Bloomdido
Member
Poe's Law. I was being ironic or sarcastic ..... Your prayers can't get answered. Feel the love of people. Live for the here and now. I am pleased you managed to get away. Freedom of thought is a beautiful ting.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No FACTS = NO god !
- Thread starter CincyJim
- Start date
Poe's Law. I was being ironic or sarcastic ..... Your prayers can't get answered. Feel the love of people. Live for the here and now. I am pleased you managed to get away. Freedom of thought is a beautiful ting.
JustWondering
Jerk
Sorry, need to slow down when I read and reply, missed the none next to religion.
I am not sure how much could be imagined if only facts are considered. And sometimes certain things that are considered not to be factual are later, in fact, proved to be real. If 200 years ago someone told another person that we could travel around the world in just a day, he or she would be scoffed at. If you would have told me when I was 12 (back in the 70s) that I could, in my lifetime, talk to someone on the other side of the earth, I would have doubted it.
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
Well for the fact that JRR Tolkien based his Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings on Norse religion I'd say that there is already one. So try again.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Moralizing atheism is the worst, though.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Some atheists like to comfort themselves with the lie that they are de facto intellectually and morally superior to religious folks.
We can compare brain pans, moral and immoral religious and atheist historical figures, and the logic of ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology... but if its done by idiots, all we get is a puddle of urine.
We can compare brain pans, moral and immoral religious and atheist historical figures, and the logic of ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology... but if its done by idiots, all we get is a puddle of urine.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
1. Christianity isn't the only theistic religion.
2. Religious observance is not necessarily about feeling anything.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I get it! It's kind of like before a particular chemical element was proven to exist, it didn't exist! Before any evidence for prehistoric life was discovered, it wasn't there. It was only after the facts came to light that what is now known to be true was actually true. As long as something can't be proven to exist, it doesn't exist. That is brilliant, Einstein!
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
...or "suppose."
slave2six
Substitious
What do you mean "Try again?" Didn't you just prove Cobblestone's point? Of course, I haven't seen any Norse religions being defended here but I suppose that the arguments would be just as valid as any other religion's.
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
Only if a deity actually presents itself in quantifiable terms. As long as there is no such evidence, it is not foolish to not believe in God any more than it is foolish to not believe in fauns and satyrs.
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
If by this you mean that religious people are more intolerant of other human beings and have a long history of torturing and murdering people, starting wars, blowing themselves up in the name of God, claiming that God hates gays, ad infinitum than atheists have proven to be, how do you call this a lie? I am not talking about communism here but atheism as a refutation against religion.
Non religious people who do not subjugated their intellect to a mythological being and blindly follow the priests and pastors of said religion are to be considered intellectually inferior?
I'll grant that there are very intelligent religious people. How else would it be possible for so much nuance and conflict between various sects of the same religion be possible? But the very fact that they do so shows says much.
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
The fact that people didn't understand the chemical breakdown of H2O did not mean that people never drank water. What the OP is discussing is about something that has no physical element to it and therefore (as far as can be proven) does not exist.
There were myths about prehistoric life? I thought all the myths started with a creation story.
Again, I fail to see your logic here. If we are talking about things like Neutrinos which no one had a clue about and which don't impact our daily lives then the matter is irrelevant. There has never been a Neutrino cult that went about proclaiming a Neutrino theology and killing non-believers in the Neutrino who have now been vidicated since the Neutrino was discovered. The fact that we discover cool new things that we never before imagined is irrelevant to the OP. What the OP is saying is that there is no evidence of a PERSON called God and that the complete lack of evidence says something important. Whether a God exists or not really makes no difference if that God is off somewhere and not interacting with human beings. But religions are all about some kind of interaction with this being and the OP suggests that since there is no evidence that such a being exists then it's all nonsense. To a mental patient, all 27 voices in their head may be real - to them - but that doesn't make them real to anyone else.
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
I only have twelve voices in my head. You have twenty seven? Lucky!
Bloomdido
Member
There is no such thing as 'hard or strong'. I am an atheist. I don't believe in Anything. How I communicate that concept to people could be gentle or 'hard'. In fact I am off to church soon to harass the catholic priest about his church's policy on AIDS in Africa. I have a bag of condoms to distribute to the congregation as well. It is time for direct action. Is that what you mean by 'strong'?
Saifaljaidi
New Member
My friend, this irrational heap you talk about is there,in fact, simly due to the absence of knowledge, in this case knowledge of religion's or religion since only 1 can appeal to a person.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It appears to me as if you're the one who misunderstood the OP. All of the elements have existed forever. I'm sure there are elements that exist today that scientists have not identified. The OP says that anything that has not been proven as fact does not exist. He's wrong. Whether God exists or does not exists has nothing whatsover to do with whether we as human beings can find what we consider to be proof to support our opinion. All any of us have on the subject of God is an opinion.
I know you do. You would fail to see anybody's logic, no matter how well it was presented, because your mind is closed to the fact that any conclusion other than the one you've arrived at is faulty.
I have nothing more to say on the subject. It's simply not worth debating because neither side has even a remote chance of winning.
:clap Even better synonym. Thanks.
slave2six
Substitious
That is absolutely correct.
Since there is nothing of substance that can be measured or evaluated about "god," upon what does one base an opinion regarding the matter?
The atheist is not "anti-god" in the sense that people are anti-Bush or anti-Obama any more than they are anti-Santa because there is nothing about god (in and of the imagined entity itself) to oppose.
But there is a large contingent of pro-god people. The astounding thing is that they cannot agree amongst themselves even within the same sect of the same religion about this entity. And this is for the very same reason that the atheist concludes that there is no god; there is no evidence to evaluate. They just simply glom onto some person who is preaching something that is in line with their own opinions and feelings and let that person mold their thinking.
And yet even this evidence does not cause them to pause and think "Why is it that we don't agree? Is it not simply because we don't know? And why don't we know? Is it not because there is no way of knowing because there is no evidence that we can evaluate and all these opinions are simply a reflection of each person's personality and mental processes?" No. You will seldom find that kind of honest evaluation among the religious.
And that is, in a way, understandable. After a lifetime in prison, it is frightening to be released into normal society because the cultures are very different. I have made the transition from a lifetime where religion dominated every aspect of life to one in which I actually have to think for myself and it is terribly hard. I get that. But in the end I much prefer reality to delusion.
It is these same pro-god people who are sometimes anti-human-being in the form of discriminating against certain groups of people and imposing their morality, which is based on nothing more than an opinion, on the rest of society.
For this reason, it has become necessary for some to stand forth and state the facts that there is no evidence and it is all based on opinion (as you say) and therefore isn't it more reasonable to conclude that since there is nothing to measure that there is no way to justify the idea that god exists, let alone what he may or may not think or want or command?
When someone claims to be an atheist, the practical upshot is that they are anti-religion, not that they are against god per se. I have yet to meet an atheist who would not readily admit to the existence of god if god ever actually showed up and communicated on a level that humans can understand.
Last edited: