Can Atheists and Theists ever acknowledge each other.

[Draka]

If atheists could keep their beliefs out of politics, science, schools and rights of others, there would be little issue with coexistence. Telling people that God does not exist is just one example. Telling people that Noah's flood never happened, is another example. Telling people that God is not necessary for evolution to take place is another example. Need I go on?

If atheists and theists would adhere to the truth, and nothing but the truth, we might get along. But as I said before. It ain't gonna happen.

But...it isn't an "atheists vs theists" thing when it comes to science and schools and rights. Those things you mentioned, they have far more to do with history and science and fact than anything else. Your issues are with science classes and history classes, not atheists really. Your issues seem to be with facts and evidence, not atheists.

Atheists aren't saying that a global flood never happened, scientific fact says that. Scientists of varying faiths and non-faiths agree on that fact. Take it up with them.

The fact that evolution occurs and has occurred is not something just perpetuated by atheists, but by anyone who actually understands biology and geology and so on. Those who have the grasp of the sciences, no matter their faith.

As to human rights, those should never be conditional upon religious faith, as religion varies greatly and the values of those religions vary from denomination to denomination and sect to sect. Rights should be based upon fairness, equality and what is considered generally humane from an unbiased standpoint.

I certainly don't know what you think the "truth" is that we should all adhere to, that we should all know, but all of us, theists and atheists alike, do have one thing in common, we are all human. We should all be treated as such. Equally, fairly, and with all information available to us. Just because you may not like some of the information does not mean that some people should no longer continue to put it out there.

 

[outhouse]

Not really. You're mostly demonstrating that you've completely missed the point of what I'm trying to get at here.

I have your point down pat, I just find it an error in methodology, as you do not get to define atheism to meet your personal views.

That is my point.

The mere fact someone calls themselves an atheist or a theist means diddly squat..

Actually it does.


This is your error.


Your personal description of either term means "diddly squat.." Your opinion or imagination, does not get to redefine the definition.


But I believe you did qualify your statement with a "my definition" of atheism. So Im sorry your definition rewrites over the real definition

 

[allfoak]

I agree that debate per se is inappropriate.
I'm just discussing things.

That's good.

 

[Iti oj]

If atheists could keep their beliefs out of politics, science, schools and rights of others, there would be little issue with coexistence. Telling people that God does not exist is just one example. Telling people that Noah's flood never happened, is another example. Telling people that God is not necessary for evolution to take place is another example. Need I go on?

If atheists and theists would adhere to the truth, and nothing but the truth, we might get along. But as I said before. It ain't gonna happen.

Where is this happening in schools, politics and science? Empirically speak there as no flood. Socially atheist argue against theist, because they try to force their views into these subject. Science doesn't say god is not necessary for evolution, it just doest even mention god, for or against. Yes you need to go on, you made a false bogyman.

 

[Sonofason]

I imagine something simpler:
- Science will proceed with no denial or claiming of God.
- Religion will proceed with no denial of the scientific method.

I'm sorry, that won't cut it. It has already been established that science doesn't actually DO anything. Science is knowledge. Knowledge is incapable of claiming or denying anything. People use knowledge to make claims and to deny claims. You can make no such promise.

And religion has never been considered a part of the scientific method in the first place. So no concessions have been made. None will be made.

 

[Sonofason]

Where is this happening in schools, politics and science? Empirically speak there as no flood. Socially atheist argue against theist, because they try to force their views into these subject. Science doesn't say god is not necessary for evolution, it just doest even mention god, for or against. Yes you need to go on, you made a false bogyman.

It happens in schools. It happens in the work place. It happens here and it happens there. I have just recently informed one of your cohorts, and I will now inform you, that science is incapable of "saying" anything. So of course science does not mention God. Of course science can't say God is not necessary for evolution to take place. YOU DO.

 

[Draka]

It happens in schools. It happens in the work place. It happens here and it happens there. I have just recently informed one of your cohorts, and I will now inform you, that science is incapable of "saying" anything. So of course science does not mention God. Of course science can't say God is not necessary for evolution to take place. YOU DO.

Are you wanting people to insert a god into scientific principles "just because" you believe there is a god?

Why should religion be part of the scientific method by the way? That makes no sense. It is a method. Science uses it. Religion doesn't. Why would scientists insert a god factor into such a method when one is not required?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry, that won't cut it. It has already been established that science doesn't actually DO anything. Science is knowledge. Knowledge is incapable of claiming or denying anything. People use knowledge to make claims and to deny claims. You can make no such promise.

I use "science" in the above context as the practice of the scientific method, ie, doing stuff that particular way.
And I already said that this deal is unenforceable.....just something fun to consider.

And religion has never been considered a part of the scientific method in the first place. So no concessions have been made. None will be made.

Many people do conflate the two though.
That's one of the things we're addressing.

 

[Sonofason]

But...it isn't an "atheists vs theists" thing when it comes to science and schools and rights. Those things you mentioned, they have far more to do with history and science and fact than anything else. Your issues are with science classes and history classes, not atheists really. Your issues seem to be with facts and evidence, not atheists.

No, my issue is with atheists, all atheists in fact who subvert the truth for lies. They make claims of knowledge that does not exist. They claim that some knowledge is not knowledge, however it suites their particular agenda. A lack of knowledge is not knowledge. And that is exactly what you have with regard to the historicity of the Bible, no knowledge whatsoever.

Atheists aren't saying that a global flood never happened, scientific fact says that. Scientists of varying faiths and non-faiths agree on that fact. Take it up with them.

Just name them, and submit their findings for my review. And I will determine what they have actually said, as opposed to what you are currently saying. Many scientists disagree with regard to there being a global flood. And I'm one of them.

The fact that evolution occurs and has occurred is not something just perpetuated by atheists, but by anyone who actually understands biology and geology and so on. Those who have the grasp of the sciences, no matter their faith.

God knows we just can't grasp it. It is so difficult for us creationists to understand anything scientific. Sorry to inform you, Evolution is not a fact. It may be a fact. And that is the form of every lie told by atheists. You're right until proven otherwise. Well my friend, so am I, and so far no one has been capable of proving anything to me. I guess they just don't grasp the concept well enough to present their case believably and persuasively.

As to human rights, those should never be conditional upon religious faith, as religion varies greatly and the values of those religions vary from denomination to denomination and sect to sect. Rights should be based upon fairness, equality and what is considered generally humane from an unbiased standpoint.

Why are you bringing up human rights? Sounds to me like your trolling for something. It wasn't part of the conversation, and it still is not part of this conversation. And unless you start a new thread, it will never be a part of our conversation.

I certainly don't know what you think the "truth" is that we should all adhere to, that we should all know, but all of us, theists and atheists alike, do have one thing in common, we are all human. We should all be treated as such. Equally, fairly, and with all information available to us. Just because you may not like some of the information does not mean that some people should no longer continue to put it out there.

That is because you haven't been listening.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you wanting people to insert a god into scientific principles "just because" you believe there is a god?

Why should religion be part of the scientific method by the way? That makes no sense. It is a method. Science uses it. Religion doesn't. Why would scientists insert a god factor into such a method when one is not required?

I want atheists to stop inserting that a God is not necessary for evolution to take place, or any other "natural" occurrence for that matter. I want atheists to consider the consequences of turning a child away from God. I want them to feel the weight of those consequences. I want them to be completely honest and respectful at all times.

A simple statement when teaching the theory of evolution could be. Many religious people of various denominations throughout the world believe that God created life, and evolution. However, it is not our job to dispute that claim. We are here to study evolution and/or biology, whatever the case may be. 5 seconds to show your respect, or instead, perhaps continued generations of hostility and hatred.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, my issue is with atheists, all atheists in fact who subvert the truth for lies. They make claims of knowledge that does not exist.

Who makes what dishonest claims?

 

[Draka]

You do realize what that shade of purple my name is means right? It means I am a theist. Not an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but MOST theists accept the fact of evolution, accept the fact there was no global flood, and much much more that science proves yet the bible disputes.

And I brought up rights because they were mentioned in an earlier post. The post YOU responded to in the first place. They were already part of the conversation. That's why I mentioned them. Why you accuse me of trolling I haven't a clue. Unless you are specifically trying to avoid something.

 

[Revoltingest]

Purple denotes a theist?

 

[Draka]

Purple denotes a theist?

Purple for theist, Orange for atheist, Brown for mod, Blue for super mod, Red for Admin, Teal for committee. I might be missing some.

 

[Viker]

Purple for theist, Orange for atheist, Brown for mod, Blue for super mod, Red for Admin, Teal for committee. I might be missing some.

Why do the outcasts always have to be black!?

 

[Iti oj]

It happens in schools. It happens in the work place. It happens here and it happens there. I have just recently informed one of your cohorts, and I will now inform you, that science is incapable of "saying" anything. So of course science does not mention God. Of course science can't say God is not necessary for evolution to take place. YOU DO.

that's individuals to individuals, not others forcing their views into science, the class room and politics.

 

[Tarheeler]

Why do the outcasts always have to be black!?

Actually, the outcasts just have "banned" under their name.

 

[Sonofason]

Who makes what dishonest claims?

That would be all atheists who subvert the truth for lies. I am not going to name names. Let's just call this my opinion. Meanwhile, I will begin a search, and acquire a bit more evidence to support this personal claim of mine. Perhaps I'll get back to you when I know more.

 

[Sonofason]

You do realize what that shade of purple my name is means right? It means I am a theist. Not an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but MOST theists accept the fact of evolution, accept the fact there was no global flood, and much much more that science proves yet the bible disputes.

And I brought up rights because they were mentioned in an earlier post. The post YOU responded to in the first place. They were already part of the conversation. That's why I mentioned them. Why you accuse me of trolling I haven't a clue. Unless you are specifically trying to avoid something.

Well, I'm sorry if I misspoke. Perhaps you do acknowledge God as the Creator. You certainly do not appear to defend Him, but then that is likely because God is not personal to you, as He is to me.

 

[Sonofason]

that's individuals to individuals, not others forcing their views into science, the class room and politics.

Teachers are individuals. Employers are individuals. Politicians are individuals. You are an individual. Just as a politician cannot keep his faith out of his politics, a teacher cannot keep his religion out of his classroom. Okay, many do. But to a great extent, you're right, my feelings are more directed at individuals like you.