WatchNon-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and talk about anything you'd like.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
No it's not saying the stance of Atheism is weak, it's actually a branch of atheism that shares similarities to "agnostic athiest". Basically a "Weak Atheist" is one who lacks belief in deities, and a "Strong Atheist" believes no gods exist. So the weak atheist will claim there's not enough evidence to prove gods exist, while a strong atheist will claim that there are absolutely no gods.

Here is a link that better explains via debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Weak-Atheism-is-Logically-Incoherent/1/

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I was just thinking recently that Atheists are just like Theist. The only difference is one claims lack of proof of God's existence, and the other claims like of proof that God does not exist. Weak atheism and agnostic atheism makes much more sense to me then flat out atheism.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Well, although at times my arguments are more leniant towards the weak atheistic side, I actually consider myself to be a strong atheist in the instance that I don't even think it's because of a lack of proof. I honestly just don't think they exist. I get teh fact that you understand weak atheism more, simply because you believe in God knowing that you can't prove without a doubt that he exists. Weak atheism and theism are just two sides of the same coin, really.

Here's a fun quote, just for the heck of it. this is most likely paraphrased since I can't remember which site I got it from and can't research it, but: "We both believe that gods don't exist. I just believe in one less god than you do." - I forgot the author

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I typed that wrong, It should read "in the instance that I don't even think it's JUST because of a lack of proof"* Meaning that's not my only belief in being an atheist.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I consider myself to be a strong atheist as well. As with all things, I regard them as fictional until their existence is proven, whether that's gods or Gandalf or anything.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Or the miracle sandwich, have you heard of that one yet?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

No, but it sounds like it might be hilarious. What is it?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
It's a toungue-in-cheek parody of religion by some guy who I forget. It goes down like this: He goes up to random people on the street and proposes a hypothetical scenario to them. He tells them to imagine that their mother has come down with cancer and she's going to die soon, if he came up to them with the "miracle sandwich" and charges $50,000 dollars to cure her cancer with it, would they do it. The answer is always a resounding "no". He then goes on to chastise their morality, telling them that their mother is going to die and they're not taking every chance, no matter how remote, to heal her. When they respond with the fact that sandwiches can't do miracles, he responds that it was a special, supernatural sandwich given to him by God and since they can't prove it didn't happen there's no way to prove it can't do miracles.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Haha, I like that.

So, does weak atheism = agnostic atheism and strong atheism = gnostic atheism?  You say they have similarities, but as you explained, I'm unclear as to the differences (if any). :0  And since I'm not participating in that debate, I'm really lazy to read the whole thing... :p   although the site itself seems so damn awesome. hahah

But if WA does equal Ag. A, then I guess I'd be classified as a "weak atheist," with my reasoning and everything being as it was on the last thread on Atheism, of course

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Reading it now, and it's actually at least mildly entertaining.  This made me lol a little bit: 

"[Cool Carl Sagan quote]
Cool, a Carl Sagan quote."

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I really liked the "However, any one theist could certainly be an a-Thor-ist", that made me chuckle.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I said it was similar because I didn't want to come out and say it was the same thing withoutknowing for sure :P

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The ‘miracle sandwich’ thing is amusing but flawed. There is an obvious way to prove the sandwich – pay the $50,000.

 
You could also prove it by just proving it without the money at all. In fact, since the sandwich holder brings up the moral issue, one could easily point out that it is immoral for him to let a person die over $50,000. when they have a ‘miracle sandwich’ from god that could save them.
 

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
There is a flaw is most of the pro-aetheism arguments on here. They assume that Christians are going to say, "Well, maybe we can't prove God exists, but you can't prove He doesn't." Wrong. Most people that I know wouldn't even think about using that argument, they would point to the saints who have given excellent proof for His existence. Also, if you won't believe the saints, watch Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution. It is a documentary about animals that could not have evolved the way they are, and gives scientific reasoning and logic for all of it. Sure looks like proof to me.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
That's also a common error in a lot of the pro-theism arguments. They assume atheism=evolution or atheism=Big Bang, and so if they can prove one of the two wrong, they can prove atheism wrong. However, I'm honestly not sure about evolution (I believe in adaptation, and theoretically a species can adapt to the point that they might evolve into an entirely new species (IE the Cro Magnon-Neanderthol split), but I'm not a biologist so I don't even attempt to prove it correct), I don't really believe that the Big Bang happened. It's mostly for the same reason I don't believe in God though, I can't prove it happened :P. You might want to look at the Kalam Cosmological argument though, I think it has some fallacies in its opening premise, but a lot of theists use it to prove the Universe was created.

Plus, just a side point here, but a lot of people try to use the Bible as proof that God exists,but that loops back to the Atheists saying the Bible wasn't written by people inspired by God, so it doesn't really work. If you can prove to me, through the saints, that God exists, though, go ahead.

There's actually this thing called Burden of Proof. It states that a person making a claim needs to back it up with proof, otherwise it can't be considered true. For example, I could claim that Pandas live in the center of the Earth, but I can't ask everyone else to prove me wrong, I need to actually prove Pandas live there in the first place.

@BZ:
I don't think the miracle sandwich is about the moral implications, even though he brings it up, it's about the fact you can't prove his sandwich isn't blessed by God as counter-example to the "You can't prove he doesn't exist" argument. I mean sure, you could say that he can't do it even if they payed the 50,000 grand, but then it's just as easy to say "The sandwich works in mysterious ways" and walk off.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I do not believe that evolution=atheism 100% of the time. I'm trying to say, "I think this gives some pretty damming evidence against evolution. How did humans come to be if not by evolution?"

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I'm happy to report that i have no idea how they would come to be without evolution :) However, simply saying "Hey, see! This book gives a reason, believe in it", isn't rally that good of an argument, seeing as I can just as easily turn to a textbook and give their reason as well.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Here's an interesting thought, which compels me to go look it up –

 
And that is, that for a scientific law to become a law (the law of gravity for example), it’s not a matter of proving it.
 
It is a matter of not being able to disprove it.
 
Of course, this does nothing to help either side in the prove god or not argument, lol

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The problem with relying on empirical evidence is that even God has said *he wouldn't give any to prove his own existence (he requires faith). But God has also said that *he would confirm one’s faith if they showed it. *(both common theological themes from the dawn of human history)

 
To me, that means that anyone can know that there is a God, simply by testing his faith principle, to see if it works or not. Those that say they know there is a God, say it because they believe they have received a confirmation of their faith, in some form that they wouldn’t have received otherwise.
 
Then there are those who say that they have seen God (i.e. Prophets & false prophets). Again, even if they have seen and spoken to God, it’s still a matter of faith on the part of everyone else, to determine the veracity of their claims or not – unless you happen to be one of them, in which case you know through personal experience.
 
So to recap: You can’t prove that there is or isn’t a God. You can test the principle of faith however, by sincerely trying it out. If there is a God, then he will reward faith by confirming his existence to you through it. If there is no God, then you have wasted your time, but because time has no meaning without a God, then you really don’t lose anything wasting your time on an experiment of faith – or on anything else for that matter.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Agreed 90% :) I don't believe that time is wasted without God, live it regardless. If you want to live your life devoted to God, then do so, I'm happy that you're happy and you have a purpose. If I'm living my life to get rich or at least comfortable in life, then I hope you can do the same for me.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

 

If everyone was willing to live this sentiment, then we'd all get along pretty decently.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I'd tell him to give me the sandwich. If it does any miracles, I'll pay him 50 grand.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
What if one doesn't give a shit.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago

 

That would be Afecesism of course.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Or, you could argue that if one "doesn't give a shit", then he's lacking a belief in anything, including God, and he'd be a weak athiest :P

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Did you read the title of what you are posting?

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Yes, Did you read what I posted?

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Yes, I did. I just gave my opinion. I don't give a shit.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago

You're boring.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago

Hehehe - it's like you waited five months just to get the last word on him  =)

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago

Damn it, had no idea this was necromanced. Thought I'd just missed an excellent thread.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago

Actually, the definition of Amoral is not giving a shit - more or less.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
It's the belief of not holding morals, so yeah it would hold up. I think he's speaking on the religous aspect

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
I never gave a shit about anything. Tell me to kill an endangered animal, I'll do it.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
What if I told you to never kill an endangered animal?

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
I still would not follow your rules, because as Malcolm said:
"You're not the boss of me now. You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big."
I'll do whatever the hell I want to, and that includes hunting endangered animals.

"Eat At Joe's"

10 years ago

Poor bambie!

"Eat At Joe's"

10 years ago
Poor Cheetahs and my other cat friends.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Ha! That proves you do "give a shit" about something! You care about doing what youw ant!

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
I do not care about whether it is moral or not.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Hehe... fuck everything by joe lajoie

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
That one made me chuckle:P

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago
Watch yo language, young one, or someone will come and strangle you in the middle of the night.

"Safari Joe Atheism"

10 years ago

Nice job on creating a second account cysid.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

First off all... Damn my walls of text. haha

Yah, the sandwich thing also fails to account for the fact that people are primed to believe in religion, and not on some random dude with an expensive sandwich.  The guy in the anecdote wants to say that people believe religion because it's a potential means for protection or help, that people go to religion, not because they truly believe, but because they think there's a minor chance that they will gain something.  This is certainly true for some, but can't be applied to all.

Mithex, Bo made a good point. haha  If I say I know a guy who can jump ten feet high, you ask for proof, and all I do is say "I he's my friend, and I've seen him do it," well then it's not proof, is it?  Same applies to the saints - and if you're talking about the Medieval philosophers like St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, Descartes, and all those other guys, then I'm afraid to say that they've all failed in proving the existence of God.  You can give me any and each of their arguments, and I'd have no trouble telling you why each respective proof fails... so, it's not about "believing" the saints.  Rather, it's about properly questioning them, just as you'd question the dude with sandwich or any evolutionist, to reach a reasoned conclusion.  Doesn't matter who says it, what matters is what's being said.

As for evolution, I gotta say I believe it. haha  I'm interested in what types of claims that documentary makes, because I find that there's strong evidence for evolution in the history of mankind and due to the fact that we have an opportunity to witness it every day.  The DNA technology used to find criminals and for paternity is the same technology used in genealogical studies of man's perceived ancestors.  Furthermore, bacteria and insects are constant evolving - that's why exterminator companies frequently need to change the composition of their chemicals, because the insects that are immune will survive and multiply, and after a month or so (don't remember the exact timeframe) they're not killing anything.  Same reason it's bad to take a bunch of antibiotics, eventually they all stop working, because that badass .01% of bacteria that's immune to the chem survives, multiplies, and boom!  Fresh population of evolved bacteria.  These examples demonstrate the principles of evolution, whereas studies in physical anthropology will more clearly exhibit all (or most) of the factors involved in man's derivation from the first proto-mammal to the Homo sapien sapien species we are today.

And finally, to address BZ on faith, the meaningfulness of time, and all that.  You'd run into the same problem with God not proving his existence as anyone else, because "God" didn't say it, some guy said that God said it, which is totally different.  It's kinda funny 'cause you'd first have to have faith in the guy telling you that you must have faith in a god.  I mentioned before something about faith being the only thing we blindly accept for the simple sake of blindly accepting something else - this is kind of what I was talking about.  It'd be difficult, if not impossible, to test the idea of faith, because in order to have it, you must already believe.  And if you already believe, then any time something good happens, you'll attibute it to God's will (strengthening your faith), and when something bad happens, faith is telling yourself to keep believing.  If you don't have faith, well, obviously you can't test it.  So if you have it, you have it, and if you don't, you don't.

As for the rest, which is all opinion, life is only meaningful if you give it meaning.  If this is the only life you'll ever live, and once you die all there will be left is a memory, until that too dies... then I find it more of a reason to live this life the best I can.  It's a much better reason to find happiness, I think, because I'm not expecting anything beyond what I know I have.  The very fact that my life is limited, is what makes it so valuable.  My time, my effort, my happiness - I don't have forever.  Some people would say that it will all be meaningless in the end, but I think that's a kinda selfish thought, for one, and a simple misunderstanding.  I recognize that the things I do in my life can and will affect others', so I live conscious of that fact, and as my time to die draw near, I can say it wasn't wasted, because I was happy and I had my part in making others happy.  Once I'm gone, the very concept of "meaningfulness" will be irrelevant.  Mother Teresa, Hitler, and I will be in the same state of nothingness (from our own perspectives, or lack thereof), so all the meaning our lives have are the ones we choose to give them while we're alive, and our legacy will continue to affect others after we die.  Keeping that in mind, I wouldn't say that a godless life is meaningless in any way. haha

With that said, part of letting people be happy is letting them believe what makes them happy. haha  So, if religion or atheism makes someone happy, so long as they're not being dicks about it, haha, I'm content with people living however they want. haha

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
To Zero:
First off... I rather like your walls of text. :)
First paragraph: I agree with that.
Second paragraph: I agree with most of that. Descartes was kinda a poor example for that. He didn't prove God exists because he didn't want to. IIRC, he was an atheist.
Third paragraph: The documentary takes about ten animals(it's been about a year since I've watched it, so don't quote me on any numbers) and shows how that particular animal could not have evolved. A giraffe is one of them. Once the long neck evolves, what happens when it tries to take a drink? It leans its head down, and the blood pressure that suddenly rushes to its brain is enough to kill it, because it hasn't evolved a defense for that yet. Not to mention what happens when it simply stands there. How does its heart pump enough blood to its head for it to live?It hasn't evolved that strong heart yet, because it had no need for it. Another one is the bombardier beetle. When threatened, it releases several chemicals that react together and blow up in the predator's face. The beetle is protected by another mix of chemicals(don't quote me on the defense chemicals either) that protect it from the explosion. How did it evolve the defense without the danger? About the bacteria "evolving" that is natural selection. As far as I understand that, I believe it.
Fourth paragraph: I need to think about this.
Fifth paragraph: I can't remember who came up with this, but it was posted on another thread. If God doesn't exist, and you act like He does, then you lose nothing, and gain a good remembrance like you are talking about. If you act as if He doesn't, then you don't lose anything. If He does exist, and you act like He doesn't, you are damned to Hell for eternity. If you act like He does, you gain eternal, complete happiness. Therefore, your chances are better if you behave as if there is a God.
Sixth paragraph: I'm pretty much with you there.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Just saying I think Atheism is part of the problems in America.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Why? Isn't seperation of church and state one of the basic things in the Constitution?

If you mean on a societal level, then I'd have to disagree with you there as well. Let people believe what they want to believe, it doesn't affect anyone else either way.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I mean on a business level. If you are atheist you believe that this is it so your more likely to be greedy and so on. Much of the behavior of corporate excavates would most likely be solved if they had a stronger moral fiber. That is something religion helps provide.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Isn't a significant majority of convicts religious, meaning that atheists are in a majority (and if I remember correctly, the percentage of convicted atheist criminals is an extremely low one). So no, religion does not provide a stronger moral fiber.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
*atheists are in a minority.

Sorry, I'm on my iPad.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Have you ever heard of John D. Rockefeller?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I submit that is actually easier to get religious types to do evil than atheists. Just look at the holocaust. Adolph Hitler claimed that his movement was not only for the benefit of Christians, but a Christian cause:

 
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord…" - A.H.
 
And, as noted in President Obama’s gamebook – "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." – Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals
 

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Have you got any evidence for suggesting atheists are more likely to be greedy? Bill Gates has given over $28 billion to charity. Warren Buffett (not a corporate executive but big in the business world nonetheless) donated over $30 billion dollars to charity (around 85% of his wealth if I remember correctly).

This doesn't make all atheist businessmen philanthrophists, I'm only giving examples as evidence against your belief that atheist businessmen are greedy.

Regardless of whether you have evidence or not, I'm still genuinely interested to hear why you believe atheists would be more greedy than religious people. Purely out of curiousity, I'm not trying to be hostile.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I would just think that if you don't think there is an afterlife where you are judge for your actions; you would be more likely to not really care about other people in this world. Not necessarily saying you would commit crimes but that you would be far more apathetic to others.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Well, look at me. I believe in God (Kind of) and I've been accurately described on multiple occasions as a "cynical asshole incapable of showing empathy."

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I could just as easily say religious people are less moral because they believe gods/a god will punish them for doing evil and reward them for good whereas atheists are moral for no other reason than their own natural sense of morality.

Personally I know morally good religious people and morally good atheists. I don't think religious people are any more responsible than atheists are as a whole.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Photobucket So Christianity is what keeps people moral?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Ahem. Money is not evil, the love of money is.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Just throwing this out there: If all the atheists in the USA were to suddenly disappear you would only lose 1% of the country's prison population. Meanwhile, 97% of the 3200 members of the National Academy of Science would be gone.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I don’t believe this is an accurate statistic.

 
The saying that “there are no atheists in foxholes” applies here as well. What else do prisoners have to occupy their mind and sooth their soul? Prison Religion offers comfort and hope while incarcerated, but hardly influences the majority of convicts after release.
 
It’s more of a ‘what the heck, if it will make me feel better, and it can’t hurt, then I’ll do it for now’ – just like the atheist praying for help in the foxhole.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Source or speculation?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Prison shows; and the fact that over 50% of released prisoners re-offend. I just don’t believe that prisoner religion accurately shows one’s true religion as well as a freeman’s freedom to follow it (or not) does.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Point taken, but wasn't the whole point of this that religious people don't have to be moral to be religious?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Not trying to be daft, but what do you mean?

 
On one hand, morals doesn’t have to be synonymous with religion. You could have a religion that rewards amoral behavior for example.
 
On the other hand, most Christian faiths require moral adherence to measure one’s ‘worthiness,’ ‘faithfulness’, ‘salvation’ (or whatever).
 
Also, I would agree that morals (or lack thereof), would not preclude anyone from claiming any religion they wanted.
 
Out of curiosity though, I’d like to see what percentage of the United States is Christian vs. Atheist; and then compare that ratio to the percentage of Christians vs. Atheists that are convicted and jailed. Then I’d look at that ratio vs. what percentage of all jailed are Atheist vs. Christian...

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I'd be surprised if no one has checked that out.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

What I meant was that the whole discussion started from the fact that Cool thought Atheists are a problem in America because they lack morals and we were trying to disprove that.

I wonder that but you also have to take into accout the fact that many people might be afraid to admit being Atheist in fear of overbearing parents.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I don't think they were neccesarily trying to disprove that Athiests lack morals, simply that you cannot claim that one group of people is morally superior to another because of their religion by showing that the majority of those incarcerated for breaking laws (which you could say are focused around morals such as stealing, murdering, and selling drugs) are Christians.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Wait...criminals are peole who have committed crimes, yes? And Christianity is all about that people who have committed crimes receive eterna damnation, yes? Where is their incentive to believe in that as a some sort of hope for freedom? Unless we're talking about people who have been wrongfully incarcerated but if a majority of criminals are innocent, well, then that is a major problem.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I'm pretty confident that it's the whole 'God will forgive you of your crimes if you accept Christ' thing that would make a criminal's “Christian” life in prison easier to swallow. I could be wrong, but that'd be my guess...

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
And the 97% of the national academy?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I don't have any particular concerns or thoughts on that statistic at the moment ;)

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Oops. Nothing between this post and my post further up was there when I started typing the one up there.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I very strongly disagree with the idea that atheists are more likely to be greedy. Religion, or the lack thereof, is just one of countless things that determines one's morality. There are atheists who are total greedy scumbags. There are also atheists who are incredibly kind and do the right thing simply because they know they ought to. There are christians who truly do try to be like Christ and are some of the most genuinely sweet, caring people you could ever meet. There are also christians who are pompous, self-centered hypocrites who consider themselves superior to other people.

Religion may teach moral virtues through the bible (that is when "God" isn't doing such awesome godly things as encouraging his followers to murder in his name, which he seemed to be alarmingly fond of doing) but that doesn't mean that the simple act of believing in God makes you instantly morally righteous and superior to everyone else. Morality is shaped by many factors, such as the environment you live in, your upbringing in your own household, the people you choose to surround yourself with, etc.

Sure, religion might be effective in scaring people straight by threatening to send people to hell, or enticing them with the promise of eternal life in heaven, but where the fuck is the moral value in doing shit because you don't want to punished or because you want some kind of reward? We should be encouraging people to do what is morally good based solely on the merit that it is the right thing to do.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Again: Where in the Bible does it condone murder?

And for the last paragraph: The Catholic Church does teach people to do what is right because it is right. The fear of Hell is just a stepping stone.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Cain and Abel.

 

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
That condemns it, not condones it, Steve!

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Exodus 22:18 do not suffer a witch to live.
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
Zechariah 11:9:
"And the LORD will send a plague on all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. Their people will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves".

The link I got this from seemed pretty funny. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110921085340AA3lgos

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
Well, since nobody else decided to look it up I'll take this one as well.


Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)


"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

(This one supports burning in entire town for believing another religion): Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

That's not all of the examples, of course, but if you want more proof you can still ask.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

To Mithex, here is some more examples via the link.

 

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

(God commanded mass murder)



Numbers 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

(God commanded the murder of a man who needed some sticks.)



Numbers 25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

(God rewarded Israel for murdering a foreigner. The context is clear.)

Deutl. 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them;

(God commands that innocent civilians, including the children, be killed.)


Judges 4:21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.
4:22 And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples.
4:23 So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel.

(God apparently approves of murdering a man while he's asleep.)



There are many more, but this is long enough for now.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I wonder what she'll say isn't condoned by the bible next :P

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

*off topic* Geez, first time i read what you said, ThisisBo, I read "condomed".

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Condoned*

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
He knows, he's saying he just didn't see it. Also, sorry I said nobody else was doing it when I posted my quotes, playa, but when i started you hadn't posted yours yet.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

No problem, just more evidence in my opinion.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

In the Torah there are some parts you just can't understand. There's a part where the Israelites need three red cows for a ceremoney. Even weirder is a part where they talk about houses getting leprosy. Also when the people get leprosy their heads turn red and green. It's really strange.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
I was looking through the Gay marriage thread and I found it. I'll post what we said, then post quotes:
"
To Kill a Mockingbird has both slavery and rape too, that doesn't mean it supports them.


Gay Marriage
by ThisisBo Today at 12:31
[reply to this]

To Kill a Mockingbird isn't supposed to be written by God as an instruction on how to live our lives."

I already adressed Slavery, so I'll move on to rape:

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)" This both talks about slavery and "enjoy"ment of the women you take.

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down. (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)" As a punishment to David, God allows all of his wives to be raped in front of everyone.

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)" Although this does say they must marry the slaves, the fact of the matter is they take the captives, have sex with them against their will, and then marry them.

"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil." (Judges 5:30 NAB) Although it doesn't specifically say "there must be a damsel or two for each man to sleep with", I think we all know what's implied.

"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city." (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) Once again, God uses rape as a punishment

Once again, those are just a few



"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Mithex: Descartes sure tried, but then he went along and proved himself wrong. haha  He made the argument (condensed):

1) I exist (axiom)
2) I clearly and distinctly have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (axiom, partly based on 1)
3) An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (axiom)
4) Therefore, the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (2, 3)
5) A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (axiom)
6, Conclusion) Therefore, a perfect being must exist (4, 5)

So, even though he halfway realized he was being dumb, haha, he did try to prove the existence of a god.  Nevertheless, feel free give any of the saints' arguments, and I'll gladly show you what's wrong with them.

As for the documentary, haha, okay, so I take it it's just a bunch of guy who don't know what they're talking about then?

"Once the long neck evolves, what happens when it tries to take a drink? It leans its head down, and the blood pressure that suddenly rushes to its brain is enough to kill it, because it hasn't evolved a defense for that yet. Not to mention what happens when it simply stands there. How does its heart pump enough blood to its head for it to live?It hasn't evolved that strong heart yet, because it had no need for it."

So, obviously giraffes exist today, so we know that the idea that they have weak hearts and all this is just ridiculous. hahah  It must be, then, that you and the documentary believe that evolution is the sudden appearance of random traits in a population, like long necks.  Well, that's simply not the case.  You mention "natural selection," which you'll be surprised to discover essentially means the same thing as evolution.  It's not that long necks just randomly appeared, but that in the past, only the giraffes with the taller necks (just a couple inches, let's say) could reach the leaves higher up in the trees to eat, and those who couldn't get enough food died.  Then, via natural selection, the ones best fit to survive from them (the ones with the tallest necks) passed on their genes, and those who couldn't reach the food would die.  Over several thousands of years and countless generations of the best fit to survive passing on their genes, we have the kickass giraffes you see today. haha  This is what we mean when we say that populations of organisms evolve (explained in its utmost basic sense).

As for paragraph four, have you thought about it? haha

And lastly: "If God doesn't exist, and you act like He does, then you lose nothing, and gain a good remembrance like you are talking about. If you act as if He doesn't, then you don't lose anything. If He does exist, and you act like He doesn't, you are damned to Hell for eternity. If you act like He does, you gain eternal, complete happiness. Therefore, your chances are better if you behave as if there is a God."

You know, this suggestion seems to come from pretty twisted view, haha, and I really dislike it, because it tries to pass itself off as "reason."  But it isn't, and I'll explain why.  First, it assumes that "acting like a god exists" has no bearing on your life whatsoever.  It says you should accept it, because only good can come of it, when in fact religion and strict adherence to arbitrary principles can effectively strip you of meaningful life.  Because now, instead of living for yourself, for your own happiness, by your own sense justice, you're giving it up, living for some promise you also have no reason to believe in.  You lose nothing?  You lose the only thing you know you have - autonomy.  Can't do this, can't think those, better stay away from these things, I should stick to things of that nature... you're depriving yourself in the worst way imaginable.  Conversely, if you act as if you are in full control of your life, then you can be confident.  The only faith you need is faith in yourself.  You're not relying on some god to make life better for you or praying he doesn't take away what you've already got going or failing to credit yourself for the good things you do; you're making your life what you want it to be.

Furthermore, the bible doesn't promise salvation to good people.  It promises salvation for people who give their lives to god.  You could be like Jesus himself, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing if you weren't baptized before you died.  Behavior only matters if you're baptized and you unconditionally accept that even though there is no reason to believe that you will be rewarded for all the sacrifices you will make in the name of your faith, you should believe anyway.  Also, the bible clearly states that cowards (people who claim to believe out of fear of hell) would be allowed in heaven.  If you're going to act as if god exists, go right on ahead, but if you're not willing to go the distance, I'd advise you not to bother.

So, in an attempt to simplify this idea of how one should best live life, the most important implications of the whole process are totally left out, and this portrait you're left with of a life with/without god is pure garbage.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago
To Marmotlord and Thisisbo: Witches, mediums and fortunetellers in that time were either blatant liars and con men(not saying this deserves a death penalty) or were using demonic powers, either through selling their souls to the Devil or being possessed.

Zero: Sorry about the misunderstanding about Descartes. Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm kinda getting tired of people saying that random traits springing up in the populace is my idea of evolution. My current understanding of it, from what I have heard, is that there is no actual evidence for what you are describing. What I mean is, that no fossils of what was in between modern giraffes and what they were before that have ever been found. And not just giraffes, either. No in-between fossils have ever been found that I know of, except for"homo erectus" and similar things. And I've studied paleontology quite a bit.
As for the argument, I did oversimplify that. It made much less sense when I wrote it than when the man who came up with that did. I'll try and find the full thing.
Have you ever heard of "Baptism of Desire"? It is a teaching that states that even if there is no way for a person to be Baptised, if they truly desire it, even subconsciously, and live good lives, they can go to Heaven.


Everyone: " Eliminate the impossible. Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Sherlock Holmes


And Thisisbo, I'm a he. :).

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Just to add to what Zero said about Pascal's Wager ("If God doesn't exist, and you act like He does, then you lose nothing..."), it doesn't take into consideration that there are hundreds of other gods to believe in. If it turns out that some other god is real and you believed in the Christian god instead of him, you're going to that religion's version of hell despite living a restricted life. This is the major problem I have with Pascal's Wager.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Nice logic catch!

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

You can't prove or disprove the existence of god to anyone, not matter what you say or do.

 
You can however, prove the existence of god to yourself; but interestingly, you can never disprove it.
 
First: why it cannot be disproved: the absence of god in your existence doesn’t mean there is no god. It means that there is no god (OR) there is a god and for some reason you never encounter him/it/whatever. Because there is still the possibility that a god exists outside of your awareness, you can’t prove the former side of the equation.
 
Second: how can you prove that there is a god to yourself? Meet him in person (OR) feel his influence and know that it is from him and not from something else. I’m not talking about faith here, I’m talking about knowledge. If you meet either of these, then you prove to yourself that there is a god. Unfortunately, this does nothing to prove that to anyone else – just to you.
 
Also, if you go through life and meet neither of these two qualifiers, you still don’t know that there is no god (see the first point).
 
People of faith like to share their ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ that they know there is a god through one of the two ways indicated above. It serves to encourage others to try to find out for themselves, but doing so is strictly an individual’s journey – between him and god. That’s also not to say that there aren’t those who lie about their testimony or witness for their own advantage or gain. Just because you can find the truth out about these charlatans and disprove them, doesn’t disprove the existence of a god – whether the one they are exploiting for their own ends – or another being entirely.
 
You still have to find out for yourself.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I can't prove beyond any doubt that God exists, that much is true. However, I can look through some of the major religions (I'm not going to pretend I've read every holy text ever written. I haven't even touched Mormonism, but I know it isn't true :P) and prove that it is most likely not to be true. This is mostly through contradictions in the text and logical paradoxes, combined with the lack of evidence (and by evidence I mean a reason God exists). To paraphrase October (I think it was him) "I'm not sure if there's a God, but if there is I know it isn't the Christian God".

I can take the fact that it is extremely unlikely and then come to the conclusion that it's not true. It's like the kinetic theory, Chemists pretty much know it's true, and nothing's likely to change that with our modern understanding of Science, but it can't be absolutely proven (that's why it's called the Kinetic Theory). One case for the belief that the lack of evidence leads to the belief that God doesn't exist is the Celestial Teapot Theory (For those of you who watch Glee, I've heard the theory was proposed on there with a few... choice alterations). This is the theory that I cannot prove that there isn't a teapot hiding behind one of the rings of Saturn, and yet I'm still perfectly justified in declaring that there isn't one.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The problem with every religion is that it is man trying to convince you that it is true; and as man isn’t a perfect being, there are always flaws.

 
Again, the only way to know there is a god is by direct confirmation in some way from the deity itself. If there is a god, then that can happen. If there isn’t a god it won’t but you still can’t be entirely sure.
 
When the teapot hiding behind the rings of Saturn reveals itself to you, then you know it is there.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

On a mildly related note: I know that people win giant lottery jackpots every day, but I'm not likely to ever be one of them; and actually have a much greater chance of being hit by a piece of aircraft falling out of the sky. As I have yet to be hit by a piece of falling aircraft, I don't even bother buying tickets, as I am statistically likely to be hit first and win later. That doesn't lead me to believe the entire lottery system is a hoax (though it could be)…

 
Of course I could argue against myself with this same analogy, as I don’t bother with the lottery system because I’m unlikely to ever win and I’m fine with that. The same could be said for some atheists, and why they might not bother going through the myriad of motions and/or suggestions of religion to try to find out if there is a god. And I’m fine with that also.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The difference is that there is undeniable proof that A.) the lottery exists and B.) The lottery has winners, so you can assume it's a hoax. However, the fact that there is a god has next to no proof (and that proof is questionable at best), let alone undeniable proof. To paraphrase Zero: "The only evidence for God's existence is a book, and the only reason we know the book doesn't lie is because the book tells us it doesn't lie."

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

can't assume it's a hoax*

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

As that entire two paragraph statement stated: You can't be entirely sure of anything, but just like you can be damn sure there isn't a teapot behind one of Saturn's rings, you can be sure there is no God.

Your argument actually strikes me as similar to Descartes's argument (but that's just my opinion) because it has to do with perfect and imperfect beings, however the assumption that because a man tries to convince you that it isn't true means you can't assume it isn't true is incredibly flawed.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I disagree with the premise that you can't be entirely sure about anything. You absolutely can be sure of the existence of god if he reveals himself to you. That is unquestionably true. Whether there is a god to reveal himself to you is a separate matter.

 
On the other point, what? I pointed out that no one can prove or disprove the existence of a god to anyone. Only you and the god can do that. And I offered no support for or against the proof of existence of a god with my statement of the flawed nature of human religion. I only pointed that out to explain that you cannot use the flaws of religious belief to prove that god does not exist. Pretty straight forward I think.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Actually, you can't even be entirely sure that our lives are real. How do we know that we aren't just locked up in some box in Purgatory and our imaginations have involed to a degree where we can stimulate another's person's existence? Of course the idea is extremely absurd and I would dismiss the person who actually thought it was true as a nutjob, the whole point is that we can't be sure of anything. Let's say God does prove himself to you. Couldn't that just be part of the imagination?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

evolved to a degree*

but the whole point*

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Sure, it could be - but because everyone's reality is their own, it doesn't really matter what is the root cause of the reality to the person in it, does it?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Think about this though. How do you know that your imagination is controlling everyone else's as well? Again, extremely absurd but the point is that nothing can be known for certain.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I agree in that sense - for all you know, we're all just figments of your imagination, programed to make you think that we're real. There's no way you can disprove this ;)

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

1.) Actually, I agree that you can be entirely sure about anything, but I also believe that you cannot prove anything 100%. Even DNA tracking is 99.9% accurate. That being said, if a God did actually reveal himself (him being just a worthless term as a God would likely be asexual) to me and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed, then I would quickly become a theist. However, as it's incredibly unlikely that this would happen, or that it would happen to anyone else (although it's extremely likely that some will misinterperet signs as being sent from God), it's logical to assume that God does not exist.

2.) "The problem with every religion is that it is man trying to convince you that it is true; and as man isn’t a perfect being, there are always flaws." is what I was referring to. My stance is not that you can't be convinced of anything, simply that nothing can be proven to 100% accuracy. It's entirely logical to take something that's incredibly likely to be true (like that we are warmed by the Sun) and assume it to be true, but it can't be proven 100%. Just like it's incredibly likely that the celestial teapot doesn't exist, but I assume it doesn't even though it can't be disproven to 100% accuracy, or just like the Miracle Sandwich.

 

Sorry this took so long, I've been typing it during the less than a minute long commercial breaks on this show I'm watching online :P

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The issue with that argument, first and foremost is that God couldn't:

A) Not think of something or
B) Be bound by logic

A being of infinite power could simply rewrite the rules of logic for as long as needed and only with respect to him because he can do anything.

Also, you're arguing irreducible complexity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community

The babel fish could develop naturally.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

The babel fish is also fictional, and I'm pretty sure his entire post was a quote from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy lol.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Oh God.

(haha)

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Wait, you seriously didn't know about the Babel Fish?

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Psyche, I knew all along. . .

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

It’s a deception, just learn to bend...

 

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I think it's pointless to even debate religion. It is impossible to prove or disprove, as mentioned many times in this thread. The way I see it is: Attempt to be as happy as possible, and forget about things that will not directly impact your life. If there is a God, he obviously hasn't shown any interest in what we do and deserves no second thoughts; abide by moral laws and you will end up in Heaven (supposing he DOES exist and is a paradise as described). If God doesn't exist, then at least you've lived a full life with no regrets. By debating religion, all you're doing is giving yourselves a headache over something largely irrelevant.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

 A flaw in your argument is with the religions that send you to hell if you didn't believe in them. While some religions will not make our souls burn in eternal punishment, many will. Thus, the need is somewhat prevalent.

But, I do believe that arguing religion is useless. There is no right and wrong, just which proof/disproof you consider best.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

I find the whole "believe in our God or you suffer eternally" pretty foolish. I mean, if God is omnipotent and so merciful, why would you go to hell because of simply not believing in him? It doesn't seem like what an all-powerful, all-loving being would do if he exists.

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

while I agree with you, still, many religions believe that. And there is only one true religion, if you are talking about the monotheistic ones, so the chances that I'm going to hell are likely based on statistics.

But, yeah, saying that if you don't believe you will burn is a pretty ridiculous claim, though two big religions use it. (Christianity, and Islam)

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

Also, where the fuck was I for this awesome thread?!

"Weak Atheism"

10 years ago

hey wait, there WAS  suspicious lack of 3J in that thread.

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

I like cupcakes and does atheism represent wood or stone?

wood is part of a tree and can grow.

stone is solid but immobile.

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Atheism represents cupcakes.

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

I think Religion represents Rock, Atheism represents Paper and Scientology represents Scissors!

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Atheism defeats theism, but is undercutted by scientology? That's weird, seeing as Scientology would by far be the second easiest religion to disprove :P

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

I'm actually really interested in hearing what's easier to disprove then Scientology.

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

More scientology?

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Westboro Baptist Church! *Shudder*

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago
Its pretty bad for your ideology when you've got the KKK calling you hate mongers and protesting you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Trctc_fqU

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Where do you find these videos?

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Youtube :p

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

I can't disprove Aliens coming before Humans could conceive history as easily as I can disprove the Mormon version of history (seriously, look it up).

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Wanna know a really easy religion to disprove? Nuwaubianism! It's so cool! They believe the weirdest stuff ever! Here's a list:

1. It is important to bury the afterbirth so that Satan does not use it to make a duplicate of the baby.

2. Some aborted fetuses survive their abortion to live in the sewers, where they are being gathered and organized to take over the world.

3. Each of us has seven clones living in different parts of the world.

4. Women existed for many generations before they invented men through genetic manipulation.

5. Homo sapiens are the result of cloning experiments that were done on Mars.

6. Nikola Tesla came from Venus.

7. People were once perfectly symmetrical but then a meteorite hit the earth which caused people's heart's to shift off-center in the chest.

8. The Illuminati have been secretly nurturing the son of Satan who was born to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and raised by the former U.S. president Richard Nixon. He now lives in Belgium, where he is hooked up to a computer called "The Beast 3M." The Pope was present at his birth where he performed some weird necromantic ceremonies... Which of cause goes without saying, 'cos that's just what popes do cheeky

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Hey, I'm a devout follower of Nuwaubianism!

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Oh yeah? Pronounce it cheeky

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

I just did.

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

... Touche :p

Wood or Stone?

10 years ago

Wow, this thread is still happening. haha  I know it's 5 months later, but Mithex is a total idiot.  Not because I don't like the things he says, but because the things he says are idiotic and false. haha  He hasn't appeared in a long time, it looks like, but I don't think his argument merits any further response... so, I'll leave it alone, unless someone else finds it convincing somehow. haha

I haven't read too much of what came after, but the point remains:  There's no successful, deductive argument for or against the existence of god.  Plenty of attempts, good ones too haha  But they've all failed, as far as I'm aware.  There's a pretty strong inductive argument against the existence of god, usually called the Evidential Argument from Evil, but 1) even if it's successful, it "proves" nothing and 2) there exists an equally strong argument, using a different logical form, against the existence of unjustified evil (which breaks apart Evidential Argument).  Your life experience and world view will usually tell you that one argument is "more likely to be true," and you *may* be right whichever you choose, but simply by accepting a different premise than you originally accepted (Unjustified Evil exists -OR- God exists) you'll see how the argument works both ways.  This is called the G.E. Moore Shift, and it's not without some dirty implications in regard to the Theist's position, but it's a legit move if you're willing to make it.  You won't end up proving anything in the end anyway. haha

...But as an aside, I'm not using these terms to be an ultra dick. haha  I'm just notorious for making ridiculously long posts, haha, and this way, I figure anyone who's genuinely interested can just google anything they want further explanation on or simply ask, of course.