Stupidity of this forum

[krofius]

Do think when people identify you as "Atheist" it is a stereotype?
Maybe you think that way, but I definitely don't, if a someone is an Atheist, what the hell you expect me to call them??
Then again, it's not an excuse to neglect what Religious people say.

How do you know he's an Atheist? He might be religious on another level, or maybe just believe the earth was created by something, but is not studying the bible or qu'ran?
You don't need any excuses to neglect what Religious people say. If you think what they are saying is crap, then you think that what they are saying IS crap. No excuses needed for that.
And yes that is what i meant. It has become a stereotype

 

[hexwind]

How do you know he's an Atheist? He might be religious on another level, or maybe just believe the earth was created by something, but is not studying the bible or qu'ran?
You don't need any excuses to neglect what Religious people say. If you think what they are saying is crap, then you think that what they are saying IS crap. No excuses needed for that.
And yes that is what i meant. It has become a stereotype

Yeah, i know, but here I meant Atheists specifically. And if Atheists feel insulted if we identify them of what they are, I think it's the same thing for Religious people as well.. don't you think? Everyone has different theological point of views and they don't agree with each other in theology, yet it doesn't mean that they don't have to communicate or insult each other.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I can't believe what happened from my post!

So of course I am an athiest. What reasoned evidence supports any believe in any god?

What I meant by the comment, slightly comical, is that religious people tend to stifle their answers for real 'truth'. Insomuch as referring to their holy textbooks of lies to discern what applies in the real world.
Any video I have seen where christians talk about almost any interesting subject seems to always have the same flavor of ignorance, some aspect of delusional thinking that never reflects the real world.

The real problem with religion in general is that it is very contradictory and as such it creates that in the minds of the people who believe in it. So on one hand they can believe in the science that completely has changed the world in the past 400 years or more yet still believe that snakes talk, that God loves them so much that he would create a place where they could be tortured forever, all the stupidness that comes with contradiction. Things like, murder is wrong, unless the bible says its ok, like witch burning, or stoning people to death.
Not only that but because this poison of a religion preaches that all will be forgiven, people take less responsiblity for the role they play in their lives and the others that they effect based on a firm believe in a fiction collection of ancient tales ripped off from other pagan religions.

So as I will respect any opinion, except those that clearly are the product of nonsense.

 

[hexwind]

I really don't understand the concept of religion that you,Silver Incubus, are talking about. Are you talking about religion in general, or a Christianity, while you mentioned the pagan background?

 

[Silver Incubus]

Any and all religions. It is less known that Christianity stole many of it's stories from earlier ones of pagan tradition. The concept of hell was certainly around in Egyptian mythos. The many messiahs born to virgins, ressurection, assent to heavens. It doesn't matter the religion, its all based on the simple fact that they are not true.

You see the true power of religion comes in the 3rd person speak of what God wants. The person, minister, preacher, cardinal, Ayatollah can tell others what they want or what they have also learned to be the teachings.
Then you hear the sheep mimic these sayings. such as ' I don't hate gays, GOD HATES GAYS' well, that is saying that You follow god and god hates gays so that means you also hate gays. This type of bullshit contradictory reasoning as I described in my post above is a fairly accurate representation of the general idiocrasy that is a religious following.

 

[Dak]

I agree with your position on the "3rd person" aspect of religion, a huge problem I have with organized religion, among other things.
I still generally believe/follow the Bible regardless because of my own personal experiences.

Attacking the idea of God and attacking religion are really two different things. Man created religion to use the idea of God to gain personal power.

 

[Death Aflame]

I don't consider myself religious or even 'spiritual' however Dakryn makes an important distinction between organized religion and faith. I just finished reading a book called The Shack and the characters of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are personified and make it fairly clear that they generally detest religion as a whole. Yes, I know it is obviously the author's opinion streamlined through characters, but my point is that it is not uncommon to think that religion and faith are not necessarily synonymous (faith hear defined in the spiritual sense between God and human and not institution and human as in religion).

 

[Silver Incubus]

I agree with your position on the "3rd person" aspect of religion, a huge problem I have with organized religion, among other things.
I still generally believe/follow the Bible regardless because of my own personal experiences.

Attacking the idea of God and attacking religion are really two different things. Man created religion to use the idea of God to gain personal power.

The reason there even is a religion is that people believe in imaginary invisible all seeing gods. I have a really simple question that I want a Real answer. What evidence, not personal experiences, do you have to prove the existence of any god, especially the Christain/Muslim/Jew god known as Jehovah or Yahweh?

Oh you cannot use the bible, koran, or the torrah as sources of evidence because they simply are not factual in most respects.

 

[Dak]

The reason there even is a religion is that people believe in imaginary invisible all seeing gods. I have a really simple question that I want a Real answer. What evidence, not personal experiences, do you have to prove the existence of any god, especially the Christain/Muslim/Jew god known as Jehovah or Yahweh?

Oh you cannot use the bible, koran, or the torrah as sources of evidence because they simply are not factual in most respects.

People believe in a god because an intelligent creator is a much more believable and logical concept on how we got here than a cosmic bang and random mutations.

As far as evidence, like "look, it's God!" obviously there is none. I never expect anyone else to take my personal experiences as valuable, but they work for me.

Also, just fyi, Torah is part of the Bible, and allah is not the same person/idea as Yahweh.

 

[Silver Incubus]

People believe in a god because an intelligent creator is a much more believable and logical concept on how we got here than a cosmic bang and random mutations.

As far as evidence, like "look, it's God!" obviously there is none. I never expect anyone else to take my personal experiences as valuable, but they work for me.

Also, just fyi, Torah is part of the Bible, and allah is not the same person/idea as Yahweh.

Ya and Unicorns aren't the same as Pegasus but they both don't exist in the real world.

I am sorry to have to break this to you, but people believe in god because they are too stupid to look at the actuality of the facts that science has proven. Evolution is a fact. Saying god did it is a totally illogical conclusion.
Saying I don't know is alright. It is alright to not know how something happened, but saying that you believe in something that is always proven to be monstrously false. There was no Noah and the arc. That defies the Physics of the universe. The flood myth, it's an older than the bible mythos.

So just trying to understand you..... What makes MORE sense is that GOD created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, made man out of dirt, made woman out of his rib, they get tricked by a talking snake non the less, .....that makes more sense the the science and the knowledge gained through the scientific process showing evolution of all things to be the correct and verifiable reality. Don't forget this is the same science that brings you the computer you are typing at, the vehicle you ride, the conveniences of the modern age.... that is just not enough for you to think for just a moment that the possibility that your faith(the belief in something without evidence) is a much better way to live life, a life of delusions, then one based off of solid verifiable logic and facts that can be demonstrated?

 

[OldScratch]

People believe in a god because an intelligent creator is a much more believable and logical concept on how we got here than a cosmic bang and random mutations.

If you are going to attribute belief in a god to logic on a philosophy forum, you probably need to provide a little support for how you arrived at that conclusion.

A place to begin:

http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/logic/012.htm

 

[Death Aflame]

People believe in a god because an intelligent creator is a much more believable and logical concept on how we got here than a cosmic bang and random mutations.

I never understood this hostility to evolution/big bang theory by creationists. As far as we know, evolution is a fact not a mere hypothesis that involves belief (Pope John Paul II even said this), it is simply empirical knowledge. That being said, why is it always assumed that this is somehow incongruent with a belief in God? Could not the big bang and evolution be the means through which God created us?

I just don't see how any intelligent Christian could argue that any of this is antithetical to their fundamental beliefs in a higher power. For instance, the bible says the world was created in six days, with God resting on the seventh. Are we to assume that a day for God is the same for mankind? A literal interpretation would answer absolutely, and then conclude that the world is only 6000 years old or some other such rubbish, how in the world can anyone defend this position in the face of hard evidence to the contrary? And it is this sort of blind dogmaticism that gives organized religion (defined separately from faith)/overzealous religious people a bad name tbqh.

 

[Blowtus]

I am sorry to have to break this to you, but people believe in god because they are too stupid to look at the actuality of the facts that science has proven. Evolution is a fact.

It's only a 'proven fact' for a given value of 'proven fact' - science doesn't prove, it iterates towards more comprehensive and powerful explanations

 

[Silver Incubus]

It's only a 'proven fact' for a given value of 'proven fact' - science doesn't prove, it iterates towards more comprehensive and powerful explanations

I may be relative, but you are really just playing semantics. By fact, in the loosest terms being, overwhelming evidence to support that it is almost to certainty to being truth as it can be known.

There is enough physical evidence to support that evolution in one form or another, based on the revisions that are discovered

 

[Blowtus]

Maybe pedantic, I find it useful to always bear in mind the limits of our current explanatory / prediction powers, rather than play the usual 'respond with a bullshit black and white statement to refute anothers bullshit black and white statement' game

 

[Dak]

Don't forget this is the same science that brings you the computer you are typing at, the vehicle you ride, the conveniences of the modern age...... solid verifiable logic and facts that can be demonstrated?

A. The areas of science that brought the computer and the combustion engine are not the same areas of science that determine that the creature that made fossil A eventually turned into the creature that made fossil B.

B. Evolution has never been demonstrated, as in for instance, a dog turning into something not a dog. There are changes, but nothing that hints at the entire creation of a new species from an old one.
If evolution happened quickly, we would have seen it in the written history of man. If it happened veeeeeery slowly, there would be an extraordinary amount of "links" instead of a shitload of "missing links".

Either way, we do not see evolution happen. We just see the fossils of a lot of different animals that have died out through millenia of earth cycle changes and natural disasters, as well as the ones who survived.

 

[Blowtus]

Yeah, and thus logic leads us to the existence of a bored omnipotent entity playing at creation

 

[Death Aflame]

It's only a 'proven fact' for a given value of 'proven fact' - science doesn't prove, it iterates towards more comprehensive and powerful explanations

I was waiting for someone to take on the role of amateur epistemologist. That is why science must always end its conclusions, its facts that have apparently been empirically verified through repeated vigorous testing with the axiom 'as far as we know currently'. This of course hides the assumptions of truth etc. on which science is based, but really going into that sort of discussion of how we know what we know is somewhat off topic here.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, and thus logic leads us to the existence of a bored omnipotent entity playing at creation

I don't see how this is any more laughable than the idea that something as complex as the eye(for example) came about through a series of random mutations over tr/b/millions of years.

 

[Blowtus]

I was waiting for someone to take on the role of amateur epistemologist. That is why science must always end its conclusions, its facts that have apparently been empirically verified through repeated vigorous testing with the axiom 'as far as we know currently'. This of course hides the assumptions of truth etc. on which science is based, but really going into that sort of discussion of how we know what we know is somewhat off topic here.

Well, the threads already a mile off topic already - as stated above I don't think the 'dogmatic scientist' approach is a positive one, so I respond appropriately