It was an explaination of why I don't like discussions as unproductive as what you like to lean your arguments into, which is based on my short encounter with you. I was hoping to share my experience thus far with anyone else that would like to discuss anything with you. On-topic, though your demeanor has strengthened my belief that atheists tend to be more violent (or at least more unpleasant.) For example, replying to my post with something as unnecessary as what you just replied with. From my observations so far of this discussion, the atheists have tended to be more demeaning. And if they truely believed they were talking with idiots that refuse to see the truth, they wouldn't be here, or shouldn't be. And yes, I know what my last post said about not replying, I wrote it.
I don't know how you define "militant", but atheists don't appear to have the same affinity for guns and force like Christian militias or Islamic terrorists. Is there such a thing as the "Atheist Army", aside from the old Soviet Union and Maoist China?
I don't really care for people that call themselves theists but make no effort with it, like most theists. Generally when I think of a theist, I think of one that actually takes their beliefs seriously, so with that little clarification and change, I still stand behind my belief [about beliefs and demeanor].
I don't know how you define "militant", but atheists don't appear to have the same affinity for guns and force like Christian militias or Islamic terrorists. Is there such a thing as the "Atheist Army", aside from the old Soviet Union and Maoist China?
This is true Gradius12. but given the subject matter, hardly any one is interested in actually listening to what anyone else has to say. Just in how to best counter it and make their side look better.
Example, I go to the trouble of listening to a fair amount of the link Saltpeter provided to hear some of his argument, have issue with the fact that most of it seems to be a 70 or 80 year old professor badgering a 21 year old, and he does nothing but defend the professor. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel all that proud of outwitting a 21 year old at this stage in life. Oh but he took physics/calc/chem/CS, he must have been brilliant. Yes, incredibly so from the amazing picture of the cheap sliding door in front of his closet in his apartment, 6-7 years after his atheist transformation. And even more so from all the music he ripped, hope he got permission for all that. But that is besides the point and even a little petty, especially in this economy, so let's not even go there. Let's say he did have masterful control of all the subject matter, was good enough in it all to teach/tutor it/derive hypothesis/develop theories whatever. Fact remains he was still just 21 years old, as even the professor points out. Him having much wisdom to go along with all that knowledge isn't likely.
I'm about done with this discussion myself, no one in here listens, just speaks. Won't go anywhere this way, which may be the way many want it, but it is a pretty pathetic 19 pages thus far. Any chance one side could listen to the other instead of just blasting back? Both sides are extremely guilty of doing this. Chances are good this won't happen though, so I'll save my disgust for working on dialogs in my project instead. Hrrrmmm, good thing I have a lot of disgust for that one....
Congratulations, you're a liar. You said you weren't going to reply to me. I therefore made my last post to you short, expecting the conversation to end there. You replied, even bothering to criticize the tone of my post. I have given you and every religious person here every amenity they deserve in this debate. I've explained my point of view thoroughly and addressed every challenge(except one, but as someone noted, I was making a rhetorical point with that one). You and most of those on your side, however, have not done me the kindness of addressing every point I've made, going so far as to read only one sentence before responding to me with points that the very post you respond to debunks.
Now it's my turn to end our conversation, and I won't be a liar.
You misunderstand me. The problem is that most atheists, the vast majority of atheists, are NOT crusaders or militant in any way. "atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against" Is the EXACT point I'm saying he's wrong about. Atheists are almost never like that.
Okay, I didn't read this whole thread (because that would be very sad), but after over 18 pages and 350+ lengthy or not so lengthy postings of this COMPLETELY POINTLESS discussion you can't be serious with this statement. You just can't. This whole thread exactly shows how militant and crusaderish even a small portion of this relatively small forum user base is because it exists. If you are not militant, why does this thread even exist?
Just posting this two-liner into the thread already makes me feel embarassed and ashamed.
Nearly choked on my coffee there man. Take it easy with those claims.
93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists.
62% of US college graduates who enter college with faith, leave without.
Only 1/3rd of scientists overall believe in a god.
Figures are all for US only. Google for source. The figures rise each year.
93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists.
62% of US college graduates who enter college with faith, leave without.
Only 1/3rd of scientists overall believe in a god.
Figures are all for US only. Google for source. The figures rise each year.
Smart people just tend to be atheistic.
I googled the 1st claim, and it seems they threw in agnostics in there as well to reach the 93% figure. Not surprised about the 2nd figure, given human nature of looking for excuses, peer pressure, propaganda etc. 40% remaining is still damn good. Last claim works fine for me.
And yea, United States. We all know how great(sarcasm) the US is, both in education/morality/politics and common sense
Arrogant people tend to be atheists. In any case, when will you realize that science does not explain God away?, that it only shows us how he designed the universe?.
'that it only shows us how he designed the universe?.' Reeeeeeeally though? Think about that. Your points tend to be well thought out and cleverly constructed, but that's just plain stupid.
Without reading any of the above content because quite frankly 10 pages scares me, I would like to provide my input.
I am an Atheist. Many say "Do you mean agnostic? Because Atheist means anti-God." And I say "No, I mean Atheist."
You see, I find that there are two very big sides to religion. There are those who use religion in the way it was intended to be used. There is much in the universe that is yet to be understood, and religion provides answers to these mysteries. Religion provides the average person with a way to feel connected, and a way to feel, well, there really isn't anything like going to a Church, and realize that while you are in there, you are safe and secure.
The other side of religion is the side that makes me an Atheist instead of Agnostic. People use religion to their advantage. They use religion to control people, to manipulate people, and to either scare or trick people into doing things for them. Even now in the US elections (for those of you who are following) many of the candidates are using "God's will" as a strong aspect of their campaign. The longest and most horrific battle in the history of the world still rages on, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, all fought over who God "gave the land to".
Religion gives people an excuse to push logic aside and do insanely evil things.
On the flip side, people do good things because they are religious. Churches hold charity programs to raise money for things. (And I apologize for only using church as an example, I was raised Christian and quite frankly I don't know enough about any other house of worship to make a valid argument) I remember the leaders of my church saying "live your life remembering that God is with you always." and then they would essentially say "do not displease God."
Well I would always say to myself, "No. I will do the right thing, and I will do good things because doing good things is the right thing to do. It is that simple. I do not need a God to tell me what is right and wrong, I already know what is right and wrong. I do not need a book that was written thousands of years ago to tell me that gay marriage is wrong, because in that same book slavery is endorsed, and if a neighbor is to look upon my wife, he is to be burned at the stake."
TL;DR: I'm an Atheist, and I am against religion itself, not God.
Okay, I didn't read this whole thread (because that would be very sad), but after over 18 pages and 350+ lengthy or not so lengthy postings of this COMPLETELY POINTLESS discussion you can't be serious with this statement. You just can't. This whole thread exactly shows how militant and crusaderish even a small portion of this relatively small forum user base is because it exists. If you are not militant, why does this thread even exist?
Just posting this two-liner into the thread already makes me feel embarassed and ashamed.
Sad thing that you think if somebody take part in an open discussion, than he is militant. Thats why the first Amendment of the US Constitution were written....
Arrogant people tend to be atheists. In any case, when will you realize that science does not explain God away?, that it only shows us how he designed the universe?.
http://phys.org/news102700045.html http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
It doesnt seems like that science is showing that the universe was created by God.
I dont know any living theist quantum physicist, but I know many who are atheist. (I am learning physics at an uni and thats an area of physics which I like to read...)
Btw Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman was both atheist and against the logic of religion or theism and both of them were the world's least arrogant man....
Sad thing that you think if somebody take part in an open discussion, than he is militant. Thats why the first Amendment of the US Constitution were written....
http://phys.org/news102700045.html http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
It doesnt seems like that science is showing that the universe was created by God.
I dont know any living theist quantum physicist, but I know many who are atheist. (I am learning physics at an uni and thats an area of physics which I like to read...)
Btw Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman was both atheist and against the logic of religion or theism and both of them were the world's least arrogant man....
Its hard enough to take you serious with that avatar(Im really sorry), but when you post without even reading and understanding your own links with the statement "It doesnt seems like that science is showing that the universe was created by God.", sigh.
I dont know any living theist quantum physicist, but I know many who are atheist. (I am learning physics at an uni and thats an area of physics which I like to read...)
Wow. This guy doesnt know any living theist quantum physicist, so that must mean there are no theist quantum physicists, and how this applies to the fundamental argument is still a mystery.
Oh and about ;
Carl Sagan
On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".[48]
@Charysmatic: Go
The irony is that your last paragraph is rather insulting.
@Saltpeter: Go
It was an explaination of why I don't like discussions as unproductive as what you like to lean your arguments into, which is based on my short encounter with you. I was hoping to share my experience thus far with anyone else that would like to discuss anything with you. On-topic, though your demeanor has strengthened my belief that atheists tend to be more violent (or at least more unpleasant.) For example, replying to my post with something as unnecessary as what you just replied with. From my observations so far of this discussion, the atheists have tended to be more demeaning. And if they truely believed they were talking with idiots that refuse to see the truth, they wouldn't be here, or shouldn't be. And yes, I know what my last post said about not replying, I wrote it.
@Gradius12: Go
I don't know how you define "militant", but atheists don't appear to have the same affinity for guns and force like Christian militias or Islamic terrorists. Is there such a thing as the "Atheist Army", aside from the old Soviet Union and Maoist China?
@Charysmatic: Go http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
South Park Episodes: "Go God Go", "Go God Go XII":
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e12-go-god-go
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e13-go-god-go-xii
@FDFederation: Go
I don't really care for people that call themselves theists but make no effort with it, like most theists. Generally when I think of a theist, I think of one that actually takes their beliefs seriously, so with that little clarification and change, I still stand behind my belief [about beliefs and demeanor].
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe irony is I posted this picture a few pages ago: http://i.imgur.com/25gKC.jpg
@Gradius12: Go
This is true Gradius12. but given the subject matter, hardly any one is interested in actually listening to what anyone else has to say. Just in how to best counter it and make their side look better.
Example, I go to the trouble of listening to a fair amount of the link Saltpeter provided to hear some of his argument, have issue with the fact that most of it seems to be a 70 or 80 year old professor badgering a 21 year old, and he does nothing but defend the professor. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel all that proud of outwitting a 21 year old at this stage in life. Oh but he took physics/calc/chem/CS, he must have been brilliant. Yes, incredibly so from the amazing picture of the cheap sliding door in front of his closet in his apartment, 6-7 years after his atheist transformation. And even more so from all the music he ripped, hope he got permission for all that. But that is besides the point and even a little petty, especially in this economy, so let's not even go there. Let's say he did have masterful control of all the subject matter, was good enough in it all to teach/tutor it/derive hypothesis/develop theories whatever. Fact remains he was still just 21 years old, as even the professor points out. Him having much wisdom to go along with all that knowledge isn't likely.
I'm about done with this discussion myself, no one in here listens, just speaks. Won't go anywhere this way, which may be the way many want it, but it is a pretty pathetic 19 pages thus far. Any chance one side could listen to the other instead of just blasting back? Both sides are extremely guilty of doing this. Chances are good this won't happen though, so I'll save my disgust for working on dialogs in my project instead. Hrrrmmm, good thing I have a lot of disgust for that one....
@Charysmatic: Go
Congratulations, you're a liar. You said you weren't going to reply to me. I therefore made my last post to you short, expecting the conversation to end there. You replied, even bothering to criticize the tone of my post. I have given you and every religious person here every amenity they deserve in this debate. I've explained my point of view thoroughly and addressed every challenge(except one, but as someone noted, I was making a rhetorical point with that one). You and most of those on your side, however, have not done me the kindness of addressing every point I've made, going so far as to read only one sentence before responding to me with points that the very post you respond to debunks.
Now it's my turn to end our conversation, and I won't be a liar.
@Deadzergling: Go
"The more we argue, the more chance that at least one of us is correct."
Nearly choked on my coffee there man. Take it easy with those claims.
Okay, I didn't read this whole thread (because that would be very sad), but after over 18 pages and 350+ lengthy or not so lengthy postings of this COMPLETELY POINTLESS discussion you can't be serious with this statement. You just can't. This whole thread exactly shows how militant and crusaderish even a small portion of this relatively small forum user base is because it exists. If you are not militant, why does this thread even exist?
Just posting this two-liner into the thread already makes me feel embarassed and ashamed.
@Charysmatic: Go
You can take your Beliefs Seriously, and still be lazy about it... I know I sin... and while I SHOULD do better, I dont always.
The difference is I refuse to give up my beliefs just to rid my guilt that is stupid. :P
93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists.
62% of US college graduates who enter college with faith, leave without.
Only 1/3rd of scientists overall believe in a god.
Figures are all for US only. Google for source. The figures rise each year.
Smart people just tend to be atheistic.
I googled the 1st claim, and it seems they threw in agnostics in there as well to reach the 93% figure. Not surprised about the 2nd figure, given human nature of looking for excuses, peer pressure, propaganda etc. 40% remaining is still damn good. Last claim works fine for me.
And yea, United States. We all know how great(sarcasm) the US is, both in education/morality/politics and common sense
Arrogant people tend to be atheists. In any case, when will you realize that science does not explain God away?, that it only shows us how he designed the universe?.
You pretend you can telepathically communicate with the creator of the universe.
I'm the arrogant one?
@EternalWraith: Go
'that it only shows us how he designed the universe?.' Reeeeeeeally though? Think about that. Your points tend to be well thought out and cleverly constructed, but that's just plain stupid.
@EternalWraith: Go or how it was hapened without any god or supreme being
TL;DR is at the bottom.
Without reading any of the above content because quite frankly 10 pages scares me, I would like to provide my input.
I am an Atheist. Many say "Do you mean agnostic? Because Atheist means anti-God." And I say "No, I mean Atheist."
You see, I find that there are two very big sides to religion. There are those who use religion in the way it was intended to be used. There is much in the universe that is yet to be understood, and religion provides answers to these mysteries. Religion provides the average person with a way to feel connected, and a way to feel, well, there really isn't anything like going to a Church, and realize that while you are in there, you are safe and secure.
The other side of religion is the side that makes me an Atheist instead of Agnostic. People use religion to their advantage. They use religion to control people, to manipulate people, and to either scare or trick people into doing things for them. Even now in the US elections (for those of you who are following) many of the candidates are using "God's will" as a strong aspect of their campaign. The longest and most horrific battle in the history of the world still rages on, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, all fought over who God "gave the land to".
Religion gives people an excuse to push logic aside and do insanely evil things.
On the flip side, people do good things because they are religious. Churches hold charity programs to raise money for things. (And I apologize for only using church as an example, I was raised Christian and quite frankly I don't know enough about any other house of worship to make a valid argument) I remember the leaders of my church saying "live your life remembering that God is with you always." and then they would essentially say "do not displease God."
Well I would always say to myself, "No. I will do the right thing, and I will do good things because doing good things is the right thing to do. It is that simple. I do not need a God to tell me what is right and wrong, I already know what is right and wrong. I do not need a book that was written thousands of years ago to tell me that gay marriage is wrong, because in that same book slavery is endorsed, and if a neighbor is to look upon my wife, he is to be burned at the stake."
TL;DR: I'm an Atheist, and I am against religion itself, not God.
Great to be back and part of the community again!
Sad thing that you think if somebody take part in an open discussion, than he is militant. Thats why the first Amendment of the US Constitution were written....
http://phys.org/news102700045.html
http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
It doesnt seems like that science is showing that the universe was created by God.
I dont know any living theist quantum physicist, but I know many who are atheist. (I am learning physics at an uni and thats an area of physics which I like to read...)
Btw Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman was both atheist and against the logic of religion or theism and both of them were the world's least arrogant man....
@EternalWraith: Go
Because god doesn't exist? The universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!! Science cannot explain the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Its hard enough to take you serious with that avatar(Im really sorry), but when you post without even reading and understanding your own links with the statement "It doesnt seems like that science is showing that the universe was created by God.", sigh.
I dont know any living theist quantum physicist, but I know many who are atheist. (I am learning physics at an uni and thats an area of physics which I like to read...)
Wow. This guy doesnt know any living theist quantum physicist, so that must mean there are no theist quantum physicists, and how this applies to the fundamental argument is still a mystery.
Oh and about ;
Carl Sagan
On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".[48]
In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan