Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

May 10, 2013 Full story: News24 288

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Read more

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#61 May 16, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Very little was rational until the discovery of DNA? Surely some mistake...
My point, which you apparently missed, is that just because there is no rational reason to believe something, doesn't make that thing false. The history of science is filled with examples.
You had an actual... point?

You damn betcha I missed it-- likely due to faulty delivery... or perhaps due to your "point" not having the slightest bearing on what I wrote... Oh well.

But you are wrong-- the RATIONAL view, if there is no evidence, is to assume the idea is false.

Period.

That includes anything that scientists speculate on.

More to the point? Even when there IS evidence? The RATIONAL view, is, AT BEST, grudging acceptance--provisionally--tha t the idea might have merit... if better, contrary evidence does not surface in the future.

THAT, is what rationalism is.

Believing in world-traveling garden gnomes? Isn't.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#62 May 16, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that all you've posted? Only 13,567 mumbo jumbos?
We appreciate you keeping accurate numbers (13,567) of your worthless comments - it demonstrates at least one small area of honesty <sarcasm> in a otherwise totally bankrupt personality.
LMAO!

Good one...!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#63 May 16, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
Why would anyone assume that a god would want to produce predictable and observable effects?
I don't get it.
Because... at least according to you... "experts", the stakes are so very high?

I mean--think about this: according to you experts on god, the afterlife is FOREVER.

And we humans have but a scant 80ish years to make the correct decision, based on....

.....what?

YOU?

What about everyone who came before YOU?

So.

Unless the god is question is a DICK?

Then it certainly behooves this god to MAKE IT CLEAR WITH EVIDENCE.

Or else be ...

... a dick.

That's it.

That's MORE THAN SUFFICIENT REASON.

But you?

You worship ... a dick...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#64 May 16, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>
"A god at work"
Why would anyone assume that a god would want to produce predictable and observable effects?
It's not wanting or not wanting. Significance forcew in the universe produce observable effects, so one so enormous as to cause of all existence and that still be directs at least some events should produce observable and probably predictable effects.
I don't get it.
You presume to know the mind of god - the one that you seem to think does not exist.
Do you see the irony?
"There is none, but if there were, this is what would happen....."
I see it just the opposite.
Why would a god care if mankind was aware of his presence or not?
Scientific evidence has no need to be in the concerns of philosophy.
The question of god, and indicators of such, do not require science or its techniques.
Why would a god go to extra effort to conceal its presence? And you say I presume to know the mind of God?
Philosophers will for the most part agree with this, scientists will often not, as they tend to be science-centered, myopic.
~~~
If you want to know 'facts', science is a very good system, possible 'the best'..
I have never heard a successful argument that says the best way to do something should be the only way.
In science some fairly notable individuals say non-rational techniques lead to very productive results.
Science's greater work is explaining facts in the context of the larger view. That's why Theories are greater scientific truths than mere facts are.
~~
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein
I thin it was Einstein who also said, "Genius is ten percent inspiration and 90% perspiration." No one denies the importance of intuition, but it is insufficient in and of itself to produce knowledge that is even marginally reliable.
~
Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue19/Physics ...
~~~~
Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."
~~~
Interesting, but not terribly insightful. Intuition without intellect often leads to error. Intellect without intuition is often without purpose or direction. We need them both. Overemphasizing one over the other reflect a lack of balance.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#65 May 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because... at least according to you... "experts", the stakes are so very high?
I mean--think about this: according to you experts on god, the afterlife is FOREVER.
And we humans have but a scant 80ish years to make the correct decision, based on....
.....what?
YOU?
What about everyone who came before YOU?
So.
Unless the god is question is a DICK?
Then it certainly behooves this god to MAKE IT CLEAR WITH EVIDENCE.
Or else be ...
... a dick.
That's it.
That's MORE THAN SUFFICIENT REASON.
But you?
You worship ... a dick...
The 'afterlife'?
What is this afterlife?
Tell me what you know of it.

'afterlife'.
A curious thought.
Tell me more.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#66 May 17, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with regards to critical thinking.
Epistemology, slightly less so. Obviously it played a _major_ role in the historical development of science, but its relevance as an area of study for scientists today is fairly minimal.
Ethics is a dubious one. Obviously ethical choices are involved in project funding and so on, but I'm not sure that studying ethics as a _discipline_ is useful. I'm 50-50 on that one.
But as for metaphysics... I am totally unconvinced that it's useful to anyone, including scientists. I think I'm with Hume on that one:
<quoted text>
And what is it that you thinks prevents scientists from doing human vivasections?
They would not learn anything new?
I would think it is ethics that prevensts such things, altlhough in the past science sometimesignored ethical expectaions, and probably in future decades we will leaarn that in 2013 scientists acted less than ethically, in some area of study or experimentation.

Practice of medicine is science, yes?
Ethical decisions, and general guidelines, made every day.

Epistemology is not a dead subject, in science or any other area.

Within the last half century the Scientific method has expanded to include computer models for experiments - not possibloe without epistemology.

Epistemology decides what is 'known'.
Science without epistemology, a strange world indeed.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#67 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text> It's not wanting or not wanting. Significance forcew in the universe produce observable effects, so one so enormous as to cause of all existence and that still be directs at least some events should produce observable and probably predictable effects.
<quoted text>Why would a god go to extra effort to conceal its presence? And you say I presume to know the mind of God?
<quoted text>Science's greater work is explaining facts in the context of the larger view. That's why Theories are greater scientific truths than mere facts are.
<quoted text>I thin it was Einstein who also said, "Genius is ten percent inspiration and 90% perspiration." No one denies the importance of intuition, but it is insufficient in and of itself to produce knowledge that is even marginally reliable.
<quoted text>Interesting, but not terribly insightful. Intuition without intellect often leads to error. Intellect without intuition is often without purpose or direction. We need them both. Overemphasizing one over the other reflect a lack of balance.
You have so many unfounded assumptions here, not sure it is worth replying to.(Guess I changed my mind)

Where does something like this come from:
"Why would a god go to extra effort to conceal its presence?"
So you want me to explain why the rocks have not declared the glory of god?
And the trees, they are so silent - this seems bizarre to you?
Oh, mankind is the greatest achievement of the cosmos - and you know this how?

Science, in and of itself, is insignificant.
There, I said it.

Was there a time when there was no science?
Did the universe, and even life, exist?
Then what is this imperative that says science is indispensible, but intution is not?

Tell me, which is more important to you - body, or mind?
Would you be most happy with a magnificant body, and the mind of - well, lets make it easy, NO MIND.
A healthy, functioning mind, with no corporal body, or the perfect body, with no mind - or a very inferior mind, if hyou choose)?

Science tends to the body, gives us creature comforts.
Philosophy, intuition, feeds the mind.
Intutiion cares for the being, even in the absence of science.
As I said, this is not an either or decision.
Science when it is appropriate.

Do you wnat science to tell you the best movie of the year? Garbage.
Science has no knowledge of many things, serves no purpose to many people (aboriginals).
When science runs out of ideas, motivation, speculation, then intution comes in and saves the day.

Einstein:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

You say:
"Science's greater work is explaining facts in the context of the larger view. That's why Theories are greater scientific truths than mere facts are."
Wrong.

Philosophy explains.
Science provides data, philosophy gives it meaning.
Philosophy gives context.
Facts are actual occurances. Science does not decide what are actual occurances, philosophy does.

Philosophy rules science.
Does science get to say what is truth to a Christian?
Of course not.
Does science get to say what the value or harm is of a particular WMD?
Of course not, philosophy does.

Does science get to say what is the most productive use of natural resources?
Of coursee not, philosophy does.
Science decides what is a scientific fact, and in doing so it will say this or that is not a scientific fact, when in reality, it is a FACT. It is an actual occurence. Science denies it, yet it is truthful.(Re: rogue waves).
It is this way with all things, I'm not picking on science, just pointing out that if you think science is never mistaken about identifying facts, you need to do some studying.

You think mankind only needs science to be happy and content - now you have me rolling on the floor in a laughing fit, not able to catch my breath.
Then I relax, and smile.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#68 May 17, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>You have so many unfounded assumptions here, not sure it is worth replying to.(Guess I changed my mind)
Where does something like this come from:
"Why would a god go to extra effort to conceal its presence?"
So you want me to explain why the rocks have not declared the glory of god?
And the trees, they are so silent - this seems bizarre to you?
Oh, mankind is the greatest achievement of the cosmos - and you know this how?
Science, in and of itself, is insignificant.
There, I said it.
Was there a time when there was no science?
Did the universe, and even life, exist?
Then what is this imperative that says science is indispensible, but intution is not?
Tell me, which is more important to you - body, or mind?
Would you be most happy with a magnificant body, and the mind of - well, lets make it easy, NO MIND.
A healthy, functioning mind, with no corporal body, or the perfect body, with no mind - or a very inferior mind, if hyou choose)?
Science tends to the body, gives us creature comforts.
Philosophy, intuition, feeds the mind.
Intutiion cares for the being, even in the absence of science.
As I said, this is not an either or decision.
Science when it is appropriate.
Do you wnat science to tell you the best movie of the year? Garbage.
Science has no knowledge of many things, serves no purpose to many people (aboriginals).
When science runs out of ideas, motivation, speculation, then intution comes in and saves the day.
Einstein:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
You say:
"Science's greater work is explaining facts in the context of the larger view. That's why Theories are greater scientific truths than mere facts are."
Wrong.
Philosophy explains.
Science provides data, philosophy gives it meaning.
Philosophy gives context.
Facts are actual occurances. Science does not decide what are actual occurances, philosophy does.
Philosophy rules science.
Does science get to say what is truth to a Christian?
Of course not.
Does science get to say what the value or harm is of a particular WMD?
Of course not, philosophy does.
Does science get to say what is the most productive use of natural resources?
Of coursee not, philosophy does.
Science decides what is a scientific fact, and in doing so it will say this or that is not a scientific fact, when in reality, it is a FACT. It is an actual occurence. Science denies it, yet it is truthful.(Re: rogue waves).
It is this way with all things, I'm not picking on science, just pointing out that if you think science is never mistaken about identifying facts, you need to do some studying.
You think mankind only needs science to be happy and content - now you have me rolling on the floor in a laughing fit, not able to catch my breath.
Then I relax, and smile.
Oh great, another verbose lying theist with no proof of god, who doesn't know how to stop being dishonest about his cult.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#69 May 17, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>The 'afterlife'?
What is this afterlife?
Tell me what you know of it.
'afterlife'.
A curious thought.
Tell me more.
Some bollocks your cult made up, printed in a book and distributed to stupid people gullible enough to give you money and fear them into building an unnecessary cult buildings in every f*cking city in the world, so you could reign psychological abuse upon the rest of normal, non mentally ill society.
Lincoln

United States

#70 May 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Some bollocks your cult made up, printed in a book and distributed to stupid people gullible enough to give you money and fear them into building an unnecessary cult buildings in every f*cking city in the world, so you could reign psychological abuse upon the rest of normal, non mentally ill society.
this one also posts as Givemeliberty

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#71 May 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Some bollocks your cult made up, printed in a book and distributed to stupid people gullible enough to give you money and fear them into building an unnecessary cult buildings in every f*cking city in the world, so you could reign psychological abuse upon the rest of normal, non mentally ill society.
it seems most of you people don't get out much, wrapped up in your own little world.

For the fourth time, if I had a creed, this would be it:

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing at the soul of man:
Seeing into one's nature and the attainment of Buddhahood

I'm confindent you will not understand the words, but some few might.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#72 May 17, 2013
I think it is that 'no dependence on words or letters' that is so confuing to you.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#73 May 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!
Good one...!
THX!

Judging by the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you," he's practically invulnerable.

"As useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker."
~Earl Pitts

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#74 May 17, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
this one also posts as Givemeliberty
Besides your not being, at all astute, it seems that you also have no ability to factor in individual composing skills, in your assessments.

In broken and slightly less wordy Engrish, just for you .... if it doesn't walk like a duck or quack like a duck, don't call it a duck. Givemeliberty and Skeptic are as different as I and Kitten are, or as you and Yellowdawg are.
Lincoln

United States

#75 May 17, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>it seems most of you people don't get out much, wrapped up in your own little world.
For the fourth time, if I had a creed, this would be it:
A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing at the soul of man:
Seeing into one's nature and the attainment of Buddhahood
I'm confindent you will not understand the words, but some few might.
posts under a few names but the scatology remains the same
xianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#76 May 17, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Well, lets start with the meaning of the term "actual evidence".
You may think this term has only one meaning.
It has many meanings. Ask any attorney.
What you mean is,'Actual evidence that is convincing to (you)'.
Evidence is determined by the belief system.
In religions, sacred texts are seen as evidence.
This text for this religion, that text for that religion.
and therein lies your problem w religion

Define god for us,IF you have the cojones to do so
xianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#77 May 17, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>You have so many unfounded assumptions here, not sure it is worth replying to.(Guess I changed my mind)
Where does something like this come from:
"Why would a god go to extra effort to conceal its presence?"
So you want me to explain why the rocks have not declared the glory of god?
And the trees, they are so silent - this seems bizarre to you?
Oh, mankind is the greatest achievement of the cosmos - and you know this how?
Science, in and of itself, is insignificant.
There, I said it.
Was there a time when there was no science?
Did the universe, and even life, exist?
Then what is this imperative that says science is indispensible, but intution is not?
Tell me, which is more important to you - body, or mind?
Would you be most happy with a magnificant body, and the mind of - well, lets make it easy, NO MIND.
A healthy, functioning mind, with no corporal body, or the perfect body, with no mind - or a very inferior mind, if hyou choose)?
Science tends to the body, gives us creature comforts.
Philosophy, intuition, feeds the mind.
Intutiion cares for the being, even in the absence of science.
As I said, this is not an either or decision.
Science when it is appropriate.
Do you wnat science to tell you the best movie of the year? Garbage.
Science has no knowledge of many things, serves no purpose to many people (aboriginals).
When science runs out of ideas, motivation, speculation, then intution comes in and saves the day.
Einstein:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
You say:
"Science's greater work is explaining facts in the context of the larger view. That's why Theories are greater scientific truths than mere facts are."
Wrong.
Philosophy explains.
Science provides data, philosophy gives it meaning.
Philosophy gives context.
Facts are actual occurances. Science does not decide what are actual occurances, philosophy does.
Philosophy rules science.
Does science get to say what is truth to a Christian?
Of course not.
Does science get to say what the value or harm is of a particular WMD?
Of course not, philosophy does.
Does science get to say what is the most productive use of natural resources?
Of coursee not, philosophy does.
Science decides what is a scientific fact, and in doing so it will say this or that is not a scientific fact, when in reality, it is a FACT. It is an actual occurence. Science denies it, yet it is truthful.(Re: rogue waves).
It is this way with all things, I'm not picking on science, just pointing out that if you think science is never mistaken about identifying facts, you need to do some studying.
You think mankind only needs science to be happy and content - now you have me rolling on the floor in a laughing fit, not able to catch my breath.
Then I relax, and smile.
BSing wont help you none,kiddo,and that all you got

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
xianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#78 May 17, 2013
Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.

Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and intimate behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.

At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and intimate restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story.

All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities.
Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason.

The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior.
Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die.
And hence a health care system which looks after the wealthy rather than the ill.

As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole.
In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.ht...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#79 May 17, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
and therein lies your problem w religion
Define god for us,IF you have the cojones to do so
Well, you define the origin of the cosmos, and I believe that I will agree that is god.

My words you may find fault with, your own words, surely you will find agreeable.

There is something that is without beginning (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), and I will give that the name god.

If you knew anyting about Zen, I doubt that you would be asking such a frivilous question.

For some reason atheists have this belief, that defining god is relevant.
I do not.

I have ia better idea.
Let's say god is a rotten tomato.
There, that will do it much better.
God is A rotten tomato, just before the mold has deteriorated it to such an extent that it is no longer recognizable as a tomato.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#80 May 17, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
and therein lies your problem w religion
Define god for us,IF you have the cojones to do so
Most of those who identify themselves as athiests on this board say they have no belief in god, do not know if god exists, do not know if god does not exist.
There seems to be a strong propensity for saying god does not exost, but they say that is not rquired for a 'true' atheist.

What are you thoughts on this?
Are you one who says no god exists, or that you are simply ignorant on the matter?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Confessions of a black atheist 2 min Samoan Irish 39
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min MikeF 18,023
News The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr Thinking 1,143
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Igor Trip 236,938
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 6,458
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr ChristineM 1,875
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 13 hr Thinking 14,508
More from around the web