Hello:

I'm an atheist. However, I've never found the need to bond with other atheists. Indeed, in my view, an organization for atheists is an anathema to atheism. In fact, I don't believe there IS an atheist organization. Simply put, they don't exist.

Besides that, a very good reason of why most atheists would never dream of joining an atheistic organization is because most atheistic organizations are not atheistic at all, they're shills for ideological commitments other-than-atheism.

And when I say other-than-atheism, I of course mean self-described leftist organizations. Humanism, vegetarianism, identity politics, and all sorts of patent nonsense go under the umbrella of atheism, as any jaunt around the net or an appearance at your local atheist organization will show you.

These are organizations designed to get you to DO something. Don't buy what they're selling. They're NOT atheists. True atheists don't want YOU to DO anything. What they really want is to be left alone.

No?

excon

I see where you are coming from.
I don't feel the need to belong to any group.. I like helping people out when the chance arises or animals, the environment... but I just don't want to belong. I sometimes write letters for a cause and give a few bucks to things I believe in.

No church, no groups. Just leave me the heck alone... I'm happy. Don't except crap out of me. I'll give and march if I want to, if I can. Just because it's a law don't make it right, I may even try to slip around the laws I don't believe in... but that's me. I'm just out in the universe wandering around I don't call myself anything.

I think it is necessary to make a distinction between the two moralities- the morality of religion and the morality of civic- human rights:
Universal rights to which every person is entitled because they are justified by a moral standard that stands above the laws of any individual nation; best enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

On the other hand, I don't believe Atheism is justified in defending the defamation of religion.

When the Morality of Religion conflicts with the Morality of Universal Human Rights I think there should be organized opposition, as there is in many countries today.

Hello DC:

Moral is moral and can't be parsed. It's like pregnant. You either are, or you aren't.

IF religion under the guise of morality, is being immoral, then it's immoral and I don't care what THEY call it. If that's the case, then that immorality must be challenged.

I do it one on one here, but the problem is that real atheists don't band together to challenge anybody. Other people with other agendas do, and call it atheism.

In fact, it shouldn't even be called atheism, because the "isim" part connotes a movement of some kind. The point of my post is to report that there IS no movement.

excon

No man is an island . Humans natuarally flock if nothing more than to experience fellowship and sense a of belonging .

Therein lies the church of atheism . Jesus said "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am ";thus establishing a very broad definition of what a church is . The same could be said I surmise by a gathering of free thinkers .

Hello again, tom:

Well, I do get all warm a fuzzy when jillian says something brilliant about atheists.

excon

My philosophy teacher of 20 years back told me that atheists must believe there is a god so that they have something NOT to believe in. That statement is about the only thing I remember from that class. It gave me a headache then, and still does. My prof was an ordained Lutheran minister, not that he was biased or anything - right.

I want to believe that there are other beings in the universe, hopefully superior or more advanced simply because it is a little depressing to think we're the best of the bunch.

I was forced to take religion courses by the university I attended. It only reinforced that religion is not for me.

Could the reason there is no organized group of atheists be because since we are free thinkers, no two people think the same way enough to form a group?

Yeah, there is always someone wanting to tell the world the way it 'should be,' and not recognizing the way it is. The facts are that there are many Atheist and secular organizations and just because you don't want to belong is your business, but that don't change that fact anymore than because you believe there is only one moral entity that changes the fact there is more than one.

This "misplaced idealism" of the "ideal state" and "ideal way of life" is individualistic, and subjective.

Hello again, tom:

Well, I do get all warm a fuzzy when jillian says something brilliant about atheists.

excon

Aw, shucks, I'm blushing! :o

I see your point, though. It seems the atheist organizations have other agendas in mind, but I think that's only natural when you get a band of people together.

Does this make them bad? I don't think so, at least no more "bad" than any other activist group.


Jesus said "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am "

Well that's mighty convenient...

Hello DC:
I do it one on one here, but the problem is that real atheists don't band together to challenge anybody.
excon

I respectfully disagree. I think the atheists on this web site do a fine job of banding together and challenging people. I see it all the time on the Christian threads. But, when you challenge someone else's belief system or knowledge (or lack thereof, whatever the case may be), it upsets them. Why purposely upset people? You may think they are wrong, and they may be. So what? Let them be wrong. Those religious threads or opinion threads really don't have any right or wrong answers if you are sticking to the topic and don't go off on tangents. Why is it so important for people to insist they are right all the time? That is where the true problems lie. Now, if you just love to debate and argue, and you feel the overwhelming desire to proclaim loudly that you are right and they are wrong, well then, just be prepared for the anger that ensues. Personally, I would rather leave the arguing between all the different Christian sects. Let them annoy the crapola out of each other. It will eventually lead some of them to question their faith and fall off those self-righteous soapboxes they have placed themselves upon. :D

I agree with your statements Excon. I don't see the need for atheists to join an atheism organisation. Seems to me that it ceases being atheism in some ways. I am an atheist and I will support my view all day long but I won't shout it from the roof tops or join an organisation to shout for me. Sort of like what Ruby said, ill leave that to the church organisations.

Atheists who have a problem with the religion are as bad as religious types having a problem with me being an atheist as far as I'm concerned. To each there own, even if it is wrong :)

I respectfully disagree. I think the atheists on this web site do a fine job of banding together and challenging people. I see it all the time on the Christian threads. But, when you challenge someone else's belief system or knowledge (or lack thereof, whatever the case may be), it upsets them. Why purposely upset people? You may think they are wrong, and they may be. So what? Let them be wrong. Those religious threads or opinion threads really don't have any right or wrong answers if you are sticking to the topic and don't go off on tangents. Why is it so important for people to insist they are right all the time? That is where the true problems lie. Now, if you just love to debate and argue, and you feel the overwhelming desire to proclaim loudly that you are right and they are wrong, well then, just be prepared for the anger that ensues. Personally, I would rather leave the arguing between all the different Christian sects. Let them annoy the crapola out of each other. It will eventually lead some of them to question their faith and fall off those self-righteous soapboxes they have placed themselves upon. :D

Birds of a feather... :)

You have a point, especially about the threads on this site. I know I'm guilty of taking things too far at times, and certainly there are others still here and some who have moved on who seemed to declare a "war" of sorts.

For me, it's just too difficult to let the intolerance go sometimes. It's my hope, in most cases, to present the opposing viewpoint so that maybe someone, MAYBE, will see things from another perspective. The long gone "Atheists Do Not Believe - How?" thread is a good example. Sometimes it gets taken too far, and when it does, it ruins the conversation. Personally, I try to avoid the threads specifically about faith (current ones such as "Mark 7:31-36", the "Abortion Ban in the Bible" thread and "For Believers Only") because my goal is not to insult others. And I've got to say, I haven't seen a single self-righteous individual on EITHER side get down off their soapbox... in fact, I usually see them just leave the site when they don't like the responses they are getting!

For me, it's just too difficult to let the intolerance go sometimes. It's my hope, in most cases, to present the opposing viewpoint so that maybe someone, MAYBE, will see things from another perspective. The long gone "Atheists Do Not Believe - How?" thread is a good example. Sometimes it gets taken too far, and when it does, it ruins the conversation. Personally, I try to avoid the threads specifically about faith (current ones such as "Mark 7:31-36", the "Abortion Ban in the Bible" thread and "For Believers Only") because my goal is not to insult others. And I've gotta say, I haven't seen a single self-righteous individual on EITHER side get down off their soapbox.... in fact, I usually see them just leave the site when they don't like the responses they are getting!
There are threads created under Christianity which, IMO, don't really belong there. "Prayer in school" and that "Happy Holidays" threads. But, they were started by Christians and even though it appears all opinions are welcome, in actuality, they are not. We are reminded constantly by the Christian responders when they get frustrated and upset, that "this is a Christian thread." That tells me either one of two things. 1. The original intention in posting there was actually not to collect opinions from every camp but, to have their own kind agree with them and make them feel better about whatever propelled them to post in the first place. 2. They view those boards as their area to share a camaraderie with fellow Christians. The "why" of number two is various. It depends on the person and what is happening in their life.

I completely understand the difficulty people have with what they view as an intolerant viewpoint. Remember, the Christians feel the same way you do about your viewpoints. It is human nature to get one's opinions heard or correct something we view as wrong. But, do any of you truly believe that your input will get someone to agree they might be wrong ? The only people you possibly might reach are the teens or young adults who are already questioning their faith. But, those people show up in many other areas of the site and are looking for answers everywhere. As to all the others that show up, the entrenched ones, they are already very acutely aware of your viewpoints. They deal with it all the time in their daily lives, and they have outright rejected those other ideas. So, you are in essence, talking to a wall. You are right, no one will get off their soapboxes. I only threw that in as a joke. The people who get frustrated and angry leave the site. What does that accomplish? It might make some of the Atheists happy because then they don't have to deal with these people anymore. But, the purpose of this site is not to run people "out of town." The owners want people to come back and use it. I understand the fear that the very religious will overrun the boards. That has happened on other sites. But, we have a staff of Admin & Moderators who won't allow that to happen. AND, when the very religious wander into other areas, we have enough members who will set them straight.

All I am saying here (to everyone) is when it comes to the religious threads, when an opinion is asked for, state it. Explain why you feel the way you do. If someone comes back, counter it if you wish. But, don't make snide comments. Don't purposely anger people. That only serves (on both sides) to show that you have allowed someone to get under your skin, anger you, and you don't have anything better to come back with. Attempt to box them in with calm and reasoned logic. If that doesn't work, just leave the thread. You have already stated your opinion and your point. It ain't getting through. So, why keep banging your head against the wall? If you feel that strongly about a topic and can't just let it go, then create another thread in member discussions or another appropriate area of the site if you want to vent, argue, or go off on a tangent from the OP. In doing this, you have at least taken yourself out of what they view as their "safety zone".

I thought the democratic party was a bonding area for most

I thought the democratic party was a bonding area for mostAtheism does not have much to do with politics or, more to the point, is separate from politics. Once again, as mentioned several times in this thread, there is no gathering or bonding area, it's just a way of life.

I thought the democratic party was a bonding area for most
Uhhh, I know many more democrats who are Christian or Jewish, than atheistic ones. Conversely, I know atheists who are Republicans.;)

Atheism does not have much to do with politics or, more to the point, is separate from politics. Once again, as mentioned several times in this thread, there is no gathering or bonding area, it's just a way of life.
I don’t know about Canada but it is a way of life that is not accepted by Christians in America.

A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused.

"This landmark federal litigation is just the first of a galaxy of new lawsuits that will be expeditiously filed against the Pentagon in a concentrated effort to preserve the precious religious liberties guaranteed by our beautiful United States Constitution," Weinstein said Monday. "Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."


Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807R.shtml)

I don’t know about Canada but it is a way of life that is not accepted by Christians in America.I see that. That's too bad for them and their intolerance.

Uhhh, I know many more democrats who are Christian or Jewish, than atheistic ones. Conversely, I know atheists who are Republicans.;)
Yeah, I’m a Republican in spite of the fact that I am embarrassed by the Christian right.:)

There are threads created under Christianity which, IMO, don't really belong there. "Prayer in school" and that "Happy Holidays" threads. But, they were started by Christians and even though it appears all opinions are welcome, in actuality, they are not. We are reminded constantly by the Christian responders when they get frustrated and upset, that "this is a Christian thread." That tells me either one of two things. 1. The original intention in posting there was actually not to collect opinions from every camp but, to have their own kind agree with them and make them feel better about whatever propelled them to post in the first place. 2. They view those boards as their area to share a camaraderie with fellow Christians. The "why" of number two is various. It depends on the person and what is happening in their life.

I agree that some of the threads would be better served in "Member Discussions" or even "Politics", and often the OP is looking for people to confirm his/her way of thinking. But, I disagree that participating in these conversations has never gotten through to some. I'm not saying it will change their minds, but there have been threads where people actually LEARN something about the opposing viewpoint, and might be more willing to tolerate it. And of course their opinion is as firm as my own, but that's part of what leads a debate. I've learned a great deal about Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) from this site; doesn't mean I agree with them, but I've learned something. My hope is others are learning as well.

As far as people leaving the site, I actually don't like to see that happen, unless they've been abusive (in which case they might get banned). There was a woman on here a while ago, and for the life of me I can't remember her name, but she was very sweet, and very open to hearing other people's opinions. Haven't seen her in MONTHS and that's a shame. The conversations she participated in weren't about trying to change her beliefs, but seeing what other people thought, and teaching them about her own belief. firmbeliever is another of those - I haven't seen her in a while, and that's a shame.

Hello again:

If I didn't think I could change peoples minds, I'd leave.

excon

Yes, Jillian there are some very nice and open minded people from all backgrounds and walks of life. I did not say that "participating in these conversations has never gotten through to some." However, I don't believe the people that we see so deeply entrenched in their beliefs, the ones who become openly upset/annoyed on the boards here, are willing, or open, to listening/learning other viewpoints. Maybe you and I are thinking of different members.

The lack of a true chruch of athiestism is one of the reasons the other religions can take hold so easly. People are always stronger with a group opinion than as a lone voice in the crowd. Think how many more people might be athiests if we had a church. If we went door to door on Sunday morining talking about how good it is not to believe, of course we can't promise eternal life in heaven but we can at least be certain that we deliver on the promises we make. Maybe with the forums of the internet are our church, by pointing out the bad logic and intolerances of the other religions we gain members. We may not convice the ones that post but for every one person that posts probably ten read what is written.

Well there is always the FSM.

http://doogs.typepad.com/blog/images/fsm.jpg

Hello again:
If I didn't think I could change peoples minds, I'd leave.
excon
I know you think you can change peoples minds excon. You have to look at your complete audience. There are times I have noticed that some people think they can completely change the minds of people who are entrenched in "whatever". Ain't going to happen. All that happens is everyone's frustration levels increase and then snide, condescending, or demeanings comments are bandied about. Why do that? Why allow someone on a web site to be in control of your emotions?

Yes, Jillian there are some very nice and open minded people from all backgrounds and walks of life. I did not say that "participating in these conversations has never gotten through to some." However, I don't believe the people that we see so deeply entrenched in their beliefs, the ones who become openly upset/annoyed on the boards here, are willing, or open, to listening/learning other viewpoints. Maybe you and I are thinking of different members.

Certainly there are those who aren't going to change their minds at all. I know I get wrapped up in debate with some of them, but those aren't the ones I enjoy speaking to. Actually, I've taken to putting some of them on my "ignore" list because I figure there's no point in conversing with someone who is unwavering in every opinion. I fully accept I might be on a few "ignore" lists too!


Why allow someone on a web site to be in control of your emotions?

Ugh. You have NO IDEA how irritated I get when I realize some schmuck on the intertubes said something that makes me angry and think about it after logging off the site! That realization is usually enough to make me get over it!

Why allow someone on a web site to be in control of your emotions?Hello again, Ruby:

I have no investment in them. In fact, I believe I respond logically - not emotionally. And I'm quite happy to let them live in ignorance if they don't get it.

However, if I've changed ONE mind in the 10 years I've been doing this, then it's been worth it.

excon

In fact, I believe I respond logically - not emotionally.
excon Really? I guess I will have to go back and reread many of your posts. Although they are logical, they have not struck me as devoid of emotional response.;)

Well there is always the FSM.
NK, please keep the proselytizing out of this thread. :D hehe.

Ugh. You have NO IDEA how irritated I get when I realize some schmuck on the intertubes said something that makes me angry and think about it after logging off the site! That realization is usually enough to make me get over it!
It took me a good few months to realize that I was allowing myself to have that same knee jerk reaction. And for the most part, I have reorganized my train of thought to not allow them to bait me.

Most of us on this thread have all been the victims of a "certain" troll lately. He is very calm and likes to see you all get bent out of shape. Don't let him do it to you.;)

NK, please keep the proselytizing out of this thread. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../images/smilies/biggrin.gif hehe.

Roger that. I was going to show up at your door with pamphlets and stuff but no longer.

Oh you are most welcome to do that. As long as you don't mind my pitbull greeting you. Is it okay to invite you in for a good homemade spaghetti & meatball dish?

Partaking of the pasta is considered good form.. and tasty!

The lack of a true chruch of athiestism is one of the reasons the other religions can take hold so easly. People are always stronger with a group opinion than as a lone voice in the crowd. Think how many more people might be athiests if we had a church. If we went door to door on Sunday morining talking about how good it is not to believe, of course we can't promise eternal life in heaven but we can at least be certain that we deliver on the promises we make. Maybe with the forums of the internet are our church, by pointing out the bad logic and intolerances of the other religions we gain members. We may not convice the ones that post but for every one person that posts probably ten read what is written.
There is much wisdom in what you have written here michealb.

I think if the atheists on this web site can manage to not allow the more fervently religious to upset them with their posts, you might get more people who are on the outside looking in, to read through a thread and see who is more logical and rational. That would get through loud and clear to those more open and willing to learn and listen.

Partaking of the pasta is considered good form..and tasty!
Good to know. My pitbull awaits you.

Not a dog person, sorry.

As far as people leaving the site, I actually don't like to see that happen, unless they've been abusive (in which case they might get banned). There was a woman on here a while ago, and for the life of me I can't remember her name, but she was very sweet, and very open to hearing other people's opinions. Haven't seen her in MONTHS and that's a shame. The conversations she participated in weren't about trying to change her beliefs, but seeing what other people thought, and teaching them about her own belief. firmbeliever is another of those - I haven't seen her in a while, and that's a shame.
Hey Jill,
Thanks for your compliments about my Atheist question thread... :p
I am still around,just not as much as I like to be... :rolleyes: .


About what excon said,maybe there are no organisations of atheists that I personally know of...
But I do know atheists who try to convince people that their way of thinking is right,by finding materials,reading or viewing and providing it to their friends or associates.
I think such behaviour is what atheists accuse religion followers of doing,but some atheists follow the same behaiour knowingly or unknowingly.

I guess it is human nature to have this need to help others see our own views as we think it is the right one. I know for a fact that I like to help others understand what I believe in as I believe it is the truth.

Hey Jill,
Thanks for your compliments about my Atheist question thread... :p
I am still around,just not as much as I like to be... :rolleyes: .

Good to see you again! :)



I guess it is human nature to have this need to help others see our own views as we think it is the right one. I know for a fact that I like to help others understand what I believe in as I believe it is the truth.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Everyone want to be right - everyone thinks if others followed their way of thinking, the world would be a better place (forgive the broad generalization, but I think you get what I mean). It's also a problem when topics which people are so passionate about come up; abortion for one - a pro-choicer and pro-lifer can argue all day long and never get anywhere, but what both usually want is to be HEARD, for their side to be ACKNOWLEDGED. If you feel you have been heard, it's easier to agree to disagree and move on.

Hi excon,

I didn't get a chance to read the thread, but I offer the following. There are a couple of good secular humanist organizations and organizations for skeptics. I am a supporter of one organization headed by Paul Kurtz, a very well respected man.

Atheists think for themselves, they are the more intelligent and educated members of American society... and as a result, they have different opinions on just about every subject! It would be difficult to have one large atheist organization because just about all they support is that... they are not believers in the supernatural.

If you want some names of secular organizations, contact me privately. It really feels good to be part of such positive organizations with such positive agendas for humanity.

Hello again, Ruby:

I have no investment in them. In fact, I believe I respond logically - not emotionally. And I'm quite happy to let them live in ignorance if they don't get it.

However, if I've changed ONE mind in the 10 years I've been doing this, then it's been worth it.

excon

Because of you, I have changed my mind on marijuana.

You stated one time that it has not caused a death.

I could not believe that, but

I searched the internet, the cdc, morbidity and mortality reports, pub med, could not find one article with marijuana as the only cause of death.



Just to let you know ;)

Because of you, I have changed my mind on marijuana..... Just to let you know ;)Hello in:

Thank you, in. I appreciate the feedback. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside... or, maybe it was the joint I just smoked.

excon

Wow. So people do listen to you. I am impressed ex. ;)

Inthebox, what about the atheistic viewpoint, has he gotten through to you? Have you learned anything new? Because that was more along the lines of what I was referring to in my posts. The Atheism vs Christianity debates that go on here.

Atheism to me is not so much a question of whether a God exists or not, but rather whether what people attribute to their God is true. For instance, to quote Thomas Paine:
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

“That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not”

Yeah, I’m a Republican in spite of the fact that I am embarrassed by the Christian right.:)
I feel your pain. Are you also embarrassed by the fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued every Republican Administration since Reagan's? Oops, off topic. Sorry.

Wow. So people do listen to you. I am impressed ex. ;)

Inthebox, what about the atheistic viewpoint, has he gotten through to you? Have you learned anything new? Because that was more along the lines of what I was referring to in my posts. The Atheism vs Christianity debates that go on here.


No. Learned a lot, yes. Most of the atheist I know of in real life are ex- Christians. I can understand that the legalistic aspect of organized religion does that. The challenges to what one believes, I think keeps me from being complacent. That I am thankful for.

Most of the atheist I know of in real life are ex- Christians. I can understand that the legalistic aspect of organized religion does that.
I am an ex-Christian, though not exactly an atheist. What you call "the legalistic aspect of organized religion" was the principal reason for my leaving the fellowship of a church, but it really didn't have much to do with my changing beliefs about God. On that front, I just came to the realization that if there was a God worthy of my belief and worship, it certainly wasn't THAT one. J. B. Phillips (the Bible translator) wrote a book that I read about that time, Your God is too Small. I had to admit, it was true.


The challenges to what one believes, I think keeps me from being complacent. That I am thankful for.
The way we react to challenges to our core beliefs says a lot about our character, I think, and thankfulness is a virtue.

There are threads created under Christianity which, IMO, don't really belong there. "Prayer in school" and that "Happy Holidays" threads. But, they were started by Christians and even though it appears all opinions are welcome, in actuality, they are not. We are reminded constantly by the Christian responders when they get frustrated and upset, that "this is a Christian thread." That tells me either one of two things. 1. The original intention in posting there was actually not to collect opinions from every camp but, to have their own kind agree with them and make them feel better about whatever propelled them to post in the first place. 2. They view those boards as their area to share a camaraderie with fellow Christians. The "why" of number two is various. It depends on the person and what is happening in their life.....

No, no, no.

C'mon Ruby. I was handling them left and right and then they accused me of being a "troll"? What? So, I pointed out to them that the ones who are trolling are they, themselves. I didn't go looking for them in the atheist section.

How did an atheist get to be the mod on the Christian section?

Sincerely,

De Maria

No, no, no.

C'mon Ruby. I was handling them left and right and then they accused me of being a "troll"? What? So, I pointed out to them that the ones who are trolling are they, themselves. I didn't go looking for them in the atheist section.

How did an atheist get to be the mod on the Christian section?

Sincerely,

De Maria

DM I don't understand the point you are making re: trolls. I know you "didn't go looking
for them in the atheist section." That was a large part of my point throughout my posts here.

As far as the mods go, you have many of them throughout the site. They patrol all the threads and make sure nothing starts to veer off topic or breaks down into name calling & abuse, among other duties. Most of the mods are affiliated with a religion as far as I know. In addition, as members, we all have a responsibility to the site to ensure that everyone is adhering to the rules.

I was handling them left and right
Your characterization of what you were doing says a lot about your motivation for doing it.

DM I don't understand the point you are making re: trolls. I know you "didn't go looking for them in the atheist section." That was a large part of my point throughout my posts here.

You jumped in to help them. Now you want to make it sound like you were helping the Christians.

I do like one thing you pointed out. It is they who have trouble with freedom of speech. This little group of atheists and nonChristians wants to say whatever they want to say and go unchallenged. But Christians have a say too. They'll have to get used to it.

You jumped in to help them.
What are you talking about? If you are referring to the "prayer in school" thread, tempers were flaring, you were being accused of saying a lot more than you actually said, which I thought was unfair, and I was trying to bring the thread back to point. I believe I defended your right to your opinion if I am not mistaken. So what if you and I have opposing viewpoints? I was really enjoying our exchanges. I do like the way you lay out your arguments. You have an interesting way of getting your points across. I never told you I thought you were wrong for wanting what you want, I didn't attack you, and I certainly wasn't helping anyone else attack you. Perhaps the problem here is that you are misinterpreting the intent behind my later responses? I am sorry you are choosing to read something negative into them rather than appreciate the truly benign intent behind them.

Now you wanna make it sound like you were helping the Christians. I think you need to read all my posts here. I don't like anyone purposefully trying to force their opinions or beliefs down the throat of another. Eventually one or more people become abusive in their responses and the result leaves people upset. The Christian threads seem to be the area where this happens with the most frequency. It always seems to break down into a devout Christian vs Atheist (or non-Christian) argument. Why? Perhaps, as I stated, the Christians don't want the Atheists to voice their opinions on the Christian forum. From some of the responses received in those threads, that is exactly what has been said.

I do like one thing you pointed out. It is they who have trouble with freedom of speech. This little group of atheists and nonChristians wants to say whatever they want to say and go unchallenged. But Christians have a say too. They'll have to get used to it. I think both sides "have to get used to it." Of course you have a say, but so do they. The problem comes into play in how people choose to respond to a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to theirs. You are one of the handful of Christians on this site that plays the persecution card, which doesn't help in these discussions. Christians aren't the only people of faith on this planet that feel persecuted. There are other faiths that have been dealing with this problem much longer (centuries and millennia longer) than the devout Christians in the United States. If we look at just the Christian threads here, why do some devout Christians choose to claim they feel persecuted simply because someone doesn't agree with them and chooses to continue a dialogue about the differences, when others just as devout in their Christianity, don't do that? It appears to me to be a control issue.

In reference to your previous post here regarding the troll accusation you received, there are variations to the definition of "troll." It not just the one you pulled up on the "Holy Days" thread. Here is another one from Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) :

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting other users into an argumentative response.[1] "Troll" is also used in a broader pejorative sense to question the good faith of any Internet user who has annoyed the person using the term."

And another definition: What is an Internet Troll? (Posting Guidelines - Netiquette) What is a Forum Troll? (http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp)

"An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A classic" .... "troll is trying to make us believe that he is a genuine skeptic with no hidden agenda. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

A" ...... "Troll" ....... "is generally interested to make other forum members look stupid. A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him. Then, he will complain to moderators of being insulted......"

P.S. excon, sorry to go off topic here but I felt DM deserved a response.

Ok, this turned out to be more of a big deal than anticipated. My post on this thread started kind of as a joke with a point. Joke being that I was kickin' behind and takin' names.

Point being what you just said, " If you are referring to the "prayer in school" thread, tempers were flaring, you were being accused of saying a lot more than you actually said, which I thought was unfair...."


I was really enjoying our exchanges. I do like the way you lay out your arguments.

Thanks. Likewise. In the few exchanges I've had with you, I've learned that you actually go to the trouble of reading the message. Rare quality on this forum. But I like it.


You are one of the handful of Christians on this site that plays the persecution card,

Sorry. Sometimes I revert to old atheist habits. I'll try to be more Christain in the future. ;)

If you want me to answer in more detail, I can, just let me know. But I was really just pa"trolling" on this thread. Just studying the competition.

Sincerely,

Can another christian intrude on your thread? What I see as a problem is those claiming to be Atheists attacking traditional values, Christianity, etc. A real Atheist would never bother to attack someone or something that he does not believe exists in the first place. To attack admits belief. Does this make sense to you who are Atheists?

Can another christian intrude on your thread? What I see as a problem is those claiming to be Atheists attacking traditional values, Christianity, etc.....
Sorry. Sometimes I revert to old atheist habits. I'll try to be more Christain in the future. ;)Hello Gal:

I don't know. The above looks like an attack on atheists values to me... but maybe I don't comprehend English very well.

In fact, I don't think you can show me ANY attacks on Christians here in this thread... Certainly not from me. Can show me where I've attacked individual Christians or traditional values or Christianity as a whole?

I think you're feeling a little persecuted.

excon

What I see as a problem is those claiming to be Atheists attacking traditional values, Christianity, etc. What are "traditional values" anyway?

It makes sense, Galveston, but what do you consider "attacking" Christianity and traditional values?

When an atheist disagrees with a traditional value of a religion. We are not disagreeing with the god of that religion we are disagreeing with the members of that religion. We don't have to believe in your god in order to disagree with your actions. Example say you believe that at the at the bottom the bay is a pot of gold and you think that you need to jump off the bridge to get that gold. I don't believe that there is a pot of gold at the bottom of the bay but I still might attack your idea to jump off the bridge to get it. I might even suggest a better way for you to go looking for the gold even though I'm sure there is no gold to be found. Now for why do I care if you jump of the bridge that depends, maybe I'm handcuffed to you, maybe your holding up traffic on the bridge and I'm late getting home, maybe your throwing your children off the bridge first there are any number of reasons I might care what your doing but the point is that I don't have to believe what you do to care about your actions.

OK. Traditional values; Christmas, voluntary public prayers, under God (pledge of allegiance), in God we trust (on money). There's 4 anyway. Now I know none of you would ever attack any of these, but I recall Madelyn O'Hare, and now we have Newdow. I don't think either of these was/is an Atheist, but are anti-God. Surely you can see the distinction?

The things you mention aren't attacking Christianity, they are enforcing equality.

Christmas - assuming you mean the "Happy Holidays" "Merry Christmas" thing, why is it unreasonable to want a greeting that is inclusive instead of exclusive? Remember, "Merry Christmas" only applies to Christians, why should everyone else be excluded?

Voluntary public prayers - I'll give you this, an atheist who attacks someone's right to pray is simply a bad person in my book. But it sort of depends on what you mean by "voluntary". If you mean a time in public school where students are led in Christian prayer and non-Christians are expected to sit quietly, that's a violation of the Constitution. Christians may pray to themselves in school whenever they want; they cannot, however, be led in prayer BY the school. Again, it's an inclusive/exclusive thing.

Under God/In God we Trust - A lot of people don't know this phrase was added to our pledge in 1954, so it doesn't hold the historical significance some think it does. Again, it can be seen as a constitutional violation. "In God we Trust" wasn't present on all money until 1957, and holds the same constitutional violation as "Under God". Contrary to popular opinion/belief, this is NOT a Christian nation, merely a nation which is dominated by Christians.

So if you see those things as an "attack" on Christian values instead of a battle for equal treatment and application of the Constitution, then certainly you are entitled to that opinion. But fighting for those things doesn't imply a belief in a god, so there is great reason why an atheist or non-Christian should care.

OK. Traditional values; Christmas, voluntary public prayers, under God (pledge of allegiance), in God we trust (on money). There's 4 anyway. Now I know none of you would ever attack any of these, but I recall Madelyn O'Hare, and now we have Newdow. I don't think either of these was/is an Atheist, but are anti-God. Surely you can see the distinction?That what I thought you meant for some reason. Christians have hijacked that phrase and twisted for their political gain. More details here:
Traditional values - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_values)
Traditional values refer to those beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief), moral codes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_codes), and mores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores) that are passed down from generation to generation within a culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), subculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture) or community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community). Since the late 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s) in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.), the term "traditional values" has become synonymous with "family values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values)" and imply a congruence with orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox) Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity). However "family values" is arguably a modern politicized subset of traditional values, which is a larger concept, anthropologically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology) speaking. It is also not necessarily a political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) idea, though has come to be associated with a particular vein of Evangelism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism) and politics, embodied by some American politicians such as Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan), Dan Quayle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle), and George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), and the Christian right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right) more broadly, as embodied for example by Pat Robertson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson).. . The term can also refer to an intention to preserve ancient or traditional customs and values against anything deemed "innovation."

The things you mention aren't attacking Christianity, they are enforcing equality.

Christmas - assuming you mean the "Happy Holidays" "Merry Christmas" thing, why is it unreasonable to want a greeting that is inclusive instead of exclusive? Remember, "Merry Christmas" only applies to Christians, why should everyone else be excluded?

Voluntary public prayers - I'll give you this, an atheist who attacks someone's right to pray is simply a bad person in my book. But it sort of depends on what you mean by "voluntary". If you mean a time in public school where students are led in Christian prayer and non-Christians are expected to sit quietly, that's a violation of the Constitution. Christians may pray to themselves in school whenever they want; they cannot, however, be led in prayer BY the school. Again, it's an inclusive/exclusive thing.

Under God/In God we Trust - A lot of people don't know this phrase was added to our pledge in 1954, so it doesn't hold the historical significance some think it does. Again, it can be seen as a constitutional violation. "In God we Trust" wasn't present on all money until 1957, and holds the same constitutional violation as "Under God". Contrary to popular opinion/belief, this is NOT a Christian nation, merely a nation which is dominated by Christians.

So if you see those things as an "attack" on Christian values instead of a battle for equal treatment and application of the Constitution, then certainly you are entitled to that opinion. But fighting for those things doesn't imply a belief in a god, so there is great reason why an atheist or non-Christian should care.

In paragraqh 3 you mention violation of the contitution. The meaning of the separation of Church and State has been really twisted in the past several years. If you will read that clause again, I believe that you will see that the prohibitions are all against the State, not the Church. The State can neither endorse, nor prohibit, religion, and nearly all of the men who established this nation were Christians according to their own testimonies. They failed to confirm the Constitution until after public prayer was offered to God about the matter. They did not establish an Atheist nation, an Anti-God nation, but they established a NON-SECTARIAN nation, which is a significant distinction.

Really, why does it bother you to be present when others are praying, or when someone wishes you "Merry Christmas", or why would you bring a lawsuit to prevent the display of a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? Why do you hate the display of the Ten Commandments? Our world would be a much better place if more people followed them. Quit complaining and put up your own display, if you can think of something appropriate. Face it. My belief offends you, and you want me to disappear from sight so you won't be bothered. If I'm wrong about that, convince me differently.

Really, why does it bother you to be present when others are praying, or when someone wishes you "Merry Christmas", or why would you bring a lawsuit to prevent the display of a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? Why do you hate the display of the Ten Commandments? Our world would be a much better place if more people followed them. Quit complaining and put up your own display, if you can think of something appropriate. Face it. My belief offends you, and you want me to disappear from sight so you won't be bothered. If I'm wrong about that, convince me differently.Hello again, Gal:

Looks to me like the only one attacking anybody here is you.

You won't be convinced. You're not interested in rational discussion. You misquote. You mischaracterize. You don't understand your own country. You make up stuff. You foment hate.

Actually, I think the world would be better off WITHOUT people like you. If I'm wrong about that, convince me differently.

You ARE perfect for this discussion, however. Thanks for stopping by.

excon

In paragraqh 3 you mention violation of the contitution. The meaning of the separation of Church and State has been really twisted in the past several years. If you will read that clause again, I believe that you will see that the prohibitions are all against the State, not the Church. The State can neither endorse, nor prohibit, religion, and nearly all of the men who established this nation were Christians according to their own testimonies. They failed to confirm the Constitution until after public prayer was offered to God about the matter. They did not establish an Atheist nation, an Anti-God nation, but they established a NON-SECTARIAN nation, which is a significant distinction.

Thank you, but I know very well what the separation of Church and State means; and a PUBLIC SCHOOL leading students in CHRISTIAN PRAYER violates it. Students in a public school are welcome to pray (and they do) but they cannot be LED in prayer by the school. And most of the authors of the Constitution were deists, but whatever.


Really, why does it bother you to be present when others are praying, or when someone wishes you "Merry Christmas", or why would you bring a lawsuit to prevent the display of a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? Why do you hate the display of the Ten Commandments? Our world would be a much better place if more people followed them.

Not that I said any of those things bother me, but I'll play along. It doesn't bother me when people pray in my presence, it bothers me if a public school endorses a certain religion. It also doesn't bother me if someone says "Merry Christmas", it bothers be that (some) Christians think their holiday is the only one celebrated during that time of year, therefore EVERYONE should say "Merry Christmas". The display of the nativity on the courthouse lawn, as long as it was not put up BY the courthouse and as long as all other religions can display in a similar fashion doesn't bother me at all. It's when a nativity gets put up and NO ONE else can display that I get peeved. The display of the Ten Commandments is the same thing; in a government building, it indicates and endorsement of a particular religion. The goal is for secular governmental buildings; how can one be secular if the Ten Commandments is present?


Quit complaining and put up your own display, if you can think of something appropriate. Face it. My belief offends you, and you want me to disappear from sight so you won't be bothered. If I'm wrong about that, convince me differently.

Now you're just being rude and making things up. Your belief certainly does not offend me, not at all. Your sense of entitlement because of your religion offends me. Convinced yet? Probably not.

You're putting words in my mouth. Very unsanitary! I never wrote supporting teacher led prayers. Not guilty! Prayers led for someone else are a total waste of time anyway. As to the Ten Commandments, if you will notice, they appear on the front of the US Supreme Court building, and have been there for a long time. To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history. So, how am I spreading hate? Now my feelings are hurt!

Why do you hate the display of the Ten Commandments? Now my feelings are hurt! Hello again, Gal:

Buck yourself up, and thicken your skin. We play hardball around here. How do you spread hate? Well first off, you accuse people of it. And, that you did. I read it right there. Looks like fomentation to me. Nobody said that word before you did. It's a false accusation, too. Oh, I'll bet that's exactly how your pastor put it, but he's WRONG, just like you.

I don't hate the Ten Commandments. Who could hate them? But, they're religious. That's just so. They don't belong in a public building. Why?? Because there might be some of the public who DOES hate the Ten Commandments. Those commandments might not be part of THEIR religion, and they own the "public" space equally with you. Therefore, it would be fair and just and very American to treat them the same. However, it would be impossible for every religion to be represented in the public square. So we've determined that it's better that NO religion be represented in the public square.

Isn't that a better idea?? Or would you rather have YOUR religion represented but NOT others?? That's not very American of you now, is it?

excon

^^
Well explained excon.

You're putting words in my mouth. Very unsanitary! I never wrote supporting teacher led prayers. Not guilty! Prayers led for someone else are a total waste of time anyway. As to the Ten Commandments, if you will notice, they appear on the front of the US Supreme Court building, and have been there for a long time. To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history. So, how am I spreading hate? Now my feelings are hurt!

Apparently you've never heard of this thing called an "example", which is what my reference to prayer in schools was. Please see my sig. Then see excon's post.

It's like pregnant. You either are, or you aren't.


Sorry, and I know this is off topic, but nobody who had ever been pregnant would say this! Nine months is "very" pregnant. One week isn't. :)

Atheism is a Belief or a Faith because no atheist can scientifically prove that there is no god/creator

Athiesm is a Belief or a Faith because no athiest can scientifically prove that there is no god/creatorOne does not need to prove a negative.
Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)
See alos: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

Hello:

Simply put, they don't exist.



excon

wow man you're so atheist you don't even believe in atheist organizations existing. That's totally metal man! I like that...

I agree that most atheist organizations, like almost all other types of organizations, are political front groups. And most self proclaimed atheists are really agnostic. I myself am agnostic, with more leanings to atheism. The only reason I don't call myself an atheist, even though my "religion" is logic and science, is that Albert Einstein believed in god, and he was the greatest physicist of all time. Since he's smarter than me I respect his opinion. If he believed in something, who knows what the possibilities are. I am MORE compelled to believe that a reptilian Annunaki race from the planet Nibiru bio-engineered the human race, than to believe one word in the bible.

to get back to your topic, the church of Satan is probably the closest thing to a true atheist organization, seeing as how they donut believe in Satan actually, they are just anti Christian values, and use the name of Satan to incite the christians

to get back to your topic, the church of Satan is probably the closest thing to a true atheist organization, seeing as how they donut believe in Satan actually, they are just anti Christian values, and use the name of Satan to incite the christiansTo me that fails the atheist test: atheists aren't really anti-anything, we just run our lives without any deity whatsover. I don't give a thought to worshipping anything... ever.

To me that fails the atheist test: atheists aren't really anti-anything, we just run our lives without any deity whatsover. I don't give a thought to worshipping anything...ever.
Very very good point. Lets just say that the church of satan is a bunch of schizophrenic athiests:)

Hehe. Lost souls indeed.

To me that fails the atheist test: atheists aren't really anti-anything, we just run our lives without any deity whatsover. I don't give a thought to worshipping anything...ever.

I usually avoid the topic since it seems to upset so many people, but when it comes up, I generally point out that the "a" in "a-theist" means "without God" not "against God." I don't want to tell others what to believe. Live and let live. I've always thought that the idea of an organization of atheists was odd, like an organization of people who don't play basketball. What would be the point?

Most of you say you are not religious, but that just isn't so. Let's look at the earmarks of religion and then compare yours with mine. Would that be fair? Every religion has certain basic requirements: 1, a deity; 2, writings expaining that deity; 3, some form of spreading that religion (recruitment, eduation, etc.) DEITY: Mine: Jehovah/Jesus - Yours: Self WRITINGS EXPAINING THAT DEITY: Mine: The Bible Yours: The works of Charles Darwin FORM OF SPREADING RELIGION: Mine: Various ministries of the Church - Yours: The public classroom, where only Darwin's ideas are allowed. Face it. Your reaction to my posts is the same as any religious fanatic when his cherished values are challenged.

Most of you say you are not religious, but that just isn't so. Let's look at the earmarks of religion and then compare yours with mine. Would that be fair? Every religion has certain basic requirements: 1, a deity; 2, writings expaining that deity; 3, some form of spreading that religion (recruitment, eduation, etc.) DEITY: Mine: Jehovah/Jesus - Yours: Self WRITINGS EXPAINING THAT DEITY: Mine: The Bible Yours: The works of Charles Darwin FORM OF SPREADING RELIGION: Mine: Various ministries of the Church - Yours: The public classroom, where only Darwin's ideas are allowed. Face it. Your reaction to my posts is the same as any religious fanatic when his cherished values are challenged.That's weird, I don't view any of what you've written as correct. But if it makes you happy to believe it then let it be.

Most of you say you are not religious, but that just isn't so. Every religion has certain basic requirements: 1, a deity; 2, writings expaining that deity; 3, some form of spreading that religion (recruitment, eduation, etc.)
DEITY: Mine: Jehovah/Jesus Yours: Self
WRITINGS EXPAINING THAT DEITY: Mine: The Bible Yours: The works of Charles Darwin
FORM OF SPREADING RELIGION: Mine: Various ministries of the Church - Yours: The public classroom, where only Darwin's ideas are allowed. Face it. Your reaction to my posts is the same as any religious fanatic when his cherished values are challenged.

Would it be fair? No. :)
1. I'm not a deity; 2. I don't have any writings that explain my deitiness to anyone; and 3. I don't have any means of spreading an alleged religion about my alleged deity self. Generally speaking, people who claim to be deities get locked up... I certainly don't consider Darwin a deity or his works infallible, although he was an excellent scientist and very loving and considerate person as far as I can tell.

I love the word "deities." It tickles.

If you object to teaching evolution in classrooms on the basis that it's "religious," why not also all other science? Why only evolution? Why not geology, astronomy, and physics, all of which include facts and theories that contradict the bible?

DEITY: Mine: Jehovah/Jesus - Yours: Self WRITINGS EXPAINING THAT DEITY: Mine: The Bible Yours: The works of Charles Darwin FORM OF SPREADING RELIGION: Mine: Various ministries of the Church - Yours: The public classroom, where only Darwin's ideas are allowed. Face it. Your reaction to my posts is the same as any religious fanatic when his cherished values are challenged.
Why does everyone claim that darwin is some father of atheism. If evolution is true, which no self respecting scientist claims that it is absolutely correct, then why is it so hard for a christian to believe that maybe, just maybe god created man through evolution... and why must a christian, who represents 50% of the human race, be so scared. Is it maybe because you know deep in your heart your mythology is false??

And what makes science and religion so opposite

Christians: god said let there be light
Science: big bang theory

Christians: god created the heavans and the earth
Science: gravity caused stars and planets to form

Christians: god created two lights, greater light to rule the day and lesser light to rule the night.
Science: the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its access and has a moon that orbits it

Christians: god creates life in the seas first on the 5th day, cattle and beast on the 6th day and to quote the bible "and god created grate whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters broght forth abundantly"
Science: life eveolved in the oceans first, and according to evolution the THEORY (not law) is that land animals evolved from whales/dolphins, ancient aquatic mammals

And what about this line in genisis "and god said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over..."

Why is god plural there (gen 1:26)

And when is the last time an atheist flew airplanes into the world trade center. Whens the last time an atheist country started an illegal war (the communists started legal wars if your going to argue that point). There is good and evil in all people, weather or not they believe in fairy tales like the koran or bible, or in imperfect theories like a darwinist, if people spent more time thinking about how similar we were to one another, this world would be a better place

why does everyone claim that darwin is some father of athiesm. if evolution is true, which no self respecting scientist claims that it is absolutly correct, t

I am fine with most of what you have said, interinfinity, but I do want to say that all self respecting biologists would say that evolution is true. It is not controversial among scientists. I agree that Darwin was not a father of atheism at all. He mostly avoided the subject because his wife was Christian and it pained her deeply to think that they would not be together in heaven. Darwin felt bad about hurting her because he loved her. But, still, he was not a believer either. His lost his faith as a young man.

I am fine with most of what you have said, interinfinity, but I do want to say that all self respecting biologists would say that evolution is true. It is not controversial among scientists. I agree that Darwin was not a father of atheism at all. He mostly avoided the subject because his wife was Christian and it pained her deeply to think that they would not be together in heaven. Darwin felt bad about hurting her because he loved her. But, still, he was not a believer either. His lost his faith as a young man.
I mispoke, what I meant to say was no one accepts it as a law, they do see it as the best theory. Micro evlolution has been proven true, but macro evolution does have some holes in it. Not trying to debunk it, but if it is univerally accepted its called a law. If its just the best that can be thought up at our present state of understanding, it's a theory. Newtons laws of motion cannot be disproven, therefor it is a law. Evloution has some arguments against it, even from the scientific community, therefore it is a theory. However every good theory has holes in it. Even relativity is a theory, not a law. Doesn't mean its not true, just means that its not perfect

i mispoke, what i meant to say was no one accepts it as a law, they do see it as the best theory. micro evlolution has been proven true, but macro evolution does have some holes in it. not trying to debunk it, but if it is univerally accepted its called a law. if its just the best that can be thought up at our present state of understanding, its a theory. Newtons laws of motion cannot be disproven, therefor it is a law. evloution has some arguments against it, even from the scientific community, therefore it is a theory. however every good theory has holes in it. even relativity is a theory, not a law. doesnt mean its not true, just means that its not perfect

I understand why you might think that macro evolution remains in doubt or has "holes" in it, but that is a myth put out by people who would like to keep people in doubt. Remember how the tobacco industry kept saying that we couldn't be CERTAIN that nicotine was addictive or that cigarette smoking caused cancer? They managed to persuade ordinary people that scientists were still in doubt about it for decades after doctors knew that tobacco causes cancer and that nicotine was highly addictive.

The same think is happening with evolution, both macro and micro. Macro evolution just means the formation of new species from earlier ones, and it is totally accepted by all practicing biologists. There is no controversy about whether maco evolution occurs. There ARE disagreements about things like whether Species A evolved from Species B or Species C, minutia that would bore most people to death.

I agree with you that scientists quibble about the details of some aspects of subatomic physics or how the immune system works. In the same way, there are squabbles about the classification of species or when a particular lineage first evolved. But no one believes that animals don't have immune systems. And no one believes that species didn't evolve from older species. Among biologists, macro evolution is completely accepted.

It is not true that in science a "law" has more status than a "theory." Some people will tell you that, but it isn't so. Mostly, physicists use words like "law," while other scientists tend to use "Theory." (This has to do with how physicists view their own work! :) ) None of this really matters. Those are just words. In fact, if you want to quibble, relativity "disproves" Newton's laws of motion. But for practical purposes here on Earth, Newton's "laws" are still true. But a physicist would tell you that's technically incorrect. Evolution by natural selection is a stronger theory than Newton's.

I mean that. If you go talk to practicing biologists, you will find that they do not question the idea that evolution--by natural selection and other mechanisms -- explains why the Earth is populated by 10 to 30 million different species. It explains the fossil record, it explains the distribution of plants and animals on different continents and islands; it explains why birds have wings that are different from the wings of bats and a thousand other indisputable facts. Macro evolution is totally accepted. There is no controversy. The idea has no holes and in 150 years (this year!), no one has been able to provide any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection. Instead, we just have more and more evidence that bolsters it. Evolution is one of the most robust theories that science has ever produced.

Asking--Thanks for a great exposition of the "law and theory" terminology in scientific usage. A whole lot of the ink spilled and breath wasted on this and related subjects is very little more than people having completely different meanings of words in their heads, so they come away from the discussion even more convinced that the other side MUST be objecting out of evil motives.

My layman's impression is that even among physicists, the term "law" is losing favor. In EVERY field of science, the fundamental urge, the driving motive, is for a "better" explanation, i.e. one that works over an ever-wider range of conditions and scales of operation. As that range and scale is increased, old explanations often fail. Very few physicists wanted it beforehand (Einstein hated it), but quantum mechanics HAD to be invented because Newtonian "laws", which seemed to work perfectly at the scale of marbles and planets, failed miserably to predict and explain what happens at the sub-atomic scale of matter/energy relations. Similarly, relativity HAD to be invented because Newtonian physics failed to explain what happens at space and time/speed scales that are very far from our daily experience. But the key point is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity "disproved" Newtonian physics, they just delineated and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied.


Evolution by natural selection is a stronger theory than Newton's.
Yes, in the sense that it works over the entire range of observation available to us.

This might be a topic for another thread (having nothing to do with either atheists or organizations), but I would like to hear your take on how the rapid increase in understanding of genetics and developmental biology is influencing evolutionary theory.

One does not need to prove a negative.
Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)
See alos: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

You do need to prove it if you want the statement to hold true. Its just like if I said there is no Gold in Australia. I can't just say that without any proof. I have to prove there is no gold in Autralia to that statement to hold.

Ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Technically there is no such thing as an atheist.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as ourselves.

If any of you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually an Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in the existence of a god without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

Yup ;but they have that aspect covered . Ask about the distinction between soft and hard or strong and weak atheism . Then when they do explain it to me because I don't get it.

Ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Technically there is no such thing as an athiest.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as ourselves.

If any of you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually an Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in the existance of a god without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.Ok, if that makes you happy.

Hello again fancy:

Your argument makes no sense to me. There are things I know to be so. I know the world is round, therefore I know it's not flat. I really DO KNOW it's not flat, because it's round, and I don't know everything. I know there's no tooth fairy and I know there's no Santa Clause. I really DO know it, even though you don't think I do.

In that same vein, I really don't have to know everything in order to proclaim there's no God. I know it, just like I know there's no tooth fairy, or the world isn't flat.

I've heard your argument before. Is that what they're telling you in church these days?

Besides, I don't see what difference it makes. I don't care whether you call me an agnostic or an atheist, nor do I care what you think I think.

You know, it's like if you were to run across a naked guy wandering around the street. You wouldn't want to know what HE thinks about foreign affairs, would you?

I do wonder, though. Does me being an atheist somehow threaten your religion?

excon

I do wonder, though. Does me being an atheist somehow threaten your religion?Even the pope seems to threaten his/her religion. It's a big scary "why-is-everyone-not-like-me" world out there.

excon, needkarma... do you feel threatened by people that are religious or by religion in general?

Not. Why do you think that? Do what you want, just be a good person.

I was just asking if you feel threatened, not stating that you do.

Oh OK. Carry on. :)

Hello again, bushg:

No, and my posts don't indicate that I do. My posts don't challenge what other people believe. I don't tell anybody they're wrong for what they believe. I don't try to get them to believe like me. And I don't tell them they're going to a bad place because they don't believe like me.

All I say what is I believe to be true. I couldn't care less what others believe – unless they mean to do me harm because of MY beliefs. I can't believe that saying what I believe threatens what anybody else believes. In fact, it would only threaten them, if they had some sort of stake in that belief beyond it just being true.

I don't have stakes in my beliefs. So what someone else thinks, doesn't threaten me. But, if someone can offer a better argument than mine, I'll switch. I switch all the time. I don't have a “stake” in my beliefs, and my world doesn't crumble when I change one.

I do I recognize, though, that religion has caused more death and mayhem than most any other cause ever. But history doesn't threaten me. Being ignorant of history does. I ain't ignorant.

excon

Technically there is no such thing as an atheist.

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:


yup ;but they have that aspect covered . Ask about the distinction between soft and hard or strong and weak atheism . Then when they do explain it to me because I don't get it.

Ugh, I hate those terms. They make no freekin sense.

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence. Definitions of the term "Atheism" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm)

Maybe I fail at reading comprehension, but I think those are the same thing...

Here's the best definition of "atheist" I've found so far:

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots: "A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"

This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].
A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others. Definitions of the term "Atheism" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm)

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith. The debates and battles over if someone can actually be an atheist comes in when we start to debate semantics and the definition of the word "belief". Then people throw in the word "faith" and there are, of course, different definitions of that word as well (perhaps I should say connotations dependent on context... ). Either way, it's an old argument that's been had on this very site several times...

Religion is just a sort of collective schitzophrenia in my opinion

My layman's impression is that even among physicists, the term "law" is losing favor. In EVERY field of science, the fundamental urge, the driving motive, is for a "better" explanation, i.e. one that works over an ever-wider range of conditions and scales of operation. As that range and scale is increased, old explanations often fail.. . Relativity HAD to be invented because Newtonian physics failed to explain what happens at space and time/speed scales that are very far from our daily experience. But the key point is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity "disproved" Newtonian physics, they just delineated and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied.

And thanks to you, ordinaryguy, as well! Of course, I agree with what you have said--and you said it much better than I could have. I was oversimplifying in saying "disprove," using it in the sense I thought was being used here--not infalllible. Yes, "delineate and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied" is good.


Yes,[evolution is robust] in the sense that it works over the entire range of observation available to us.
Yes. I agree.


I would like to hear your take on how the rapid increase in understanding of genetics and developmental biology is influencing evolutionary theory

What fun! :D I'll post briefly in biology... I agree that I/we have already wandered far from the topic thread.

[QUOTE=Galveston1]To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history.

Hey #1, I'm really intersested in this statement, maybe you could start a new thread and post something from history that show this, I can't find much in the way of writings by the founders that even mention God or religion. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:

Hahaha!


The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith.

Exactly. I get the feeling sometimes that many theists are convinced that all atheists don't merely disbelieve, but actively reject something they "really" believe exists--as if I said I hatefully rejected my own child or parent ("you're dead to me"); or that atheists "hate" or want to "destroy" someone else's God, again, comparable to killing a real person. But what I really feel is simply that I have never been able to believe that a copper teapot is orbiting Saturn or that a tooth fairy or a sandman comes into my house at night. I've never seen the tooth fair or any evidence of her existense. No one asks me why I don't believe in those or asks me to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Phew! What a job that would be!

The belief just isn't there. I seriously doubt any God exists (and you can call me an agnostic if it makes you feel better); I live entirely without reference to any sort of god, not 20 of them, not 2 of them, not 1. I can't imagine even BOTHERING to try to prove that no gods exist. Why would I want to do that? I don't care and if I succeeded, somebody would probably try to kill me.

I consider my total failure to believe in other people's imaginary deities harmless to others and no one's business buy my own. This web site is the only place I've ever written about it or spoken at length. Yet, all my life, I've been repeatedly astonished by others' feeling that I have to account for or defend my failure to believe in their almost-certainly-imaginary deities. I don't tell them not to believe, but they ask me, "Why don't you believe in my god?" For some reason it's not considered impolite for them to demand an answer or to tell me that I must be an evil person, that I am going to hell, that I have no soul, that I have no morals, or that I must be willing to commit a host of shocking and disgusting acts, all because I don't believe in their particular god. The things that believers have said to me.. . Often simply for answering more doorbell.

I have been told all these things by people who supposed "love" me, even some of them close friends. I try to remind myself that churches do good things-- they provide safe harbor to people in trouble and give food and clothing to the poor. But then someone of faith tells me they wish I was dead because my thoughts are different from theirs, and it's hard to remember to think "Christian" thoughts myself. Why are some people of faith so hateful to non believers like me? Why not leave me alone?

religion is just a sort of collective schitzophrenia imho

That's an interesting thing to say because people with schizophrenia apparently are more interested in talking about religion than average. Also, I've heard it said that schizophrenia is not a real disease but just a collection of symptoms of mental dysfunction, probably caused by many different things. It's like a cough or a headache. It's just a description of how someone feels or acts, not a description of what they have. Supposedly, schizophrenia is not recognized in Europe or most other countries. Someone told me that this week, but I haven't checked to see if that's true.

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:



Ugh, I hate those terms. They make no freekin sense.

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence. Definitions of the term "Atheism" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm)

Maybe I fail at reading comprehension, but I think those are the same thing...

Here's the best definition of "atheist" I've found so far:

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots: "A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"

This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].
A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others. Definitions of the term "Atheism" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm)

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith. The debates and battles over if someone can actually be an atheist comes in when we start to debate semantics and the definition of the word "belief". Then people throw in the word "faith" and there are, of course, different definitions of that word as well (perhaps I should say connotations dependent on context...). Either way, it's an old argument that's been had on this very site several times....

I don't think anyone is confused to what an atheist is, we all know. The "absence of a belief" in a possibility of a god, is a "Belief". The fact that you choose to believe there is no god despite your inability to prove it, makes it a "faith" because it is not a scientific fact.

So I am not saying Atheist don't exist, I am just saying technically people who call themselves atheist don't know for a fact that there is no god which technically makes them Agnostic.

The fact that you choose to believe there is no god despite your inability to prove it, makes it a "faith" because it is not a scientific fact.

See.. there it is. "Choose to believe". I didn't "choose" to not believe, I just don't. Never have. But it STILL isn't on me to prove there ISN'T a god, it's on YOU to prove there IS one.


So I am not saying Atheist don't exist, I am just saying technically people who call themselves atheist don't know for a fact that there is no god which technically makes them Agnostic.

Which is the same as saying they don't exist - there is no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics. But whatever. Call me whatever you want, I know what/who I am.

[QUOTE=Galveston1]To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history.

Hey #1, I'm really intersested in this statement, maybe you could start a new thread and post something from history that show this, I can't find much in the way of writings by the founders that even mention God or religion. Any help would be appreciated. thanks

No mention of God? Have you ever read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

It takes a heckuva lot more "faith" to believe in evolution as the origin of anything than to believe in a Creator. No matter how far back into the past you take it, nothing acting on nothing still produces nothing. You say the Sun acting on some primeval soup produced life? Where did the Sun and the soup come from? Big bang? Where did the energy come from? Where there is nothing, how can energy originate? Explain the ant. The workers have all the good traits, the parents have none. Explain the woodpecker. He has a special bone structure supporting his brain. Without it he would pulverize his brain. He didn't need that special structure until he started drilling wood, which he couldn't do. Are you by chance confusing evolution with mutation? The complexity of DNA is merely a product of chance? What faith!

The fact that you choose to believe there is no god dispite your inability to prove it, makes it a "faith" because it is not a scientific fact.

Okay. So do you, Fancy, "choose" to not believe in the Tooth Fairy? And do you feel that your choice is a Belief with a capital B comparable to your belief in God? This is a serious question.

It takes a heckuva lot more "faith" to believe in evolution as the origin of anything than to believe in a Creator. No matter how far back into the past you take it, nothing acting on nothing still produces nothing. You say the Sun acting on some primeval soup produced life? Where did the Sun and the soup come from? Big bang? where did the energy come from? Where there is nothing, how can energy originate? Explain the ant. The workers have all the good traits, the parents have none. Explain the woodpecker. He has a special bone structure supporting his brain. Without it he would pulverize his brain. He didn't need that special structure until he started drilling wood, which he couldn't do. Are you by chance confusing evolution with mutation? The complexity of DNA is merely a product of chance? What faith!!

Who created the creator?

It takes a heckuva lot more "faith" to believe in evolution as the origin of anything than to believe in a Creator.Actually it takes a good education.

[QUOTE=parttime]

No mention of God? Have you ever read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?


Sorry Galveston1, I didn't mean "no", I meant very little mention of God in any of the writings of out founding fathers. I've been looking, and since you said a study of our history would show, I thought you might have some useful info. Thanks

See.. there it is. "Choose to believe". I didn't "choose" to not believe, I just don't. Never have. But it STILL isn't on me to prove there ISN'T a god, it's on YOU to prove there IS one.

Okey let me give you an example, I can say I don't believe there is gold in NewZealand without ever visiting the country or ever knowing for a fact that there isn't. I can say I have an absence of belief there is gold there without ever making an attempt to prove it. My statement then that there is no gold in Newzealand is merely a "belief" because it is not based on fact, so I can live my life believing there is no gold in NewZealand but that does not necessary mean there isn't, its just I don't believe. Because my disbelief is not base on scientific fact or any actuall geological knowledge, make it a "faith"



Which is the same as saying they don't exist - there is no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics. But whatever. Call me whatever you want, I know what/who I am

Atheist do exist in the sense that there are people who call themselves athiests because they believe there is no god despite not having the ablity to know it for a fact. To know for a fact that there is no god you have to have absolute knowledge and we as humans (considering all the knowledge there is to know in the entire universe) do not even possess a fraction of a percentage of all the knowledge there is to know. So for the sake of argument lets make a huge exaggeration and say an atheist knows 1% of all knowledge. If this person is honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves existence of a god. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. If you however choose to state there is not god, it is a declaration made by faith not fact.

fancyT,
Define it how you will to make yourself happy. It really doesn't matter much does it? Those who are atheists go on doing their thing and you go on doing yours.

Have a great day! :)

Okay. So do you, Fancy, "choose" to not believe in the Tooth Fairy? And do you feel that your choice is a Belief with a capital B comparable to your belief in God? This is a serious question.

Good question.. I do choose not to believe in the tooth fairy because I later found out that my mother is the one who put money under my pillow and not the tooth fairy, so I know for a fact that my mother was behind the whole tooth fairy thing and that is why I can say with confidence I don't believe in the tooth fairy.
I do however choose to believe in God because of the personal encounters I have had with him that let me know he exists, he also (to me) the only valid explanation of the origin of this world and universe.

fancyT,
Define it how you will to make yourself happy. It really doesn't matter much does it? Those who are atheists go on doing their thing and you go on doing yours.

Have a great day! :)

Yes, athiests can do their thing that's fine I have no problem with that. I just wanted to point out that an athiest's "absense of beliefe" is a "Belief" or "faith" if you like because it is not base on scientific fact. Or proof.

Have great day too :)
Thanks

Atheists like myself are,in my opinion,normal people whom don't hide behind a god or things like that.Let's face it,modern day religions like catholic or ortodoxism,they're like big corporations,take money for something.I do not feel the need to be part of an organization,it's crazy.

I do however choose to believe in God because of the personal encounters i have had with him that let me know he exists, he also (to me) the only valid explanation of the origin of this world and universe.
Hello again, Fancy:

Another thing about you religious zealots that you don't get. You think the world is as gullible as you. You think I believe something just on faith... You do that, so you think I do too.

I'll ignore the insult and try to explain some stuff to you. I know you won't get it, but give it a shot.

I'm a skeptic. I'm NOT a believer. I don't believe in ANYTHING. I certainly don't believe things because people tell me to. If someone told me that it's raining, I'd say PROVE IT. If someone said you'll go to jail for smoking pot, I'd say prove it (they did). If someone told me I'd get burned if I stuck my finger in the fire, I'd give it a shot. If someone told me that white was the all the colors instead of the absence of color, I'da said prove it.

Finally, if you'da told me that we come from apes, I'da said prove it. Then science proceeded to do just that.

Now, here's the thing about science you don't get. Darwin had this strange idea too – really bonkers - and he said PROVE IT too. But, there wasn't anybody there except himself, so he set about PROVING IT to himself.

Not only did he PROVE IT, but it's been proven, time and time again, by countless scientists, and countless researchers all across the world, across many scientific disciplines, ALL through the ages since Darwin. Every one of them shouted: PROVE IT. And so they did, and so they continue to do so.

Now, I don't mean PROOF, like YOU think proof is. You think proof is some voices you heard in the night. Scientists do MORE than just sit down and agree with each other, too. Nope, PROOF, is scientifically derived through EXPIRIMENTATION - rigorous experimentation. Do you know what that entails?

Therefore, given that scientific PROOF isn't faith, I'm going to go with PROOF. You can have faith.

excon

atheists like my self are,in my opinion,normal people whom don't hide behind a god or things like that.Let's face it,modern day religions like catholic or ortodoxism,they're like big corporations,take money for something.I do not feel the need to be part of an organization,it's crazy.


You are right, you don't have to be part of an organisation but by claiming you are an atheist automatically makes you part of a belief system or faith.

You are right, you dont have to be part of an organisation but by claiming you are an athiest automatically makes you part of a belief system or faith.
This is like 1:you believe in a god,goddess
2:you are an atheist.
That's it!Of course everyone has his own way to see the world,that's normal.I know what I want but that doesn't makes me religious.ATHEIST=non believer.Believers hide behind god,I hide behind logic and big brains.

Good question.. I do choose not to believe in the tooth fairy due to the fact that i later found out that my mother is the one who put money under my pillow and not the tooth fairy, so i know for a fact that my mother was behind the whole tooth fairy thing and that is why i can say with confidence i dont believe in the tooth fairy.
I do however choose to believe in God because of the personal encounters i have had with him that let me know he exists, he also (to me) the only valid explanation of the origin of this world and universe.

Good. I like your answer, too. It's totally reasonable and of course the same thing happened to me. But I have never had any personal encounters with God and my feelings about God are identical to yours about the tooth fairy. You can't actually prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion based on your life experiences. I feel the same about God.

So try this. Suppose I told you that you would be tortured (go to hell) if you didn't decide to believe (right now) that you can walk on the ceiling. Do you believe? No? Not yet? Do you think you could manage to believe by Monday?


When you say that I (a person who lives without praying to or feeling the presence of any sort of God) could choose to believe in God if I wanted to, it makes me nervous. I HAVE tried to do exactly what you are saying should be possible--"decide to believe in God." -- and I couldn't do it. When I was 7 or 8 my friends told me I would go to Hell if I didn't believe. So I would sit on my bed for half an hour at a time, trying very hard to believe in God. I was motivated because I was terrified that I would die and go to Hell before I managed to believe in God. I tried and tried to believe, but I just couldn't. I remember scrunching up my face with effort (I felt a bit ridiculous). I did this repeatedly over a period of several weeks or months, anxiously trying to believe. I was totally sincere. And I totally failed. I finally decided that since I couldn't make myself believe in God, I would try to not believe in Hell (which I did believe in for some reason). I still worried, but I felt a little less frightened.

I don't agree that such beliefs are a matter of choice to people who haven't been indoctrinated early in life to accept them as reasonable. If someone told me I had to believe I could walk on the ceiling or be tortured, I'd "know" my choices would either to fall on my head or be tortured. I wouldn't be able to force myself to believe. For me, the idea of walking on the ceiling and god are identically contrary to everything I've ever experienced and learned.

I'm pursuing this, because I think the idea that all atheists secretely believe in God and are just somehow hostile to believers and trying to undermine THEIR belief is a destructive (evil) idea that leads to hatred towards me (personally and sometimes scarily) and other atheists. I think most of us just want to be left alone and many of us do not have any choice about belief in God. I'm not saying I want to believe now. But I'm long past having a choice about it, and I am hoping you can hear that and entertain the idea that at least in some cases, you might be mistaken about this one point.

[QUOTE]Hello again, Fancy:

Another thing about you religious zealots that you don't get. You think the world is as gullible as you. You think I believe something just on faith... You do that, so you think I do too.

Like I keep saying how do you know for a 100% fact that there is no god? For you to prove that to me would be imposible because you would have to have 100% absolute knowledge of what is beyond this world beyond this galaxy beyond human knowledge. If we exaggerate and say you know 1% of ALL knowledge, then you have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge you don't possess may have evidence of the existence of a god? Given that you don't have absolute knowledge but you still proclaim there is no god shows that you have "faith" that there is no god because you proclamation is not based on any scientific proof or fact.




I'll ignore the insult and try to explain some stuff to you. I know you won't get it, but give it a shot.

Sorry to insult you but it is truth sorry


I’m a skeptic. I'm NOT a believer. I don't believe in ANYTHING. I certainly don't believe things because people tell me to.

You obviously believe in evolution and someone told you about it and you believed it so you are a believer in something you were told by someone, Darwin to be precise.



If someone told me that it's raining, I'd say PROVE IT. If someone said you'll go to jail for smoking pot, I'd say prove it (they did). If someone told me I’d get burned if I stuck my finger in the fire, I’d give it a shot. If someone told me that white was the all the colors instead of the absence of color, I'da said prove it.

Okey so if you are proof kind of guy then prove to me there is no god. Then I will believe you.


Finally, if you'da told me that we come from apes, I'da said prove it. Then science proceeded to do just that.

Just as an FYI evolution is "theory" not a fact. Definition of theory look it up your self: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Conjecture is an Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.




Now, here's the thing about science you don't get. Darwin had this strange idea too – really bonkers - and he said PROVE IT too. But, there wasn't anybody there except himself, so he set about PROVING IT to himself.

You call evolution science? It is just a bunch of guess work dressed up in Science clothes. Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science." Many secular non religious scientists don't buy into that theory because its bougus. Microevolution is a proven fact and Macro evolution(the one you believe in) is not a proven fact therefore Evolution is a Faith because it is not a scientific Fact.



Not only did he PROVE IT, but it's been proven, time and time again, by countless scientists, and countless researchers all across the world, across many scientific disciplines, ALL through the ages since Darwin. Every one of them shouted: PROVE IT. And so they did, and so they continue to do so.

Sorry to disappoint you but Darwin himself toward the end of his life started to doubt his own theory. As much as you can say its been "proven" it has been disproven time and time again. There is no proof that one spicies can become another. Like a bat can never become an elephant.


Now, I don't mean PROOF, like YOU think proof is. You think proof is some voices you heard in the night. Scientists do MORE than just sit down and agree with each other. Nope, PROOF, is scientifically derived through EXPIRIMENTATION - rigorous experimentation. Do you know what that entails?

Yeah, rigorous experimentation base on one assumption over another, base on imagination, and missing transitional fossil records. They come up with an entire animal, shape, skin, color etc based on one tooth. And you call that science?


Therefore, given that scientific PROOF isn't faith, I'm going to go with PROOF. You can have faith.

You are right scientific proof is not faith and since Macro evolution has not been scientifically proven it is a faith.

you obviously believe in evolution and someone told you about it and you believed it so you are a believer in something you were told by someone, Well that just makes no sense logically does it? By your reasoning: if someone told me a TV show is on at 8 p.m. and I believe them then I'm a believer. :D
You seem to have a strong need to make sure that everyone is labeled as a 'believer' or as having some form of 'faith'. The problem here is not with us but with yourself - you can't come to terms that many people are not like you, that many people live their lives just fine (and better than many "believers") with a belief in a god.

This is like 1:you believe in a god,goddess
2:you are an atheist.
That's it!Of course everyone has his own way to see the world,that's normal.I know what I want but that doesn't makes me religious.ATHEIST=non believer.Believers hide behind god,I hide behind logic and big brains.

I dissagree I there are two kinds of people
1) those who believe there is a god
2) those who don't know there is a god.

Those who proclaim there is no god are making a claim based on faith not fact therefor they are egnostic because they don't know for a fact that there is no god

There is a difference between not believing in god and not wanting to believe in god,DEAR FANCY.I don't refuse to believe in god,I just know that there is nobody or if there is somebody he doesn't give a thought to us.I can rule my own world,I don't need a master to command me.Grow up,stop hiding behind gods and stuff,the ancient romans believed in many gods,where are their gods?What makes your god real and others a fake?It's easy for a weak mind to be influenced by others.Come on dud,"He doesn't interfere with mortal decisions",HE JUST REJECTS THE ONES THAT DON'T DO AS HE SAIS.WHAT IS THAT, A JOKE.HE INTERFERES OR NOT.HE DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT TO DO,HE JUST READS FROM HIS MANUAL OF PUNISHMENT.

There must be some guidebook or website or maybe a church lesson out there that tells people of faith how to "convince" people without faith that they actually HAVE faith by using the "gold in some location" example and yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah.

It's an argument that has been presented time and time again, and has been discussed (at length) on this very website time and time again. It's semantics. It's perspective. In the end, it doesn't matter. I don't care if you think I have "faith" in this that or the other thing. I don't care if you think I secretly believe in a god. I don't care what label you put on me. Call me an agnostic, I won't throw a hissy fit, promise. So there you go, give yourself a tic in the "win" column because it's just not worth explaining AGAIN.

And it's all off topic and just screaming "troll".

Here is a thought experiment. I say I am a god who has come to earth how do you prove me wrong? Can you show absolute proof? If you aren't able to show absolute proof shouldn't you worship me and pay me tithings just in case? I'll answer any questions you non-believers in me might have, I won't even send you to hell for doubting me, at least not yet anyway.

I think if a union of athiests was created, it would do nothing but debunk everyone else's religions being that they'd have nothing else to talk about. I too am atheist, which I think are coming up more in my generation being that people are becoming more educated than the generation before. Its really not needed. The only thing we'd have in common is NOT believing in something, the opposite reason of why people band together, because of a common belief

Hello:

I'm an atheist. However, I've never found the need to bond with other atheists. Indeed, in my view, an organization for atheists is an anathema to atheism. In fact, I don't believe there IS an atheist organization. Simply put, they don't exist.

Besides that, a very good reason of why most atheists would never dream of joining an atheistic organization is because most atheistic organizations are not atheistic at all, they're shills for ideological commitments other-than-atheism.

And when I say other-than-atheism, I of course mean self-described leftist organizations. Humanism, vegetarianism, identity politics, and all sorts of patent nonsense go under the umbrella of atheism, as any jaunt around the net or an appearance at your local atheist organization will show you.

These are organizations designed to get you to DO something. Don't buy what they're selling. They're NOT atheists. True atheists don't want YOU to DO anything. What they really want is to be left alone.

No?

excon


Right... there are so many posts that I won't read through them all, just respond to this first one.
Ok, if you just want to be left alone and don't believe in anything, that makes you agnostic. An atheist is someone who has devout faith in the NON-existence of God. An agnostic simply doesn't care about whether God exists.
And I'm not sure that vegetarianism could qualify as a leftist organisation. I'm a vegetarian (and I don't believe in God, but I don't see any link at all between these 2 things), but it's not as if I sought out other vegetarians and started a club to promote our way of life... I don't know many other vegetarians. I think you're just trying to hard to pigeonhole everything.

I dissagree i there are two kinds of people
1) those who believe there is a god
2) those who dont know there is a god.

Those who proclaim there is no god are making a claim based on faith not fact therefor they are egnostic because they dont know for a fact that there is no god

Watch the movie Zeitgiest and you will get your proof. Christianity is a plagerism of Eygptian religions, which were around B.C. The story of Jesus's life is almost exactly the same as numerous other "God's Suns". Rulers a long time ago, not long after Jesus apparently died, used "god" as a way of control over societies. Hmm and if Jesus was alive, why was there no documents of him from ancient writers from his time. Because there IS publications found from authors around his time, which lived not too far from where he was, and there was NO account for him AT ALL. Being that he walked on water, cured the sick and rose back from death. Which in fact, HAS NEVER HAPPENED. Funny that people can rise from the dead back then, and cure blindness, when we can't even do that today with our technology. People like you are a good example of how brainwashed and gullible the people of the world are. You're controlled by your religion and you can't even see it, its sad. Well that's what the jurisdiction wanted, and that's what they got.

...I do choose not to believe in the tooth fairy due to the fact that i later found out that my mother is the one who put money under my pillow and not the tooth fairy, so i know for a fact that my mother was behind the whole tooth fairy thing and that is why i can say with confidence i dont believe in the tooth fairy.


FancyT, What if I told you to believe that you could walk on the ceiling. Could you choose to believe?

And, likewise, could you choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy, despite your experience suggesting that there isn't one?

If you are right that all belief is a matter of choice, then you should be able to believe both of these things. (Truly and in your heart. Obviously, just saying you believe doesn't count!) Could you?

asking,
fancyT is, um, no longer a member of the site.

Watch the movie Zeitgiest and you will get your proof. Christianity is a plagerism of Eygptian religions, which were around B.C. The story of Jesus's life is almost exactly the same as numerous other "God's Suns". Rulers a long time ago, not long after Jesus apparently died, used "god" as a way of control over societies. Hmm and if Jesus was alive, why was there no documents of him from ancient writers from his time.

I think you'll find that the Egyptian religions and Christianity sprang up around the same time (but before Christ was born, it was Judaism), so neither is a "plagerism" of the other. Just because there are similar ideas doesn't mean that one stole from the other. The teachings of Jesus are very similar to those currently being promoted by the Dalai Lama, but it doesn't mean that Buddhism and Christianity stole the ideas from one another. Most religions share a lot of ideas, prophecies, moral values and ideals.
And there are documents that suggest that Jesus was a real person. I personally don't believe that he was the son of God, but he could quite easily have existed all the same.

asking,
fancyT is, um, no longer a member of the site.

Oh. I'm embarrassed. :o
I guess I missed a cue.

[QUOTE=Galveston1]


Sorry Galveston1, I didn't mean "no", I meant very little mention of God in any of the writings of out founding fathers. I've been looking, and since you said a study of our history would show, I thought you might have some useful info. Thanks
Religious Affiliationof U.S. Founding Fathers # ofFoundingFathers % ofFoundingFathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts

There is a difference between not believing in god and not wanting to believe in god,DEAR FANCY.I don't refuse to belive in god,I just know that there is nobody or if there is somebody he doesn't give a thought to us.I can rule my own world,I don't need a master to command me.Grow up,stop hiding behind gods and stuff,the ancient romans believed in many gods,where are their gods?What makes your god real and others a fake?It's easy for a weak mind to be influenced by others.Come on dud,"He doesn't interfere with mortal decisions",HE JUST REJECTS THE ONES THAT DON'T DO AS HE SAIS.WHAT IS THAT, A JOKE.HE INTERFERES OR NOT.HE DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT TO DO,HE JUST READS FROM HIS MANUAL OF PUNISHMENT.

It's obvious that you have never seriously read His Manual. Jesus Christ is called "the lamb slain from the foundation of the Earth" That is God's expression of love for mankind, not a "manual of punishment. P.s. why are you yelling? You sound like a religious fanatic.