What is the best.......

[Blake]

.......religion?

I won't mention Yoni's name, but a certain poster has stated he/she thinks atheists should leave and start their own country.

If you agree, this is your chance to prove that your religion is the best one for all of humanity.

So, For the sake of advancing society, which is the best religion out there?

For discussion purposes, I will and you may loosely refer to atheism as a religion, even though by hard definition, it's not.

Right now, I've got atheism placed in the #1 slot. I'd appreciate well-rounded, thoughtful, logical arguments against it being #1.

Thanks.

[Yonivore]

.......religion?
There is no best religion, they're all as imperfect as their adherents.


I won't mention Yoni's name, but a certain poster has stated he/she thinks atheists should leave and start their own country.
I didn't say that. What I said was, if atheists remain as intent on violating the first amendment rights of others' to freely express their religion, perhaps they should start their own country. Atheists are welcome to stay in my America.


If you agree, this is your chance to prove that your religion is the best one for all of humanity.

So, For the sake of advancing society, which is the best religion out there?

For discussion purposes, I will and you may loosely refer to atheism as a religion, even though by hard definition, it's not.

Right now, I've got atheism placed in the #1 slot. I'd appreciate well-rounded, thoughtful, logical arguments against it being #1.

Thanks.
Faith is personal but, for the sake of this argument, I'd say those who believe in God have done more to advance society than those who don't.

[Clipper Nation]

I didn't say that. What I said was, if atheists remain as intent on violating the first amendment rights of others' to freely express their religion, perhaps they should start their own country.
Evangelicals such as yourself violate everyone's first amendment rights daily by using the law to force your agenda on others, tbh....

[Drachen]

Faith is personal but, for the sake of this argument, I'd say those who believe in God have done more to advance society than those who don't.

I get where you are going, but this isn't really an argument for or against. I think the question out of all of the religions, and athiesm, choose one which does the best to advance society.

Someone can believe in god and advance society, but is it the tenets of this religion (or athiesm) which led them to their advances, and how?

[Drachen]

Evangelicals such as yourself violate everyone's first amendment rights daily by using the law to force your agenda on others, tbh....

Oh, just ignore that part, he doesn't like the push back from those using the same tactics as those who have been in power for so long.

[clambake]

its not faith..........its indoctrination from other humans.

[Blake]

There is no best religion, they're all as imperfect as their adherents.

not what was asked.



I didn't say that.

Does your God know how much of a liar you are?


What I said was, if atheists remain as intent on violating the first amendment rights of others' to freely express their religion, perhaps they should start their own country. Atheists are welcome to stay in my America.

What you actually said:


[QUOTE=Yonivore;6061735]Yeah, well, it's kind of why those English fellers, back in the day, came over here; to escape religious persecution.

I think atheists should start their own country.



Faith is personal but, for the sake of this argument, I'd say those who believe in God have done more to advance society than those who don't.

Again, not what was asked for.

You're a huge lying, hypocritical douche, but you are still welcome to stay in my thread and my America.

[Yonivore]

I get where you are going, but this isn't really an argument for or against. I think the question out of all of the religions, and athiesm, choose one which does the best to advance society.
Well, again, that's a moving target. I stated it as I did because, (and, I'm sure I'll say this imprecisely) I believe a faith and belief in God is a force for good. Where it becomes problematic for societies is, that at various times in history, many (if not all) religions' adherents have misused that association with their religion to take society backward.

So, if you're asking me which is best, at this moment in time? It's the one you hear the least about in the news.


Someone can believe in god and advance society, but is it the tenets of this religion (or athiesm) which led them to their advances, and how?
Well, I think there are certain tenets of every religion that, if followed, would lead a person to advance society. Christianity, for example, has as its principal edict that we are to love one another as God has loved us and as Jesus demonstrated during his time on Earth.

I think a person couldn't go wrong in following that.

[Blake]

Well, I think there are certain tenets of every religion that, if followed, would lead a person to advance society. Christianity, for example, has as its principal edict that we are to love one another as God has loved us and as Jesus demonstrated during his time on Earth.

I think a person couldn't go wrong in following that.

Christianity is not necessary to figure out how to get along with one another.

And if you can't adhere to all the tenets of a religion, then that religion has no merit. Imo.

[Yonivore]

not what was asked.
You asked, "What is the best religion." I don't know why that doesn't answer the question.


Does your God know how much of a liar you are?
My God knows exactly who I am.


What you actually said:
I know what I said and, it was in the context of atheists persecuting other religions, principally Christianity. If they don't like the values inherent in our society, they're welcome to start their own.


Again, not what was asked for.
It's my answer. Perhaps you should ask better questions.

[boutons_deux]

"atheists persecuting other religions"

You Lie

is there ANY right-wing/"Christian" lie you don't adhere to and propagate?

[Clipper Nation]

I know what I said and, it was in the context of atheists persecuting other religions, principally Christianity.
Not even possible, as Christianity has all the power, tbh....

[Blake]

You asked, "What is the best religion." I don't know why that doesn't answer the question.

k, why is your religion better than atheism.


My God knows exactly who I am.

so do we.


I know what I said and, it was in the context of atheists persecuting other religions, principally Christianity. If they don't like the values inherent in our society, they're welcome to start their own.

what inherent values in society do atheists not like?


It's my answer. Perhaps you should ask better questions.

You can type whatever rambling words you want.

Just letting you know that you didn't sufficiently answer that simple question and that your rambling answer isn't getting a response.

[Bill_Brasky]

:lol so now christians are victims? Oh boy.

[Wild Cobra]

Th problem is, not matter what a person's religion, they create their God in their image.

[clambake]

Th problem is, not matter what a person's religion, they create their God in their image.

no they don't. the image was painted by the humans that indoctrinated them.

[Blake]

Th problem is, not matter what a person's religion, they create their God in their image.

so why would anyone with the notion of helping mankind subscribe to a religion?

[Wild Cobra]

so why would anyone with the notion of helping mankind subscribe to a religion?
I don't have a good answer to that at all. I think it comes more down to people needing to believe that there is more after we are dead. Isn't the thought of death, with nothing afterwards, a bit scary?

One can say that religion was created by man to control the masses. I don't believe this angle, but I do solidly believe that the Greek and English versions of the Christianity word are tainted with intentional misinterpretations for that purpose.

That said, I do believe that higher beings, in a plural sense, actually exist. I just have doubt that they are as they are perceived by the human imagination when creating their image from scripture.

[Blake]

I don't have a good answer to that at all.

Nobody does.

Atheism #1.


I think it comes more down to people needing to believe that there is more after we are dead. Isn't the thought of death, with nothing afterwards, a bit scary?


Yeah it can be.

But I'm not going to make up something regarding an afterlife just to calm those fears.

That's for kids and emotional weaklings.

[wut]

To me, atheism is about denying religion, a way to not feel guilty about your conscience. Anyone who really believes the universe and everything in it was created from nothingness is denying logic. I'd like someone to prove Atheism, instead of asking people to prove God.

Also, religion is not inherently bad, and regardless of the religion, the truth is evil exists with or without religion, because humans are inherently selfish.

So to the point of the question, which religion is best to "advance society"? The questions is loaded.

Advancement is a relative term, and to me advancement might be teaching kids what right and wrong is, and that human lives have value. Teaching people not to steal. Teaching people not to covet thy neighbor's possessions (oil rich countries anyone?). If these sound a little familiar, it's because they're the teachings of Christianity; but I know they may sound foreign to some because we stopped teaching them in public.

our selfishness is what makes us an immoral nation, so while you might think our society is "advancing" by increasingly separating from religion...I think the opposite.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah it can be.

But I'm not going to make up something regarding an afterlife just to calm those fears.

That's for kids and emotional weaklings.
Well, there is probably one good reason people have such strong faith. I've had spiritual experiences. Now I don't attribute these experiences to a God, but have no doubt that we have a spiritual form. Believing as I do, I will never be one to deny that the Gods exist. I just don't believe in or worship any particular God. From my experience, it's easy to understand that people hear the word of a religion, be it Christianity, Islam, pagan, or whatever, and understand why they have a strong faith. I am in no position to say they are wrong.

[Blake]

To me, atheism is about denying religion, a way to not feel guilty about your conscience. Anyone who really believes the universe and everything in it was created from nothingness is denying logic. I'd like someone to prove Atheism, instead of asking people to prove God.

So God created himself from nothing?

I'll prove atheism after you disprove the flying spaghetti monster


Also, religion is not inherently bad, and regardless of the religion, the truth is evil exists with or without religion, because humans are inherently selfish.

So to the point of the question, which religion is best to "advance society"? The questions is loaded.

good also exists without religion.

Thanks for helping confirm religion is useless.


Advancement is a relative term, and to me advancement might be teaching kids what right and wrong is, and that human lives have value. Teaching people not to steal. Teaching people not to covet thy neighbor's possessions (oil rich countries anyone?). If these sound a little familiar, it's because they're the teachings of Christianity; but I know they may sound foreign to some because we stopped teaching them in public.

our selfishness is what makes us an immoral nation, so while you might think our society is "advancing" by increasingly separating from religion...I think the opposite.

Christianity also teaches gays should be killed.

barbaric and immoral, tbh.

[Blake]

Well, there is probably one good reason people have such strong faith. I've had spiritual experiences. Now I don't attribute these experiences to a God, but have no doubt that we have a spiritual form. Believing as I do, I will never be one to deny that the Gods exist. I just don't believe in or worship any particular God. From my experience, it's easy to understand that people hear the word of a religion, be it Christianity, Islam, pagan, or whatever, and understand why they have a strong faith. I am in no position to say they are wrong.

Interesting.

What makes you think those gods want you to live with them after you die?

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting.

What makes you think those gods want you to live with them after you die?
What did I say that makes you believe that? I have no such belief. I don't know what awaits us after death. I only believe that death is not our end.

[Blake]

What did I say that makes you believe that? I have no such belief.

I don't know what awaits us after death. I only believe that death is not our end.

so you illogically and irrationally fantasize about an after life, but stop short of details? If it were me, I'd go all out in my fantasy of heaven.

whatever gets you through the fear, I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

so you illogically and irrationally fantasize about an after life, but stop short of details? If it were me, I'd go all out in my fantasy of heaven.

whatever gets you through the fear, I guess.
I take it that you have never had a spiritual experience.

[Blake]

I take it that you have never had a spiritual experience.

unless you can prove yours, I'm going to take it that you haven't had one either.

[DMX7]

I didn't say that. What I said was, if atheists remain as intent on violating the first amendment rights of others' to freely express their religion, perhaps they should start their own country.

How exactly are atheists intent on violating the first amendment rights of others?



Faith is personal but, for the sake of this argument, I'd say those who believe in God have done more to advance society than those who don't.

Ignorant, overgeneralized, quixotic, right-wing fantasy...

[Wild Cobra]

unless you can prove it, I'm going to take it that you haven't had one either.
I can't prove something like that. It was my experience. How does one prove such a ting?

I will take you response as a "no" to my question.

[DMX7]

I take it that you have never had a spiritual experience.

I have, and then I started thinking rationally.

[Wild Cobra]

I have, and then I started thinking rationally.
Then you are saying it wasn't a spiritual experience in hindsight. Right?

[Blake]

I can't prove something like that. It was my experience. How does one prove such a ting?

I will take you response as a "no" to my question.

Until you prove it, I'll take your experience as make-believe.

[ElNono]

one man's spiritual experience is another man's broken lightbulb...

[Wild Cobra]

Until you prove it, I'll take your experience as make-believe.
OK, than I guess that's the end of this particular discussion. I don't need to try to convince you. I'm sure there are plenty who have experienced and believe.

[Wild Cobra]

one man's spiritual experience is another man's broken lightbulb...
I'm sorry if yours is broken.

I'm sorry for your loss.

[DMX7]

Then you are saying it wasn't a spiritual experience in hindsight. Right?

It was spiritual to me at the time, which is all that matters in the context of your argument. I understand why some people are religious, but that doesn't mean that understanding that justifies not criticizing it and the people who deliberately push religion for their own selfish benefits.

[Blake]

OK, than I guess that's the end of this particular discussion. I don't need to try to convince you. I'm sure there are plenty who have experienced and believe.

If you'd like to discuss your spiritual experience further, feel free.

I'm rather sure any question I ask will end in an ”I don't know” though.

But thanks for doing your part in making atheism #1. :tu

[Blake]

I'm sorry if yours is broken.

I'm sorry for your loss.

What have you gained?

[ElNono]

I'm sorry if yours is broken.

I'm sorry for your loss.

sorry for what?

[Wild Cobra]

sorry for what?
LOL...

It was a joke.

Maybe not so good, but a joke.

[ElNono]

LOL...

It was a joke.

Maybe not so good, but a joke.

Oh, okay

[AussieFanKurt]

As we said in last thread its the people. There is pitiful people in every religion. Religion gives people the excuse to discriminate etc etc

[Blake]

Religion gives people the excuse to discriminate etc etc

I think/believe so too.

[AussieFanKurt]

Since when it became a valid excuse to be racist, discriminatory or just a plain idiot.. I don't know but it'd be good to know

[Blake]

Since when it became a valid excuse to be racist, discriminatory or just a plain idiot.. I don't know but it'd be good to know

If you subscribe to the Bible being legit, then all of that was ok in the first two-three books of the old testament.

<6000 years or so ago.

[Oh, Gee!!]

unless you can prove yours, I'm going to take it that you haven't had one either.

I don't see how he could prove to you, or anyone, that he had a spiritual experience. What would be the form of proof that would satisfy you?

[boutons_deux]

Any religion or world view that ignores human physical and environmental health is bogus.

[Blake]

I don't see how he could prove to you, or anyone, that he had a spiritual experience.

I don't see how either.


What would be the form of proof that would satisfy you?

spiritual experiences being scientifically possible would be a good start, tbh.

[Juggity]

I don't see how he could prove to you, or anyone, that he had a spiritual experience. What would be the form of proof that would satisfy you?

A peer-reviewed study by a neutral/unreligious observer that points to a spirituality as being the most logical explanation for a given event?

[mingus]

I think the question depends on the type of person you are dealing with, or rather what social context that person is in. Atheism does not work for everyone, IMO.

[xrayzebra]

So mocking Christianity is the name of the game. Same game that has been played since Christianity came about. So you don't believe, then don't. And please don't mind if some us do. I always ask the question: You don't believe in Christianity and God. So what happens when the Christians are proven correct and you wrong. You have some really bad problems ahead. But if the Christians are wrong and you are right. Who will know?

Oh, and most Christians really don't mind if you don't believe, we welcome all who want to. We just don't like to be mocked just because you don't want to join us.

Have a great day and better week.

[AussieFanKurt]

So mocking Christianity is the name of the game. Same game that has been played since Christianity came about. So you don't believe, then don't. And please don't mind if some us do. I always ask the question: You don't believe in Christianity and God. So what happens when the Christians are proven correct and you wrong. You have some really bad problems ahead. But if the Christians are wrong and you are right. Who will know?

Oh, and most Christians really don't mind if you don't believe, we welcome all who want to. We just don't like to be mocked just because you don't want to join us.

Have a great day and better week.

And us people who don't like religion don't like to be mocked or judged but still do.

[baseline bum]

So what happens when the Christians are proven correct and you wrong. You have some really bad problems ahead. But if the Christians are wrong and you are right. Who will know?

What happens if you're wrong about which god though? By not believing in the wrong god, I will have likely pissed real god off much less than you have by worshipping a false god.

[AussieFanKurt]

What happens if you're wrong about which god though? By not believing in the wrong god, I will have likely pissed real god off much less than you have by worshipping a false god.

truth bomb

[Blake]

I think the question depends on the type of person you are dealing with, or rather what social context that person is in. Atheism does not work for everyone, IMO.

In the public domain, atheism absolutely would work for everyone.

Prayers in school, God's name on money, taking oaths on a Bible etc do not work for everyone.

[Blake]

So mocking Christianity is the name of the game. Same game that has been played since Christianity came about. So you don't believe, then don't. And please don't mind if some us do.

I don't mind that you do in the same way I don't mind people believing in fortune tellers.


I always ask the question: You don't believe in Christianity and God. So what happens when the Christians are proven correct and you wrong. You have some really bad problems ahead. But if the Christians are wrong and you are right. Who will know?

Please tell me what will happen if Christians are right and I am wrong.


Oh, and most Christians really don't mind if you don't believe, we welcome all who want to. We just don't like to be mocked just because you don't want to join us.

Have a great day and better week.

Some of us have a huge problem with Christians trying to push their religious weight around in the political arena. No John Hagee pun intended.

[Oh, Gee!!]

spiritual experiences being scientifically possible would be a good start, tbh.


A peer-reviewed study by a neutral/unreligious observer that points to a spirituality as being the most logical explanation for a given event?

these are both idiotic demands. do you two ask your girlfriends for scientific proof when they profess to love you? :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

I love my wife because Science tells me it's possible. Science told me that the births of my daughters were the most moving experiences of my life.

[ElNono]

these are both idiotic demands. do you two ask your girlfriends for scientific proof when they profess to love you? :lol

I hope you at least got a blowjob out of it, tbh :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

nm

[Latarian Milton]

I get where you are going, but this isn't really an argument for or against. I think the question out of all of the religions, and athiesm, choose one which does the best to advance society.

Someone can believe in god and advance society, but is it the tenets of this religion (or athiesm) which led them to their advances, and how?

immigrants have no soul in themselves, we know that. monetary profit is the only god that you shameless fucks want to worship tbh

[Blake]

these are both idiotic demands. do you two ask your girlfriends for scientific proof when they profess to love you? :lol

Idiotic analogy

[Drachen]

What is best in life ? To crush enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women.

[Drachen]

immigrants have no soul in themselves, we know that. monetary profit is the only god that you shameless fucks want to worship tbh

Crom laughs at your four winds!

[AussieFanKurt]

I love my wife because Science tells me it's possible. Science told me that the births of my daughters were the most moving experiences of my life.


Idiotic analogy

Agreed

[SnakeBoy]

Please tell me what will happen if Christians are right and I am wrong.


Depends on which christians your talking about. For the radical idiots you and me (I'm christian but not the right kind) will burn in hell. If you listen to the catholic church...


The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church

So as an atheist if you have sincerely looked for God's presence in your life and not found it yet you live your life following your conscience then you will recieve salvation. This of course is a very liberal interpretation, others would disagree. My personal view is that all men who feel regret for theirs sins shall recieve forgiveness.

[Juggity]

these are both idiotic demands. do you two ask your girlfriends for scientific proof when they profess to love you? :lol

The allegation of the existence of an emotion (evidenced by measurement of hormones, brain activity, other corporeal reactions) is not equivalent to the allegation of the existence of a non-corporeal being which cannot be measured or otherwise proven to exist beyond conjecture and belief.

I've heard some people claim that a god is measurable and can be proven — that the entire universe is the proof and measurement. But there has never been any causation established between the existence of the universe and its alleged divine creation. All we have observed is that it exists, not that it was thoughtfully or otherwise created. It seems supremely arrogant to assume that it was put together with intentionality. Why should anybody jump to that conclusion based on the evidence we have?

There's literally nothing to connect that conjecture with reality besides belief. I could similarly believe that there are 40 million ice cream cones orbiting alpha centauri, or that Scientology is the one/true faith, but that doesn't make either conjecture any more likely to be true. It just makes me more likely to ignore the millions of alternative possibilities while I remain ensconced in the belief that only my belief system, ultimately, must be correct.

[mouse]

I will and you may loosely refer to atheism as a religion, even though by hard definition, it's not.


And your proof is?

[mouse]

You're a huge lying, hypocritical douche, but you are still welcome to stay in my thread and my America.

:lmao
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/vlcsnap-258191.png

[mouse]

its not faith..........its indoctrination from other humans.

So you only believe in the Dallas Mavericks because others do?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

these are both idiotic demands. do you two ask your girlfriends for scientific proof when they profess to love you? :lol

There are analysis of brain and endorphin activity in both religious and emotional experiences.

There have been studies that have used magnetic fields to induce brain activity that some people associate with a diety.

The point is that scientists can 'see' both occurrences; however, there is absolutely no proof that something supernatural causes them and there are physical causes that have been noted.

Does that exclude the possibility of supernatural cause? Of course not but there is absolutely no repeatable empirical basis for belief in a diety.

Is there an empirical basis for physical cause? there is and as such there is reason to believe that physical activity causes emotional and religious experiences.

[Drachen]

Depends on which christians your talking about. For the radical idiots you and me (I'm christian but not the right kind) will burn in hell. If you listen to the catholic church...

So as an atheist if you have sincerely looked for God's presence in your life and not found it yet you live your life following your conscience then you will recieve salvation. This of course is a very liberal interpretation, others would disagree. My personal view is that all men who feel regret for theirs sins shall recieve forgiveness.

the emboldened is untrue. The position of the catholic church is that they cannot judge gods will so while they can speculate, they cannot say any person will or has gone to hell. Also, from the church's POV, you are a catholic anyway. ITHO all protestants are protesting catholics. You may reject that, but like I said, even if what you said was true (about not being the right kind of christian), from the POV of catholics, you are the right kind of christian... with some questions.

BTW, the italicized is also true for catholics.

[Blake]

And your proof is?

The dictionary

[Blake]

Depends on which christians your talking about. For the radical idiots you and me (I'm christian but not the right kind) will burn in hell. If you listen to the catholic church...

reason enough to dismiss christianity.

[DisAsTerBot]

Then you are saying it wasn't a spiritual experience in hindsight. Right?

spirituality does not equal religion

[DisAsTerBot]

religion is the business that evolved from spirituality

[Yonivore]

I could similarly believe that there are 40 million ice cream cones orbiting alpha centauri,...
Well, you could apply the laws of physics to build a compelling case that there are, in fact, 0 ice cream cones orbiting Alpha Centauri but, can you similarly apply those same laws to building a compelling argument of their own origin?

We have physical evidence to help us theorize about how the universe progressed from a point in time but, nothing to tell us what existed or occurred before that point.

If I understand correctly, there are some proponents of string theory who say we're just moving through a infinite number of realities; that every conceivable permutation of our past exists, as well as every conceivable permutation of our future and that we're propelled through these realities by simple variations or events that occur by chance or choice.

Let me re-phrase that; I think the theory says that every conceivable permutation of the past, present, and future exists and that we are only aware of one while all the other past, presents, and futures continue to exists simultaneously so as to say, there are an infinite number of Yonivores moving through the infinite permutations of the present and future while an infinite number of Yonivores are similarly represented in the infinite number of pasts.

That still doesn't sound to much different, to me, than John Calvin's theory of predestination.

So, my two principal questions remain, from where does matter originate and what defined the laws of physics (many of which we've yet to understand).

[Juggity]

Well, you could apply the laws of physics to build a compelling case that there are, in fact, 0 ice cream cones orbiting Alpha Centauri but, can you similarly apply those same laws to building a compelling argument of their own origin?

We have physical evidence to help us theorize about how the universe progressed from a point in time but, nothing to tell us what existed or occurred before that point.

If I understand correctly, there are some proponents of string theory who say we're just moving through a infinite number of realities; that every conceivable permutation of our past exists, as well as every conceivable permutation of our future and that we're propelled through these realities by simple variations or events that occur by chance or choice.

That doesn't sound to much different, to me, than John Calvin's theory of predestination.

So, my two principal questions remain, from where does matter originate and what defined the laws of physics (many of which we've yet to understand).



Ice cream cones are almost certainly too small to detect with our current instrumentation in the gravitational "wobble" of other stars, so the allegation that 40 million of them might be orbiting a star as distant as alpha centauri is nearly impossible to disprove at the moment. That doesn't mean I should go on believing by default that the ice cream cones are there. Some day, we might find a way to conclusively prove that there aren't any. But in the mean time, shouldn't we apply the rules we know to be true from the observations we have actually made in order to hypothesize that there aren't, in fact, any ice cream cones?

I agree with you that the questions of where matter originates and what defines the laws of physics are central to our understanding of the universe, and I definitely agree that we don't understand either in any serious capacity at the current time. Nonetheless, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that any one faith, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, adequately explains either question better than science might one day explain it. I can't countenance the fact that locking oneself into a particular religion shuts off most avenues of alternative possibility and answers any inquiry with a nearly unquestionable and immutable "truth" — especially when no observable evidence is presented to support this immutable viewpoint.

[Yonivore]

Ice cream cones are almost certainly too small to detect with our current instrumentation in the gravitational "wobble" of other stars, so the allegation that 40 million of them might be orbiting a star as distant as alpha centauri is nearly impossible to disprove at the moment. That doesn't mean I should go on believing by default that the ice cream cones are there. Some day, we might find a way to conclusively prove that there aren't any. But in the mean time, shouldn't we apply the rules we know to be true from the observations we have actually made in order to hypothesize that there aren't, in fact, any ice cream cones?
I think that's what I said.


I agree with you that the questions of where matter originates and what defines the laws of physics are central to our understanding of the universe, and I definitely agree that we don't understand either in any serious capacity at the current time. Nonetheless, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that any one faith, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, adequately explains either question better than science might one day explain it. I can't countenance the fact that locking oneself into a particular religion shuts off most avenues of alternative possibility and answers any inquiry with a nearly unquestionable and immutable "truth" — especially when no observable evidence is presented to support this immutable viewpoint.
I certainly wasn't suggesting it was an "either/or" proposition; in fact, many scientists -- astrophysicists and quantum physicists included -- have a belief in a higher being, creator, or God, if you will.

And, as for me, I think all religions fall short of "adequately" explaining either question. But, it is interesting that many cultures, around the world, have similar creation stories without ever having -- to our knowledge -- interacted beforehand.

I'm sure I'm, once again, being imprecise with the words here but, don't biologists hold the premise that life's singular purpose is to perpetuate itself? Can it be creation, itself, has a purpose and -- if so -- that it's purpose was defined beforehand?

[Winehole23]

I certainly wasn't suggesting it was an "either/or" proposition; in fact, many scientists -- astrophysicists and quantum physicists included -- have a belief in a higher being, creator, or God, if you will.

And, as for me, I think all religions fall short of "adequately" explaining either question. But, it is interesting that many cultures, around the world, have similar creation stories without ever having -- to our knowledge -- interacted beforehand.

I'm sure I'm, once again, being imprecise with the words here but, don't biologists hold the premise that life's singular purpose is to perpetuate itself? Can it be creation, itself, has a purpose and -- if so -- that it's purpose was defined beforehand?choppier than cole slaw. crazy comma splices and parentheticals, Yo.

[Yonivore]

choppier than cole slaw. crazy comma splices and parentheticals, Yo.
Stream of consciousness is sometimes sloppy, Yo.

[SnakeBoy]

the emboldened is untrue. The position of the catholic church is that they cannot judge gods will so while they can speculate, they cannot say any person will or has gone to hell. Also, from the church's POV, you are a catholic anyway. ITHO all protestants are protesting catholics. You may reject that, but like I said, even if what you said was true (about not being the right kind of christian), from the POV of catholics, you are the right kind of christian... with some questions.

BTW, the italicized is also true for catholics.

I don't think you interpreted my post correctly.


If you listen to the catholic church...direct quote from Vatican II

What untrue about the quote from the church?

Me not being the "right kind of christian" was in reference to some of the extreme evangelicals not the catholic church.

[Blake]

And, as for me, I think all religions fall short of "adequately" explaining either question.

Since atheism does not end with ”it must be supernatural”, it remains #1.


But, it is interesting that many cultures, around the world, have similar creation stories without ever having -- to our knowledge -- interacted beforehand.

humans falling for other humans' fables in unsurprising.


I'm sure I'm, once again, being imprecise with the words here but, don't biologists hold the premise that life's singular purpose is to perpetuate itself?

Purpose =! Ability


Can it be creation, itself, has a purpose and -- if so -- that it's purpose was defined beforehand?

Until it's proven, it's just speculation that has no business being validated in the public domain.

[LnGrrrR]

really, if you agree with Mouse on any subject, you should probably rethink your stance

[Drachen]

I don't think you interpreted my post correctly.



What untrue about the quote from the church?

Me not being the "right kind of christian" was in reference to some of the extreme evangelicals not the catholic church.

Oh the way it was worded I saw it as "the wrong kind of christians go to hell if you listen to the catholic church" thereby implying that the Catholic church is saying everyone else goes to hell. That confused me because a lot of others seem to think that catholics are going to hell (jack chick tracts!). I am guessing now that this was the point you were trying to make

[SnakeBoy]

Since atheism does not end with ”it must be supernatural”, it remains #1.


Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

[SnakeBoy]

Oh the way it was worded I saw it as "the wrong kind of christians go to hell if you listen to the catholic church" thereby implying that the Catholic church is saying everyone else goes to hell. That confused me because a lot of others seem to think that catholics are going to hell (jack chick tracts!). I am guessing now that this was the point you were trying to make

Yeah I was making basically the same point you did.

[baseline bum]

It always makes me laugh when the religious answer is we don't/can't know what happened, so here's what happened.

[Yonivore]

Since atheism does not end with ”it must be supernatural”, it remains #1.
I didn't suggest the answer was supernatural.


humans falling for other humans' fables in unsurprising.
I find the agreement, among the cultures, more compelling than the stories themselves. You must have missed the part of the sentence were some of these cultures arrived at similar creation stories without benefit of "falling for other humans' fable" to be the excuse.


Purpose =! Ability
No, Purpose = Purpose.


Until it's proven, it's just speculation that has no business being validated in the public domain.
Then you should treat all theory the same.

[Drachen]

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

No, it always ends with "we can only explain to here at this point in our understanding, here is what we think could happen but until we have a way of proving that, it is just a hypothesis. You can, however, bet that we will continue our quest for knowledge to prove (or disprove) our hypothesis in such a way that others will be able to get the same results as we did. Once we have that, our progeny will continue to attempt to poke holes in our approach and holes will likely be poked, but this is ok, because each refinement only increases our understanding of exactly what happened."

I understand that the above is longer and more complex than "god did it" but I feel that it is a superior approach. You may disagree.

[SnakeBoy]

I understand that the above is longer and more complex than "god did it" but I feel that it is a superior approach. You may disagree.

No I don't actually. Attempting to understand the origins of life, how we came to be, etc. doesn't pose any conflict with religion for me. Maybe for those who think God is a little old man who lives on a cloud and has a magic wand it does.

But when an atheist makes a statement such as...


Until it's proven, it's just speculation that has no business being validated in the public domain.

it seems worthwhile to point out that not all his beliefs have been proven.

[Blake]

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

it doesn't end with ”an invisible magician made some magic stuff happen”

Which is what this is ultimately about.

[LnGrrrR]

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

I wouldn't say atheism necessarily relies on science, but I do think it'd be hard to posit a non-creation based origin without some sort of science involved.

Of course, saying "It's always been there" is an option. It's at least as scientific as "God's always been there". :)

[LnGrrrR]

I find the agreement, among the cultures, more compelling than the stories themselves. You must have missed the part of the sentence were some of these cultures arrived at similar creation stories without benefit of "falling for other humans' fable" to be the excuse.

Every culture ends up questioning where they come from, and end up coming with creation myths. It shouldn't be surprising that nearly all of them come up with some form of creator, whether that's a god/s or some other supernatural entity.

In the same vein, cultures have used god/s as explanation for things they couldn't understand, such as weather, disease, emotions, etc etc.

[Blake]

I didn't suggest the answer was supernatural.

I didn't really suggest you suggested that.

You made a point that further confirmed my opinion.


I find the agreement, among the cultures, more compelling than the stories themselves. You must have missed the part of the sentence were some of these cultures arrived at similar creation stories without benefit of "falling for other humans' fable" to be the excuse.

If the agreement across all cultures was identical, then it might be compelling.

As it is, it's not compelling to most anyone that's done any kind of base reading on ancient world history.


No, Purpose = Purpose.

You conflated purpose and ability.

I've never seen a non ID hack say that life has purpose of any kind.

Even the definition of life is up for debate.


Then you should treat all theory the same.

I do.

[Wild Cobra]

spirituality does not equal religion

I didn't say that now, did I.

[Blake]

But when an atheist makes a statement such as...



it seems worthwhile to point out that not all his beliefs have been proven.

atheism is a lack of belief.

getting back to the op though, please explain why something like Christianity for example is better for society than atheism.

[Yonivore]

atheism is a lack of belief.
That's not exactly true for the atheists that affirmatively declare God does not exist.

That's not an absence of belief.

[SnakeBoy]

atheism is a lack of belief.


Oh ok, so you lack belief in the scientific theories of the creation of life and evolution and think that they have no business being validated in the public domain until fully proven.



getting back to the op though, please explain why something like Christianity for example is better for society than atheism.

I don't recall saying it was.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not exactly true for the atheists that affirmatively declare God does not exist.

That's not an absence of belief.

Technically speaking, atheism is strictly a lack of belief. A GNOSTIC atheist would say that their lack of belief is informed because of a certainty of the lack of god/s. An agnostic atheist (like myself) would say they lack belief, but don't know whether or not God exists.

Most gnostic atheists don't claim to be gnostic because of belief though; many will logically deconstruct any God you happen to bring up and try to show that logically your God is impossible.

[Clipper Nation]

If you really think about it, everyone's an atheist, as religious people deny the existence of all gods but their own, and everyone else just doesn't worship any god, tbh...

[Blake]

That's not exactly true for the atheists that affirmatively declare God does not exist.

That's not an absence of belief.

Degrees of soft or hard atheism are irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.

[Blake]

Oh ok, so you lack belief in the scientific theories of the creation of life and evolution and think that they have no business being validated in the public domain until fully proven.

Huh.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s)


I don't recall saying it was.

Neat. So what is your opinion then?

[Yonivore]

Degrees of soft or hard atheism are irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.
I disagree. Variant of all religions are germane to this thread. There are variations of every religion with varying degrees of (for lack of a better term) "evangelical" vigor. Some variations of Christianity are less offensive than some variations of atheism.

So, the variants are relevant.

[Yonivore]

Technically speaking, atheism is strictly a lack of belief. A GNOSTIC atheist would say that their lack of belief is informed because of a certainty of the lack of god/s. An agnostic atheist (like myself) would say they lack belief, but don't know whether or not God exists.

Most gnostic atheists don't claim to be gnostic because of belief though; many will logically deconstruct any God you happen to bring up and try to show that logically your God is impossible.
I was guilty of being imprecise, on this question, earlier in this thread or another so, let me restate my position; there is a variation of atheism that believes there is not a God(s) which is different than lacking belief. It's an affirmative declaration of a belief. It is those to which I was and continue to refer -- regardless of what is actually said in the course of the discussion.

[clambake]

pretty clear that yoni needs atheism to be a faith.........apparently to validate his faith.....that he was indoctrinated into by humans.

[Blake]

I disagree. Variant of all religions are germane to this thread. There are variations of every religion with varying degrees of (for lack of a better term) "evangelical" vigor. Some variations of Christianity are less offensive than some variations of atheism.

So, the variants are relevant.

please explain how the hardest of hard core atheists are more offensive than any variation of Christianity.

[Yonivore]

please explain how the hardest of hard core atheists are more offensive than any variation of Christianity.

Atheism and Mass Murder (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder)


"It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God."


"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

[Blake]

Atheism and Mass Murder (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder)


... Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation

Roflmao.

An unbiased source not filled with a number of logical fallacies would do a better job of proving your statement to be true.

[clambake]

damn pinko's!!

[Clipper Nation]

Sounds like a motherlode of baseless demonizing and logical fallacies, no wonder Y:lolni posted it tbh....

[SnakeBoy]

Neat. So what is your opinion then?

I think the world would be pretty boring if everyone believed the same thing.

[LnGrrrR]

I was guilty of being imprecise, on this question, earlier in this thread or another so, let me restate my position; there is a variation of atheism that believes there is not a God(s) which is different than lacking belief. It's an affirmative declaration of a belief. It is those to which I was and continue to refer -- regardless of what is actually said in the course of the discussion.

Usually though, those who say there definitely is not a God back it up with logical points. (Unless you respond with "god can't be comprehended logically" which pretty much ends the argument. Of course, they'll ask you how you figured that out...)

There are some that just "know" he's not out there I guess, just like hose who "know" he is, but most hardcore atheists I know (which isn't many) can defend their lack of beliefs very well.

[Blake]

I think the world would be pretty boring if everyone believed the same thing.

yeah, I can see how world peace might be boring to some.

[SnakeBoy]

yeah, I can see how world peace might be boring to some.

Comrade, maybe someday you'll have your wish and everyone will be the same.

[Blake]

Comrade, maybe someday you'll have your wish and everyone will be the same.

I sense sarcasm so I'll ask:

What is a negative of everyone together believing in world peace other than it being ”boring”?

[LnGrrrR]

I sense sarcasm so I'll ask:

What is a negative of everyone together believing in world peace other than it being ”boring”?

Answering for him but...

Even if everyone didn't believe in a God, that certainly wouldn't assure world peace.

And everyone may believe in world peace, but doing takes a lot more work. Not to mention the logistical difficulties of actually trying to achieve that...

Then also you'd have to probably curb some liberties in order to gain that peace, unless you're brainwashing a few billion people.

[Blake]

I think world peace is logistically possible without curbing liberties, if everyone believed in such a possibility.

[AussieFanKurt]

I have to agree with LnG, world peace doesn't come about by no religion or belief in god.

It could help but I think ignorance and general hate of a culture (religion can be included in this somewhat) fuels war etc.

[SnakeBoy]

You are really moving the goal posts around Blake. You originally asked which religion (or atheism) was best for society. Now you have replaced that with "world peace" which has nothing to do with your original premise.

[Blake]

I have to agree with LnG, world peace doesn't come about by no religion or belief in god.

It could help but I think ignorance and general hate of a culture (religion can be included in this somewhat) fuels war etc.

I agree with both of you.

[Blake]

You are really moving the goal posts around Blake. You originally asked which religion (or atheism) was best for society. Now you have replaced that with "world peace" which has nothing to do with your original premise.

No I didn't.

I asked for your opinion based on the original question. You went off on a tangent.

I simply played along by pointing out the flaw in your tangent.

Feel free to get back to my op at any time.

[DMC]

I think world peace is logistically possible without curbing liberties, if everyone believed in such a possibility.
It's actually not possible at all unless everyone is dead. Even then the animals are killing each other, and even plants are eating insects at an alarming rate.

As long as people feel they have rights, they feel they are entitled to use force to defend them. I think I have the right to own land, and you think it's a free country. You trespass and I shoot you. Both of us exercising our rights, you getting shot. Those types of scenarios will always happen. Hell, even when there was only Cain and Abel, they fought over what, the affection of an invisible sky buddy because one person burnt an animal and the other only had fruit or some shit. God has always despised the vegan. That's why he didn't allow them to eat apples but it was ok to kill and eat an animal.

[LnGrrrR]

I think world peace is logistically possible without curbing liberties, if everyone believed in such a possibility.

Logistically? Possible. But realistically? Highly improbable. (Like... Hubble Telescope high.)

[Blake]

It's actually not possible at all unless everyone is dead. Even then the animals are killing each other, and even plants are eating insects at an alarming rate.

You're comparing us to animals? I think it's safe to say humans on the whole generally believe killing is bad.

That said, if we want to continue this tangent, we'd have to delve into what we all feel world peace means.

I'd rather not, tbh.


As long as people feel they have rights, they feel they are entitled to use force to defend them. I think I have the right to own land, and you think it's a free country. You trespass and I shoot you. Both of us exercising our rights, you getting shot. Those types of scenarios will always happen. Hell, even when there was only Cain and Abel, they fought over what, the affection of an invisible sky buddy because one person burnt an animal and the other only had fruit or some shit. God has always despised the vegan. That's why he didn't allow them to eat apples but it was ok to kill and eat an animal.

I disagree that we have a natural born right to own land.

But that's a whole different tangent.

[SnakeBoy]

You went off on a tangent.


What was my tangent?

[DMC]

You're comparing us to animals? I think it's safe to say humans on the whole generally believe killing is bad.

When it's being done to them, sure.


That said, if we want to continue this tangent, we'd have to delve into what we all feel world peace means.

It means the world is at peace, no skirmishes, no wars, no in-fighting, no political coups, no domestic violence, no murder, no rape or pillage, no ill will to another human or animal or oneself.


I'd rather not, tbh.

Suit yourself, you're only adding to the fire.


I disagree that we have a natural born right to own land.

So you get shot, like I said.


But that's a whole different tangent.
cosined

[AFBlue]

Every religion (not including Atheism, because it's a non-religion) has an aspect of promoting the "good" within humanity as a path to salvation or enlightenment. I guess I'd say the religions who hold that as a pre-requisite to acheive salvation/higher state are probably more effective.

Having said all that, I don't think any religion is better than another.

[DMC]

Don't capitalize atheism. It gives religious nuts ammo to say it's a religion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Every religion (not including Atheism, because it's a non-religion) has an aspect of promoting the "good" within humanity as a path to salvation or enlightenment. I guess I'd say the religions who hold that as a pre-requisite to acheive salvation/higher state are probably more effective.

Having said all that, I don't think any religion is better than another.

good is relative and its dependent of interpretation. Leviticus version of 'good' would result in prison time.

[Blake]

What was my tangent?


I think the world would be pretty boring if everyone believed the same thing.

Keep up. Especially with your own posts.