# Want to help me debate religion?



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

So I recently became an atheist because it is much more logical. Unfortunately, I decided to tell my small youth group at church about my decision. They've made some relative dull points that I could easily debate, but if they do research they may come up with some more popular arguments such as The Morality Argument and Irreducible Complexity. I could probably refute these a bit, but it would help if I could discuss some arguments with other atheists to see some good points I could come up with. I would also like to raise some of my own arguments such as "A perfect God requires no worship" without making a total fool of myself in front of Christians.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 19, 2011)

I hate you so much right now. 

I just...

*sigh*


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I hate you so much right now.
> 
> I just...
> 
> *sigh*


 
Thanks. I'll try to bring that up next time.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2011)

God is an asshole.


----------



## Icky (May 19, 2011)

Just give up. Looking to debate with them is actually really offensive, because you're essentially saying "hey, your God doesn't exist".


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2011)

Icky said:


> Just give up. Looking to debate with them is actually really offensive, because you're essentially saying "hey, your God doesn't exist".


 
...but he doesn't.


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Icky said:


> Just give up. Looking to debate with them is actually really offensive, because you're essentially saying "hey, your God doesn't exist".


 
I figured this, I just got really stupid and brought it up and now I want to be able to defend myself.
But let's face it, with logic such as "a woman who was blind was healed at a revival therefore God exists" is just too impossible to deny. :V


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

why do you want to pick a fight? It's good that you want to think about everything, but wanting to learn the 1up for a debate is a bit silly. Honestly in situations like this I found that actual logical arguments don't help. What has worked best for me is to talk in their terms. "the feeling you have that there is a god. Something you believe in through faith? I have an absence of that feeling"


----------



## BRN (May 19, 2011)

It's great that you've managed to overcome the pressure of religious indoctrination from within a religious community, and exceptional that you're open about it, but your beliefs are yours, and it will *only be harmful* to you and others if you try arguing your case, attempt to validify your beliefs, or any of that sort. Your beliefs are yours; you're under no obligation to talk about and debate them, especially in a religious community.


P. much what the parrot said


----------



## Icky (May 19, 2011)

Tycho said:


> ...but he doesn't.


 ssssh

we logical people can go advance science and technology or something


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> why do you want to pick a fight? It's good that you want to think about everything, but wanting to learn the 1up for a debate is a bit silly. Honestly in situations like this I found that actual logical arguments don't help. What has worked best for me is to talk in their terms. "the feeling you have that there is a god. Something you believe in through faith? I have an absence of that feeling"


 
I'm not sure why I want to pick these fights, I'm sure there's a psychological reason though. I just want to fully understand and be able to think about all of these things and that's hard to do if I can't discuss it.

_Also_


			
				SIX said:
			
		

> Your beliefs are yours; you're under no obligation to talk about and debate them, especially in a religious community.


This is something I currently have trouble grasping because I'm used to being a Christian in a Christian community where debating things was normal. Now I realize that these "debates" were entirely one sided and I think I'm seeking retribution for all the "brainwashing" I've been receiving when I could have been actually thinking about things logically.


----------



## Volkodav (May 19, 2011)

Debating with christians is like running the retard olympics

Unless you're trolling - then it's fun


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I'm not sure why I want to pick these fights, I'm sure there's a psychological reason though. I just want to fully understand and be able to think about all of these things and that's hard to do if I can't discuss it.


 The problem is there is thinking with faith, and thinking with logic. If you think with logic then you must accept that there are rules to debate and arguments. If you are in a random street debate, people don't play by these rules. Most people don't know how to logically debate, they don't understand fallacies, using the bible as evidence, and so on. 

On the inverse people that want to debate logically don't understand thinking with faith. Yes there are those that try to bible thump and act like scripture makes perfect literal sense, but those are not the majority. The majority of people are aware that the bible is metaphorical and what you are literally arguing against is a feeling they have. You can't argue against that, you can only describe how you feel. 

If you wanted to discuss faith and lack of faith that's fine, that can be civil and you can learn, but you want to debate. You want the secret tips to arguments so you don't look like a fool. That shows you're not really interested in learning, otherwise if a christian pointed out an issue, you'd think about it and admit it if you don't have an answer.


----------



## Aleu (May 19, 2011)

Don't debate with Christians about the existence of God. There is no definite proof of whether He exists or not. Trying to be the asshole that starts up with the "your God doesn't exist" will just make things between atheists and Christians worse. It perpetuates the stereotype that atheists are condescending douche-bags towards a person's religion. If they come to you about your lack of belief, simply state that it's your conclusion that you'd rather not discuss any further.


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The problem is there is thinking with faith, and thinking with logic. If you think with logic then you must accept that there are rules to debate and arguments. If you are in a random street debate, people don't play by these rules. Most people don't know how to logically debate, they don't understand fallacies, using the bible as evidence, and so on.
> 
> On the inverse people that want to debate logically don't understand thinking with faith. Yes there are those that try to bible thump and act like scripture makes perfect literal sense, but those are not the majority. The majority of people are aware that the bible is metaphorical and what you are literally arguing against is a feeling they have. You can't argue against that, you can only describe how you feel.
> 
> If you wanted to discuss faith and lack of faith that's fine, that can be civil and you can learn, but you want to debate. You want the secret tips to arguments so you don't look like a fool. That shows you're not really interested in learning, otherwise if a christian pointed out an issue, you'd think about it and admit it if you don't have an answer.


 
I don't have an answer... but I'm sure there's one somewhere. I mean you'd think after the thousands of years of thinking and research humanity done we would have a definite answer right? If we don't then I might as well just believe in God because it makes me feel good that I'm going to heaven.

_Also_



			
				Aleu said:
			
		

> Don't debate with Christians about the existence of God. There is no  definite proof of whether He exists or not. Trying to be the asshole  that starts up with the "your God doesn't exist" will just make things  between atheists and Christians worse. It perpetuates the stereotype  that atheists are condescending douche-bags towards a person's religion.  If they come to you about your lack of belief, simply state that it's  your conclusion that you'd rather not discuss any further.



So the logic of being an atheist is supposed to be hidden to Christians because it makes them unhappy? Granted, I do regret having mentioned my lack of belief in God in the first place. I was just wondering what I was doing at a church if I didn't believe in God and they thought I was joking so I defended myself. Truth be told though, I *did* want to see how these two teenagers that made up the whole Youth Group would react when I said I didn't believe in God.


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I don't have an answer... but I'm sure there's one somewhere. I mean you'd think after the thousands of years of thinking and research humanity done we would have a definite answer right? If we don't then I might as well just believe in God because it makes me feel good that I'm going to heaven.


 That wasn't a question Cannon. We can logically debate till the cows come home, and we do. I've had nights staying up and debating whether god exists or not. God is still discussed and debated by contemporary philosophers. You can have fun with the specifics of religion certainly. Have all the fun you want pointing out that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god is a paradox. At the very base though, there isn't a way to logically debate the existence of something there because you are arguing against faith and feelings. 

If you feel like a god is there, believe and feel better. If you don't then don't believe. everything else is fiddly specifics.

Personally. I think you want to debate because it gives you an outlet for your thoughts, which is fine. But don't make it a win/lose thing. Make it a discussion. Don't shut down any idea that god can exist just because you want to be right.


----------



## Aleu (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> So the logic of being an atheist is supposed to be hidden to Christians because it makes them unhappy? Granted, I do regret having mentioned my lack of belief in God in the first place. I was just wondering what I was doing at a church if I didn't believe in God and they thought I was joking so I defended myself. Truth be told though, I *did* want to see how these two teenagers that made up the whole Youth Group would react when I said I didn't believe in God.



Where in god's green fuck did you get that from my post? I'm saying don't be a douche bag. You're not supposed to go around and tell people that you're right and they can kindly fuck off. If you just say you don't believe, fine, but don't start shit about it. It's not about being hidden or not.


----------



## Conker (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> So I recently became an atheist because it is much more logical. Unfortunately, I decided to tell my small youth group at church about my decision. They've made some relative dull points that I could easily debate, but if they do research they may come up with some more popular arguments such as The Morality Argument and Irreducible Complexity. I could probably refute these a bit, but it would help if I could discuss some arguments with other atheists to see some good points I could come up with. I would also like to raise some of my own arguments such as "A perfect God requires no worship" without making a total fool of myself in front of Christians.


 While I'm not sure debating with them is really sound, the irreducible complexity thing is really bullshit, and Dawkins rips the idea apart quite well using modern ideas of evolution. 

So, if you know your evolution, you can use that.

Basically, God himself is irreducibly complex, because there's he's apparently better than us yet didn't come from anything. Any debate that says "X is irreducibly complex and therefore God" gets countered with God himself who violates the rule.


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

It's not hidden at all Cannon, you just don't understand that they understand perfectly and choose to believe in god, the same can be said for christian's that say atheists just can't understand god's grace. Interesting that both groups say the other is weaker. In reality it's human beings being deathly afraid of the unknown and doing their damnedest to deal with it. Atheist or theist, life is hard as fuck and you'll have to make your own happiness in the way that is right for you.


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> It's not hidden at all Cannon


 


Fay V said:


> That wasn't a question Cannon.


 
I get both your points so don't think I ignored your posts, but I'm CannotWait not CannonFodder. Even though I've been compared to him.


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I get both your points so don't think I ignored your posts, but I'm CannotWait not CannonFodder. Even though I've been compared to him.


 meh I always read your name as cannonwait.


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Well now I've been confronted on Facebook and they're getting frustrated because I told them we could just leave our beliefs as different and not debate it, but they desperately want to show me the light.


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> Well now I've been confronted on Facebook and they're getting frustrated because I told them we could just leave our beliefs as different and not debate it, but they desperately want to show me the light.


 Just be firm and tell them you're not interested right now. Either they will back off, or they will push and you can ignore them. It's annoying when people do this, most christian to atheist people go through it. I had a friend assure me that I could never be a moral person and I would burn in hell for not believing. Debate won't help here, you just have to see who your friends really are. For all the people that turned on me and told me I would burn, I had as many that just said "okay, I respect that"


----------



## Saracide (May 19, 2011)

It's tough because you know they can't see reason, but you want them to, so badly.

Just yesterday I got into it with a christian acquaintance of mine. I said "I refuse to believe that my gay loved ones, who are good people, will be judged and "OH SHIT you had mutual sex with another man, burn in hell"

I told her if that's the case, I'm straight but I would rather burn in hell with my gay friends than worship that god. That's about the time everything turned white for a second and I got a head rush....

I can't stop getting into it with them tho, I think about Harvey Milk and to me it comes down to a human rights issue. I've always felt really strongly about it.


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Just be firm and tell them you're not interested right now. Either they will back off, or they will push and you can ignore them. It's annoying when people do this, most christian to atheist people go through it. I had a friend assure me that I could never be a moral person and I would burn in hell for not believing. Debate won't help here, you just have to see who your friends really are. For all the people that turned on me and told me I would burn, I had as many that just said "okay, I respect that"


 
That's reassuring to know.


----------



## Lobar (May 19, 2011)

If you really want to get into a discussion, the most important thing to remember is that this debate is not akin to chess or checkers, where each side is "played" along similar lines for the same goals.  Whereas evidence is needed to argue for something's existence, disproof is not a requirement for disbelief (in fact, positive evidence for anything's non-existence is impossible to provide).  You don't need to prove God doesn't exist any more than you need to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist.  All of atheism follows logically from Ockham's Razor.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 19, 2011)

Drop Pascal's Wager, which they'll inevitably bring up, and bring up the Atheist's Wager.

Also, what Lobar stated.

You should always do as much as is justifiable or necessary.

And faith is neither, unless it is faith in one's self, or faith in something that can be verified, or that is real.


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> Drop Pascal's Wager, which they'll inevitably bring up, and bring up the Atheist's Wager.


 
What's Atheist's wager? Are you making that up?


----------



## Xegras (May 19, 2011)

I love Atheist who bait religious people into arguements then yell that they are stuffing religion down there throats


----------



## CannonFodder (May 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> meh I always read your name as cannonwait.


 I thought that was just me.

Ruh-roh OP, Rukh is here run for it!


----------



## Aleu (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> What's Atheist's wager? Are you making that up?


 You should really look things up if you are not certain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist's_Wager


----------



## CannonFodder (May 19, 2011)

Aleu said:


> You should really look things up if you are not certain
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist's_Wager


 If Hindus are right then we're all fucked regardless; if scientologists are right, I wonder if a ghost can hang himself?


----------



## CannotWait (May 19, 2011)

Aleu said:


> You should really look things up if you are not certain
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist's_Wager


 
Thanks for teh links! I am nao infinity smarter!


----------



## Lobar (May 19, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> Thanks for teh links! I am nao infinity smarter!


 
Just remember that the Atheist's Wager is borrowing an inherently flawed argument and just putting a different spin on it.  It's still not a particularly good argument in and of itself.


----------



## Fay V (May 19, 2011)

I didn't know that actually had a name. 
I know the philosopher response to Pascal's wager "what about (other religion)?" aaanyway. I'm trying to remember the other known arguments. 
I suppose you've read Descartes arguments?


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 19, 2011)

Just be polite and don't pretend like it's a dual of ideas.  All you need to do is explain your thinking on the matter.  Assume they have good ideas too.  Ask lots of questions, but not in a "Yeah, but!" sort of way.  More like a "Help me understand this," sort of way.  You know.  Civil discourse.  I had a 2 hour long discussion recently with a good friend of mine who also happens to be a crazy-ass nutcase born-again Christian, and neither of us got angry the entire time.  Yes, it's possible.
Anyway, if you want to debate religion, just use your brain.  It really helps, though, if you have some failed spirituality experiment stories you can tell.  Like, for example, I once took a trip to the Tor at Glastonbury to see what all this 'leyline' nonsense was about, because back then I was still heavily considering the idea that the spiritual world and energy lines and shit like that could be real.  Just sat in the Tor, trying to feel something bigger than myself for a good 20 minutes, and got nothing at all.  In a spot which millions and millions of people believe is a place of tremendous spiritual energy.  So I figured it was all bull-honkey after that.
You have any stories like that, it'll be more convincing to them because that's stuff they can understand.  They might tell you it's subjective, but you can hit them back with the same argument about their own feelings, so it's effective in the end.
I dunno'.  Go watch Non Stamp Collector on Youtube.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 20, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> You know.  Civil discourse.


 
Yeah, but, there's no place for that left in our culture.
Until the contents of a man's head
Is of no more significance
Than the contents of his arse
I've got to say *War!*


----------



## CynicalCirno (May 20, 2011)

Belief is not something you can debate.

If they say "I believe in god" - let them be.
If they say "God/God's jew son is my savior" - tell them that they're blind and that they shouldn't drift their beliefs into statements.

What do you gain by trying to tell a person that is strictly attached to god that "entity-deity" doesn't exist? Absolutely nothing but hatred.


----------



## StealthSneak1 (May 20, 2011)

I hate it when people debate over religion. One person attacks and then the other. I'll respect an atheist's beliefs as long as they can do the same. We may not be able to change each other's beliefs, but we could at least learn to let it go.


----------



## Fling (May 20, 2011)

This is a long one boys and girls, TL;DR at bottom, but I hope anyone who is interested in religious debates actually reads this.

Personally, I've never understood Atheism. Looking at it from a purely logical perspective, being an Atheist is just a lose-lose situation. If atheism is right and random matter magically was generated from nothing, then in the end you die and become nothing and never actually "know" that you are right. If you happen to be religious and are right, wewt, heaven and all that Jazz, whereas if you are an Atheist, you go to whatever "bad place" that a religion states exists. But that aside, since it is not terribly relevant to this, I will say something else.

As far as saying being religious is illogical and ignorant, I again, disagree. Is it really so hard to believe that higher dimensional being or a being that doesn't have a physical form, cannot exist and create life? Perhaps a 4th dimensional being is the same as what people have come to know as God. Considering humans are close to being able to create life, I feel that something that has potentially been around much longer can do the same. 

Besides, there is no way to disprove Higher Beings or Religious Entities so to claim that someone is ignorant in believing in one is, in itself, quite ignorant. If you do not agree with someone, that is fine, but to say "There is no God" is a very bold statement which you simply cannot back up. There is as much legitimacy to that statement as someone saying that they will be reborn as another creature when they die. Is is wrong? Probably, but maybe not. Can you prove or disprove it? No, you cannot. 

I feel that a much more logical approach to Religion (especially with someone who is actively trying to figure it out, which I assume you are since in the past few days you have dropped your religion) is to be agnostic. As an agnostic, you claim that both sides of the argument are unprovable. From there, you try and figure out which situation is more probable. Myself, I decided nothing coming to together with nothing to create something was too silly to accept. Now whether the God I choose to believe in is a mystical being who lives in a spiritual realm or resides in a higher dimension is a different question.

Basically, it all comes down to faith. As an Atheist,  you have faith that there is no god. Can you prove it? No, you cannot, which is why you instead have "faith" and not "proof" that you are right. As a religious person you have faith that a higher being had some sort of hand in creation. If you want to debate with someone on religion, you have to first identify that you cannot prove your side right, just give reasons why you think you are right. If you acknowledge the fact that both sides have legitimate backing and your opponent is simply bashing your views, you will be seen as the much more reasonable individual in the debate and thus be seen as the winner by any spectators. 

For me, in a debate I might say something like "At this point in time, I find the possibility of a higher dimensional being having a hand in creation more reasonable than the atheist alternative, which is why I believe in what I believe. However, even though I very strongly feel that I am right, I accept the fact that there is a possibility I am wrong. This is where faith comes into play. I cannot prove myself right, but using my own rationale, I have come to this conclusion." If you switch a few words around, you can make an Atheist equivalent statement. Many Atheists are just condescending and think they are smart because they dont believe in religion. They arent. They are ignorant for thinking their lack of belief in a higher being makes them more rationale than anyone else. Don't be one of those Atheists even though FA seems to be littered with them.

Honestly, in a religious debate no matter what you say, you cannot make yourself "win." There is no winning point that if you put it on the table, there is no counter, which is why religious debates are oftentimes just silly little bickerings. If you insist on debating your Christian friends, the only way to "win" is to make them lose by leading them to make claims of proof over something that cannot be proven. I wish you the best of luck, but I personally hope you change your mind and become religious again.

TL;DR- Neither side is actually provable, to claim that you are right without a doubt is ignorant whether you are Atheist or Christian. Accept the fact that both sides are at least somewhat reasonable and you will be seen as the more rational person in a debate.

[You have been crit by Wall of Text for infinity damage.]


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (May 20, 2011)

I don't mind when others tell you why they believe that way, the way they do.  One might learn something new this way.
When it gets to telling you are wrong cause they don't believe that way is when it starts to cause problems.

The debate is to tell others why you believe the way you do.

I hate most religious/atheist debates for one reason, its that almost every one of them I seen always turns from a debate to a I am right and you are wrong argument.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (May 20, 2011)

Debate about the topic is good. All the talk about 'you must prove god doesn't exist' or some other such nonsense is not important. The only important part of the whole debate is 'Is there evidence for your religion?' If there is not evidence then you are wrong to believe it. In fact some philosophers would claim you are irresponsible to believe anything with insufficient evidence. All religions are based on wish-thinking and insufficient evidence. It's not something that you should just indulge to not upset someone. There are times it's best not to upset people but that certainly doesn't mean you must ignore the topic.


----------



## InflatedSnake (May 20, 2011)

These debates are stupid.
Atheists are generally as religiously intolerant as Christians.

And to anyone who is going to call me a Christian, I'm not.


----------



## Elessara (May 20, 2011)

Why don't you just stick your finger in their face and go "Nah Nah Nah Boo Boo".

That'll show 'em.


----------



## RedSavage (May 20, 2011)

Why, OP?

WHY? >:C


----------



## Bliss (May 20, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Why, OP?
> 
> WHY? >:C



Because... this is madness!


And I was talking about the Fox News.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 20, 2011)

Dear OP- On one hand, You are doing it wrong. Learn where to pick your fights, you should have just dropped quietly from your youth group instead of trying to cause a ruckus. Keep it to obscure internet forums and the like and leave the debate to people who actually know the topics. You have to tread really carefully since, unfortunately, tons of people take religion deadly seriously.

On the other, I also believe this is an important issue that should warrant our full attention- The large list of beliefs people believe called religion. I just think you're going about it the wrong way .



Fay V said:


> The majority of people are aware that the bible is metaphorical and what you are literally arguing against is a feeling they have.



In America, 75% of people are Christians, and 30% of the total population believes in a literal bible. It's not the majority, but it's a good 40% or so of the christian population that believes it. That's not an insignificant portion.


----------



## Lobar (May 20, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> words


 
Classic failure to listen to what atheists actually believe and argue instead of just working off assumptions.  Doubly egregious considering all the time you had to put into hammering out that post, you couldn't take a couple minutes to head over to wikipedia or something.

Atheists do not assert things like "God cannot exist", or that we can prove there are no gods.  Rather, we demand evidence for claims of God's existence.  Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and with such evidence not forthcoming, we provisionally rest on the null hypothesis that there are no gods.  Disbelief does not require disproof.


----------



## Bloodstainwrench (May 21, 2011)

As a fellow atheist, I wouldn't try it. 

Touchy topics like religion can get ugly. 

Yup


----------



## Ricky (May 21, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> So I recently became an atheist because it is much more logical.


 
It's not, though.  Neither religion nor Atheism is based on logic.


----------



## Lobar (May 21, 2011)

Ricky said:


> It's not, though.  Neither religion nor Atheism is based on logic.


 
Atheism is, at least as much as a lack of something can be based on the positive application of something else.  The most common atheist viewpoint, the rationalist atheist viewpoint popularized by Dawkins et al., reaches the conclusion to disbelieve in the existence of gods as a result of the application of logic and reason.

It really shouldn't be capitalized either.


----------



## Fling (May 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Classic failure to listen to what atheists actually believe and argue instead of just working off assumptions.  Doubly egregious considering all the time you had to put into hammering out that post, you couldn't take a couple minutes to head over to wikipedia or something.
> 
> Atheists do not assert things like "God cannot exist", or that we can prove there are no gods.  Rather, we demand evidence for claims of God's existence.  Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and with such evidence not forthcoming, we provisionally rest on the null hypothesis that there are no gods.  Disbelief does not require disproof.


 
Most of what I have said is not lumping all Atheism together, and in fact, in this post, most of what I have said is in relation to just sound debating as opposed to religion vs. Atheism. Now I am not actually sure if you really read my post at all, considering that I didn't ever say that all Atheists do anything. The majority of my post was actually in reference as to how to debate either side of an argument.

That being said, Atheism, as defined, is "The theory or belief that God does not exist." This does not mean that you want proof of God's existence, but that if you indeed intend on calling yourself an Atheist, that you believe God does not exist. You personally may call yourself an Atheist because you want proof of God before you believe in God, but someone could take the other side just as easily and say that they believe in God because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. 

Also, Atheists (not all, but some) do say things like "God cannot exist" just as some religious people will say things like "God for certain does exist." If you read my original post, you will se that as far as rational thought is considered, I am pretty fair to both sides. I feel like you are just giving me a copy and paste response without actually reading what I had to say. Essentially, you can form a rational hypothesis for either side and a logical person could pick either. Faith, which is a key component of both Atheism and Religion, makes things uncertain in itself. You have to believe that either a higher being did or did not lend a hand in the creation of our universe without being able to prove, or disprove, either side.


----------



## Lobar (May 21, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> Most of what I have said is not lumping all Atheism together, and in fact, in this post, most of what I have said is in relation to just sound debating as opposed to religion vs. Atheism. Now I am not actually sure if you really read my post at all, considering that I didn't ever say that all Atheists do anything. The majority of my post was actually in reference as to how to debate either side of an argument.



Your post started with the statement "Personally, Ive never understood Atheism" with 'atheism' capitalized, like an organized, unified belief system, and went from there without any indication that you ever started _not_ speaking about atheists as a whole.  Later, in the middle of your post, you also state "As an Atheist, you have faith that there is no god...", thus affirming your (false) assumption of what atheists must believe.  Atheism, generally speaking, does not operate on faith, but on doubt of all assertions of the existence of gods.



Pinecones said:


> That being said, Atheism, as defined, is "The theory or belief that God does not exist." This does not mean that you want proof of God's existence, but that if you indeed intend on calling yourself an Atheist, that you believe God does not exist.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

aÂ·theÂ·ismâ€‚ â€‚[ey-thee-iz-uhm] â€“noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
*2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.*

Disbelief (which is not equivalent to "believing not") in gods is sufficient to meet the definition of atheism.  Furthermore, it's by far the most common form of atheism.  Very few would meet the stricter definition you're trying to use, and none of them popular or influential.



Pinecones said:


> You personally may call yourself an Atheist because you want proof of God before you believe in God, but someone could take the other side just as easily and say that they believe in God because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.



No, they couldn't.  Per Ockham's Razor, the burden of proof is on the theists for making the positive assertion that God exists.  "There are no gods", being the most parsimonious answer to the question of if gods exist, is the null hypothesis, and can be provisionally accepted as true without proof.  That can't be flipped around to try to work the other way, and is why atheism has the logical upper hand.



Pinecones said:


> Also, Atheists (not all, but some) do say things like "God cannot exist" just as some religious people will say things like "God for certain does exist." If you read my original post, you will se that as far as rational thought is considered, I am pretty fair to both sides. I feel like you are just giving me a copy and paste response without actually reading what I had to say. Essentially, you can form a rational hypothesis for either side and a logical person could pick either. Faith, which is a key component of both Atheism and Religion, makes things uncertain in itself. You have to believe that either a higher being did or did not lend a hand in the creation of our universe without being able to prove, or disprove, either side.


 
All addressed above, so I wont rehash it too much here.  Just because nobody has "proof" doesn't make it a balanced game.


----------



## Fling (May 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Your post started with the statement "Personally, Ive never understood Atheism" with 'atheism' capitalized, like an organized, unified belief system, and went from there without any indication that you ever started _not_ speaking about atheists as a whole.  Later, in the middle of your post, you also state "As an Atheist, you have faith that there is no god...", thus affirming your (false) assumption of what atheists must believe.  Atheism, generally speaking, does not operate on faith, but on doubt of all assertions of the existence of gods.



Right here I was referring not to being unable to understand the premise behind atheism, but instead why anyone would choose atheism. The logical choice, since neither the existence or absence of God / gods can be proven,  would be to pick one that involves a "victory condition," such as the requirement of belief in a higher being. I suppose that since my word choice may have been a little suboptimal I can sort of understand your misconception of what said, even though from the rest of that paragraph you should have been able to infer the intended meaning. 



Lobar said:


> http://reference.com/browse/atheism
> 
> aÂ·theÂ·ismâ€‚ â€‚[ey-thee-iz-uhm] â€“noun
> 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
> ...



Disbelief implies the rejection of or refusal to believe in someone's hypothesis. If I hypothesize that God exists and you have disbelief in such, you are rejecting the view that God exists, inferring, then, that he does not. This means that you are in fact operating under the belief that God does not exist. There is a word for people who take the middle ground, and it is called being agnostic. 
"The doctrine or belief that there is no god," this was the first entry into that dictionary post, and even though you bold the other one, I have to assume this first definition is the more widely accepted one due to its position. Dictionaries input definitions based on how relevant they are, so since I am not super well read on what the majority of atheists truly believe, I am gonna have to assume that the first entry is more common for the time being. 




Lobar said:


> No, they couldn't.  Per Ockham's Razor, the burden of proof is on the theists for making the positive assertion that God exists.  "There are no gods", being the most parsimonious answer to the question of if gods exist, is the null hypothesis, and can be provisionally accepted as true without proof.  That can't be flipped around to try to work the other way, and is why atheism has the logical upper hand.



Occam's razor "generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects." Now if you are simply going to say "God exists" vs. "God doesn't exist" then in fact Occam's razor would imply that the logical choice is the latter. However, if you take into account that "God does not exist" implies that something else happened to cause the universe to exist, it becomes much different. Instead of going into all the different creation theories of the universe, I will simply say that there is reason that most of the front running hypotheses use infinity somewhere in their explanation. The only way that most of the more widely accepted "godless" hypotheses work is by allowing their scenario to be run an infinite amount of times so that their outcome has any plausible chance of existing. If you take into account all of the things which must first happen for a godless hypothesis to exist, Occam's razor would not favor an atheist viewpoint. Since Occam's razor assumes that both hypotheses are equal in all regards outside of assumptions, probability can make Occam's razor null. For "there is a god" to be true, all that needs to happen is for a being or entity more advanced than humans (possibly in a higher dimension, possibly on another plane of existence, possibly within our own universe/dimension) to have a hand in the creation of mankind in someway.




Lobar said:


> All addressed above, so I wont rehash it too much here.  Just because nobody has "proof" doesn't make it a balanced game.


This is true, however, you are trying to use Occam's razor to justify your stance when in fact you are applying it incorrectly and disregarding the vast number of assumptions that are being made when God / gods are removed from the picture. 

Also, happy rapture day everyone~


----------



## BRN (May 21, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> Disbelief implies the rejection of or refusal to believe in someone's hypothesis. If I hypothesize that God exists and you have disbelief in such, you are rejecting the view that God exists, inferring, then, that he does not. This means that you are in fact operating under the belief that God does not exist. There is a word for people who take the middle ground, and it is called being agnostic.



This is where you're not actually correct. If you were to hypothesize that God exists, *you would have to provide some reasoning for that hypothesis, or the hypothesis can be rejected, as opposed to 'denied'.* For example, if I were to say I possess a red kettle, but refused to show you, you would say 'I have no reason to believe your assertion' as opposed to 'You do not have a red kettle'.



> This is true, however, you are trying to use Occam's razor to justify your stance when in fact you are applying it incorrectly and disregarding the vast number of assumptions that are being made when God / gods are removed from the picture.


Lobar has applied Occam's Razor [You cannot assert the unproven without neccessity] correctly, since God is not a neccessary construct, and provides no extra explanatory power over scientific theories.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (May 21, 2011)

No.

Why would you tell your church your decision?

That's just... dumb?


----------



## Fling (May 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> This is where you're not actually correct. If you were to hypothesize that God exists, *you would have to provide some reasoning for that hypothesis, or the hypothesis can be rejected, as opposed to 'denied'.* For example, if I were to say I possess a red kettle, but refused to show you, you would say 'I have no reason to believe your assertion' as opposed to 'You do not have a red kettle'.
> 
> 
> Lobar has applied Occam's Razor [You cannot assert the unproven without neccessity] correctly, since God is not a neccessary construct, and provides no extra explanatory power over scientific theories.



If you say you have a red kettle without showing me, I have no reason to believe you, that is true. However, if you had some way of supporting your claim, such as showing me you have boiling water, then I can assume you at least have a kettle. I cannot prove that you have a red one, but I can see that you have indeed boiled water through some way. A reasonable assumption would be that you have a kettle, however, I cannot prove that you do have one or its color. Because there is some evidence that you at least have a kettle, I cannot completely dismiss your claim.

I view Religion similarly. There is evidence that points to the possible existence of a higher being so weighing the possible outcomes against eachother, I have made the inference that God/ a god exists. 

Also, Occams razor, albeit generally helpful, is not a rule nor does it take all essential information into account. The way that you have described it, I evidently misunderstood its meaning a little as I have never really engaged in active conversation about it outside of very limited circumstances.

Occam's razor aside, the current scientific theories, as they require infinity in multiple variables, are not sufficient for me and I personally decided the existence of a higher being is more probable.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 21, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> If you say you have a red kettle without showing me, I have no reason to believe you, that is true. However, if you had some way of supporting your claim, such as showing me you have boiling water, then I can assume you at least have a kettle. I cannot prove that you have a red one, but I can see that you have indeed boiled water through some way. A reasonable assumption would be that you have a kettle, however, I cannot prove that you do have one or its color. Because there is some evidence that you at least have a kettle, I cannot completely dismiss your claim.



Except boiling water might mean you have a microwave, volcanic geyser, fire breathing dragon, laser eye beams, or many other water boiling tools at your disposal- Especially if there are other variables like there being far too much boiling water for a kettle to contain, or the water is far too hot for a mere kettle to have contained or heated,  or it having been too long since you said you last had the kettle, or it being in a container it would have been difficult to transfer the water to from the kettle... And of course you can't really infer the color of the kettle from the water either. 



Pinecones said:


> There is evidence that points to the possible existence of a higher being.


 
Such as?


----------



## Fling (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Except boiling water might mean you have a microwave, volcanic geyser, fire breathing dragon, laser eye beams, or many other water boiling tools at your disposal- Especially if there are other variables like there being far too much boiling water for a kettle to contain, or the water is far too hot for a mere kettle to have contained or heated,  or it having been too long since you said you last had the kettle, or it being in a container it would have been difficult to transfer the water to from the kettle... And of course you can't really infer the color of the kettle from the water either.



Clearly you didn't read my post thoroughly at all. In the part that you yourself quote from me, it said *"cannot prove that you have a red one, but I can see that you have indeed boiled water through some way. A reasonable assumption would be that you have a kettle, however, I cannot prove that you do have one or its color."*

This implies that there are other means of boiling water. Also, no where in the post did I say I could prove its color at all. In fact, I said that I could not do such. 

Now I don't know if you are just trolling or actually trying to participate in a reasonable discussion seeing as how you took no real information from my post, but the amount of water or the way it got into a container is absolutely irrelevant to the reason the example was given.

The point of the example was to show that the existence of something can be evidence of the existence of something else. *Notice how I do not say it proves anything. It is evidence that something could be true, not proof that it is.*

Also, evidence that points to the *possible* existence of a higher being (NOTE AGAIN IT IS NOT PROOF NOR DO I CLAIM IT TO BE) is simply existence in itself. Is it completely illogical to believe that a higher dimensional being could exist? No, its not. People exist, after all, and if life can randomly develop in our dimension, it is absurd to say it cannot happen in a different one. If it can happen in a different one, is it not possible that a being that has been around much longer than humans have can create life? To be honest, humans are getting close to the point where we ourselves can create life. 

Other evidence to support a higher being, as I have previously stated, is the improbability of the scientific theories right now. Every "reasonable" scientific theory currently uses infinity as a variable to make it plausible, such as infinite parallel universes or infinite repeating cycles, etc. 

Now, as I stated, this is NOT proof, but plausible evidence.


----------



## BRN (May 22, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> Clearly you didn't read my post thoroughly at all. In the part that you yourself quote from me, it said *"cannot prove that you have a red one, but I can see that you have indeed boiled water through some way. A reasonable assumption would be that you have a kettle, however, I cannot prove that you do have one or its color."*
> 
> This implies that there are other means of boiling water. Also, no where in the post did I say I could prove its color at all. In fact, I said that I could not do such.


No part of Mojotech's post suggested you had implied that at all. If you were to read his post, you'll find that he is implying only how illogical it is to see boiled water and to think it must have been a kettle that boiled it.



> Also, evidence that points to the *possible* existence of a higher being is simply existence in itself. Is it completely illogical to believe that a higher dimensional being could exist? No, its not. People exist, after all, and if life can randomly develop in our dimension, it is absurd to say it cannot happen in a different one. If it can happen in a different one, is it not possible that a being that has been around much longer than humans have can create life? To be honest, humans are getting close to the point where we ourselves can create life.


I don't agree with this. Regarding extra-terrestial intelligence, life on _our_ planet shows that the universe *allows* life, but we cannot deduce that life *neccessarily* exists elsewhere. So, within our universe, while it is logical to believe that there is a good chance of life existing somewhere and at some time, it is not so logical to believe that life elsewhere does exist and at the same time.

However, you've stated here that God is 'a higher dimensional being'. I assume from common semantics that's also suggesting God is outside of this universe. But then, what does that mean? What does 'an outside universe' even mean? It doesn't make sense to say 'an external dimension' - -hell, what are you even implying 'dimension' means, here? This sounds like a regurgitated argument. Even operating under the assumption that 'a second universe exists' [which is a contradictory statement considering the definition of 'universe'], why do you *assume* God is there and why do you *assume* he would have the power to interact with our universe *while being totally outside of it?* For anything to interact with anything else, it quite definitely has to be a part of the same universe as the object it is trying to interact with. Anything else is ridiculous to say.



> Other evidence to support a higher being, as I have previously stated, is the improbability of the scientific theories right now. Every "reasonable" scientific theory currently uses infinity as a variable to make it plausible, such as infinite parallel universes or infinite repeating cycles, etc.


What? This isn't true at all, and even if it was it's a strawman argument. If you could show* one* accepted scientific theory that uses that 'uses infinity as a variable to make it plausible', I'd be extremely impressed.



> Now, as I stated, this is NOT proof, but plausible evidence.


I don't think it's plausible evidence. Firstly, you've told me 'God exists because we exist', which is a fallacious jump in logic. Secondly, you've made a false accusation based on a misunderstanding of science. I see no claim that comes close to 'plausible evidence'.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

SIX said:


> No part of Mojotech's post suggested you had implied that at all. If you were to read his post, you'll find that he is implying only how illogical it is to see boiled water and to think it must have been a kettle that boiled it.


 
Pretty much. I'm aware you said it's not proof, Pinecones, but it's a very, very weak implication of a kettle, because the class of objects [Things that boil water] is very, very large. It could have been a pot, or a pot that calls other things black, or an array of mirrors focusing on a single spot which had water, or a nuclear reactor, or a steam pot, or a water distiller, or a self-boiling can of soup which had all the non-water components boiled out, or...

In short, you have one object out of this huge list which you're saying "I can't prove it but I'll still say that's what caused it.", which just doesn't really fly.


----------



## Fling (May 22, 2011)

SIX said:


> 1) No part of Mojotech's post suggested you had implied that at all. If you were to read his post, you'll find that he is implying only how illogical it is to see boiled water and to think it must have been a kettle that boiled it.
> 
> 
> 2) I don't agree with this. Regarding extra-terrestial intelligence, life on _our_ planet shows that the universe *allows* life, but we cannot deduce that life *neccessarily* exists elsewhere. So, within our universe, while it is logical to believe that there is a good chance of life existing somewhere and at some time, it is not so logical to believe that life elsewhere does exist and at the same time.
> ...



1)  Mojotech stated "And of course you can't really infer the color of the kettle from the water either." Which I never claimed to be able to do. His pointing this out after I pointed this out infers that I thought I could. If he didn't mean this, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. 

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation. This is an equation that predicts the possible amount of contactable life forms in our galaxy. Although it fills some variables based on conjecture, even with very conservative numbers it would point to there being life forms out there that we could contact. Seeing as how this is only for our galaxy, if you look at this from a more universal perspective, the number would be much higher. Again, this is not proof, but this is a pretty reasonable theory as to how many life forms are out there that we could contact. 

3) Okay, don't bash my use of the word "universe," for I am using it in the commonly accepted way as defined by the scientific community. Yes, if you dissect the word it appears that it should mean EVERYTHING including multiple "Universes" as it is currently defined, but that being said, I am using the word in the way it is currently used. Furthermore, a higher dimension does not have to lie outside of the universe, nor is it some separate spiritual realm. A dimension is like the first, second, and third dimensions that we all know of. Higher dimensions are the ones which we are inside but cannot regularly manipulate or meaningfully interact with. They are higher dimensions. You should watch this, it is helpful and interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA. It will also help you to understand what I am talking about and I encourage you to watch both parts when you have time, it doesn't take very long. From that, you can see that a separate universe is not needed until the 7th or so dimension. God would only have to be a fourth/fifth/sixth dimensional entity to interact with us and our universe in a very meaningful way. So as you can see, God would NOT have to be outside our universe. He could very much be a part of it while not being bound by only having 3 dimensions, as we are. Personally, I think it is not unreasonable to think that God MAY also be an even higher dimensional being, but that aside, for the sake of keeping things in our universe, it is still not unreasonable to think he could at least be in the 4-6th dimension. 

4) Oh this will be fun.
 a) The big bang theory. I am sure you are at least somewhat familiar with this. From a singularity where all matter was compacted to around the size of a ping-pong ball, the big bang occured, exploding space as we know it outward. We can currently observe this expansion of space, but just as a rubberband snaps back when stretched, we assume that space will  do the same, collapsing back into its singularity at some point. From here, the singularity will explode again, creating different laws of physics and arrangements of particles/waves, depending on the interaction of matter as it explodes outwards. This cycle is *infinitely* repeating and has to be in order for it to be plausible. It is theorized that the possibility of the big bang creating a universe that can support life at all is very low and thus the cycle must be infinite for this to occur.
 b) The Membrane (M) theory. This theory assumes that there are infinite universes (I know you dont like that word being used in this way, but you can just change the word in your mind to whatever you want it to be. "Pocket of Space," if that makes you more comfortable.) all lined up next to eachother like a load of bread. The interaction of these universes with one another is what creates matter within them, giving them their big bang potential. Now I am not super familiar with this theory so don't quote me on that second part, but thats okay because it isnt the relevant part of this theory pertaining to this discussion. Regardless, *infinite universes* are in play here.
 c) String theory. This also uses infinity as a variable I believe. I think this one used infinite universes again. However, the numerous versions of string theory have been combined to create the M theory (as explained above). Some people believe M theory supersedes the string theories, others think that it does not.

5) I didn't say God exists because we exist. I said that us existing could be evidence of God existing because he could be the one that put our existence into motion. At least this is what was supposed to be implied, but at the very least I did not speak in the absolutes you are claiming me to. And I did not make any false claims to my knowledge. I do not claim to have any proof and if you are expecting me to try and make an "OMG I GET IT NOW" post proving religion, I am not. I can't, no one can. Instead, we as rational people, can look at evidence. Evidence is not proof, but just like find a blue fiber on a corpse could indicate that he was killed by someone in a blue shirt, does not mean that a suspect who wore a blue shirt killed him. It does not even mean he was killed by any person with a blue shirt, just that at some point he brushed against someone/something with blue fibers. One piece of evidence can point to many answers and using my own rationale, I have chosen which one I think is the most probable. Many people will come to different conclusions using the same evidence, but the reason there is a debate is because no answer is definitive. 

I personally don't think I have said anything to radical or unreasonable, I have just presented reasons why I am religious and the evidence I use to justify it.


----------



## Fling (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Pretty much. I'm aware you said it's not proof, Pinecones, but it's a very, very weak implication of a kettle, because the class of objects [Things that boil water] is very, very large. It could have been a pot, or a pot that calls other things black, or an array of mirrors focusing on a single spot which had water, or a nuclear reactor, or a steam pot, or a water distiller, or a self-boiling can of soup which had all the non-water components boiled out, or...
> 
> In short, you have one object out of this huge list which you're saying "I can't prove it but I'll still say that's what caused it.", which just doesn't really fly.


 
Well I am glad you understand I am not claiming proof. However, just as I posted "Evidence is not proof, but just like find a blue fiber on a corpse could indicate that he was killed by someone in a blue shirt, does not mean that a suspect who wore a blue shirt killed him. It does not even mean he was killed by any person with a blue shirt, just that at some point he brushed against someone/something with blue fibers"[/SIZE, the same holds true here. You collect evidence and then make a guess. If I heard a whistle from the kitchen and then you walked into my room with boiling water in a cup, I could assume you just used a kettle. However, it is possible that you just used a pot to boil the water and happened to be blowing into a whistle. You gather evidence and make a reasonable guess.

And in this argument neither side can PROVE what their claims are, but sides have people that support it. I am not saying "I can't prove this but its right," I am saying "I can't prove this but after analyzing evidence and using my own rationale, I think this is the correct answer." This just really does fly, because this is how everyone has to approach this debate when picking a side.


----------



## BRN (May 22, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> 1)  Mojotech stated "And of course you can't really infer the color of the kettle from the water either." Which I never claimed to be able to do. His pointing this out after I pointed this out infers that I thought I could. If he didn't mean this, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


 His statement was suggesting that even if, for whatever reason, we accept the kettle, we cannot validate the qualities of the kettle. The kettle here being a metaphor for God.


> 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ... that we could contact.


 The Drake equation is a series of multiplied probabilities and nothing more. It seems you're borrowing again from common understanding rather than scientific understanding; the Drake Equation has *no scientific value*. Wikipedia explains it better than I could.


			
				Wikipedia:Drake Equation said:
			
		

> The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.


 


> 3) Okay, don't bash my use of the word "universe," for I am using it in the commonly accepted way as defined by the scientific community.


 I'm not bashing a thing; I'm asking for your definition. It seems silly, however, not to use the scientific definition when you're discussing science. 



> Furthermore, a higher dimension does not have to lie outside of the universe .... God would only have to be a fourth/fifth/sixth dimensional entity to interact with us and our universe in a very meaningful way. So as you can see, God would NOT have to be outside our universe. He could very much be a part of it while not being bound by only having 3 dimensions, as we are. Personally, I think it is not unreasonable to think that God MAY also be an even higher dimensional being, but that aside, for the sake of keeping things in our universe, it is still not unreasonable to think he could at least be in the 4-6th dimension.


Tell me, as a 3-dimensional being, have you ever been able to interact with any 2-dimensional or 1-dimensional objects?



> 4) Oh this will be fun.
> a) The big bang theory. ...


The Big Bang theory is extremely outdated, and has been largely disposed of by the scientific community. Our increasing understand of quantum mechanics makes the Big Bang as much of a joke to scientists as it is to religious folk.



> b) The Membrane (M) theory. This theory assumes that there are infinite universes... regardless, *infinite universes* are in play here.


Not true. M-Theory is an extension of string theory which identifies that there is one universe built entirely of two-dimensional membranes [to use the String Theory definition of 'membrane', not the colloquial definition, but I don't want to have to explain String Theory, the maths is extensive...] - regardless, M-Theory never suggests there are infinite universes, and is, in fact, commonly in dispute among string theorists anyway. I wouldn't call it an accepted scientific theory.


> c) String theory. This also uses infinity as a variable I believe. I think this one used infinite universes again. However, the numerous versions of string theory have been combined to create the M theory (as explained above). Some people believe M theory supersedes the string theories, others think that it does not.


I'm not sure if you understand what String Theory is, or if you're using the term 'variable' correctly. This statement you've offered here would be me like saying 'My television uses infinity as a variable'. Regardless, String Theory does not propose infinite universes, nor does it use infinity in its mathematics.



> 5) I didn't say God exists because we exist. I said that us existing could be evidence of God existing because he could be the one that put our existence into motion...


It's fair and fair enough. I don't think your blue fibre metaphor was applicable, though, as it would imply that God left a fibre on the universe when he 'created' it, of which there is no such example. Since we're just left with the statement 'God is a possibility', but with no positive evidence, and with scientific theory being markably simpler than proposing the existence of a being which is a logical contradiction by definition, choosing to say 'God did it' seems to me be only the best option if one lacks understanding of scientific theory, or has no desire to understand it.


> I personally don't think I have said anything to radical or unreasonable, I have just presented reasons why I am religious and the evidence I use to justify it.


 You haven't said anything unreasonable. All we've done is trade arguments. Personally, I think you should have a look at 'The Black Hole War', which is an entertaining look at the reason String Theory was created.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> Well I am glad you understand I am not claiming proof. However, just as I posted "Evidence is not proof, but just like find a blue fiber on a corpse could indicate that he was killed by someone in a blue shirt, does not mean that a suspect who wore a blue shirt killed him. It does not even mean he was killed by any person with a blue shirt, just that at some point he brushed against someone/something with blue fibers"[/SIZE, the same holds true here. You collect evidence and then make a guess. If I heard a whistle from the kitchen and then you walked into my room with boiling water in a cup, I could assume you just used a kettle. However, it is possible that you just used a pot to boil the water and happened to be blowing into a whistle. You gather evidence and make a reasonable guess.




A blue fiber on a corpse could mean any number of things. It could be a naturally occurring fiber, such as from a blue plant or fungus. It could mean the victim was wearing blue clothes. It could mean someone at the funeral was wearing blue clothes. It could mean an investigator or policeman was wearing blue clothes near the corpse. It could mean the murder happened near someone who was wearing blue clothes. It could have meant it happened in a blue clothing factory where nobody was wearing blue clothes. And that's assuming it was a murder and not, say, someone having a heart attack in bed in blue sheets. 

In day to day operations, a whistle and a nice cuppa tea aren't something we'd really care if you actually had a kettle or not, but keep in mind this is a Metaphor for the existence of the divine, which is a large issue in modern society, so we really have to be thorough about this. (This is ignoring what you going into and out of the kitchen implies for our metaphor.)


TL;DR- I'll agree with you it is possible, but extraordinarily unlikely, for a divine agency to exist but hasn't left any evidence of it's existence somehow. This rules out those described by the current major world religions. Until satisfactory proof of one shows up, I just can't accept it.


----------



## Fling (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> A blue fiber on a corpse could mean any number of things. It could be a naturally occurring fiber, such as from a blue plant or fungus. It could mean the victim was wearing blue clothes. It could mean someone at the funeral was wearing blue clothes. It could mean an investigator or policeman was wearing blue clothes near the corpse. It could mean the murder happened near someone who was wearing blue clothes. It could have meant it happened in a blue clothing factory where nobody was wearing blue clothes. And that's assuming it was a murder and not, say, someone having a heart attack in bed in blue sheets.
> 
> In day to day operations, a whistle and a nice cuppa tea aren't something we'd really care if you actually had a kettle or not, but keep in mind this is a Metaphor for the existence of the divine, which is a large issue in modern society, so we really have to be thorough about this. (This is ignoring what you going into and out of the kitchen implies for our metaphor.)
> 
> ...


 
One of the main premises behind the use of the blue fiber was to indicate that although it could be used as evidence towards something, it was not conclusive at all and that it could lead to multiple things. I was explaining that although it did not prove anything or indicate that it came from any specific source, it could be used as evidence to make a guess. And as far as being thorough about it, we aren't using the kitchen appliances as a metaphor for the divine so much as we are using it to simply describe how to make reasonable inferences. If we to compare God himself to a teapot, yeah, we would have to go more deeply into this, but the whole point of the kettle was to try and work a different point.


----------



## Fling (May 22, 2011)

SIX said:


> 1) His statement was suggesting that even if, for whatever reason, we accept the kettle, we cannot validate the qualities of the kettle. The kettle here being a metaphor for God.
> 
> 2)The Drake equation is a series of multiplied probabilities and nothing more. It seems you're borrowing again from common understanding rather than scientific understanding; the Drake Equation has *no scientific value*. Wikipedia explains it better than I could.
> 
> ...



1) I understand we cannot qualify the kettle, I stated so the first time I brought it up. Also, I was not intending for the kettle to be used a metaphor for God, specifically, as that is deserving of a much more complex metaphor. I was using the kettle to talk about the reasonability of making assumptions or inferences in the presence of evidence.

2) The Drake equation, I agree,  I shouldn't have put "science" in it, however, I still think it is mathematically reasonable. Like I said myself, it is based on conjecture in many spots and thus is not a proof, but I still think it is reasonable. 

3) If you asked for my definition, I missed that part, but I am using the accepted definition of universe. "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm." 
This is what is referred to as the universe and I am pretty sure this is the accepted scientific definition. This, however, does leave open the possibility for other universes to exist side by side. They are simply two bubbles of relatively the same thing, just arranged in a different way.

4) Yes I have. Have you ever folded a sheet of paper? You are twisting the very surface of that sheet of paper, the part without depth, and thus twisting the second dimension. 

5) 
a)The big bang theory, although it has been under fire a lot, I'm not sure if its been completely dismissed as you say. I know that quasars and the predicted ages of some distance stars/galaxies seem to poke holes in it, however, I dont think it is being as abandoned as you say. he Big Bang model or theory is the prevailing[1] cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This expansion caused the universe to cool and resulted in the present diluted state that continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago,[2][3] which is often referred to as the time when the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations. I realize that it has its holes, for sure, and I am not a strong advocate for it. 

b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yEu-b_YD0 Please watch this until the minute mark. I am not sure if this has been changed to exclude infinity over the past few years, but this is what I was able to find.

c) "The vacuum structure of the theory, called the string theory landscape (or the anthropic portion of string theory vacua), is not well understood. String theory contains an infinite number of distinct meta-stable vacua, and perhaps 10^500 of these or more correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours â€” with four dimensions, a high planck scale, gauge groups, and chiral fermions. Each of these corresponds to a different possible universe, with a different collection of particles and forces." 

Again, I am not super well versed on this theory, but this is what I have been able to find. 

[edit] Oh, also, multiverse theories and cyclic theories in general. I don't know too much about them, but I was  looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model. Well, more so trying to learn from the cited sources of it, since, you know, Wikipedia =/= super reliable source, but I find its good for overviews.

6) Again, this blue fiber metaphor, like the kettle, is not so much supposed to be a metaphor for God, rather it is being used to demonstrate a few different points. It is being used to show how the acquiring of evidence can point to multiple different answers and, more specifically, that non-conclusive evidence can be gathered to make an educated guess while not being able to prove anything.

Another thing you have to take into consideration for this is evidence against something. One of the main disagreements I have with the God-less theories is some of their uses of infinity, or things like "All that science can know is that the cosmos was spawned from nothing, and will return to the nothing from whence it came." 

I know this may not be a widely accepted view, however, it is the thought of nothing coming together with nothing to spawn something that is pretty deterring.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> One of the main premises behind the use of the blue fiber was to indicate that although it could be used as evidence towards something, it was not conclusive at all and that it could lead to multiple things. I was explaining that although it did not prove anything or indicate that it came from any specific source, it could be used as evidence to make a guess. And as far as being thorough about it, we aren't using the kitchen appliances as a metaphor for the divine so much as we are using it to simply describe how to make reasonable inferences. If we to compare God himself to a teapot, yeah, we would have to go more deeply into this, but the whole point of the kettle was to try and work a different point.


 
Who is this "we"? I was, in fact, using it as a metaphor- althought it kinda ballooned into these other situations from "all we have is boiled water of an indeterminate amount". The main difference is, that those situations have context- For example, if you had a list of murderers and weapons, and one was found to be in posession of a blood covered weapon and the shirt you got it from and such, the blue fiber could be used. Just by itself though, without something to match it with, it's kinda useless.

So, I ask again, what is your evidence for why you believe how you do? You say you're making an inference, and I'm asking "off of what"?


----------



## Lobar (May 22, 2011)

The entire kettle argument is the old watchmaker fallacy in a different form.  The only reason boiling water implies a kettle or some other object capable of bringing water to a boil is that these objects are already known to exist (and exist in a quantity much greater than sources of naturally boiling water).  Gods are not known to exist, so for the analogy to be truly applicable, we have to suppose we are cavemen from before the discovery of fire.  Then, if I have boiling water, the natural assumption is that I've simply found boiling water somewhere, like from a hot spring or something.  It would be an extraordinary claim to say I am capable of boiling the water myself, and would require more evidence, and brings up additional questions.  Likewise, the existence of the universe does not imply any sort of creator or anything more than the sum of matter existing in it.


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 22, 2011)

The logic of atheism comes mainly from the simple fact that every mystery of nature so far solved has turned out to have a really good, testable, and repeatable law behind it that doesn't involve the supernatural in any way.  So it would then be illogical to take those last few leaps and suddenly declare that the mysteries that haven't yet been solved must be supernatural and beyond understanding.
All we atheists are saying is, considering current trends, we trust that, given time, we'll have a better and more fitting answer than God.  You can call that 'faith', if you want, but I call it logic.  Faith usually isn't based in anything solid, is the difference, from my understanding.


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 22, 2011)

Just because you decided to become atheist doesn't mean you should instantly head to the closest group of theists just to refute their beliefs.

"Oh hi, I decided to become furry. Where can I get those murrsuits and fuck?"


----------



## Rsyk (May 22, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> The logic of atheism comes mainly from the simple fact that every mystery of nature so far solved has turned out to have a really good, testable, and repeatable law behind it that doesn't involve the supernatural in any way.  So it would then be illogical to take those last few leaps and suddenly declare that the mysteries that haven't yet been solved must be supernatural and beyond understanding.
> All we atheists are saying is, considering current trends, we trust that, given time, we'll have a better and more fitting answer than God.  You can call that 'faith', if you want, but I call it logic.  Faith usually isn't based in anything solid, is the difference, from my understanding.


 Faith has not had a good run as being a logical train of thought, given that different beliefs have been used for a very long time to explain things that people could not understand then. Then again, removing all actions and history from the argument, the differences between atheism and any sort of deism or theism is not so much a matter of which choice is more intelligent, but which the individual feels is more true. There are plenty of people of all manners of intelligence who believe both ways. I like to use Paul Davies as my example for a theist, and Stephen Hawking is the popular example of an intelligent atheist. As for the other end...well, it doesn't take to much to find one. 
For me, the choice is based mainly on a gut feeling. Neither side really has any verifiable evidence to support their conclusions, and personal experience has exposed me to enough assholes on every side of the argument so that I don't even count people as part of my beliefs any more. That said, there is something about the nature of reality that makes me think it's far to...orchestrated to be random. And I don't believe that the universe must exist as a necessity. Thus, I do believe in a God. 
Regardless of the actual discussion, there are two things that I would like to point out to the OP. 1, your an idiot to be announcing your decision to be atheist in a church group. No matter how accepting they are, they are likely going to view this as a problem they have to help you through. Another thing is, when talking to people of faith, do not mention that you think atheism is a more logical belief. You may think it, of course. Everyone believes that the choice they've made is the best one. But when you say that to people of faith, all they're going to here is, "I'm smarter than you because what you believe is dumb."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 22, 2011)

Well OP, because no one is putting yp any challenge to you, I figure I would take a stab at it.
The following is from an FA journal of mine.

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on  matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and  mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of  Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically  and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism  because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical  reactionsâ€¦ â€¦ Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They  are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain,  in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God,  then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over  fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and  falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the  irrational reaction we call morality.

In the atheistâ€™s naturalistic worldview, thoughts and reasoning are just  the results of chemical reactions in the brain. â€˜A debate and a couple  of soda bottles in the front of a room fizzing are just different types  of chemical reactions. The atheist cannot put forward, within his own  framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even  worthwhile. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we can reason as human  beings created in the image of God. But the atheist canâ€™t account
for reason if there is no God. On naturalistic principles, thereâ€™s no  explanation for why a debate is more important than the two soda bottles  fizzing. So you could say that, by showing up for the debate, the  atheist has already conceded.â€™

So,by arguing at all an Atheist defeats himself.

The other thing an Atheist does, in while trying to tell us that  morality comes from within, cannot explain the differences in "moral"  law around the world. And then the atheist tries to defend their  personal view of morality, all the while saying there is no absolute  morality that doesn't come from us. And again this makes no sense  because according to an atheist, there is not God, so all we have are  chemical reactions, and he cannot justify his own chemical reactions or  even say why his chemical reactions are any different than someone  else's chemical reactions. Somehow, in the debate, an atheist is able to  denounce anything that doesn't line up with their own personal  standards all the while saying their is no absolute moral code outside  of ourselves...

The Atheist goes onto argue using all the "horrible acts that damn us" that happened in the Old Testament. 

But why should it matter to any of us reading and teaching those stories  to people, or why should it matter to any of those people who did these  "atrocious things" on your (Atheists) principles. These people are all  dead now, and we who read them will be dead one day. Why should any of  us care about the effeminate judgments of history? Should the  propagators of these "horrors" have cared? There is no God, right?  Because there is not God this means that-you know-genocides just happen,  like earthquakes and eclipses. Its all matter in motion and these  things happen.

If you are on the receiving end there is only death. And if you are an  agent delivering this so called genocide as you claim, the long term  benefit is brief victory and then death. So, who cares?

Picture an Israelite during the conquest of Cannan doing all the  horrible acts you accuse them of. During one of his outages, sword held  high above his head, should he have stopped for a moment to reflect on  the possibility that you might be right? "You know, in 3 and a half  millenia, the consensus will be among historians will be that I am being  bad right now. But if there is no God, then this disproval will not  disturb my oblivion. On with rapine and slaughter!"
On your (Atheist) principals, why should he care?

So, in retrospect, an Atheist will make the claim that religion  (Christianity) didn't give us morality. And Scripture actually agrees  with that (Romans 2:14) But what the Atheist then claims that they alone  know what true morality is. Based solely on their personal opinion and  not fact.

Basically an Atheist cannot make the claim on knowing morality or  arguing against someone else's view on what morality is because all our  thoughts are just mere chemical reactions, and the Atheist cannot give  any reason why their chemical fizz (That was a more accident in the  first place of having) is any better than anyone elses chemical fizz so  to speak. And as soon as they enter a debate, they have already conceded  to the debate because they themselves are not holding to what Atheism  is.

In their own attempt to define or explain morality, and Atheist defeats  themselves because they have no explanation to why anyone should listen  to their "chemical fizz."

One last question to Atheists;
You (Atheists) make a great deal out of your individualism and your  right to be left alone with the "most intimate part your life and mind."
Given your Atheism, what account are you able to give that would require  us to respect the individual? How does this individualism flow from your  premise of Atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the  details of your thought life anymore than they respect the internal  churnings of any other chemical reaction? Thats all our thoughts are,  isn't that right? Or, if their a distinction, could you show how your  premise of atheism might produce such a distinction?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

My, that's a lot of words to ask a simple question-



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is no God, who is to say what's right and what's wrong?


 
Answer: We are.

Now get out, we're trying to have a serious discussion.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> TL;DR


 
Shit, son.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> My, that's a lot of words to ask a simple question-
> Answer: We are.


 
By what standard or basis are you using that logic on? 
If you read what I posted I brought that up...



> The other thing an Atheist does, in while trying to tell us that   morality comes from within, cannot explain the differences in "moral"   law around the world. And then the atheist tries to defend their   personal view of morality, all the while saying there is no absolute   morality that doesn't come from us. And again this makes no sense   because according to an atheist, there is not God, so all we have are   chemical reactions, and he cannot justify his own chemical reactions or   even say why his chemical reactions are any different than someone   else's chemical reactions. Somehow, in the debate, an atheist is able to   denounce anything that doesn't line up with their own personal   standards all the while saying their is no absolute moral code outside   of ourselves...


----------



## CannonFodder (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> My, that's a lot of words to ask a simple question-
> Answer: We are.
> 
> Now get out, we're trying to have a serious discussion.


 That's one of the problems with a discussion on morals, there are as many ideas on what people consider right and wrong as there are people.
People may say it's wrong for society to force a norm of values and that, but without it society would fall apart quickly.


----------



## Rsyk (May 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's one of the problems with a discussion on morals, there are as many ideas on what people consider right and wrong as there are people.
> People may say it's wrong for society to force a norm of values and that, but without it society would fall apart quickly.


 True. And, even when morals are based off of something, it's all subject to interpretation. The Bible is probably the best example of this anywhere.


----------



## Ricky (May 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Atheism is, at least as much as a lack of something can be based on the positive application of something else.  The most common atheist viewpoint, the rationalist atheist viewpoint popularized by Dawkins et al., reaches the conclusion to disbelieve in the existence of gods as a result of the application of logic and reason.
> 
> It really shouldn't be capitalized either.


 
You can't prove the existence of God (or gods) and you can't prove their non-existence either.  So, no -- neither one is based on logic.

You could pick apart the specifics of a religion and that _could_ be based on logic but that isn't what Atheism is about.

Also, any proper noun should be capitalized =P


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> By what standard or basis are you using that logic on?
> If you read what I posted I brought that up...


 
With the same tools we use to decide whether or not a particular religion's morals are good or not. :V But I guess that's what I get for responding to you seriously.
If your religion is the only reason you're acting civil, and don't have your own morality, you have other problems. :V


CannonFodder said:


> That's one of the problems with a discussion on morals, there are as many ideas on what people consider right and wrong as there are people.
> People may say it's wrong for society to force a norm of values and that, but without it society would fall apart quickly.


 
Well, that's part of what defines a society or culture- the moral values inside it. If it can't get it's act together, it'll fall apart too quickly to really be considered anything.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> With the same tools we use to decide whether or not a particular religion's morals are good or not. :V But I guess that's what I get for responding to you seriously.


 
I love how you completely ignore what I said, twice now. Second, you never respond to me seriously, almost always your comments are laced with rudeness, insults, and are flat out intentionally inciteful. That is not a good way to discuss anything.



> The other thing an Atheist does, in while trying to tell us that    morality comes from within, cannot explain the differences in "moral"    law around the world. And then the atheist tries to defend their    personal view of morality, all the while saying there is no absolute    morality that doesn't come from us. And again this makes no sense    because according to an atheist, there is not God, so all we have are    chemical reactions, and he cannot justify his own chemical reactions or    even say why his chemical reactions are any different than someone    else's chemical reactions. Somehow, in the debate, an atheist is able to    denounce anything that doesn't line up with their own personal    standards all the while saying their is no absolute moral code outside    of ourselves...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I love how you completely ignore what I said, twice now. Second, you never respond to me seriously, almost always your comments are laced with rudeness, insults, and are flat out intentionally inciteful. That is not a good way to discuss anything.


 
I'm acknowledging that is the Calvinist interpretation of events. :V Now I'm going to stop responding to you in a probably vain effort to keep you from derailing this thread further.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I love how you completely ignore what I said, twice now. Second, you never respond to me seriously, almost always your comments are laced with rudeness, insults, and are flat out intentionally inciteful. That is not a good way to discuss anything.



There is no such thing as absolute values. 

All values originate within people, and they differ from person to person. As such you will always get differing values from person to person. 

I might not agree with what others think, but I accept it, simply because it is a plurality in values that lets societies and mankind decide what is generally good and what is generally bad.

Then, these societal values are not absolute or objective, but are inter-subjective.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 22, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> True. And, even when morals are based off of something, it's all subject to interpretation. The Bible is probably the best example of this anywhere.





Mojotech said:


> Well, that's part of what defines a society or culture- the moral values inside it. If it can't get it's act together, it'll fall apart too quickly to really be considered anything.


 That's one thing you gotta hand to the bible though, part off western society is based off of christianity, part off roman-Grecian culture, part paganism.  Part of what society owes itself to christianity, if it wasn't for christian beliefs then we would still have things like how the romans would leave babies in the wilderness and they believed that if the child survived it was because they were strong and if not it was because their gods deemed them to die and such.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's one thing you gotta hand to the bible though, part off western society is based off of christianity, part off roman-Grecian culture, part paganism.  Part of what society owes itself to christianity, if it wasn't for christian beliefs then we would still have things like how the romans would leave babies in the wilderness and they believed that if the child survived it was because they were strong and if not it was because their gods deemed them to die and such.


 
I can't really say Christian values are much better, given they had things like "Blessed be those who dash their childrens heads upon the rocks" and whatnot if we go by the worst each had to offer. I'd like to say it was people's ability to pick out the good stuff and generally gloss over the bad stuff that did it.


----------



## Rsyk (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I can't really say Christian values are much better, given they had things like "Blessed be those who dash their childrens heads upon the rocks" and whatnot if we go by the worst each had to offer. I'd like to say it was people's ability to pick out the good stuff and generally gloss over the bad stuff that did it.


 Picking out the worst of anything is going to make things look bad. There have been horrible human experiments done in the name of science, this does not mean that science is bad. Generally, it's best to take the worst of anything with a grain of salt.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 22, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> There is no such thing as absolute values.
> 
> All values originate within people, and they differ from person to person. As such you will always get differing values from person to person.
> 
> ...


 
By trying to tell us that morality and values come from within, you cannot explain the difference in moral law around the world. Since according to you, morality and values come from within, they must just be chemical reactions in us. So all we have are    chemical reactions, and you cannot justify your own  chemical reactions or    even say why your chemical reactions are any  different than someone    else's chemical reactions. Somehow, people are able to denounce what doesn't line up with their own personal standards all the while saying that their is no morality or values that doesn't come from ourselves.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> Picking out the worst of anything is going to make things look bad. There have been horrible human experiments done in the name of science, this does not mean that science is bad. Generally, it's best to take the worst of anything with a grain of salt.


 
Pretty much. Which isn't to say we shouldn't be trying to improve these things, or not condemning these bad things, but you also have to give credit to the good stuff where it's due.


----------



## Rsyk (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Pretty much. Which isn't to say we shouldn't be trying to improve these things, or not condemning these bad things, but you also have to give credit to the good stuff where it's due.


 Yeah. And being around an area where it's pretty much just good stuff can be weird. The church I'm going to now is pretty much solely dedicated to missionary work in Haiti, so pretty much all of their preaching is along the lines of, "Help us go there to build an orphanage this summer!" Meanwhile all my friends are cool atheist/agnostic, which kinda puts me at a point to see the best of both sides. It's very odd.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 22, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> Yeah. And being around an area where it's pretty much just good stuff can be weird. The church I'm going to now is pretty much solely dedicated to missionary work in Haiti, so pretty much all of their preaching is along the lines of, "Help us go there to build an orphanage this summer!" Meanwhile all my friends are cool atheist/agnostic, which kinda puts me at a point to see the best of both sides. It's very odd.


 
Yeah. Churches like that are great, I might not agree at all with the supernatural claims they're making, but at least they're not being an active drain on society at large like other churches so... *Shrugs* A lot of churches use their religion to be divisive or as an excuse to obsess about it constantly in all situations, as shown by our local board fundies, and that's no good- these things should be about love, dammit.


----------



## Rsyk (May 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yeah. Churches like that are great, I might not agree at all with the supernatural claims they're making, but at least they're not being an active drain on society at large like other churches so... *Shrugs* A lot of churches use their religion to be divisive or as an excuse to obsess about it constantly in all situations, as shown by our local board fundies, and that's no good- these things should be about love, dammit.


 Like that douche who predicted the end of the world. Again. 
Or Westboro. 

People like them give me a bad name.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 22, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> Yeah. And being around an area where it's pretty much just good stuff can be weird. The church I'm going to now is pretty much solely dedicated to missionary work in Haiti, so pretty much all of their preaching is along the lines of, "Help us go there to build an orphanage this summer!" Meanwhile all my friends are cool atheist/agnostic, which kinda puts me at a point to see the best of both sides. It's very odd.


 I think both atheists/agnostics and christians could learn a lesson or two from each other once in a while.  Like christians can't MAKE someone believe, and on the flip side of the coin I've seen someone defend string theory to the point you could call it their religion.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 22, 2011)

We get morals from each other. 

I don't kill you and take your shit because we've all agreed not to do that. If I *DO* start killing people and taking their shit, I exclude myself from the rules and take a significant risk of getting killed myself. What the rules of a particular society are is determined by what they can all agree on. Different societies in different places agree on different things in the details, but most of the basic ones are universal. Most civilizations involve an agreement that citizens will not kill each other, or at least have an agreement to what conditions it is/is not acceptable to kill. This is because a lack of random violence is essential if we want to get around to other things like eating and fucking. The nuances of the law are varied by place to place depending on a number of factors. One is necessity. What is scarce or sacred in a certain society may heavily influence their laws. In a desert society for example, there would likely be a lot of laws around "don't steal another dude's water." Where agriculture is big, land would be much more heavily guarded. Part of it is history and, yes, even religion, though it should be noted that just because two places share a religion does not mean that they will share a social code. American history starts with a search for religious and political freedom that ultimately lead to armed revolt. As a result, we place a very high value on the right to have our own ideas, and the right to defend that right by whatever means necessary. In a country that has a past based more around the idea of unification (Germany,) there would be less value placed on independence and more on unity. 

"But the laws in the bible are so perfect! They're such a functional societal code! Look how well they've done!" There are two things wrong with this idea. First, there's causality. The rules are in there because they are good, not good because they are in there. If the first commandment had been "eat babies and gargle with their blood," Christianity would not have gotten very far. 

Secondly, there's selectivity in which laws are paid attention to, and to what degree. The bible says a *lot* of things. The ideas that are still used today happen to be the better ones like the aforementioned "Don't commit murder," and the worse ones like "stone witches to death" have been allowed to kind of fade into the history books. There's a lot of interpretation of the bible, and depending on where you put the most emphasis, you can get all sorts of societies. Some, that pay the most attention to "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill," will do well. Others that get hung up on Leviticus and the likes... not so much. Stoning and bloody executions are not a good way to run a society. 


If you're still not convinced, and think that the world would somehow be an immoral shit fest without the bible (never mind that laws pre-date it by more than a few centuries), think about this: When was the last time you were about to rape a 2 year old and thought, "Shit. God wouldn't like that. I guess I won't do it?" 

If the answer is "never," then you should take a second to wonder how much of your morality actually "comes from" the bible, and how much of it is just reaffirmed by the bible. Chances are you're not actually inclined to be an amoral jackass anyways. Bible or no, you're just not programmed to act that way. 

If the answer is something other than "never," you need help. I've got nothing for you.

EDIT: And because I see some of you are starting this debate again...

*achem*

ATHEIST DOES NOT MEAN 100% ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WITHOUT-A-DOUBT SURE THERE IS NO GOD. LOOK IT UP IF YOU PLEASE. IT MEANS ONLY "WITHOUT GOD." AS IN, "DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD." 

"DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD" DOES NOT MEAN "BELIEVES WITH ALL HIS HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD AND WILL NOT EVEN TOLERATE THE SLIGHTEST THOUGHT TO THE CONTRARY." 

Thank you, that is all.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> By trying to tell us that morality and values come from within, you cannot explain the difference in moral law around the world. Since according to you, morality and values come from within, they must just be chemical reactions in us. So all we have are chemical reactions, and you cannot justify your own chemical reactions or even say why your chemical reactions are any different than someone else's chemical reactions. Somehow, people are able to denounce what doesn't line up with their own personal standards all the while saying that their is no morality or values that doesn't come from ourselves.


 
The chemical reactions differ from person to person, though. You do know that, right? That depression, and schizophrenia and various other "illnesses" are simply caused by imbalances in neurotransmitters. There is nothing to justify. They happen. We perceive, though, what the results of these reactions are. Perception and reason are what lets us develop moral values, and while such faculties are often influenced by chemical reactions, how they influence us differs from person to person depending on their perceptions of things.

One man says that Science determines everything, while another man says that God determines everything.

I cannot justify anything, but I can reason (as can nearly all people)... And through reason, I can determine what I think is good and what isn't. And reason works just as well as justification.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> Like that douche who predicted the end of the world. Again.
> Or Westboro.
> 
> People like them give me a bad name.


 
You know what Gandhi said, - "I like your christ, but not your christians. They are so unlike your christ." - Fundamentalists do more to drive people away from faith than any atheist ever could. =/


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> We get morals from each other.
> 
> I don't kill you and take your shit because we've all agreed not to do that. If I *DO* start killing people and taking their shit, I exclude myself from the rules and take a significant risk of getting killed myself. What the rules of a particular society are is determined by what they can all agree on. Different societies in different places agree on different things in the details, but most of the basic ones are universal. Most civilizations involve an agreement that citizens will not kill each other, or at least have an agreement to what conditions it is/is not acceptable to kill. This is because a lack of random violence is essential if we want to get around to other things like eating and fucking. The nuances of the law are varied by place to place depending on a number of factors. One is necessity. What is scarce or sacred in a certain society may heavily influence their laws. In a desert society for example, there would likely be a lot of laws around "don't steal another dude's water." Where agriculture is big, land would be much more heavily guarded. Part of it is history and, yes, even religion, though it should be noted that just because two places share a religion does not mean that they will share a social code. American history starts with a search for religious and political freedom that ultimately lead to armed revolt. As a result, we place a very high value on the right to have our own ideas, and the right to defend that right by whatever means necessary. In a country that has a past based more around the idea of unification (Germany,) there would be less value placed on independence and more on unity.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think I have ever said morality comes from the Bible. Christianity does not  claim that the Gospel has made the world a better by bringing us  turbo-charged ethical information. There have been ethical advancements  that are due to the propagation of the faith, but that is not where the  action is.

Paul refers to the Gentiles, who did not have the Law but who nevertheless knew by nature some tenets of the Law (Romans 2:14)

But the world is not made a better place because people can understand  the ways in which they are being bad. It has to be made better by the  Good News-we must receive the gift of forgiveness and the resultant  ability to live more in conformity to a standard we already knew (but  were necessarily failing to meet) 
So the Gospel doesn't contain new or improved law. The gospel makes the  world a better through Good News, not through guilt trips or good  advice.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You know what Gandhi said, - "I like your christ, but not your christians. They are so unlike your christ." - Fundamentalists do more to drive people away from faith than any atheist ever could. =/


 
One attracts more flies with honey than with vinegar.

So much soured mead coming from Richard Dawkins, and so much spoiled wine coming out of the Levant and the Vatican.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You know what Gandhi said, - "I like your christ, but not your christians. They are so unlike your christ." - Fundamentalists do more to drive people away from faith than any atheist ever could. =/


 The problem is that the larger a group is of the whole the chances of extremism exponentially raises.


----------



## Ames (May 23, 2011)

Can we just stop it with these discussions?  Seriously?

Have we nothing else to discuss on these forums?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> One attracts more flies with honey than with vinegar.
> 
> So much soured mead coming from Richard Dawkins, and so much spoiled wine coming out of the Levant and the Vatican.


 
I can't really say Dawkins is particularly angry, although he is possessed of the same kind of exasperation that most atheists have.



JamesB said:


> Can we just stop it with these discussions?  Seriously?
> 
> Have we nothing else to discuss on these forums?


 
No. :V Now you'll eat your religion thread and like it, or no dessert for you!


----------



## Unsilenced (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I don't think I have ever said morality comes from the Bible. Christianity does not  claim that the Gospel has made the world a better by bringing us  turbo-charged ethical information. There have been ethical advancements  that are due to the propagation of the faith, but that is not where the  action is.
> 
> Paul refers to the Gentiles, who did not have the Law but who nevertheless knew by nature some tenets of the Law (Romans 2:14)
> 
> ...


 
So you're still basically saying that the reason people don't kill each other at random is because of God, yes? I'm saying that people don't kill each other at random because they don't have a reason to. We as a society and a species could not exist if we did. There is no evidence of God to be found in the mere fact that humans are not madly self-destructive.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem is that the larger a group is of the whole the chances of extremism exponentially raises.


 And then those people have to be the loudest of the entire group. 


JamesB said:


> Can we just stop it with these discussions?  Seriously?
> 
> Have we nothing else to discuss on these forums?


 Not really. 
Besides, some of us enjoy theological debate.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> And then those people have to be the loudest of the entire group.
> 
> Not really.
> Besides, some of us enjoy theological debate.


 I like to think of it as a nuclear reaction, you can argue against it all you want, but in some places it is a necessity cause the alternative is worse and in some places it isn't needed, the benefits and negatives are constantly debated, but be careful if there is no safety precautions in hand it will blow.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I like to think of it as a nuclear reaction, you can argue against it all you want, but in some places it is a necessity cause the alternative is worse and in some places it isn't needed, the benefits and negatives are constantly debated, but be careful if there is no safety precautions in hand it will blow.


 Remember people. 
Practice safe sects. :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> And then those people have to be the loudest of the entire group.
> 
> Not really.
> Besides, some of us enjoy theological debate.


 
It's nice to be able to actually discuss these things with people that know about them, but having only the local board fundies (who don't fall into the knowledgeable category) gets really tiresome really fast on everyone involved and nearby.



CannonFodder said:


> I like to think of it as a nuclear reaction, you can argue against it all you want, but in some places it is a necessity cause the alternative is worse and in some places it isn't needed, the benefits and negatives are constantly debated, but be careful if there is no safety precautions in hand it will blow.


 
I'll agree to that partially. It's better than anarchy, unless it develops into a full blown theocracy. People feeling like they understand the world, even if they have to make up fables to do it, is important I guess and I can't really deny the psychological need for understanding, but then again I can't really condone self delusion so ehhhhhhhhhhhhh- I'll just say yeah, it's important to patch the sinking ship that is society in any way needed, I just wish there was a better glue sometimes.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's nice to be able to actually discuss these things with people that know about them, but having only the local board fundies (who don't fall into the knowledgeable category) gets really tiresome really fast on everyone involved and nearby.


 Yet again with the insults. Secondly, I actually have studied theology, which is why I posted that challenge to you, which you so clearly ignored to debate specific Christian theology.
But, in my talks with you, you have clearly no understanding of basic theology at all. So don't go around prancing saying "I am knowledgeable in theology because I read the Bible once"

I could go even deeper into theology if you would like. Like amillennial, post-trib rapture, or pre-trib rapture, peudobaptistic, non-cessationist, and covenantal.

If you want a good book to read thats on Biblical theology, then I suggest Systematic Theology- an intro to Biblical doctrine.. Be warned though, its over 1200 pages.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> Remember people.
> Practice safe sects. :V


 and don't drink the kool-aid.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So don't go around prancing saying "I am knowledgeable in theology because I read the Bible once".


 
I'm knowledgeable about Theology because I have read the bible entirely once, and studied the various sects of Christianity and the other world religions. You have to remember there are way more gods than just yours. Now I know you're angry at me, but you really need to stop this harassment, okay? I'm trying to have a serious discussion here and I don't need your trolling around trying to ruin it.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I'm knowledgeable about Theology because I have read the bible entirely once, and studied the various sects of Christianity and the other world religions. You have to remember there are way more gods than just yours. Now I know you're angry at me, but you really need to stop this harassment, okay? I'm trying to have a serious discussion here and I don't need your trolling around trying to ruin it.


 Oh speaking of which I finally got to read the "Pagan Christianity" book.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh speaking of which I finally got to read the "Pagan Christianity" book.


 
What'd you think about it?


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> What'd you think about it?


 It cleared up alot of questions actually.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It cleared up alot of questions actually.


 
Any in particular you care to share?


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Any in particular you care to share?


 Ah, I already knew the church evolved over time, I was mainly surprised at what level it has taken in traditions and that from other beliefs.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Ah, I already knew the church evolved over time, I was mainly surprised at what level it has taken in traditions and that from other beliefs.


 
Ahh, yeah. A lot of Christian stuff was borrowed from earlier myths or cultures, like the flood story and Jesus's virgin birth and resurrection being cribbed from earlier pagan gods like Osiris.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Ahh, yeah. A lot of Christian stuff was borrowed from earlier myths or cultures, like the flood story and Jesus's virgin birth and resurrection being cribbed from earlier pagan gods like Osiris.


 I just thought of something, why do they always paint noah's ark as a children's story?
That'd be like someone drawing smiley faces on dinosaurs when the asteroid hit.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I just thought of something, why do they always paint noah's ark as a children's story?
> That'd be like someone drawing smiley faces on dinosaurs when the asteroid hit.


 
Fact: A lot of the things we learn as kids is secretly fucked up. 

_Ring around the Rosie
Pockets full of posies.
Ashes, Ashes,
We all fall down.

_


----------



## Itakirie (May 23, 2011)

Why try to debate it? There's a very very good reason I go to youth group, yet even though the people in there are idiotic, I never bring it up that I'm Atheist. Besides that, they're pretty nice people, and I have to spend my birthday this July with them for an entire weekend. I need the least shit as possible.

But hey, if you want to go ahead, argue all you want with them. Just try to not shout obscenities. :V


----------



## BRN (May 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Fact: A lot of the things we learn as kids is secretly fucked up.
> 
> _Ring around the Rosie
> Pockets full of posies.
> ...


 
If you think referencing the Black Death is bad, try looking at _Mary, Mary, quite contrary..._


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I just thought of something, why do they always paint noah's ark as a children's story?
> That'd be like someone drawing smiley faces on dinosaurs when the asteroid hit.


 

The bible in general is not for kids. Incest, Bestiality, Witchcraft, Sex contests, and tons and tons and TONS of violence. If the book was written today, the song of Solomon alone would get it banned.


----------



## BRN (May 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I just thought of something, why do they always paint noah's ark as a children's story?
> That'd be like someone drawing smiley faces on dinosaurs when the asteroid hit.


 
It's no accident that most religious indoctrination takes place largely in childhood when a kid's critical-thinking faculties aren't exactly developed. The genocidal behaviour of a supremely powerful being encourages a fearful respect of God, while later lessons that God is all-loving if you believe in him removes the fear, keeps the respect, and discourages the children from doubting their faith. It's an intelligent, if rather dark, system.


----------



## Lobar (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well OP, because no one is putting yp any challenge to you, I figure I would take a stab at it.


 
The OP is being challenged in real life by his former friends that have begun the painful process of ostracism now that he let slip that he no longer believed.  He posted this thread to ask for help in articulating his responses to people like you that have begun tearing down his social network and turning his colleagues, possibly even his family, against him.  Nice job breaking it, hero.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The OP is being challenged in real life by his former friends that have begun the painful process of ostracism now that he let slip that he no longer believed.  He posted this thread to ask for help in articulating his responses to people like you that have begun tearing down his social network and turning his colleagues, possibly even his family, against him.  Nice job breaking it, hero.


 Hmm...
To be honest Rukh is being kind of a dick. Discussion does not necessarily mean taking a stand against something, which he seems to be doing. Not very well, mind you. 
No one challenged anything because there's nothing to challenge. The real question is how to debate things like religion, and perhaps avoid the ostracism that you mentioned. On that note, there's a few things that can help.
First off, do not say things like, "Atheism is more logical" in front of religious people. The only thing this accomplishes is making you seem like a dick with a superiority complex. In fact, avoid blanket terms in general, as this is usually the source of most shitstorm's in religious debate. It's something that both sides do often, but then get very offended when it happens to them. 
Second, know who you can and cannot broach the subject with. There are some people who, whatever virtues they may have, cannot get into certain subjects without beginning to froth at the mouth. Keeping in mind your current company can go a long way into avoiding drama.


----------



## Lobar (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> First off, do not say things like, "Atheism is more logical" in front of religious people. The only thing this accomplishes is making you seem like a dick with a superiority complex.


 
Problem is, logic is the entire draw of atheism.  Jesus promises salvation and eternal life in happiness, while atheism offers no comfort other than the knowledge that one has taken the most rational outlook possible, free of false hopes.  Nobody wishes against all odds to rot in a hole in the ground when they die.  If we don't argue logic, what is left?

Good to see you back, btw.  And Rukh is a dick, you've missed quite a few choice bits of douchebaggery coming from his direction in your absence.


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 23, 2011)

Morality for atheists is contextual.  It stems mainly from the selfish desire to avoid retribution from others by committing acts that others deem offensive.  It's like, if I go out and kill someone, that someone is related to other people and has friends who like that someone, so they're gonna' want justice (because losing someone who's important to you is painful, and gut reaction says that getting justice will ease that pain; this is biological).  So I'll either get served that justice, or I'll have to spend the rest of my life fleeing from it.  Either way sucks, in my opinion, so I don't do stuff like that.
If humans were less social creatures, we might have different sets of morality.  You know?
I might be a little more attentive to the 'every culture has similar laws' argument if we also found another species of similar intelligence that had completely different origins and behavioral patterns and yet still had the same laws as us, but right now it doesn't work because we're the only example of it that we have.  You can't make generalizations based off of one example.
So this is one of those story problems where the answer is "Not enough information".


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Problem is, logic is the entire draw of atheism.  Jesus promises salvation and eternal life in happiness, while atheism offers no comfort other than the knowledge that one has taken the most rational outlook possible, free of false hopes.  Nobody wishes against all odds to rot in a hole in the ground when they die.  If we don't argue logic, what is left?
> 
> Good to see you back, btw.  And Rukh is a dick, you've missed quite a few choice bits of douchebaggery coming from his direction in your absence.


 I think it's just a different form of logic. As I've said before, the orchestration of the universe seems far to precise for me to see it as random. That said, a large majority of what anyone believes is going to be based on what feels right to them. The problem with debating the existence of God is that neither side will ever have any real answers or proof to give. What you can argue is why individuals believe what they do, but that's not a discussion to have in groups. 

You are the first person to comment on my return, meaning you're my new favorite. :3
It's about time I replaced Jashwa.
And I'm sure I missed quite a bit of asshatness and douchebaggery from many, many people. Can't say I feel sorry about it. x3


----------



## Wreth (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> I think it's just a different form of logic. As I've said before, the orchestration of the universe seems far to precise for me to see it as random. That said, a large majority of what anyone believes is going to be based on what feels right to them. The problem with debating the existence of God is that neither side will ever have any real answers or proof to give. What you can argue is why individuals believe what they do, but that's not a discussion to have in groups.
> 
> You are the first person to comment on my return, meaning you're my new favorite. :3
> It's about time I replaced Jashwa.
> And I'm sure I missed quite a bit of asshatness and douchebaggery from many, many people. Can't say I feel sorry about it. x3


 

Atheists aren't atheists because it ''feels right to them''

Coming to a conclusion based on logical analysis is quite different.


----------



## BRN (May 23, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Atheists aren't atheists because it ''feels right to them''


 
What a sweeping generalisation.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Atheists aren't atheists because it ''feels right to them''
> 
> Coming to a conclusion based on logical analysis is quite different.


 Except that once you get into the questions such as why reality is the way it is, or why the universe is here, logical thinking breaks down. We're not even sure if the laws of the universe, which our entire understanding of things is based off of,  even functioned before existence as we know it. You could argue that atheism may be a model for rationalist behavior, but the end conclusion is no more or less logical than a belief in deism or theism. What is different is how it appears to you.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 23, 2011)

"Why" is the wrong question to ask an Atheist. An Atheist doesn't think there needs to be a reason. You ask why the universe is the way it is, and of course they have no response. There is no solution to that question. It just is.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> "Why" is the wrong question to ask an Atheist. An Atheist doesn't think there needs to be a reason. You ask why the universe is the way it is, and of course they have no response. There is no solution to that question. It just is.


 You don't. I know plenty of atheists who think there is, we just don't have the capacity to understand it yet. Some people choose to believe as you do. 
I cannot accept that the chain of explanation just ends at some point. "It just is," is not an answer. It would not work with any other line of questioning, I do not see why it should for one such as this.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I'm knowledgeable about Theology because I have read the bible entirely once, and studied the various sects of Christianity and the other world religions. You have to remember there are way more gods than just yours. Now I know you're angry at me, but you really need to stop this harassment, okay? I'm trying to have a serious discussion here and I don't need your trolling around trying to ruin it.


 
So you read it once and somehow you understand all of it...Yeah right. If you actually have deeply studied to doctrines of Christianity, then you would understand what I speak about. But clearly you do not.

And you are not trying to have a serious discussion. Its obvious by the way you type, I can pretty much hear to contempt in your voice.




Lobar said:


> The OP is being challenged in real life by his  former friends that have begun the painful process of ostracism now that  he let slip that he no longer believed.  He posted this thread to ask  for help in articulating his responses to people like you that have  begun tearing down his social network and turning his colleagues,  possibly even his family, against him.  Nice job breaking it,  hero.


 
Are you suggesting that ostracism as a last resort is a bad thing? Its actually in Scripture, Jesus first spoke on it, and then Paul did.
If someone is deliberately sinning in the church, then its the duty of the congregation to correct it. First by one on one, then if that doesn't work, 2 people come in bearing witness to each other about the problem of said individual. If that doesn't work, then the entire congregation gets involved. And if the said individual still doesn't turn, then the church is to throw said individual out. As per the words of Christ.
And Paul gives the reason behind this, because he writes to the church in Corinth, do you not realize if we let one in the church continue living in sin, the whole church is affected. This is not something the church looks forward to, but it is nessasary because said individual if left unchecked can and will drag the entire church down with them. 
So yes, Ostracism is Biblical.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And *Paul *gives the reason behind this, because he writes to the church in Corinth, do you not realize if we let one in the church continue living in sin, the whole church is affected. This is not something the church looks forward to, but it is nessasary because said individual if left unchecked can and will drag the entire church down with them.
> So yes, Ostracism is Biblical.


 Paul was a dick. And why should anyone care what happened after Jesus anyway? It's hardly relevant.


----------



## Bliss (May 23, 2011)

Do I sound dreadfully arrogant if I swipe this religion thingy as an ancient assumption to satisfy human curiosity when science was still taking baby steps? Evolutionary by-product of complexification of human cognition?

I _certainly_ hope so.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> Paul was a dick. And why should anyone care what happened after Jesus anyway? It's hardly relevant.


 
Because Jesus chose Paul to speak the Truth. Or do you not remember Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus?
That, and all the other apostles (including Peter) affirmed what Paul wrote was from God.

Oh, and Paul is one of the best examples of a Christian to emulate, because Paul emulated Christ.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because Jesus chose Paul to speak the Truth. Or do you not remember Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus?
> That, and all the other apostles (including Peter) affirmed what Paul wrote was from God.
> 
> Oh, and Paul is one of the best examples of a Christian to emulate, because Paul emulated Christ.


 But what about emulating the man who emulated the man who emulated the man who emulated the man who emulated Paul who emulated Christ? The longer the chain of people, the more flaws will show up in their behavior. As I said before, there is no one in the bible worth emulating beyond Jesus. 
Also, a crucial point of distinction. Jesus taught how to enter heaven. Paul told people who wasn't going to heaven. He taught exclusion, not forgiveness or acceptance.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> You don't. I know plenty of atheists who think there is, we just don't have the capacity to understand it yet. Some people choose to believe as you do.
> I cannot accept that the chain of explanation just ends at some point. "It just is," is not an answer. It would not work with any other line of questioning, I do not see why it should for one such as this.


 
You think God resolves this? 

"Why is there a god?" 
"It just... um... fuck."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> But what about emulating the man who emulated the man who emulated the man who emulated the man who emulated Paul who emulated Christ? The longer the chain of people, the more flaws will show up in their behavior. As I said before, there is no one in the bible worth emulating beyond Jesus.
> Also, a crucial point of distinction. Jesus taught how to enter heaven. Paul told people who wasn't going to heaven. He taught exclusion, not forgiveness or acceptance.


 
First you ignore the fact that Jesus called Paul to speak the Truth, and you ignore the fact that the 12 affiermed what Paul was saying is true. Third, we are to emulate Christ, and if following a disciple of Christ helps you do that, then we are to do it. Hence why all the apostles said, follow our lead. Because we follow Christ.
Lastly,Jesus also said who wasn't getting to Heaven. Jesus was also the first one to say, not all those ho think they are saved are really saved.
Jesus also said only those who die to themselves our worthy to be His, only those that pick up their cross and carry it are worthy to be His. Who ever disonws Him before others, He will disown before the Father.

So please, don't try and tell me what Jesus taught when you ignoring whole passages Jesus spoke about.

_â€œAnyone who loves their father or mother more  than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter  more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it._

Care to redact your above comment?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So you read it once and somehow you understand all of it...Yeah right. If you actually have deeply studied to doctrines of Christianity, then you would understand what I speak about. But clearly you do not.
> 
> And you are not trying to have a serious discussion. Its obvious by the way you type, I can pretty much hear to contempt in your voice.


 
I told you, I read it more than just once- But it doesn't exactly take a genius with a PHD to see the bible is full of flaws.

And just because you can't have a serious discussion doesn't mean other people aren't trying. It's kinda hard to reach out to you when your first posts on these boards involved you "Shaking with anger". :V



Rsyk said:


> But what about emulating the man who emulated the man who emulated the man who emulated the man who emulated Paul who emulated Christ? The longer the chain of people, the more flaws will show up.


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s Relevant link.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> You think God resolves this?
> 
> "Why is there a god?"
> "It just... um... fuck."


 God does not resolve, but provides another link in the chain of explanation. Simply one that we're not currently capable of following. That's more acceptable to me than just saying something is without reason.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 23, 2011)

So you'd rather it just be reasons all the way down?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I told you, I read it more than just once- But it doesn't exactly take a genius with a PHD to see the bible is full of flaws.
> 
> And just because you can't have a serious discussion doesn't mean other people aren't trying. It's kinda hard to reach out to you when your first posts on these boards involved you "Shaking with anger". :V



More than once isn't good enough Mojo. You can't read the Bible and understand everything perfectly. It takes a lifetime of reading the Word to understand it. And even then at the end of your life, you still will be learning new things from Scripture.
And, if you have actually studied deep Christian theology, then you would understand what I talk about.

As for anger, Jesus got angry and wrecked the temple market.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> More than once isn't good enough Mojo. You can't read the Bible and understand everything perfectly. It takes a lifetime of reading the Word to understand it. And even then at the end of your life, you still will be learning new things from Scripture.
> And, if you have actually studied deep Christian theology, then you would understand what I talk about.
> 
> As for anger, Jesus got angry and wrecked the temple market.


 
That's just it though, I understand what you're saying, which is why I know it's wrong. Few books are as at odds with reality and morality as the bible. Claiming this is the writings of, or inspired by, a supposedly perfect creator of the universe is nothing but an insult to said hypothetical being.

As for the second line, are you claiming to be Jesus? Seriously? You need psychiatric help.


----------



## Rsyk (May 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> So you'd rather it just be reasons all the way down?


 I believe that eventually there will be something that contains the reason for it's existence within itself. Maybe that thing is God, maybe there's something beyond that. I don't know. 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First you ignore the fact that Jesus called Paul to speak the Truth, and you ignore the fact that the 12 affiermed what Paul was saying is true. Third, we are to emulate Christ, and if following a disciple of Christ helps you do that, then we are to do it. Hence why all the apostles said, follow our lead. Because we follow Christ.
> Lastly,Jesus also said who wasn't getting to Heaven. Jesus was also the first one to say, not all those ho think they are saved are really saved.
> Jesus also said only those who die to themselves our worthy to be His, only those that pick up their cross and carry it are worthy to be His. Who ever disonws Him before others, He will disown before the Father.
> 
> ...


 I would rather redact your spelling and grammar errors...

I did not ignore the facts, I addressed them, and dismissed them. The disciples were not even faithful to Jesus when he was alive. If they were, there would have been twelve more crosses on that hill. Why should I believe that any of them were faithful after he was gone? 
As for the quote, it seems you're a bit confused. The last sentence clearly gives you a way into heaven. Paul did not do that. He just said, these people are going to hell.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> I believe that eventually there will be something that contains the reason for it's existence within itself. Maybe that thing is God, maybe there's something beyond that. I don't know.
> 
> I would rather redact your spelling and grammar errors...
> 
> ...


 
Sorry I made some spelling and grammar mistakes.

You dismissed the facts because you have no answer for it. So for you, its easier to just ignore it. As for the apostles. All of them were killed. Within 40 years of Jesus ascending to heaven, not one of the original 12 remained alive. So again, please check your history here. You are way, way off.

And again, I will give you another set of verses from Christ:
_Not everyone who says to me, â€˜Lord, Lord,â€™  will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of  my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, â€˜Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in  your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform  many miracles?â€™  Then I will tell them plainly, â€˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â€™_

_â€œWhoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.


_


Mojotech said:


> That's just it though, I understand what you're  saying, which is why I know it's wrong. Few books are as at odds with  reality and morality as the bible. Claiming this is the writings of, or  inspired by, a supposedly perfect creator of the universe is nothing but  an insult to said hypothetical being.
> 
> As for the second line, are you claiming to be Jesus? Seriously? You need psychiatric help.


 
Well first off, here you go http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2372308/
Everything I have to say on the first point is there. Read it or not, its up to you. 

Second point, I am saying that Jesus got angry, and my point is, there is something that is called righteous anger. Just an FYI.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well first off, here you go http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2372308/
> Everything I have to say on the first point is there. Read it or not, its up to you.
> 
> Second point, I am saying that Jesus got angry, and my point is, there is something that is called righteous anger. Just an FYI.


 
No thanks. I can only take so much of you in a day, and that's beside the point that , news flash, we don't really care about what the bible says anyway. Do you have any actual proof, or just fairy stories?

There is also something called "You Mad, Bro?"- Responding with apoplectic rage or personal insult to basic skepticism is probably bad for your blood pressure. :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> No thanks. I can only take so much of you in a day, and that's beside the point that , news flash, we don't really care about what the bible says anyway. Do you have any actual proof, or just fairy stories?
> 
> There is also something called "You Mad, Bro?"- Responding with apoplectic rage or personal insult to basic skepticism is probably bad for your blood pressure. :V


 
For someone who doesn't care about the Bible, you seem to be very opinionated about it not being true. If you actually didn't care, you wouldn't speak about it. 
And as I said, the sermon I finished earlier, answered your points. So its up to you to read it. If not, well then, shut up and stop carrying about it.

Edit: The proof is there, its all around you. (Because you won't read what I wrote on another page, I will post an excerpt of it here. 

This wide variety of testimonies to God's existence from various parts of the created world suggests to us that in one sense _everything that exists_  gives evidence to God's existence. For those who have eyes to see and  evaluate the evidence correctly, every leaf on a tree, every blade of  grass, every start in the sky, and every other part of creation all cry  out continuously, "God made me God made me! God made me! If our hearts  and minds were not so blinded by sin, it would be impossible for us to  look closely at a leaf and any tree and say, "No one created this; it  just happened." The beauty of a snowflake, the majestic power of a  thunderstorm, the skill of a honey bee, the refreshing taste of cool  water, the incredible abilities of the human hand-all these and  thousands of other aspects of creation simply could not have come into  existence apart from the activity of an all powerful and all wise  Creator.

Thus, for those who are correctly evaluating the evidence, _everything_ in Scripture and _everything_  in nature proves clearly that God exists and that He is the powerful  and wise Creator that Scripture describes Him to be. Therefore, when we  believe that God exists, we are basing our belief _not_ on some blind hope apart from any evidence, but on _an overwhelming amount of reliable evidence from God's words and God's works._  It is characteristic of true faith that is is a confidence based on  reliable evidence, and faith in the existence of God shares this  characteristic.

Furthermore, these evidences can all be seen as valid proofs for the  existence of God, even though some people reject them. This does not  mean that the evidence is invalid in itself, only that those who reject  the evidence are evaluating it wrongly.


----------



## Waffles (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This wide variety of testimonies to God's existence from various parts of the created world suggests to us that in one sense _everything that exists_  gives evidence to God's existence.
> 
> Thus, for those who are correctly evaluating the evidence, _everything_ in Scripture and _everything_  in nature proves clearly that God exists



WOW
Infallible logic right here. Seriously, "because x exists and people say x exists because y made it, y must be true"?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Waffles said:


> WOW
> Infallible logic right here. Seriously, "because x exists and people say x exists because y made it, y must be true"?


 
Its part of a larger Sermon I put up on my FA page. If you want to read exactly what it says, then go to my FA page and read it.


----------



## Lobar (May 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you suggesting that ostracism as a last resort is a bad thing? Its actually in Scripture, Jesus first spoke on it, and then Paul did.
> If someone is deliberately sinning in the church, then its the duty of the congregation to correct it. First by one on one, then if that doesn't work, 2 people come in bearing witness to each other about the problem of said individual. If that doesn't work, then the entire congregation gets involved. And if the said individual still doesn't turn, then the church is to throw said individual out. As per the words of Christ.
> And Paul gives the reason behind this, because he writes to the church in Corinth, do you not realize if we let one in the church continue living in sin, the whole church is affected. This is not something the church looks forward to, but it is nessasary because said individual if left unchecked can and will drag the entire church down with them.
> So yes, Ostracism is Biblical.


 
I'm not sure what's worse, that you're surprised someone would suggest ostracizing someone is a bad thing, or that you conclude that it's Biblical as if "Biblical" is so obviously mutually exclusive from "bad" that it can go unspoken.  Either way fuck you for justifying cruelty and I hope to end the spread of your harmful superstitions soon.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 23, 2011)

Rukh said:
			
		

> I made some spelling and grammar mistakes.



Yknow folks, in a way, this is an improvement. Usually Rukh's about the last guy to spring to mind when ya think of understatements.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I'm not sure what's worse, that you're surprised someone would suggest ostracizing someone is a bad thing, or that you conclude that it's Biblical as if "Biblical" is so obviously mutually exclusive from "bad" that it can go unspoken.  Either way fuck you for justifying cruelty and I hope to end the spread of your harmful superstitions soon.


 
How is it cruel if said individual is doing something that can and will harm the entire congregation. For their own safety said individual must be removed from the church.
That is how serious sin is. It can't be tolerated. God doesn't tolerate sin, neither should we. Now, does this mean we don't forgive others? No, it does not. What this means is, someone who is truly repentant will turn from what they are doing that is sin.

Oh, and is your last sentence supposed to scare me or something? What are you going to possibly do to stop Christianity? Christians are the 2nd highest group of people that are killed worldwide. Over 70 million of us have been killed because we follow Christ. So, please pray tell what you are possibly going to do to us that hasn't already been tried.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is it cruel if said individual is doing something that can and will harm the entire congregation. For their own safety said individual must be removed from the church.
> That is how serious sin is. It can't be tolerated. God doesn't tolerate sin, neither should we. Now, does this mean we don't forgive others? No, it does not. What this means is, someone who is truly repentant will turn from what they are doing that is sin.
> 
> Oh, and is your last sentence supposed to scare me or something? What are you going to possibly do to stop Christianity? Christians are the 2nd highest group of people that are killed worldwide. Over 70 million of us have been killed because we follow Christ. So, please pray tell what you are possibly going to do to us that hasn't already been tried.


 
I really wish that rapture shit had been true. Because then you wouldn't be here. _Oooorr_, how do you know it didn't actually happen, and you were among the many Left 4 Dead Behind?! Huh?! 's what I thought dipshit. So you can run and tell _that_, *homeboy!*


----------



## Lobar (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is it cruel if said individual is doing something that can and will harm the entire congregation. For their own safety said individual must be removed from the church.
> That is how serious sin is. It can't be tolerated. God doesn't tolerate sin, neither should we. Now, does this mean we don't forgive others? No, it does not. What this means is, someone who is truly repentant will turn from what they are doing that is sin.



"Harm".  "Safety".  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Apostasy is victimless (I won't even say crime), certainly nothing to orchestrate a goddamned mass betrayal of an individual over.  Shit like this is why I'm so glad to be well-read and spoken enough to do my small part in turning away people from religion.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, and is your last sentence supposed to scare me or something? What are you going to possibly do to stop Christianity? Christians are the 2nd highest group of people that are killed worldwide. Over 70 million of us have been killed because we follow Christ. So, please pray tell what you are possibly going to do to us that hasn't already been tried.


 
It's a promise, and I don't care how you take it.  Atheism is on the rise, and we have no intention of stopping.  And as we grow, we're more capable of giving support to those you chew up and spit out and undoing the damage you cause to people.  I hope to see you having to ostracize every last member of your congregation as they ditch your faith for reason until there are none left.  So please, don't bother taking it seriously, and maintain that holy hubris of yours if at all possible.


----------



## Thou Dog (May 24, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> So I recently became an atheist because it is much more logical. Unfortunately, I decided to tell my small youth group at church about my decision. They've made some relative dull points that I could easily debate, but if they do research they may come up with some more popular arguments such as The Morality Argument and Irreducible Complexity. I could probably refute these a bit, but it would help if I could discuss some arguments with other atheists to see some good points I could come up with. I would also like to raise some of my own arguments such as "A perfect God requires no worship" without making a total fool of myself in front of Christians.


 Atheism is a little more complicated than you might think. There's two forms of it: "There's no convincing evidence that there's no god; I will not believe in one until I have evidence", and "There is no such thing, period."

The thing is, the former is falsifiable, because however unlikely, if a deity did reveal itself, that statement would be falsified (and you would have to acknowledge the deity's existence). The latter is definitely non-falsifiable. It's like saying "There is no such thing as a green sheep". You haven't seen any, have you? It doesn't mean they don't exist. I have seen them, FWIW, and I was sober at the time.

They are both logical. However, by conventional understanding of how facts work, one of them is wrong.

In any case: there's no point in holding disputations with people whose opinions are not going to change. At best, you'll get them to understand that your faith has changed and that they can't change it back - whereupon they will either respect you while disagreeing, or they will reject you and punish you one way or another.


----------



## Thou Dog (May 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> "Harm".  "Safety".  What the fuck is wrong with  you?  Apostasy is victimless (I won't even say crime), certainly nothing  to orchestrate a goddamned mass betrayal of an individual over.  Shit  like this is why I'm so glad to be well-read and spoken enough to do my  small part in turning away people from religion.


 People are ostracized from religious congregations for reasons unrelated to apostasy. Refusal to pay their debts, for example. Refusal of a man to divorce his wife when ordered (by a religious council, called by his wife) to do so, for another. Apostasy is victimless. Cheating people out of money or freedom that is rightfully theirs... is not.



Lobar said:


> It's a promise, and I don't care how you take it.  Atheism is on the rise, and we have no intention of stopping.  And as we grow, we're more capable of giving support to those you chew up and spit out and undoing the damage you cause to people.  I hope to see you having to ostracize every last member of your congregation as they ditch your faith for reason until there are none left.  So please, don't bother taking it seriously, and maintain that holy hubris of yours if at all possible.


 For what it's worth, there are two religions that are growing very fast - Christianity, in all of its various strains and flavors, and Islam (also in all flavors).

So, those of us who profess faith in minority religions, or in no religion at all, just have to work toward the cause of equality of all - elimination of litmus tests, freedom of religion, prohibition on religion-specific legislation - in order to keep ourselves safe from the tyranny of the majority. That's just how it is.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you didn't care you wouldn't talk about it, now shut up.
> 
> Look at the trees and the bees! Where did all this splendor come from?
> 
> ...


 
I don't, but others- such as yourself- do. I'm also of the same opinon of the Koran, Vedas, Book of Mormon, and other such texts, but since there aren't any fundies from those religions there's nobody bringing them up. 
And no. :V

Well, the trees came from other, previous trees, or similiar things, and the bees came from other, previous bees, or similiar things. Depends on how far back you go.

And the last part is circular and thus pointless. Your entire post kinda revolves around you assuming your church is true instead of trying to build a solid foundation- We're doing it right, which is why most people don't accept the bible as fact. (only about 10% of the world population, that is 30% of 30% that are Christian of the world population, accepts the bible as fact and not just metaphor and fable.)

Well of course, they have the most people to die. :V Keep in mind though, that most of that killing was, in fact, Christians killing Christians for Christianity, and also that Christians have done the most oppressive killing of other religions out of anyone. And I'm sure your figure contains mostly folks from the bible, who are generally regarded as fictional, and jews and catholics even though you don't believe them to be "real" christians. (Which, yaknow, jews aren't to be fair, but they're generally included in those figures to help make it bigger.)



Thou Dog said:


> People are ostracized from religious congregations for reasons unrelated to apostasy. Refusal to pay their debts, for example. Refusal of a man to divorce his wife when ordered (by a religious council, called by his wife) to do so, for another. Apostasy is victimless. Cheating people out of money or freedom that is rightfully theirs... is not.
> 
> For what it's worth, there are two religions that are growing very fast - Christianity, in all of its various strains and flavors, and Islam (also in all flavors).


 
People are also ostracized for completely retarded reasons, such as that New Zealand 9 year old who got raped by her prest step-father, and everyone in her family but said priest was excommunicated, or scientology where people without money are ostracized to the point they die.

Also, unfortunately that's one of those statistical things every religion tries to bend in their favor. The fastest growing ones, by %, are Islam, the gentle Baha'i, and Zoroastrianism for example. High christian growth numbers have mostly been due to the ones doing the most conversion, namely Mormons, and births from Catholics, the largest denomination.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 24, 2011)

Mojo, My figures for the 70 million are people who have died just for being Christians. 45 million in just the 20th century alone. So, 65% of Christians have been killed for their faith have been killed in the last 100 or so years. More Christians have been killed in the last 100 years than then all the other years combined since AD 30. Over 10 million just by the Soviet Union. So no, my figurines do not contain mostly people from the Bible. Nice try though. For someone who touts statistics you seem to be failing miserably here.

And it is reported that 75 out of every 100 people killed for religious reasons are Christians. 
In North Korea, if they find out you are a Christian, you die. In Uzbekistan , if they find you with a Bible, you are thrown in prison for years.

The stats that I put up, are people ONLY being killed for being Christians.

http://www.opendoorsusa.org/persecution/country-profiles/

That link goes to a list of the 50 countries where Christians are persecuted the most.


----------



## Tycho (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mojo, My figures for the 70 million are people who have died just for being Christians. 45 million in just the 20th century alone. So, 65% of Christians have been killed for their faith have been killed in the last 100 or so years. More Christians have been killed in the last 100 years than then all the other years combined since AD 30. Over 10 million just by the Soviet Union. So no, my figurines do not contain mostly people from the Bible. Nice try though. For someone who touts statistics you seem to be failing miserably here.
> 
> And it is reported that 75 out of every 100 people killed for religious reasons are Christians.
> In North Korea, if they find out you are a Christian, you die. In Uzbekistan , if they find you with a Bible, you are thrown in prison for years.
> ...



http://www.dexterityunlimited.com/2011/04/27/help-help-im-being-repressed/

poor poor babies


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> "
> It's a promise, and I don't care how you take it.  Atheism is on the rise, and we have no intention of stopping.  And as we grow, we're more capable of giving support to those you chew up and spit out and undoing the damage you cause to people.  I hope to see you having to ostracize every last member of your congregation as they ditch your faith for reason until there are none left.  So please, don't bother taking it seriously, and maintain that holy hubris of yours if at all possible.


 
Its a empty promise and nothing more. There is nothing you can do to stop the spread of Christianity Lobar.
And Christians are ramping up their mission outreach. At the latest global mission outreach conference. Christians in China, the Philippines, and South Korea have pledged 300,000 missionaries in the next 20 years. 300,000 new missionaries. 

So, good luck with your so called promise.


----------



## Tycho (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its a empty promise and nothing more. There is nothing you can do to stop the spread of Christianity Lobar.
> And Christians are ramping up their mission outreach. At the latest global mission outreach conference. Christians in China, the Philippines, and South Korea have pledged 300,000 missionaries in the next 20 years. 300,000 new missionaries.
> 
> So, good luck with your so called promise.


 
sounds so much like a wackjob Bond supervillain gloating about his genetically engineered uber-virus that will subvert the minds of people all over the globe

I just had to stop and have a gigglefit for a few seconds


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 24, 2011)

Tycho said:


> sounds so much like a wackjob Bond supervillain gloating about his genetically engineered uber-virus that will subvert the minds of people all over the globe
> 
> I just had to stop and have a gigglefit for a few seconds


 
I am just letting Lobar know what he is up against.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mojo, My figures for the 70 million are people who have died just for being Christians. 45 million in just the 20th century alone. So, 65% of Christians have been killed for their faith have been killed in the last 100 or so years. More Christians have been killed in the last 100 years than then all the other years combined since AD 30. Over 10 million just by the Soviet Union. So no, my figurines do not contain mostly people from the Bible. Nice try though..
> 
> And it is reported that 75 out of every 100 people killed for religious reasons are Christians.
> In North Korea, if they find out you are a Christian, you die. In Uzbekistan , if they find you with a Bible, you are thrown in prison for years.



Yyyeah, those numbers sound exaggerated. Observe-

70 million sounds like a lot, but There are 2.1 billion christians alive today, and probably easily twice that over the centuries.2,100,000,000.
70,000,000 is 1/30th that, or about 3.3% Of Christians alive today. There are about 240 million Christians in America. But that's beside the point- 

Yes, and North Korea and Uzbekistan are known shitholes who will also kill other faiths that aren't the main religion (worshipping glorious leader or Islam) respectively. This is not aimed particularly at christians but rather at violently surpressing dissenting faiths in general. Same with Soviet Russie, who aside from the social pograms on many religions and minorities, actually killed most of their people through sheer incompetence rather than malevolence.


----------



## Tycho (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am just letting Lobar know what he is up against.


 
hwrrrrrr

christ's loyal soldier is rattling his saber

lol.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yyyeah, those numbers sound made up. Observe-
> 
> 70 million sounds like a lot, but There are 2.1 billion christians alive today, and probably easily twice that over the centuries.2,100,000,000.
> 70,000,000 is 1/30th that, or about 3.3% Of Christians alive today. There are about 240 million Christians in America. But that's beside the point-
> ...


 
So 70 million is  a small number now? Thats the entire population of Egypt. The only other group of people that have been killed more than Christians, are politicians. 
Also, North Korea is an atheist country. (Hey, you might like it there, they think the same way you do...)

Also, I do not agree with there being 2.1 billion Christians in the world. Because, as you said, its a small number of Christians who actually hold to the Bible as the Word of God, and not just a guidebook.

 Hence why Jesus said the road to heaven is a narrow one. "Not all who come to me saying Lord Lord, did we not do all these things in your name will enter the kingdom of heaven. And I will respond, begone from me evildoers, I did not know you." (Yes, I am paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So 70 million is  a small number now? Thats the entire population of Egypt. The only other group of people that have been killed more than Christians, are politicians.
> Also, North Korea is an atheist country. (Hey, you might like it there, they think the same way you do...)
> 
> Also, I do not agree with there being 2.1 billion Christians in the world. Because, as you said, its a small number of Christians who actually hold to the Bible as the Word of God, and not just a guidebook.


 
Relatively small, yes. 3.3% is a rather small percentage, especially spread out over 2000 years.

If you're going to hold to that, suddenly it's not 70 million "christians" were killed, since they weren't "real christians". About 600 million of today's christians are protestant, which for purposes of maths I'll round up and say constitute 30% of Christians. Of protestants, about 10% are calvinist- which is the only denomination which fits your rather exacting standards. 70,000,000 * 0.3 * 0.1 is about 2 million. That's about the population of kansas city. Over 2000 years. So 1000 people per year. which is about as many people die each week of car accidents in america alone

Edit: And then it gets worse, since the Calvinism was started in the 1500's, which means "true christians" killed is suddenly either quartered to 500,000 total- or 250 a year, which is the number of people who die of general accidents in their own home each year. In New Zealand. or halved if we go with your "back-loaded" value, to 1 million total, or 500 a year.

Similiarly, of those 300,000 missionaries a few posts ago, only 9000 will be "real christians"- Which is ignoring that missionaries are disproportionately mormon so the "real" number would probably be smaller. Suddenly, Christianity isn't so big, is it?


Edit, since I don't want to double post:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You need to understand the bible perfectly before you can comment on it!


 
You're asking for way too high a barrier for deciding Christianity is incorrect, because one can (and should) make such a decision after learning the important bits/basics- Putting so much effort into something you're not even sure is worth it or not is insanity given our limited lifespans-  and because if you don't, you run the risk of putting the cart before the educational horse. It'd be like memorizing all the intricacies of leprechaun mating habits before proving leprechauns even exist.

And also you're not asking for a similar amount of study needed to accept it, and I'm fairly sure you haven't spent lifetimes studying the scriptures of other religions (Islam, Hinduism, etc) who make similar claims before deciding to not accept them.  Demanding such extreme effort before accepting a decision only leads to madness- especially since you're asking for special treatment for your particular faith.


----------



## Rsyk (May 24, 2011)

As endlessly interesting as this is, I'm going to go ahead and start ignoring Rukh here based on the fact that he bitched about people ignoring his arguments, while at the same time ignoring everything I said after one reply. And probably many other points by everyone else, but I don't feel like looking back through to find the examples. It'd be like looking for every dead body in a graveyard. Just too easy, and a waste of time. 

So, a more important question. 
Does the religious aspect of the My Little Pony show bother anyone, or is it considered okay because their goddess is like, right there?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 24, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> So, a more important question.
> Does the religious aspect of the My Little Pony show bother anyone, or is it considered okay because their goddess is like, right there?


 
I'd say the latter, it's hard to say a particular deity doesn't exist if it's right there in front of you, drinking tea on a daily basis, and ready to ride her golden chariot to any corner of the world that needs her help.

Of course given what she did to Luna, she clearly has flaws, but she seems nice enough. The only annoying thing that could really be considered superstition is the Pinkie Keen episode, which has already been apologized for.


----------



## Rsyk (May 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I'd say the latter, it's hard to say a particular deity doesn't exist if it's right there in front of you, drinking tea on a daily basis, and ready to ride her golden chariot to any corner of the world that needs her help.
> 
> Of course given what she did to Luna, she clearly has flaws, but she seems nice enough.


 I think it's okay in this case for a deity figure to have flaws, since she's more of a character than something based off an ideal. She's supposed to be something children can relate to, not something that'll confuse them.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 24, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> I think it's okay in this case for a deity figure to have flaws, since she's more of a character than something based off an ideal. She's supposed to be something children can relate to, not something that'll confuse them.


 
Yeah I agree, she's very down to earth, which is a good thing. Also she's a princess because american kids think Queens are evil. :V

And also apparently Pinky Pie worships the Norse God of Discord, Loki... This actually makes sense somehow, given her chaotic nature.


----------

