Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[Khatru]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Please supply proof of your claims:
Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology
If you studied the Bible, it is not divisive at all. If you could substantiate your claim that opposes the stated commands: Love your enemies, be submissive to the government, do good to those that hate you - it will be really great.
Of course beliefs should be challenged. It will be stupid not to. But to hold beliefs as sacred, is not wrong. Why should it be. Is there nothing that you hold sacred - love for your children, honesty, integrity? If not, I feel sorry for you.
Please explain what you disagree with and provide reasoned argument to support this. Mere statements has no value.

"You're either with us or you're damned"

That sounds pretty divisive to me.

[KittenKoder]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>You have fallen victim of indoctrination.
Please present proof of evolution. Specifics please.
There is evidence for the existence of God of the Bible, but no irrefutable proof.
Some evidence would be that all knowledge indicates that the universe had a beginning - with no known factor explaining it.This is consistent with the Bible.
Now you could kindly explain how nothing exploded (call it a singularity if you wish, but that will still be "something".
Nature itself was created as there was no natural forces prior to the "Big Bang". Thus, as no natural forces can explain the "Big Bang", it must be of supernatural nature.
Another aspect is intelligent design. The following is an extract: " Even non-Christian Stephen Hawking, considered the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges "...the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on...." (Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997.
Now this is no irrefutable proof of God of the Bible, but does suggest such a Being.
As evolution is claimed as fact, irrefutable evidence should be presented to substantiate this. If not, it is no more than a mere hypothesis.
The cliches about liars is getting a bit monotonous and as previously indicated, inconsistent with arguments Christians present. But I will not call you a liar - just ill informed.

How is one indoctrinated by simply studying the evidence? That is akin to saying that a bird is indoctrinated into traveling south for the winter, it simply does not work like that.

Now you have opened a can or worms, where is this evidence of your god? None has ever been shown, ever, beyond hearsay and "I felt ...," which basically means nothing but hearsay.

[jacktheladat1]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>You are wrong on both occasions. 1)I will accept conclusive evidence where my views are wrong.
2)Your response is your views and I respect that as being your honest evaluation.
Thanks for the brief chat.

Generally I do NOT give licence for others to make the claim that I’m a liar. I have read, and considered your BS you intended to be a response to a snide remark I made in passing in a recent post on this topic. The sole reason of my deviation of a lifetime of keeping my word is in the light that exceptions make the rule.
For a genetically born idiot, who does not wish to allow sleeping dogs to lie, and who has not come to terms with the reason for THIS topic, I will (follows) imply an exception to my lifelong philosophy. Further, since you are reading this topic in total ignorance of which of us it is intended for, I’ll even explain to you the gaps in your knowledge.
For reasons best known to idiots, they page a debate that is totally alien to them. They then go all out to preach to the unconvertible, in a belief that that they alone will succeed where probably parents, teachers and other ‘adult’ contacts have failed and long since conceded the fact.
Let me try and educate you, I’m always up for a challenge. I’m a devout atheist. What does that mean Jack? It simply means as an atheist I do not believe in gods. To reiterate, I do not believe in ANY gods. Are yes Jack, but that only defines the common noun. Yes, true! It logically follows that it means I do not believe in stories about same-sex beings kicking-off a whole brand-spanking new, never before witnessed species, ether by themselves or with assistance. Nor do I believe in the source of this impossible fairy tale.
It also logically follows that,(now there’s a phrase that strikes joy into the hearts of believers) if as an atheist I don’t believe in god, your god being just one prime example, I do not believe I have any sin against some entity I don’t believe in. May be my grammar could be in need of revising here, but you’ll get my drift eventually, just work on it for a few hours.
“The penalty for sin is death, including spiritual.” How many forms of death are there?“As god loves us.” But not nearly enough to rid our only home (Earth) of all (our) bodily malfunctions, diseases and killer natural events. Nice! Next!“We know the penalty has been paid.” We only believe the BS found in the Holy Bible.(Bible means “Books.”) We DO NOT profess to know anything, least of all you.
ANY books will provide all the answers when one is prepared to BELIEVE them. Logic (I wonder why that’s a buzz –word of mine?) indicates to us something totally different. Next!”, but we have to repent of our sins, turn from it and live each day following Jesus.” In my honest OPINION, Jesus, if I may venture, was gay. He had no females in his company. More evidence? Cite the bitter, dividing argument here in UK regarding female vicars and bishops etc. I am NOT gay! Why should I be expected to follow gays?
I admire your admissions: To claim that followers of Jesus always has all the “right” answers to all possible questions, is rather presumptuous. There are difficult questions – such as reconciling predestination with our ability to choose. Then stone the crows you come-up with: However, what we need to know, has been revealed. Enough to grant us entry into the Kingdom of God.
It may be argued "These are the same old answers we always get". That should be as 1 + 1 always remains 2. One could have considered you’re on the right road, and then it all goes tits up.
You trust in whatever turns you on, I’ll not be converted especially when, like yours, explanations that are offered which have more holes in them than a sponge.
Further still, if futuristically, you reacquire your acid-burning desire to insult my intelligence, be my guest, I’ll accept it as another opportunity to further your education.

[-Skeptic-]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>You have fallen victim of indoctrination.
Please present proof of evolution. Specifics please.
There is evidence for the existence of God of the Bible, but no irrefutable proof.
Some evidence would be that all knowledge indicates that the universe had a beginning - with no known factor explaining it.This is consistent with the Bible.
Now you could kindly explain how nothing exploded (call it a singularity if you wish, but that will still be "something".
Nature itself was created as there was no natural forces prior to the "Big Bang". Thus, as no natural forces can explain the "Big Bang", it must be of supernatural nature.
Another aspect is intelligent design. The following is an extract: " Even non-Christian Stephen Hawking, considered the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges "...the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on...." (Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997.
Now this is no irrefutable proof of God of the Bible, but does suggest such a Being.
As evolution is claimed as fact, irrefutable evidence should be presented to substantiate this. If not, it is no more than a mere hypothesis.
The cliches about liars is getting a bit monotonous and as previously indicated, inconsistent with arguments Christians present. But I will not call you a liar - just ill informed.

You deny the fact of evolution, this makes you an idiot.

You have no proof of god, this also makes you an idiot.

Why do you want to talk to atheists? We already know that people who are stupid enough to believe in god and lie about evolution are creationists.

[KittenKoder]

jacktheladat1 wrote:

<quoted text>Generally I do NOT give licence for others to make the claim that I’m a liar. I have read, and considered your BS you intended to be a response to a snide remark I made in passing in a ..........

Too many fallacies to even count.

[YoYoMa]

There have been many recorded data regarding Obiwan-Kenobi. God there isn't. Therefore, Obiwan is real!!!! He is real guys!!! We can't deny the facts! Believe in Obiwan!

[A creationist conscience]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Please supply proof of your claims:
Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology
If you studied the Bible, it is not divisive at all. If you could substantiate your claim that opposes the stated commands: Love your enemies, be submissive to the government, do good to those that hate you - it will be really great.
Of course beliefs should be challenged. It will be stupid not to. But to hold beliefs as sacred, is not wrong. Why should it be. Is there nothing that you hold sacred - love for your children, honesty, integrity? If not, I feel sorry for you.
Please explain what you disagree with and provide reasoned argument to support this. Mere statements has no value.

Please provide proof of your god or f*ck off, your sincerely, your conscience & sense of moral fabric.

[jacktheladat1]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Too many fallacies to even count.

From which party? If you think I lied, would you be so forward as to illustrate?

[KittenKoder]

jacktheladat1 wrote:

<quoted text>From which party? If you think I lied, would you be so forward as to illustrate?

To the entire notion of the christian belief being based on anything more than fantasy and delusion. ;)

[jacktheladat1]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
To the entire notion of the christian belief being based on anything more than fantasy and delusion. ;)

Personally speaking, my notion of the christian belief is (BRIEFLY) if one believes in a young virgin giving birth, then one has got to be in a group that is easily and blindly led down ANY path, by anything that posses a lot less grey matter than that of a performing flee. PERSONALLY speaking.

[EdSed]

Most people have heard of the BHA (UK), IHEU (International), HSS/Scottish Humanists, AHA (USA), HAI (Eire) and Humani (NI), but here's one I missed...
http://humanistfederation.eu/

Their homepage notes, "46% of Europeans think that religions occupy too much space in their society?". It doesn't offer the sources of such 'facts' and they end in question marks, but they presumably have some evidence in support of them.

Some are vague, e.g. "The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg are the only European member states where euthanasia is legal?" It includes a question mark and it should. Some laws are enforced and some aren't, or enforcement is often a matter of degree. What about Switzerland where some Brits have gone to end their own lives legally?

Publications that all seem to be USAmerican...
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/

Internet Infidels is interesting because some people are 'not joiners', i.e. they're reluctant to join or associate with any group whose aims are specifically stated as atheist, secular, humanist, skeptic, rationalist, freethinking, or the like. Internet Infidels's 'About Us' states, in part, "A number of freethought organizations focus on providing their members with a secular identity and fellowship with other nonbelievers. Internet Infidels is unique in its design as a nonmembership organization that focuses on providing a free educational resource available to anyone with access to the Internet. In fact, we are the only organization that aims to reach beyond the memberships of freethought organizations by providing arguments for naturalism and atheism in an effort to educate the wider public about the grounds for holding that all religions are false."

Well, that's one point of view.(Just be a visitor or reader of theirs or join the Website to find-out :-) Of course, if nobody ever joined anything...

[EdSed]

If one wants anarchy, the best way to do it is to organise an anarchist group!
:-)

[EdSed]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>... But to hold beliefs as sacred, is not wrong. Why should it be. Is there nothing that you hold sacred - love for your children, honesty, integrity? If not, I feel sorry for you.

My love for my children isn't sacred. It just 'is'. I try to be honest and to have integrity, as do people generally. Others will judge our success or failure.'Holding them sacred' doesn't come into it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain what you disagree with and provide reasoned argument to support this. Mere statements has no value.

No value to you, then. Our comments seem plain enough to me.(If someone needs explanation, perhaps we should feel sorry for them?:-)

[albtraum]

EdSed wrote:

<quoted text>My love for my children isn't sacred. It just 'is'. I try to be honest and to have integrity, as do people generally. Others will judge our success or failure.'Holding them sacred' doesn't come into it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred
<quoted text>No value to you, then. Our comments seem plain enough to me.(If someone needs explanation, perhaps we should feel sorry for them?:-)

I would die for my children, I don't consider that sacred either, it's just part of being a parent.

Nor do I need the promise of heaven or the threat of hell to try to be honest and upright. Why should I?

This is one thing I can't quite understand about theists. They simply do not seem to believe that you can be a decent person without religion. Not only do the seem unable to wrap their minds around that concept, they are also just as sure that a 'good atheist' would go straight to hell for not doing his good deeds in the name of a supernatural deity.....I've always wondered about this.....perhaps I always will.

[Andre]

Givemeliberty wrote:

It has been presented to you with thousand of observable testable facts. Yes observable how about that? But for the sake of argument letNs pretend all the observable testable falsifiable data for evolution vanished. Poof!
That still wouldn't show a shred of proof for deities so arguing about evolution is meaningless in proof for god.
<quoted text>

If you remember,I have indicated that there is no absolute proof for the existence of God. There are strong arguments, but no indisputable proof.
But please humor me with proof of macro evolution. Maybe just 3 or 4 that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. For a start, how did the universe begin, and how life began.
I agree that proving evolution a hoax will not prove God.(God by default). It would however give some credibility to an atheistic point of view.

[Andre]

EdSed wrote:

<quoted text>My love for my children isn't sacred. It just 'is'. I try to be honest and to have integrity, as do people generally. Others will judge our success or failure.'Holding them sacred' doesn't come into it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred

I agree with you. My mistake.

No value to you, then. Our comments seem plain enough to me.(If someone needs explanation, perhaps we should feel sorry for them?:-)

The idea I was trying to convey is that mere stating a view does not make it true. Thus it would be appropriate to substantiate a point in cases where it differs from that of an "opposing" party.

[Andre]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>
This is one thing I can't quite understand about theists. They simply do not seem to believe that you can be a decent person without religion. Not only do the seem unable to wrap their minds around that concept, they are also just as sure that a 'good atheist' would go straight to hell for not doing his good deeds in the name of a supernatural deity.....I've always wondered about this.....perhaps I always will.

Just two points quickly.
There are millions and millions of "good" people - undoubtedly including you. "Good" does not "qualify" any of us for heaven, as none of us "deserve" it. If it was, it will be a "works" based faith.
The Christian faith (based on the Bible and our own conscience) convicts us of sin - the purpose of the law. Deserving of punishment.
A practical everyday example: You killed somebody. When a fair judge hears the case, it will be but a poor excuse to present an argument that you regularly looked after stray animals, cared for your family with love and was an honest worker.? See the issue?. The problem is that we really have a poor picture of holy lives and sin. We treat both very lightly - including many denominations within the Christian faith.

[Adam]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>.."Good" does not "qualify" any of us for heaven, as none of us "deserve" it. If it was, it will be a "works" based faith.

The bible contradicts itself on this, in some places you are saved by faith, in others by works. Why do you choose Paul teaching over Jesus.

You seem to have accepted fundie creationist myths hook line and sinker. Many christians accept macro evolution.

[Givemeliberty]

What does the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution have to do with atheism? Do you have ADHD or something? These are all completely unrelated subjects an trying to tie them together is stupid. It's like saying how can you believe in Jesus when 2% milk tastes different than cheddar cheese and snickers bars taste nothing like Doritos?

Again why should anyone accept god a anything more than a product of someone's imagination?

Proving evolution a hoax will give credence to the atheist point of view? Are you drunk? Atheism is simply not believing in god or deities in general. God is completely unproven and until there is some some objective data for god there is no reason for intelligent people to give the notion the slightest bit of consideration.

Again atheism has nothing to do with the Big Bang, abiogenesis or evolution so so try to stay on topic and stop making an ADHD jackass out of yourself.

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>If you remember,I have indicated that there is no absolute proof for the existence of God. There are strong arguments, but no indisputable proof.
But please humor me with proof of macro evolution. Maybe just 3 or 4 that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. For a start, how did the universe begin, and how life began.
I agree that proving evolution a hoax will not prove God.(God by default). It would however give some credibility to an atheistic point of view.

[Just Think]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Just two points quickly.

The Christian faith (based on the Bible and our own conscience) convicts us of sin - the purpose of the law. Deserving of punishment.

That's just the saddest thing ever. Why would anyone follow such a degrading theology?