-
-
<< reply to 'I know right? lol, sorry.' by Obani
lol? -
>"Right, but using the human-conceived concept...sense." You have to prove that the existence of an absolute god is human conceived in order for your argument to be valid, and that is something you have not done.
Well, every single shred of evidence we have to go on is human-conceived. Even our perceptions are shaped by our human selves - never mind the fact that every religious text that we have has been - you got it - composed and written down by people. While you may sit there at your computer saying otherwise, it still comes down to faith, nothing more. Either you believe that things like the bible are actually the word of god (faith), or that the words you hear in your head in response to your prayers aren't simply figments of your own mental projections (also faith). Thus any argument you make that uses any sort of evidence (all you have is faith) is by default cyclical.
>The problem of evil isn't really a problem at all. By preventing evil, autonomy is stricken from the subject, thereby making his good actions moot. Therefore, evil must be allowed to exist for good actions to have any significance. The problem of evil is resolved.
Right, but the perfect being could create a universe in which perfection and choice both existed. That's why s/he/it would be the perfect being. Anything less is simply....imperfect.
>As with the 0.999... problem, I don't see how you can prove that the existence of God is infinitely small. You're just saying it, but not proving it.
Prove that it's not. You're the one saying such a being exists. With your superior knowledge of biology, physics, astrophysics, and history, where's your proof?
It's much easier to prove that something is than that something isn't.
Prove to me that you're not wearing high-heels, your mother's lipstick, and a frilly one-piece right now.
Right, you can't. But if I were to go around claiming it, you'd probably ask me to prove it - or sue me for libel, something like that.
The burden of proof should rest on you - you're the one saying it's there. I'm just using logic and the principles of generally accepted science to support my claims. Nothing more.
> Your definition of religion seems to be misguided. The definition of religion is a systematic belief of the true and ultimate nature of the universe.
I know many, many people, and several dictionaries who/that would disagree with you.
> Furthermore, atheism is not a system of beliefs but a single beliefs.
Yes and no. There are many different theories as to how the universe formed - if you don't believe in god, that doesn't mean there was only one way things could have happened.
>It's like belief in the soul or the Holocaust or atoms or South Dakota.
Nope. You really don't understand...
>Theism/atheism is just one of the many parts of a religion. There's also mind-body monism/dualism, moral systems, and a lot more.
No, you're simply using terms incorrectly. You seem to be saying that atheism is a part of all of those other forms of religion, but...it's not.
> If you're going with the "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist" angle, then frankly, you're opening up one really messy can of worms.
No, I'm going with the 'no one has any reason to believe that there's a god aside from an intense internal desire for comfort and security - and there's no proof to support the existence or formation of one, so I therefore do not believe.'
It goes well beyond the "I can't see him/her/it argument" - it's more of the "There is no and has never been any substantial proof of a god, therefore I don't believe."
>I've never been to Kenya. I've never seen Kenya. I've heard of Kenya, but those people may have been lying. I've seen pictures of Kenya, but they may have been faked. Therefore, Kenya does not exist. You can't prove to me that Kenya exists, and I can't prove to you that the trolls exist. Your thought experiment doesn't prove anything.
Yeah, well I have greater reason to believe that Kenya exists than a god. Kenya doesn't violate the known laws of physics or the basics of biology - and I know of many reputable people who have seen it, taken pictures and video, and, while I haven't been there, it does fit into the general geography of Africa that meshes well with all of the apparently doctored photos, video, maps etc that I've seen of Africa.
A god, on the other hand, seems to rather conflict with all of what we know of science. And what it doesn't conflict with, it simply doesn't really have anything to do with; science gets along quite well without him/her/it, and that's how things have been for the past few centuries, since science has turned it's back on god. What I see now is what's deemed a god of the ever-shrinking gaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
The gaps are getting smaller and smaller....it really doesn't matter what you say here because the past few hundred years of history have shown that religion's place in society is shrinking, and that's good enough for me. -
-
Why do you care about what other people's religions are? Why is it so important to you?
-
-
Go watch Religulous.
The problem isn't simply that people believe - it's that our senators and presidents believe. It's that there are people in charge of this damned country who have their heads so far up their ***es with this idealistic crap, and they're making decisions based on it.
Do you think that fanatic Islam is that much more of a threat to humanity than fanatic Christianity - or any other religion? If you do, you been blinded by your own faith.
-
-
-
Taoist I guess?
-
<< reply to 'you guess? Catholic is a form of Christianity. I am Catholic as well, a' by CharleeBoy
I love you for saying that. -
Secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist is winning!

That tickles me. >.< -
<< reply to 'Can you tell me the difference?' by Field Marhal Benjy
Cults in the end hurt people, they are abusive, they make you give up your identity, are led by self proclaimed prophets whos words differ from their deeds... -
<< reply to 'Right, but using the human-conceived concept of an absolute god to justify the i' by truelover
"Religion without science is superstion, and science without religion is materialism" - Baha'u'llah
We need balance. -
yeah it's true but the problem i have with this is the 'without' because science and religion are so without each other that they're hurting their own cause, or so i believe...
-
Hardly. Science may now be an integral part of religion due to the gaping holes in its doctrine, but religion is the bane of true science. Faith is something that is necessary for belief in anything that's not truly tangible, true - but religion takes faith to a whole new level. The entire point of science is that it's based on observation and verifiable fact. While I can understand why people would wish to reconcile these ideas, if they truly understood science and its goals, they wouldn't attempt to unify the two conflicting philosophies.
-
<< reply to 'I'm a smart guy. I got this smart by having a good education led by very good te' by Nogod
Ah, but you can know something without it being true. -
I'm a christian scientist. I know evolution is true, but i believe some god put the spark too make the big bang
-
catholic = christian
-
<< reply to 'Scientology = An excuse for elron hubbard to not pay taxes.' by Obani
I'm almost sure it's L. Ron, not elron. -
I would like to lobby for the addition of Tao, Jain, and Zoroastrian.
-
Religion is stupid, but if I had to choose I'd be a Rastafarian fer sure
-
nice list of religions! very diverse..... i like it.... wouldn't satanist count as a religion tho? or maybe sacreligious?

Rozestartsbloming
Nov 2 1:26 PM
Reply