# Percentage of Americans beliving in creationism drops 9%



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 22, 2010)

> PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.





Maybe hope for America yet.


----------



## Xemnas (Dec 22, 2010)

Excellent.


----------



## Mael (Dec 22, 2010)

All according to Lord Xenu's plan.


----------



## Gooba (Dec 22, 2010)

Thank   god.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 22, 2010)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YaGwI7GjlA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## αce (Dec 22, 2010)

The percentage believing in evolution should be everyone excluding those with learning disabilities.
Whatever...happy news I guess





> Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago


.
What the fuc--


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

I am still bummed to hear to 4 out of 10 americans still believe in young earth creationism. Belief in creationism I can tolerate but belief in young earth creationism depresses me.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Dec 22, 2010)

It's sad to hear that girls where made from a guys rib.
it's all symbolic. right?....


----------



## Gooba (Dec 22, 2010)

> Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.
> 
> According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians—the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government—were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jello Biafra (Dec 22, 2010)

On that note, AronRa's vid is quite nice
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWjtRFNSl2s[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## BassGS (Dec 22, 2010)

Interesting article.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 22, 2010)

An intolerant atheistic wanking thread, oh well I guess they had to have one. Intolerance towards one's religious views is one the more common ways Atheists try to keep themselves supposedly more smarter and relevant  to everyone.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> An intolerant atheistic wanking thread, oh well I guess they had to have one. Intolerance towards one's religious views is one the more common ways Atheists try to keep themselves supposedly more smarter and relevant  to everyone.



Yes, I am intolerant of incorrect information being treated as fact. Very intolerant.


----------



## Labor4Obama (Dec 22, 2010)

Atheists tease believers; believers rape and pillage Atheists


----------



## Blue (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> An intolerant atheistic wanking thread, oh well I guess they had to have one. Intolerance towards one's religious views is one the more common ways Atheists try to keep themselves supposedly more smarter and relevant  to everyone.



I accept and approve of divine guidance theories, i.e that God created life, the universe, and everything by working through evolution and the other natural processes for which we have such overwhelming evidence.

I do not accept creationism. I am at a loss as to how anyone could be so stupid. It should be pounded out of people with a rock.

Do I need a rock?


----------



## Mael (Dec 22, 2010)

Labor4Obama said:


> Atheists tease believers; believers rape and pillage Atheists



I can haz dupe? :33


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

Sanity> Religious mumbo jumbo


Finally


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> An intolerant atheistic wanking thread, oh well I guess they had to have one. Intolerance towards one's religious views is one the more common ways Atheists try to keep themselves supposedly more smarter and relevant  to everyone.



It's a matter of facts and truth dear, not opinions or faith.

If you really cared about America you want Americans to have had a real education.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Dec 22, 2010)

lol nine percent



Is that supposed to be impressive or something?


----------



## BassGS (Dec 22, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> I accept and approve of divine guidance theories, i.e that God created life, the universe, and everything by working through evolution and the other natural processes for which we have such overwhelming evidence.
> 
> I do not accept creationism. I am at a loss as to how anyone could be so stupid. It should be pounded out of people with a rock.
> 
> Do I need a rock?



I approve this.


----------



## Mael (Dec 22, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> It's a matter of facts and truth dear, not opinions or faith.
> 
> If you really cared about America you want Americans to have had a real education.



He be teh troll.


----------



## Rescuebear (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> An intolerant atheistic wanking thread, oh well I guess they had to have one. Intolerance towards one's religious views is one the more common ways Atheists try to keep themselves supposedly more smarter and relevant  to everyone.



This is something that can be proven false beyond a doubt. As to gods existence and such I can understand because it can never be proven. But when you refuse to accept the facts just because they don't fit what you want to believe, somethings wrong.


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> It's a matter of facts and truth dear, not opinions or faith.
> 
> If you really cared about America you want Americans to have had a real education.



A-fucking men 

That's not something Glenn Beck taught ya is it Hinako


----------



## 海外ニキ (Dec 22, 2010)

Maybe even less of a percentage if they neglected to take in a decent margin of error.


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Dec 22, 2010)

Yes yes celebrate a drop of a meager 9%. Never mind that 80% of the people still believe in a god. Anything to spin it in the atheist favor. Dont get a hard on yet atheists....no wait DO get a hard on. That way you can keep showing what arrogant narcissists you are with a heavy hint of douchebag elitism.

I mean OBVIOUSLY if you are a creationist you are just plain sturrrpid ami right? Just plain ignorant....i mean this is the 20th century and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right? If one does not believe in evolution or believes in a higher power they must just be crazy or insane or just STURRPID....if not...thats the way atheists attitudes seem to be. Thats why im not a atheist because every atheist i have ever met has some jacked up sense of supremacy and intellectual superiority.

So go ahead and jack off all over this thread in some delusional sense of "we are winning hurr durr".


----------



## Sora (Dec 22, 2010)

just imagine 50 years from now


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Yes yes celebrate a drop of a meager 9%. Never mind that 80% of the people still believe in a god. Anything to spin it in the atheist favor. Dont get a hard on yet atheists....no wait DO get a hard on. That way you can keep showing what arrogant narcissists you are with a heavy hint of douchebag elitism.
> 
> I mean OBVIOUSLY if you are a creationist you are just plain sturrrpid ami right? Just plain ignorant....i mean this is the 20th century and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right? If one does not believe in evolution or believes in a higher power they must just be crazy or insane or just STURRPID....if not...thats the way atheists attitudes seem to be. Thats why im not a atheist because every atheist i have ever met has some jacked up sense of supremacy and intellectual superiority.
> 
> So go ahead and jack off all over this thread in some delusional sense of "we are winning hurr durr".



Look everyone

a troll


----------



## Stunna (Dec 22, 2010)

This is quite sad, but expected. It only drop more and more till the end of the world.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Dec 22, 2010)

You know, now that I actually look at that graph, there's no data for people unsure and/or uncaring of their beliefs, much like I am.


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Dec 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> Look everyone
> 
> a troll



Why am i a troll again retard? You need to look up the meaning of the word "troll". A troll is not someone who posts something you dont agree with or who you have a problem with bender.

Oh but i so do enjoy the holier than thou attitude you atheists give off. Your inflated sense of ego and of smugness is ten times worse then any bible thumper i have EVER come across(and i have came across alot of them).

In fact i cant even really find a difference from a hardcore bible thumper or a hardcore atheist.

Why is it that every single atheist on the internet acts like that douchebag the amazingatheist off of youtube?


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

I only tolerate belief in creationism because there is nothing i can do to change people's minds about it. I do not tolerate it being taught in schools and young earth creationism is too far for me.

Nagato, you are a темно-бордовый


----------



## Blue (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> I mean OBVIOUSLY if you are a creationist you are just plain sturrrpid ami right? Just plain ignorant....i mean this is the 20th century and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right? If one does not believe in evolution [...] they must just be crazy or insane or just STURRPID.


Correct. If you do not believe in evolution, you are crazy or just plain stupid.

Nobody ever said anything about believing in God. I know it must be hard to comprehend, but my best friend is the most devout Christian I know, and he's also a physicist at the University of Utah and believes in evolution.



> In fact i cant even really find a difference from a hardcore bible thumper or a hardcore atheist.


This is kind of true.


----------



## BassGS (Dec 22, 2010)

King Ice said:


> just imagine 50 years from now



Is this a good thing lol?


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Dec 22, 2010)

The Cheat said:


> I only tolerate belief in creationism because there is nothing i can do to change people's minds about it. I do not tolerate it being taught in schools and young earth creationism is too far for me.



Thats fine at least you dont have that smug sense of "you are sturrpid if you believe in this hurr durr".


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> He be teh troll.



No such animal dear.


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Why am i a troll again retard? You need to look up the meaning of the word "troll". A troll is not someone who posts something you dont agree with or who you have a problem with bender.
> 
> Oh but i so do enjoy the *holier than thou* attitude you atheists give off.



Pffft

that's funny coming from you.

Seeing  as how posters like you and Hinako spout crap like "America is the  greatest!"

"You're not  American so you can't be in this conversation!"


----------



## BassGS (Dec 22, 2010)

I agree with Nagoto. The religious people are stupid because they believe this and this isn't right.


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

pantherpride said:


> I agree with Nagoto. The religious people are stupid because they believe this and this isn't right.



Not all Atheists are that way

It's only if you go around flaunting the shit out of it like Nagato  did in that "Religious meditation" thread saying "It's too bad Atheists won't be  able to experience this. All in all both Atheists and Religious can be intolerant pricks. There is no "one-side-is-better-than-the-other". Religious tout their whole religion brings about great tranquility and large majority Imo are monotone anti-religious social people.

Nothing more nothing less


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Thats fine at least you dont have that smug sense of "you are sturrpid if you believe in this hurr durr".



Evolution is a proven theory but if people insist into not believing it, fine by me since I can't do anything about it. But when creationists insist on taking evolution out of a biology class, thats where I draw the line. Its possible to believe both since believing that a god created the universe is a form of creationism. But I guess when most people talk about it, they're thinking of the adam and eve story.

But theists should learn evolution since they don't understand it and make terrible arguements against. You cannot argue against something you don't understand.


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

The Cheat said:


> *Evolution is a proven theory but if people insist into not believing it, fine by me since I can't do anything about it.* But when creationists insist on taking evolution out of a biology class, thats where I draw the line. Its possible to believe both since believing that a god created the universe is a form of creationism. But I guess when most people talk about it, they're thinking of the adam and eve story.



A-fucking men


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Dec 22, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Correct. If you do not believe in evolution, you are crazy or just plain stupid.
> 
> Nobody ever said anything about believing in God. I know it must be hard to comprehend, but my best friend is the most devout Christian I know, and he's also a physicist at the University of Utah and believes in evolution.
> 
> ...



Not saying i do or dont believe in evolution....but let me ask you this...how has this been proven at all? The way i understand it the theory came about by a bunch of bones. Besides that the theory changes each few years or so anyways in a certain way. For example a few years ago we all came from primordial ooze but just a year or two ago(if im not mistaken)they changed it and said it was wrong.

Thats fine and all but this just shows us that we as humans are flawed and our entire theory of science could possibly be flawed without even knowing it. We have no other species to even compare our sciences too. For all we know aliens are laughing at us and our stupidity of 'true' science.

\


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

Really, lets go hope this trend continues so people like this will go extinct.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

This is why evolution should be taught in schools, too many people don't understand.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 22, 2010)

pantherpride said:


> Is this a good thing lol?



Actually, I suspect that within 50 to 100 years Christianity will seemingly be completely wiped from the face of the Earth.


----------



## superattackpea (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Yes yes celebrate a drop of a meager 9%. Never mind that 80% of the people still believe in a god. Anything to spin it in the atheist favor. Dont get a hard on yet atheists....no wait DO get a hard on. That way you can keep showing what arrogant narcissists you are with a heavy hint of douchebag elitism.
> 
> I mean OBVIOUSLY if you are a creationist you are just plain sturrrpid ami right? Just plain ignorant....i mean this is the 20th century and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right? If one does not believe in evolution or believes in a higher power they must just be crazy or insane or just STURRPID....if not...thats the way atheists attitudes seem to be. *Thats why im not a atheist because every atheist i have ever met has some jacked up sense of supremacy and intellectual superiority.*
> 
> So go ahead and jack off all over this thread in some delusional sense of "we are winning hurr durr".



So what you believe isn't based on fact at all but entirely on the logical fallacy ad hominem? That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 22, 2010)

People can believe whatever they want personally  An atheist doing the whole "hahaha you believe in an invisible man in the sky" is the exact same thing as an evangelical going "hahaha you don't believe in "insert god", you will be damned for all eternity you heathen non believer"


But i will say that these numbers make sense...the increase in spotlight of the radical evangelicals would put anyone off of religion.


----------



## BassGS (Dec 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> Not all Atheists are that way
> 
> It's only if you go around flaunting the shit out of it like Nagato  did in that "Religious meditation" thread saying "It's too bad Atheists won't be  able to experience this. All in all both Atheists and Religious can be intolerant pricks. There is no "one-side-is-better-than-the-other". Religious tout their whole religion brings about great tranquility and large majority Imo are monotone anti-religious social people.
> 
> Nothing more nothing less





The Cheat said:


> Evolution is a proven theory but if people insist into not believing it, fine by me since I can't do anything about it. But when creationists insist on taking evolution out of a biology class, thats where I draw the line. Its possible to believe both since believing that a god created the universe is a form of creationism. But I guess when most people talk about it, they're thinking of the adam and eve story.
> 
> But theists should learn evolution since they don't understand it and make terrible arguements against. You cannot argue against something you don't understand.



I agree with you both.


----------



## Punpun (Dec 22, 2010)

Yet. That's the most retarded thing you have ever read yet. 

---

On another new, Percentage of Americans beliving iin intelligent design went up by 9%. :33


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Not saying i do or dont believe in evolution....but let me ask you this...how has this been proven at all? The way i understand it the theory came about by a bunch of bones. Besides that the theory changes each few years or so anyways in a certain way. For example a few years ago we all came from primordial ooze but just a year or two ago(if im not mistaken)they changed it and said it was wrong.
> 
> Thats fine and all but this just shows us that we as humans are flawed and our entire theory of science could possibly be flawed without even knowing it. We have no other species to even compare our sciences too. For all we know aliens are laughing at us and our stupidity of 'true' science.
> 
> \



Science is dynamic. Theories are constantly being retested to make sure they are right. If a theory is found to be bogus, it will be discredited and stopped being researched. Evolution has survived for over a 100 years. If it was found to obselete, scientists would stop researching it.


> People can believe whatever they want personally  An atheist doing the whole "hahaha you believe in an invisible man in the sky" is the exact same thing as an evangelical going "hahaha you don't believe in "insert god", you will be damned for all eternity you heathen non believer"
> 
> 
> But i will say that these numbers make sense...the increase in spotlight of the radical evangelicals would put anyone off of religion.



I agree with you, such attitudes are counterproductive.


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

Stunna said:


> Actually, I suspect that within 50 to 100 years Christianity will seemingly be completely wiped from the face of the Earth.



Thank god Xenu


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Dec 22, 2010)

superattackpea said:


> So what you believe isn't based on fact at all but entirely on the logical fallacy ad hominem? That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.



Is it really the most retarded thing you have ever heard? You must not have been on the internet long. 

I refuse to be a atheist because atheists have soured me from it. Im agnostic its the next best thing. 

It may be a logical fallacy by definition yes(if we went straight up websters)....but i think its relevant.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Is it really the most retarded thing you have ever heard? You must not have been on the internet long.
> 
> I refuse to be a atheist because atheists have soured me from it. Im agnostic its the next best thing.
> 
> It may be a logical fallacy by definition yes(if we went straight up websters)....but i think its relevant.



Before I came one, I was disgusted by the attitude of some atheists. I still do think that some atheists are very arrogant and immature.


----------



## BassGS (Dec 22, 2010)

Stunna said:


> Actually, I suspect that within 50 to 100 years Christianity will seemingly be completely wiped from the face of the Earth.



Is that a good thing?


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

The Cheat said:


> Before I came one, I was disgusted by the attitude of some atheists. I still do think that some atheists are very arrogant and immature.



I'm not arrogant I'm just a dick. 

It's a result of my pent up frustration with the ambiguity of religion.


----------



## MunchKing (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Oh but i so do enjoy the holier than thou attitude you atheists give off. Your inflated sense of ego and of smugness is ten times worse then any bible thumper i have EVER come across(and i have came across alot of them).
> 
> In fact i cant even really find a difference from a hardcore bible thumper or a hardcore atheist.
> 
> Why is it that every single atheist on the internet acts like that douchebag the amazingatheist off of youtube?



_*Holier than thou *_attitude is a poor choice of words to describe atheists don't you agree?


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> I'm not arrogant I'm just a dick.
> 
> It's a result of my pent up frustration with the ambiguity of religion.



Most frustrations I have with christianity come from my former church whose teachings I came to despise. well, most of the teachings anyway,


----------



## Stunna (Dec 22, 2010)

pantherpride said:


> Is that a good thing?


*Looks at signature*
What do you think.


----------



## Punpun (Dec 22, 2010)

Nagato, I'm a theist. You believing that a superior entity gives a fuck about your presence is laughable to say the least.


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

pantherpride said:


> But you can try to make them understand yours.



Most atheists are teenagers so I don't really have many arguments with my friend


----------



## Stalin (Dec 22, 2010)

Stunna said:


> *Looks at signature*
> What do you think.



To fair to you, I doubt that that christianity will be wiped out that fast. Maybe a few centuries at best. I have a hard time imagining a percentage of 10% of atheists in the US going becoming the majority within the next 50 years. Christianity still has a strong influence in american society.


----------



## Punpun (Dec 22, 2010)

Christianity won't dissapear that soon. Especialy when it is expanding in Africa.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 22, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Yes, I am intolerant of incorrect information being treated as fact. Very intolerant.


This is a religious belief though to discredit it is to invade and disrespect a person's private and spritual place. Not everyone has to believe in it. The least you can do is tolerate it and say you respect their beliefs even tough you don't believe in it. Funny, I thought the democratic party was the party of tolerance 



Khristmas no Kiri said:


> I accept and approve of divine guidance theories, i.e that God created life, the universe, and everything by working through evolution and the other natural processes for which we have such overwhelming evidence.
> 
> I do not accept creationism. I am at a loss as to how anyone could be so stupid. It should be pounded out of people with a rock.
> 
> Do I need a rock?


It's okay that you don't accept Creationism, just move on. 

And you might need a nuke, bro. 



The Pink Ninja said:


> It's a matter of facts and truth dear, not opinions or faith.
> 
> If you really cared about America you want Americans to have had a real education.


They are faith to the ones who hold the belief, this intolerance is a complete insecurity of differences.

I know the Creationist that believe that we are the same as we were about 10,000 years ago are not the majority of American believers. Unlike others on this forum or elsewhere in RL, I don't need to worry that every other American doesn't think like me.



Mael said:


> He be teh troll.


I'm not a troll, just because you don't like my posts.



Rescuebear said:


> This is something that can be proven false beyond a doubt. As to gods existence and such I can understand because it can never be proven. But when you refuse to accept the facts just because they don't fit what you want to believe, somethings wrong.


I think it's just a strong faith, whether right or wrong. There are somethings you just can't fix.


Bender said:


> A-fucking men
> 
> That's not something Glenn Beck taught ya is it Hinako


I don't watch Glenn Beck, dude.



> Hinako spout crap like "America is the greatest!"


I have never said such a thing, point the exact quote where I said 'America is the greatest' otherwise, stop trying to pull out exaggerations.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> Thank god Xenu



Get your facts straight. Xenu wanted to delude us with these "gods"! It was all in a holographic cinema for souls so they would believe this "Jesus", and this "Buda" and stuff!  You should go back and take those OT3 levels. You clearly didn't pay enough. ;D

Note: I'm joking. Just wanted to clear that up. In these kinda of threads you never know.


----------



## Bioness (Dec 22, 2010)

What in-breed bottom feeders actually believe that?!?! and 4 out of 10 Americans, that's far too much. Reading this only infuriates me that America is still living in the dark ages. 

Actually this graph in the article explains it all


----------



## Krombacher (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> ....i mean *this is the 20th century* and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right?



No wonder you are so wrong, you live in the wrong century


----------



## Agmaster (Dec 22, 2010)

I'm merely pleased something comes out of Jersey that isn't a lame joke.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Dec 22, 2010)

Labor4Obama said:


> Atheists tease believers; believers rape and pillage Atheists



Is Chairman Mao an Atheist? 

You really shouldn't generalize.

*looks at name*

Forget I said anything


----------



## Bender (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> I have never said such a thing, point the exact quote where I said 'America is the greatest' otherwise, stop trying to pull out exaggerations.



You're right Hinako you are such a saint 

From Sarah Palin: "We Gotta Stand With Our North Korean allies" thread

You Addressing Sunrider 



			
				Hinako said:
			
		

> Why is a brit trying to butt into this conversation between Americans? Sod off.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako has always attacked other ethnicity if they weren't American  Why try to make it sound so innocent now


----------



## Hinako (Dec 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> You're right Hinako you are such a saint
> 
> From Sarah Palin: "We Gotta Stand With Our North Korean allies" thread
> 
> You Addressing Sunrider


Sunrider isn't a brit, nice try tho.



> Hinako has always attacked other ethnicity if they weren't American


If anyone cannot ridicule another country or it's own, how can we call ourselves human?


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2010)

Shɑnɑ said:


> Is Chairman Mao an Atheist?



No. He's a corpse.


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 22, 2010)

The fact that most of them apparently think god guided evolution isn´t giving me much hope.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> If anyone cannot ridicule another country or it's own, how can we call ourselves human?




........


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> The fact that most of them apparently think god guided evolution isn?t giving me much hope.



When you consider the number for the apparently nonreligious, scientifically minded has more than doubled in just a couple of decades that should give you hope.


----------



## Blue (Dec 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> The fact that most of them apparently think god guided evolution isn?t giving me much hope.



I'm not sure what the problem with that is.

They're basically saying, "okay, yeah, everything happened like you said it did, but God was there making it happen."

Why would you want to come back and say "no, fuck you, God doesn't exist?"


----------



## Tkae (Dec 22, 2010)

Oh yeah.

Whoopee.

So exciting


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 22, 2010)

> ....i mean this is the 20th century and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right?



Much better than fairytales someone made up thousands of years ago to explain concepts they couldn't understand, and to scare their daughters and wives.


----------



## A. Waltz (Dec 22, 2010)

wow how can people NOT believe in evolution? 
to not believe in evolution EVEN IF their god helped out in it or not?

mind blown


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 22, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> I'm not sure what the problem with that is.
> 
> They're basically saying, "okay, yeah, everything happened like you said it did, but God was there making it happen."
> 
> Why would you want to come back and say "no, fuck you, God doesn't exist?"



I never said anything about the existence of god here, stop strawmanning.
The problem is that they?re taking a perfectly natural and logical process and complicate it in a retarded way.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeF7yLkEECs[/YOUTUBE]

If I told you there was an invisible man tipping each individual tile over you would call me a retard.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 22, 2010)

we should all look up at the stars every once in a while..did anyone see that eclipse a few nights ago? Awesome 

It makes you realize how insignificant arguing amongst ourselves about someone else's belief system is 

Science is science, faith is faith, they're interchangable in some situations, but not all


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 22, 2010)

> Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.



To be fair, I think a lot of that 38% might believe that the natural theory of evolution is correct, but they think the answer including "without God's involvement" sounds atheistic.

What does sound like a shocking problem is 40% believing in 'young Earth' creationism. Evidence as conrete as you like, that even in the richest country in the world millions and millions of people can be manipulated to hold even obviously false beliefs.


----------



## A. Waltz (Dec 22, 2010)

i couldn't see the ecplise cuz it was raining a lot and clouds everywhere ):
but i had a dream of it! it was fucking huge


----------



## Hinako (Dec 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> The fact that most of them apparently think god guided evolution isn?t giving me much hope.


You're basically begging them to be atheists, just leave them be.


----------



## Blue (Dec 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> I never said anything about the existence of god here, stop strawmanning.
> The problem is that they?re taking a perfectly natural and logical process and complicate it in a retarded way.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeF7yLkEECs[/YOUTUBE]
> ...



Strawman duel, eh? 

So if I were to point you at the Pyramids and say "If I told you these had been build by man, you'd call me a retard" that would make sense?


----------



## Punpun (Dec 22, 2010)

Everyone knows the pyramids were built by aliens.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 22, 2010)

I saw Aliens vs Predator so i know


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 22, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Strawman duel, eh?
> 
> So if I were to point you at the Pyramids and say "If I told you these had been build by man, you'd call me a retard" that would make sense?



Just out of curiosity, how much do you actually know about evolution?


----------



## Sky is Over (Dec 22, 2010)

Well, the way I see it is, which one of us was there? We can only speculate whether it may be evolution, creationism, both, or possibly neither. What I think really matters is how we go about it, no need for athiest to act like they've made a discovery that should entitle them to be omnipotent and every non-believer below them, and every born-again christian to feel like a gunman for the lord that justifies condemnation to those go against one word of the King James Bible which is supposed to be 100% accurate to all events with not a single fallacy. 

Overall, I see creation beliefs like backwards pairings, pure speculation.


----------



## Blue (Dec 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Just out of curiosity, how much do you actually know about evolution?



To correct any misconceptions you might have, I'm agnostic and have a major in biochemestry.


----------



## g_core18 (Dec 22, 2010)

I guess Americans are becoming less retarded.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 22, 2010)

Sky is Over said:


> Well, the way I see it is, which one of us was there?* We can only speculate whether it may be evolution, creationism, both,* or possibly neither. What I think really matters is how we go about it, no need for athiest to act like they've made a discovery that should entitle them to be omnipotent and every non-believer below them, and every born-again christian to feel like a gunman for the lord that justifies condemnation to those go against one word of the King James Bible which is supposed to be 100% accurate to all events with not a single fallacy.
> 
> Overall, I see creation beliefs like backwards pairings, pure speculation.



It has nothing to do with speculation. Evolution has evidence. So much so that it has withstood the most vigorous attacks from both the religious and scientific communities for the last 150 years and has only been made stronger because of it. To thew point that the evidence for evolution is now Insurmountable.

It happened. It's a fact.

Evolution is testable, falsifiable, observable, demonstrable and verifiable.

Creation is none of this. It's proponents want it to be considered a competing theory, but it can't even be considered hypothesis. What it is is a story that is to be taken on faith without a single shred of corroborating evidence to back up it's claim. 

This is not even a battle of world views. This is a battle of information vs. ignorance. _You're entitled to your own opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts!_ 

And to clear up one consistent misconception that seems to keep coming up. Evolution is NOT an Atheist idea anymore than thinking the Earth is round is an Atheist idea, or that the Earth revolving around the sun is an Atheist idea.


----------



## Asmodeus (Dec 22, 2010)

Strict creationism is terrifying in that people believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. 

This is coming from a Catholic man.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2010)

I think this is a fine time to repost one of my favorite videos:


----------



## Sky is Over (Dec 22, 2010)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> It has nothing to do with speculation. Evolution has evidence. So much so that it has withstood the most vigorous attacks from both the religious and scientific communities for the last 150 years and has only been made stronger because of it. To thew point that the evidence for evolution is now Insurmountable.
> 
> It happened. It's a fact.
> 
> ...



I'll just say ahead, religious debates aren't my cup of tea, apologies before hand.

Anyways, evolution itself is just a theory, not a fact. It still has possible margin of error that it could still count it out. 0.01% is the most influential force of them all. And I'll be one to agree that creationism has its shortcomings because of the lack of facts and reliance on blind faith, but it stillhas a 0.01% itself. And until its truly revealed by some sort of omnipotent being or we have the means to travel back and see it ourselves, a shadow of doubt however large or small it is will still cling to the base of the root of our existence.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2010)

Sky is Over said:


> I'll just say ahead, religious debates aren't my cup of tea, apologies before hand.
> 
> Anyways, evolution itself is just a theory, not a fact. It still has possible margin of error that it could still count it out. 0.01% is the most influential force of them all. And I'll be one to agree that creationism has its shortcomings because of the lack of facts and reliance on blind faith, but it stillhas a 0.01% itself. And until its truly revealed by some sort of omnipotent being or we have the means to travel back and see it ourselves, a shadow of doubt however large or small it is will still cling to the base of the root of our existence.



The entire first xhapter of Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth" addresses the "just a theory" misconception. 

When something is a Theory with a capital T, that's very different from the small case theory used in layman speech. It's not saying "Bob's theory is that we're going to get overtime this Saturday." Scientific theories have been heavily tested and scrutinized. They're not just some random idea some guy pulled out of his asshole. We have more physical evidence for evolution than we do for gravity.


----------



## Berserk (Dec 22, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Yes yes celebrate a drop of a meager 9%. Never mind that 80% of the people still believe in a god. Anything to spin it in the atheist favor. Dont get a hard on yet atheists....no wait DO get a hard on. That way you can keep showing what arrogant narcissists you are with a heavy hint of douchebag elitism.
> 
> I mean OBVIOUSLY if you are a creationist you are just plain sturrrpid ami right? Just plain ignorant....*i mean this is the 20th century* and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right? If one does not believe in evolution or believes in a higher power *they must just be crazy or insane or just STURRPID*....if not...thats the way atheists attitudes seem to be. Thats why im not a atheist because every atheist i have ever met has some jacked up sense of supremacy and intellectual superiority.
> 
> So go ahead and jack off all over this thread in some delusional sense of "we are winning hurr durr".



Thanks for proving that you're in the "STURRPID" group.  Not that we needed more proof of this.


----------



## Sky is Over (Dec 22, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> The entire first xhapter of Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth" addresses the "just a theory" misconception.
> 
> When something is a Theory with a capital T, that's very different from the small case theory used in layman speech. It's not saying "Bob's theory is that we're going to get overtime this Saturday." Scientific theories have been heavily tested and scrutinized. They're not just some random idea some guy pulled out of his asshole. We have more physical evidence for evolution than we do for gravity.



And a good question to ask, even now are the greatest of minds continuing to test the theory itself?


----------



## kazuri (Dec 22, 2010)

Hinako said:


> An intolerant atheistic wanking thread, oh well I guess they had to have one. Intolerance towards one's religious views is one the more common ways Atheists try to keep themselves supposedly more smarter and relevant  to everyone.



So if the percentages were different, and more people were believing in in creationism, what kind of thread would it be then? 

This is an article about a poll. That in no way makes it anyone 'wanking'.


----------



## Taco (Dec 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> The fact that most of them apparently think god guided evolution isn´t giving me much hope.



Can you prove that a divine being had no part in guiding evolution? Get over yourself, honestly.

To those types of people, you are like a person who thinks a clock can operate without batteries. They probably have no hope for people like you, too.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Can you prove that a divine being had no part in guiding evolution? Get over yourself, honestly.



No, we can't. We don't have to. The burden of proof is on the believer. If I made an outrageous claim like "your mom is a whore" or "Godzilla is sleeping in my back yard" it would fall on me to provide evidence. You wouldn't have to prove these things aren't true. That's because there's no such thing as negative evidence, but there is a such thing as positive evidence.

For instance if I say "I believe humankind evolved from earlier hominids and ape creatures over a period of seven million years" I could take you to a museum and show you skeletons. If you say "a magical bearded sky daddy who doesn't like gays created the earth in seven days and made man from a clump of dirt" you could provide exactly jack shit to support that.


----------



## Taco (Dec 22, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> For instance if I say "I believe humankind evolved from earlier hominids and ape creatures over a period of seven million years" I could take you to a museum and show you skeletons. *If you say "a magical bearded sky daddy who doesn't like gays created the earth in seven days and made man from a clump of dirt" you could provide exactly jack shit to support that.*



I was not arguing for the biblical God. I thought that was pretty clear. This has no relevance to what I was pointing out.



Pilaf said:


> No, we can't. We don't have to. The burden of proof is on the believer. If I made an outrageous claim like "your mom is a whore" or "Godzilla is sleeping in my back yard" it would fall on me to provide evidence. You wouldn't have to prove these things aren't true. That's because there's no such thing as negative evidence, but there is a such thing as positive evidence.



It's impossible to provide evidence for a divine power behind evolution, but it's also impossible to provide evidence against a divine power behind evolution. That's why it all comes down to personal preference and a little bit of faith in hoping you're right in believing that there was or wasn't something guiding evolution.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 22, 2010)

> Can you prove that a divine being had no part in guiding evolution? Get over yourself, honestly.



Do you have even an iota of evidence that some one did? I think the person who needs to get over himself is you.



> It's impossible to provide evidence for a divine power behind evolution, but it's also impossible to provide evidence against a divine power behind evolution.



Maybe you're confusing evolution with Abiogenesis because theres plenty of evidence that suppourts no magical being was involved in the process of evolution itself.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Dec 22, 2010)

9% is an improvement but the numbers are still laughable. Judging by these numbers and that poll on evolution that someone posted, you'd think the US is some kind of theocracy.

As for bringing god into evolution, why would you do that? Evolution guided by god somehow? Evolution can be explained perfectly well without it, so why even bring God up in the first place? That's very strange and unneccesary.

Not only that, but from where would you get the idea that it's any more a valid theory than say... Odin guiding evolution? Do you presume that your God is real and other gods are not? Why? If that's the case, you have to bring evidence to support that, otherwise you have to be quiet.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 22, 2010)

And the hardcore atheists are pouring in like doves.


----------



## fantzipants (Dec 22, 2010)

Labor4Obama said:


> Atheists tease believers; believers rape and pillage Atheists



so says stalin


----------



## Taco (Dec 22, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Do you have even an iota of evidence that some one did? I think the person who needs to get over himself is you.



I'm not bigoted. I'm open to different ideas. Which is why I said it comes down to whatever floats your boat. What you believe doesn't mean it's 100% right. If you look down upon someone else's beliefs because they conflict with yours even though it could go either way, then you are close minded. 



Ennoea said:


> Maybe you're confusing evolution with Abiogenesis because theres plenty of evidence that suppourts no magical being was involved in the process of evolution itself.



I understand well enough the between abiogenesis and evolution, and I was not confusing the two. And mind pointing out the evidence that says there was no "magical being" that acted upon/took part in the process of evolution. Understanding the process doesn't mean that's all there is to it. It'd be impossible to prove that there was a god behind evolution, but it'd be impossible to disprove it as well. 



Kind of a big deal said:


> As for bringing god into evolution, why would you do that? Evolution guided by god somehow? Evolution can be explained perfectly well without it, so why even bring God up in the first place? That's very strange and unneccesary.



Just because evolution can be explained does not mean that we know there was no god to take part in it. The process of evolution itself has a lot of evidence backing it up. That =/= nothing divine involved.



> Not only that, but from where would you get the idea that it's any more a valid theory than say... Odin guiding evolution? Do you presume that your God is real and other gods are not? Why? If that's the case, you have to bring evidence to support that, otherwise you have to be quiet.



If there is nothing that can combat it, then it is a valid belief. And why are you bringing different gods into the case? I'm not talking about a god or a group of gods from a certain religion, I'm not comparing anything of the sort. A divine power is all.


----------



## Tkae (Dec 22, 2010)

And in other news, statistics are still the worst, most unreliable form of evidence.

Details at 11


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Dec 22, 2010)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWTUllxbw04&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

That onion article on the Onion page had me rolling


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 22, 2010)

I am not sure I get the title. Is it supposed to be sarcasm? Because the information provided in the title (only 9% believe in creationism) and the information provided in the OP (40% believe in young earth creationism), are pretty different.

Anyway, one need not necessarily to be an atheist as I am to be depressed by such numbers of young earth creationists. I personally find it surprising, in addition to depressing, and somewhat hard to believe.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 22, 2010)

If its religion in general, i encourage it...however creationism to me, even as a Catholic, reminds me of Scientology in its blatant absurdity


----------



## vegitabo (Dec 22, 2010)

wtf, only 16% believe in evolution... I find that hard to believe even in the United States. Must be some skewed data


----------



## αce (Dec 22, 2010)

Oh look, this thread turned into a religion fight


Contrary to popular belief, you _don't_ have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
The Vatican has a history of accepting evolution, at least in recent decades.
And Francis Collins, a devout catholic (and head of the human genome project) has a chapter in his book to believers saying "don't ever let anyone tell you evolution didn't happen"

You can be religious and accept evolution. You can be non-religious and accept evolution.
End of story. Accept it and move on.


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 22, 2010)

if u are going to be religious be religious the whole way and dont do it half arsed

if you are religious but accept evolution, chacnes are you do that just to avoid being mocked as a backward retard.

really being religious and accepting evolution is the worst way to go, the atheists still think you are a retard and if the chances are your religion is true, you are still going to hell for believing in the "evils" that is science and evolution


----------



## Arinna (Dec 22, 2010)

WOO HOO!

People are becoming less stupid.


----------



## Blue (Dec 22, 2010)

pikachuwei said:


> if u are going to be religious be religious the whole way and dont do it half arsed
> 
> if you are religious but accept evolution, chacnes are you do that just to avoid being mocked as a backward retard.
> 
> really being religious and accepting evolution is the worst way to go, the atheists still think you are a retard and if the chances are your religion is true, you are still going to hell for believing in the "evils" that is science and evolution


That's completely fucking wrong.

Ignoring the evidence of evolution is a sign of religious idiocy, obviously. But for people of the faith who aren't fools, what's important isn't how God made the universe, but that he did. Evolution and the Divine are not mutually exclusive.

Of course the first reaction of the atheist idiots who are under the laughable impression that they're more intelligent than the religious idiots is "Ha, God doesn't exist! We have evidence!"

Except... hey-o, we don't have any more evidence that God doesn't exist than we do that he does exist, so that puts them in the same miserable boat as the religious, except the religious derive happiness and raison d'etre from their faith, and all the militant atheists of the world get out of it is a misplaced sense of superiority trolling some dumb rednecks on the internet.


----------



## αce (Dec 22, 2010)

Religions, especially Christianity, are already nit picked so much that it's impossible to be a literalist even if you believe the Earth is in it's infancy.
If you aren't bothering to support the ridiculous parts of biblical belief, you may as well accept evolution.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> That's completely fucking wrong.
> 
> Ignoring the evidence of evolution is a sign of religious idiocy, obviously. But for people of the faith who aren't fools, what's important isn't how God made the universe, but that he did. Evolution and the Divine are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...



I have never seen even one Atheist claim that he has evidence that God does not exist. Can you point me to one such example? What I have seen, is pretty much each and every atheist saying the exact same thing. There is no evidence that God exists, or that a Spaghetti monster exists and so we don't believe that it exists and we reject the claim that something that we have no evidence of existing, exists.

That means that positive belief in something existing requires evidence. Also I am saying that your atheists idiots is a nonexistent strawman that you have not provided sufficient evidence that it exists, at least in sufficient quantity.


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> I have never seen even one Atheist claim that he has evidence that God does not exist. Can you point me to one such example? What I have seen, is pretty much each and every atheist saying the exact same thing. There is no evidence that God exists, or that a Spaghetti monster exists and so we don't believe that it exists and we reject the claim that something that we have no evidence of existing, exists.
> 
> That means that positive belief in something existing requires evidence. Also I am saying that your atheists idiots is a nonexistent strawman that you have not provided sufficient evidence that it exists, at least in sufficient quantity.


"God does not exist" is a positive claim. 
"There is no evidence that God exists" is a fact, but God not existing does not follow.
Also, using formal debate lingo is incredibly pretentious. Let's not bother to mention that calling atheists idiots is ad hominem rather than a strawman and just say it's an unfair generalization.

Not unlike the unfair generalization that everyone who believes in God is ignorant.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 23, 2010)

pikachuwei said:


> if u are going to be religious be religious the whole way and dont do it half arsed
> 
> if you are religious but accept evolution, chacnes are you do that just to avoid being mocked as a backward retard.
> 
> really being religious and accepting evolution is the worst way to go, the atheists still think you are a retard and if the chances are your religion is true, you are still going to hell for believing in the "evils" that is science and evolution



I am an atheist but I do not believe are stupid are believing in a god. I can relate to believing in a god because I used to be a christian. Its how they how act about their beliefs is when I judge them to be stupid.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> That's completely fucking wrong.
> 
> Ignoring the evidence of evolution is a sign of religious idiocy, obviously. But for people of the faith who aren't fools, what's important isn't how God made the universe, but that he did. Evolution and the Divine are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...








> except the religious derive happiness and raison d'etre from their faith


AT WHAT FUCKING COST!?

Undermining our constitution, allowing aids to spread unchecked through Africa because it offends the pope to use condoms, the molesting of children by clergy members and the outright denial of justice by the Vatican,the attempted undermining of science as creationism itself shows, allowing in some parts of the world our deaths and yours all over some stupid belief, making it so that no atheist I know of will ever be able to hold office in this country, the tearing apart of families, ect ect.


----------



## MunchKing (Dec 23, 2010)

The butthurt is strong in this thread. Touchy subject, I suppose.



Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Ignoring the evidence of evolution is a sign of religious idiocy, obviously. But for people of the faith who aren't fools, what's important isn't how God made the universe, but that he did. *Evolution and the Divine are not mutually exclusive.*



By that, do you mean "God guided the path of evolution" or "God was chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool after providing the basis for the first genepool" ?


----------



## Bender (Dec 23, 2010)

At least Evolutionists pay mine to the facts of religion 

Hell if anything know more about their religion than they do themselves. 

Hilarious


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> That's completely fucking wrong.
> 
> Ignoring the evidence of evolution is a sign of religious idiocy, obviously. But for people of the faith who aren't fools, what's important isn't how God made the universe, but that he did. Evolution and the Divine are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...



We dont have any more evidence that the Pope is not a homosexual than we have evidence that the Pope is a homosexual so the pope must be a homosexual?

plus the religious's sense of happiness from their faith arises mainly from the fact that they have been "chosen" to go to a better place when they die, implying that there will still be suckers who are left to a worse fate. Thats happiness based on the sufferings of others right there


----------



## siyrean (Dec 23, 2010)

Erm no, we're happy to believe that when we die there's more to it. I really hope people don't actually believe that all well educated, rational, people of faith blindly follow their spiritual leaders, never question their bible or concider the social conditions underwhich it was written, and simply believe that though man was made fallible they he some how got everything right that one time he wrote it down? 

Please....


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)




----------



## Evolet (Dec 23, 2010)

Just as planned.


----------



## Gooba (Dec 23, 2010)

Most Atheists don't believe "there is no god," they believe "there is no evidence of Yaweh, Thor, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster so it is irrational to believe in any specific one of them."  Just because there is no evidence either way doesn't mean it is equally rational to believe either.  

Also, I personally consider that every year since the beginning of religion its role has diminished is somewhat evidence it is wrong.  It use to explain the sun rising, the seasons, thunder, lightning, hurricanes, the creation of man, the creation of the planets, etc... and in it's track record every single time the "god didn't do it" side has beaten the "god did it" side.  If you flip a coin a few thousand times and get nothing but heads it is irrational to say "next time will definitely be tails."


----------



## Mael (Dec 23, 2010)

Can I ask, how many of you work or have families?

I'm betting not a lot, because if you did you wouldn't be thinking so much about this.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)

Jingoobells said:


> Most Atheists don't believe "there is no god," they believe "there is no evidence of Yaweh, Thor, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster so it is irrational to believe in any specific one of them."  Just because there is no evidence either way doesn't mean it is equally rational to believe either.


*Atheism: There is no god
Agnosticism: There is no proof that a God or gods exist or don't exist.*


----------



## Stunna (Dec 23, 2010)

Bender said:


> At least Evolutionists pay mine to the facts of religion
> 
> Hell if anything know more about their religion than they do themselves.
> 
> Hilarious


Quite a generalization there.

Then again, one would have to know someone's belief better than they do to successfully destroy it


----------



## Mael (Dec 23, 2010)




----------



## Marknbrut (Dec 23, 2010)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> It has nothing to do with speculation. Evolution has evidence. So much so that it has withstood the most vigorous attacks from both the religious and scientific communities for the last 150 years and has only been made stronger because of it. To thew point that the evidence for evolution is now Insurmountable.
> 
> It happened. It's a fact.
> 
> ...



The most articulate, most sensible, most accurate statement made in this thread. I think the whole thread should have been closed with this argument and pulled out everytime the same argument starts. Beautiful!


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 23, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> *Atheism: There is no god
> Agnosticism: There is no proof that a God or gods exist or don't exist.*



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 23, 2010)

So lets just summarise what we agree on so far:


*Spoiler*: __ 



WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK





Am I right?



> militant atheists



Point to our guns, then you may use this term.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mael (Dec 23, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> So lets just summarise what we agree on so far:
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



There is only the Emprah.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 23, 2010)

Mael said:


> There is only the Emprah.



*Elbows you in the nose, shattering it completely*

Yeah, and that.


----------



## Mael (Dec 23, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> *Elbows you in the nose, shattering it completely*
> 
> Yeah, and that.



*kicks in the junk*

Don't have to be a smartass about it.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 23, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> *Atheism: There is no god
> Agnosticism: There is no proof that a God or gods exist or don't exist.*


Very surprising, that an Admin doesn't know the basics of Atheism. Not very surprising that he's from Massachusetts.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)

Hinako said:


> Very surprising, that an Admin doesn't know the basics of Atheism. Not very surprising that he's from Massachusetts.



*I could of called him an "idiot" or told him to look it up. But I provided the links and went on my merry way. What I should have done with drove to his home with a massage therapist and while he was getting a free massage kindly read the definitions while pouring his favorite glass of wine 

Hopefully I could get him drunk enough not to remember my name. Or that the massage therapist looked like Martha Stewart... well, except for that part with the beard.

I would also agree that many Atheists are actually more agnostic.*

Nice set


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

That's cute, but I'm not trying to prove God exists, so that entire counterargument is garbage.
Whereas some people in this thread obviously are trying to say he doesn't exist.
So I repeat: Atheism is a faith with no more evidence supporting it than theist faiths.



> AT WHAT FUCKING COST!?
> 
> Undermining our constitution, allowing aids to spread unchecked through Africa because it offends the pope to use condoms, the molesting of children by clergy members and the outright denial of justice by the Vatican,the attempted undermining of science as creationism itself shows, allowing in some parts of the world our deaths and yours all over some stupid belief, making it so that no atheist I know of will ever be able to hold office in this country, the tearing apart of families, ect ect.


Forming the basis of our constitution, organizing charity aid to Africa, the shelter of orphans and destitute families in orphanages and church shelters.
Religion isn't always detrimental to science; the majority of world scientific progress from the thousand years from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance was done under pagan and then Muslim rule.
And yes, atheists holding office seems unlikely. But no member of the Westboro Baptist church will be holding office any time soon, either. That's how democracy works.
And the tearing apart of families? I'd love to know how you justify that statement. I think most well-adjusted families don't have a problem having different faiths or lack thereof. 



MunchKing said:


> By that, do you mean "God guided the path of evolution" or "God was chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool after providing the basis for the first genepool" ?


Any of the above. I personally don't have an opinion on the divine, but if I had to pick one I'd go with "chilling out". But God not directly creating man is inconsistent with most faiths, so I think most religious people would say guided.



pikachuwei said:


> We dont have any more evidence that the Pope is not a homosexual than we have evidence that the Pope is a homosexual so the pope must be a homosexual?


So we say: The pope's sexuality is unknown.
Of course, if you asked him, he'd probably say something like "I was straight before I married the Trinity" so that would be evidence towards him not being homosexual. 



> plus the religious's sense of happiness from their faith arises mainly from the fact that they have been "chosen" to go to a better place when they die, implying that there will still be suckers who are left to a worse fate. Thats happiness based on the sufferings of others right there


You could certainly make that argument in the case, of, say, Jehova's Witnesses, who believe that only 144,000 people can ever go to Heaven; for most other religions, the promise of salvation isn't a stick to beat people with, its a tool to enforce morality. Unfortunately "morality" can be perverted into whatever a church (doesn't) like, but most people will agree the bulk of the 10 commandments and similar religious doctrines are stuff you really shouldn't do regardless of your belief. Unfortunately, "you must believe in our God" is usually chief among them.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 23, 2010)

Hinako said:


> Very surprising, that an Admin doesn't know the basics of Atheism. Not very surprising that he's from Massachusetts.



All Atheist means is "Not Theist"

That's it. Nothing more. And agnosticism is not a belief in itself. It is not a third option between Theism and Atheism. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but you can't be just agnostic.

Gnostic = Knowing
Agnostic = Not Knowing

If you claim "Well, I don't know either way", that actually makes you agnostic atheist since;

Theist = a positive proclamation there is a god or gods.
Atheist = Not theist

A lot of other things get attributed to atheism, such as a "belief" in evolution, or thinking that it's a proclamation that there is no god, but at its core, all atheism really means is the lack of a positive proclamation that there is a god. That's it. Therefore, the stance of "I don't know either way" still makes you an atheist. Your just an agnostic atheist.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

That's a really excellent video, but he skips over something vital:

How does one define the difference between someone who has no belief, and who believes there is no God or Gods?

He uses the term "Strong Atheist" in the video, but to be frank, that's a bullshit cop-out.
He does address the fact that many Atheists are "fervent", but dismisses this as a natural reaction to the fervency of the religious.

I reject that.

It's true that the definitions of "Atheist" and "Agnostic" are open to interpretation, but in the popular vernacular, "Atheist" A: without, theism: a belief in God - is a person who rejects the existence of a god or gods. Agnostic is used to describe those who have no opinion, stemming from their A: without gnostic: knowledge. lack of or profession of lack of knowledge.

QualiaSoup attempts to deflect the argument that Atheism is a faith by making the definition more vague. In the video he makes the excellent point that people should assume a certain level of maturity of the participants in a debate. Were his own maturity of the level he professes to desire, he wouldn't attempt to redefine the vernacular to suit his purposes.



> Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. *Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.*


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 23, 2010)

Lock the thread already, Jesus ¬____¬


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 23, 2010)

Kunoichi, you misunderstand a whole lot about what Atheism is. But I am pretty sure threads like the Atheist thread on this site, or the Iron Chariot website would be educational. Although you can also expect fit explanations about your misunderstandings from members here. I could also provide some but later.


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> Kunoichi, you misunderstand a whole lot about what Atheism is.



No, I most certainly do not.


----------



## J. Fooly (Dec 23, 2010)

Stunna said:


> Actually, I suspect that within 50 to 100 years Christianity will seemingly be completely wiped from the face of the Earth.



I see what you did thar. :ho


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> Kunoichi, you misunderstand a whole lot about what Atheism is. But I am pretty sure threads like the Atheist thread on this site, or the Iron Chariot website would be educational. Although you can also expect fit explanations about your misunderstandings from members here. I could also provide some but later.


  Atheism isn't really about much. Anything other than than a lack in belief of deities or a deity is just chaff. That's all atheism means.


----------



## Ippy (Dec 23, 2010)

It's a damn shame that there were 9% to be dropped in the first place...

edit: lol Blue

Anyhoo.... apatheism ftw!!!


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> No, I most certainly do not.



Well your argument seems to be another fallacy (And no I am not pretentious by calling a spade a spade), this time of false equivalency. Religious faith and belief on something due to evidence, is a different thing entirely. 

In atheism the lack of belief in a God, is substantiated by the fact is that positive belief requires evidence. Else there is no reason to believe in something as without evidence we can't determine any truth validity. As a result Atheist faith and Religious faith are two entirely different things.  One is belief based on evidence. Literally all or almost all knowledge is that, as we can never or almost never be entirely sure about something. So we have to believe and disbelief in things based on the available evidence. That is quite different than Religious Faith. Your "logic" could be used to equate evolution with creationism by using the fallacy that they are both based on Faith.

Google "Atheism is also faith" as your argument has been repeated countless times, you are not the first to say it, not the last.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Atheism isn't really about much. Anything other than than a lack in belief of deities or a deity is just chaff. That's all atheism means.



There are arguments against and in support of atheism. When one is saying that Atheism is based on Faith just like Religion is, as well as other other claims that Kunoichi made, it means he is misunderstanding Atheism or more precisely the arguments in favor of Atheism and the reason and logic behind Atheism.

This does not mean that Atheism means something more than "lack of belief in Gods".  But It does means that he is misunderstanding why Atheism is not Faith based. (At least with Faith here meaning something similar to Religious faith). Or more precisely why Atheists are not basing their Atheistic belief on Faith.

If you want me to say that he is misunderstanding the arguments in support of Atheism instead, then Ok.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> Well your arguement seems to be another fallacy (And no I am not pretentious by calling a spade a spade), this time of false equivalency. Religious faith and belief on something due to evidence, is a different thing entirely.
> 
> In atheism the lack of belief in a God, is substantiated by the fact is that positive belief requires evidence. Else there is no reason to believe in something as without evidence we can't determine any truth validity. As a result Atheist faith and Religious faith are two entirely different things.  One is belief based on evidence. Literally all or almost all knowledge is that, as we can never or almost never entirely sure about something. So we have to believe and disbelief in things based on the available evidence.
> 
> Google "Atheism is also faith" as your argument has been repeated countless times, you are not the first to say it, not the last.



It's not an argument, its the meaning of the word. All of these "what it means to be an atheist" back flips you're going through might as well be "what it means to be black" or "what it means to be a woman". 

The only way to be an atheist is to have no belief in a deity, anything else you choose to tack onto that is tacked on. The same way I can be a theist and be part of no religion and subscribe to no particular god. All that is required is you believe in some personification of higher power.


----------



## perman07 (Dec 23, 2010)

For once, I actually agree with CTK. (Though the effect is sort of diminished upon remembering how often you generalize about atheists being intolerant and in-your-face)


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 23, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's not an argument, its the meaning of the word. All of these "what it means to be an atheist" back flips you're going through might as well be "what it means to be black" or "what it means to be a woman".
> 
> The only way to be an atheist is to have no belief in a deity, anything else you choose to tack onto that is tacked on. The same way I can be a theist and be part of no religion and subscribe to no particular god. All that is required is you believe in some personification of higher power.



You are focusing on irrelevant semantics and missing the point of my posts. As I have said, if you want me to clarify and say that he misunderstands the arguments in favor of Atheism and what Atheists really believe, and falsely equates their belief with Religious Faith, then so be it.

I thought it was clear what I meant, and their was no need for such unnecessary explanation or for you to bring up that Atheism just means lack of belief in Gods.

Anyway, when I said he misunderstand things about Atheism. One of the relevant things about Atheism that he misunderstands is how Atheists justify their lack of belief in Gods. The arguments in favor of Atheism are relevant to Atheism.  Despite the only prerequisite necessary to someone being an Atheist being lack of belief.  And Atheism only meaning lack of belief in Gods. I thought the meaning of my post was obvious really.

If you continue to persist on the matter, I will take it as a message of you attempting to misdirect from the discussion at hand.


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> Well your argument seems to be another fallacy (And no I am not pretentious by calling a spade a spade), this time of false equivalency. Religious faith and belief on something due to evidence, is a different thing entirely.



Well here, our definitions of Atheism differ. A popular Atheist (agnostic, et cetera) argument is to define Atheism to include agnosticism, which is indeed possible given the strictest definitions of the words. With agnosticism included under the banner of Atheism, the argument that "Atheism is a faith" is indeed invalid. 
However, as demonstrated by the majority of the posts in this thread, Atheism is generally regarded as separate from Agnosticism in popular lexicon. 

Atheism as most people understand it, sometimes called "strong Atheism" is a faith, the faith that gods do not exist.

Atheism as you (among others) have defined it, a lack of belief in gods, is not a faith. It's a rational viewpoint, that which I would call agnosticism and which I myself subscribe to.

So.

If you'd like to go back and re-read all my posts, substituting "strong atheist" for "atheist", please feel free; but don't accuse me of not understanding the nature of it.

Personally I feel it's absurd to have to prefix "atheism" with "strong" in order to satisfy those who which to profess atheism but don't want to be accused of illogical faith.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 23, 2010)

*In terms of religion, there are only 3 possibilities~

1.  Religious belief.  (THEISM)
2.  Belief religion is false.  (ATHEISM)
3.  Neutrality.  Lack of belief or uncertainty.  (AGNOSTICISM)*

Which is a belief and which is not?  Hmm..


----------



## Draffut (Dec 23, 2010)

Hinako said:


> Very surprising, that an Admin doesn't know the basics of Atheism. Not very surprising that he's from Massachusetts.



Athiesm is simply a lack of belief in any diety.  That's all.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Well here, our definitions of Atheism differ. A popular Atheist (agnostic, et cetera) argument is to define Atheism to include agnosticism, which is indeed possible given the strictest definitions of the words. With agnosticism included under the banner of Atheism, the argument that "Atheism is a faith" is indeed invalid.
> However, as demonstrated by the majority of the posts in this thread, Atheism is generally regarded as separate from Agnosticism in popular lexicon.
> 
> Atheism as most people understand it, sometimes called "strong Atheism" is a faith, the faith that gods do not exist.
> ...



I see. In this forum it seems to me that most people will call what you consider as agnosticism as also atheism. And they are correct but there is an issue of a lot of people thinking differently and differentiating between atheism and agnosticism. But still, I am an atheist, who also thinks that agnostics are atheists, but that they are more illogical in comparison to "strong atheists".  Note that Strong atheists can still be weak agnostics. (And I am one).

An agnostic will not believe in a God existing but will believe that he has no idea about whether God exists or not and the likelihood of God existing and not existing is the same. Or he will not care, or he will simply lack belief one way or the other. Which I count as illogical.

A strong atheist as is myself, believes that God does not exist. The complete lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns, Santa Clause or the spaghetti monster or God, increases the likelihood of them not existing in comparison to the likelihood of them existing.  So I do not believe that Santa clause, Unicorns, or God exists.  I have the logical belief that, do believe in something being likely to exist, or existing it requires some evidence. Complete lack of evidence justifies active disbelief.  But of course I can't prove it one way or the other.

I also consider Agnostics who consider the likelihood of God existing the same as him not existing to be more illogical and Faith based than me. But still their belief is considerably more logical than Religious Faith even if not as logically sound as it could be. (The logical belief is not ignorance, saying that it is impossible to consider possibilities, but to disbelieve in God, Santa Clause, Unicorns and other similar supernatural creatures). And that believe is obviously not similar to Religious Faith.

So yeah, even after that explanation I still do not agree with your equivalence of Atheist belief with Religious faith. I will not even equate strong agnosticism with Religious Faith although I disagree with it. (It is more logical because it says that due to lack of positive evidence in God existing, they do not believe that he exists. Which is Atheism. But it stays there and does not consider the matter with all wisdom dedication as necessary to reach the conclusion of disbelief. That is believe that he does not exist. Which differs with simply not believing that he exists. )


----------



## perman07 (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Well here, our definitions of Atheism differ. A popular Atheist (agnostic, et cetera) argument is to define Atheism to include agnosticism, which is indeed possible given the strictest definitions of the words. With agnosticism included under the banner of Atheism, the argument that "Atheism is a faith" is indeed invalid.
> However, as demonstrated by the majority of the posts in this thread, Atheism is generally regarded as separate from Agnosticism in popular lexicon.
> 
> *Atheism as most people understand it, sometimes called "strong Atheism" is a faith, the faith that gods do not exist.*
> ...


Using the word "faith", to describe a belief or lack thereof is misleading. Though one can of course construe a symmetry in theism and atheism both being examples of beliefs (if one views atheism as a belief instead of a lack of one), I don't think extending it to a symmetry of faith should be done.

The word faith has added connotations compared to what mere belief has. It implies a certain trust, and a certain bias (and I don't mean bias in any negative sort of way, biases can be justified, such as a bias towards trusting the words of friends).

Given that atheism is usually founded in skepticism and in the lack of trust in religion, spirituality, anecdotal accounts and individual conviction, faith is just a wrong word to use with regards to atheism.

As an atheist myself, my atheism is merely not having been convinced by theistic claims, and viewing a consistent absence of evidence as evidence of absence is not fallacious (at least not when you think in terms of probability). I could conceivably be convinced by religion if particular things happened to me, but I wouldn't say I have "faith" that they won't, I merely consider it extremely unlikely.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> You are focusing on irrelevant semantics and missing the point of my posts. As I have said, if you want me to clarify and say that he misunderstands the arguments in favor of Atheism and what Atheists really believe, and falsely equates their belief with Religious Faith, then so be it.
> 
> I thought it was clear what I meant, and their was no need for such unnecessary explanation or for you to bring up that Atheism just means lack of belief in Gods.
> 
> ...



Take it as what you want, it came about because you didn't quote the post you were talking about originally. Obviously you noticed this because you went back and did it. Don't pin your negligence on me. 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> *In terms of religion, there are only 3 possibilities~
> 
> 1.  Religious belief.  (THEISM)
> 2.  Belief religion is false.  (ATHEISM)
> ...



Wrong. There are atheistic religions, a religion that has no God or gods isn't theism,


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> So yeah, even after that explanation I still do not agree with your equivalence of Atheist belief with Religious faith. I will not even equate strong agnosticism with Religious Faith although I disagree with it.


Believing something despite a complete lack of evidence is faith, regardless of the likelihood of being correct. 

And while I would consider the likelihood of the Abrahamic God existing to be about zero... without commenting on whether they've interacted with man, I don't consider it especially likely that no being or beings of godlike power exist in the universe.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 23, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> *In terms of religion, there are only 3 possibilities~
> 
> 1.  Religious belief.  (THEISM)
> 2.  Belief religion is false.  (ATHEISM)
> ...



The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. Not the other way around. If you claim Unicorns exist, it doesn't fall on me to prove they don't. If falls on you to show evidence that they do.

Yes, there are Atheists that do make a solid affirmation that "God does not exist", and I would agree that that form of atheism has indeed moved into a category more akin to a religious belief, but that doesn't mean you then get to redefine atheism to mean what you want it to mean because of that small group of people. 

But that doesn't mean that you then get to slap that label on all Atheists. It's incorrect and dishonest. 

Just because young earth creationists are Christian Doesn't mean all Christians are young earth creationists. Yet, that's how you want to go about defining Atheists. 

"I know some people who think "X" and are also Atheists, therefore all Atheists Are "X".

Are all cars Honda Civics just because all Honda Civics are cars?

No, it doesn't work that way. 

Atheism, more than anything, is a neutral standpoint. We are all born Atheist. Meaning that we are all born without beliefs. Beliefs are something you have to be taught. And at it's core, an Atheist is simply someone who doesn't accept the claims made by Theists.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 23, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Take it as what you want, it came about because you didn't quote the post you were talking about originally. Obviously you noticed this because you went back and did it. Don't pin your negligence on me.



Alright. Well since this is a misunderstanding, thee isn't really much more to say.



Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Believing something despite a complete lack of evidence is faith, regardless of the likelihood of being correct.



Yes that is religious Faith. Active disbelief or believing that something which has no evidence to support it existing is unlikely to exist, is belief based on evidence.  Me believing that there is no Lion in my room or that my Computer will not transform into a dragon and eat me, is therefor Evidence based belief and not Religious Faith. Because it is based on Evidence. If someone who has no positive belief that his computer will transform into a dragon, and someone who disbelieves that his computer will transform into a dragon, try to argue. With the "agnostic" claiming the disbeliever as incorrect, will himself be incorrect about not being a disbeliever. 



> And while I would consider the likelihood of the Abrahamic God existing to be about zero... without commenting on whether they've interacted with man, I don't consider it especially likely that no being or beings of godlike power exist in the universe.



I don't consider the likelihood of the Abrahamic God existing to be about zero but I consider it to be especially low.  But yeah you now appear to be a strong Atheist too, at least as far as the Abrahamic God is considered. And by that admittance you prove how you agree with my logic for strong Atheism. As for Gods meaning very powerful Aliens, I doubt that is what Atheists have in mind when they talk about Gods. 

But even in that case, based on how we define Godlike powers, I might have a different opinion on the likelihood of them existing in comparison to Christianity's God. If we are talking about a sentient being with truly Godlike power, I don't believe that such being exists either but with less conviction than I disbelieve in the Christian God. Also I define Godly as very Godly. But agnosticism is especially illogical in the cases of Gods that are supposed to interfere with mankind.  Your own admittance about being strong atheist on the matter of Abrahamic God, and an atheist in general, really shouts most of your generalizations about what atheists believe in the foot. Especially the bits about comparing Atheist Faith to Religious Faith.

In any case, you can't be a strong Atheist about everything someone defines as God as some things are definitely not Godly enough of the definition, but someone ought to be a Strong Atheist about most things people define as Gods. Someone who is a complete agnosticism is therefor more Illogical than people who define themselves as Strong Atheists. (I explained the whys myself and it seems you did a good job on my behalf with your admittance).

Also note that I am not trying to argue that everything I believe is correct but the merits of active disbelief or strong atheism versus simply agnosticism. (or strong agnosticism if you will). Thanks for the help in that.


----------



## Gino (Dec 23, 2010)

lol The force from both sides in this thread is amazing.....


----------



## perman07 (Dec 23, 2010)

Respond to my earlier post Kiri.

Describing all atheists as "believing something despite complete lack of evidence" is misconstruing the justifications various atheists have for their beliefs or lack thereof. Also, faith is usually a word employed about religious beliefs or belief without sufficient evidence, extending it to what belief is is basically changing the meaning of the word. I don't believe unicorns, dragons or fairies exist, but saying I have faith in it when my lack of belief is founded in a healthy skepticism just seems like the wrong usage of the word to me.

Using the word faith on atheists is an attempt to equivocate the reasoning behind theism and atheism, and the reasonings are usually very different in nature.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 23, 2010)

oh I'm sorry I thought this was 2010 *A.D* not the time of Charlemagne we killed this theory with science!!
we're not going to go back to the middle-ages in our  country's entire educational system just because people's faith in Christ is not what it use to be. you have things like the christian collages and academies to do that shit for you.

if we had it the creationists way the only way I would be cured from the flu is if I pray REALLY HARD and take communion everyday.

 and I can tell you right now bread and wine<Nyquil


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

perman07 said:


> Respond to my earlier post Kiri.


To be honest I'd rather be playing Minecraft. Was there something about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism and our perceptions of their definitions I haven't already addressed?

Oh, right. The "justifications" strong Atheists have for believing there is no God.

There aren't any. 

Even Occam's razor doesn't apply, because the universe is so complex and finely tuned for the existence of conditions that support life, it is debatably simpler to believe that a single, simple, all-powerful entity was created (or has always existed in some metaphysical way beyond our comprehension) who then engineered the universe.

Of course it's also simple to believe that the reason our fantastic universe exists is because we're here to experience and describe its existence. Whatever works for you.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)

*I agree with this Minecraft theory. 

This topic went from attacking religion and atheism to a Dictionary showdown. Although many people are still making valid points*


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)

*Spoiler*: _He puts The Elrics to shame:_


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Even Occam's razor doesn't apply, because the universe is so complex and finely tuned for the existence of conditions that support life, it is debatably simpler to believe that a single, simple, all-powerful entity was created who then engineered the universe.



So you favor the "Plead to Ignorance" Fallacy?

When our ancestors 10, 000 years ago saw lighening and had no wqay to explain it. They made up a myriad of supernatural explanations because they simply didn't have the knowledge capable of explaining it. Not only didn't they have that knowledge. They didn't even have a paradigm of thought that would allow them to understand that lightning could be understood in physical terms. 

Nowadays, we understand lightning. We inderstand weather. We understand that, just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it can't be understood!

Yet, that's exactly what you're doing. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that we get to fill in the gaps with whatever supernatural explanation we want. 

To quote Dawkins. 

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world"

Sorry, but I just don't like the "Boy, the universe sure is complicated, must be magic" explanation of reality. Especially since supernatural explanations have never been shown to hold true for any discovery we've ever made in the entirety of human history.


----------



## KFC (Dec 23, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Yes yes celebrate a drop of a meager 9%. Never mind that 80% of the people still believe in a god. Anything to spin it in the atheist favor. Dont get a hard on yet atheists....no wait DO get a hard on. That way you can keep showing what arrogant narcissists you are with a heavy hint of douchebag elitism.
> 
> I mean OBVIOUSLY if you are a creationist you are just plain sturrrpid ami right? Just plain ignorant....i mean this is the 20th century and we should all believe in the man made theory of evolution right? If one does not believe in evolution or believes in a higher power they must just be crazy or insane or just STURRPID....if not...thats the way atheists attitudes seem to be. Thats why im not a atheist because every atheist i have ever met has some jacked up sense of supremacy and intellectual superiority.
> 
> So go ahead and jack off all over this thread in some delusional sense of "we are winning hurr durr".



You sir...are an idiot. 

And you spelled 'stupid' wrong


----------



## Bender (Dec 23, 2010)

KFC said:


> You sir...are an idiot.
> 
> And you spelled 'stupid' wrong



Sir, you have NO idea just how stupid he is

The shit that comes out of his mouth would make your head spin.


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> So you favor the "Plead to Ignorance" Fallacy?
> 
> Sorry, but I just don't like the "Boy, the universe sure is complicated, must be magic" explanation of reality. Especially since supernatural explanations have never been shown to hold true for any discovery we've ever made in the entirety of human history.



No, I don't favor any phalluscy. I am not arguing for the existence of God. I am arguing that the belief that there is no God is as flawed as the belief that there is one. 

10,000 years ago, the explanation that lightning was magic from on high was as good (or as bad, rather) as any other. Atheism isn't a modern construct. There were certainly people even then who denied lightning was the work of gods and challenged the gods to strike them dead if they were wrong.

Well, they weren't wrong. But life, the universe, and everything is not a bolt of lightning. Until we have a rational explanation of how the universe came to be - or even the slightest inkling of an idea - "a wizard did it" is as good an explanation as any other. Right now every theory of creation is equally absurd.


----------



## MunchKing (Dec 23, 2010)

This is still going on?



Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Even Occam's razor doesn't apply, because the universe is so complex and finely tuned for the existence of conditions that support life, it is debatably simpler to believe that a single, simple, all-powerful entity was created (or has always existed in some metaphysical way beyond our comprehension) who then engineered the universe.





Clearly you don't realise what kind of hostile unverse we live in. Believing that the universe is finetuned for the existence of life is just deluding yourself. 

There is evidence for the contrary in abundance, if you choose to look.



Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Well, they weren't wrong. But life, the universe, and everything is not a bolt of lightning. Until we have a rational explanation of how the universe came to be - or even the slightest inkling of an idea - "a wizard did it" is as good an explanation as any other. Right now every theory of creation is equally absurd.



Because you can't comprehend the existing theories? I'd say the current theory of the genesis of the universe is rational.


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

MunchKing said:


> This is still going on?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ooooh, this is a discussion I'd actually like to have. Are we talking quantum mechanics or astronomy-wise?


----------



## KFC (Dec 23, 2010)

Bender said:


> Sir, you have NO idea just how stupid he is
> 
> The shit that comes out of his mouth would make your head spin.



Nah, I do...I've followed this guy around a few threads, I just like to poke him. It's like poking a retarded lion and running away.


----------



## Kahvehane (Dec 23, 2010)

I'm not vehemently opposed to the notion that an omnipotent being might have set in motion the evolutionary processes that passively and subtly govern the progress and behavior of life in this universe, but it's the crowd of painfully ignorant "young earth creationists" that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## MunchKing (Dec 23, 2010)

Khristmas no Kiri said:


> Ooooh, this is a discussion I'd actually like to have. Are we talking quantum mechanics or astronomy-wise?



Astronomy wise. 

Though I'd like to take the discussion out of the Café. It's not the place for it.


----------



## Blue (Dec 23, 2010)

MunchKing said:


> Astronomy wise.
> 
> Though I'd like to take the discussion out of the Caf?. It's not the place for it.





Enjoy!


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 23, 2010)

MunchKing said:


> Astronomy wise.
> 
> Though I'd like to take the discussion out of the Café. It's not the place for it.



Eh, it's not like this hasn't gotten completely off topic anyway. 




Khristmas no Kiri said:


> No, I don't favor any phalluscy. I am not arguing for the existence of God. I am arguing that the belief that there is no God is as flawed as the belief that there is one.
> 
> 10,000 years ago, the explanation that lightning was magic from on high was as good (or as bad, rather) as any other. Atheism isn't a modern construct. There were certainly people even then who denied lightning was the work of gods and challenged the gods to strike them dead if they were wrong.
> 
> *Well, they weren't wrong. But life, the universe, and everything is not a bolt of lightning. Until we have a rational explanation of how the universe came to be - or even the slightest inkling of an idea - "a wizard did it" is as good an explanation as any other. Right now every theory of creation is equally absurd.*



First off, let me apologize if I came off a bit vehemently before. Just happens to a be a subject I'm passionate about. 

Now, in reference to the bolded. No, they really aren't equal. You may consider my trust in naturalistic explanations just as faith based as a belief in a supernatural based explanation. The difference here, is that naturalistic explanations have a track record of actually working, of actually being able to explain things. Of actually furthering our understanding of the universe. 

Supernatural explanations have _never_ been shown to be able to explain anything ever.  Not only have supernatural explanations never added anything to the sum of human knowledge, they have in fact often worked to detract from the sum of knowledge. The push by fundamentalists to try and get Evolution removed from schools is a perfect example.

So the way I see it. Until supernatural explanations can be shown to _even exist_ as an alternative to a naturalistic ones, than assuming "a wizard did it" is _NOT_ as valid as assuming a naturalistic cause.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 23, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wrong. There are atheistic religions, a religion that has no God or gods isn't theism,



_"Atheistic religions"_ which believe in recinarnation, souls, an afterlife and countless supernatural and extraordinary things that are the complete opposite of what atheism defines itself as...?

What's atheistic about someone dying then having their soul be reincarnated in another body, as so-called "atheistic religions" like buddhism claim?

That sounds like the complete opposite of atheism?  Yet, somehow, SOMEWAY, there are countless fools folks hopping on the atheist bandwagon, claiming buddhism is an "atheistic religion".  Madness!?  



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. Not the other way around. If you claim Unicorns exist, it doesn't fall on me to prove they don't. If falls on you to show evidence that they do.
> 
> Yes, there are Atheists that do make a solid affirmation that "God does not exist", and I would agree that that form of atheism has indeed moved into a category more akin to a religious belief, but that doesn't mean you then get to redefine atheism to mean what you want it to mean because of that small group of people.
> 
> ...



Is it acceptable for atheists to say "God doesn't exist".

Then, to pretend they were really saying: "I have no belief in the existence of God" when someone asks them to justify a burden of proof on their positive claim God does not exist?

Revisionist history much?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> _"Atheistic religions"_ which believe in recinarnation, souls, an afterlife and countless supernatural and extraordinary things that are the complete opposite of what atheism defines itself as...?
> 
> What's atheistic about someone dying then having their soul be reincarnated in another body, as so-called "atheistic religions" like buddhism claim?
> 
> That sounds like the complete opposite of atheism?  Yet, somehow, SOMEWAY, there are countless fools folks hopping on the atheist bandwagon, claiming buddhism is an "atheistic religion".  Madness!?



What atheism defines itself as? You mean the absence of belief in gods. I don't see how that would interfere with anything you just listed. So long as there's no god involved, it's fair game.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> _"Atheistic religions"_ which believe in recinarnation, souls, an afterlife and countless supernatural and extraordinary things that are the complete opposite of what atheism defines itself as...?
> 
> What's atheistic about someone dying then having their soul be reincarnated in another body, as so-called "atheistic religions" like buddhism claim?
> 
> That sounds like the complete opposite of atheism?  Yet, somehow, SOMEWAY, there are countless fools folks hopping on the atheist bandwagon, claiming buddhism is an "atheistic religion".  Madness!?



Are you clear on what atheism actually means? It's not equivalent to scepticism, it's broad meaning is merely the rejection of belief in deities. 

Perhaps due to this misunderstanding you've a distorted picture of atheism. Some of the earliest records of atheist thinking existed within religious systems in India: in Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. None of them can be regarded as sceptical systems of thinking beyond the step of either rejecting or casting serious doubt on the existence of a creator God. 

Also, I don't think Buddhism is as dogmatic as you think it is. Some Buddhists do not believe in life after death (none of them believe in souls IIRC), or anything supernatural as relating to reincarnation, karma, heaven/hell and so on, choosing to interpret those concepts figuratively. 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Is it acceptable for atheists to say "God doesn't exist".
> 
> Then, to pretend they were really saying: "I have no belief in the existence of God" when someone asks them to justify a burden of proof on their positive claim God does not exist?
> 
> Revisionist history much?



An individual can't hold both positions at the same time. But there is nothing unacceptable about an atheist saying "God doesn't exist", if they can argue their position properly. I think there are some very strong arguments indeed for that position.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Is it acceptable for atheists to say "God doesn't exist".
> 
> Then, to pretend they were really saying: "I have no belief in the existence of God" when someone asks them to justify a burden of proof on their positive claim God does not exist?
> 
> Revisionist history much?



Either you didn't bother reading what I wrote and just responded to what you thought all those word like squiggles meant. Or you did read it, and you have the reading comprehension of a second grader. 

I'll try this again.

Athiest just means Not Theist. That's all it means. It is a very general terms. In itself, It has no beliefs, dogma's, or traditions. Scientific beliefs are not Atheists beliefs. All that Atheists have in common is the lack of a positive proclamation that a God or Gods exist.

Anything else you add to it, or presume it means shows your own personal bias, and, as I already wrote (in the post you apparently didn't read), assuming all Athiests think, outright, "There is no God" is the same as thinking all Christians are young earth creationists.   



> Then, to pretend they were really saying: "I have no belief in the existence of God" when someone asks them to justify a burden of proof on their positive claim God does not exist?



Regardless, the strength of the phrasing doesn't matter. There's still no burden on the Atheist to provide negative proof for something that has never been positively indicated in the first place. 

I don't have to provide proof that Voldemort doesn't exist. Or that Goku doesn't exist, or Perseus, or the Skeksis, or Orcs, or Santa Claus. Because until there any proof to indicate that could even exist in the first place, there's nothing to disprove!

So whether an Atheist states "I don't believe I God" or the stronger "There is no God". The burden of proof still doesn't fall on them.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 24, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> What atheism defines itself as? You mean the absence of belief in gods. I don't see how that would interfere with anything you just listed. So long as there's no god involved, it's fair game.



Doesn't that illustrate prejudice and discrimination on the part of atheists?

Why should belief in souls, reincarnation, hell, and other things be acceptable.

And, belief in a God be unacceptable?

Arguably, Buddha _is_ a God figure.  

You would only need to look as far as buddhists around the world who are waiting for Buddha to be reincarnated much like christians who believe Jesus will be born again, to note the huge similarities, there.

If so, atheists may be dead wrong that buddhism entails an absence of belief in Gods.

It looks more like an attempt on the part of atheists everywhere to isolate christianity, islam and judaism by bending over backwards and pretending to embrace any religion that is not involved with those three.



erictheking said:


> Are you clear on what atheism actually means? It's not equivalent to scepticism, it's broad meaning is merely the rejection of belief in deities.
> 
> Perhaps due to this misunderstanding you've a distorted picture of atheism. Some of the earliest records of atheist thinking existed within religious systems in India: in Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. None of them can be regarded as sceptical systems of thinking beyond the step of either rejecting or casting serious doubt on the existence of a creator God.
> 
> Also, I don't think Buddhism is as dogmatic as you think it is. Some Buddhists do not believe in life after death (none of them believe in souls IIRC), or anything supernatural as relating to reincarnation, karma, heaven/hell and so on, choosing to interpret those concepts figuratively.



Why should there be a rejection of belief in deities and an acceptance of other suprenatural phenomena like souls, reincarnation and such?  Doesn't this represent bias as well as prejudice on the part of atheists for being "sceptical" of Gods and not other things?

I'm shaking my head at the concept of atheism "co-existing" with other religions in previous eras.  Where's the historical precedent for that, exactly?

Buddhists "don't believe" in supernatural things?

Then enlighten me, please.  What's the difference between christians who believe Jesus will be born again, and these buddhists who are lining up to see this person they claim is the "reincarnation of buddha"?


----------



## αce (Dec 24, 2010)

Don't hate me cause im atheist... 
Hate me cause I tell the truth which by default makes me atheist 
You've been spoon fed belief and you don't even see it 
You just absorbed the religion that's native to your region 
You can't believe it so you won't believe it 
Because the church has taught you that faith belongs in the place of reason


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Why should there be a rejection of belief in deities and an acceptance of other suprenatural phenomena like souls, reincarnation and such?  Doesn't this represent bias as well as prejudice on the part of atheists for being "sceptical" of Gods and not other things?
> 
> I'm shaking my head at the concept of atheism "co-existing" with other religions in previous eras.  Where's the historical precedent for that, exactly?
> 
> ...


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 24, 2010)

There is only one true Lord and Savior and tonight he is born from a star to devour the blood of the unbelievers:


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 24, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Look, if someone wants to reject a belief in deities yet retain a belief in ghosts, I'm not obliged whatsoever to defend their position. I agree with your evaluation that believing in souls, life after death, and other imaginary phenomena, while rejecting a belief in a creator God, is inconsistent. Inconsistencies appear to be religion's trademark.
> 
> Regarding Buddhism ? it's not as homogenous as you're picturing it. I know a Buddhist who is as materialist as a typical secular atheist, who will argue that Buddhism at its core champions scepticism and empiricism. At the same time there are Buddhists who worship deities, even more devoutly than lapsed Catholics. I agree that there is probably a bit of ignorance surrounding this, since some people assume all of Buddhism is sceptical through and through when it's not. Jainism is explicitly atheist, in that it outright rejects a creator God (yet maintains beliefs in all sorts of weird things). Buddhism is better described as 'nontheist', but it is called atheist because the modern definition of atheism includes nontheism in it.



Criticizing God on the basis of supernaturalism and accepting other supernatural things buddhists believe in is inconsistent?  Why should one supernatural thing(God) be labled a "non-atheistic religion" and another supernatural thing(buddhist beliefs) be considered an "atheistic religion"?  I'm not seeing consistency there.

Certainly, people are different.  That doesn't necessarily define a reasonable logical basis for defining buddhism as a "atheistic religion" though.  

To me, the term "atheistic religion" is an oxymoron.  Its like saying...  black white person.  Or, conservative anarchist.  The two terms are contradictory, aren't they?  



erictheking said:


> But why on earth should it matter that it's a belief? Everyone holds beliefs about things, there's nothing unreasonable about that. But clearly, there are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. For instance it is rational to believe that the universe is not a mere 10,000 years old, and it is irrational to believe that it is. Being very parsimonious, we do not actually _'know'_ anything for absolutely certain, not even scientific facts and theories (although in common language we would use the word 'know' for scientific facts).
> 
> The sceptical atheists who make a knowledge claim that God ? and this would be a specifically defined God, e.g. the Abrahamic God ? does not exist, have a burden of proof to meet. If they can demonstrate that it is reasonable to claim that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, then their belief that God does not exist is a justifiable one.
> 
> There are strong philosophical arguments for this position as well as scientific evidence; the problem of evil and suffering for both humans and non-human animals, the argument from divine hiddenness, evidence that the world is billions of years old, that life evolved over millions of years via selection, that there couldn't have been an Adam & Eve as a single pair of parents of all human beings, and so on.




If you think about it, rationality has little or nothing to do with belief.  That's the entire basis for criticizing those who engage in religious beliefs, isn't it?

Likewise, the age of the universe doesn't involve rationality.  It is comprised of a consensus.  The consensus says based on available information and current knowledge, the universe is older than 10,000 years.  

There is always a certain degree of probability that the consensus could be flawed.  Our data is typically limited, and there are always new discoveries which could re-define the way we perceive the universe and the world around us.

Rationality doesn't have much to do with the process.  Its moreso a question of whether or not we choose to listen to the opinion of others.  Or, whether we choose to listen to the opinion of young earth creationists who believe the universe is 10,000 years old.  

Likewise, with arguments concerning God.  They don't necessarily invoke rationality, but rather which consensus a person chooses to listen to.  

Remember, the whole reason some atheists claim to dislike religion is due to beliefs not being verifiable nor subject to rationality.  

An atheist who criticizes religious belief for its lack of rationality can easily contradict himself by engaging in religious belief.

If we define "God doesn't exist" as a _belief_ that's what happens?

One aspect of beliefs is they can't be verified nor can they be held applicable to the scientific method.  Whether its a religious belief, or an atheistic belief that says "there is no God" its all the same.

Beliefs are representative of a consensus.  Rationality doesn't necessarily play a part due to the limited amount of information and the heavy reliance upon arbitrarily subjective human interpretation.

In this, there's little or no reason to expect an atheist would be more accurate than a creationist or anyone else.  There are no points of reference nor verifiable methods of determining with certainty which belief is correct.

Its really nothing more than a question of who you choose to believe.


----------



## Labor4Obama (Dec 25, 2010)

Carneades's Ontological Argument for the Non-Existence of God

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEu3lHRcbYg[/YOUTUBE]

/theism


----------



## Truekakarot (Dec 25, 2010)

9% is not all that impressive.


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 25, 2010)

That's 28 million people you know.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 25, 2010)

Its too bad so many American's are being led astray by "science" and "reason"...

God is merciful though. At least when he's not being a dick.


----------



## Blue (Dec 25, 2010)

Labor4Obama said:


> /theism



Except that uses presuppositions from certain religions. It can, with some certainty, be proven that the Abrahamic God/Yahweh/Allah *as described in the Bible/Koran* does not exist.

However, if one supposes that God exists and that that God's existence is not bound by Abrahamic doctrine, then His existance cannot be so easily be disproven with logical reasoning.

Anotherwords, the Biblical God is bullshit, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. The Bible/Koran is the work of men, not the Divine.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Dec 25, 2010)

Ah now this is what I call great news.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Dec 25, 2010)

g_core18 said:


> I guess Americans are becoming less retarded.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Dec 25, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Maybe hope for America yet.



I wonder how much of that percentage was people that were just shrugging their shoulders and saying "I don't know".



nagatopwnsall said:


> Yes yes celebrate a drop of a meager 9%. Never mind that 80% of the people still believe in a god. Anything to spin it in the atheist favor. Dont get a hard on yet atheists....no wait DO get a hard on. That way you can keep showing what arrogant narcissists you are with a heavy hint of douchebag elitism.



You're off by a bit. Only 2% of Americans are atheist. That 80% is the percentage of people that are Christian. And somehow, the atheists are oppressing the Christians.



The Cheat said:


> Evolution is a proven theory but if people insist into not believing it, fine by me since I can't do anything about it. But when creationists insist on taking evolution out of a biology class, thats where I draw the line. Its possible to believe both since believing that a god created the universe is a form of creationism. But I guess when most people talk about it, they're thinking of the adam and eve story.
> 
> But theists should learn evolution since they don't understand it and make terrible arguements against. You cannot argue against something you don't understand.



Agreed, but I'd also include an objection to including Creationism (or its disguise, Intelligent Design) in any classroom materials. It's fine to include questions about evolution because we don't have a perfect understanding about how it works, but that's a far cry from saying that maybe something else is the case and that's the only evidence that Intelligent Design has - gaps in the evidence (and more frequently misunderstanding the evidence) of evolution.



nagatopwnsall said:


> Not saying i do or dont believe in evolution....but let me ask you this...how has this been proven at all? The way i understand it the theory came about by a bunch of bones. Besides that the theory changes each few years or so anyways in a certain way. For example a few years ago we all came from primordial ooze but just a year or two ago(if im not mistaken)they changed it and said it was wrong.
> 
> Thats fine and all but this just shows us that we as humans are flawed and our entire theory of science could possibly be flawed without even knowing it. We have no other species to even compare our sciences too. For all we know aliens are laughing at us and our stupidity of 'true' science.



You're mistaken. The *hypothesis* that you're talking about is abiogenesis and it hasn't been proven or falsified. However, there is insufficient evidence to support it and it may not be falsifiable so it may not ever become a theory even if it is true.

As others have already pointed out, science is constantly being checked against itself and as new data becomes available, theories are verified, changed or thrown out. The Law of Gravity was found to have a minor flaw in it several years ago. Despite that, I've seen very few suggesting that we should throw out the entire concept.



Hinako said:


> I know the Creationist that believe that we are the same as we were about 10,000 years ago are not the majority of American believers. Unlike others on this forum or elsewhere in RL, I don't need to worry that every other American doesn't think like me.



How do you know that?

There have been several polls throughout the years and each have come up with similar numbers.

I never met anybody that believed in Young Earth Creationism until I was in college (not at college, but at my job), but I didn't talk about it much with classmates or fellow members of my church. I suspect that my biology teacher believed in Creationism because she played us a tape of some guy that renounced evolution because the Bible was correct in some archaeological matters. (She also attended my church.) However, we weren't allowed to talk about it and maybe she was just trying to show us that Creationists are idiots, but with a sample size of one, it's tough to make that judgment. None of that means that I didn't know anybody that didn't believe in Creationism, just that I didn't know their beliefs. I talked to my dad later and he was pretty sure that over half of the fellow congregants didn't believe in evolution, but I don't know how much he talked with them either.



Khristmas no Kiri said:


> I'm not sure what the problem with that is.
> 
> They're basically saying, "okay, yeah, everything happened like you said it did, but God was there making it happen."
> 
> Why would you want to come back and say "no, fuck you, God doesn't exist?"



That's more or less my view. I don't think that God had an active role in our development, but this is how He wanted things to turn out. I just think that God is a clever enough guy that He could rig the system.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wrong. There are atheistic religions, a religion that has no God or gods isn't theism,



Plural? I only know of Buddhism.


----------



## αce (Dec 25, 2010)

Should I be shocked that those with a high school degree or less are more likely to believe that god created human in their present forms under 10 thousand years ago?


----------



## αce (Dec 25, 2010)




----------



## kazuri (Dec 25, 2010)

"atheistic religions" does not mean atheism, or being an atheist, is a religion, or that you are in a religion.

There is no point in arguing with him. He always tries to demonize being an atheist and tries to lump all atheists together as some group that has an agenda. When in reality -people- have agendas that just happen to be atheist. As opposed to religions that literally have written agendas that you are supposed to agree to to join. 

Even if some atheists banded together and created an organization with an agenda, that does not mean it is an atheistic agenda, it is the agenda of the people who happen to be atheists. The huge difference here would be that the agenda would be entirely created by humans, as opposed to an agenda of some god inspiring humans to write the agenda.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 25, 2010)

kazuri said:


> "atheistic religions" does not mean atheism, or being an atheist, is a religion, or that you are in a religion.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with him. He always tries to demonize being an atheist and tries to lump all atheists together as some group that has an agenda. When in reality -people- have agendas that just happen to be atheist. As opposed to religions that literally have written agendas that you are supposed to agree to to join.
> 
> Even if some atheists banded together and created an organization with an agenda, that does not mean it is an atheistic agenda, it is the agenda of the people who happen to be atheists. The huge difference here would be that the agenda would be entirely created by humans, as opposed to an agenda of some god inspiring humans to write the agenda.




Are you referring to me?


----------



## Thor (Dec 25, 2010)

This is "good" news I guess. Why does it matter though? There is no hope for humanity if people get butthurt from other peoples personal beliefs no matter how stupid and illogical it may be. This goes for both sides of the coin.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 25, 2010)

Thor Odinson said:


> This is "good" news I guess. Why does it matter though? There is no hope for humanity if people get butthurt from other peoples personal beliefs no matter how stupid and illogical it may be. This goes for both sides of the coin.



It's a profound implication of things to come. Nothing matters more at this moment than the fact that people are breaking the ancient shackles of superstition and the culture that discourages knowledge that's held the U.S. back from its full potential for so long.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 25, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> It's a profound implication of things to come. Nothing matters more at this moment than the fact that people are breaking the ancient shackles of superstition and the culture that discourages knowledge that's held the U.S. back from its full potential for so long.




Unfortunately, from a historical perspective, atheism is usually associated with fail.

Stalin tried to wipe out religion.  Did it result in a utopian state?  Nope.  Far from it.

Not to put you on the spot, Pilaf, but has there been a single dictator or president, in history, who was an atheist that did anything to "break the ancient shackles of superstition"?  

How to explain how practically every atheist who ever managed to assume a position of power or authority being such monsters?  

This is something I would very much like to hear an atheist explain, and considering how much time and effort you spend on campaigning your atheist beliefs, I'm sure you have a good answer.


----------



## kazuri (Dec 25, 2010)

A: You cant prove every single president america has ever had wasnt an atheist and just lied because they knew they would not be elected otherwise.
B: MANY -HUMANS- are monsters, MANY -HUMANS- whether they be atheist, or preachers have been monsters. The fact that you can name some evil humans that happen to be atheist, has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, because they did not learn from some atheist rule book 'be evil'.
C: A person cannot do something in the name of atheism, because atheism isnt an organization, and no person can claim to be the 'leader of atheists' to set an agenda that allows people to do things 'in the name of atheism', however, religions that have gods,  by definition gods are leaders, and therefor -can- set agendas that create scenarios where people are doing things in the name of religion.
D: Correlation does not mean causation.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 25, 2010)

kazuri said:


> A: You cant prove every single president america has ever had wasnt an atheist and just lied because they knew they would not be elected otherwise.
> B: MANY -HUMANS- are monsters, MANY -HUMANS- whether they be atheist, or preachers have been monsters. The fact that you can name some evil humans that happen to be atheist, has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, because they did not learn from some atheist rule book 'be evil'.
> C: A person cannot do something in the name of atheism, because atheism isnt an organization, and no person can claim to be the 'leader of atheists' to set an agenda that allows people to do things 'in the name of atheism', however, religions that have gods,  by definition gods are leaders, and therefor -can- set agendas that create scenarios where people are doing things in the name of religion.




???

A.  Lots of american Presidents criticized religion.  It doesn't necessarily imply they were atheists.  I criticize religion all the time, and I'm no atheist.  I can safely say that lots of religious people probably hate me.  I've been banned from religious communities online, before.    Anyway, topic is a pointless quagmire of fail as it cannot be resolved.

B.  I'm not just naming atheists who may have been "evil".  I'm asking you to name only *one* atheist who was good.  One atheist who was a dictator, leader or president who might be looked upon as a positive role model or an example that atheists can be trusted with power and authority and aren't simply immoral and unethical as some claim.  Is asking that you name a single person who was an atheist who could be trusted with power and authority asking for too much?

C.  Religion is judged by the words and deeds of religious people, just as atheism is judged by the words and deeds of atheists.  It doesn't matter whether you're part of a large organization, or not.  Nor does it matter whether or not you have your professed beliefs written down.  

The whole point of atheism is atheists claim they don't need a book to be moral, nor do they need a God to be good people.

You can't spontaneously turn that around and claim that lacking a holy book or some other type of organized apparatus or structure prevents atheists from being considered examples of atheism.

It defies everything atheists claim to stand for.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 25, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Unfortunately, from a historical perspective, atheism is usually associated with fail.



Make up your mind..is it "new atheism" or is it the atheism that's supposedly existed before? 



> Stalin tried to wipe out religion.  Did it result in a utopian state?  Nope.  Far from it.



Stalin set himself up as a deity figure in his own version of religion, which is the farthest thing from the mindset or goals of the modern atheist who bases his world view on humanism and skepticism.



> Not to put you on the spot, Pilaf, but has there been a single dictator or president, in history, who was an atheist that did anything to "break the ancient shackles of superstition"?



I don't believe there's ever been a historically significant atheist yet whose atheism is based on the same things that mine and other modern atheists' are.



> How to explain how practically every atheist who ever managed to assume a position of power or authority being such monsters?



They were atheists only in the most broad and literal sense. They didn't believe in a higher power but they also didn't believe in skepticism or the type of society which advocates freedom of thought that actually encourages atheism. They have almost nothing in common with modern atheists who cherish these values.  



> This is something I would very much like to hear an atheist explain, and considering how much time and effort you spend on campaigning your atheist beliefs, I'm sure you have a good answer.



I just gave you my good answer. And if you'd listen you'd notice your bullshit strawman argument has been refuted a thousand times around here before.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 25, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> It's a profound implication of things to come. Nothing matters more at this moment than the fact that people are breaking the ancient shackles of superstition and the culture that discourages knowledge that's held the U.S. back from its full potential for so long.


Yeah sure, its not profound at all because young earth creationism is not ancient.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 25, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Make up your mind..is it "new atheism" or is it the atheism that's supposedly existed before?



I don't think there's a difference, really.

If anything, I would probably say atheists in previous eras were much smarter and better educated than the ones who are around today.



Pilaf said:


> Stalin set himself up as a deity figure in his own version of religion, which is the farthest thing from the mindset or goals of the modern atheist who bases his world view on humanism and skepticism.



Where's the humanism and skepticism in blindly believing that atheism will bring about a bright new world, without evidence?

Can you cite historical or other evidence that hints at such a thing being possible or even likely?

If you can't cite evidence, could it be said you're believing in something in _blind faith_?  If such is the case, where's the science or skepticism in that?



Pilaf said:


> I don't believe there's ever been a historically significant atheist yet whose atheism is based on the same things that mine and other modern atheists' are.



Why ignore Nero, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc, etc?

Weren't all of them atheists?

If atheists don't need a holy book, organized religion or a God to be as moral or good as religious people....  Then, why do they claim they can't be held to the same standard as religious people in terms of ethics or morality because they lack an organized religion, holy book, God, etcetera?

If religious people are judged by their actions and history, why can't atheists?

If you feel atheists should be given a handicap because they're not organized or don't have a holy book, then doesn't that defeat your claim that you can be as moral or ethical as religious people?



Pilaf said:


> They were atheists only in the most broad and literal sense. They didn't believe in a higher power but they also didn't believe in skepticism or the type of society which advocates freedom of thought that actually encourages atheism. They have almost nothing in common with modern atheists who cherish these values.



Like I said, where's the skepticism in believing things you can't prove or even cite an example of?



Pilaf said:


> I just gave you my good answer. And if you'd listen you'd notice your bullshit strawman argument has been refuted a thousand times around here before.



Oh, yeah?

Well, I'll leave this thread in a few and let you go back to your campaigning.

That's pretty much all I wanted to say.

Thanks for taking the time to listen~


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 25, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I don't think there's a difference, really.
> 
> If anything, I would probably say atheists in previous eras were much smarter and better educated than the ones who are around today.



The percentage of atheists in society back then was much smaller, and most of the ones that existed were among the most educated and well read members of society. That in and of itself should tell you something right there.

Naturally as atheism/religious nonbelief grows through the general population the average atheist is probably less well read and educated than the average atheist 200 years ago, but the best and brightest among us know things that those atheists didn't even dream of because they tend to be scientists and such who study things that have only been recently discovered - things those older atheists would have no knowledge of. So in a way some of them are smarter. 

It's really not a valid argument against atheism one way or the other. The only valid argument against atheism would be a shred of evidence for a god or gods.





> Where's the humanism and skepticism in blindly believing that atheism will bring about a bright new world, without evidence?
> 
> Can you cite historical or other evidence that hints at such a thing being possible or even likely?
> 
> If you can't cite evidence, could it be said you're believing in something in _blind faith_?  If such is the case, where's the science or skepticism in that?



It depends on how you define a "bright new world." 

I could easily find you evidence that  compared to mainstream christians and most other believers. 

Since people who go to prison are generally agreed upon to be people who fail at upholding the morals and regulations considered good in society, since there are far fewer atheists in prison it would appear that atheists are generally better at upholding society's standards of decency.

More evidence would be the statistics that show the  compared to  seems to show a correlation between the most religious states also often being the more crime ridden. If religion is a balm of morality which prevents crime and amoral behavior these statistics don't support it.





> Why ignore Nero, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc, etc?
> 
> Weren't all of them atheists?



Yes, but that's entirely besides the point. Their atheism was based on an entirely different world view from that of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens or any number of modern atheists. To compare these groups of men is obscene and offensive to the latter and is really a stupid and inaccurate comparison. I explained perfectly why this is not an accurate comparison already. The former group all happened to not believe in a god, but they all wanted to impose their beliefs on an ignorant public. They banned and censored knowledge and imposed dogmatic beliefs. They had much more in common with religion than modern skepticism.



> If atheists don't need a holy book, organized religion or a God to be as moral or good as religious people....  Then, why do they claim they can't be held to the same standard as religious people in terms of ethics or morality because they lack an organized religion, holy book, God, etcetera?



Who claimed that? We are all held to the same standards in society, the standard of the laws of the communities we live in. These are sometimes loosely based on religious principles but often are not.



> If religious people are judged by their actions and history, why can't atheists?



They can be. But when an individual atheist who happened to be a terrible person committed a crime it was never in the name of atheism. It was always some other ideology. People who are religious who have done terrible things did it in the name of their religion. Atheism cannot be blamed for what Mao or Stalin did. You could blame communism or a heavily perverted version of it but atheism itself is a simple lack of belief in gods. Hitler probably didn't believe in unicorns but you can't blame an a-unicornist for what Hitler did.



> If you feel atheists should be given a handicap because they're not organized or don't have a holy book, then doesn't that defeat your claim that you can be as moral or ethical as religious people?



I actually don't feel that way at all, as I just explained. We all operate under the same moral systems of government. We have a system of law, and criminal justice, and atheists in the modern world seem to be doing pretty well under those laws comparatively.





> Like I said, where's the skepticism in believing things you can't prove or even cite an example of?



Already covered that.





> Oh, yeah?
> 
> Well, I'll leave this thread in a few and let you go back to your campaigning.
> 
> That's pretty much all I wanted to say.



It was fun bitch slapping all your arguments away like weak little girls.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 25, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> Plural? I only know of Buddhism.



A believe Toasim also counts. And, belive it or not, there's also something called *Christian atheism* wherein the moral teachings of Jesus are followed, but they don't consider him a messiah or the son of God (since they don't believe in a God. 

There's also *Humanistic Judaism* that's a movement that emphasizes Jewish culture and Jewish history — rather than belief in God — as the sources of Jewish identity. They have similar rituals to traditional Judaism, but don't pray or believe in a Deity. 

Then there's *Religious humanism*, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.



> There is no point in arguing with him. He always tries to demonize being an atheist and tries to lump all atheists together as some group that has an agenda. When in reality -people- have agendas that just happen to be atheist. As opposed to religions that literally have written agendas that you are supposed to agree to to join.



What Itachi is trying to do would be the same if I tried to convince people that "Theists" should refer to Catholics only. See. Itachi wants all atheists to be crammed into a very specific definition so he can justify his own intolerance of a broad, varied group of people. 



> Why should belief in souls, reincarnation, hell, and other things be acceptable.
> 
> And, belief in a God be unacceptable?



Because that's all Atheist means. _Not Theist_. That's what happens when you attach the "A" to the beginning of "Theist". It specifically means "Not Thesit". This is not an opinion, that's how language works. That's specifically what combining words and prefixes in that manner means.

Theist: A positive proclamation in the belief in a God or Gods. 

Therefore;

Atheist: The lack of a positive proclamation in the belief in a God or Gods.

It's a general term, it doesn't define specific beliefs. It doesn't cover anything more specific than what you would be able to determine from someones beliefs if they refereed to themselves only as a Theist. 



> If you have no belief in God -- you're agnostic.


No, that makes you an Atheist



> If you have no belief in God, you're agnostic, not atheist.


Nope, still Atheist. 



> Also, its completely redundant. Agnostics have historically been the "no belief in God" bracket.
> 
> Agnostics are those who have no belief and maintain a position of neutrality.



Agnosticism is not a neutral position. In fact, Agnosticism isn't even a belief system. It only refers to a degree of knowledge. 

Gnostic = Know
Agnostic = Don't know/Can't know

Most people claiming to be "Agnostic" are actually agnostic atheists. Someone who claims "I don't know either way" (in a reference to a God) still qualifies as agnostic atheist since "I don't know" is not a positive proclamation in the belief of a god. People claiming to be "Agnostic" are generally doing it as a way to separate themselves from the more adamant atheists (The "There is no God" crowd). Though it still doesn't change the fact that they still qualify as atheists.

As a very general guide, it works sort of like this.

*Gnostic Theist:* Know there is a God, and has a very specific interpretation of that God (Christian God, Muslim God, Hindu Gods... etc.)


*Agnostic Theist:* Someone who believes that there is something more to the universe. Some sort of supernatural functioning or a being that could be described as "God". Though they don't think the worlds religions are correct in their specific, defined interpretations of such a being. Or that even such a being (or however you try to define it) could even be defined by humans.

*Agnostic Atheist:* Someone who has not made a positive proclamation in the belief in a God. This includes an "I don't know either way" stance on the subject. This also includes people that remain skeptical of theistic claims due to lack of evidence, or simply don't believe in Gods (This is where I and, in my experience, most atheists fall into).

*Gnostic Atheist:*  A hard-line stance that "There is no God." This is also where "Anti-Theists" fall into. 



			
				Khristmas no Kiri said:
			
		

> However, if one supposes that God exists and that that God's existence is not bound by Abrahamic doctrine, then His existance cannot be so easily be disproven with logical reasoning.



This is a position I personally have no problem with, even if it's one I don't personally believe. In fact, I actually don't have a problem with most theistic beliefs. The only time I have a problem with theists is when they reject verifiable factual information in favor of their beliefs. And even then, it only bothers me when they're actively trying to suppress knowledge because it doesn't agree with their dogma. If some grandmother in Iowa wants to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Fine, whatever. Doesn't affect me. If some mechanic in Florida thinks that humans where plopped onto the planet as is by magic and it doesn't effect his ability to change a muffler or adjust a timing belt, then cool.

But when people are actively trying to suppress verified factual scientific knowledge by attempting to remove it from our schools, or undermine those teachings by trying to sneak in their own untested, unverified, unsupported religious beliefs into the classroom under the guise of "Intelligent Design" or "teaching the controversy"... 

Then yes, we do need to challenge these people and expose them for what they are. I will demand that they back up their position. I will demand that they show me evidence of their beliefs. Demand that they face up and admit when they lie and use blatant fallacies to "disprove" evolution. We can't just stand by as they actively try and drag humanity back into the dark ages. 

And if that makes me intolerant and arrogant. Well, then so be it.



			
				1mmortal 1tachi said:
			
		

> Where's the humanism and skepticism in blindly believing that atheism will bring about a bright new world, without evidence?
> 
> Can you cite historical or other evidence that hints at such a thing being possible or even likely?
> 
> If you can't cite evidence, could it be said you're believing in something in blind faith? If such is the case, where's the science or skepticism in that?



Sociologist  analyzed previous research on atheists and morality, and concluded that the more atheists and agnostics there are in a society, the more moral it is. Such findings included the following

    * In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious U.S. states, the murder rate is higher than average.

    * Only 0.2% of U.S. prisoners are atheists.

    * Atheists are more tolerant towards women's and homosexuals' rights.

    * Atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of education, and low levels of racial prejudice.

    * Atheists physically abuse their children less often than others, and more often encourage them to think independently.

    * In Sweden, the most secular country in the world according to Zuckerman, the charitable aid given is the highest as a proportion of GDP.


----------



## nee4speed111 (Dec 25, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> ???
> 
> 
> B.  I'm not just naming atheists who may have been "evil".  I'm asking you to name only *one* atheist who was good.  One atheist who was a dictator, leader or president who might be looked upon as a positive role model or an example that atheists can be trusted with power and authority and aren't simply immoral and unethical as some claim.  Is asking that you name a single person who was an atheist who could be trusted with power and authority asking for too much?
> ...



The current Australian Prime Minister is an Atheist, and while she's not the best she certainly is not a Dictator.


----------



## Tiocfaidh ?r l? (Dec 26, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> B.  I'm not just naming atheists who may have been "evil".  I'm asking you to name only *one* atheist who was good.  One atheist who was a dictator, leader or president who might be looked upon as a positive role model or an example that atheists can be trusted with power and authority and aren't simply immoral and unethical as some claim.  Is asking that you name a single person who was an atheist who could be trusted with power and authority asking for too much?





(See politics and law subsection)

Many leaders have been agnostic *atheist, *despite the fact that they refer to themselves as agnostic.  They either don't know enough about religion to understand the distinction between agnosticim/gnosticism and theism/atheism or they were merely posturing themselves for the public.

Also, see stab's post above .


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 26, 2010)

> *Gnostic Atheist:*  A hard-line stance that "There is no God."* This is also where "Anti-Theists" fall into.*


Wrong.

I am an antitheist and and an agnostic atheist.  I believe theism is a harmful thing and am thus against it.  I however cannot disprove or prove god because that is just not possible.

I can however disprove the claims of religions themselves and show why the belief in god is something that is not *likely* to be true even if cannot be fully disproved.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 26, 2010)

That 9% was the best christmas gift!
Praise Jesus!


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 26, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Wrong.
> 
> I am an antitheist and and an agnostic atheist.  I believe theism is a harmful thing and am thus against it.  I however cannot disprove or prove god because that is just not possible.



Oops. I actually didn't realize I did that. 

I originally wrote something more like; "Tends to fall into", but must have erased it by accident (or just thought I wrote it when I didn't). 

But yes, You're right. Someone doesn't have to be a "hard" atheist (huh-huh) to also be an anti-theist. I probably shouldn't add definitive qualifiers when arguing for generalized definitions.


----------



## xboxlivegrl (Dec 26, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Maybe hope for America yet.



Because Creationism is made up and the more science advances the more it proves evolution.  With that said though I would never tell anyone not to believe in what made them feel comfortable with the reason behind the existance of man and our purpose in this world


----------



## Taco (Dec 26, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> I could easily find you evidence that  compared to mainstream christians and most other believers.
> 
> Since people who go to prison are generally agreed upon to be people who fail at upholding the morals and regulations considered good in society, since there are far fewer atheists in prison it would appear that atheists are generally better at upholding society's standards of decency.
> 
> More evidence would be the statistics that show the  compared to  seems to show a correlation between the most religious states also often being the more crime ridden. If religion is a balm of morality which prevents crime and amoral behavior these statistics don't support it.



Religion stats fail for a reason. Just because people classify themselves under a certain religion does not mean at ALL that's what they actually believe in. I'm sure you know how big indoctrination still is in the world, where people are born and raised as something and continue to stay under that label for the rest of their lives, no matter what they really believe in. Do you really think there are only 156 people who follow no religion in jail?

Those statistics mean shit if you take into account what "religious" really means. 40% of the prison community is made of TRUE Bible-abiding Catholics? As a non-Catholic, I can say that's laughable, and I sincerely hope you don't think it's a reliable statistic. Their Catholicism doesn't promote violence. Their Catholicism looks down upon it. It's not the religion's fault they land in jail.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 26, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> The percentage of atheists in society back then was much smaller, and most of the ones that existed were among the most educated and well read members of society. That in and of itself should tell you something right there.
> 
> Naturally as atheism/religious nonbelief grows through the general population the average atheist is probably less well read and educated than the average atheist 200 years ago, but the best and brightest among us know things that those atheists didn't even dream of because they tend to be scientists and such who study things that have only been recently discovered - things those older atheists would have no knowledge of. So in a way some of them are smarter.
> 
> It's really not a valid argument against atheism one way or the other. The only valid argument against atheism would be a shred of evidence for a god or gods.



Hmm.  I think you're missing a lot of things I don't feel like typing out.  



Pilaf said:


> It depends on how you define a "bright new world."
> 
> I could easily find you evidence that  compared to mainstream christians and most other believers.



I see a number of things wrong with your prison argument.

But, you're going wayy off topic as that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.  

The question was: *do you have evidence for your beliefs* a rise in atheism will be accompanied by an increase in culture, society, etc?  Yes/no?

If you don't have evidence, what makes you any better than creationists who lack evidence for their belief the world is 10,000 years old?



Pilaf said:


> Yes, but that's entirely besides the point. Their atheism was based on an entirely different world view from that of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens or any number of modern atheists. To compare these groups of men is obscene and offensive to the latter and is really a stupid and inaccurate comparison. I explained perfectly why this is not an accurate comparison already. The former group all happened to not believe in a god, but they all wanted to impose their beliefs on an ignorant public. They banned and censored knowledge and imposed dogmatic beliefs. They had much more in common with religion than modern skepticism.



"Modern skepticism"?  

If atheists in previous eras were generally better educated and more intelligent than those in the current era, why should modern atheists be insulted to be compared to them?

Also, what huge and important differences do you think exist between atheists of the current era, and those from previous eras?



Pilaf said:


> Who claimed that? We are all held to the same standards in society, the standard of the laws of the communities we live in. These are sometimes loosely based on religious principles but often are not.



?  

A "religious person" who has never read their holy book nor attended church in the past 10 years, burns down an abortion clinic.  Everyone says:  "oh, stupid religion, ruining everything".

An atheist walks into a church and starts gunning religious people down because they believe religion is the cause of all evil in the world.  Atheists say: "oh, you can't blame atheism for this, because atheism isn't organized it doesn't have a holy book, or any teachings that are written down".

Then, to add an exponential amount of lulz to the topic, the same atheists who claim atheism shouldn't be held to the same standards as religious people claim that atheists can be just as moral and ethical without a holy book, established teachings, etc as religious folks.

Its considered acceptable to blame religion for things like Bush being so dumb.  Bush being a President is an acceptable rolemodel for religious folks.  BUT, Stalin and other atheists are considered unacceptable as examples of atheism.  

Why the double standard?

Contradiction or no contradiction?



Pilaf said:


> They can be. But when an individual atheist who happened to be a terrible person committed a crime it was never in the name of atheism. It was always some other ideology. People who are religious who have done terrible things did it in the name of their religion. Atheism cannot be blamed for what Mao or Stalin did. You could blame communism or a heavily perverted version of it but atheism itself is a simple lack of belief in gods. Hitler probably didn't believe in unicorns but you can't blame an a-unicornist for what Hitler did.



Why should it matter if a crime was committed in the name of something?

If a rapist is religious or non religious does it make some difference?

Courts hand out lesser sentences for mental instability.  And, people saying voices or God told me to do something infinitely stupid is a sign of such.

Does it really require a huge leap in imagination to think that people might not be fabricating contrived stories in an attempt to make an insanity plea in order to spend less time in prison?



Pilaf said:


> I actually don't feel that way at all, as I just explained. We all operate under the same moral systems of government. We have a system of law, and criminal justice, and atheists in the modern world seem to be doing pretty well under those laws comparatively.



Majorities typically get away with more which results in them engaging in worse behavior.

Minorities typically can't get away with as much, and so are required to have higher standards in order to survive.

It has nothing to do with atheists being inherent superior, and everything to do with majority vs minority necessities.



Pilaf said:


> It was fun bitch slapping all your arguments away like weak little girls.



Only an immoral and unethical atheist would think slapping weak little girls is "fun"?

Oh, burn.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Dec 26, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Where's the humanism and skepticism in blindly believing that atheism will bring about a bright new world, without evidence?
> 
> Can you cite historical or other evidence that hints at such a thing being possible or even likely?
> 
> If you can't cite evidence, could it be said you're believing in something in _blind faith_?  If such is the case, where's the science or skepticism in that?



How many Christian world leaders can you hold up as paragons of humanity that have cited their religious faith as their moral underpinning? Most of the ones that have been loud about their religious beliefs haven't exactly been good examples themselves.




1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Why ignore Nero, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc, etc?
> 
> Weren't all of them atheists?



No.

Nero was pagan by our standards although there are rumors that he converted to Judaism. (I don't consider them reliable.)

The rest of those examples are examples of atheists that are following a specific moral code during a specific era. I consider them to be as much of an indictment as to whether atheists can make good leaders as looking at the nobility's practices prior to the Reformation.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Like I said, where's the skepticism in believing things you can't prove or even cite an example of?



Ok, here's your example - Abraham Lincoln.

There is actually conflicting evidence surrounding him and I wouldn't call him a committed atheist _or_ Christian. However, he's been quoted as saying that he was not Christian and that that the Bible wasn't his book and then separately, that he thought that the Christian idea of salvation was unsound. However, his wife was a devoted Christian.

I think that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not atheist.

The only other American leader that may have been an atheist is Richard Nixon and he doesn't exactly help my argument. 



Forbidden Truth said:


> Religion stats fail for a reason. Just because people classify themselves under a certain religion does not mean at ALL that's what they actually believe in. I'm sure you know how big indoctrination still is in the world, where people are born and raised as something and continue to stay under that label for the rest of their lives, no matter what they really believe in. Do you really think there are only 156 people who follow no religion in jail?
> 
> Those statistics mean shit if you take into account what "religious" really means. 40% of the prison community is made of TRUE Bible-abiding Catholics? As a non-Catholic, I can say that's laughable, and I sincerely hope you don't think it's a reliable statistic. Their Catholicism doesn't promote violence. Their Catholicism looks down upon it. It's not the religion's fault they land in jail.



Just because somebody is a poor example when it comes to following a religion doesn't mean that they don't believe it. If you're going to separate it out into TRUE believers based on whether they believe the same parts that you do, you might as well just toss out the definition at all.


----------



## Taco (Dec 26, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> Just because somebody is a poor example when it comes to following a religion doesn't mean that they don't believe it. If you're going to separate it out into TRUE believers based on whether they believe the same parts that you do, you might as well just toss out the definition at all.



I'm pretty sure the 10 commandments would be a good base for ALL Catholics?

For example, nobody that is a true Catholic would kill, especially when the Bible condemns it.

When the religion doesn't promote violence (and actually does the opposite), it's stupid to put the blame on it.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 26, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> I'm pretty sure the 10 commandments would be a good base for ALL Catholics?
> 
> *For example, nobody that is a true Catholic would kill, especially when the Bible condemns it.*
> 
> When the religion doesn't promote violence (and actually does the opposite), it's stupid to put the blame on it.




There was also that whole  deal.


----------



## Limerence Bradley (Dec 26, 2010)

I have a quick question. The conversation here is getting really interesting.

Why is the Christian creation theory the only one being argued about here against Atheist evolution theories? 

Why doesn't anyone take into account that there's _more_ creation theories than just the one mentioned in the Torah / Old Testament? 

There's the Egyptian creation theory, there's the Native American, Norse, Hindi, Taoist and many Pagan ones. Why aren't _THEY_ ever mentioned in this argument?


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 26, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> How many Christian world leaders can you hold up as paragons of humanity that have cited their religious faith as their moral underpinning? Most of the ones that have been loud about their religious beliefs haven't exactly been good examples themselves.



Well, if I did that I'd be making a case for religion.  And, that's not a place I'm prepared to go at the moment.  

I just wanted to ask what evidence atheists had for their beliefs considering the way they would presume to worship science and skepticism, etc.  



Nick Soapdish said:


> No.
> 
> Nero was pagan by our standards although there are rumors that he converted to Judaism. (I don't consider them reliable.)
> 
> The rest of those examples are examples of atheists that are following a specific moral code during a specific era. I consider them to be as much of an indictment as to whether atheists can make good leaders as looking at the nobility's practices prior to the Reformation.



I think...  Nero is categorized as epicurean.



On the wiki page you can easily see the term 'materialist' which has a tendency to be associated with atheism?  So, yeah, I think many consider Nero to be an atheist.

If so, Nero feeding religious people to lions and such could have interesting connotations?



Nick Soapdish said:


> Ok, here's your example - Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> There is actually conflicting evidence surrounding him and I wouldn't call him a committed atheist _or_ Christian. However, he's been quoted as saying that he was not Christian and that that the Bible wasn't his book and then separately, that he thought that the Christian idea of salvation was unsound. However, his wife was a devoted Christian.
> 
> ...



That's a good example, unfortunately, he never came out and explicitly claimed atheist status.  

Maybe he would have when his political career ended.

Its interesting to me how atheists can presume to care so much about logic, science, history, evidence and skepticism when they can't even seem to cite a single atheist leader who lends a historical precedent that suggests their beliefs might be possible...


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 26, 2010)

Limerence Bradley said:


> I have a quick question. The conversation here is getting really interesting.
> 
> Why is the Christian creation theory the only one being argued about here against Atheist evolution theories?
> 
> ...



Because young earth creationists are the only ones trying to get their fable inserted into the school curriculum as a competing theory to Evolution.


----------



## Taco (Dec 26, 2010)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> There was also that whole  deal.



I think you missed the point of my post.

Their religion did not give them the okay to start a series of crusades. Yes, they acted under the name of it. No, they did not act as true followers of their religion.


----------



## Bender (Dec 26, 2010)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> There was also that whole  deal.



@ Forbidden Truth

Yeah what!? what!?

See that

Proof of the perpetual fail of religion

And if that isn't proof enough

Do look at shit happening in the middle east

Why do they do what they do?

Because the terrorist ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) are motivated by the same fail religous loons do


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 26, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Criticizing God on the basis of supernaturalism and accepting other supernatural things buddhists believe in is inconsistent?  Why should one supernatural thing(God) be labled a "non-atheistic religion" and another supernatural thing(buddhist beliefs) be considered an "atheistic religion"?  I'm not seeing consistency there.
> 
> Certainly, people are different.  That doesn't necessarily define a reasonable logical basis for defining buddhism as a "atheistic religion" though.
> 
> To me, the term "atheistic religion" is an oxymoron.  Its like saying...  black white person.  Or, conservative anarchist.  The two terms are contradictory, aren't they?



What the bloody hell are you talking about pal..  

Please look inside a dictionary and find out what atheist means. You will not find any definition of the word precluding compatibility with religion, or ghosts, or witches, or whatever. 

It doesn't mean naturalist! 

From — 

–noun

*a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. *


If you are having a hard time accepting that atheistic religions exist, just look up Jainism. I have already mentioned it at least once.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Jain scriptures reject God as the creator of universe. 12th century Ācārya Hemacandra puts forth the Jain view of universe in Yogaśāstra as thus –

“ 	This universe is not created nor sustained by anyone;

It is self sustaining, without any base or support       “ 


Besides scriptural authority, Jains also resorted to syllogism and deductive reasoning to refute the creationist theories. Various views on divinity and universe held by the vedics, sāmkhyas, mimimsas, Buddhists and other school of thoughts were analysed, debated and repudiated by the various Jain Ācāryas. However the most eloquent refutation of this view is provided by Ācārya Jinasena in Mahāpurāna as thus –

“ 	Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.

If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?

How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.

If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?

If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all morality, would have no desire to create anything.

If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?

If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.

If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else

If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?

If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,

And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?

Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.




They believe that people can become 'perfected' and liberated from the cycle of birth and death, and they revere the people they believe to have already done so. 

But doctrinally speaking: there is no-one looking after us, no-one to judge us, no-one to obey, no-one ruling over us, no-one can answer any prayers — and they revere 'perfected' beings with the stated aim of becoming perfected and liberated themselves.




1mmortal 1tachi said:


> If you think about it, rationality has little or nothing to do with belief.  That's the entire basis for criticizing those who engage in religious beliefs, isn't it?
> 
> Likewise, the age of the universe doesn't involve rationality.  It is comprised of a consensus.  The consensus says based on available information and current knowledge, the universe is older than 10,000 years.
> 
> ...



... are you actually listening to yourself here? 

I don't understand why you wrote all of this, because it's a load of incoherent bilge. I've got to call it like I see it. 

In the absence of absolute certainty, you form a belief. If you want to hold accurate beliefs, rationality is absolutely paramount. 

I feel like you're avoiding the obvious answer, yammering on about 'consensus' and 'arbitrarily subjective human interpretation'. "It's not about rationality, it's about who you choose to believe..." 

*It is precisely in the process of choosing* whether to believe something that has its entire basis in a book written by comparative know-nothings thousands of years ago, or whether to believe scientific — demonstrable and verifiable — evidence, where a bit of rationality is needed. 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> B.  I'm not just naming atheists who may have been "evil".  I'm asking you to name only *one* atheist who was good.  One atheist who was a dictator, leader or president who might be looked upon as a positive role model or an example that atheists can be trusted with power and authority and aren't simply immoral and unethical as some claim.  Is asking that you name a single person who was an atheist who could be trusted with power and authority asking for too much?



It's a bit of a task finding any politicians in power who behave impeccably to be fair, or as 'good role models'. Perhaps you are living in a religious society where you have not had much real-life experience with atheists before; that must be the explanation for this bizarre request. 

I can say with certainty that throughout history there have been plenty of atheist heads of state, heads of government, and senior ministers, who have not gone insanely despotic on us once they have won the general election. Less have been openly atheist, for various reasons. Clement Attlee's one. Regarded to be the greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th century, in an academic poll of political scientists and historians. 

Check back in 2015 to see who the PM of the UK turns out to be, early bets would be on Labour taking power again. Their leader is an 'open' atheist, and there are 'open' atheists in his shadow cabinet, as well as throughout all of the political parties. But I would guess most people wouldn't notice because it's not really a novelty, I'd say you're more likely to notice a religious politician than an atheist. 

The incumbent president of Cyprus is an atheist. I'll do you one better, he's a Communist and their Communist Party have been running the country for 2 years now. Nothing much to report in the name of wanton barbarism and murder.

contd.


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Dec 26, 2010)

Limerence Bradley said:


> I have a quick question. The conversation here is getting really interesting.
> 
> Why is the Christian creation theory the only one being argued about here against Atheist evolution theories?
> 
> ...


Because "Christian creation theory" is a pseudo-science based on the fabrication and hasn't survived the scrutiny of actual scientific process. \


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 26, 2010)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> A believe Toasim also counts. And, belive it or not, there's also something called *Christian atheism* wherein the moral teachings of Jesus are followed, but they don't consider him a messiah or the son of God (since they don't believe in a God.
> 
> There's also *Humanistic Judaism* that's a movement that emphasizes Jewish culture and Jewish history — rather than belief in God — as the sources of Jewish identity. They have similar rituals to traditional Judaism, but don't pray or believe in a Deity.
> 
> Then there's *Religious humanism*, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.



Some of those terms make sense.  I never said they didn't.

My point which you so enthusiastically matrix dodged and avoided was that labeling something with as much supernatural content as buddhism does an "atheistic religion" is dumb.

Why don't you talk about that instead of venturing off topic?  



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> What Itachi is trying to do would be the same if I tried to convince people that "Theists" should refer to Catholics only. See. Itachi wants all atheists to be crammed into a very specific definition so he can justify his own intolerance of a broad, varied group of people.



Religious people even within a seemingly unified category like 'christianity' are as different from one another as atheists are.

If religious people can't say: "oh, that was a calvinist, not a catholic, it doesn't apply to us because we're different".  Then, why should atheists be able to say: "we're all different you can't group us together" everytime an atheist does something considered 'wrong'?

It would seem acceptable to treat all religious people as if they were the same.  How many times have atheists labeled creationists under the same banner as if all of them were complete idiots?  But apparently labeling atheists as if they were similar is unacceptable  =  Double standard?



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Because that's all Atheist means. _Not Theist_. That's what happens when you attach the "A" to the beginning of "Theist". It specifically means "Not Thesit". This is not an opinion, that's how language works. That's specifically what combining words and prefixes in that manner means.
> 
> Theist: A positive proclamation in the belief in a God or Gods.
> 
> ...



Agnostics aren't theists, either.

Its a question of what separates atheists from agnostics.

The problem there is, if you attempt to define atheism as a mere lack of belief in God, you crossover into the category of agnosticism.

Agnostics have no belief in God, either.  Thus, one might ask why the redundancy?  Why would we need 2 terms that mean almost exactly the same thing?



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Agnosticism is not a neutral position. In fact, Agnosticism isn't even a belief system. It only refers to a degree of knowledge.
> 
> Gnostic = Know
> Agnostic = Don't know/Can't know
> ...



You typed all that out without bothering to elaborate on your original statement of how agnosticism is "not" a neutral position.

Back to the topic, how is agnosticism "not" a neutral position?  



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Sociologist  analyzed previous research on atheists and morality, and concluded that the more atheists and agnostics there are in a society, the more moral it is. Such findings included the following
> 
> * In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious U.S. states, the murder rate is higher than average.
> 
> ...



That type of study is often politically motivated.

Usually, someone would have to spend a reasonable sum of money to have a study like that done.  And, the only people who are willing to do that are those who have an agenda.  

Likewise, in terms of sociology, its very difficult to correlate things like religion or lack of religion to humanitarianism, crime, etc.  

Also, pointing out how great Sweden is, while ignoring or failing to explain why Stalin's attempt to convert his entire country to atheism went so badly, leaves gaping holes in our understanding of why or how such things happen.

I would guess it has little to do with research or science and everything to do with some rich person with a lot of money and an agenda paying someone to do "research" with the results they themselves favor.

Everyone from the RIAA to the MPAA has been known to use their big money to fund fake research for political purposes and their own self interests.

I'm not seeing much of a reason why this would be any different.



nee4speed111 said:


> The current Australian Prime Minister is an Atheist, and while she's not the best she certainly is not a Dictator.



Cool.  (:  I didn't know that.



Tiocfaidh ár lá said:


> (See politics and law subsection)
> 
> Many leaders have been agnostic *atheist, *despite the fact that they refer to themselves as agnostic.  They either don't know enough about religion to understand the distinction between agnosticim/gnosticism and theism/atheism or they were merely posturing themselves for the public.
> 
> Also, see stab's post above .



What about confirmed atheists?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 26, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> C.  *Religion is judged by the words and deeds of religious people, just as atheism is judged by the words and deeds of atheists.*  It doesn't matter whether you're part of a large organization, or not.  Nor does it matter whether or not you have your professed beliefs written down.



You have oversimplified the truth. Religions are only judged by the deeds of religious people, when those deeds are done *in the name of* those religions. 

When a cruel deed has been done by someone who professed religious faith, it would be dreadfully stupid to claim that it reflects badly on that religious faith, unless there was a clearly identifiable relation between belief and deed. Vice versa when a good deed has been done. Same goes for atheists.

Religions are also judged by the content of their dictums. These are almost always morally repugnant. I think this is simply because most religions are so old, and because by nature of their claims of divine authority they cannot evolve with the times very easily, and their morals become increasingly out of date. 

Atheism should similarly be judged by its claims as well, and it fares rather well. There is nothing immoral about the rejection of deities, or the rejection of belief in deities.



Limerence Bradley said:


> I have a quick question. The conversation here is getting really interesting.
> 
> Why is the Christian creation theory the only one being argued about here against Atheist evolution theories?
> 
> ...



Is it important? They're all equally unfounded.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Dec 26, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> I'm pretty sure the 10 commandments would be a good base for ALL Catholics?
> 
> For example, nobody that is a true Catholic would kill, especially when the Bible condemns it.
> 
> When the religion doesn't promote violence (and actually does the opposite), it's stupid to put the blame on it.



The Bible allows for a lot of exceptions and so have religious leaders. The prohibition is against murder, not killing. So people can tell themselves that it's ok to kill somebody as long as they deserved it.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Well, if I did that I'd be making a case for religion.  And, that's not a place I'm prepared to go at the moment.
> 
> I just wanted to ask what evidence atheists had for their beliefs considering the way they would presume to worship science and skepticism, etc.



I'm not an atheist, but I think that you've profoundly misunderstood most atheists. Just because they don't worship God or any other supernatural being doesn't mean that they've replaced that figure with another construct. It means that they don't worship anything.  



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I think...  Nero is categorized as epicurean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Categorized by whom?

I've seen him alleged to believe in the Roman gods, to have converted to Judaism and to believe that he himself is a god. You're the first that I've heard alleging him to be otherwise.

If all that you're going on is that he's materialistic, then most of the popes are also atheist.

Well, epicurean. Not atheist. Your link explicitly states that epicureans believed in gods. So even if Nero is epicurean, that still means that he's religious.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> That's a good example, unfortunately, he never came out and explicitly claimed atheist status.



Yeah, he just said that he wasn't Christian and that Christians were mentally challenged.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Maybe he would have when his political career ended.



Or the other way around. Personally, I doubt it because he wouldn't want to deflate his wife's hopes, who was constantly praying for his soul. What would his motivation be for doing so? Most atheists aren't preachy about their beliefs (although you'd never guess that from this board). There's no reward to atheists for converting another. They usually don't form large organizations to discuss their beliefs and reaffirm their faith. So why would he be likely to discuss it under any circumstances?



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its interesting to me how atheists can presume to care so much about logic, science, history, evidence and skepticism when they can't even seem to cite a single atheist leader who lends a historical precedent that suggests their beliefs might be possible...



Throughout history, most professed atheists tended to get burned at the stake or were never able to achieve positions of power. The Communist Party is the only exception that I know of so there simply aren't that many examples of atheist leaders around.

What about Gorbachev?


Atlee, Clemenceau and Nehru were all excellent leaders. I just didn't know that any of them were atheists. (I didn't know that Nick Clegg was either, but he's not shaping up to be a great example.)


----------



## Limerence Bradley (Dec 26, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Is it important? They're all equally unfounded.



I am not saying that Atheism is wrong. You believe what you believe. We're at peace, it's all good to me.

But why do you dismiss my question so quickly? You didn't even give me a suitable reason why you believe they are unimportant. 

Personally, I believe Creationism and Evolution go hand-in-hand. But just because I believe this does not imply at all that I am Jewish or Christian. 

You could go into more detail so I understand why you feel that way.


----------



## Taco (Dec 26, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> The Bible allows for a lot of exceptions and so have religious leaders. The prohibition is against murder, not killing. So people can tell themselves that it's ok to kill somebody as long as they deserved it.



Excuse me what? The Bible or any religious leaders, especially in this day and age, don't say it's okay to kill if you feel like they deserve it. 



Bender said:


> @ Forbidden Truth
> 
> Yeah what!? what!?
> 
> ...



Lol wut. I see nothing. 

I was responding to Pilaf's link on "Catholics" dominating the prison population. Only 7% of the people in jails are Muslim, according to his link, so that certainly isn't helping your cause.

Plus, nobody gives a shit about what deluded, misguided extremist terrorists are doing in the middle east. You obviously don't know any Muslims because you seem to believe they're all suicide bombers. Just because the extremists have taken their faith to a whole new level doesn't mean they represent the entire religion.

I saw a lot of posts saying "atheist extremists don't represent the whole!" a couple pages back. Why the double standard?


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 26, 2010)

erictheking said:


> You have oversimplified the truth. Religions are only judged by the deeds of religious people, when those deeds are done *in the name of* those religions.
> 
> When a cruel deed has been done by someone who professed religious faith, it would be dreadfully stupid to claim that it reflects badly on that religious faith, unless there was a clearly identifiable relation between belief and deed. Vice versa when a good deed has been done. Same goes for atheists.
> 
> ...



Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.

A religious person has to say: "GOD TOLD ME TO DO THIS BAD THING" for it to count.

And, if an atheist doesn't say: "I DO THIS BAD THING IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM" it doesn't matter?

Doesn't seem fair.  



Nick Soapdish said:


> I'm not an atheist, but I think that you've profoundly misunderstood most atheists. Just because they don't worship God or any other supernatural being doesn't mean that they've replaced that figure with another construct. It means that they don't worship anything.



That's what I said.  



Nick Soapdish said:


> Categorized by whom?
> 
> I've seen him alleged to believe in the Roman gods, to have converted to Judaism and to believe that he himself is a god. You're the first that I've heard alleging him to be otherwise.
> 
> ...



I think, Nero's adviser Tigellinus was epicurean.  And, he somewhat converted Nero to epicureanism as well.  But, I can't find a decent source for it.

I think its atheism in the sense that gods who never influence or intervene in real world affairs, don't exist.  But, yeah, there is definitely room to argue that.  I'm really no expert on epicureanism or as to whether or not Nero practiced it, and if he did what brand of it he adhered to, etc.



Nick Soapdish said:


> Yeah, he just said that he wasn't Christian and that Christians were mentally challenged.



Maybe his wife drove him to say those things?



Nick Soapdish said:


> Or the other way around. Personally, I doubt it because he wouldn't want to deflate his wife's hopes, who was constantly praying for his soul. What would his motivation be for doing so? Most atheists aren't preachy about their beliefs (although you'd never guess that from this board). There's no reward to atheists for converting another. They usually don't form large organizations to discuss their beliefs and reaffirm their faith. So why would he be likely to discuss it under any circumstances?



Why wouldn't they?

A lot of them are set for life.  Is there a big difference between saying: "religious people are dumb" and "I'm an atheist"?

If it was really important, he could have had it written in his will to be revealed after he died.  Or after both he and his wife were deceased, etc.

I don't remember whether or not they had kids.  But, I'm sure he could have found a loophole -- or that any atheist could have done so to arrange for the truth to come out after they were gone...



Nick Soapdish said:


> Throughout history, most professed atheists tended to get burned at the stake or were never able to achieve positions of power. The Communist Party is the only exception that I know of so there simply aren't that many examples of atheist leaders around.
> 
> What about Gorbachev?



I don't know about Gorbachev.  I really liked his: "what we need is star peace and not star wars," comment.  But, think many may credit him for the downfall of the USSR, on some level or other.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Dec 26, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Excuse me what? The Bible doesn't say it's okay to kill if you feel like they deserve it.



No, it says "don't kill" and then has numerous examples of people killing with God's blessing. And while our translation of the Ten Commandments says "don't kill", it's better translated as "don't murder". So what I'm saying is that it isn't morally consistent so it's easy for people to justify that they're following the Bible.

Those previous examples that you handwaved off as "not being true examples" were ordered by the Catholic Church, the preeminent authority of religion in that day. The Church eventually ended the Spanish Inquisition in 1824, but it's never condemned it or said that those participating weren't True Catholics. They don't endorse that kind of behavior *now*, but they've never disavowed it.

If the Catholic Church isn't the authority on who represents their faith, who should be that authority? The Bible itself? If that's the case, my best friend is a bad Christian because he didn't get the town to stone his wife for wearing two different types of fabric. Personally, I'm willing to overlook that failing and still call him a Christian. I guess he's just not a True Christian.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Dec 26, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.
> 
> A religious person has to say: "GOD TOLD ME TO DO THIS BAD THING" for it to count.
> 
> ...



I hate to say it like this, but most situations don't allow for exact comparisons. I don't see why it isn't fair though.

He's saying that the religion of religious political leaders shouldn't be blamed for horrible stuff as long as they don't say that they're explicitly doing it in the name of their religion. And that the atheism of atheist religious leaders shouldn't be blamed for their horrible stuff unless they say that they're doing it for atheism.

Where's the inequity?



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> That's what I said.



No, you specifically said that atheists worship science and logic.




1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I think, Nero's adviser Tigellinus was epicurean.  And, he somewhat converted Nero to epicureanism as well.  But, I can't find a decent source for it.
> 
> I think its atheism in the sense that gods who never influence or intervene in real world affairs, don't exist.  But, yeah, there is definitely room to argue that.  I'm really no expert on epicureanism or as to whether or not Nero practiced it, and if he did what brand of it he adhered to, etc.



That's not atheism, it's another form of deism in which case I definitely get to count Jefferson and Adams, as well as most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Maybe his wife drove him to say those things?



In a moment of spite? 

He loved his wife deeply. She did give him a few headaches because she had difficulty coping with the stress of public life and the early loss of some of their children, but by all accounts, she was very witty so I doubt that he'd snipe at her like that.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> A lot of them are set for life.  Is there a big difference between saying: "religious people are dumb" and "I'm an atheist"?



Because a lot of people, religious or otherwise, don't feel the need to profess their beliefs. They know what their own beliefs are and are comfortable with it and don't feel the need to share them or debate them.

That's about where I'm at, but I don't mind sharing my beliefs either. I'm not interested in debating them because I'm well aware that there are logical flaws in my beliefs. I just duct tape them together with faith.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> If it was really important, he could have had it written in his will to be revealed after he died.  Or after both he and his wife were deceased, etc.



That's just what I'm saying. I don't think that it was important to him.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I don't remember whether or not they had kids.  But, I'm sure he could have found a loophole -- or that any atheist could have done so to arrange for the truth to come out after they were gone...



He had kids. His son was present for the assassination of both President Garfield and President McKinley.

I'm sure that there are ways to have The Truth come out after his death - if he felt that his religious beliefs were of sufficient importance that the world needed to know them. If Lincoln wasn't a preachy atheist, there isn't a reason to bother.

Oh, I added a couple other examples after Gorbachev.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 26, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.
> 
> A religious person has to say: "GOD TOLD ME TO DO THIS BAD THING" for it to count.
> 
> ...



What's unfair about it? I am suggesting identical treatment for both religion and atheism. 

The fact that this doesn't seem fair to you indicates that you would either like especially favourable standards for religion, or you haven't thought about it at all, yet decided to give an opinion on it saying " It's not fair " probably based on an instinctual bias against atheism. 



Limerence Bradley said:


> I am not saying that Atheism is wrong. You believe what you believe. We're at peace, it's all good to me.
> 
> But why do you dismiss my question so quickly? You didn't even give me a suitable reason why you believe they are unimportant.
> 
> ...



I think I did give an appropriate reason. None of the creation 'theories'; whether it's the Judeo-Christian one, the Hindu one, the Egyptian one, etc. were made with a sound epistemic methodology, they just tell stories and claim divine authorship. 

They originated in a period of ignorance of scientific facts like the origins of species through selection, the age of the planet, and so on. It isn't rational to believe any of the creation myths — the scientific method is infinitely preferable for discovering accurate information about the world compared to what the founders of religions were doing — additionally, I don't know of any creation myths that aren't contradicted by well-supported scientific facts and theories. 

What do you think we're missing by focusing our attention on the Judeo-Christian brand of creationism and ignoring the others?


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 26, 2010)

Limerence Bradley said:


> I am not saying that Atheism is wrong. You believe what you believe. We're at peace, it's all good to me.
> 
> But why do you dismiss my question so quickly? You didn't even give me a suitable reason why you believe they are unimportant.
> 
> ...



They're unimportant because either nobody believes in them anymore in the case of some of them, and in the case of others there's no widespread movement to push them into the educational curriculum and threaten the foundations of modern western stability and the scientific and technological progression of humankind. I can't recall the last time a large Wiccan group wanted to push their agenda into text books, or believers in Thor. They're simply not relevant to this discussion. 

And as others have said, those beliefs are equally unfounded and unprovable when compared to the Abrahamic ones.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Dec 28, 2010)

Jingoobells said:


> Thank   god.



I see what you did right there. 

or...maybe you just posted that by instinct.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Dec 28, 2010)

That just means more people are going to Hell. 


And I continue not to care either way.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 28, 2010)

lol ohh mann this was some really good news after dealing with some really stupid people...:/

I hope this trend continues so we may be rid of people with beliefs like this:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> lol right man thats why you were getting shat on by every rational person yesterday lmaooo
> 
> Daas: "I don't know anything about it but i know its right"
> 
> ...





			
				My Friend said:
			
		

> this is what you just said blah blah blah put a t shirt in a jar for a million years, apply controlled heat and electricity and if the shit becomes a human being than ill believe you!  this is the stupidist theory on earth its not even sc...ientific its a load of shit.... i have nothing against the mutation of species to suit there environmen...t but creatures do not evolve like pokemon randomly evolving into another species. as komail mentioned 99.99999% of species die off and it is very hard to fossilize them.
> 
> which is more likely osman species evolving like pokemon or there was alot of species with similar traits that were fossilized at different times?  how come we have sediments (fossils) of say blue jays birds found millions and millions of years ago, with little c...hanges. You claim that evolution is a fact dick head when there is so much that cannot be explained meaning it is nothing but an assumption.... done that was the whole argument.
> 
> the dna can be genetically altered but the phenol in the dna cannot there was not one case disproving my claim. national academy blah blah blah its aload of crap bro use ur mind put the t shirt in the jar and when you have little people in the jar i will believe other than that la illah ilaa allah



Link: My facebook

Now, I don't mean to be intolerant but this person holds very very stupid beliefs....


----------



## Living Wisdom (Dec 28, 2010)

> Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms



The most rational view a theist can take, imo. Old Earth Creationism (and or Theistic Evolution) FTW!


----------



## Perseverance (Dec 29, 2010)

Wow, that 10k year one is messed up.



Red Queen said:


> It's sad to hear that girls where made from a guys rib.
> it's all symbolic. right?....



Well there must be some reason women are physically weaker then men are.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Correct. If you do not believe in evolution, you are crazy or just plain stupid.



It's a theory, that is why the majority of the world still believes in creationism. The moment it becomes fact like the Earth orbits the Sun kind of fact OR someone creates "life" from scratch, I'm sure religion and belief in God would die, until then you shouldn't be so ignorant to call others stupid.

Anyways that's not the big issue, the bigger issue for Athiests is how the Universe came to be. There are 2 facts;

1. In Reality, there is no such thing as infinite.
2. In Reality, something cannot come out of "nothing".

Thus, before the big bang, something did come out of nothing, which is impossible, that gives good reason for one to believe in a divinity or supernatural.


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 29, 2010)

Oh look, another one that doesn't have any fucking clue about what a theory is.
What a surprise.


----------



## αce (Dec 29, 2010)

> It's a theory, that is why the majority of the world still believes in creationism. The moment it becomes fact like the Earth orbits the Sun kind of fact OR someone creates "life" from scratch, I'm sure religion and belief in God would die, until then you shouldn't be so ignorant to call others stupid.
> 
> Anyways that's not the big issue, the bigger issue for Athiests is how the Universe came to be. There are 2 facts;
> 
> ...



Go learn what a scientific theory is and come back.
And the first line is only true to an extent. Most of the world does not believe in Christian creationism, they believe in some other, but equally obscene, form of magic.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 29, 2010)

You know guys, how about actually explaining to him why he's wrong instead of just throwing out insults and getting angry. 

I'm on my phone, so I can't get too into it, so nstead, Perseverance, here's a link that helps explain what "theory" means when used in relation to science.





> "scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation."


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Dec 29, 2010)

Perseverance said:


> Anyways that's not the big issue, the bigger issue for Athiests is how the Universe came to be. There are 2 facts;
> 
> 1. In Reality, there is no such thing as infinite.
> 2. In Reality, something cannot come out of "nothing".
> ...



Are you arguing that time can't stretch back infinitely? 

There isn't any scientific reason why matter hasn't always existed and that requires time to have a beginning. We just don't have any way of knowing what happened prior to a nanosecond before the Big Bend. We don't have any evidence that anything existed before then, but that isn't evidence that nothing existed before then. It simply means that it's a question that science can't answer and that we believe science will *never* be able to answer.

Atheists and religious people both live in reality so both of your objections simply argue that any form of existence is impossible. The only difference is that religion can specifically argue against those objections and science leaves them unanswered.



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> You know guys, how about actually explaining to him why he's wrong instead of just throwing out insults and getting angry.
> 
> I'm on my phone, so I can't get too into it, so nstead, Perseverance, here's a link that helps explain what "theory" means when used in relation to science.



Thank you for stepping in. I think this is a much more helpful response.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 29, 2010)

Perseverance said:


> Well there must be some reason women are physically weaker then men are.



There is, but it's not because they're made out of a bone. If anything being made from a bone rather than dirt would logically make them stronger than men. Women are physically different because the female gender in primates evolved to bear children, not to hunt, gather and work hard like the males. That's just the biological function our DNA assigned women originally. It serves a purpose. If you'd actually study some biology you'd find that there are plenty of answers to these simple questions you ask.


----------



## Phunin (Jan 1, 2011)

Lol, created in present form 10,000 years ago? I believe in God but that Onion article sounds pretty appropriate to me.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jan 1, 2011)

While this is a good thing.....the country is still rather "conservative" about some things if you compare it with Europe.

*sighs*


----------



## horushaxx (Jan 3, 2011)

hallelujah moment


----------

