Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[Rose_NoHo]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
And who are you to decide which hope is false and which hope is true? Respectfully, you can't tell me which hope I should cling to and which I should cast away. You just don't have that authority. The answer to that is for me to find on my own.

I wouldn't tell you what hope you should cling to, that's your business. But either god exists, or he doesn't. Since there is no evidence he does, why believe he does?

[Ooogah Boogah]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
And who are you to decide which hope is false and which hope is true? Respectfully, you can't tell me which hope I should cling to and which I should cast away. You just don't have that authority. The answer to that is for me to find on my own.

there is hope in faith and there is faith in hope, but there is no truth in either one.

[Jumper The Wise]

Truth is subjective.

[polymath257]

Jumper The Wise wrote:

Truth is subjective.

No, truth is objective.*Opinions* are subjective. That is the difference between the two.

[01Justsayin]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>I wouldn't tell you what hope you should cling to, that's your business. But either god exists, or he doesn't. Since there is no evidence he does, why believe he does?

Why not? I can't see the wind, but I know it's there. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't see the wind. There's a mystery to it.

[01Justsayin]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>there is hope in faith and there is faith in hope, but there is no truth in either one.

Spiritual truth isn't something you see, taste, or touch. It must be felt with the soul.

[The_Box]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not? I can't see the wind, but I know it's there. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't see the wind. There's a mystery to it.

You can feel the wind with your hands. You can measure wind speed with instruments.

Please stop using this terrible, terrible analogy.

[The_Box]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Spiritual truth isn't something you see, taste, or touch. It must be felt with the soul.

How does one discern spiritual truth from spiritual untruth? Why is spiritual "truth" so dependent on culture when it should be universal?

There wouldn't be any problem getting an American Christian, a Saudi Muslim, and an Indian Hindu to agree on the color of something, or whether or the speed at which a ball falls from the sky, or who won World War 2.

But they'd totally disagree on spiritual "truths".

[Jumper The Wise]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, truth is objective.*Opinions* are subjective. That is the difference between the two.

No,truth is projected to the subjective,and they take it on faith.

uh,mmmmm yea.(stroking my imaginary beard)

[01Justsayin]

The_Box wrote:

<quoted text>You can feel the wind with your hands. You can measure wind speed with instruments.

Please stop using this terrible, terrible analogy.

Hahahahaha And I can FEEL God in with heart. You keep disputing something with logic that was never meant to be analyzed by the mind. It was meant to be felt with the soul. You can't measure a man's faith with all the scientific instruments in the world. Why would you? Let a man have faith. He's not hurting anybody by it.

[Ooogah Boogah]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Spiritual truth isn't something you see, taste, or touch. It must be felt with the soul.

That should be pretty hard to do since you can not prove anything spiritual exists, not even a soul, any soul. You got nothing but a vivid imagination.

[Ooogah Boogah]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Hahahahaha And I can FEEL God in with heart. You keep disputing something with logic that was never meant to be analyzed by the mind. It was meant to be felt with the soul. You can't measure a man's faith with all the scientific instruments in the world. Why would you? Let a man have faith. He's not hurting anybody by it.

The first ones with this "faith" butchered poor Hyperia of Alexandria, an innocent librarian. People following this faith have committed thousands of atrocities since then.

"Those who can convince us of absurdity can lead us to commit atrocity." ~Voltaire

[01Justsayin]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>That should be pretty hard to do since you can not prove anything spiritual exists, not even a soul, any soul. You got nothing but a vivid imagination.

LMAO! I said earlier that I wouldn't debate theology with someone who doesn't believe in it anyway so I won't. Call it what you want. It's still MY belief. And I'm entitled to it.

[01Justsayin]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>The first ones with this "faith" butchered poor Hyperia of Alexandria, an innocent librarian. People following this faith have committed thousands of atrocities since then.

"Those who can convince us of absurdity can lead us to commit atrocity." ~Voltaire

That wasn't faith. That was hate issued by men who used their "faith"as a shield to justify their heinous actions. You see it happen all the time. It's never right. Faith within itself is harmless. It's what people choose to do with it that creates a positive or negative outcome. Just because there are some bad apples doesn't mean the entire tree is rotten. Mankind has the potential to corrupt anything. Also, I like Voltaire.:)

[Ooogah Boogah]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO! I said earlier that I wouldn't debate theology with someone who doesn't believe in it anyway so I won't. Call it what you want. It's still MY belief. And I'm entitled to it.

When people sit around a hooka, they start to believe a lot of things that ain't so.

[01Justsayin]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>When people sit around a hooka, they start to believe a lot of things that ain't so.

Lol No hooka here, bub.

[Ooogah Boogah]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
That wasn't faith. That was hate issued by men who used their "faith"as a shield to justify their heinous actions. You see it happen all the time. It's never right. Faith within itself is harmless. It's what people choose to do with it that creates a positive or negative outcome. Just because there are some bad apples doesn't mean the entire tree is rotten. Mankind has the potential to corrupt anything. Also, I like Voltaire.:)

Well then, so much for religion instilling a greater morality amongst it's followers. It seems to me a religion ordained by God would be more effective. But then I would think God would manage finances better for his churches ... seems they are always broke and asking for money.

[Ooogah Boogah]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol No hooka here, bub.

Sure smells like a lota loco weed round here.

[polymath257]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not? I can't see the wind, but I know it's there. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't see the wind. There's a mystery to it.

No mystery. We can reduce the temperature and obtain the carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen that make up the air. When they are liquid, we can actually see them. We can also weight the air, observe its effects in chemical reactions, and measure the force produced by the air.

Seeing is only one method of measurement and is not at all the most informative. But, we can actually also see the air under certain circumstances: heat waves over a hot grill, for example. This allows us to actually see the differences in density of the air.

And, lest you claim this is different than seeing in other cases, in *every* case, we don't see the thing itself, but only the effect of that thing on light. When we see a chair, we actually see the reflected light, not the chair itself. And, in order to see it, that light has to interact with the chair, being absorbed and reflected in different colors.

[polymath257]

01Justsayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Spiritual truth isn't something you see, taste, or touch. It must be felt with the soul.

And is the 'soul' a reliable measuring device? For that matter, where, exactly, is the soul? How do we know it is there? Will two different people always measure the same 'spiritual truth'? By all the evidence, we can say not.

In other words, you claim the existence of an instrument that is unreliable, cannot be detected in any way (other than by itself) and you want to claim that the detection it does is truthful? Really?