Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[magnifier661]

No, you are combining your post with mine and saying it's all mine.

http://www.lollie.com/happy/cutandpaste.html

Here's a counter for US military spending this year, and also since you logged on:

http://www.lovearth.net/

There's your deficit issues in a nutshell.

No you label me as a "Religious person". I don't really think so; but I just take it for what it's worth. Now if you act religious and put down religious people; then that is completely contradictory. Very hypocritical.

 

[magnifier661]

oops, sorry, misread it, you're right.

No worries buddy. Just making sure we understand each other.

 

[MARIS61]

Wow that went way off topic! So what you are trying to say is the United States Government are "war mongers"? They are the scum of the world? At least that's what I'm getting from this.

We all know they are, and I've posted proof, but that's not my point. My point is religion or lack of religion is not a major factor in killing.

P.S. If you don't think China's involvement in the "Korean War" doesn't count; then I guess that's your opinion. Also, China's involvement in the other "South East Asian" countries, and "Russia as well" is completely flying in left field.

I assume those were included in your 100 million figure. I am posting US killings in comparison.

Care to compare military budgets of the US to any other country in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget#Military_budgets_.282003.29

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

 

[magnifier661]

Care to compare military budgets of the US to any other country in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget#Military_budgets_.282003.29

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

yeah make a thread where it actually is on topic; and I will be more than happy to. That holds no place in this thread, and will only confuse the readers what this threads all about.

P.S. you quoted me wrong; in the bold print.

 

[MARIS61]

No you label me as a "Religious person". I don't really think so; but I just take it for what it's worth. Now if you act religious and put down religious people; then that is completely contradictory. Very hypocritical.

True, but I don't "act religious". Not even sure what you mean by that.

If you meant I am sure I am correct that there is no god, then I guess you're right, but that's certainly not the usual definition of religious.

 

[MARIS61]

yeah make a thread where it actually is on topic; and I will be more than happy to. That holds no place in this thread, and will only confuse the readers what this threads all about.

Just addressing your strawman bringing into this thread killings by "communist" countries.

 

[MARIS61]

yeah make a thread where it actually is on topic; and I will be more than happy to. That holds no place in this thread, and will only confuse the readers what this threads all about.

P.S. you quoted me wrong; in the bold print.

The bold was my reply.

 

[magnifier661]

True, but I don't "act religious". Not even sure what you mean by that.

If you meant I am sure I am correct that there is no god, then I guess you're right, but that's certainly not the usual definition of religious.

Okay, you don't like me using "Faith" because it's association with "creationists"; but I also explained "Faith" is the same as "True Belief without evidence to back that belief". Since you have no evidence that there is "no God"; yet you said "I know there is NO GOD"; that is an act of "Faith" or "True Belief without evidence to back that belief".

And let's take a look at "Religion" in the Webster's Dictionary.

re·li·gion
noun
1. 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

For 1. Even if you don't believe in "God"; you would still believe the act of the universe is "super human". Basically; you have faith that the universe was created by chance; being that the universe is "super human"

For 2. Atheism, according to you is a belief, and more than just you think this way. Therefor "Atheism" is a religion.

For 5. I explained how your "Faith" is described without "Proof". You have no proof God does not exist; therefor, your belief that God does not exist; is "Faith.

 

[magnifier661]

Maris.... You are a realtor; so I think you can answer this question.

Let's say you have two houses that are built by the same contractor: using all the same supplies, upgrades, and brand appliances; but they are in two entirely different locations.

Why are those two houses different prices? What would warrant one to be more expensive than the other?

 

[TripTango]

Okay let's just say "hypocritical". Better?

I'm still not sure how it's "hypocritical", exactly, but as long as everyone stops yelling "STRAW MAN!!" whenever they disagree with something, I'll be satisfied.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm still not sure how it's "hypocritical", exactly, but as long as everyone stops yelling "STRAW MAN!!" whenever they disagree with something, I'll be satisfied.

Okay, I will stop using "straw man" just for you Trip. Since I respect ya buddy!

P.S. It is hypocritical to use "Religious leaders abusing power" to knock down "Creation"; while not accepting "Communist leaders abusing their power" for that very same knock on "Atheism"

 

[TripTango]

Okay, you don't like me using "Faith" because it's association with "creationists"; but I also explained "Faith" is the same as "True Belief without evidence to back that belief". Since you have no evidence that there is "no God"; yet you said "I know there is NO GOD"; that is an act of "Faith" or "True Belief without evidence to back that belief".

And let's take a look at "Religion" in the Webster's Dictionary.



For 1. Even if you don't believe in "God"; you would still believe the act of the universe is "super human". Basically; you have faith that the universe was created by chance; being that the universe is "super human"

For 2. Atheism, according to you is a belief, and more than just you think this way. Therefor "Atheism" is a religion.

For 5. I explained how your "Faith" is described without "Proof". You have no proof God does not exist; therefor, your belief that God does not exist; is "Faith.

Your use of "superhuman" in #1 is tenuous at best. Atheists, as a rule, don't worship the universe as a higher power.

By your application of #2, just about any belief is a religion... I happen to like toast. I believe that it is good, and so do many others. Does this mean that I am somehow a part of a religion of "Toastians"?

We have been over #5 so many times that it hurts. I cannot bear to explain why you are off-base here again, I'm sorry.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Actually I have changed my mind about a lot of things Rasta. Sigh, I will say it again.
1.) I didn't believe the universe was 17.3 billion years old. I think it is now.
2.) I didn't think evolution was even possible. I am open to it.
3.) I thought the world was 10k years old. I am now open to being billions of years old.
So I think I've proved I've been open.

Why did you change your mind? Did you change it because you thought the Bible was inconsistent with those claims, but now you think it isn't (in other words, what's changed is your interpretation of the Bible), or did it change because you now believe that the Bible is wrong (what's changed in your mind is the status of the Bible)?

 

[TripTango]

Okay, I will stop using "straw man" just for you Trip. Since I respect ya buddy!

P.S. It is hypocritical to use "Religious leaders abusing power" to knock down "Creation"; while not accepting "Communist leaders abusing their power" for that very same knock on "Atheism"

I'm just trying to elevate our discussion, yo! We've got no chance of communicating effectively if our words mean different things to each other.

 

[magnifier661]

Why did you change your mind? Did you change it because you thought the Bible was inconsistent with those claims, but now you think it isn't (in other words, what's changed is your interpretation of the Bible), or did it change because you now believe that the Bible is wrong (what's changed in your mind is the status of the Bible)?

It changed because I accept logical reasoning. And even though I don't think the proof in "over-whelming"; I have logically thought out what many of you presented to me.

Does it change my opinion on the "Bible"? Not really; since I always picture the Bible as God trying to explain things to a 2 year old. There must be a manner in which we understand. And back then, things were even harder to explain.

 

[magnifier661]

Your use of "superhuman" in #1 is tenuous at best. Atheists, as a rule, don't worship the universe as a higher power.

By your application of #2, just about any belief is a religion... I happen to like toast. I believe that it is good, and so do many others. Does this mean that I am somehow a part of a religion of "Toastians"?

We have been over #5 so many times that it hurts. I cannot bear to explain why you are off-base here again, I'm sorry.

Trip, before you post this, read who I am replying to. I am going on this "definition" based on his testimony of his views of atheism and "Faith" that God does not exist. To MARIS; this makes a lot of sense. To you and I, well we can snicker at the argument.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm just trying to elevate our discussion, yo! We've got no chance of communicating effectively if our words mean different things to each other.

Yep; I get that and respect it. Which is why I won't make "Straw man" arguments anymore.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Let's say you have two houses that are built by the same contractor: using all the same supplies, upgrades, and brand appliances; but they are in two entirely different locations.
Why are those two houses different prices? What would warrant one to be more expensive than the other?

One's in Malibu and one's in Detroit.

 

[magnifier661]

One's in Malibu and one's in Detroit.

And why would the different locations warrant the enormous increase in price?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It changed because I accept logical reasoning.

That wouldn't be sufficient. Logic, by itself, does not settle any matter of fact. Using logic you can work from established facts to things that must follow from them, but no claim such as the age of the universe can be settled by logic. So perhaps you should change your mind back again.

Does it change my opinion on the "Bible"? Not really; since I always picture the Bible as God trying to explain things to a 2 year old. There must be a manner in which we understand. And back then, things were even harder to explain.

I don't understand: do you think that the Bible is infallible? Do you think that when the Bible says that (e.g.) bats are birds (Leviticus 11:19) , that:
(a) they are, in fact birds and anyone who says otherwise is wrong (fundamentalism)
(b) they aren't birds, and the Bible is just wrong.
(c) They aren't birds, but the Bible is never wrong, so we must be mis-reading the Bible if we think it says that.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

And why would the different locations warrant the enormous increase in price?

Obviously you haven't been to Detroit.

 

[magnifier661]

Obviously you haven't been to Detroit.

So let's go a little further. In my city; there are builders that built the very same house; yet 1 is a few miles from the other. One of the neighborhoods are about 100k more than the other. Why would they be so different in price?

 

[MadeFromDust]

I don't understand: do you think that the Bible is infallible? Do you think that when the Bible says that bats are birds, that:
(a) they are, in fact birds and anyone who says otherwise is wrong (fundamentalism)
(b) they aren't birds, and the Bible is just wrong.
(c) They aren't birds, but the Bible is never wrong, so we must be mis-reading the Bible if we think it says that.

or (d), you missed the point of that passage entirely. Because we go back and redefine something doesn't mean the Bible is wrong about it. Just like calling the end of the spine a "tail bone" doesn't mean we evolved from apes.

 

[magnifier661]

That wouldn't be sufficient. Logic, by itself, does not settle any matter of fact. Using logic you can work from established facts to things that must follow from them, but no claim such as the age of the universe can be settled by logic. So perhaps you should change your mind back again.

Then why do you supposed that scientists can assume how the the universe and life on this planet was created? Do you think it's "A matter of fact"? Even in this thread; there are the "God of the gaps" rebuttals on improbabilities, life has not been created with non-life.

I don't understand: do you think that the Bible is infallible? Do you think that when the Bible says that bats are birds, that:
(a) they are, in fact birds and anyone who says otherwise is wrong (fundamentalism)
(b) they aren't birds, and the Bible is just wrong.
(c) They aren't birds, but the Bible is never wrong, so we must be mis-reading the Bible if we think it says that.

I think in many ways the bible uses metaphors. How would you explain an airplane to someone 3,000 years ago?

But that is getting off topic. We have another thread talking about the "Bible". This thread is debating the existence of a Creator, or intelligent design. In this thread. It could be a designer not even in any theist thinking today.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Bible was translated from different languages and used the best and closest possible English words for what Scripture said. The Greek translation could have been more along the lines of "flying animals", whereas the English translation simplified it to "birds". I see no conflict here, except for people desperately looking to pick apart little details in the Bible in an attempt to discredit it. People have been trying for centuries, and yet the Bible still thrives.

 

[RR7]

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Bible was translated from different languages and used the best and closest possible English words for what Scripture said. The Greek translation could have been more along the lines of "flying animals", whereas the English translation simplified it to "birds". I see no conflict here, except for people desperately looking to pick apart little details in the Bible in an attempt to discredit it. People have been trying for centuries, and yet the Bible still thrives.

Just seems odd that you HAVE to take it literally sometimes, and then other times, we kind of just assume what they were talking about. And assume stuff got lost in translation.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Just seems odd that you HAVE to take it literally sometimes, and then other times, we kind of just assume what they were talking about. And assume stuff got lost in translation.

I just don't see how minute details like bats/birds should overrule the Bible as a whole, and what it teaches. Especially when there are logical explanations and possibilities behind them.

 

[TripTango]

Can we have a tailbone appreciation thread? Such an ingenious design decision, that one.

 

[magnifier661]

Just seems odd that you HAVE to take it literally sometimes, and then other times, we kind of just assume what they were talking about. And assume stuff got lost in translation.

Actually you have a very valid point. I think that's why it's important to constantly read the "bible" when you become a Christian. It would be like literary professors dedicating their life to "Shakespeare". And even then, they won't get the jest of it.

It really sucks when this thread goes off topic though.

 

[TripTango]

Yep; I get that and respect it. Which is why I won't make "Straw man" arguments anymore.