Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi DOTL. Since I know you are intelligent enough to know better, I will assume you are just misreading or I have just poorly communicated it. The reason scientists give for not looking for a God or purpose for existence is they have no basis to expect to find one and it is not necessary to their work. As long as their concern is only HOW things operate and what laws and processes exist, they are correct. Atheists, especially my old friend Arq, think that automatically makes it a verified default position about the existence of God or a purpose for existence, which is preposterous since nothing about THAT is verified. It is just considered irrelevant to the pursuit of science.
Well gee thanks Mystic since you think I'm intelligent but no, I didn't misread or did you mis-communicate, it's the simple fact that we're on opposite sides and that always presents problems or disagreements. Scientists don't look for a god because it has no place in science, period. Science is about facts, theories and hypotheses and it, like I said before, is an on-going quest for all the answers. Just because you had an "a-ha" moment during your meditations doesn't mean god is real.
Quote:
Arach is just calling out the rabid anti-religionists among the atheists and the rabid fundamentalists among the theists. Religious fundamentalism poses a genuine threat to humanity and is a legitimate target, but NOT the existence of God. Militant secularism as it is being pursued poses its own threats to humanity and the potential dissolution of societal cohesion. Neither position has much to do with the existence of God.
I totally agree with the fundamentalism comment, it is very dangerous as you know that I know from extensive experience. We all are in agreement with that I think, but I doubt very seriously that secularism is in the same category. Societal cohesion is just centuries of brainwashing through religion, who says society is or even needs to be cohesive? It's not anyway, regardless of how hard the religious try.
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-09-2018 at 04:27 AM..
Reason: Removed extra quote tag
This thread was started May 22nd, which means we are now in our 14th day of learning how to defeat an atheist in two minutes.
No, we sorted that one on day Two - Shoot 'em in the head with Rightly Bared arms, and that's the only way you'll do it. Since then it's been a week of "Chat about anything".
Well gee thanks Mystic since you think I'm intelligent but no, I didn't misread or did you mis-communicate, it's the simple fact that we're on opposite sides and that always presents problems or disagreements. Scientists don't look for a god because it has no place in science, period. Science is about facts, theories and hypotheses and it, like I said before, is an on-going quest for all the answers. Just because you had an "a-ha" moment during your meditations doesn't mean god is real.
I totally agree with the fundamentalism comment, it is very dangerous as you know that I know from extensive experience. We all are in agreement with that I think, but I doubt very seriously that secularism is in the same category. Societal cohesion is just centuries of brainwashing through religion, who says society is or even needs to be cohesive? It's not anyway, regardless of how hard the religious try.
You are as smart as Paint, dear lady. Admittedly Mystic's clumsy attempt to cast 'militant secularism' as a threat to freedom and liberty as great as that posed by Right -wing Fundamentalist Christianity was not hard to see through. But doesn't it show that he's another one who will probably opt for the God -believers rather than the believers in his right to not believe what they believe?
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-09-2018 at 04:28 AM..
Reason: Removed extra quote tag
Atheism does have an agenda to push religion out of society....
And the saddest thing about this is that, while there is a battle going on to have a society where you can be an "Agnostic" without being forced to go to church and have your kids taught Genesis in the science -class and a court case going against you because the other side went regularly to church and you didn't, you..yes, I'm talking to you, Ozzie...take the other side and are opposing us here because At least the other side are god -believers.
Trying to push religion out of society is like trying to push rocks out of the earth. It's a part of society. We wouldn't even have society without it because religion is one of the most important building blocks. There are no sides to take in this as far as I'm concerned.
Trying to push religion out of society is like trying to push rocks out of the earth. It's a part of society. We wouldn't even have society without it because religion is one of the most important building blocks. There are no sides to take in this as far as I'm concerned.
It's not going to be easy, that's for sure, but with the right equipment, over time, you can do it. Religion, so far from being the building blocks of society, has foisted itself on society and claimed to be the building blocks. Refute this idea, and the only rocks one has to shift are the blocks in people's head to the idea that you don't need religion to have a viable society.
Trying to push religion out of society is like trying to push rocks out of the earth. It's a part of society. We wouldn't even have society without it because religion is one of the most important building blocks. There are no sides to take in this as far as I'm concerned.
You are correct that religion is an important building block of society.
However, that does not mean that the religion is valid.
In ancient Greece, the society was based on having many gods and goddesses. Does that mean the beliefs were valid?
In ancient Rome, the society was based on Roman gods and goddesses. Does that mean the beliefs of ancient Rome were valid?
Same for ancient Egypt.
Does the Middle East's predominant Muslim religion mean that it is the correct religion?
Southeast Asia's dominant religion of Buddhism mean that is the correct religion?
Societies with a Hindu basis...does that make Hinduism the correct religion?
And so, when people say no, that religion is not accurate or based real things, speaking out against that religion is also a building block of society.
Natural religion is a natural part of society. But people like to organize and write rules down. For that reason, organized religion will never go away. Even though the prophets of ancient Israel looked forward to a time in which it would go away.
Natural religion is a natural part of society. But people like to organize and write rules down. For that reason, organized religion will never go away. Even though the prophets of ancient Israel looked forward to a time in which it would go away.
Any religion is valid if it helps people behave correctly. I would rather a person who is mentally ill with a gun use religion to help control his impulses, rather than just go on a shooting rampage. Some people need written rules more than others. For that reason, all religions are valid. Yes is my answer to your questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we sorted that one on day Two - Shoot 'em in the head with Rightly Bared arms, and that's the only way you'll do it. Since then it's been a week of "Chat about anything".
Admittedly Mystic's clumsy attempt to cast 'militant secularism' as a threat to freedom and liberty as great as that posed by Right -wing Fundamentalist Christianity was not hard to see through. But doesn't it show that he's another one who will probably opt for the God -believers rather than the believers in his right to not believe what they believe?
