I remember back when I went to church with my family every Sunday. I was happy because I was in a holy place. And I learned a few things. Do you want to know what I learned?

I learned to hate. I learned to judge. I learned to ignore other people's ideas that contradicted my own, and to unconditionally dismiss them as ridiculous. I learned how other religions were terrible, that they promoted idolatry, violence, and that all of their followers will go to hell if I didn't immediately tell them they were wrong. I learned that faith can justify belief in the Christian beliefs, and that the same amount of faith cannot justify belief in other religions. These are but few of the many lessons I learned in church.

These lessons stayed with me until late 8th grade, when I started to realize that what the church taught me was wrong. One might even say that I still have yet to let go of all of these lessons ((Q) thinks so). I have heard from other people that their experiences in church were the same. And I have seen people of all ages who have not let go of the aforementioned lessons.

Once again, I am not trying to bash Christianity; I am merely pointing out that things need to change specifically in the church, trying to take a small step in my quest to end religious intolerance. It is not the fault of Jesus, nor God, nor anyone who helped found Christianity, nor are the beliefs which Christianity was founded on. But today, Christians are taught from a very young age these lessons which I talk about.

of course its the fault of the bible. all those things are in the bible.

of course its the fault of the bible. all those things are in the bible.

Umm... yeah... I just didn't want to offend anyone... you know...

Well what's the point of arguing if you're going to trip all over political correctness :)

Well what's the point of arguing if you're going to trip all over political correctness :)

I'm not very familiar with this website's rules, but I would think that if someone were to be offended, they could tell a moderator, and the thread would be deleted.

Hey Rokkon!

Yes, the problem with any group like the church is it defines an "in" and an "out" group, the saved and the non-saved. In spite of all their lip service to kindness, this dichotomy will always result in distrust with the other, leading to resentment, friction, and eventually violence.

I learned that the grownups liked to talk about each other behind their back and play "keeping up with the jones".

I went to "sunday"school until age 6, about 2 years, when I learned God asked the champion of his people on earth to slay his son. That's when I decided I don't really want to come to sunday school anymore and told the neighbors(whom were dragging me to the baptist church) i'd rather sleep in on the weekends.

Yeah. Pretty much what I'm trying to do with this thread is raise awareness that christian children are being taught fundamentalism, maybe even brainstorm some ideas of what people can do to help stop religious intolerance. Nothing violent, though.

Oh, and for those of you who now think that I have some sort of split personality disorder due to that other thread that I made (the one that's still open for posts, but barely active anyway) being contradictory of this one, I don't. I'm just wierd and bad at talking (yes, there is such thing as an aspie who's wierd and bad at talking; unfortunately, not everyone thinks so *glaring at (Q)*).

No offense, but if you learned all of these negative things, maybe your relationship was with an institution and not Christ or God?

Personal responsibility for the win.

I was taught that there is no God in the public school, but I didn't learn that. You don't always have to accept what institutions say as truth if they go against conscience.

No offense, but if you learned all of these negative things, maybe your relationship was with an institution and not Christ or God?

Personal responsibility for the win.

I was taught that there is no God in the public school, but I didn't learn that. You don't always have to accept what institutions say as truth if they go against conscience.

When I was a kid, I never thought about whether or not what the church told me was right. All I thought regarding religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. was what I was told by the church, and I would never have accepted anything else. I wasn't old enough to know any better! Unfortunately, not everyone wants to question what they were told, going even beyond the age at which I felt that something wasn't quite right. That shows that teaching children how to hate as a part of what is supposedly the ultimate truth can make them intolerant for all of their life!

Not all churches are like the one you went to, just like not all people who say they are christians, are actually christians, just like not all muslims are terrorists. You had a bad experience with a church, It sucks, but you won't be manipulated next time, so you are better off for it. It is good that you see the injustice though, so you can instill in your kids the right heart.

I'm not very familiar with this website's rules, but I would think that if someone were to be offended, they could tell a moderator, and the thread would be deleted.

You have some leeway, because potentially everything you say will offend someone on this big blue and green marble.

Rule of thumb, don't directly insult a poster and don't purposefully try to goad a group.

Eg...I can say "the bible is a fictional work"...and build from that. It WILL offend people, but it is my opinion and I'm free to express such.

Quigly is correct, not all churches will blatantly show their discrimination.

I differ in opinion however in that those who do NOT are the more insidious creatures, because they use the old adage "attract more flies with honey".

My own confirmation instructor was one of the most moral people I have ever met, with a (seemingly) true compassion for people of all beliefs. However, her own moral standings and habits is not enough for me to subscribe to her religious beliefs wholesale. With no exposure to other religions and being drilled in roman catholicism at the age of 7ish for first communion and 15-16 for confirmation - is called indoctrination; a method of conquest no matter the spin you put on it.

When I was a kid, I never thought about whether or not what the church told me was right. All I thought regarding religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. was what I was told by the church, and I would never have accepted anything else. I wasn't old enough to know any better! Unfortunately, not everyone wants to question what they were told, going even beyond the age at which I felt that something wasn't quite right. That shows that teaching children how to hate as a part of what is supposedly the ultimate truth can make them intolerant for all of their life!

What is going on here? Am I looking into the mirror? I come from the exact same place as you. But the pathetic part is you realized at a young age that you were being manipulated. I didn't realize how off I was until I was 20. At that age I was still embarassing myself.

I'd comment more on my personal experience but really, you've already said it all.

I'm just wierd and bad at talking (yes, there is such thing as an aspie who's wierd and bad at talking; unfortunately, not everyone thinks so *glaring at (Q)*).

On the contrary, your opening post was excellent, concise, clear and to the point. You expressed yourself very well, imo.

:bravo:

Don't worry Mbyl, some people don't realise til much later. 20 is still young. I was 17 when I began resisting.

Once again, I am not trying to bash Christianity; I am merely pointing out that things need to change specifically in the church, trying to take a small step in my quest to end religious intolerance.

More, we have to rid the world of religion altogether, for wherever it exists, there will always be corruption, hatred, oppression and fear.

It is not the fault of Jesus, nor God, nor anyone who helped found Christianity, nor are the beliefs which Christianity was founded on.

Those are mere tools of the trade, so to speak, as were the talking animals for Aesop. For the most part, they are meaningless concepts without religion.

More, we have to rid the world of religion altogether, for wherever it exists, there will always be corruption, hatred, oppression and fear.





The new improved Communist Manifesto?

Or, perhapsAtheist Manifesto. (http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85396-X.html)

Quigly is correct, not all churches will blatantly show their discrimination.

I wasn't trying to say that all churches were like this. My bad for not emphasizing that. I was trying to refer to the more common kinds.

Did I say the churches had to do it blatantly? I was mostly referring to the more subtle discrimination, like when they tell those children's stories about how this one guy's life sucked, but then he became Christian and he either instantly has a better life or is more accepting of his life, or when they tell children that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, or when they constantly tell people to spread the word to the infidels about Jesus dying for our sins, or when they say that people of other religions have been lied to, or that they need money to support missionaries teaching other countries that their religions are ridiculous, or whatever else there is. Of course they don't just say "These people are wrong, let's hate them." I have had a long history with one church, shorter histories with at least two others, I have gone to at least 3 different Christian youth groups, I have personally known several other people who have had their own experiences with a church, and I have seen plenty of fundamentalists on the internet (yeah, I know, what DON'T you see there?). Most of the supervisors of the churches/groups I went to knew barely anything about the beliefs of the people they have judged (several of them thought the Big Bang theory was about two meteors that crashed together, and even more thought that Buddhists actually worship Buddha as a god). They always talked about how Muslims are all terrorists or wannabe terrorists, about how the crusades should have been a victory for the Christians, about how pagans are all satanists, or how Christians were persecuted some time ago, but never once about the Ku Klux Klan, and barely talking about the Holocaust. It is through these subtle methods that mainstream churches teach children how to hate.

On the contrary, your opening post was excellent, concise, clear and to the point. You expressed yourself very well, imo.

:bravo:

I'm all of a sudden confused and disoriented. Are my eyes decieving me?

More, we have to rid the world of religion altogether, for wherever it exists, there will always be corruption, hatred, oppression and fear.
Im not religious, but i can tell you none of those things are unique to religion. Getting rid of religion wont necessarily lead to a sane, happy, and rational world. Infact just look at the chinese with their secular supression of the tibetans, just goes to show that overwraught atheism is every bit the evil that overwraught religion is.

I wasn't trying to say that all churches were like this. My bad for not emphasizing that. I was trying to refer to the more common kinds.

Did I say the churches had to do it blatantly? I was mostly referring to the more subtle discrimination, like when they tell those children's stories about how this one guy's life sucked, but then he became Christian and he either instantly has a better life or is more accepting of his life, or when they tell children that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, or when they constantly tell people to spread the word to the infidels about Jesus dying for our sins, or when they say that people of other religions have been lied to, or that they need money to support missionaries teaching other countries that their religions are ridiculous, or whatever else there is. Of course they don't just say "These people are wrong, let's hate them." I have had a long history with one church, shorter histories with at least two others, I have gone to at least 3 different Christian youth groups, I have personally known several other people who have had their own experiences with a church, and I have seen plenty of fundamentalists on the internet (yeah, I know, what DON'T you see there?). Most of the supervisors of the churches/groups I went to knew barely anything about the beliefs of the people they have judged (several of them thought the Big Bang theory was about two meteors that crashed together, and even more thought that Buddhists actually worship Buddha as a god). They always talked about how Muslims are all terrorists or wannabe terrorists, about how the crusades should have been a victory for the Christians, about how pagans are all satanists, or how Christians were persecuted some time ago, but never once about the Ku Klux Klan, and barely talking about the Holocaust. It is through these subtle methods that mainstream churches teach children how to hate.


Well, you are perceptive and see thier subtle ploys. If they come right out and say it, they can't fool others or themselves. They feed it to you little by little with window dressing. It is all about self-serving agendas and hate, it's very political.

Im not religious, but i can tell you none of those things are unique to religion. Getting rid of religion wont necessarily lead to a sane, happy, and rational world. Infact just look at the chinese with their secular supression of the tibetans, just goes to show that overwraught atheism is every bit the evil that overwraught religion is.

I would have to agree with some of that. I don't agree with their oppressing of tibetans but then I don't think any religion or group should oppress or intimidate anyone into conversion either. The chinese see them as not getting with it and backwater. I don't agree completely with buddhism but thier message of peace, respect for others and tolerance I think is superior. But this only works when everyone does, not when one group is trying to push thier point of view only because it has the effect of oppressing others in effect and outcome.

Or, perhapsAtheist Manifesto. (http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85396-X.html)

Organised atheism? :rolleyes:

Im not religious, but i can tell you none of those things are unique to religion. Getting rid of religion wont necessarily lead to a sane, happy, and rational world. Infact just look at the chinese with their secular supression of the tibetans, just goes to show that overwraught atheism is every bit the evil that overwraught religion is.

You're wasting your time. Dogmatic thinking is impervious to reason:p .

Im not religious, but i can tell you none of those things are unique to religion. Getting rid of religion wont necessarily lead to a sane, happy, and rational world.

I don't ever recall saying it would. But, it would certainly rid the world of a lot of it. We can work on the Chinese/Tibetan problem, as well.

And, like sam, you too don't seem to understand that communism has more to do with religion than atheism. They appear to be very much the same thing.

[QUOTE=(Q);1474511]More, we have to rid the world of religion altogether, for wherever it exists, there will always be corruption, hatred, oppression and fear.QUOTE]

Actually, I'm more for a kind of utopian peaceful coexistence between deists (like a theist, except disregarding faith and scripture as non-credible sources of information, and instead forming theories based on what science has explained as well as what science has left open for debate to explain what is entirely metaphysical in nature) and atheists, where people can openly share ideas and learn from one another, so that in the end, we can reach the truth, whether it be deistic or atheistic. How we can acheive this is by treating religion as some sort of metaphysical science; the way people currently treat it makes further growth of ideas impossible, therefore this utopia I dream of will require a major change in not only religious beliefs, but in the very definition of religion itself. Yes, I do realize that this goal of mine is extravagently unrealistic, but I think it's worth it.

I don't ever recall saying it would. But, it would certainly rid the world of a lot of it. We can work on the Chinese/Tibetan problem, as well.

And, like sam, you too don't seem to understand that communism has more to do with religion than atheism. They appear to be very much the same thing.

And you fail to understand that ideologies are all dangerous when they become exclusivist.

The ideal would be more syncretism in culture.

And you fail to understand that ideologies are all dangerous when they become exclusivist.

Hence, we free ourselves of those ideologies. Nice to see we agree.

Hence, we free ourselves of those ideologies. Nice to see we agree.

http://www.100megsfree3.com/fwc493/SmileyDirectory5/H/BulletBangHeadR.gif

I think that what S.A.M. is trying to say is that atheism can sometimes be equally as bad as theism.

How we can acheive this is by treating religion as some sort of metaphysical science; the way people currently treat it makes further growth of ideas impossible, therefore this utopia I dream of will require a major change in not only religious beliefs, but in the very definition of religion itself. Yes, I do realize that this goal of mine is extravagently unrealistic, but I think it's worth it.

Religion is superstition and myth. Toss it in the dust-bin of history, where it belongs. ~Morris

I think that what S.A.M. is trying to say is that atheism can sometimes be equally as bad as theism.

So, a lack of belief in myth and superstition is equally as bad as its belief?

:shrug:

I think that what S.A.M. is trying to say is that atheism can sometimes be equally as bad as theism.

Like with anything, it's how it's used. You can use a knife to do surgery and heal or kill. Fundamental religion is criticized more because it is inherently intolerant and is just as politically active with their own agendas against others. Atheism is just nonbelief and of course, it can be used by it's proponents to attack or destroy those who practice a religion or other philosphy. I don't think it's wrong to criticize a religion or philosphy that is known for these tactics, otherwise how would you defend yourself against their own prejudice. I don't think it's right to attack a people, philosphy or religion that is peaceful and is not trying to do this though. I have never seen christianity or islam as peaceful or understanding of others views. It's criticized because people know if given a greater foothold, it would run off with it and do what it really intends to do.

Religion is superstition and myth. Toss it in the dust-bin of history, where it belongs. ~Morris

Yes, and deism tries to change the fact that religion is superstition and myth by reaching religious conclusions from scientific evidence and rationalism, without the smallest bit of mythology. And of course, a lot of what we believe is very different from mainstream theistic beliefs; most of us would even say that God just created the universe and did absolutely nothing else to it, essentially leaving the various laws of physics and other scientifically proven concepts in control of everything afterwards. We simply reach a different conclusion from our scientific research, and would be more than happy to convert to atheism if our beliefs are absolutely proven wrong beyond our own justifications (implying that we still have some justification for our beliefs which we have not yet witnessed disproven). And we do recognize that we could be wrong.

I'm all of a sudden confused and disoriented. Are my eyes decieving me?

at sciforums you get brownie points for insulting theism. you are encouraged to insult christianity, i will report you for being too kind and not offensive enough,

peace.

at sciforums you get brownie points for insulting theism. you are encouraged to insult christianity, i will report you for being too kind and not offensive enough,

peace.

...huh?:confused:

most of us would even say that God just created the universe and did absolutely nothing else to it, essentially leaving the various laws of physics and other scientifically proven concepts in control of everything afterwards.

But, then you could eliminate another level of complexity and confusion by simply removing god from the equation altogether and leave it at that - the universe came about all on its own, naturally, with physics.

But, then you could eliminate another level of complexity and confusion by simply removing god from the equation altogether and leave it at that - the universe came about all on its own, naturally, with physics.

Something from nothing is physics? Darn, I knew I'd regret dozing in that class.:p

But, then you could eliminate another level of complexity and confusion by simply removing god from the equation altogether and leave it at that - the universe came about all on its own, naturally, with physics.

True, but we don't care how complex the plausibilities on the truth are so much as what the truth is. Even if there is no god, it wouldn't hurt too much to simply make sure of that... right?... right? As concluded from our knowledge and logic regarding this issue, we think that there is a god, and are willing to accept any relevant information that might enforce or contradict this belief, just to be as certain as we can (which really isn't that certain) that we believe what is most likely to be true. This varies from mind to mind, however, as there are differences in the logic used by the people in question, or different levels of education, or what other whatnot! Like me. I'm relatively uneducated, and I don't know how my logic compares to the logic of other people; given adequate information, my beliefs may change in any way, at any time!

Oh, and what's this brownie stuff that EmptyForceOfChi was talking about?

Something from nothing is physics? Darn, I knew I'd regret dozing in that class.:p

I don't get it either, but for some reason people keep telling me that it can work that way... something about singularities being able to break the laws of common sense...

something about singularities being able to break the laws of common sense...

Oh well that explains it. :D

Something from nothing is physics? Darn, I knew I'd regret dozing in that class.:p

Something from nothing. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html)

True, but we don't care how complex the plausibilities on the truth are so much as what the truth is. Even if there is no god, it wouldn't hurt too much to simply make sure of that... right?... right?

Ok, but first, please tell me what observation you or anyone else has made that would lead one to even assert a god? Anything at all other than wishful thinking?

It's like planting a tree and watching it grow over time. Does it grow out of the ground all on it's own or does a god push it out?

Something from nothing. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html)

Interesting. :)

So the world is infinitely more complex and more simple all at the same time.

It's like planting a tree and watching it grow over time. Does it grow out of the ground all on it's own or does a god push it out?

Depends, are you using hydroponics or growing the tree on Mars?

Ok, but first, please tell me what observation you or anyone else has made that would lead one to even assert a god? Anything at all other than wishful thinking?

It's like planting a tree and watching it grow over time. Does it grow out of the ground all on it's own or does a god push it out?

It's not really an observation so much as it is a concept. Not counting the whole "too much of a coincidence" excuse used by most theists, we have reasons of the more 'logic' variety, rather than the 'observable evidence' variety. We find that certain things just don't make sense without a little metaphysics. Like how I don't get how singularities can break the laws of common sense: I don't know right now, but I might know in the future, so I'll have to work towards that future goal. Deism doesn't really claim to know all of the answers; it's really more something to do in an attempt to get those answers in a faster/otherwise better way.

But right now, I have to go. It's getting late.

I learned to hate. I learned to judge.
I seem to remember hearing something about judge not, lest yee be judged and throwing the first stone. Maybe if you'd stay'd a bit longer, you might have learned something useful.
what I'm trying to do with this thread is raise awareness that christian children are being taught fundamentalism, maybe even brainstorm some ideasIt seems like all you learned was to hate Christians.

I seem to remember hearing something about judge not, lest yee be judged and throwing the first stone. Maybe if you'd stay'd a bit longer, you might have learned something useful.
It seems like all you learned was to hate Christians.

You must be joking. Christians don't judge? That is a new one on me.

I seem to remember hearing something about judge not, lest yee be judged and throwing the first stone. Maybe if you'd stay'd a bit longer, you might have learned something useful.
It seems like all you learned was to hate Christians.

You do realize that I'm talking more of the more subtle lessons, right? Like how there's all of those christian children's stories I talked about earlier, where life sucks if you're not christian, but then someone converts, and they get a better life almost instantly. See post #20 on this thread to look at more of what I'm talking about.

We find that certain things just don't make sense without a little metaphysics.

That's ridiculous.

Why submit yourself to false answers when all you need to do is either seek to understand or simply admit you don't know? Creating answers with magical beings at the helm only serves to deceive and confuse.

Like how I don't get how singularities can break the laws of common sense: I don't know right now, but I might know in the future, so I'll have to work towards that future goal.

So, in the meantime, you pretend gods did it?

Deism doesn't really claim to know all of the answers; it's really more something to do in an attempt to get those answers in a faster/otherwise better way.

Deism doesn't provide any answers but claims to know the absolute truth.

Ignorance at its finest.

That's ridiculous.

Why submit yourself to false answers when all you need to do is either seek to understand or simply admit you don't know? Creating answers with magical beings at the helm only serves to deceive and confuse.

You are proving to be quite good evidence of what S.A.M. is trying to say, in that it is possible for atheism to oppress others, just the way you said theism does. You seem to be ridiculing me for simply disagreeing with your ideas. We have reasons for believing what we believe, and that will remain so until those reasons are completely invalidated. If they are partially invalidated, then some may become atheists, and some may not. That said, it would only be logical for those who did not convert to have their reasons; if they didn't, they would be theists, not deists.


So, in the meantime, you pretend gods did it?

No. We do not pretend. If we were intentionally pretending, we would only be turning our beliefs logic, and our very purpose into a train wreck. As said before, we have reasons to believe what we believe. If we are disproven, we will not try to change the truth, nor will we try to cover it up. We only believe what we think is true, and if we find out we are wrong, we'll adjust our own beliefs to what is right.

But you... You don't even care. You are trying to convince me that I am wrong through no more than ridicule and repeated assertions. Just as with the other two threads I have made, you have yet to adequately prove your point. Until then, do not lower yourself to the standards of the theists which you hate. You haven't proven anything yet, and you act as though there might as well be no competition.

Deism doesn't provide any answers but claims to know the absolute truth.

No, that's theism. Deism is meant to be based purely on rational thinking and what has been confirmed by science. Rational thinking uses science to help find the answers. Therefore, Deism is a scientific belief system. And science is always growing because science is a way to reach the truths of the universe. Therefore, Deism does not claim to have the answers, but is willing to admit that the answers have not yet been reached, and is working to change that.

Ignorance at its finest.

And you don't even appreciate our efforts to make sure that we know the truth, you just stick with what you already believe. I get the feeling you don't care whether or not you are right; so long as you can make a good argument, you might as well be right. I do not agree with that.

Truly, would it hurt that much just to make sure?

You are proving to be quite good evidence of what S.A.M. is trying to say, in that it is possible for atheism to oppress others, just the way you said theism does.

Yeah, right. A lack of belief = oppression. :rolleyes:

You seem to be ridiculing me for simply disagreeing with your ideas. We have reasons for believing what we believe, and that will remain so until those reasons are completely invalidated.

No one has yet completely invalidated the concept of unicorns or leprechauns, why don't you believe in those as well?

If they are partially invalidated, then some may become atheists, and some may not. That said, it would only be logical for those who did not convert to have their reasons; if they didn't, they would be theists, not deists.

There is an invisible pink dragon living in my attic. Can you completely invalidate that concept, please?

No. We do not pretend. If we were intentionally pretending, we would only be turning our beliefs logic, and our very purpose into a train wreck.

It IS a train wreck.

As said before, we have reasons to believe what we believe. If we are disproven, we will not try to change the truth, nor will we try to cover it up. We only believe what we think is true, and if we find out we are wrong, we'll adjust our own beliefs to what is right.

Exactly, you choose to believe whatever you want, regardless.

But you... You don't even care. You are trying to convince me that I am wrong through no more than ridicule and repeated assertions.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You won't be convinced gods don't exist no matter what anyone says. Again, it's what YOU choose to believe.

Deism is meant to be based purely on rational thinking and what has been confirmed by science.

Complete crap! The existence of gods has not been revealed in nature in any way, shape or form. Science has confirmed nothing of the sort.

Rational thinking uses science to help find the answers. Therefore, Deism is a scientific belief system. And science is always growing because science is a way to reach the truths of the universe. Therefore, Deism does not claim to have the answers, but is willing to admit that the answers have not yet been reached, and is working to change that.

Horsepucky! Deism already reaches the conclusion gods exist, and then attempts to use science to support the conclusion, even though the science makes no reference to the conclusion whatsoever.

And you don't even appreciate our efforts to make sure that we know the truth, you just stick with what you already believe. I get the feeling you don't care whether or not you are right; so long as you can make a good argument, you might as well be right. I do not agree with that.

Truly, would it hurt that much just to make sure?

YES! Living and propagating a state of ignorance hurts everyone.

There is a gap that I don't think Q is bridging. It's the proof against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

* The claim of 'God' has existed since any history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

* There are loads of objective assertions made in any scripture (i.e. 'word' of 'God'). A huge amount of those have been directly proven incorrect through science.

* There are loads of contradictory statements made by scripture. Reality does not support contradicton.

* Humans naturally anthropmorphize... that is take human features and put it them on *something*. This gives rise to talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and of course 'God' (putting human features on reality).

* Humans psychologically want infalllible authority figures giving them approval. They psychologically want to have a great relationship with themselves. They psychologically want to group together and be 'purposed'. 'God' becomes that authority figure, becomes a proxy between the consious and unconscious (for establishing a relationship with yourself), and becomes the source of a purposing.

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

All these facts serve as very strong supportive evidence that 'God' is a delusion.

There is a gap that I don't think Q is bridging. It's the proof against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

* The claim of 'God' has existed since any history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

* There are loads of objective assertions made in any scripture (i.e. 'word' of 'God'). A huge amount of those have been directly proven incorrect through science.

* There are loads of contradictory statements made by scripture. Reality does not support contradicton.

* Humans naturally anthropmorphize... that is take human features and put it them on *something*. This gives rise to talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and of course 'God' (putting human features on reality).

* Humans psychologically want infalllible authority figures giving them approval. They psychologically want to have a great relationship with themselves. They psychologically want to group together and be 'purposed'. 'God' becomes that authority figure, becomes a proxy between the consious and unconscious (for establishing a relationship with yourself), and becomes the source of a purposing.

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

All these facts serve as very strong supportive evidence that 'God' is a delusion.

That's theism.

There is a gap that I don't think Q is bridging. It's the proof against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

That's theism.

Thank you, CC. I haven't gone that far as I suspected Rokkon to provide the exact answer he DID provide.

Rokkon needs to first understand that his beliefs are based on a conclusion that requires support as opposed to observation evidence leading to a conclusion. Deism is exactly that, as is theism. They both come to the same conclusion before any evidence is presented. Then, they both try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

It's bass ackwards, to science, of course.

Thank you, CC. I haven't gone that far as I suspected Rokkon to provide the exact answer he DID provide.

Rokkon needs to first understand that his beliefs are based on a conclusion that requires support as opposed to observation evidence leading to a conclusion. Deism is exactly that, as is theism. They both come to the same conclusion before any evidence is presented. Then, they both try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

It's bass ackwards, to science, of course.

No, we... oh, nevermind. If you are not a fundamentalist, what is?

No, we... oh, nevermind. If you are not a fundamentalist, what is?

You see, you have no answers. Isn't deism wonderful?

(Q), in case you, by your authority as a moderator, know what I have just done, let the other moderators decide your fate.

(Q), in case you, by your authority as a moderator, know what I have just done, let the other moderators decide your fate.

:shrug:

:shrug:

I take it they didn't do anything? Is it confirmed, or not? Or, do you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about?:confused:

I take it they didn't do anything? Is it confirmed, or not? Or, do you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about?:confused:

:shrug:

Vive la Revolution!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68870

Vive la Revolution!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68870

...?

Sorry, post No8 onwards... it reiterates sentiments already expressed in this thread, only in a different way.

Thank you, CC. I haven't gone that far as I suspected Rokkon to provide the exact answer he DID provide.

Rokkon needs to first understand that his beliefs are based on a conclusion that requires support as opposed to observation evidence leading to a conclusion. Deism is exactly that, as is theism. They both come to the same conclusion before any evidence is presented. Then, they both try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

It's bass ackwards, to science, of course.

YW, and you might be right as the issue might have nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with thought process (problems with specifically).

(Q), in case you, by your authority as a moderator, know what I have just done, let the other moderators decide your fate.

Did you report him?:p

I am finding it very hard to express what I am feeling right now. It is not so much the degree to how I feel it so much as it is simply what kind of feeling it is.

I am finding it very hard to express what I am feeling right now. It is not so much the degree to how I feel it so much as it is simply what kind of feeling it is.

Sounds like love. ;)

Did you report him?:p

Yeah... like, at least a dozen of his posts from this and other threads have been reported, and a private message sent to who I assume is a very high-authority moderator. Most of the reports have been for goading, some for the kind of preaching described in examples #3 and #4 in the posting rules for the religion forum, and several other things.

Sounds like love. ;)

No.

Go see that link on my 'explained' forum. The one posted on post #8.

I don't get it either, but for some reason people keep telling me that it can work that way... something about singularities being able to break the laws of common sense...

:confused:
Explain to me how God came into existance then...

Yeah... like, at least a dozen of his posts from this and other threads have been reported, and a private message sent to who I assume is a very high-authority moderator. Most of the reports have been for goading, some for the kind of preaching described in examples #3 and #4 in the posting rules for the religion forum, and several other things.

Goading? Preaching?

:roflmao:

Yeah... like, at least a dozen of his posts from this and other threads have been reported, and a private message sent to who I assume is a very high-authority moderator. Most of the reports have been for goading, some for the kind of preaching described in examples #3 and #4 in the posting rules for the religion forum, and several other things.

Don't take it so hard, its only a discussion forum. :)

:confused:
Explain to me how God came into existance then...

Well, in one of my other, more inactive, yet still open threads, I explained a theory which explains my thoughts regarding this in an extravagantly ambiguous way.

I don't think it's gone anywhere, though...

No.

Go see that link on my 'explained' forum. The one posted on post #8.

Why would you give someone so much power over you? How would killing yourself change anything? We would not even know that you had done it or that you even meant it.

You should ignore people who make you feel bad about yourself; most of them don't even realise they are doing it.:)

Life is too beautiful to throw away for someone you don't even know.

(Q) probably has no idea of the effect of his words on you, its probably his notion of tough love or something.

Goading? Preaching?

:roflmao:

Yes, you did many things which were obviously intended to **** me off, and in this thread, you have many times ridiculed theism and deism in general while supporting atheism as the only true religion. As I explained in the second thread regarding my theory, there is a difference between not believing and believing in nothing.

Why would you give someone so much power over you? How would killing yourself change anything? We would not even know that you had done it or that you even meant it.

I could have stated my name, where I lived, that people should look for me in the obituaries, and I could have written something cool on the wall in my room that would probably say "My murderer is (Q)."

You should ignore people who make you feel bad about yourself; most of them don't even realise they are doing it.:)

Ignoring is cowardice.

I could have stated my name, where I lived, that people should look for me in the obituaries, and I could have written something cool on the wall in my room that would probably say "My murderer is (Q)."

To be perfectly honest no one would care.


Ignoring is cowardice.


Too much drama, m'boy. Discretion is the better part of valour.:)

To be perfectly honest no one would care.

Yes. Earth is just screwed up like that.

Too much drama, m'boy. Discretion is the better part of valour.:)

And both are at a premium here.

You can't run forever. In the end you just die tired. Discretion recognizes when a battle can not be won and isn't that just another form of defeat?

Yes. Earth is just screwed up like that.

Live and learn, its not as difficult as it seems. Besides, you seem to have pretty well defined ideas of your own.



And both are at a premium here.

Thats no excuse for you to discard yours, is it?

Yes, you did many things which were obviously intended to **** me off, and in this thread, you have many times ridiculed theism and deism in general while supporting atheism as the only true religion.

First of all, atheism is not a religion. It is a LACK of religion.

And, I can ridicule theism and deism all I want, that is what these forums are all about, attacking ideas.

If you're pissed at that, too bad, that is your own personal problem. You need to dissociate yourself from the ideas and beliefs you hold, as it will be the only way you can discuss them and accept the criticism.

You can't run forever. In the end you just die tired. Discretion recognizes when a battle can not be won.

Everyone dies eventually, thats a given. Its a one way ticket from this experience we call life.

The way I see it, thats the easy way out. Takes more courage to stand and fight than to run away.

Besides, death is a lose-lose situation. Life has possibilities that you give up when you choose to die.

Live and learn, its not as difficult as it seems. Besides, you seem to have pretty well defined ideas of your own.




Thats no excuse for you to discard yours, is it?

Just like I say sometimes: "Give me death, or give me life!"

Hopefully you get the message.

Everyone dies eventually, thats a given. Its a one way ticket from this experience we call life.

Getting out of life... you're saying that's a bad thing!?!

The way I see it, thats the easy way out. Takes more courage to stand and fight than to run away.

The former has been done and hopelessly exhausted, leaving no indentation on the peak of the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.

Besides, death is a lose-lose situation. Life has possibilities that you give up when you choose to die.

Most of those possibilities make me gag.

Just like I say sometimes: "Give me death, or give me life!"

Hopefully you get the message.

Getting out of life... you're saying that's a bad thing!?!

The former has been done and hopelessly exhausted, leaving no indentation on the peak of the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.

Most of those possibilities make me gag.

Now you're just being dramatic. :bugeye:

Do you attempt suicide everytime you don't get your way?

Now you're just being dramatic. :bugeye:

Do you attempt suicide everytime you don't get your way?

No, things simply accumulate, and my misery grows.

...
If you're pissed at that, too bad, that is your own personal problem. You need to dissociate yourself from the ideas and beliefs you hold, as it will be the only way you can discuss them and accept the criticism.

IMO, this is a big problem with Theism. It binds their identity so tightly to the delusion that attacking the delusion is often perceived as a personal life / identity threatening attack.

Everyone dies eventually, thats a given. Its a one way ticket from this experience we call life.

The way I see it, thats the easy way out. Takes more courage to stand and fight than to run away.

Besides, death is a lose-lose situation. Life has possibilities that you give up when you choose to die.

We can a life without risk...
but what is Life without adventure?
But Yes.. I agree.
But perhaps "control" is the issue.

If we are prodded in the directioin away from death is that really living? Perhaps but you're surely not in control. The question is...is a life running from death really a life at all?

No, things simply accumulate, and my misery grows.

You enjoy your misery, thats why it accumulates, you savor it, pick at your wounds, weep over injustices, wail against destiny. Why not for a change, just shrug it off? You'll find it does not really matter all that much.

IMO, this is a big problem with Theism. It binds their identity so tightly to the delusion that attacking the delusion is often perceived as a personal life / identity threatening attack.

What a load of crap. If I address your values and principles, thats exactly what I am doing, addressing YOUR values and principles; its hardly an objective evaluation to be pondered in the third person.

You enjoy your misery, thats why it accumulates, you savor it, pick at your wounds, weep over injustices, wail against destiny. Why not for a change, just shrug it off? You'll find it does not really matter all that much.

Every loss I make is unchangeable. There is no such thing as failure without loss; even if I were the last being in existence, a failure would still cause loss for me.

To me, a success is simply a lack of failure. Essentially when I do what I am supposed to do anyway. This makes my failures burn ever so much more, and gives no opportunity for redemption from those failures.

It is who I am. I cannot shrug it off. Doing so would make me feel like a traitor, a cheater, a liar, and I would feel worse.

Every loss I make is unchangeable. There is no such thing as failure without loss; even if I were the last being in existence, a failure would still cause loss for me.

To me, a success is simply a lack of failure. Essentially when I do what I am supposed to do anyway. This makes my failures burn ever so much more, and gives no opportunity for redemption from those failures.

It is who I am. I cannot shrug it off. Doing so would make me feel like a traitor, a cheater, a liar, and I would feel worse.

Well you'll just have to get used to wallowing in misery then. The way I see it, its no one else's business to tell you how miserable you should not be.:)

There's always "Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision."

Thats should be a good start.;)

What a load of crap. If I address your values and principles, thats exactly what I am doing, addressing YOUR values and principles; its hardly an objective evaluation to be pondered in the third person.

Case and point.

Well, in one of my other, more inactive, yet still open threads, I explained a theory which explains my thoughts regarding this in an extravagantly ambiguous way.

I don't think it's gone anywhere, though...

In your other thread you attempted to disprove atheism, there is no mention of God or how he came into being.

So, could you please answer my question ?

:confused:
Explain to me how God came into existance then...

Well you'll just have to get used to wallowing in misery then. The way I see it, its no one else's business to tell you how miserable you should not be.:)

There's always "Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision."

Thats should be a good start.;)

...?

Case and point.

Sentence first, verdict afterwards. :bugeye:

...?

You don't expect me to hold your hand all day now, do you?

C'mon grease those little grey cells. :cool:

In your other thread you attempted to disprove atheism, there is no mention of God or how he came into being.

So, could you please answer my question ?

Okay. (Q) is probably going to start another war of some sorts here, but here goes.

In my theory, God is existent in a way that makes him immune to anything related to the concept of time. That way, his eternal existence would not be self-contradictory. I believe I did say something like that. Now, there's the whole debate of free will which could result from this, but let's not go there now.

You don't expect me to hold your hand all day now, do you?

C'mon grease those little grey cells. :cool:

awkward

awkward

Just take a deep deep deeeeeeeeep breath till it feels really really painful, then let it go.

Believe me, its as easy as that. :D

Just take a deep deep deeeeeeeeep breath till it feels really really painful, then let it go.

Believe me, its as easy as that. :D

Okay, now what?

Okay. (Q) is probably going to start another war of some sorts here, but here goes.

In my theory, God is existent in a way that makes him immune to anything related to the concept of time. That way, his eternal existence would not be self-contradictory. I believe I did say something like that. Now, there's the whole debate of free will which could result from this, but let's not go there now.

Thank you Rokkon :)

Ok, for arguments sake lets say something can exist outside of time.

1.) Following your theory the same could be said about the universe, time would then simply be a property of the universe.

2.) If God indeed exists outside of time that still doesnt explain how he came into being. See your own argument that something cant come from nothing.

3.) Although God is placed outside of time he will still be part of the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. So then he must have come into existance as part of the universe, or he was the universe first then created the rest of the universe out of nothing...

Thank you Rokkon :)

Ok, for arguments sake lets say something can exist outside of time.

1.) Following your theory the same could be said about the universe, time would then simply be a property of the universe.

2.) If God indeed exists outside of time that still doesnt explain how he came into being. See your own argument that something cant come from nothing.

Regarding the second thing, my theory uses the nature of his existence as a way to justify that he's here without a beginning. Of course, (Q) thinks that's ridiculous.

Okay, now what?

Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.:)

Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.:)

The beginning and end of what?

The beginning and end of what?

You choose.

:huh:

Regarding the second thing, my theory uses the nature of his existence as a way to justify that he's here without a beginning. Of course, (Q) thinks that's ridiculous.

But why then are you rejecting that the universe didnt have a beginning ?

But why then are you rejecting that the universe didnt have a beginning ?

Because the universe is in time, which, considering the other scientifically proven facts (mostly that we all know we go forward through time), doesn't allow the same type of justification as God has.

Because the universe is in time, which, considering the other scientifically proven facts (mostly that we all know we go forward through time), doesn't allow the same type of justification as God has.

Did you read my first point ?
And i added a third too btw :)

Did you read my first point ?
And i added a third too btw :)

I don't quite get the first point, and the third point is understandable, considering my lack of emphasis on what I mean by universe. In other words, God isn't really a part of the universe like that.

Sorry, but I have to go for now, and I probably won't be back til tomorrow.

I don't quite get the first point, and the third point is understandable, considering my lack of emphasis on what I mean by universe. In other words, God isn't really a part of the universe like that.

As you comfortably make up God exists outside of time i thought id make up the universe does too. Your own theory allows for that since you didnt show in any way how it would be probable that God exists outside of time.

I think youre reasoning backwards. First assuming God always was then making up the rules in your own head to allow that.

I dont believe any of the three points i made; i was just going by your kind of reasoning.
What i meant with point 1 is that time is a product of the universe, which means anything inside the universe follows time while the universe itself does not. You see if you start talking about anything being outside the universe (which is illogical in itself) there can consequently be something inside the universe. Which makes the universe nothing more then a container.

Furthermore, i thought God created heaven and earth and all that in 6 days and rested the seventh day. It sure sounds like he is INSIDE time to me.

First of all, atheism is not a religion. It is a LACK of religion.

Couldn't agree with you more...

IMO, this is a big problem with Theism. It binds their identity so tightly to the delusion that attacking the delusion is often perceived as a personal life / identity threatening attack.

Agreed CC. Religion creates dependence, as if it were a physical crutch. Take that away, however slowly, and they end up flat on their faces! Personally, I pity them not being able to comprehend life any other way... for me it would be like being trapped.

What a load of crap. If I address your values and principles, thats exactly what I am doing, addressing YOUR values and principles; its hardly an objective evaluation to be pondered in the third person.

So, you have no values or principles you can call your own? Your religion completely defines YOUR values and principles?

If so, then the values and principles in question are NOT yours, but that of the religion.

Therefore, they are completely fair game to ponder, evaluate and criticize without anyone getting their panties in a knot.

If a stand were to be made of my criticism, let the one being criticized step forward and face the music.

That would be your god.

So, you have no values or principles you can call your own? Your religion completely defines YOUR values and principles?

If so, then the values and principles in question are NOT yours, but that of the religion.

Therefore, they are completely fair game to ponder, evaluate and criticize without anyone getting their panties in a knot.

If a stand were to be made of my criticism, let the one being criticized step forward and face the music.

That would be your god.

Do your WORST!!! I am NOT slitting my wrists!!! :bawl:

Do your WORST!!! I am NOT slitting my wrists!!! :bawl:

Pffttt... some god, can't even come out and defend himself, he has to send his woman to fight his battles. :D

In my theory, God is existent in a way that makes him immune to anything related to the concept of time.

You start from a false premise by claiming a god already exists. First, you must explain what leads you to the conclusion a god exists in the first place? What observation or evidence do you have that would indicate a god exists?

By claiming that a god exists and then creating theories as to immunity of time and other such nonsense is not science, nor is reasonable or rational.

You first have to identify what lead you to the conclusion a god exists. Anything else is mere speculation based on sheer guesswork.

Rokkon,

How can a god be said to exist outside of time and still be able to do anything? Any action, no matter how small, requirs time to pass. And an "eternal" god has no meaning unless time is a factor, i.e. eternal is a time based concept.

If a god exists and is capable of any action then it will be dependent on the passage of time, i.e. it is not possible for anything to exist outside of time, and not possible for time not to exist.

Rokkon,

Regarding Q: Don't confuse his often colorful attacks of theist beliefs as personal attacks. That you might connect your beliefs so closely to your personal lifestyle is your problem not his.

Rokkon,

Regarding Q: Don't confuse his often colorful attacks of theist beliefs as personal attacks. That you might connect your beliefs so closely to your personal lifestyle is your problem not his.

That you cannot recognise his perceived failure to communicate as the reason for his misery is your problem not his. :rolleyes:

That you live to troll each other is yours and his. Get a room already.

That you live to troll each other is yours and his. Get a room already.

We have. This is it. :D

Anyway, I was talking about Rokkon.

My apologies :cool:

Well...I keep hearing stories like this, and wondering what kind of crappy church people are going to :/....*sigh*....I didn't get anything crappy like that out of church. And also, I agree with the person who said about being taught in school and choosing what you think is right, if you think the church is teaching you crap, then go to one that isn't. It's not like the pastor or whatever knows everything and you shouldn't treat them and regard them as if they do. Religions are far too vast with far too much clouded history to know everything.
Also, what you got from the teachings, could possibly be your OWN interpretations. If you interpreted it that way then that's what you did, not someone else. And I think a lot of people forget that they make their own interpretations of things and that they have responsibility themselves. Believing that they taught you to hate is about the same as believing that your own thought processes and fear etc. had nothing to do with thinking girls (or boys) had coodies when you were little.

Pffttt... some god, can't even come out and defend himself, he has to send his woman to fight his battles. :D

^^^^^^^ That was actually pretty darn funny.

I'm baaaack. This is going to be quick, though. I have a lot of work to do.

As you comfortably make up God exists outside of time i thought id make up the universe does too. Your own theory allows for that since you didnt show in any way how it would be probable that God exists outside of time.

I think youre reasoning backwards. First assuming God always was then making up the rules in your own head to allow that.

I dont believe any of the three points i made; i was just going by your kind of reasoning.
What i meant with point 1 is that time is a product of the universe, which means anything inside the universe follows time while the universe itself does not. You see if you start talking about anything being outside the universe (which is illogical in itself) there can consequently be something inside the universe. Which makes the universe nothing more then a container.

If I understand you correctly you should read the last few posts in my other thread. They address the issue of my theory regarding the universe and what is in it.

Furthermore, i thought God created heaven and earth and all that in 6 days and rested the seventh day. It sure sounds like he is INSIDE time to me.

You're trying to **** me off, aren't you? As said before, I am a deist, not a theist. Deists place much less credibility on the words of ancient texts.

Couldn't agree with you more...



Agreed CC. Religion creates dependence, as if it were a physical crutch. Take that away, however slowly, and they end up flat on their faces! Personally, I pity them not being able to comprehend life any other way... for me it would be like being trapped.

It isn't that I can't comprehend your beliefs. I simply choose not to believe them, and your reaction to that proves that you and (Q) are just as tyrannical as theism is. And by the way... There is a difference between not believing and believing in nothing. Not believing is just that; you don't believe there is a god, but you also don't believe there isn't a god. Most of the time, you just don't care. But believing in nothing means that you do believe that there is not a god, which constitutes a belief system, which, in my mind, constitutes a religion. Therefore, you are not immune to being accused of preaching. Second of all, when I spoke of attacks against me, I was referring to the other thread. I specifically remember the time (Q) said that I had only ruled out intelligence on my part, and more can be found by actually going to that thread. So tell me, (Q), what was THAT aimed at?

So, you have no values or principles you can call your own? Your religion completely defines YOUR values and principles?

If so, then the values and principles in question are NOT yours, but that of the religion.

Therefore, they are completely fair game to ponder, evaluate and criticize without anyone getting their panties in a knot.

If a stand were to be made of my criticism, let the one being criticized step forward and face the music.

That would be your god.

No. Religion is like politics. When used correctly (rarely the case), it is a group of people who happen to believe the same thing. In other words, your religion is defined by your values. If no religion fits your values, you make it up. That's how my currently unnamed branch of deism came into place.

Onto the next page!

You start from a false premise by claiming a god already exists. First, you must explain what leads you to the conclusion a god exists in the first place? What observation or evidence do you have that would indicate a god exists?

By claiming that a god exists and then creating theories as to immunity of time and other such nonsense is not science, nor is reasonable or rational.

You first have to identify what lead you to the conclusion a god exists. Anything else is mere speculation based on sheer guesswork.

My theories come from my own conclusion that there are logical flaws in various scientific theories. If I later find out that I have misunderstood these scientific theories, I will try to fix the misunderstanding, and go from there. Until then, I have been given inadequate reason to change my belief.

Rokkon,

How can a god be said to exist outside of time and still be able to do anything? Any action, no matter how small, requirs time to pass. And an "eternal" god has no meaning unless time is a factor, i.e. eternal is a time based concept.

If a god exists and is capable of any action then it will be dependent on the passage of time, i.e. it is not possible for anything to exist outside of time, and not possible for time not to exist.

It's like everything he does is simultaneous and always happening. The changes he might make in time remain in time. But what I mean by eternal is unending. Without time, you just can't end.

Dang. If this doesn't adequately explain it (it probably won't), I'll be brainstorming words for a LONG time.

Rokkon,

Regarding Q: Don't confuse his often colorful attacks of theist beliefs as personal attacks. That you might connect your beliefs so closely to your personal lifestyle is your problem not his.

As mentioned in my previous post: He has attacked me directly. I do not deny that he has also attacked my beliefs, nor do I deny the difference between the two. But if he wasn't attacking me when he said I had only ruled out intelligence on my part (among other things), what WAS he attacking?

No. Religion is like politics. When used correctly (rarely the case), it is a group of people who happen to believe the same thing. In other words, your religion is defined by your values. If no religion fits your values, you make it up. That's how my currently unnamed branch of deism came into place.

Why didn't you just say so?

You could, of course, simply eliminate a made up religion and define your values and principles based on where they actually were derived; evolution. ;)

My theories come from my own conclusion that there are logical flaws in various scientific theories. If I later find out that I have misunderstood these scientific theories, I will try to fix the misunderstanding, and go from there. Until then, I have been given inadequate reason to change my belief.

Yes, I understand that. But, what you haven't explained yet is how you came to the conclusion a god exists? What observation or piece of evidence would make one assert such a thing?

As mentioned in my previous post: He has attacked me directly. I do not deny that he has also attacked my beliefs, nor do I deny the difference between the two. But if he wasn't attacking me when he said I had only ruled out intelligence on my part (among other things), what WAS he attacking?

Let it go and re-read my first post to you here on this thread.

You're trying to **** me off, aren't you? As said before, I am a deist, not a theist. Deists place much less credibility on the words of ancient texts.


:confused:
Where did you get the notion of God from then ???

...In other words, your religion is defined by your values. If no religion fits your values, you make it up. That's how my currently unnamed branch of deism came into place.

That's great support for all religions being 'made up'. The point being that religion in this context is being used to satisfy the psychological needs of people (ex. being able to relate to others with compatible values). That is quite normal.

A potential issue arises when any religion (which are all consequently made up) makes an incorrect assertion of truth about reality... the most common one being "'God' exists". A believer often values having their psychological needs met over truth and to them it doesn't really matter if the assertion 'God' exists is true or not... as long as it meets their needs. This is quite normal.

The potential issue is realized when the believer takes objective actions based on incorrect assertions about reality. That person will intentially or inadvertenly retard science, education, progress, and take desctructive actions in the "name of 'God'" (Iran's version of Islam is a great example of all the above).

In other words, the more out-of-sync your actions get with reality (which explicitly works off of truth and will not honor any delusion in any way), the more bad results can occur.

It isn't that I can't comprehend your beliefs. I simply choose not to believe them, and your reaction to that proves that you and (Q) are just as tyrannical as theism is...There is a difference between not believing and believing in nothing...believing in nothing means that you do believe that there is not a god, which constitutes a belief system, which, in my mind, constitutes a religion. Therefore, you are not immune to being accused of preaching.

With the above quote you neatly illustrate my point for me. Many theists/deists are incapable of disentangling their thought processes from their religious framework.

Firstly, let me define a few terms, as I will use them:

Atheist: Someone who denies the existence of god.
Ascertain: To find out definitely; learn with certainty or assurance; determine.
Belief: Confidence; faith; trust.
Conclusion: A reasoned deduction or inference.
Evidence: Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.
Fact: Something that actually exists; reality.
Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

All from: http://www.dictionary.com

Now, most importantly, I didn't use the word "Belief". Atheism is characterised by the absence of any belief, something which theists/deists have trouble understanding. An atheist examines the available evidence, (i.e. that which can be observed, measured and quantified) and ascertains, or draws the conclusion, that there is no god. This process completely by-passes belief. It is entirely objective.

Secondly, since it is theists/deists that make the extraordinary claim of the existence of god, the onus is upon them to prove it. And let's not forget as Carl Sagan (1934-1996) once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Thirdly, with the following:

Not believing is just that; you don't believe there is a god, but you also don't believe there isn't a god.

You are mistaking atheism for agnosticism... once again, there is no belief involved in atheism: only fact.

EDITS

Yes, I understand that. But, what you haven't explained yet is how you came to the conclusion a god exists? What observation or piece of evidence would make one assert such a thing?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse.

In light of the above truth, you are the one who needs to provide an explanation...i.e. the question is how/why, in the face of evidence to the contrary you [plural generic 'you'] maintain God does not exist.

The answer/'explanation'? it's stated clearly above...you suppress that which you know to be true and/or that which would cause you to believe He exists... that is, a proper interpretation of the data available both "within you and without you".

That you cannot accept this is proof positive you plural are in denial...liars... plain and simple.

In light of the above truth, you are the one who needs to provide an explanation

Uhh...

You're now making a claim "the above is true". YOU are therefore the one that needs to provide the evidence etc.

[COLOR="Blue"]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Complete gibberish. What does that mean? Where is heaven? What is revealed? What is the truth?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

So, what exactly has been shown?

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

No gods have been perceived in nature, only nature is perceived. Please show exactly where god is "in the things that have been made?" Where are they? What are they?

In light of the above truth, you are the one who needs to provide an explanation...i.e. the question is how/why, in the face of evidence to the contrary you [plural generic 'you'] maintain God does not exist.

There is only gibberish and mumbo-jumbo in the above so-called explanation. There is no evidence of anything whatsoever.

The answer/'explanation'? it's stated clearly above...you suppress that which you know to be true and/or that which would cause you to believe He exists... that is, a proper interpretation of the data available both "within you and without you".

More gibberish. What answer? What explanation?

That you cannot accept this is proof positive you plural are in denial...liars... plain and simple.

Liars? You bleat on from the good rock candy sermon on the mount and WE are the liars?

Pfft. Amateur.

[COLOR="Blue"]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.


So howcome God has left me out ? I havent seen a thing that would prove his existance. Dont he want me to believe in him ? :bawl:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse.


Oh wow! Everything makes so much more sense now! Clearly, this MUST be evidence with no other interpretation? Well slap my arse and call me a believer!

Photizo,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse.This is a wonderful age old con better known in modern times as the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. The idea being of course is that if you can’t see the (otherwise non-existent) clothes then you must be stupid, and of course no one wants to appear stupid.

In light of the above truth, you are the one who needs to provide an explanation...i.e. the question is how/why, in the face of evidence to the contrary you [plural generic 'you'] maintain God does not exist. Ah but that is the real issue – there isn’t a scrap of evidence that shows that gods might or could exist let alone actually exist. And an appeal to “you must believe before you will be shown evidence” is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. But you miss the essential argument of the skeptic and the atheist - it is not a claim that a god does not exist but that where is the convincing evidence that one can exist.

The answer/'explanation'? it's stated clearly above...you suppress that which you know to be true and/or that which would cause you to believe He exists... that is, a proper interpretation of the data available both "within you and without you".Spoken well as only one can who has been truly and totally indoctrinated and conditioned by religious fantasy. I invite you to open your eyes and mind and examine what you believe with an objective approach.

That you cannot accept this is proof positive you plural are in denial...liars... plain and simple.And exactly how would your claim differ in any essential detail to that of the non existent Emperor’s New Clothes?

Hi there Cris...it's your old buddy Taken just checking in to see if you found him yet. ;) What you been up to?