*Logic

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, February 4th, 2012 3:55pm PST - promote requested by original submitter bareboards2.

Fun Fact: The Mormon church posthumously baptized Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#Genealogy_and_baptism

Yeah--except SOPA he is spot on...except when he isn't...

This is not obvious to a lot of people.

Also, I'm with Maher: pineapple does not go on pizza.

neither is the word dogma... but its a pretty big difference

>> ^budzos:

This is not obvious to a lot of people.


Yeah I've met more than a few Atheists that don't get this at all. I don't care I just live my life...you live yours.

Fuck this fuckin' hypocrite. How come he can't have a fair and balanced argument about vaccines?

*nsfw

And pineapples do belong on pizzas. But only when paired with ham. Sweet and salty matches well together and is a welcomed palate compliment, even on pizza.

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by brycewi19.

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Interesting. Since the second part is an example, Atheism would seem to fit into this definition.

Pepperoni pineapple pizza ownz

>> ^Pantalones:

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Interesting. Since the second part is an example, Atheism would seem to fit into this definition.


Which is the "second part"? Not that it really matters, atheism doesn't fit into any part of that definition.

Btw Bill, hate to break it to you, but that wasn't the first unbaptism

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Fun Fact: The Mormon church posthumously baptized Hitler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#Genealogy_and_baptism



To be fair it's not the Mormon church as an organization that did that. Any individual member of the church can do a posthumous baptism by saying some magic words and writing the person's name in a book. It provides for some trolling. They've tried to tell members to stop baptizing Ann Frank, but it keeps happening.

Well technically it requires two church members, because one of them needs to get dunked by the other. But there's no oversight or approval involved.

Man, he doesn't get everything right (like the pharmaceuticals thing), but he's very funny.

Love the reference to pseu-pseu-pseudeo (is that the spelling)?

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

Ah, shinyblurry - hanging around like a bad smell as usual.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project


Jealous?

shinyblurry... here's why I can't truly respect someone like you:



This is all a hypothetical situation of course, but bear with me:



Imagine I come to you and say: "I have here, absolute, definitive proof that god doesn't exist."
You would surely say: "that's bullshit, I don't believe that, I know that god is real, I don't care what you say, etc". In fact, this is not hypothetical, it already happens with evolution, but that's another story.



Now, if YOU came to me or any atheist and said: "Here I have absolute, definitive proof god exists", we would say: "let me see that... hmm... yeah ok. I guess we were wrong. Fuck. This sucks, but god exists even though he's obviously an idiot and an asshole". we would change our minds, when faced with a contradicting reality.


People like you are delusional, and choose to ignore reality. That.... is fucked up.

The faith you speak of isn't mutually inclusive with Atheism.

Not all Atheists believe there are no deities, however all lack any belief that there are any deities.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

Atheism is a religion like health is a disease.

What second part of the definition does atheism fit into? Atheism has NOTHING to do with morality you fatuous dipshit.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to call you a pedantic cunt.

>> ^Pantalones:

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Interesting. Since the second part is an example, Atheism would seem to fit into this definition.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project


I assure you it requires no faith at all. BY DEFINITION. You fucking disingenuous piece of shit. Why don't you suck on my fucking balls asshole?

False.

Atheism makes no claims about cause, nature, purpose of the universe, or any superhuman agencies, or any moral code. Atheism is lack of belief in god, that's it.
>> ^Pantalones:

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Interesting. Since the second part is an example, Atheism would seem to fit into this definition.

Wow. That reaction is similar to when I pissed in holy water. It's as if I attacked a deeply heartfelt and cherished world order. The second, non-italicized part, is an example, as I said, and not a functional part of the definition. You're right, atheism has nothing to do with morality. It was something else that told you to call me a pedantic cunt.
>> ^budzos:

What second part of the definition does atheism fit into? Atheism has NOTHING to do with morality you fatuous dipshit.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to call you a pedantic cunt.



Also false. Although not universally, atheists often believe in scientifically supported theories concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.
>> ^gwiz665:

False.
Atheism makes no claims about cause, nature, purpose of the universe, or any superhuman agencies, or any moral code. Atheism is lack of belief in god, that's it.

Indeed they do, but Atheism does not make any such claims. It's correlation, not causation.
>> ^Pantalones:


Also false. Although not universally, atheists often believe in scientifically supported theories concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.
>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism makes no claims about cause, nature, purpose of the universe, or any superhuman agencies, or any moral code. Atheism is lack of belief in god, that's it.

>> ^Pantalones:

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Interesting. Since the second part is an example, Atheism would seem to fit into this definition.

Do you believe a unicorn created the universe? Not believing would seem to fit into your interpretation of the definition of religion.
>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

This makes faith sound cheap, not to mention a lousy tool for assessing truth.

You must have misunderstood me.

>> ^Pantalones:

Wow. That reaction is similar to when I pissed in holy water. It's as if I attacked a deeply heartfelt and cherished world order. The second, non-italicized part, is an example, as I said, and not a functional part of the definition. You're right, atheism has nothing to do with morality. It was something else that told you to call me a pedantic cunt.

*parody for the unbaptism segment

While I believe Bill is right, much of his argument is flawed. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. There are non-theistic religions, the adherents of which could fairly be called atheists. Some Buddhist sects, for example, have no belief in deities but Buddhism is still a religion.

So, while atheism is not a religion, neither is it the opposite of religion.

Adding video to channels (Parody) - requested by xxovercastxx.

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.

Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.

"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to *know* that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.>> ^sickio:

The faith you speak of isn't mutually inclusive with Atheism.
Not all Atheists believe there are no deities, however all lack any belief that there are any deities.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project


No, this is not true. If we are to believe our models of the big bang are correct (and you'd be a fucking idiot not to) then we say "god created the big bang". But then you must ask the question "where did god come from?" And the answer to that question requires more faith than the opinion of not needing a god for the universe to exist.

But also even just in the creation of humans, when you get to the circular "Why are we here?", "God made us", "How do you know?", "Because god says he's always right, and he says he made us", you are asking for a complete leap of faith based on nothing.

On the other hand, if we are to decide that humans were created by certain atoms colliding or reacting with certain other atoms, and various conditions being perfect. And even if it's got a one in a billion to the power a billion chance of happening, we just need to wait for the odds to come up, and we're not exactly short on time on the scale of the universe.

Human emotion is irrational, and believing in god is an emotional choice. I respect the choice, but it cannot be correctly claimed that it makes more sense to believe in god based on any logical argument or physical evidence; you have your own reasons and that's fine by me.

However, i think you understand atheism differently to the meaning i've always known. Accepting god requires faith. The faith to accept something you aren't certain of. You have faith that god is real. Now i can't make that leap; our chemistry is different and i can't accept something that i haven't got evidence for. Now, if i refuse your proposal of how the world, the universe exists, then i must form my own opinions on the evidence that i am presented. That is not a faith, not a belief in something, it is something that i can work out and solve for myself. If you follow the science, it makes sense, and i don't need ANY faith for that; my atheism drops right out of the undeniable logic of maths, and i don't have to keep believing in it for it to be true (in your case, you do).

Imagine I come to you and say: "I have here, absolute, definitive proof that god doesn't exist."
You would surely say: "that's bullshit, I don't believe that, I know that god is real, I don't care what you say, etc". In fact, this is not hypothetical, it already happens with evolution, but that's another story.

Evolution doesn't "prove" there's no God, while quantum mechanics suggests there's plenty of spaces for (a) God to "hide".

Now, if YOU came to me or any atheist and said: "Here I have absolute, definitive proof god exists", we would say: "let me see that... hmm... yeah ok. I guess we were wrong. Fuck. This sucks, but god exists even though he's obviously an idiot and an asshole". we would change our minds, when faced with a contradicting reality.

There are people who would deny the existence of God if God appeared before them. I suspect that's why "He" don't bother...

Here's what really matters. People are violent animals disguised as rational beings. Without religion (or traditions) to decentralize their solipsism, they stay animals, however clever.

Atheism's not a religion but it's still a club, even if the only rule is, "Thou shalt not believe in the existence of any deities." I think that's a fair statement.

Maher believing he could bed the quality of tail he has in his stable without his millions? Now that's faith.

>> ^schlub:

Fuck this fuckin' hypocrite. How come he can't have a fair and balanced argument about vaccines?


The difference is that there are many objective reasons to distrust the insurance/Big Pharma/Government cartel.

I don't agree with Maher's position on vaccines but being paranoid about them doesn't strike me as being inconsistent with logic (Tuskegee syphilis experiment).

It's definitely a blind spot for Maher and I bet he'll admit it eventually.

Imagine I come to you and say: "I have here, absolute, definitive proof that god doesn't exist."
You would surely say: "that's bullshit, I don't believe that, I know that god is real, I don't care what you say, etc". In fact, this is not hypothetical, it already happens with evolution, but that's another story.

If you had an argument, I would listen. The problem is, there isnt a single argument out there.

I'll also be happy to show you that you don't understand the theory of evolution as well as you think you do anytime.

Now, if YOU came to me or any atheist and said: "Here I have absolute, definitive proof god exists", we would say: "let me see that... hmm... yeah ok. I guess we were wrong. Fuck. This sucks, but god exists even though he's obviously an idiot and an asshole". we would change our minds, when faced with a contradicting reality.

People like you are delusional, and choose to ignore reality. That.... is fucked up.

I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.

>> ^EMPIRE:

No, this is not true. If we are to believe our models of the big bang are correct (and you'd be a fucking idiot not to) then we say "god created the big bang". But then you must ask the question "where did god come from?" And the answer to that question requires more faith than the opinion of not needing a god for the universe to exist.

Well God didn't come from nowhere, He has simply always existed. Sussing this out, if the Universe began to exist, it has a cause. So, unless you're saying that something came from nothing, your other choice is an uncaused eternal first cause of the Universe. It's widely accepted in big bang cosmology that time, space, matter and energy had a finite beginning, which makes the cause of the Universe timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can make some further deductions about this, but that is sounding a lot like God already.

But also even just in the creation of humans, when you get to the circular "Why are we here?", "God made us", "How do you know?", "Because god says he's always right, and he says he made us", you are asking for a complete leap of faith based on nothing.

We know God through faith, but it isn't blind faith. To know God is to know Him personally. I know Jesus is God because I received the Holy Spirit. That proves what scripture says is true.

On the other hand, if we are to decide that humans were created by certain atoms colliding or reacting with certain other atoms, and various conditions being perfect. And even if it's got a one in a billion to the power a billion chance of happening, we just need to wait for the odds to come up, and we're not exactly short on time on the scale of the universe.

You have to consider the finely tuned physical laws that govern the Universe if you want to discuss odds. And the controvery is not that they are fine tuned for life, because they are. The controversy is that there is a fine tuner. Consider that the odds for just one of these laws (the cosmological constant) being set the way it is, let alone the dozens of other laws, is greater than 1 part in 10 to the 120th power. That's a number greater than the number of particles in the Universe. Your odds would be better winning the powerball 100 times in a row. We're dealing with a virtual impossibility here.

Human emotion is irrational, and believing in god is an emotional choice. I respect the choice, but it cannot be correctly claimed that it makes more sense to believe in god based on any logical argument or physical evidence; you have your own reasons and that's fine by me.

It wasn't an emotional choice for me. I was strictly a materialist before I came to faith, and that because God shook me from my agnosticism and woke me up to the spiritual reality of which the material reality is only a veil. I have no choice in believing in God because it is plainly obvious to me that He exists, not to mention that He makes it known to me every single day. It is not something I could for a moment deny.

However, i think you understand atheism differently to the meaning i've always known. Accepting god requires faith. The faith to accept something you aren't certain of. You have faith that god is real. Now i can't make that leap; our chemistry is different and i can't accept something that i haven't got evidence for. Now, if i refuse your proposal of how the world, the universe exists, then i must form my own opinions on the evidence that i am presented. That is not a faith, not a belief in something, it is something that i can work out and solve for myself. If you follow the science, it makes sense, and i don't need ANY faith for that; my atheism drops right out of the undeniable logic of maths, and i don't have to keep believing in it for it to be true (in your case, you do).

Science doesn't have any information on whether God exists or not. Science strictly deals with empirical evidence, and God is a Spirit, and spirit is immaterial. In regards to logic, where do the laws of logic come from? What place do absolute laws have in a material universe that is always changing?

Faith isn't something you believe without certainty. This is what scripture says about faith:

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is the substance, or foundation for the hope that I have in Christ. It is not something I hope is true, it is something I know is true, in which I place my hope. I cannot see God at the moment, and neither are all of His promises of the future yet actualized, but I have faith that He is there, not because of wishful thinking, but because I have a tangible, experiential relationship with Him. Even though Jesus is not in the room with me, He is always with me through the Holy Spirit. His is a peace beyond words. The promises have not all yet manifested, but my faith is that they will be manifested, because of the hope I have in Jesus Christ, hope that is well founded.

I understand that you are simply trying to evaluate evidence and postulate the most likely scenerio. The quote is simply saying that it is a large leap for a finite being to make. I am praying for you to receive a sign and the gift of faith (because it is a gift). What is true is that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws Him near. If you are open to the truth, regardless of what it might be, and if what is actually true is important to you, then you could know God is real. God will lead you if you love the truth.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^shinyblurry:

I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.
>> ^EMPIRE:


You obviously have no idea what constitutes evidence.

edit: just so we're clear, I obviously meant something not personal-experience based.

To investigate the central claim of Christianity, that Jesus is God and you can know Him personally, don't you think it would only be logical to follow what scripture instructs us to do in order to find that out? Why would you expect to get results any other way? God will provide the evidence if you are willing to investigate it honestly.

>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.
>> ^EMPIRE:

You obviously have no idea what constitutes evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:

To investigate the central claim of Christianity, that Jesus is God and you can know Him personally, don't you think it would only be logical to follow what scripture instructs us to do in order to find that out? Why would you expect to get results any other way? God will provide the evidence if you are willing to investigate it honestly.
>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.
>> ^EMPIRE:

You obviously have no idea what constitutes evidence.




You're like talking with a brick wall. I give up, since unlike you, I'm not crazy.

>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^shinyblurry:
To investigate the central claim of Christianity, that Jesus is God and you can know Him personally, don't you think it would only be logical to follow what scripture instructs us to do in order to find that out? Why would you expect to get results any other way? God will provide the evidence if you are willing to investigate it honestly.
>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.
>> ^EMPIRE:

You obviously have no idea what constitutes evidence.


You're like talking with a brick wall. I give up, since unlike you, I'm not crazy.


And this is why you don't know God exists.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I understand that you are simply trying to evaluate evidence and postulate the most likely scenerio. The quote is simply saying that it is a large leap for a finite being to make. I am praying for you to receive a sign and the gift of faith (because it is a gift). What is true is that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws Him near. If you are open to the truth, regardless of what it might be, and if what is actually true is important to you, then you could know God is real. God will lead you if you love the truth.
>> ^dannym3141:


I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Well, I like it on Pizza - In fact I also like it on Hamburgers!

>> ^budzos:

This is not obvious to a lot of people.
Also, I'm with Maher: pineapple does not go on pizza.

More insane, inaccurate, dishohnest ravings from another silly brainwashed cunt. Atheism has none of these things.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

In my opinion, the only way SOME atheists are like theists is their insistence that others think/believe the way they do. @dannym3141 doesn't do that -- he doesn't insult theists, he just chooses not to be one.

Sorry @budzos, but I think you are guilty of being like a theist, by being so intolerant towards another person's choice. I can agree with you that it isn't "logical" -- I don't agree that it is imperative that every human being BE logical.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker -- the reason we don't go ballistic over any Jesus or God references made by Obama is because we know he isn't talking to us. He is talking to the idiots who STILL insist that he is Muslim, trying to calm them down. Not that it will make any difference to them. Logic isn't their strong suit. Obama doesn't pray to God, looking for answers, like Bush said that he did. He doesn't say that God wants him to be President. If IF he talked like that, we would be in an uproar. But we are smart people, us liberals. WE know when children are being placated.

>> ^bareboards2:

Sorry @budzos, but I think you are guilty of being like a theist, by being so intolerant towards another person's choice. I can agree with you that it isn't "logical" -- I don't agree that it is imperative that every human being BE logical.

Good to know. I've added you to my list of fucking dishonest nitwits who don't know what words mean. And can't read. Show me where I'm intolerant of anyone else's choice, moron. I'm intolerant of the notion that atheists are actually theists. That's what I'm intolerant of.

I've also added you to my list of people who can't make a blueberry pie. For my own reasons.

@budzos Living up to your avatar picture, I see.

Go suck a fucking dick.
>> ^bareboards2:

@budzos Living up to your avatar picture, I see.

I think the real point is being missed.

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

The point that must be made is that atheists can think, act, and behave every bit as religious as any non-atheist. One of the most common and irritating religious statements I hear is that atheists are somehow specially immune to the host of human flaws inherent in religious and faith like behaviour. Meanwhile, atheists can be found alongside everyone else in the ranks of almost every nut bar conspiracy movement and personality cult out there.

>> ^bcglorf:


Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.


It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.

It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.

My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^bcglorf:

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.
It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.
My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.


Semantics.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/deity. Blame my math background but I still call a set with only 1 item a set. And I stand by my assertion that atheists ARE every bit as human and prone to irrational beliefs as anyone else.

Yeah, thanks for the meaningless semantics. And OF COURSE atheists are prone to the same foibles as anyone else. That goes right along with them NOT being a group. They share a disbelief in gods. Aside from that one single thing all bets are off.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^bcglorf:

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.
It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.
My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.

Semantics.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/deity. Blame my math background but I still call a set with only 1 item a set. And I stand by my assertion that atheists ARE every bit as human and prone to irrational beliefs as anyone else.

What can't I say in a comment?

We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community or simply ban you outright.

Obviously a response to last week when Kennedy said Atheism IS a religion and Maher didn't want to get into it then. I wonder why he didn't mention her? Perhaps he felt she already got enough shit for it online...

Bud and I are doing just fine, Boise my love. We are working it out and having our version of fun on our profile page.

If this comment was directed towards bud and me.

If not, then never mind.


>> ^Boise_Lib:

What can't I say in a comment?
We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community or simply ban you outright.

I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

Faith isn't based on feelings. Some people may serve God because it makes them feel good, but they are the people who fall away in times of trouble. I serve God because He is God, and He has let me know that in an undeniable way. Believe me, God can give you revelation to the extent that you would say "Lord, it is enough".

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Do you know why there are similarities between Christianity and Islam? Most people don't seem to know this but Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism. There is no difference between Muhammed and Joseph Smith. The only difference is, one came 600 years after Christianity and the other 1800 years. They are both men who spoke with angels and received "new" revelation, which totally contradicts everything in the bible, then wrote new books and claimed it was authoratative over the Old and New Testaments. They're both counterfeit, cultist religions based on Christianity. This is what the bible says about receiving new revelations from angels:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

So, when it comes down to it, it is all revolving around the central claim of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

It isn't a matter of convincing yourself of anything, it is matter of God giving you revelation that He exists. He gives this revelation to those who dilligently seek Him. Neither is empiricism the measure of reality because there are many things that empiricism cannot prove.

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

There are things that even science must assume is true, such as the uniformity in nature. Science can't be done without that fundemental assumption. The same goes for the laws of logic. Where do they come from? Where do you get absolute laws from in this ever changing material reality? Where Why is nature uniform? If you are interested in logic you should investigate these questions.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

What I am saying is that isn't a matter of just knowing, it is a matter of revelation. There are two ways to know something about God. To either be omnipotent yourself, or receive revelation from an omnipotent being. God gives a general revelation in the Creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is facing the evidence that God exists, and He also gives a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^lampishthing:

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.
"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to know that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.

Actually you have that wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods, it's the lack of belief in a god. It's a small but important point. Agnosticism (as you pointed out) is related to knowledge.

Most "atheists" are agnostics atheists, they don't know if there's a good, but they have seen no evidence for one therefore have no reason to believe in one. Very few atheists (even the "hardcore" like Dawkins) will say they know there's no god, simply that it is extremely improbable.

Theists can fall into either camp. There are many agnostic theists, who can't say for sure that there is a good but choose to believe anyway. People like @shinyblurry would claim to be gnostic theists, in that they claim to know there is a god, and consequently believe.

To me, gnosticism (either theistic or atheistic) is an intellectually dishonest position. There is no real evidence (and personal experience doesn't count, I'm afraid) for this existence of god, but by it's very definition an omnipotent being outside the laws of physics could hide his existence from the universe so it's impossible to disprove using science.

Finally, there is one more position that hasn't been mentioned. It's the third axis on the graph. So far, we have belief (considered opinion based on evidence) and knowledge (evidence available), but there is also desire; whether you want god to exist or not. I don't know the positive term for this, but the negative is usually called an "anti-theist", and can be applied to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. This is the idea that not only does god probably not exist, it is a good thing that it doesn't. Atheists do not necessarily fall into this camp. Many feel that a benevolent deity would be a nice thing, much like it'd be nice if Santa or the easter bunny existed, but there's simply insufficient evidence for it. Note that anti-theists don't hate theists (other than the ones that any moral person would hate: bigots, child-molesters and so on), they hate the concept of god.

It's even possible to be a theist antitheist ("god's a prick, but he's a powerful prick so I should really obey him") although I'll haven't met any of them. Fictional example would be Riddick

For the record, I am an agnostic atheist anti-theist. I don't know if there's a god, I find it improbable and if he's anything like he's depicted in any of the major religions, I want no part of him.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.

This is a perfect example of your unwillingness to accept facts that do not support your preconceptions. There are thousands, if not millions of us who have done just this and received nothing.

Your hypothesis has been proven wrong over and over again and you still preach it as the truth. This suggests that you are prideful and unwilling to accept your mistakes. This is not the only time you have been demonstrably wrong and won't acknowledge it.

If you have nothing to teach and are unwilling to learn, why would anyone want to talk with you?

soooooo......12 days until pitchers & catchers report!!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck.

Actually, most of the responses to shiny were funny, eloquent and well reasoned. Although I will agree that a few were just rude.

The reaction basically proves that some atheists can be assholes. Big surprise. However, there is an "atheist dogma" that insists on vitriol. I will also say that many theists don't share their religions blind adherence to despicable or ridiculous positions. People are people, theist or atheist and there will always be good or bad people in both groups.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

You're either really ignorant or being totally disingenuous. Frankly, neither would surprise me. Instead of making bullshit statements, how about you back them up with some "basic reality"? You cannot confuse the personal beliefs or ideologies of individual atheists with the concept itself, even if a large percentage of atheists happen to share them. BTW, it's "catechism".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants.

Hang on, Obama is at war with religion while at the same time passing laws and pushing agendas based on religious belief?

At least, you're consistently inconsistent... carry on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.


I assume you're referring to Obama saying that Jesus wants people to pay higher taxes? Well, aside from the fact that that is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ (don't remember Christ ever encouraging anyone to go to war or benefit the rich), frankly we have better things to do than criticise Obama when he's doing what we want. Personally, I don't really have a problem with (most of) the moral teachings of Jesus. I would prefer a president that bases his decisions on rationale, but since that will never happen I will settle for one that doesn't claim that god told him to kill arabs or fix gays or whatever.

And that's the crux of the issue. Many people "on the left" (nothing to do with atheism, you'll note) are disenfranchised with Obama. They wanted a progressive, but got a centre-right politician. But they're also realists. They look at Obama, and then look at the alternatives (when only one of your candidates accepts scientific reality and lost and the least insane of the rest is a young earth creationist who wants to repeal the civil rights act, you know you have problems), and they go "best of a bad lot"

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.

The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.

Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I do have definitive evidence; If you repented of your sin and asked Jesus to come into your life, He would do it.
This is a perfect example of your unwillingness to accept facts that do not support your preconceptions. There are thousands, if not millions of us who have done just this and received nothing.
Your hypothesis has been proven wrong over and over again and you still preach it as the truth. This suggests that you are prideful and unwilling to accept your mistakes. This is not the only time you have been demonstrably wrong and won't acknowledge it.
If you have nothing to teach and are unwilling to learn, why would anyone want to talk with you?


Are you saying there are no insincere converts? There are also plenty of people who come to Christ and fall away later because their faith had no foundation in reality. It's the churches fault mainly, which has preached an "easy believism" to gain converts without showing them that foundation, which is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Neither are you a Christian unless you are born again and regenerated by the Spirit of God. If that didn't happen, there was a lack of committment or understanding in there somewhere.

atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.


>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

You can't reason with someone who refuses to employ it in the first place.

We're all born atheists.

I'm sorry, I fell asleep. What are you guys talking about?

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

"Evolution doesn't "prove" there's no God, while quantum mechanics suggests there's plenty of spaces for (a) God to "hide"."


Using equivalent logic(?): Physiology suggests that there are plenty of spaces for God to hide. Such as in my rectum.

Atheists generally accept whatever there's compelling evidence for, but that isn't a definition of atheism either. Atheists are people who happen not to believe any religion, in contrast to people who happen to not believe in any religion except one.

Your second point is pretty close. We're violent and rational. We try to rationalize things we don't understand. Some people choose religion to supply their answers. Other people look at religion and say that's not rational either, and prefer not knowing to knowing something that is a patently false human invention.

Atheism isn't a club by any measure. It's just the condition of not having a religious faith. Do you have a religious faith? If not, then you're atheist. If you perceive that atheists are swarming together and standardizing each other's beliefs, it's probably because religious people insist on pestering us, which encourages us to gather together for strength and support. One unfortunate side-effect of open atheists communing so much with one another is that we develop a lot of the same dogma. But none of that dogma is required for membership. One only needs not to have a religion to be atheist by the word's definition.

It's like saying obesity is a club and you have to love food, eat unhealthily, and get no exercise. That's not the definition of obesity, just common features of obese people.>> ^quantumushroom:
Now, if YOU came to me or any atheist and said: "Here I have absolute, definitive proof god exists", we would say: "let me see that... hmm... yeah ok. I guess we were wrong. Fuck. This sucks, but god exists even though he's obviously an idiot and an asshole". we would change our minds, when faced with a contradicting reality.
There are people who would deny the existence of God if God appeared before them. I suspect that's why "He" don't bother...
Here's what really matters. People are violent animals disguised as rational beings. Without religion (or traditions) to decentralize their solipsism, they stay animals, however clever.
Atheism's not a religion but it's still a club, even if the only rule is, "Thou shalt not believe in the existence of any deities." I think that's a fair statement.

Yes, people who believe they are right believe they are right and get angry about it when others tell them they are wrong. These are neither the defining characteristics of religion nor atheism, but a part of the human condition. You're confusing your own stereotypes of religious people and dogmatists with what religion and theistic dogma really are, which is exactly what atheism isn't.

I lack belief in any god or religion, therefore I'm atheist. If you notice anything that atheists often have in common, that's causation (certain arguments which we hear from each other) or coincidence (anger and hate because we're human). Anything else is your own projection.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

@shinyblurry

So let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

@dannym3141

I highly recommend the "ignore" button. It has added to my quality of life immensely.

I appreciate your attempt to engage. I really appreciate your intelligence and thoughtfulness.

It has not all been for naught. You have at least one person out here applauding you.

False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:

atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.

>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

>> ^gwiz665:

False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.

>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project





What a minute.

Atheism IS the belief that there is no God/Deity. Isn't it?

It's agnostics that simply take no position and say they don't believe one way or the other...

o let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

My answer is, I believe the words of God over the words of man. I'm not sure why you expect me to compromise my beliefs and tell you something that I don't believe is true.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

What possible respect could you have for someone that you believe is a "silly childish scared and brainwashed fool" except that which is empty and false? I prefer your honesty to your tolerance. You are incapable of offending me; I've heard it all.

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I am obstinately and intolerantly devoted to the word of God. If it wasn't a scandal for you, you would be a perfect man.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

You virtually ignored everything I wrote, and looking back I count 3 scriptures.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

You entirely missed the point, and actually reinforced it with your assertion that it would be ridiculous to believe that law of gravity could change. The question is, why should there be a law-like order in the Universe in the first place? What evidence do you have that the future will be like the past? How do you explain the uniformity in nature? Where do you get the laws of logic from? These are things that you assume apriori without accounting for them.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

There is good reason to believe that the Universe is designed, from the fine tuning of the physical laws, to the information in DNA. It is a better explanation of the facts. To rule it out I think is ridiculous and definitely not scientific. Ask Anthony Flew why he stopped being an atheist.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

I wouldn't call passive aggressive polite, would you? God isn't going to judge me for telling what His word says, which is what He commanded me to do.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. Your guilty conscience is telling you that you've violated Gods standard of behavior.

>> ^dannym3141:

I'm sorry but the dictionary disagrees with you:

a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.
>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

Agnosticism actually doesn't apply directly to religion/god at all, it handles a more fundamental concept of "knowing". People seem to think it's the "middle ground" between atheist and theist, but this is wrong. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, like a circle can be blue or a square can be red. Two different creatures altogether.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".

What a minute.
Atheism IS the belief that there is no God/Deity. Isn't it?
It's agnostics that simply take no position and say they don't believe one way or the other...

I must concede that there certainly is controversy on the definition of what "atheism" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

On, among other details, the negative/positive we're arguing for here. I suppose "Atheism" is too broad a word nowadays to be able to narrow down - this is a problem, because it causes confusion in both adversaries and proponents.
>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry but the dictionary disagrees with you:
a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.
>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.