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.
To be honest, I'm not the monotheist that you are trying to paint me as, because I just don't know what the truth is about this. I believing there is Something, and that it is a mystery. And I believe that people are basically good, and that there are not competing gods. So I'm not sure what your problem with me is.
In practical everyday life what is the difference between believing that there is some kind of God but it is a mystery and believing that there is insufficient credible evidence for a God? I mean you don't have a set of rules dictated by a religion on how to behave or treat others, you can eat both pork and beef and not think being gay is a sin. You do seem to have something against the concept of one not believing in any Gods but yourself you don't have a real concept of one either. The only real difference is your constant effervescent to pervert history to make a point.
Perhaps too simple. I have spent a lifetime interacting with committed scientists, but have never met a "science worshiper." Is that an attempt to place people who accept knowledge gained through observation and testing and reproducible results in the same box as those who accept knowledge (more loosely defined) without any evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
Is it possible for God to exist? If they say no, a little cross examination will compel them to admit it is, in fact, possible. Then he does.
As already pointed out, that logic fails immediately. It is possible for many things... indeed, ANYthing... to exist. Pink unicorns, icebergs made of chocolate, the Easter Bunny, the Cloak of Invisibility, elephant herds on Mars, and on, and on, and on. On cross examination, I could compel you to admit that all are possible. Does that mean they exist?
Perhaps too simple. I have spent a lifetime interacting with committed scientists, but have never met a "science worshiper." Is that an attempt to place people who accept knowledge gained through observation and testing and reproducible results in the same box as those who accept knowledge (more loosely defined) without any evidence?
As already pointed out, that logic fails immediately. It is possible for many things... indeed, ANYthing... to exist. Pink unicorns, icebergs made of chocolate, the Easter Bunny, the Cloak of Invisibility, elephant herds on Mars, and on, and on, and on. On cross examination, I could compel you to admit that all are possible. Does that mean they exist?
Thank you for that post. My original university work was in the sciences, and despite working with geologists, meteorologists, and astronomers, I wouldn't describe any of them as "science worshipers". In fact, science is actually the antithesis of worshiping. You take all the evidence at hand and offer an explanation. And later, when new evidence comes in, you change your explanation. And, you admit it. Which is very unlike christians who spend centuries trying to justify the unjustifiable.
It is considered a scientific fact that since the universe is infinite, every thing that can happen has happened correct?
There is neither a consensus nor proof that the Universe is infinite or finite. It's a question that is still being studied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Saw a TV programme today where they have unearthed an ancient ceremonial head-dress (indicating some kind of religion) dated to c 9000 BCE
That's not proof of religion. The head-dress may only appear ceremonial. It may be a record of the individual's lineage, or of the history of the group, or anything else. Archeologists and anthropologists have a bad habit of classifying anything they can't identify or don't understand as "religious."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
All "gods" are a reflections of the One God. All cultures have worshipped the same One throughout history, because even the polytheistic deities are aspects of the One.
That's not what the writings of the Egyptians, Ugarits, Eblaites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Akkadians or Hindi claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Yes. People have tried to unite different cultures, mainly by showing unity between their religions. I'm sorry that kind of thing offends you so much.
Christians and Muslims united different cultures through force or threat of force, and christians in particular had no qualms about slaughtering Manicheans, Nestorians, Albigensians, Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, the Bogomils and many others who dared differ slightly in beliefs.
Christians and Muslims united different cultures through force or threat of force, and christians in particular had no qualms about slaughtering Manicheans, Nestorians, Albigensians, Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, the Bogomils and many others who dared differ slightly in beliefs.
I don't even know what the point of these statements is supposed to be. Atheists would have gotten lumped in with these same groups, and they would have performed just as many atrocious acts by today's standards as any of the religious people. Perhaps even worse.
I don't even know what the point of these statements is supposed to be.
It's factual evidence that refutes your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Atheists would have gotten lumped in with these same groups, and they would have performed just as many atrocious acts by today's standards as any of the religious people. Perhaps even worse.
No, not even close.
Thousands of rulers claimed to be descended of the gods or a god, giving them the right to rule; or to have been appointed by the gods or a god to rule; or claimed divine right to rule, for several thousand years.
An atheist wouldn't be able to do that.
Islam and christianity only exist today, because they are State-sanctioned and supported.
If Emperor Theodosius doesn't issue his decree in 382 CE, then christianity dies out after a few centuries, like all religions eventually do when they are not State-sanctioned. Instead, christianity survives until Emperor Justinian appoints John the Bishop of Rome chief persecutor of heretics in 533 CE, and John quickly consolidates power in the church in Rome, effectively creating the papacy.
That ultimately leads to the creation of the feudal system, under which people suffer for more than 1,000 years.
In spite of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment prohibition on establishing religion or preventing the free exercise thereof, Massachusetts permitted taxation to support churches, which brings us to Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53 (1820).
Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply. The court ruled that the factory benefits in the same way an individual benefits from any tax, and so the tax must be paid.
That leads to Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).
The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.
And both of those court rulings have negative consequences, since they led to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, US Supreme Court 558 US 310 (2010).
Atheists don't have churches, and have no particular philosophy or ideology, so there's nothing to be taxed, and nothing to be sanctioned by the State and nothing to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Quite...but then I didn't say that it was 'proof' old fruit. I said that it was an 'indication of some kind of religion'.
I never said you claimed it was proof, rather I pointed out the fact that archeologists and anthropologists have a very bad habit of classifying any artifact they don't understand as a religious item.
Thousands of rulers claimed to be descended of the gods or a god, giving them the right to rule; or to have been appointed by the gods or a god to rule; or claimed divine right to rule, for several thousand years.
An atheist wouldn't be able to do that.
Okay, I get it. You and people like you would have been the only "guilt-free" people existing back in that time.
The problem is, the religious fundamentalists are making the exact same claim. Since those crimes obviously go against their religious teachings.
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.
