science fiction? That's almost as bad as Scientology!

Oh and nice way to be directly insulting of my favored lifestyle philosophy btw. (Im also a practicing tantric and zen buddist as well as an adherent of several different other philosophies, not to mention my religious adhereance to the Bahai faith...if your wishing to insult those directly nows the time to get it out of your system.

If you really wanna discuss Gorean Philosophy however and the OLD school Master /Slave interactions and philosophies that influenced much of Dr Langes work that he chose to imbed into a fictional medium though I have a whole other thread for that in which you are more than welcome to participate. Here is a link for it..its in the very same section of the forums as this one too.

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...n-Philosophies


Why do you keep harping on the evils of "state-sponsored atheism?" No one is advocating that! All we want is for the government to adhere to the separation of church and state. Keep religion out of government, out of the public schools and off of public property. That is NOT an atheist state!

Oh dear have I perhaps struck a nerve...Im so sorry if thats the case..I was simply pointing out that religions in and of themselves are not whats wrong with the world 'As evidenced by the behavior" of those who abolished said religions from their own countires.

So why not let them and the people who "choose" to believe in them be as they wish so long as they arent hurting you. A secular state , where we ALL have the freedom to practice our given beliefs without fear of reprisal or interfereance or disrespect ffrom people of differeing beliefs is far more desierable imho.

[Thorne]

You dont actually know that...you were not there...there is no written evidence to support any such claim, its pure speculation on your part.

Really? That's the extent of your argument? Okay, then. For as far back as records go, there have been non-believers. Usually they were the more educated, or the priests themselves. But they have always been there. And when discovered they were usually persecuted.

Try applying the "you were not there" argument to your religious beliefs. That knife cuts both ways.

In the case of a pre-established idea, or belief or what ever you wish to call it, where you the thinker allready have a preconcieved knowledge thereof in common standing with the other individual...your stating a counter belief when you make a statement of dis-belief. The counter belief may be "I just dont believe that" or it may containt all sorts of stipulations like: "I dont believe that becuase of this and that and this other thing" etc; but, it is still a statement of "counter belief".

Sorry, I must be dense. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that NOT believing in something is just a different way of believing in something.

So you have a beef with anyone coming with an idea for any system of religion or philosophy of anykind?

Nope. Not at all. I only have a problem when they try to tell me that their idea is absolutely true when they have no evidence for it whatsoever.

No one said you had too...last time I checked the Mormons were not running around doing evil things in the name of their faith eaither.

LOL! No? Look up the story of gay marriage, especially in California. The Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into the campaign to fight that. Since when did denying people basic rights NOT become evil?

So once again, you have zero respect for the beliefs of others? Just becuase you disagee with the premise upon which they are founded?

No. I have zero respect for those who BLINDLY follow a charlatan because it makes them feel good, or because that's who their parents worshiped. If someone has studied, and researched, and come to a belief despite the lack of evidence, I don't have a problem. I can respect them for their honesty. I don't have to respect their beliefs.

Why yes I do claim it as a philosophy of virtue ethics, if you havent noticed by now honey I am a real life practiconer of Gorean Philosophy. I dont call myself a kajira for roleplaying purposes or shits and giggles hon. I guess you forgot I was a Gorean? You did participate in the thread I linked bellow wher I pretty clearly stated my beliefs on Gor if I recall.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I have no problem with that. But this is a perfect example of the kinds of things I'm talking about. You are, I'm sure, aware that this "philosophy" is based on a series of stories. Fictional stories. Very recent ones. Now, project this philosophy into the future, say 2000 years, when the very beginnings of it are hidden or lost. Can't you see how this could become a religion? And doesn't that give you at least some insight into how other religions can be formed based on absolute fiction?

Oh dear have I perhaps struck a nerve...Im so sorry if thats the case..I was simply pointing out that religions in and of themselves are not whats wrong with the world 'As evidenced by the behavior" of those who abolished said religions from their own countires.

Yeah, you struck a nerve. Just like someone repeating the same phrase, over and over. "Evil atheist state", "not believing is believing". "Religion isn't evil, it's the people who abuse it who are evil." The same things over and over. Like chalk screeching on a blackboard.

So why not let them and the people who "choose" to believe in them be as they wish so long as they arent hurting you. A secular state , where we ALL have the freedom to practice our given beliefs without fear of reprisal or interfereance or disrespect ffrom people of differeing beliefs is far more desierable imho.

That's what I've been saying all along! The problem is that the religious don't really WANT a secular state, they want a theocratic one. Freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything blasphemous about THEIR religion. Freedom of expression, as long as you don't express discontent with THEIR religion. Freedom of worship, as long as you only worship THEIR religion. THAT is what I see happening in this country! THAT is what I'm fighting against!

Think I'm wrong? Try walking into a school board meeting, or a town council meeting, where they open each session with a prayer. Try asking them to open that session with a Bahai prayer, or an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer. See just how "tolerant" they are. I would especially recommend trying this in the deep south or the midwest. I think you'd get a real eye-opening experience.

[denuseri]

Really? That's the extent of your argument? Okay, then. For as far back as records go, there have been non-believers. Usually they were the more educated, or the priests themselves. But they have always been there. And when discovered they were usually persecuted.

Really? Where is your "evidence" of such? Of all these ancient atheists that is?


Sorry, I must be dense. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that NOT believing in something is just a different way of believing in something.

Well if thats what you wish to leave it at thats fine by me. lol


Nope. Not at all. I only have a problem when they try to tell me that their idea is absolutely true when they have no evidence for it whatsoever.

How ironic...thats just what the atheists are doing with their own ideas.

LOL! No? Look up the story of gay marriage, especially in California. The Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into the campaign to fight that. Since when did denying people basic rights NOT become evil?

Since when did preserving the traditional rites of marriage become evil? Your really grasping at straws here you know.


No. I have zero respect for those who BLINDLY follow a charlatan because it makes them feel good, or because that's who their parents worshiped. If someone has studied, and researched, and come to a belief despite the lack of evidence, I don't have a problem. I can respect them for their honesty. I don't have to respect their beliefs.

You do realize that sounds like your automatically assuming as a defualt setting that everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes until proven otherwise in your personal estimation.

Which sounds like your being exactly like all those zealous people of different faiths who think that any non-believers in their paticular belief system must need their help to be brought into the light.


Yes, I'm aware of that.

Realy seems like you forgot altogether your own participation in said thread on the topic.

I have no problem with that.

Then why be so insulting when you attacked it?

But this is a perfect example of the kinds of things I'm talking about. You are, I'm sure, aware that this "philosophy" is based on a series of stories. Fictional stories. Very recent ones.

You apparently are not aware of any of the facts surrounding the authorship of the books or that the fictional stories were used dileberately by the author as the only way of expressing and shareing his philosophy with others, which was a direct result of his philosophical ideas being shoved out of academia by the pro-feminist zealots who had taken over his field at the time and refused to allow any agenda but theirs to prevail in the area. A classic example of how scientists act just like sophistic theocrats when it suits them.

Now, project this philosophy into the future, say 2000 years, when the very beginnings of it are hidden or lost. Can't you see how this could become a religion?

You mean all those philosophies invented by the ancient greeks over 2400 years ago are now majically religious?

And doesn't that give you at least some insight into how other religions can be formed based on absolute fiction?

Your again working under the assumption that all religion is derived by an individual hood winking a group of people with nothing more that baseless assumption. When not only the recorded history of such things but all contemporary scientific schools of thought on the study of physcology, theocracy and anthropology (the only evidence we have of said origens conserning any given faiths beginings) in fact directly countridicts your assumption.

Yeah, you struck a nerve. Just like someone repeating the same phrase, over and over. "Evil atheist state", "not believing is believing". "Religion isn't evil, it's the people who abuse it who are evil." The same things over and over. Like chalk screeching on a blackboard. << another example of what Im talking about...things like that dont do you any credit in your arguments.

I only kept repeating the primary idea becuase you kept trying to use sophistry to ignore it.

That idea being: " its people..not "ideas" that do harm"

That trying to blame "religion" for all the worlds ills...is a silly as blaming "science" or "Santa Cluas" or in a more mechanical sence...blaming the gun or the bullet as opposed to who pulls the trigger.


The problem is that the religious don't really WANT a secular state, they want a theocratic one.

Really? So I must then want a non-secular state huh? I mean I am a religious follower after all.?

The reality is however: just becuse one has a religion that they wish to follow it does not automatically mean their agenda is world domination or even anything remotely like it.



I will however grant you that there are some people out there who may have had dreams of making their own religion or philosophy or governmental or economic ideals the only one's practiced in the world. (atheist are in that little group too, more than once)

But I also think that those people's dreams have very little actual chance of reaching futition.


Those individuals and those who share their ideas have failed so far every time they attempted such a thing (both the theists and atheist variety -though the theists ussually had more success in such endeavors until modern times ...I atribute that to being better educated and in general more organized, but actual history will show you it was the theists that were inclussive of other peoples faiths who had the highest level of success overall ) at least in taking over the world or a paticular area of it and holding dominion over it...and I dont see them making much headway in the modern world on even a local level.

The only logical conclussion then must be secularism for all.

Freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything blasphemous about THEIR religion. Freedom of expression, as long as you don't express discontent with THEIR religion. Freedom of worship, as long as you only worship THEIR religion. THAT is what I see happening in this country! THAT is what I'm fighting against!

By insulting anyone who doesnt believe as you do? By using the same things you accuse them off yourself?

Think I'm wrong? Try walking into a school board meeting, or a town council meeting, where they open each session with a prayer. Try asking them to open that session with a Bahai prayer, or an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer. See just how "tolerant" they are. I would especially recommend trying this in the deep south or the midwest. I think you'd get a real eye-opening experience.

Actually...unless as in the case of my niece who attended a private lutheran school, when any local town meetings or school related things conviened where I have been in attendence...I havent seen too many people wanting a prayer to begin with...secondly..when they do its allmost allways a silent moment where each is allowed to pray in their heads to whoever they wish.

Which shouldnt bother the atheists since they shouldnt care eaither way if their being logical about things and truely accepting that other people are indeed entitled to hold their own beliefs.

And truth be told as a Bahai...or as a member of any of the other religious faiths I held before it, even during the period where I was breifly atheist myself...it still didnt bother me...even when it was one faiths prayer and out loud. Why should I care if the people in a paticular gathering decide they all wish to have a prayer or some such ritual preformed. Its not hurting me or anyone else.

In those cases of when Ive been in areas where one faith predominated over the others (such as when I was in living in the middle east, or in my local community here -which for your information is in the deepest of the deep southern usa bible belt) I would adapt as nessesary to the cultural requirments of the people in the paticular area I was staying in. They live the way they wish..its not my place to try and force them to do otherwise. "When in Rome" as the old saying goes I have found to be excellent advice to live by.

[thir]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...t

I hve been wondering a bit what is meant by 'the advent of atheism'? Surely some people have not belived in gods through the ages?

[denuseri]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...t

I hve been wondering a bit what is meant by 'the advent of atheism'? Surely some people have not belived in gods through the ages?

If they did, they sure didnt leave any evidence behind of such a belief.

[denuseri]

I see that more along the lines of your interpetation of religion in America.



Especially considering I am not at all alone in my views conserning this paticular belief of the Christians, its basically part of the Lutheran Cannon.

Its obvious you have no real desire for actual secularism of any kind and are still refusing to acept any logic that doesnt fit your beliefs..so I guess we have reached the dead horse part of this discussion...yet again anyways.

I could pull like you did, quotes made out of context that perhaps show your true colors on the subject..stuff about "tossing us all out" and such, but what would be the point.

Instead Im going to pray that you one day find enough inner peace that you can one day see how you sound exactly like the fundamentalist people of faith you declaim.

[Thorne]

Especially considering I am not at all alone in my views conserning this paticular belief of the Christians, its basically part of the Lutheran Cannon.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was ONLY your interpretation. I'm aware that many provide the same, or similar, interpretation as you have stated.

Its obvious you have no real desire for actual secularism of any kind and are still refusing to acept any logic that doesnt fit your beliefs

I haven't seen any logical arguments that refute my comments. All I've seen is fairly typical religious dogma.

I could pull like you did, quotes made out of context that perhaps show your true colors on the subject..stuff about "tossing us all out" and such, but what would be the point.

I'm sure you're aware that the particular comment you note was not intended to be taken seriously. It was a light-hearted response to a light-hearted comment.

Instead Im going to pray that you one day find enough inner peace that you can one day see how you sound exactly like the fundamentalist people of faith you declaim.

LOL! Yeah, pray for the atheist. That works, doesn't it? But I do have inner peace. I don't have to worry that the act of admiring a woman's bottom is going to get me sent to hell to be tortured for eternity. What could be more peaceful?

[MMI]

At the moment, I don't think there is any more that can usefully be said. We are like a NFL team lining up against a soccer team. Both teams say it is they that play football, but neither will recognise the rules by which the other plays. The soccer team says, We play football because we are not allowed to use our hands. The gridiron teams say, We play football because ... actually I'm not sure why they think they play football, but they do.

Until there is acceptance that both sides have a valid set of rules, the competition cannot really begin.

[Thorne]

Until there is acceptance that both sides have a valid set of rules, the competition cannot really begin.

The rules are very simple, really. Provide compelling, testable evidence for your beliefs. That's it.

I'll go first. I don't believe. Therefore, no evidence needed.

Why do I not believe? Because there has never been any compelling, testable evidence for the existence of gods. I don't claim that there are no gods, just that there is no evidence for them. So prove me wrong! Show me the evidence.

And claiming that the gods cannot be measured because they are beyond the scope of science is just a cop out. If that were true then there would be no mechanism whereby people could even know that they exist, or what they want. If they interact at all with the natural world then they are not outside the scope of science. If they do not interact with the real word then they may as well not exist.

[MMI]

Those are your rules. A believer says, if you have faith, no evidence is necessary.

Then you say you don't believe. You claim no evidence is necessary to support your position. Likewise, I don't believe in capitalism: no justification of my stance is needed.

You say there is no evidence, but that is only because you reject what is offered. Yet you trot that same evidence out as tending to support the naturalist position. What? Hard proof for religions, but only evidence "tending to support" science (and that's only in your opinion). By the way, when did you verify Einstein's theories, or attend the CERN experiments? You must have seen them ... unless you are simply relying on what you have heard. How do you know I am real, scientifically, or that you are?

It is not a cop out to claim god is beyond science. That is what a god, by definition, is. At the very least, the uncaused cause, and what is your basis for saying the supernatural cannot interact with the natural. How can you prove that?