# American Atheists launch provocative campaign in religious Deep South



## Saishin (Dec 2, 2014)

> Advertising hoardings show a young girl writing a letter to Father Christmas: "Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I'm too old for fairy tales"
> 
> Atheist activists are taking their campaigns to the Bible Belt this Christmas with a provocative billboard campaign that is expected to stir controversy in America's religious heartlands.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 2, 2014)

When the day of reckoning comes, and they stand before the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they will regret their disbelief.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Nobody complains when Christians do graphic and/or very offensive campaingns, but even mild atheist campaigns are "provocative". 

Good going USA, keep denying evolution (60% of total population)

//HbS


----------



## Stunna (Dec 2, 2014)

>implying you're ever too old for a good fairy tale


----------



## Zyrax (Dec 2, 2014)

>Christians/Muslims violently Try to enforce their beliefs on others
>Sicopaths and terrorists
>Athiests do the same 
>Heros
Shiggity diggity doo Where are yoooooouuuuuuu


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

I am not really sure why or how it has become a bad thing to believe in God. 

I understand not wanting radicals of any particular religion running around, but this seems like it is intentionally meant to stir shit up. 

The line should be "believe what you want". You shouldn't aim to make fun of or poke at someones beliefs.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 2, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> Nobody complains when Christians do graphic and/or very offensive campaingns, but even mild atheist campaigns are "provocative".
> 
> Good going USA, keep denying evolution (60% of total population)
> 
> //HbS



Because it's "provocative" NOT to believe in god in the US apparently. 
Bring on more fire and brimstone!


----------



## Blue (Dec 2, 2014)

lol Atheists. Since making a bunch of Bible thumpers mad is so difficult and so productive.


----------



## 2Broken (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I am not really sure why or how it has become a bad thing to believe in God.
> 
> I understand not wanting radicals of any particular religion running around, but this seems like it is intentionally meant to stir shit up.
> 
> The line should be "believe what you want". You shouldn't aim to make fun of or poke at someones beliefs.



I agree that it is not a bad thing to believe in god and disagree with what the atheist did here.

However many carriers of the faith are prevented from making rational decisions, because they don't just believe in god, they believe in a religious establishment.

In my opinion it is the religious establishments that do the "harm" most of us are familiar with, because that is where people are asked to throw away common sense and just believe things.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

Atheists saying: "God is a fairy tale".

The notion of "God being a fairy tale" is a fairy tale.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 2, 2014)

2Broken said:


> I agree that it is not a bad thing to believe in god and disagree with what the atheist did here.
> 
> However many carriers of the faith are prevented from making rational decisions, because they don't just believe in god, they believe in a religious establishment.
> 
> In my opinion it is the religious establishments that do the "harm" most of us are familiar with, because that is where people are asked to throw away common sense and just believe things.





Cyphon said:


> I am not really sure why or how it has become a bad thing to believe in God.
> 
> I understand not wanting radicals of any particular religion running around, but this seems like it is intentionally meant to stir shit up.
> 
> The line should be "believe what you want". You shouldn't aim to make fun of or poke at someones beliefs.



No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant. No it's not okay to believe in God. This is because we atheists don't think "oh i just dont 'believe' in God". we know he doesn't exist. His entire story is bullsht and the bible contradicts itself too many times to count. Also the bible has many things that go against basic morality (like slavery, letting someone pay off raping your daughter and then having to marry her). People are forced to believe in these principles of the Bible but they only nitpick on what they believe in. They can have sex before marriage but ofc they can't overlook homosexuals wanting to be married (even tho marriage is a ritual that occured secularly). So at the end of the day, no. It's not okay to be Christian and it's not okay to breed lies and ignorance.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 2, 2014)

Okay. I dont think believing in a god is necessarily a bad thing. It's just a bit annoying when it's attached to backwards religions(abrahamic).


----------



## Stunna (Dec 2, 2014)

I dunno...if you get mad over someone believing in something you don't--no matter how illogical it is to you--and that belief isn't being used by that person to infringe upon the well being of another, that says a lot more about you than anything.


----------



## 2Broken (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant. No it's not okay to believe in God. This is because we atheists don't think "oh i just dont 'believe' in God". we know he doesn't exist. His entire story is bullsht and the bible contradicts itself too many times to count. Also the bible has many things that go against basic morality (like slavery, letting someone pay off raping your daughter and then having to marry her). People are forced to believe in these principles of the Bible but they only nitpick on what they believe in. They can have sex before marriage but ofc they can't overlook homosexuals wanting to be married (even tho marriage is a ritual that occured secularly). So at the end of the day, no. It's not okay to be Christian and it's not okay to breed lies and ignorance.



You don't *know* god doesn't exist, there is just not any evidence in your opinion that suggests he does and that is different.

Everything else you said agrees with my statement. You don't have a problem with the idea of god, just the idealogy from the religious establishments.


----------



## Jin-E (Dec 2, 2014)

Hopefully this won't lead to a bigger backlash other than a big fat "meh".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I am not really sure why or how it has become a bad thing to believe in God.
> 
> I understand not wanting radicals of any particular religion running around, but this seems like it is intentionally meant to stir shit up.
> 
> The line should be "believe what you want". You shouldn't aim to make fun of or poke at someones beliefs.



It hasn't. On the contrary, people seem to think something is wrong with a person for not believing in an completely unproven concept, oddly enough.

Their attempts are heavy-handed, I personally would go about it much differently, but criticism of religion is not taken too well either way.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 2, 2014)

Atheist girl tells Santa she does not want to go to church. Santa says okay, but that means there are no more reasons to celebrate Christmas and just like that, the holiday break ends and she does to school on December 25th, wondering why she couldn't keep her mouth shut.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

Alwaysmind said:


> Atheist girl tells Santa she does not want to go to church. Santa says okay, but that means there are no more reasons to celebrate Christmas and just like that, the holiday break ends and she does to school on December 25th, wondering why she couldn't keep her mouth shut.



Atheist girl picks up a history book. Atheist girl realizes Christianity has jack shit to do with Christmas.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 2, 2014)

The irony is pretty high on this one. 
I can never take them seriously ever again.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Alwaysmind said:


> Atheist girl tells Santa she does not want to go to church. Santa says okay, but that means there are no more reasons to celebrate Christmas and just like that, the holiday break ends and she does to school on December 25th, wondering why she couldn't keep her mouth shut.


The holidays at the end of December aren't really connected to any religion at this point, Christmas is a commercial holiday. And it's like a summer break (except shorter) with presents.

//HbS


----------



## Jagger (Dec 2, 2014)

I've always found it a bit ironic that atheist organizations similar to religious ones. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Jagger said:


> I've always found it a bit ironic that atheist organizations similar to religious ones. But maybe that's just me.


That's just you. Besides generic characteristics every organisation has, they're nothing alike...

//HbS


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 2, 2014)

2Broken said:


> You don't *know* god doesn't exist, there is just not any evidence in your opinion that suggests he does and that is different.
> 
> Everything else you said agrees with my statement. You don't have a problem with the idea of god, just the idealogy from the religious establishments.



If you mean i don't have the problem with a perfect honest and merciful god then yes. But that isn't the case so yes i do have a problem with people believing in god. And as for the Christian, Muslim, or whtever god, I know no god that exists in the world atm is real. Anyone with common sense and a google search engine could find that out.


----------



## Zyrax (Dec 2, 2014)

I feel bad for Jesus
Some fat Pedo stole his birthday


----------



## Utopia Realm (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> If you mean i don't have the problem with a perfect honest and merciful god then yes. But that isn't the case so yes i do have a problem with people believing in god. And as for the Christian, Muslim, or whtever god, I know no god that exists in the world atm is real. Anyone with common sense and a google search engine could find that out.



I believe he is real.

Edit: Seems you have some kind of hatred underneath from your posts here.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant.



And with that, you are not credible. 



Stunna said:


> I dunno...if you get mad over someone believing in something you don't--no matter how illogical it is to you--and that belief isn't being used by that person to infringe upon the well being of another, that says a lot more about you than anything.



Nailed it. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> It hasn't. On the contrary, people seem to think something is wrong with a person for not believing in an completely unproven concept, oddly enough.
> 
> Their attempts are heavy-handed, I personally would go about it much differently, but criticism of religion is not taken too well either way.



I agree it is a 2 way street. My main point is just that this is basically just an outright insult as opposed to an attempt at education or freedom of thought or whatever a proper aim might be.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

Zyrax said:


> >Christians/Muslims violently Try to enforce their beliefs on others
> >Sicopaths and terrorists
> >Athiests do the same
> >Heros
> Shiggity diggity doo Where are yoooooouuuuuuu


Why can't I rep you?


dpwater25 said:


> If you mean i don't have the problem with a perfect honest and merciful god then yes. But that isn't the case so yes i do have a problem with people believing in god. And as for the Christian, Muslim, or whtever god, I know no god that exists in the world atm is real. Anyone with common sense and a google search engine could find that out.



Wait what? If a cruel and merciless God exists you or I can do nothing about it.


----------



## Blue (Dec 2, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> That's just you. Besides generic characteristics every organisation has, they're nothing alike...



Both faith-based organizations, proselytizing and getting angry when you challenge their unscientific beliefs

Yeah nothing in common at all.


----------



## Saishin (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant. No it's not okay to believe in God. This is because we atheists don't think "oh i just dont 'believe' in God". we know he doesn't exist. *His entire story is bullsht and the bible contradicts itself too many times to count. Also the bible has many things that go against basic morality (like slavery, letting someone pay off raping your daughter and then having to marry her). People are forced to believe in these principles of the Bible but they only nitpick on what they believe in. They can have sex before marriage but ofc they can't overlook homosexuals wanting to be married (even tho marriage is a ritual that occured secularly).* So at the end of the day, no. It's not okay to be Christian and it's not okay to breed lies and ignorance.


Want to clarify that I'm agnostic and not religious 
That being said what you said is quite wrong and quite right.First of all as far as I know the Bible doesn't have as principles the slavery or the rape of your daughter,let's not forget that the book tells events happened 2000-3000 and more years ago,the culture and the behaviour of the people of those times were very different,slavery was common,marry,I don't know your daughter,but marry someone else that wasn't your wife was common too.Acts that would make people shocked nowdays were usual in acient times.


----------



## Island (Dec 2, 2014)

God is a dead man walking anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Millennials are twice as likely as likely to be irreligious than Baby Boomers, and this trend shows no sign of slowing down. Give it a few more decades, and you'll probably see Christianity lose majority in the United States.



Sanity Check said:


> Atheists saying: "God is a fairy tale".
> 
> The notion of "God being a fairy tale" is a fairy tale.


Or maybe the notion of "God being a fairy tale" being a fairy tale is a fairy tale.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:


> Why can't I rep you?
> 
> 
> Wait what? If a cruel and merciless God exists you or I can do nothing about it.



True, I was using that argument to say that no existing god can be real in the sense that they aren't merciful. They are merciless. I mean look at all the genocide the christian god instigated. I' m not an agnostic-theist btw so I was just saying that. No I don't believe in a god at all.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 2, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Want to clarify that I'm agnostic and not religious
> That being said what you said is quite wrong and quite right.First of all as far as I know the Bible doesn't have as principles the slavery or the rape of your daughter,let's not forget that the book tells events happened 2000-3000 and more years ago,the culture and the behaviour of the people of those times were very different,slavery was common,marry,I don't know your daughter,but marry someone else that wasn't your wife was common too.Acts that would make people shocked nowdays were usual in acient times.



Inexusable. If the Bible is supposed to be Holy then it should be a book that stands the test of time. It should not be a book that is outdated merely a couple thousand years later. I mean it's only gonna get worse from here as we evolve even more. I mean it's not gonna rewrite itself. No holy book should allow slavery, regardless of what time it was. It is not a good act and saying that it is ok because of the time period is dumb.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> Both faith-based organizations, proselytizing and getting angry when you challenge their unscientific beliefs
> 
> Yeah nothing in common at all.


>faith-based
>atheists

 

Also, you appereantly don't know what does "proselytizing" mean.

//HbS


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> True, I was using that argument to say that no existing god can be real in the sense that they aren't merciful. They are merciless. I mean look at all the genocide the christian god instigated. I' m not an agnostic-theist btw so I was just saying that. No I don't believe in a god at all.


There is no reason to bring that up or anything about God. You sound like a salty teenager that's mad that his parents brought him to church.


Hunted by sister said:


> >faith-based
> >atheists
> 
> 
> ...



No, no he's right. There is no evidence that god exists or doesn't exist meaning that being an atheist requires faith to a certain degree.

And here


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

Thread hasn't gone full retard, yet?





Island said:


> Or maybe the notion of "God being a fairy tale" being a fairy tale is a fairy tale.



.

If we're equating _belief_ with _fairy tales_.

Religious types believe in _fairy tales_ where God exists.

Atheists believe in _fairy tales_ where God doesn't exist.

We've gone from fighting over whose "imaginary friend" is best to whose "fairy tale" is best.


----------



## SLB (Dec 2, 2014)

honestly, it's a funny thing in the whole belief vs disbelief debate because as long as there is a solid claim from either side, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

but if we're being technical... no. one is a system of faith based ideologies, the other is a rejection of said ideologies. but even so, the raw definition of "faith" boils down to complete trust and confidence in something and the second definition meaning complete belief in god himself or the scriptures/doctrines that surround him. within that frame of the word, even showing disbelief in unicorns giving free dance lessons can eventually morph into a strong claim, and as long as you have confidence in said claim... technically you have faith in it.

then there are the nutters that think atheism is a religon and that's a whole other ball game, but in the end... whatever.

it's a wishy-washy back and forth on terminology that i don't think matters a whole lot.


----------



## Island (Dec 2, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> If we're equating _belief_ with _fairy tales_.
> 
> Religious types believe in _fairy tales_ where God exists.
> 
> ...


Comparison doesn't work because a lack of a fairy tale is not a fairy tale. You tell your child a fairy tale before he/she goes to bed in one scenario. In the other, you don't tell your child anything. Did your child receive a fairy tale in both? No, they didn't because, again, a lack of a fairy tale is not a fairy tale.


----------



## LesExit (Dec 2, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> Atheists believe in _fairy tales_ where God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've gone from fighting over whose "imaginary friend" is best to whose "fairy tale" is best.


Like the easter bunny and santa? ఠ_ఠ whaaat? I think it doesn't matter what fairy tale people like, what does matter is people understanding that these fairy tales are all just that...fairy tales.


About this campaign...uh...whatever I guess. It's just going to piss people off . Religion is on the decline, it's only a matter of time before the majority of people aren't religious in America so I'm not really concerned. Stubborn old adults who were brought up on fairy tales will most likely stay believing in those fairy tales ?\(?_o)/? As long as they're not really doing anything bad, I'll just leave them alone, they'll run out. lol that sounds so messed up, it's true tho :0


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:


> No, no he's right. There is no evidence that god exists or doesn't exist meaning that being an atheist requires faith to a certain degree.


No.

//HbS


----------



## SLB (Dec 2, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> Thread hasn't gone full retard, yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



man, that makes no sense. because logically, one had to come after the other and they can't both be fairy tales. when you have contrasting views that's as black and white as a "deity exists and watches over us", one has to be right, while the other has to be false.  from a logical standpoint, how could we as a species believe and have a deity look over us from the get go?

we can trace back theistic concepts pretty far back, but there's no reason to believe we always believed in that. it's just easier to surmise that we came up with those beliefs out of sheer necessity to explain what science could not do at first, and to create moral guidelines that could continue past the generation that established them.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2014)

>i'm too old for fairy tales 
>dear santa


how adorably retarded


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

Island said:


> Comparison doesn't work because a lack of a fairy tale is not a fairy tale. You tell your child a fairy tale before he/she goes to bed in one scenario. In the other, you don't tell your child anything. Did your child receive a fairy tale in both? No, they didn't because, again, a lack of a fairy tale is not a fairy tale.



.

"God doesn't exist."
"Religion is just a tool to control people."
"God is something invented to make people feel good about themselves."
"Evolution disproves religion."
"Science disproves religion."

These are fairy tales atheists recite to help themselves sleep better at night.

.

A lack of belief is incompatible with the view that God doesn't exist.

Lack of belief is a neutral or undecided stance.

"God doesn't exist" is neither neutral or undecided.

Atheists claim a lack of belief to avoid a burden of proof and having to substantiate their beliefs with evidence.

Just because a weak marketing campaign says: "atheism is a lack of belief," doesn't make it true.

.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Like the easter bunny and santa? ఠ_ఠ whaaat? I think it doesn't matter what fairy tale people like, what does matter is people understanding that these fairy tales are all just that...fairy tales.
> 
> 
> About this campaign...uh...whatever I guess. It's just going to piss people off . Religion is on the decline, it's only a matter of time before the majority of people aren't religious in America so I'm not really concerned. Stubborn old adults who were brought up on fairy tales will most likely stay believing in those fairy tales ?\(?_o)/? As long as they're not really doing anything bad, I'll just leave them alone, they'll run out. lol that sounds so messed up, it's true tho :0


I still can't get over the fact that you're cute IRL, but I digress
It doesn't work that bucko 
Being an atheist means rejecting a belief in god or lacks belief in the existence of gods. That technically means that there must be some sort of god to reject. Being an atheist is an ironic position to be in because it requires in your belief that you reject the existence of god, but there has to be some sort of god to reject no?


Hunted by sister said:


> No.
> 
> //HbS



No rebuttal? Thank you for the concession.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

People are making a simple mistake. Many are saying that atheists "_believe there is no God_". That's wrong. More accurately, atheists _don't believe there is a God_. 

These two are not the same thing. The difference looks small, subtle, but it's actually huge. 

//HbS


----------



## Blue (Dec 2, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> People are making a simple mistake. Many are saying that atheists "_believe there is no God_". That's wrong. More accurately, atheists _don't believe there is a God_.
> 
> These two are not the same thing.
> 
> //HbS



I think your English might be failing you. Those two statements have identical meaning. "A" god can be any god. If there is not any god, there is no god.
If you said "Don't believe in THE God" i.e, the Judeochristian God, or just about any other proper noun God, you would have a sensical statement, even if you're still wrong.


----------



## Saishin (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> Inexusable. If the Bible is supposed to be Holy then it should be a book that stands the test of time. It should not be a book that is outdated merely a couple thousand years later. I mean it's only gonna get worse from here as we evolve even more. I mean it's not gonna rewrite itself. No holy book should allow slavery, regardless of what time it was. It is not a good act and saying that it is ok because of the time period is dumb.


Probably you wouldn't agree but even if the events of the bible are thousand year laters the substance is actual,even today people enslave other people,or rape their daughters,we do wars,centuries pass by but the shit is always the same,if the bible have these cruel things it is because tell the story of humanity,a story that is made of violence,in this contest god intervene to save humanity from its own destruction,it's not god that bring all this mess are the men that do this,this is what the bible want to tell,at least this is what I could understand from reading some pages of the bible.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 2, 2014)

I feel like this conversation is simultaneously taking place in the debate forum...


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> People are making a simple mistake. Many are saying that atheists "_believe there is no God_". That's wrong. More accurately, atheists _don't believe there is a God_.
> 
> These two are not the same thing. The difference looks small, subtle, but it's actually huge.
> 
> //HbS



.

Atheists are like terrorists who chant "DEATH TO AMERICA".

Then they claim they're not really saying "death to america".  They don't harbor "ill will" towards the united states.  They're merely professing a _lack of belief_ in America.

If you have a mere _lack of belief_ in God, there's no reason for you to parade across the countryside proclaiming God doesn't exist, trying to convert or pressure people into agreeing with your worldview.

Lack of belief in God isn't an accurate label for atheists anymore than lack of belief in the united states is an accurate label for terrorists.  

People just like to say things that make no sense to support their prejudices.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 2, 2014)

*Spoiler*: __ 







Saishin said:


> Probably you wouldn't agree but even if the events of the bible are thousand year laters the substance is actual,even today people enslave other people,or rape their daughters,we do wars,centuries pass by but the shit is always the same,if the bible have these cruel things it is because tells the story of the humanity,a humanity that has chosen the violence,in this contest god intervene to save humanity from its own destruction,it's not god that bring all this mess are the men that do this,this is what bible want to tell,at least this is what I can understand from reading some pages of the bible.



Question: Have you read the bible?
Namely, the Old testament?  Are you going to tell me a god who summons angels to kill people is to save humanity from its own destruction? He straight up kills people. 

Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 
He gets pretty angry at the entire planet for a few bad apples.  He loves the shit outta Noah though, that guy gets some preferential treatment for sure.




			
				Sanity said:
			
		

> If you have a mere lack of belief in God, there's no reason for you to parade across the countryside proclaiming God doesn't exist, trying to convert or pressure people into agreeing with your worldview.


Same goes for the opposite, Sanity.  Belief in God shouldn't give someone the excuse to pressure people into agreeing with their world view.


----------



## LesExit (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:


> I still can't get over the fact that you're cute IRL, but I digress
> It doesn't work that bucko
> Being an atheist means rejecting a belief in god or lacks belief in the existence of gods. That technically means that there must be some sort of god to reject. Being an atheist is an ironic position to be in because it requires in your belief that you reject the existence of god, but there has to be some sort of god to reject no?


@that white font....wutಠ▃ಠ?

I don't get how that makes sense at all. 
Just because you don't believe something exists, doesn't mean that thing has to exist...
Most people reject the idea that unicorns exist or leprechauns or santa, but that doesn't mean those things have to actually exist for them to be rejected. They're not rejected because they exist, but because there is no evidence supporting that they exist. 
...my brain. Well time for lunch


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Most people reject the idea that unicorns exist



.

Bicorn is a term used to describe a rhinoceros with 2 horns.

Unicorn was originally a term used to describe a rhino with 1 horn.

In that, unicorns do exist.

Shh.  Don't tell Richard Dawkins.  He doesn't know.


----------



## Blue (Dec 2, 2014)

Best part about the Kill la Kill skin is it highlights creepy text.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

LesExit said:


> @that white font....wutಠ▃ಠ?
> 
> I don't get how that makes sense at all.
> Just because you don't believe something exists, doesn't mean that thing has to exist...
> ...


I want to bang you, and the fact that you're a lesbian only makes it hotter
There is no evidence that god exists or doesn't exists(I think I'm explaining this right) So being an atheist would be taking a stance on something which has yet to be proven or unproven. So by the power oxford stating that your're an atheist means you would have to beleive in god somewhat to be able to reject him hence the stance. The unicorns thing is much different. Since theres no meaning or value behind the words.(but maybe if I stick a horn on a horse and pain it white)


Blue said:


> Best part about the Kill la Kill skin is it highlights creepy text.



I saw a pic of her IRL and was surprised that she was cute. I regret nothing ofc, only wish you would of kept it between me and her until this thread passes. And calling her cute IRL isn't creepy.


----------



## Saishin (Dec 2, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I admit that this god that straight up kills people makes me doubtful when religious  say that god is love and good.Like you I have doubts too.

Anyway,if you have read the bible you should know that some of this tragic actions were used by god as last resort,for example how many times Moses tried to convince the pharaoh to free the jews? everythime he refused to free them,he had chances,at the end god punished his stubborness.
Kinda similar for Noah too,the men were so evil that were impossible to forgive them,Noah was the only right man or quite right man left.That's the god of the old testament, he forgives those who repent but he's merciless towards those that keep to be evil and refuse counsciously to convert to the good.
And the apples,well the meaning of that is more important than you think,because everything started there.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

I mean they can campaign all they want, it's not going to shake my beliefs. Hating someone just because they believe in a god is being just as ignorant as they say Christians are.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> Same goes for the opposite, Sanity.  Belief in God shouldn't give someone the excuse to pressure people into agreeing with their world view.



.

Telling someone they're gay if they listen to Justin Bieber, or uncool if they don't smoke weed, isn't so different from pressuring someone to believe in religion.

People are pressured to conform and follow trends everyday that have nothing to do with religion.  One could say that women feeling pressured to be thin and look like supermodels which leads to them being anorexic or having eating disorders is more damaging than pressure to believe in a deity.

Likewise, drugs are probably more damaging to the average person than religious belief.  Every year in the united states there are maybe 10-20 people who die as a result of religious fanaticism and maybe as much as 100,000 who die as a result of drugs.

In that we could say that people being pressured to do drugs is far more damaging than people being pressured to believe in religion.

Why aren't there people leading nationwide anti drug crusades fighting the type of peer pressure that leads to people becoming drug addicts?

My question to you, why is there strong opposition to religious belief, and so little opposition to other forms of pressure in society that are more damaging than religion?


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

And then in the New Testament He changed and never slaughter another group. The End. Great fiction story the bible is.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 2, 2014)

American atheists is always doing this kind of thing.  Their MO is to cause controversy.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

People need to understand that the bible is written in chronological order. The old testament shows how the world used to be, then God sent Jesus to earth to establish the new way of faith and how things should be. Now yes alot of things have happened and people have twisted those words to give them power and give dominion over others. I mean there is a whole section in the book of James in the new testament (where my name is from) where it talks about the dangers of the tongue and being hypocritical. Christians need to understand that message was directed at the church as well not just people who weren't christians.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

Stunna said:


> I dunno...if you get mad over someone believing in something you don't--no matter how illogical it is to you--*and that belief isn't being used by that person to infringe upon the well being of another*, that says a lot more about you than anything.



That's my only problem, it IS being used to infringe upon the well being of another . Women, gays, people of other religions . 

And no, it's not a matter that they don't have power these days, cause you know well they still have power, hence why aren't all states that are okay with homossexual marriage .

I sincerely only think that someone believing in a mystical force that controls everything and will reward them after their deaths because they behaved well and believed in the mystical force is just crazy, but I don't give a darn about if that person believes in that or in gnomes, as far as he isn't trying to shove it down on people nor trying to not obey human rights based on this, if this happens, then I'll get mad, and this is what have happened multiple times throughout history, and happens to this day, in third world countries like Uganda and even in the so much loved big and good ol' 'Murica .

Sincerely if someone is believing in unicorns I couldn't give the lesser of the fucks, but trying to kill straight people because unicorns have the power of the rainbow and want them dead is fucking horrible .


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 2, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> Telling someone they're gay if they listen to Justin Bieber, or uncool if they don't smoke weed, isn't so different from pressuring someone to believe in religion.
> 
> ...


Sanity, have you not read other posts of mine?  You should know how I distain social pressures to look/act/think certain ways.  Hell, I've been through an eating disorder! You can bet your ass I'm against stick thin posters of models in every clothes store and "plus sized" models being no bigger than I am and other (what I deem) detrimental social constructs.  Love thyself.

I don't mind if you're religious, worship whatever you want or don't worship, but as soon as your worship/anti-worship conflicts with my personal space/life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we have a problem.

Or watched anti-drug commercials? A huge convenience store just took tobacco products completely out of their stores.  That's a very good thing.



Mintaka said:


> American atheists is always doing this kind of thing.  Their MO is to cause controversy.



Better or worse than Westboro Baptist Church?


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> Best part about the Kill la Kill skin is it highlights creepy text.



And also alerting us that he is gay, because Les is a guy who is also gay. No such thing as private life here on NF.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 2, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> Sanity, have you not read other posts of mine?  You should know how I distain social pressures to look/act/think certain ways.  Hell, I've been through an eating disorder! You can bet your ass I'm against stick thin posters of models in every clothes store and "plus sized" models being no bigger than I am and other (what I deem) detrimental social constructs.  Love thyself.
> 
> I don't mind if you're religious, worship whatever you want or don't worship, but as soon as your worship/anti-worship conflicts with my personal space/life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we have a problem.
> 
> Or watched anti-drug commercials? A huge convenience store just took tobacco products completely out of their stores.  That's a very good thing.



Remember, there are atheists in the world who believe religious fanaticism in the form of extremist terrorism is the biggest threat in the entire world.

That's how they justify these type of public movements.  They believe they're marching against religious fanaticism.

I'm just pointing out that there are only 10-20 people in the united states each year who die as a result of religious fanaticism, while there could be as many as 100,000+ people who die as a result of drugs.

Given the disproportionate statistics, one might wonder how people justify the media angle that religious fanaticism is a major problem while ignoring other issues that arguably do more damage and cost more lives.

That's all I'm saying.  If we're talking about loss of life there are bigger problems than religion.  If we're talking about peer pressure or indoctrinating people into believing things, there are worse and more damaging beliefs than religion.

At some point, we have to ask ourselves how atheists justify the type of anti religious sentiment they routinely support.  And whether their stance is realistic or whether its out of tune with reality.

...

Alrite.  I'm done.  

You all can return to your sanity level posting.

Have nice day.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> I think your English might be failing you. Those two statements have identical meaning. "A" god can be any god. If there is not any god, there is no god.
> If you said "Don't believe in THE God" i.e, the Judeochristian God, or just about any other proper noun God, you would have a sensical statement, even if you're still wrong.


They're not the same. One implies belief, the other *lack* of belief. That's the whole point, there's a world of difference.


Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> Atheists are like terrorists who chant "DEATH TO AMERICA".
> 
> ...


You need a sanity check.

//HbS


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> And also alerting us that he is gay, because Les is a guy who is also gay. No such thing as private life here on NF.



What? I'm confused as to how you got that conclusion. Please indulge me as to how you know Les is a guy.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 2, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> "God doesn't exist."
> "Religion is just a tool to control people."
> ...



Goddamn you're stupid 

You just admitted that a lack of belief is a neutral or undecided stance. Atheism includes "lack of belief" by its very definition which literally just shits on your entire argument. 



> Just because a weak marketing campaign says: "atheism is a lack of belief," doesn't make it true.



Atheism is literally defined as a lack of belief ffs. 



> Atheists claim a lack of belief to avoid a burden of proof and having to substantiate their beliefs with evidence.



>constantly bitches and whines about religious people being generalized



>goes on to generalize all atheists based on a pathetic, unsubstantiated pre-conceived notion that not only shits on his credibility but proves him to be intellectually dishonest




			
				Klad said:
			
		

> Being an atheist means rejecting a belief in god or lacks belief in the existence of gods. That technically means that there must be some sort of god to reject. Being an atheist is an ironic position to be in because it requires in your belief that you reject the existence of god, but there has to be some sort of god to reject no?



This wins for the most retarded fucking post in the thread. Topping immortal takes some effort, congratulations.

>rejecting the existence of leprechauns or Godzilla must mean that there must be some sort of leprechaun or Godzilla to reject. 


Also, atheism doesn't require you to "reject God" for the last damned time.



			
				Blue said:
			
		

> Both faith-based organizations, proselytizing and *getting angry when you challenge their unscientific beliefs*



LOL thanks for the laugh Blue. I recommend sticking to political discussions.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:


> What? I'm confused as to how you got that conclusion. Please indulge me as to how you know Les is a guy.





Before your stealth edit, bro Les is a guy and you just called him cute. Nothing wrong with being gay tho, we Bananas are the Keepers of this forum. Now I just have to update your sexuality on the card I keep on you.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Dec 2, 2014)

tfw I'd sooner trust a christian than an atheist
what scum


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 2, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> Better or worse than Westboro Baptist Church?


Better and not the same.

They're an atheist activist group, who want atheism in the public discourse and they want to keep religion separate from government, as well as to point out this countries religious craziness to anyone who will listen.  Basically they go the extra mile to get what they feel they need done even if they need to step on a feel or three.

They aren't outright hateful lunatics.  Then again they aren't always the most effective either.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Before your stealth edit, bro Les is a guy and you just called him cute. Nothing wrong with being gay tho, we Bananas are the Keepers of this forum. Now I just have to update your sexuality on the card I keep on you.



You didn't answer my question but okay. I asked how you knew Les was a guy. Either that or I confused her with another poster in the FC. Not going to backtrack on my phone.

Not going to edit it, already said I regret nothing.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:


> You didn't answer my question but okay. I asked how you knew Les was a guy. Either that or I confused her with another poster in the FC. Not going to backtrack on my phone.
> 
> Not going to edit it, already said I regret nothing.



There was a time where he came into the cafe thread and told us he was gay. Plus he has some pictures in the cafe pic thread. It's ok bro if you're a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). It's normal now in society.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:
			
		

> Being an atheist means rejecting a belief in god or lacks belief in the existence of gods. That technically means that there must be some sort of god to reject. Being an atheist is an ironic position to be in because it requires in your belief that you reject the existence of god, but there has to be some sort of god to reject no?



Utterly retarded. No deity or deities have to actually exist to accept or reject the claim of their existence. All that is required is existence of the claim that they are, regardless of the veracity of such claims.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

Its interesting that this upsets people so much but a lot of these same people don't bat an eye when theists put up billboards and signs threatening atheists with an eternity of torture for the grave crime of disbelief.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Dec 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> lol Atheists. Since making a bunch of Bible thumpers mad is so difficult and so productive.


Trolling 101: Do something mildly provocative so the opposing side disproportionately overreacts and then makes themselves look like the crazy ones, pushing more on the margins to your side.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> There was a time where he came into the cafe thread and told us he was gay. Plus he has some pictures in the cafe pic thread. It's ok bro if you're a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). It's normal now in society.



What? Can you show me where? I have a pic that proves you wrong.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 2, 2014)

Yet another atheism thread where the same idiots (like Blue) poke their head in, say the same stupid and blatantly wrong thing about what atheism is for the 500th time, get corrected for the 500th time, then hardheadedly continue posting their shit and never acknowledging they are wrong.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its interesting that this upsets people so much but a lot of these same people don't bat an eye when theists put up billboards and signs threatening atheists with an eternity of torture for the grave crime of disbelief.



Because many Christians in this country have simultaneously existing attitudes of entitlement and perpetual victim complex.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Hitt said:


> Yet another atheism thread where the same idiots (like Blue) poke their head in, say the same stupid and blatantly wrong thing about what atheism is for the 500th time, get corrected for the 500th time, then hardheadedly continue posting their shit and never acknowledging they are wrong.


Blue in a nutshell.

//HbS


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because many Christians in this country have simultaneously existing attitudes of entitlement and perpetual victim complex.



Pretty sure Atheists act the same way.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its interesting that this upsets people so much but a lot of these same people don't bat an eye when theists put up billboards and signs threatening atheists with an eternity of torture for the grave crime of disbelief.



In fairness, that isn't meant as an insult or dig at atheists. It is the truth of the Bible for them.

Atheists are trying to put up things that are meant as direct insults. 

Like I said before, if Atheists were putting up things like "you are free to not believe" or "you don't have to believe", that would be a different story.


----------



## Freddy Mercury (Dec 2, 2014)

klad said:


> No, no he's right. There is no evidence that god exists or doesn't exist meaning that being an atheist requires faith to a certain degree.



What is burden of proof


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> Pretty sure Atheists act the same way.



Christians make up more than 80% of this country, there's no contest here. Many even respond this way toward other religions, because many in this country have the idea that because it is majority Christian, that is a Christian nation, and that people are obligated to be subject to their beliefs and practices. At the same time, they interpret any criticism or attempt to adhere to the secular ideals of this nation as an attack on their religion.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Christians make up more than 80% of this country, there's no contest here. Many even respond this way toward other religions, because many in this country have the idea that because it is majority Christian, that is a Christian nation, and that people are obligated to be subject to their beliefs and practices. At the same time, they interpret any criticism or attempt to adhere to the secular ideals of this nation as an attack on their religion.



That has nothing to do with what I said though.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> That has nothing to do with what I said though.



That has _everything_ to do with what you said. Atheists and religious minorities simply are not and have not been in a position to feel such a sense of entitlement because they don't make the majority. Christianity in particular dwells on long since past conditions in which they were the victimized minority, but still try to act as such in a country where they make the vast majority.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant. No it's not okay to believe in God. This is because we atheists don't think "oh i just dont 'believe' in God". we know he doesn't exist. His entire story is bullsht and the bible contradicts itself too many times to count. Also the bible has many things that go against basic morality (like slavery, letting someone pay off raping your daughter and then having to marry her). People are forced to believe in these principles of the Bible but they only nitpick on what they believe in. They can have sex before marriage but ofc they can't overlook homosexuals wanting to be married (even tho marriage is a ritual that occured secularly). So at the end of the day, no. It's not okay to be Christian and it's not okay to breed lies and ignorance.



You are aware that believing in God doesn't mean necessarily believing in the Abrahamic God, right?


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That has _everything_ to do with what you said. Atheists and religious minorities simply are not and have not been in a position to feel such a sense of entitlement because they don't make the majority. Christianity in particular dwells on long since past conditions in which they were the victimized minority, but still try to act as such in a country where they make the vast majority.



So in other words since atheists are the minority its ok for them to act with a since of entitlement and have a victim complex right? 

Good to know then.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> So in other words since atheists are the minority its ok for them to act with a since of entitlement and have a victim complex right?
> 
> Good to know then.



Jesus Christ. That isn't what I said at all, read it again.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> In fairness, that isn't meant as an insult or dig at atheists. It is the truth of the Bible for them.
> 
> Atheists are trying to put up things that are meant as direct insults.
> 
> Like I said before, if Atheists were putting up things like "you are free to not believe" or "you don't have to believe", that would be a different story.



Its meant as a threat.

I've been told many times that I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist and its invariably meant to scare me into becoming a theist.

It reminds me of the kind of things you hear the mafia say in movies, "hey, thats a nice soul you got there, be a shame if something happened to it".


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

Hitt said:


> Yet another atheism thread where the same idiots (like Blue) poke their head in, say the same stupid and blatantly wrong thing about what atheism is for the 500th time, get corrected for the 500th time, then hardheadedly continue posting their shit and never acknowledging they are wrong.



110% Accurate, mate . 

I'd give you rep but only tomorrow, sorry .



Oceania said:


> Pretty sure Atheists act the same way.



Victimizing ? I agree a little bit . Because if society in USA has a view as nearly as bad of atheists as many in Brazil do, then they are kinda right .

It's no holocaust, no inquisition but the discrimination is real .

The discrimination is real, but many times the exaggeration is also real .


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Anyway,if you have read the bible you should know that some of this tragic actions were used by god as last resort,for example how many times Moses tried to convince the pharaoh to free the jews? everythime he refused to free them,he had chances,at the end god punished his stubborness.



Ugh...... you don't want to use pharaoh of all examples.

God hardened pharaoh's heart to be able to keep punishing him.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

I mean even if 80% of the pop is christian, that still doesn't change the fact that I've met atheists that have the same "better than you" attitude and always playing victim. I mean it goes both ways really both parties act the same way.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> It reminds me of the kind of things you hear the mafia say in movies, "hey, thats a nice soul you got there, be a shame if something happened to it".



You just reminded me of this 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJgLBoB_Pw&list=UULhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I mean even if 80% of the pop is christian, that still doesn't change the fact that I've met atheists that have the same "better than you" attitude and always playing victim. I mean it goes both ways really both parties act the same way.



Its a bit hard for 80% or 90% of the population to cry persecution by the remaining people, especially when its socially acceptable to shun the remaining percent.  Its basically impossible in this country to run for many higher offices without professing some kind of belief in the supernatural.

What do you think would happen to a Presidential candidate who revealed they were a muslim or an atheist?  That would be the end of their campaign.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its meant as a threat.



No, its meant as a statement of fact, just like when a mother warns a child that playing in the street could get them killed.  To a Christian hell is real.  The fact that you do not believe it does not make the statement a threat.

These people are simply insulting beliefs that are different than theirs.  Its the typical classless act we see from many atheists on our own forums: insult, decry, demean and whine when someone dares critique your own philosophy.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

It's implicitly a threat, bacon.


----------



## Vermin (Dec 2, 2014)

in my opinion, it seems like religion as a whole is in the decline though 

but it was a dumb idea to do this in the south of all places


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

zyken said:


> in my opinion, it seems like religion as a whole is in the decline though
> 
> but it was a dumb idea to do this in the south of all places



Religion is far from declining.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its a bit hard for 80% or 90% of the population to cry persecution by the remaining people, especially when its socially acceptable to shun the remaining percent.  Its basically impossible in this country to run for many higher offices without professing some kind of belief in the supernatural.
> 
> *What do you think would happen to a Presidential candidate who revealed they were a muslim or an atheist?  That would be the end of their campaign.*



What does that have to do with anything?

If people do not trust people with a different set of beliefs they'd be no different than an other partisan.  The problem is that we have a group, atheists, that are far from the dispassionate logical group they would portray themselves as.  If they truly believe there is no god why do they care so much what other people believe?  I think Santa is a fairy tale and will not raise my children to believe in him.  I don't go around trying to break other kids from that same fairy tale; that would be rude and frankly, too much effort for something that isn't real.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> No, its meant as a statement of fact, just like when a mother warns a child that playing in the street could get them killed.  To a Christian hell is real.  The fact that you do not believe it does not make the statement a threat.
> 
> These people are simply insulting beliefs that are different than theirs.  Its the typical classless act we see from many atheists on our own forums: insult, decry, demean and whine when someone dares critique your own philosophy.



100% agree.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 2, 2014)

When you pay for a billboard to advertise your religious ideas you're officially a religion


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's implicitly a threat, bacon.



SK, if you run out in front of a bus you might get killed.  You'll definitely be injured.

Was the above a threat?


----------



## Vermin (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Religion is far from declining.



well it just seems like more people that i meet don't believe in a god, i guess it could be because i live in one of the states that is the most non religious  in the us, but i think its more then that


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 2, 2014)

Saishin said:
			
		

> Anyway,if you have read the bible you should know that some of this tragic actions were used by god as last resort,for example how many times Moses tried to convince the pharaoh to free the jews? everythime he refused to free them,he had chances,at the end god punished his stubborness.



So why hasn't god like smited ISIS for being so violent and begetting violence where they go?  I mean, one good monsoon and we got drowned ISIS and plenty of water
He's done it before he can do it again.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> SK, if you run out in front of a bus you might get killed.  You'll definitely be injured.
> 
> Was the above a threat?



Not comparable really. In that reality you risk the chance of severely injuring yourself, or possibly dying.

Hell imposes that there is no return from the damned life you chose to live. Yes, saying someone is gonna be condemned to hell if they don't shape up would be perceived a threat more so than advice.



zyken said:


> well it just seems like more people that i meet don't believe in a god, i guess it could be because i live in one of the states that is the most non religious  in the us, but i think its more then that



So because you see less of religious people means religion is on the decline? My god the stupidity. Are you related to Hunted by Sister by any chance?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> No, its meant as a statement of fact, just like when a mother warns a child that playing in the street could get them killed.  To a Christian hell is real.  The fact that you do not believe it does not make the statement a threat.
> 
> These people are simply insulting beliefs that are different than theirs.  Its the typical classless act we see from many atheists on our own forums: insult, decry, demean and whine when someone dares critique your own philosophy.



I see.  So if its a fact that if you don't give me your wallet I'm going to stab you, is it a threat or is just "a statement of fact"?  I mean in that situation it would certainly be a fact that thats whats going to happen if you don't give me your wallet.

You're saying that someone has set up a place of torture, and I'm going to be sent there against my will forever and ever unless I do exactly what that person wants me to do.

Even if its a fact, its still a threat.



baconbits said:


> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> If people do not trust people with a different set of beliefs they'd be no different than an other partisan.  The problem is that we have a group, atheists, that are far from the dispassionate logical group they would portray themselves as.  If they truly believe there is no god why do they care so much what other people believe?  I think Santa is a fairy tale and will not raise my children to believe in him.  I don't go around trying to break other kids from that same fairy tale; that would be rude and frankly, too much effort for something that isn't real.



My point is that its hard to take a group seriously that's claiming persecution when they hold all the positions of power in this country.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> When you pay for a billboard to advertise your religious ideas you're officially a religion


That's not how it works, you should be ashamed of yourself.

//HbS


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its meant as a threat.



That "threat" comes from God/the Bible though, not the person stating it. They are just spreading the good word, as they say. 

The atheists trying to put up these billboards are directly insulting another persons beliefs. There is a difference here. 

And you can agree or disagree with both sets of billboards/messages should they be put up, but you can't tell me there isn't a difference in the intentions of each party.


Edit: Forgot to add that if you believe there is no hell anyway, you can't really perceive that as a threat.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> SK, if you run out in front of a bus you might get killed.  You'll definitely be injured.
> 
> Was the above a threat?



No, but "if you don't believe what I do our god will have you burn for it" is. Because in all honesty, you nor any other Christian can't truly know what happens if anything to the human consciousness after death. You like the countless other religions, think you have the universal truth, and claim rejection of your specific one will end in suffering at the whim of your deity.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

And what are people talking about on the " atheists do to irritate christians " thing ? How many " you'll go to hell if you don't believe " ads didn't we see already ?


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

I will admit that's where the church went wrong, when people used to gain political powers. Then of course twisted the words to justify horrible acts that were done, like Inquisition and other similar times when the church would torture others.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> And what are people talking about on the " atheists do to irritate christians " thing ? How many " you'll go to hell if you don't believe " ads didn't we see already ?



As has been explained, the intentions are completely different.

A Christian is supposed to spread the word of God and in doing so, save sinners and such. So that is the intention of the billboard.

You could argue that the atheists attempts are similar in ways, but you can't ignore the fact that they are using wording and such that is meant to insult and rile up.


To be clear though, I think most Christians will be riled up no matter how they word it, but I am speaking from more from my perspective.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> That "threat" comes from God/the Bible though, not the person stating it. They are just spreading the good word, as they say.
> 
> The atheists trying to put up these billboards are directly insulting another persons beliefs. There is a difference here.
> 
> ...



Thank you, I've been wanting to say this but wasn't too sure how to. completely agree.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> That "threat" comes from God/the Bible though, not the person stating it. They are just spreading the good word, as they say.



Actually, they are spreading a threat from the bible. Doesn't matter if it's first or third person, the intention is still the same.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I will admit that's where the church went wrong, when people used to gain political powers. Then of course twisted the words to justify horrible acts that were done, like Inquisition and other similar times when the church would torture others.



When you're right, you're right.


How does one know if their religion is the one true religion?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Actually, they are spreading a threat from the bible. Doesn't matter if it's first or third person, the intention is still the same.



Not at all. 

The intention from a Christian point of view is that they are helping save those who don't believe. There is no ill intent at all. Well, you may get some people who are like "I can't wait to piss these atheists off" or whatever, but in principal the idea is that you helping your fellow man.

You can't tell me that is the same as what the atheists are doing by insulting another persons beliefs.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> No, its meant as a statement of fact, just like when a mother warns a child that playing in the street could get them killed.  To a Christian hell is real.  The fact that you do not believe it does not make the statement a threat.
> 
> These people are simply insulting beliefs that are different than theirs.  Its the typical classless act we see from many atheists on our own forums: insult, decry, demean and whine when someone dares critique your own philosophy.



Here is how I take it, if I go to church willingly and I am said I am going to hell if I don't follow your dogmas, then yes, I set myself in that scenario.

If you knock at my house without invitation to do so and tell me if I don't belive in what you say I am going to hell, is a threat and disrespectful.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Not at all.
> 
> The intention from a Christian point of view is that they are helping save those who don't believe. There is no ill intent at all. Well, you may get some people who are like "I can't wait to piss these atheists off" or whatever, but in principal the idea is that you helping your fellow man.
> 
> You can't tell me that is the same as what the atheists are doing by insulting another persons beliefs.



I'm not basing the mention of telling someone they will go to hell as comparable to what Atheist may be saying, regardless if it's advice, it's threatening advice.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 2, 2014)

Agree with Cyphon here, the role of the christian is to spread the word of god, which just more than "believe or your going to hell"


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> I'm not basing the mention of telling someone they will go to hell as comparable to what Atheist may be saying, regardless if it's advice, it's threatening advice.



Technically yes. But it isn't like you would call the cops on someone for threatening you if they said this....Or would you


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I mean even if 80% of the pop is christian, that still doesn't change the fact that I've met atheists that have the same "better than you" attitude and always playing victim. I mean it goes both ways really both parties act the same way.



Based on your poor reasoning skills, I'd say there's a pretty good chance those people actually are just objectively better than you.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Not comparable really. In that reality you risk the chance of severely injuring yourself, or possibly dying.



That's the entire point of the comparison friend.  Death is analogized to hell.  There are some injuries you'll never recover from; and death is irreversible.  The same with the Christian view of our eternal fate.



Tsukiyomi said:


> I see.  So if its a fact that if you don't give me your wallet I'm going to stab you, is it a threat or is just "a statement of fact"?  I mean in that situation it would certainly be a fact that thats whats going to happen if you don't give me your wallet.



That's a stupid comparison.  To say "if you jump in front of a bus you will die" is not comparable in any way to "if I throw you in front of a bus you will die".  One is just a statement of belief; the other is a statement of future intention to do harm: its explicitly a threat.

If I were to say "make me mad and I'll send you to hell" that would be a threat.  To say "these are the conditions that lead a person to go to heaven and these are the conditions that will lead a soul to hell" is not a threat.  It is a statement of belief.  The two are not equivalent to any thinking person.

If you want to say that God is making a threat then I wouldn't argue with you.  Christians are not God, though; they are subject to the same doctrines (if we presume Christianity is correct) as anyone else is.



Tsukiyomi said:


> My point is that its hard to take a group seriously that's claiming persecution when they hold all the positions of power in this country.



First, your claim itself is laughable.  We claim all positions of power but gay marriage is basically the law of the land?  We claim all positions of power but the population is 50/50 on abortion?  We claim all positions of power but people are split on the death penalty?

All we have a plurality and a tradition of Christianity; most pastors and leaders of churches would quickly admit that the nation does not, to our shame, follow many Christian principles.

Second, your claim is illogical.  Even if you were a majority you could still be persecuted.  The percentage of the population does not determine whether persecution exists or not.

Third, this topic isn't even about Christian persecution.  I think that term is overused.  What we have are atheists, like the OP, being jerks.  That's not the same as persecuting Christians; that would be more like the mayor in Texas trying to force ministers to turn over their sermons and report whether they decried homosexuality.  That's more like persecution.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No, but "if you don't believe what I do our god will have you burn for it" is.



That isn't a threat.  That's a statement of fact.  Its a threat only if you think that somehow our will factors into this.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Because in all honesty, you nor any other Christian can't truly know what happens if anything to the human consciousness after death. You like the countless other religions, think you have the universal truth, and claim rejection of your specific one will end in suffering at the whim of your deity.



You're begging the question; your argument hinges on us "not knowing" and the only reason we don't know is because you've presumed we cannot.  I do not accept such faulty logic.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 2, 2014)

It's possible to someday know what happens to the human consciousness after death, but as with any meaningful accumulation of knowledge over the past 1,000 years this knowledge would come from the measured, self-corrected mechanisms of Science, not the beliefs of superstitious goat herders from the Bronze Age.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Actually, they are spreading a threat from the bible. Doesn't matter if it's first or third person, the intention is still the same.



That isn't the same at all.

"Yo, HB, those gangbangers down the street said they'll beat anybody that snitches."

Is that me offering you a threat or making a statement of belief based on what I heard?



Orochibuto said:


> Here is how I take it, if I go to church willingly and I am said I am going to hell if I don't follow your dogmas, then yes, I set myself in that scenario.
> 
> If you knock at my house without invitation to do so and tell me if I don't belive in what you say I am going to hell, is a threat and disrespectful.



The scenario does not matter.  If your house is on fire and I say "Orochibuto, you'll die if you don't get out of that house" it doesn't matter that you might not be willing to receive me.  I am not offering a threat, merely alerting you to a potential danger and showing a way to escape it.  This is the same with Christianity - we do not offer a threat, we merely alert others to it.

Second, a threat implies the will to carry out harm.  Christians neither have the desire nor power to punish the sinner.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> It's possible to someday know what happens to the human consciousness after death, but as with any meaningful accumulation of knowledge over the past 1,000 years this knowledge would come from the measured, self-corrected mechanisms of Science, not the beliefs of superstitious goat herders from the Bronze Age.



First, that's your presumption, not an argument.  If you were honest you'd state "we don't know for sure what happens to consciousness; the truth could be the Christian faith or any alternative.  I choose to wait until the facts are verified scientifically".  That would be a valid position.  Tragic, but valid.

But you've presumed that Christianity is wrong without a meaningful accumulation of knowledge; your words contradict your own philosophy.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> The scenario does not matter.  If your house is on fire and I say "Orochibuto, you'll die if you don't get out of that house" it doesn't matter that you might not be willing to receive me.  I am not offering a threat, merely alerting you to a potential danger and showing a way to escape it.  This is the same with Christianity - we do not offer a threat, we merely alert others to it.



You can't compare my house burning with this. The house is an impersonal force that burns anything in its path.

Here you are basically telling me if I don't follow your beleifs I am going to be tortured by someone else for not obeying him, it is a threat.

Basically this:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJgLBoB_Pw&list=UULhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ[/YOUTUBE]



baconbits said:


> Second, a threat implies the will to carry out harm.  Christians neither have the desire nor power to punish the sinner.



There is a will to carry out harm, it may not be your will, but there is still.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Technically yes. But it isn't like you would call the cops on someone for threatening you if they said this....Or would you



Let's not go into technicalities, because technically any one of us is absolutely correct. It's not illegal to call the cops if someone is threatening you. So why wouldn't I?



baconbits said:


> That's the entire point of the comparison friend.  Death is analogized to hell.  There are some injuries you'll never recover from; and death is irreversible.  The same with the Christian view of our eternal fate.



Telling someone they are going to hell is a matter of opinion since really there is no factual evidence saying otherwise. Telling someone the possibility of stepping in front of a bus is a reality and has happen where we were able to record the actual events. The condemning of one to hell is a serious accusation because it alters a person's way of life entirely. Being threaten by the thought of getting hit by a bus is only going to affect me looking across the street both ways before crossing. Other than that I live my life the way I want.



baconbits said:


> That isn't the same at all.
> 
> "Yo, HB, those gangbangers down the street said they'll beat anybody that snitches."
> 
> Is that me offering you a threat or making a statement of belief based on what I heard?



Depends on how you tell me. If you tell me in a threatening manner not to go to that location because of might happen, then yea, I will perceive your message as a threat. I wouldn't have anything against you, but I know not to go down that ally because of a threatening outcome.


----------



## Juda (Dec 2, 2014)

What the fck is this . How pathetic and intolerant can these closed minded folks be ?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Let's not go into technicalities, because technically any one of us is absolutely correct. It's not illegal to call the cops if someone is threatening you. So why wouldn't I?



Because you know the cops would just laugh at you?

That is what I was getting at.

There is a difference between where the threat is coming from or how it is stated. Bacon explained it a bit better in his posts.

I guess one of the better examples I can think of off the top of my head would be comparing it to a doctor.

If he/she tells you that you are going to die if you keep up certain bad habits you don't take it as a threat, you take it as helpful advice. You wouldn't call the cops on a doctor from telling you that you were going to die.

So while technically you could call it a threat, it isn't really that


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Because you know the cops would just laugh at you?



A cop's opinion is irrelevant and you know it. 



> There is a difference between where the threat is coming from or how it is stated. Bacon explained it a bit better in his posts.



I addressed that in my last post.



> I guess one of the better examples I can think of off the top of my head would be comparing it to a doctor.
> 
> If he/she tells you that you are going to die if you keep up certain bad habits you don't take it as a threat, you take it as helpful advice. You wouldn't call the cops on a doctor from telling you that you were going to die.
> 
> So while technically you could call it a threat, it isn't really that



The thought of dying is not a threat to you? It's not what's being said, but the cause of the action it resort to. Telling me to drink water because it promotes healthy blood flow is not a threat. Telling me to drink more water because I would die of dehydration if I don't is a threat. You may not be threatening me directly, but the implications of what you said may result of a fatal outcome if I don't.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> As has been explained, the intentions are completely different.
> 
> A Christian is supposed to spread the word of God and in doing so, save sinners and such. So that is the intention of the billboard.
> 
> ...



Take it an approach of an atheist: He'll save you at least one hour every sunday for the rest of your life .

There are 52 sundays this year, this is 52 hours .

Not to talk about those more devoted to it, he'll save you from spending cash, and wasting even more time .


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> That's a stupid comparison.  To say "if you jump in front of a bus you will die" is not comparable in any way to "if I throw you in front of a bus you will die".  One is just a statement of belief; the other is a statement of future intention to do harm: its explicitly a threat.
> 
> If I were to say "make me mad and I'll send you to hell" that would be a threat.  To say "these are the conditions that lead a person to go to heaven and these are the conditions that will lead a soul to hell" is not a threat.  It is a statement of belief.  The two are not equivalent to any thinking person.
> 
> If you want to say that God is making a threat then I wouldn't argue with you.  Christians are not God, though; they are subject to the same doctrines (if we presume Christianity is correct) as anyone else is.



I have a question, who created hell?  Oh right, GOD.  God CREATING a place that we have no choice but to be sent to if we don't do what he wants us to do.

If hell existed all by itself and god had absolutely nothing to do with it then yes, it would just be a statement of fact, but he CREATED it.  He created a situation in which you'll be tortured forever and ever and ever unless you do what he wants.

That makes god DIRECTLY responsible for the torture.



baconbits said:


> First, your claim itself is laughable.  We claim all positions of power but gay marriage is basically the law of the land? We claim all positions of power but the population is 50/50 on abortion?  We claim all positions of power but people are split on the death penalty?



You would have a point if ALL christians agreed on those issues, but they don't.  Nice try though.

The courts that guaranteed abortion as a right, made up entirely of christians who had the power to rule however they wanted.  The people who wrote the death penalty laws and rule on their constitutionality, all christians.

The fact that all those christians made decisions YOU disagree with doesn't somehow mean they didn't have the power to rule however they want.

Lets say they did rule the way you wanted, what possible recourse would atheists have?  None.  We could basically petition the christians to pretty please change their minds.



baconbits said:


> All we have a plurality and a tradition of Christianity; most pastors and leaders of churches would quickly admit that the nation does not, to our shame, follow many Christian principles.
> 
> *Second, your claim is illogical.  Even if you were a majority you could still be persecuted.  The percentage of the population does not determine whether persecution exists or not.*
> 
> Third, this topic isn't even about Christian persecution.  I think that term is overused.  What we have are atheists, like the OP, being jerks.  That's not the same as persecuting Christians; that would be more like the mayor in Texas trying to force ministers to turn over their sermons and report whether they decried homosexuality.  That's more like persecution.



Please explain to me specifically how 10% of the population can persecute the remaining 90%.  Especially when as I pointed out ALL major positions of power are held by that 90%.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

@bacon: The simple fact of the matter is that your religion does not possess the objective, universal truth. You simply believe your religion has it, no different from any other faithful of any other religion. You can have some belief on what happens to the human consciousness after death, but you do not hold the truth to what happens after it. It's not a presumption, it's a fact. You don't know, you don't have the evidence to assert your claims. It is all based on faith.

Telling a person that the alternative to the faith is eternal torture and damnation is threatening to that individual, once again.



Mr. Black Leg said:


> Take it an approach of an atheist: He'll save you at least one hour every sunday for the rest of your life .
> 
> There are 52 sundays this year, this is 52 hours .
> 
> Not to talk about those more devoted to it, he'll save you from spending cash, and wasting even more time .



In evangelical churches it can be anywhere from 156-158 hours. At least for me it was...


----------



## soulnova (Dec 2, 2014)

Oceania said:


> Agree with Cyphon here, the role of the christian is to spread the word of god, which just more than "believe or your going to hell"



You are right. There's also the "women must be submissive to men", "If you get raped you have to marry your aggressor", "Gays should be killed" and the less known "You can pray to God to make your enemies' women to miscarry, kill their unborn and for their babies to die of starvation (Hosea 9:14) ", "Every skeptic and nonbeliever has an evil heart of unbelief" Hebrews 3:12, and "If you're not a Christian, it's impossible to please God" Hebrew 11:6. 


Sure, there is some good stuff and massages in the Bible... but simply put, one cannot turn a blind eye at all that and say, "hey, I accept the Bible is the word of God" without also agreeing to all the above. Which is horrible.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> A cop's opinion is irrelevant and you know it.



You asked.



> The thought of dying is not a threat to you?



No. It happens to us all. 



> You may not be threatening me directly, but the implications of what you said may result of a fatal outcome if I don't.



You are covering every definition of the word. I am talking about primary way it is defined which is:

"an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage"

or

"a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:"

And neither of these apply here. 



Mr. Black Leg said:


> Take it an approach of an atheist: He'll save you at least one hour every sunday for the rest of your life .



And he can attempt to do so without adding insult or attempting to rile up the masses.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

ANd then you cut out the perfect example I left. Good job.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> @bacon: The simple fact of the matter is that your religion does not possess the objective, universal truth. You simply believe your religion has it, no different from any other faithful of any other religion. You can have some belief on what happens to the human consciousness after death, but you do not hold the truth to what happens after it. It's not a presumption, it's a fact. You don't know, you don't have the evidence to assert your claims. It is all based on faith.
> 
> Telling a person that the alternative to the faith is eternal torture and damnation is threatening to that individual, once again.
> 
> ...



The fuck dude ? 156 hours ? ... Dude ... This is a lot . Really, a lot . Seriously, what did you do in the church ? 

I've seen fanatical evangelical people who go to the church everyday of the week, and it's not one hour, it's like form 16-19h . I always  asked what do people do in there ? I only went to catholic church when I was little and by the time I was like 9 I turned into an atheist and started getting rebelious, so my father would beat me up because I didn't want to praise the lord .



Cyphon said:


> You asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They can do without resorting to say " You're gonna have cancer and end up in hell ", and actually focus on doing good because it's good, not because you fear a cosmic guy who'll fuck you if you don't do good .


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

soulnova said:


> Sure, there is some good stuff and massages in the Bible... but simply put, one cannot turn a blind eye at all that and say, "hey, I accept the Bible is the word of God" without also agreeing to all the above. Which is horrible.


Christians tend to cherry-pick the Bible and preach about how awesome and loving their religion is, when in fact, it's pretty damn gruesome and violent.

//HbS


----------



## Saishin (Dec 2, 2014)

soulnova said:


> You are right. There's also the "women must be submissive to men", "If you get raped you have to marry your aggressor", "Gays should be killed" and the less known "You can pray to God to make your enemies' women to miscarry, kill their unborn and for their babies to die of starvation (Hosea 9:14) ", "Every skeptic and nonbeliever has an evil heart of unbelief" Hebrews 3:12, and "If you're not a Christian, it's impossible to please God" Hebrew 11:6.
> 
> 
> Sure, there is some good stuff and massages in the Bible... but simply put, one cannot turn a blind eye at all that and say, "hey, I accept the Bible is the word of God" without also agreeing to all the above. Which is horrible.


Hmmm that's also true,but let's not forget the cultural contest in which these laws were made,these laws were common in all the civil and penal codes of the ancient people.Everybody know that in ancient times women have always been submissived by the men because that was the mentality,these laws that now we find justly horrible were a part of the culture of those times.Also the Jews were a people that was closed to the foreigners due to the fact that they believed to be the chosen ones thus anyone that wasn't part of their community or do not convert was saw as a menace,it's not surpriseing then to see such tough laws that punished those who didn't believe.
Also nowdays in regard the Christianism,the Church have now changed,it doesn't say to marry your rapist or women must be submissive to men



Orochibuto said:


> Ugh...... you don't want to use pharaoh of all examples.
> 
> God hardened pharaoh's heart to be able to keep punishing him.


But the first time Moses tried to convince him with just a snake magic trick,if he freed them in that moment he could save to himself lot of troubles  


Subarashii said:


> So why hasn't god like smited ISIS for being so violent and begetting violence where they go?  I mean, one good monsoon and we got drowned ISIS and plenty of water
> He's done it before he can do it again.


I don't know really,as I told you I'm agnostic,I'm not religious and I have doubts when I see these things and wonder where is god.
In the bible god acts through the action of the men,god doesn't do everything alone,to accomplish his plans he seeks the cooperation of the men.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Hmmm that's also true,but let's not forget the historical contest in which these laws were made,these laws were common in all the cultures.



Who cares what the historical context was?  This is supposed to be coming from a god.  He should be able to tell them anything he wants.

If he can say "don't kill, don't steal and don't work on Sunday" why couldn't he say things like "don't rape, don't own slaves and treat women as equals"?

Why would a god need to change their rules and commands based on what the people that worship them believe and practice?


----------



## baconbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> You can't compare my house burning with this. The house is an impersonal force that burns anything in its path.



The point is not that God is impersonal but rather that nothing I can do will change the fact that hell exists and that some people will go there.  Since I'm not the one who created hell and I do not have the will nor power to punish sinners it is incorrect to say that I, or any Christian is making any threat by teaching about hell; any more than you would make a threat if you told a kid to be careful going through the ghetto at a certain time of the night.



Orochibuto said:


> Here you are basically telling me if I don't follow your beleifs I am going to be tortured by someone else for not obeying him, it is a threat.



That's not a threat.  A threat is something that I can do intentionally to bring you harm.  Here's threat defined in a google search:

_a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done._

The christian has no intention to inflict pain, therefore he is not making a threat.  God is making a threat.  We can agree on that.



Orochibuto said:


> There is a will to carry out harm, it may not be your will, but there is still.



True.  What does that have to do with anything I've said, tho?  Secondly while we've gone on and on about threats and harm we've said nothing about the atheists who randomly insult people who believe something different with the pure purpose of upsetting them.  They are jerks - we should all be able to agree with that.



Hand Banana said:


> Telling someone they are going to hell is a matter of opinion since really there is no factual evidence saying otherwise.



It depends on how you define truth and facts.  In Christianity whatever God has said is a fact; thus your argument, based off of a presumption that Christianity is wrong, is begging the question: the argument has no force unless we already agree Christianity is false.



Hand Banana said:


> Telling someone the possibility of stepping in front of a bus is a reality and has happen where we were able to record the actual events. The condemning of one to hell is a serious accusation because it alters a person's way of life entirely.



So what.  If hell really exists the two scenarios are directly comparable.  If hell is real you should change your way of life to avoid it.  That's common sense.



Hand Banana said:


> Being threaten by the thought of getting hit by a bus is only going to affect me looking across the street both ways before crossing. Other than that I live my life the way I want.



That doesn't matter.  The fact that the truth can impact your life greatly does not make it a threat.



Hand Banana said:


> Depends on how you tell me. If you tell me in a threatening manner not to go to that location because of might happen, then yea, I will perceive your message as a threat. I wouldn't have anything against you, but I know not to go down that ally because of a threatening outcome.



You're being obtuse.  If I warn you of gangbangers and I have nothing to do with them I'm not making a threat.  That goes against the definition of what a threat is.  If I say "cross me and I might have to have some boys come to your house" that's a threat.  If I say "watch out; there are guys waiting behind those bushes" that's not a threat.  They are a threat to you but I am not making a threat.  Making a threat and something being "threatening" are two different things.



Tsukiyomi said:


> I have a question, who created hell?  Oh right, GOD.  God CREATING a place that we have no choice but to be sent to if we don't do what he wants us to do.



This is that part in the discussion where I shake my head at your reading comprehension.  Did you read the part where I state God IS threatening people?  I didn't think so.  My point is that there is a big difference between God, who has the power and will to inflict punishment, and the Christian, who has neither the power nor desire to inflict punishment.  

In other words if some guys tell me "I'm gonna beat up Tsuki" and I warn you about them I'm not the one making the threat; I'm warning you about the threat.  They are making a threat.  That's not debatable (neither is the fact that I'm not making a threat, but clearly we've descended to elementary level discussions).



Tsukiyomi said:


> That makes god DIRECTLY responsible for the torture.



No one denies that.  You're stating that with the force of a man who expects disagreement.



Tsukiyomi said:


> You would have a point if ALL christians agreed on those issues, but they don't.  Nice try though.



Orthodox theology is pretty clear on all these issues.  If Christianity was still a dominant force in our society opinion would be different.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Lets say they did rule the way you wanted, what possible recourse would atheists have?  None.  We could basically petition the christians to pretty please change their minds.



I don't get your point or how this relates to the discussion at hand.  Since we live in a free society free people can try to convince others to think the same way they do.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Please explain to me specifically how 10% of the population can persecute the remaining 90%.  Especially when as I pointed out ALL major positions of power are held by that 90%.



I already pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument.  You've ignored the arguments and focused on other matters.  Why should I entertain this point anymore?



Seto Kaiba said:


> The simple fact of the matter is that your religion does not possess the objective, universal truth.



That's your presumption.  You're free to be wrong but don't anticipate convincing other rational people if you don't have an argument to support your presumptions.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You simply believe your religion has it, no different from any other faithful of any other religion. You can have some belief on what happens to the human consciousness after death, but you do not hold the truth to what happens after it. It's not a presumption, it's a fact. You don't know, you don't have the evidence to assert your claims. It is all based on faith.



I do know.  The fact that you presume the opposite does not prove your argument.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Telling a person that the alternative to the faith is eternal torture and damnation is threatening to that individual, once again.



No, its a statement of fact.  If any of you could be bothered to research the definition of a threat you'd validate my position.


----------



## Jeαnne (Dec 2, 2014)

this advertisement is a paradox


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> This is that part in the discussion where I shake my head at your reading comprehension.  Did you read the part where I state God IS threatening people?  I didn't think so.  My point is that there is a big difference between God, who has the power and will to inflict punishment, and the Christian, who has neither the power nor desire to inflict punishment.
> 
> In other words if some guys tell me "I'm gonna beat up Tsuki" and I warn you about them I'm not the one making the threat; I'm warning you about the threat.  They are making a threat.  That's not debatable (neither is the fact that I'm not making a threat, but clearly we've descended to elementary level discussions).



Wait what?  So if I mug you, but I have a partner and say "you should give me all your money, or my buddy here is going to kill you" I'm not making a threat?  Is that how this works?

And tell me honestly, does it really not bother you at all that your god is threatening ETERNAL TORTURE on people simply for not believing in him?  Do you really think thats a crime that deserves and unending incomprehensible punishment?



baconbits said:


> Orthodox theology is pretty clear on all these issues.  If Christianity was still a dominant force in our society opinion would be different.



Orthodox theology isn't "pretty clear" on most things.  If it were then there wouldn't be THOUSANDS of denominations of christianity.  So much of the bible is open to interpretation that new sects pop up all the time with genuine disagreements on particular passages.



baconbits said:


> I don't get your point or how this relates to the discussion at hand.  Since we live in a free society free people can try to convince others to think the same way they do.



Ok, let me slow down then.  You're saying that somehow atheists can "persecute" theists in this country.  If the christian has all of the power, and all the atheist can do is beg and plead and try to get them to change their mind, persecution by the atheist is impossible.

In order to persecute someone you have to wield some degree of power.  Even if I were to agree that allowing gay marriage for example is somehow persecution against christians, its being done by other christians, not by atheists.

The atheists may be the ones bringing the cases to court, but the courts are packed with christians who are the ones actually making the rulings.



baconbits said:


> I already pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument.  You've ignored the arguments and focused on other matters.  Why should I entertain this point anymore?



I know you THINK you did, but no, you didn't.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> It depends on how you define truth and facts.  In Christianity whatever God has said is a fact; thus your argument, based off of a presumption that Christianity is wrong, is begging the question: the argument has no force unless we already agree Christianity is false.



But to a non Christian it's not fact. And there are plenty of times people try to spread the message of Christianity to non believers of the religion.





> So what.  If hell really exists the two scenarios are directly comparable.  If hell is real you should change your way of life to avoid it.  That's common sense.



But there's no factual proof it does exist. Ifs are essentially technicalities. And if hell were real and a person still chose to live his/her life in that manner, then who are you to advise at that point?




> That doesn't matter.  The fact that the truth can impact your life greatly does not make it a threat.



Regardless of whether is true or false, it's the point of the message and how to coercive someone's life.





> You're being obtuse.  If I warn you of gangbangers and I have nothing to do with them I'm not making a threat.  That goes against the definition of what a threat is.  If I say "cross me and I might have to have some boys come to your house" that's a threat.  If I say "watch out; there are guys waiting behind those bushes" that's not a threat.  They are a threat to you but I am not making a threat.  Making a threat and something being "threatening" are two different things.



I think you're confusing threat in how it's being perceived. You're not the threat, but the message you spread is threatening. At this point we can use other adjectives. Warnings, precautions, hazards, whatever... but the point of how the message is being perceived still stays the same.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 2, 2014)

Bacon, sorry, you can't make your own definition of the word fact.  Facts are by definition verifiably true.   Heaven and/or hell have not been shown to exist objectively.  Therefore, their existence is most definitely not a "fact".

Sure Christians have strong BELIEF that these places exist, but belief does not make them facts.  This wouldn't be the first time you were being willfully dishonest with your use of words and their meaning.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

Jeαnne said:


> this advertisement is a paradox


I think it's a mockery, as in Santa is more believable than God.

//HbS


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 2, 2014)

Saishin said:


> You're right,as far as I know according to what the church teaches about such issues,god created the hell but you wrong if you think that those who goes there (obviously for those who believes in such things) go because they don't do want god wants.Hell was created for those that refuse god,which is good and love,*this mean that those that are condemned are those that willingly and consciously refuse the salvation that god offer them and thus they choose evil,if they are there it's not because god sent them there but because it was their own choice to go there*,and of course since it is a place where there is no good it can't be but a place of sufferings,this is what I could understand from the religion classes.Obviously everyone is free to believe or not to believe.



Bullshit, absolute 100% bullshit.

No one, and I mean NO ONE would EVER consciously CHOOSE to be tortured for all eternity.

Even if we did consciously choose to reject god, why does that warrant eternal TORTURE.  Couldn't we just cease to exist when we die?  Or we could be reincarnated so we had repeated chances, or we could just go somewhere without torture and just hang out with all the other atheists throughout history.

There is no reason that TORTURE is the only way available to god to deal with people who don't want him.

I'd also like to point out that you can't CHOOSE your beliefs, its not possible.  If I took you to the top of a building and told you to choose not to believe in gravity and jump, could you?  No.  You could lie to me and pretend not to believe in it but you still would.

Your beliefs are the result of whatever facts and information are banging around in your head.  I'm an atheist because I've found the evidence for any deity to be extremely weak.  I can't choose to believe otherwise, the only way my beliefs on the subject will change is if some much stronger evidence is presented.

That's called intellectual honesty.  In what way exactly would intellectual honesty be choosing to be tortured forever?  And in what way is that intellectual honesty worthy of any punishment whatsoever?



Saishin said:


> God doesn't want to impose his will to the men,he created us free to choose,he can give guide lines how to live a correct life but he can't oblige the man to follow him,the last decision is always belong to us.



I'm not sure how that addresses my point.  My point was that god COULD have commanded that people treat women as equals and not own slaves, but he didn't.  People would have still been free to choose to disobey but he didn't even bother telling them not to do those things, but he did tell them not to work on Sunday.  He DID choose to lay down rules, but left out some pretty major ones and included a bunch of trivial rules.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> The point is not that God is impersonal but rather that nothing I can do will change the fact that hell exists and that some people will go there.  Since I'm not the one who created hell and I do not have the will nor power to punish sinners it is incorrect to say that I, or any Christian is making any threat by teaching about hell; any more than you would make a threat if you told a kid to be careful going through the ghetto at a certain time of the night.



It is different, avoiding a ghetto will not impact your life greatly.

What you are saying to me is the equivalent of saying if I don't obey a guy in everything he says he will commit the most vile attrocious acts on me.

A better analogy would be, a citizen in Nazi Germany telling you that if you don't obey the Fuhrer you are going to get sent to the Concentration Camps. That is a threat, an indirect threat but is a threat.

Or if you want me to tone it down, at beast it can be compared to a guy telling you that a robber is approaching you and you better hand him all your stuff or he is going to blow your head off, it is still a threat.



baconbits said:


> That's not a threat.  A threat is something that I can do intentionally to bring you harm.  Here's threat defined in a google search:
> 
> _a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done._
> 
> The christian has no intention to inflict pain, therefore he is not making a threat.  God is making a threat.  We can agree on that.



You don't have to be the source of the threat to make a threat, yes your god is making a threat. You are in turn repeating that threat to other people, therefore making a threat too.



baconbits said:


> True.  What does that have to do with anything I've said, tho?  Secondly while we've gone on and on about threats and harm we've said nothing about the atheists who randomly insult people who believe something different with the pure purpose of upsetting them.  They are jerks - we should all be able to agree with that.



Yes some atheist do this just to spite people, I completely agree with that.

I am myself not an atheist, I just don't believe in a personal God.

However some atheists (and people of other religions and belief systems) may do so TO PROTEST that they DON'T want to be threatened.

Did you know for example, there are people who believe that what they are thinking at the moment of their death, they will go? To said people what you are saying is not only a threat, but an actual harm.

I am not sure the point behind those protests, but I am sure there are people who are legitimately protesting against being threatened, even if indirectly.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

Saishin said:


> God doesn't want to impose his will to the men,he created us free to choose,he can give guide lines how to live a correct life but he can't oblige the man to follow him,the last decision is always belong to us.



He had no problem doing so with pharaoh to keep punishing him, why does he have a problem doing the same to save people from torture?

Also it happened with an apostle (don't remember who it was) who according to the bible was the WORST man ever lived ever, Jesus shone a light on him and in around 30 seconds the guy become a devout apostle.

Why not do that with the entirety of humanity?


----------



## brolmes (Dec 2, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> Nobody complains when Christians do graphic and/or very offensive campaingns, but even mild atheist campaigns are "provocative".
> 
> Good going USA, keep denying evolution (60% of total population)
> 
> //HbS



of course they do

why are you such an oblivious idiot

lol @ you always trying to be cool by talking nonsensical horse shit about america for no reason at any opportunity you can find.. i guess it helps you take your mind off everything hitler did in god's name right on your doorstep

//HbS


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Dec 2, 2014)

Yawn

/10char


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2014)

why aren't more people talking about the irony behind ridiculing christianity for teaching children superstition while simultaneously promoting the fairy tale of santa claus

you can't have your cake and eat it too


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

afgpride said:


> why aren't more people talking about the irony behind ridiculing christianity for teaching children superstition while simultaneously promoting the fairy tale of santa claus
> 
> you can't have your cake and eat it too



You eventualy outgrow Santa Claus and it is meant to be a nice memory for a kid, giving him ilusion.

You can't compare that, to telling a kid that if he doesn't do everything someone else says he is going to be burned and tortured eternaly and that it is completely right.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Dec 2, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> You eventualy outgrow Santa Claus and it is meant to be a nice memory for a kid, giving him ilusion.
> 
> You can't compare that, to telling a kid that if he doesn't do everything someone else says he is going to be burned and tortured eternaly and that it is completely right.



Yep. This guy understands the true meaning of christianity, islam, and all other religions. The lulz in this thread are strong. :rofl

I would advise other people who do believe in God not to be perturbed by articles like this or comments like this. It's tempting to try to justify your beliefs or somehow  try to validate them when they are assailed in such a fashion but you've got to resist that urge.

God doesn't exist because you make the argument that God exists. God exists because God exists. I would LOVE to have a conversation with people who don't believe in God and try to come to an understanding with them where we both learn from each other's perspective, but I don't see that happening in this thread SMH. Instead its a d!ck measuring contest where the snarkiest comments win. This isn't the place for such a lofty converstation. I'm not so insecure in my belief, and neither should you be, that I feel the need to condescend, snark and degrade others 

Come on man. Grow up


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> They can do without resorting to say " You're gonna have cancer and end up in hell ", and actually focus on doing good because it's good, not because you fear a cosmic guy who'll fuck you if you don't do good .



I am not sure what you are saying here.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

afrosheen6565 said:


> God doesn't exist because you make the argument that God exists. God exists because God exists.



Ok children, this is what we call circular logic. Another example. A bike goes fast because it's a bike.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> You eventualy outgrow Santa Claus and it is meant to be a nice memory for a kid, giving him ilusion.
> 
> You can't compare that, to telling a kid that if he doesn't do everything someone else says he is going to be burned and tortured eternaly and that it is completely right.



not everybody tells their kids they will be burned and tortured for eternity if they're not good; they teach them vague concepts of heaven (a good place) and hell (a bad place), tell them there's an invisible skydaddy that is watching what they do and they can pray to to help them with things, etc 

that isn't much different than telling children there's a magical old fatty in the north pole that will bring you presents if you're good and bring you coal if you're not good 

they're both fairy tales told as if they're true; it doesn't eliminate the irony involved


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

afgpride said:


> not everybody tells their kids they will be burned and tortured for eternity if they're not good; they teach them vague concepts of heaven and hell, tell them there's an invisible skydaddy that is watching what they do and they can pray to to help them with things, etc
> 
> that isn't much different than telling children there's a magical old fatty in the north pole that will bring you presents if you're good and bring you coal if you're not good
> 
> they're both fairy tales; it doesn't eliminate the irony involved



But how long does your parents keep telling you that? Does your mom still educate you on the purpose of being good or Santa will not deliver toys underneath your Christmas tree? Santality must be stopped. Or is it Christmasality?


----------



## brolmes (Dec 2, 2014)

seems like pretty intentional irony though really


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

afgpride said:


> why aren't more people talking about the irony behind ridiculing christianity for teaching children superstition while simultaneously promoting the fairy tale of santa claus
> 
> you can't have your cake and eat it too


It's not irony. It's sarcasm on their part.

//HbS


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

baconbits said:


> That's your presumption.  You're free to be wrong but don't anticipate convincing other rational people if you don't have an argument to support your presumptions.
> 
> I do know.  The fact that you presume the opposite does not prove your argument.
> 
> No, its a statement of fact.  If any of you could be bothered to research the definition of a threat you'd validate my position.



No, it is through faith you believe these things to be true, not evidence. To convince rational people you need evidence. I reject your religion's presumptions based on lack of evidence for them, as one would rationally do.

No, you honestly do not. Through faith it is that you believe it to be true but you have no objective basis on which to assert those claims. 

It may not always mean a threat, but it's implicitly a threat. Particularly in that it would a being that hands down this punishment voluntarily.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

afrosheen6565 said:


> Yep. This guy understands the true meaning of christianity, islam, and all other religions. The lulz in this thread are strong. :rofl
> 
> I would advise other people who do believe in God not to be perturbed by articles like this or comments like this. It's tempting to try to justify your beliefs or somehow  try to validate them when they are assailed in such a fashion but you've got to resist that urge.
> 
> ...



Dude...... I am not even an atheist. Though guess some theists would consider me one.

I am simply saying that, at least in my experience parents telling you about Santa Claus is to make you smile and happy.

I am sure yes, this is the same thing in Christianity. But you eventually cease to believe in Santa Claus, it is DESIGNED for that, you are meant to be religions forever.

Now, I must say that I am not antagonistic to Christianity, there are some branches of Christianity that do not teach hell, more power to them.

 I just don't agree with the fire and brimstone preacher, my critique is mainly to them.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Ok children, this is what we call circular logic. Another example. A bike goes fast because it's a bike.



 Try harder please. Take any statement. Ketchup is red. It doesn't matter how forcefully I or you make the argument that Ketchup isn't red, it's always red - except when it's not. God either exists or doesn't. If God exists it doesn't matter how forcefully you deny that existence - it's still true.

Capital-T Truth isn't subject to your whims or fancy. It just is. To me, God is self-evident. I can talk to you about how I came to that conclusion based on years of philosophical thought, personal experience, scientific exposure and yes, religion - but at the end of the day my conclusion is still the same. And I'm quite secure in it. What reason then do I have to try to "explain" God or rather to "argue" God. I consider that a gross error. Talking about God to someone who doesn't believe in him is fine, encouraged even. But such a conversation has to come from a place of mutual understanding. You sir, seem incapable of such lofty thought


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

afrosheen6565 said:


> Try harder please. Take any statement. Ketchup is red. It doesn't matter how forcefully I or you make the argument that Ketchup isn't red, it's always red - except when it's not. God either exists or doesn't. If God exists it doesn't matter how forcefully you deny that existence - it's still true.



Ketchup comes in different colors though and can be proven. So...


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2014)

brolmes said:


> seems like pretty intentional irony though really





Hunted by sister said:


> It's not irony. It's sarcasm on their part.
> 
> //HbS


well, considering there are people in this thread already defending that double standard, and the ad was presumably created by pretentious fedora-tippers, i wouldn't put it past them


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I am not sure what you are saying here.



Have you never seen the " You'll end up with cancer and begging for the lord's forgiveness and it'll be late, and you'll die and go to hell " ?

 Or is this shit just brazilian ?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Have you never seen the " You'll end up with cancer and begging for the lord's forgiveness and it'll be late, and you'll die and go to hell " ?
> 
> Or is this shit just brazilian ?



Never heard it before.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2014)

I hear that kind of stuff all the time.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

^ Me too, and lots of atheist friends also hear that like there's no tomorrow .


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 2, 2014)

Yea, but you're Brazilian.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 2, 2014)

Seto kinda confirmed it happens not only to me .

I think the amazing atheist guy said something about this once ... I don't know for sure, I don't watch him .

Anyways, it isn't a closed phenomenon .


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> But how long does your parents keep telling you that? Does your mom still educate you on the purpose of being good or Santa will not deliver toys underneath your Christmas tree? Santality must be stopped. Or is it Christmasality?



My mom kinda does that and I am 25........ not with Santa of course, but even now at days I can still expect a nice gift after the Christmas party as an expression of love.

So yes, you could say that perhaps Santality can be for life or at least outgrow childhood, it just goes into a more mature form of Santality.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 2, 2014)

> Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I'm too old for fairy tales


 okay that's funny.
Santa pls


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

afrosheen6565 said:


> Try harder please. Take any statement. Ketchup is red. It doesn't matter how forcefully I or you make the argument that Ketchup isn't red, it's always red - except when it's not. God either exists or doesn't. If God exists it doesn't matter how forcefully you deny that existence - it's still true.
> 
> Capital-T Truth isn't subject to your whims or fancy. It just is. To me, God is self-evident. I can talk to you about how I came to that conclusion based on years of philosophical thought, personal experience, scientific exposure and yes, religion - but at the end of the day my conclusion is still the same. And I'm quite secure in it. What reason then do I have to try to "explain" God or rather to "argue" God. I consider that a gross error. Talking about God to someone who doesn't believe in him is fine, encouraged even. But such a conversation has to come from a place of mutual understanding. You sir, seem incapable of such lofty thought



Why "him"? I am curious.

Do you think the supreme power is a male?



Saishin said:


> Doen't god keep punishing him because he continuously refused to free the Jews?



Yes and God hardened Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the jews go.

Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 2, 2014)

I've been threatened (not warned) with Hell and violence, and wordly abuse because I'm an atheist. Quite often, actually. So no, it's not just Brazil. Europe too. 


afgpride said:


> well, considering there are people in this thread already defending that double standard, and the ad was presumably created by pretentious fedora-tippers, i wouldn't put it past them


Someone's anus is very painful, I see. Do us all a favour and buy one sense of humour.

//HbS


----------



## soulnova (Dec 2, 2014)

I just want to take a moment and point out that if Heaven exists as believed in the Bible, then you will end up along side rapists and their (wed) victims, slavers, and a gay-killers, etc, etc who have nothing to repent because everything they did was supposedly according to the Bible. 

When was the rule-patch applied then?  When do we start counting the "different historical context" applied to this era? And I only mean the New Testament (don't get me started on the old), still has wonderful stuff like... 


You should help a widow only if she: has no children or nephews; is desolate, trusts in God, and prays all the time; is not living in pleasure (a widow living in pleasure is the living dead); is over 60 years old; had only one husband; has raised children; has lodged strangers; has washed the saints' feet; has relieved the afflicted; and has diligently followed every good work. Timothy 5:3-10

Never help a young widow (one under 60 years old). When they wax wanton against Christ, they'll get married, and be damned to hell for rejecting their faith. Besides, young widows are idle busybodies, wandering around from house to house saying things they shouldn't say. They should get married and have children (though they'll be damned to hell for it). Heck, some of them have already turned aside after Satan. Timothy 5:11-15

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death" - - along with gossips, boasters, and disobedient children. 1:31-32

Even Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21)  Jesus. No.

Tell me, please, at what point in time people stopped entering Heaven for following those mandates?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 2, 2014)

For the record I have never heard the cancer thing. I have heard the "you will go to hell" things. 

Cancer happens to everyone so not sure why that would be a warning to an atheist.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> Someone's anus is very painful, I see. Do us all a favour and buy one sense of humour.
> 
> //HbS



because atheists are immune to double standards or hypocrisy

//HbS


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 2, 2014)

This is something that I don't consider logical with mainstream Christianity:

*Problem 1: It seems God got less compassionate after Jesus than before he existed, according to mainstream Christianity:*

Premise: Jesus came to Earth to save mankind, it was good. After this happened God pardoned mankind.

But then:

- Jews do not believe in hell, and if you don't believe me ASK A JEW. For those who do believe in hell they have Gehenna, a place of punishment that can't last more than 12 months except for extreme cases. Even in Gehena punishment is absent on Saturday. And in some interpretations Gehena is not even punishment as understood by torture, but reflection.

- Christianity was born from Judaism.

Now the problem I see is this:

- Before Jesus, no eternal hell, after Jesus or after Christianity there is eternal hell. And yet.......

Premise: God pardoned mankind after Jesus and in general the world was better after Jesus than before him.

That makes no sense to me.

*Problem 2: The devil has it better than normal people*

In mainstream Christianity the devil is either: not in hell yet or the ruler of hell.

Why? I mean this is the guy that out of his OWN will without NO ONE tempting him tried to fucking kill God and started a revolt that took away 1/3 of the angels.

Yet he gets to not be confined in hell until the end of times. In the meanwhile he gets to have all sort of cool powers.

Yet normal people, who have to actually endure all sorts of hardships without any cool preternatural powers, after around 100 years of living, get directly sent to hell forever and he is there because he was tempted by the devil.

Conclusion: The average joe who turns out to be gay will be more time in hell than the guy who started all the shit, had X100 more advantadges and actually tried to kill God directly.

That makes no sense to me.


----------



## ~Greed~ (Dec 2, 2014)

My brothers girlfriend has been told she'll go to hell "despite being a nice girl" because she is an athiest. I've been on a car ride with a friend and had some christian rock playing(old school POD and something else) and my friend was getting pissed off because the song mentioned god in the lyrics. There are extremes of everything. Just as their are some crazy fanatic christians, there are some crazy fanatic athiests. I've run into the latter just as much as the former, and they both suck.  IMO, as long as a persons belief, or lack there-of is not effecting someone else in a negitive way, just let them believe what they want.


----------



## hmph (Dec 2, 2014)

Hey guys.

If you give me just _five dollars_ now, I *promise* you'll live for eternity in paradise after you die.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Dec 2, 2014)

Whats with the 5+ pages long Semantics argument about Threats. 

Do you guys really have nothing better to do sweet jesus.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Ketchup comes in different colors though and can be proven. So...



The balls on this guy! I like him


----------



## baconbits (Dec 3, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Wait what?  So if I mug you, but I have a partner and say "you should give me all your money, or my buddy here is going to kill you" I'm not making a threat?  Is that how this works?



Sigh.  Your comparison doesn't work.  Your comparison is a threat, just thinly veiled and implied.  Second, the person is in cahoots with the thug.  Third, they stand to gain from you giving in to the threat and lastly the implied threat is a means of extortion.  None of those things apply to the Christian preaching about hell.

First, it isn't a threat by the Christian.  Its simply a statement of fact.  Hell is real.  Second, we are servants of God but have no way of changing the fact that he created hell and saw fit to put people in it.  Third, I stand to gain nothing from you accepting my beliefs.



Tsukiyomi said:


> And tell me honestly, does it really not bother you at all that your god is threatening ETERNAL TORTURE on people simply for not believing in him?  Do you really think thats a crime that deserves and unending incomprehensible punishment?



Your presumptions don't really concern me.  I'm a Christian, it does bother me that people are going to hell just like as a citizen it bothers me that murders in some states get executed.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Orthodox theology isn't "pretty clear" on most things.



Actually it is.  Your assertions to the contrary are based on ignorance, not any real knowledge of the doctrine.



Tsukiyomi said:


> If it were then there wouldn't be THOUSANDS of denominations of christianity.



The fact that there are different denominations says more about humanity than it does on the clarity of the text.  There are thousands of views on the constitution as well, but its very clear to most readers.  The same is true of the bible.  Its very clear.  The fact that people come to the text with an agenda hurts peoples' ability to see clear statements of doctrine.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok, let me slow down then.  You're saying that somehow atheists can "persecute" theists in this country.



Yes, that's pretty self evident.  A bunch of Christians could get together and bully Muslims in Saudi Arabia, too.  I'm sure that fact is mind blowing to you.



Tsukiyomi said:


> In order to persecute someone you have to wield some degree of power.



This is true.  But the rest of your statement is again your presumption based off of your assumptions.



Tsukiyomi said:


> I know you THINK you did, but no, you didn't.



Suit yourself.



Hand Banana said:


> But to a non Christian it's not fact.



If Christianity is true hell is a fact, regardless of what faith anyone is.  



Hand Banana said:


> And there are plenty of times people try to spread the message of Christianity to non believers of the religion.



And?  What would be the point of trying to spread the message of Christianity to Christians?



Hand Banana said:


> But there's no factual proof it does exist.



There's no proof, but there is evidence: the bible.



Hand Banana said:


> Ifs are essentially technicalities. And if hell were real and a person still chose to live his/her life in that manner, then who are you to advise at that point?



The purpose of the "if" was to make an argument, not state a technicality.  If you told me you enjoyed life but were planning to jump in front of a bus going 50 mph I'd advise against it.  If you did it anyways I couldn't stop you.  The same with hell.  If you choose to do what you want I can't stop you.  But it isn't wrong to advise against it.  If you're free to live how you want I'm also free to live how I want: advising people against going to hell.



Hand Banana said:


> Regardless of whether is true or false, it's the point of the message and how to coercive someone's life.



The same with firemen, yelling at people to get out of burning buildings, too, right?  Coercive jerks, telling people how to run their lives... 



Hand Banana said:


> I think you're confusing threat in how it's being perceived. You're not the threat, but the message you spread is threatening. At this point we can use other adjectives. Warnings, precautions, hazards, whatever... but the point of how the message is being perceived still stays the same.



That's fine.  Perception is not reality, though.  The message is threatening to many, if I didn't know that I could learn it easily by the defensiveness of many of the atheists in this threat.  My point is not how its perceived - I can't control that nor argue on such a subjective point - my point is on what it actually is.



Hitt said:


> Bacon, sorry, you can't make your own definition of the word fact.



I'm not, but epistemology demands we answer where we derive truth.



Hitt said:


> Facts are by definition verifiably true.



No, facts are simply facts.  Whether you can verify something or not does not determine whether something is factual, only whether you could persuade someone else to believe it was factual.  Its factual that my wife is beautiful.  Whether I can prove that or not to you won't change that fact.

The problem with your argument is that you simply presume you cannot discover facts except by verification.  The problem with that presumption is that its demonstrably false: at some point you have to have some presumption or starting point to accumulate any fact.  Did you verify the speed of light or do you trust psychicists?  Did you verify the fact that you have cancer or do you trust your radiologist?

Your epistemology doesn't work; that's why most philosophers would never adopt your stance.



Orochibuto said:


> It is different, avoiding a ghetto will not impact your life greatly.



People keep mentioning the "impact".  That's a moot point.  It doesn't matter if it impacts your life or impacts one thought; a threat is something that is defined and a warning is something that is defined.  You can look up both terms.  Teaching on hell is not a "threat".  It doesn't matter how "impactful" that teaching is.



Orochibuto said:


> What you are saying to me is the equivalent of saying if I don't obey a guy in everything he says he will commit the most vile attrocious acts on me.



A Christian, when he talks of hell, is simply making a statement of fact.  Hell is something he knows absolutely exist if Christianity is true.  The statement and explanation of this view is not a threat anymore than saying "walking in front of a bus will injure you" is a threat.  The two are equivalent statements.

Now if I were to say "keep walking and I'll have a guy run you over with a bus" I'd be making a threat.  But if, simply by observing traffic, I state the obvious danger I'm not making a threat.  I'm issuing a warning.



Orochibuto said:


> You don't have to be the source of the threat to make a threat, yes your god is making a threat. You are in turn repeating that threat to other people, therefore making a threat too.



That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  If I repeat to you "that thug said he was gonna beat you up if you go around that corner" am I threatening you?



Orochibuto said:


> Yes some atheist do this just to spite people, I completely agree with that.



I'm glad we agree on something.



Orochibuto said:


> I am myself not an atheist, I just don't believe in a personal God.



Interesting.



Orochibuto said:


> Did you know for example, there are people who believe that what they are thinking at the moment of their death, they will go? To said people what you are saying is not only a threat, but an actual harm.



Even in their case I still wouldn't be making a threat.  I'd just be a source of potential harm, like a guy walking past a fire with a bucket of gasoline.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No, it is through faith you believe these things to be true, not evidence. To convince rational people you need evidence. I reject your religion's presumptions based on lack of evidence for them, as one would rationally do.



That's your right.  I certainly can't force you to believe anything.  But without faith I find that no system of epistemology works.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No, you honestly do not. Through faith it is that you believe it to be true but you have no objective basis on which to assert those claims.



I do know.  The presumption that I do not is just that: a presumption.

QUOTE=Seto Kaiba;52372708]It may not always mean a threat, but it's implicitly a threat. Particularly in that it would a being that hands down this punishment voluntarily.[/QUOTE]

By definition its not a threat from the Christian.  That's not really debatable.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 3, 2014)

People have too much time and money on their hands.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 3, 2014)

Mississippi too christian for science.


----------



## scerpers (Dec 3, 2014)

how obnoxious


----------



## scerpers (Dec 3, 2014)

i mean this thread
not the atheists


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Sigh.  Your comparison doesn't work.  Your comparison is a threat, just thinly veiled and implied.  Second, the person is in cahoots with the thug.  Third, they stand to gain from you giving in to the threat and lastly the implied threat is a means of extortion.  None of those things apply to the Christian preaching about hell.



Actually they do apply to christianity.  You're about as "in cahoots" with god as you can get, you will do ANYTHING he tells you to do and you believe he'll pay you for it with an eternal paradise.  So not only are you doing his bidding as is the person in my analogy but you're benefitting by getting a reward in the afterlife.



baconbits said:


> First, it isn't a threat by the Christian.  Its simply a statement of fact.  Hell is real.  Second, we are servants of God but have no way of changing the fact that he created hell and saw fit to put people in it.  Third, I stand to gain nothing from you accepting my beliefs.



Part of your religion is converting other people to follow your god, thats part of the calling of christianity, to convert people.  So yes, you do have something to gain by getting me to accept your beliefs.



baconbits said:


> Your presumptions don't really concern me.  I'm a Christian, it does bother me that people are going to hell just like as a citizen it bothers me that murders in some states get executed.



If it bothers you then how can you claim your god is just and loving?  There is nothing just about giving an infinite punishment for a finite offense.



baconbits said:


> Actually it is.  Your assertions to the contrary are based on ignorance, not any real knowledge of the doctrine.



So anyone who doesn't share your exact interpretation of the entire bible is what, lying?  Because they believe just as strongly in their interpretation as you do in yours.

If the bible were written in a truly unambiguous way such differences would be utterly non-existent.

There is a reason that christians have to do mental gymnastics (you're quite good at it) to explain away things, like how god condones slavery in the bible or devalues women.  I've lost track of the number of times when someone has tried to say "well that part is metaphorical" or "you have to take that in context" or "thats a translation error".

An all powerful, all knowing super being should be able to come up with a far more effective and consistent means of communication.  If I had the level of power and knowledge your god is purported to have I could EASILY come up with something far better than the bible and there would be no confusion.

Gods power is limitless.  He could have every human born with his words etched on their skin and EVERY time they needed to make a decision about what god would want them to do the words on their arm could form a clear direct message about what he wants them to do in the plainest possible words in their native tongue.  They would still be free to NOT do that, but that would be CLEAR.



baconbits said:


> The fact that there are different denominations says more about humanity than it does on the clarity of the text.  There are thousands of views on the constitution as well, but its very clear to most readers.  The same is true of the bible.  Its very clear.  The fact that people come to the text with an agenda hurts peoples' ability to see clear statements of doctrine.



Not the best example.  Thats because the constitution isn't clear either.  For example the right to bear arms.  There are decades of debate over what it actually means, how far it goes etc...

The right to privacy.  The constitution lays out broad ideas but just reading the notes from the debates going on at the time shows that even the founding fathers didn't all agree on what certain parts of the constitution meant.

They had disagreements on what parts of the constitution meant and they were the group of people who WROTE it.



baconbits said:


> Yes, that's pretty self evident.  A bunch of Christians could get together and bully Muslims in Saudi Arabia, too.  I'm sure that fact is mind blowing to you.



And they would be slaughtered without achieving anything.  Again, you have to have power in order to persecute someone and muslims wield all the power in those countries.



baconbits said:


> This is true.  But the rest of your statement is again your presumption based off of your assumptions.



If that statement is true then you just admitted I'm right.  Atheist wield almost no power in this country, so they are incapable of truly persecuting christians.



baconbits said:


> There's no proof, but there is evidence: the bible.



The bible is extremely weak evidence for the things its claiming.  What makes the bible better evidence than any other holy book thats ever existed?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 3, 2014)

So any other person wants to get the bitching about this thread or subject matter outta their system? Play up the "I'm too cool for this" act?


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 3, 2014)

^ this is quite annoying. -.-

Anyways, the ad is a little bit of a troll ,but religion itself sucks. Just look at the mental gymnastics Bacon is going though just to defend Christianity. I wish there was an olympic medal for that.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 3, 2014)

I don't dislike Christians but I know how they truly feel against Atheist. I live in Mississippi(have almost my entire life) and they judge and ridicule people all the time. I understand their point, but they don't mine.

How I did get a bunch of people to quit preaching to me is by asking them a simple question "If you were to die today, and be burning in hell. Would you feel betrayed by God? Would you feel angry towards God and maybe to yourself for devoting your entire life leading it the way someone else wanted you too, just to end up in hell? I wouldn't, I know my fate for what I believe in if its false and im perfectly happy with it. There would be no one to blame but myself, but you would blame the very god you devoted your life to". And most Christians leave me alone. 

I don't think that religion should be advertised though, especially not in this fashion because it does seem to attack religion as a whole.

And David Silverman can eat a dick for all I care. He just throws it aside and more or less states there is no god when one can not truly know that with only the knowledge we have available. I don't like people who attack or seem to attack people over their religious beliefs. I hold my own very dear, and never attack someone based on their religion(except 1 in particular which im not going to name, but won't blatantly attack) and really don't like to discuss religion as people think a polytheist is a pagan that sacrifices animals.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:


> I'm not, but epistemology demands we answer where we derive truth.


Uh bacon, best to leave Philosophy for the experts.  You distorting and mangling the concepts used is clearly just an attempt to push your dishonest tripe.  So leave that out of this.



> No, facts are simply facts.  Whether you can verify something or not does not determine whether something is factual, only whether you could persuade someone else to believe it was factual.  Its factual that my wife is beautiful.  Whether I can prove that or not to you won't change that fact.
> 
> The problem with your argument is that you simply presume you cannot discover facts except by verification.  The problem with that presumption is that its demonstrably false: at some point you have to have some presumption or starting point to accumulate any fact.  Did you verify the speed of light or do you trust psychicists?  Did you verify the fact that you have cancer or do you trust your radiologist?


Facts are facts is a fucking tautology.  You have to be more specific, and every fucking definition of fact ever includes the concept of verifiability.  People are convinced all the time stuff is true, but that doesn't make what they believe "facts". 

Your wife is beautiful is an opinion, not a fact.  Beauty is subjective, facts are objective.  No matter how many times you claim it's a fact will NOT make it a fact.

As the saying goes, "people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."  Learn what this means, assuming you were actually interested in being honest..which you most certainly are not.

The speed of light can be verified, and has several times.  The same goes for radiologists and cancer.   

Hell and/or heaven have NOT been shown to exist.  They have not been verified, and by all accounts likely never will be.  The Bible saying it is not evidence as none of the ideas it proposes can be tested.  Their existence is not fact.  Period.

But you're just going to continue to spew this dishonest tripe anyway and redefine words to suit your needs, because that's all you've done for the years you've been here.


----------



## Taco (Dec 3, 2014)

This reminds me of the bitch who made an announcement in one of my classes a couple months ago advertising for her atheist church


----------



## Tarot (Dec 3, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> This is something that I don't consider logical with mainstream Christianity:
> 
> *Problem 1: It seems God got less compassionate after Jesus than before he existed, according to mainstream Christianity:*
> 
> ...


Regarding problem 1: I follow the Jewish idea of Gi Hinnom for that very reason, it's more akin to Purgatory. You serve your sentence of repentance before the 12 months and then you're either allowed into the Olam haBa(World to Come), soul is burned up, or stuck there in a state of remorse. You may want to refer to my debate with Baconbits in Xianity thread.   

Problem 2: Satan never tried to kill/usurp God-that's impossible since Yhwh means "to be/exist". In Jewish theology and mysticism, he is the serpent(symbol of the yetzer haRa/evil inclination), an angel of death, and man's accuser(which is what Satan means in Hebrew). He's basically a personification of the carnal desire, the yetzer hara, juxtpositioned with Michael, who represents the yezer haTov(the inclination of good). He is  man's adversary to overcome, not God's. There are deeper meanings here if you get past the syncretc pop culture Christianity, and then past the plain narrative. 
I think you're right to question mainstream Christian teaching, I don't agree with much of it myself.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 3, 2014)

Taco said:


> This reminds me of the bitch who made an announcement in one of my classes a couple months ago advertising for her atheist church



I've read this sentence slowly fourteen times and can't understand for the life of me what it means. I understand what the words "atheist" and "church" mean separately, but I'm pretty sure they just don't go together.


----------



## Tarot (Dec 3, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> I've read this sentence slowly fourteen times and can't understand for the life of me what it means. I understand what the words "atheist" and "church" mean separately, but I'm pretty sure they just don't go together.


They exist, I remember my friend got an invitation to one at his college.
I'm amazed this thread got so hot from a story that's basically just trollbait irl.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 3, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> For the record I have never heard the cancer thing. I have heard the "you will go to hell" things.
> 
> Cancer happens to everyone so not sure why that would be a warning to an atheist.



Since when you were under the impression that they would be trying to make sense ?


----------



## Deputy Myself (Dec 3, 2014)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> Do you guys really have nothing better to do sweet jesus.


This is a community dedicated to chinese chartoons
do you really think these _people_ care about wasting their time on trivial bullshit?


----------



## Taco (Dec 3, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> I've read this sentence slowly fourteen times and can't understand for the life of me what it means. I understand what the words "atheist" and "church" mean separately, but I'm pretty sure they just don't go together.



I should have put "atheist church" in quotes. Her words, not mine. LOL


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 3, 2014)

afgpride said:


> because atheists are immune to double standards or hypocrisy


You don't know what either of these things are, do you?

//HbS


----------



## blueblip (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:
			
		

> Your presumptions don't really concern me. I'm a Christian, it does bother me that people are going to hell just like as a citizen it bothers me that murders in some states get executed.


Ya know, I brought this point up in the Christianity thread in the Debate section, but no one really answered it. So I guess I'll ask it again here to you:

If Christianity puts faith over actions, does that mean some like Gandhi is doomed to an eternity in Hell because he never once adopted the Christian faith? However, if actions take precedence over faith, then why insist on the faith aspect of the religion in the first place?


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 3, 2014)

klad said:


> I want to bang you, and the fact that you're a lesbian only makes it hotter
> There is no evidence that god exists or doesn't exists(I think I'm explaining this right) So being an atheist would be taking a stance on something which has yet to be proven or unproven. So by the power oxford stating that your're an atheist means you would have to beleive in god somewhat to be able to reject him hence the stance. The unicorns thing is much different. Since theres no meaning or value behind the words.(but maybe if I stick a horn on a horse and pain it white)
> [/SPOILER]
> I saw a pic of her IRL and was surprised that she was cute. I regret nothing ofc, only wish you would of kept it between me and her until this thread passes. And calling her cute IRL isn't creepy.



WAIT, WAIT, WAIT .

I didn't see her pic ...

Pics or didn't happen .


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 3, 2014)

God is all-knowin? Then why would he make humans. What do we have to offer God other than absolute servitude.

So basically God made a bunch of slaves that love being slaves.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 3, 2014)

Saishin said:


> I don't know really,as I told you I'm agnostic,I'm not religious and I have doubts when I see these things and wonder where is god.
> In the bible god acts through the action of the men,god doesn't do everything alone,to accomplish his plans he seeks the cooperation of the men.



Dude, what about the flood? People had nothing to do with that
Or the plagues?
Or Sodom and Gomorrah?



			
				Ich said:
			
		

> God is all-knowin? Then why would he make humans. What do we have to offer God other than absolute servitude.
> 
> So basically God made a bunch of slaves that love being slaves.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 3, 2014)

God did a lot of shit. In the Old Testament, he personally killed like 2,5 million people, and indirectly killed ten times that.

//HbS


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 3, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Probably you wouldn't agree but even if the events of the bible are thousand year laters the substance is actual,even today people enslave other people,or rape their daughters,we do wars,centuries pass by but the shit is always the same,if the bible have these cruel things it is because tell the story of humanity,a story that is made of violence,in this contest god intervene to save humanity from its own destruction,it's not god that bring all this mess are the men that do this,this is what the bible want to tell,at least this is what I could understand from reading some pages of the bible.



First of all as someone who was one of the first 10 people to reply to this thread, holy sht! 200 replies in 2 days.

Anyway, blah blah blah stupid bible thumping response. No. simply no. The bible does not just mention these things. I could understand if that was the case. But the case is the bible is mostly filled with things that tell u what to do morally. And in the Bible it TELLS u that these things are okay. Read the bible before u spread ur ignorant Christian beliefs. 

*Exodus 21:7-11New Living Translation (NLT)

7 ?When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave?s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

10 ?If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.*


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 3, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> That's my only problem, it IS being used to infringe upon the well being of another . Women, gays, people of other religions .
> 
> And no, it's not a matter that they don't have power these days, cause you know well they still have power, hence why aren't all states that are okay with homossexual marriage .
> 
> ...



This. lol. sounds like something Jaclyn Glenn would have said.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 3, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> God did a lot of shit. In the Old Testament, he personally killed like 2,5 million people, and indirectly killed ten times that.
> 
> //HbS



And yet Hitler is the bad guy because he killed a few Jews.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 3, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> And yet Hitler is the bad guy because he killed a few Jews.



Well to be fair Hitler was a real person and we have actual evidence he did those horrible things.

The flood myth  for instance is just that, and as horrible as it is it's still fiction.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 3, 2014)

Hitt said:


> Well to be fair Hitler was a real person and we have actual evidence he did those horrible things.
> 
> The flood myth  for instance is just that, and as horrible as it is it's still fiction.



Yep, its like calling Darth Vader a douchebag .


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Since when you were under the impression that they would be trying to make sense ?



There is no reason to think they wouldn't be. 

You get radicals who may not make sense with a lot of shit they do or say, but in general that isn't that case.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 3, 2014)

Hitt said:


> Well to be fair Hitler was a real person and we have actual evidence he did those horrible things.
> 
> The flood myth  for instance is just that, and as horrible as it is it's still fiction.



And the whole Sodom and Gomorrah incident. Bible really is full of shit man. Think I'm really starting to understand why God said fuck it and stopped killing us. Probably turned his back on us too.



Mr. Black Leg said:


> Yep, its like calling Darth Vader a douchebag .



Yea, but you're from Brazil so it's like ironic you would say that.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 3, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> First of all as someone who was one of the first 10 people to reply to this thread, holy sht! 200 replies in 2 days.
> 
> Anyway, blah blah blah stupid bible thumping response. No. simply no. The bible does not just mention these things. I could understand if that was the case. But the case is the bible is mostly filled with things that tell u what to do morally. And in the Bible it TELLS u that these things are okay. Read the bible before u spread ur ignorant Christian beliefs.
> 
> ...



Don't be silly. That's Old Testament stuff, Christians do not take those seriously, unlike the New Testament, which doesn't speak about-.... oh wait....


*Ephesians 6:5-8*
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

You can go to Heaven if you are a good slave too! YAY!  

*Corinthians 14:34 *
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Silly us women. God tells us to shut the fuck up. You would have thought God would have sent a patch update for the rules by now if he wanted a change on that (and many other parts of the Bible).... but go ahead and accept the Bible. It's not flawed or anything, right?


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 3, 2014)

People who say New Testament is all sunshine and flowers have obviously never read it. It's very much violent, like the Old one.

//HbS


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2014)

Shouldn't the majority of these posts be in the debate section in the atheism or christianity threads?


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 3, 2014)

soulnova said:


> Don't be silly. That's Old Testament stuff, Christians do not take those seriously, unlike the New Testament, which doesn't speak about-.... oh wait....
> 
> 
> *Ephesians 6:5-8*
> ...



Lol i thought u were gonna be another ignorant Bible thumper but lol.XD thanx for this.


----------



## Oceania (Dec 3, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> Lol i thought u were gonna be another ignorant Bible thumper but lol.XD thanx for this.



I bet your one of those people who puts himself  above others just because you're an atheist. 

I mean I get you hate Christianity, then again who the fuck are you to think you're above others?


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 3, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I bet your one of those people who puts himself  above others just because you're an atheist.
> 
> I mean I get you hate Christianity, then again who the fuck are you to think you're above others?



i don't. I actually am sorry that you think this way. But no I don't think so necesarrily. Although these are my two outlooks on me and christians relationship wise. If u are a christian and u are against stuff like abortion and gay marriage and woman equality and getting paid the same. yes u r below me. if u r a christian and u dont believe these things then u dont follow the bible and are a pick and choose christian who just picks stuff they like out of the bible. These people arent below me i guess, they are just really fckin ignorant.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 3, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I bet your one of those people who puts himself  above others just because you're an atheist.
> 
> I mean I get you hate Christianity, then again who the fuck are you to think you're above others?



Given that religious people _inherently_ put themselves above others of differing faiths and are equipped with massive in-group mentalities, I don't see any credibility in your accusation. It's just another case of special pleading.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 3, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> You don't know what either of these things are, do you?
> 
> //HbS



your blithering idiocy is going to make me reiterate, even though what i said made perfect sense

if the ad is indeed validating the fairy tale of santa claus being taught to children as if it's true, while simultaneously shunning the fairy tale of god taught to children, that's hypocritical 

if they were purposely being ironic and it's supposed to be obvious that you shouldn't tell your children santa is real, then that's fine 

but you're assuming the latter and dismissing the former as if no atheists exist that actually tell their children santa is real

if the ad was indeed intentionally ironic that's fine, but your pretentious assumptions are laughably asinine

//HbS


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 3, 2014)

Oceania said:


> *I bet your one* of those people who puts himself  above others just because you're an atheist.
> 
> I mean I get you hate Christianity, then again who the fuck are you to think you're above others?



You're. How fucking hard is it for people to differentiate _your_ from _you're_?


----------



## Oceania (Dec 3, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> i don't. I actually am sorry that you think this way. But no I don't think so necesarrily. Although these are my two outlooks on me and christians relationship wise. If u are a christian and u are against stuff like abortion and gay marriage and woman equality and getting paid the same. yes u r below me. if u r a christian and u dont believe these things then u dont follow the bible and are a pick and choose christian who just picks stuff they like out of the bible. These people arent below me i guess, they are just really fckin ignorant.



So I guess you assume since I am a christian I'm against those things right? If I'm for and against some of those things I'm a pick and choose and not allowed to be christian too right? So really you'll just say whatever to make sure your right correct? So again who are you to call me hypocritical? Let me guess your one of those atheists that go around saying "I do good things because I'm a good person not because a bible told me to."


----------



## Oceania (Dec 3, 2014)

Hand Banana pls.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Dec 3, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> And the whole Sodom and Gomorrah incident. Bible really is full of shit man. Think I'm really starting to understand why God said fuck it and stopped killing us. Probably turned his back on us too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, but you're from Brazil so it's like ironic you would say that.



I don't understand what you were trying to say .


----------



## Oceania (Dec 3, 2014)

It also bothers me how most atheists I've spoken to love to say. "If there was no religion there would be no wars." Which is an illogical fallacy because people would always find something else to believe in. In doing so you would have extremests kill others that didn't think the same way.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Given that religious people _inherently_ put themselves above others of differing faiths and are equipped with massive in-group mentalities



So because one group does it that means the other group can't?

I just think that there is a difference. Atheists tend to think they are intellectually superior while Christians tend to think they are morally superior.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 3, 2014)

Oceania said:


> So I guess you assume since I am a christian I'm against those things right? If I'm for and against some of those things I'm a pick and choose and not allowed to be christian too right? So really you'll just say whatever to make sure your right correct? So again who are you to call me hypocritical? Let me guess your one of those atheists that go around saying "I do good things because I'm a good person not because a bible told me to."



You're a faux-christian. You just believe in whatever u want to believe. ur morals line in with the Bible. and for people like u u might as well not have a religion if it doesnt even provide a moral institution. Ur just being ignorant so u can die thinking ur gonna float up and live forever in some fantasy land. And yes i do go around saying that. because its true. if u need to get morality from a fcking book. U NEED HELP.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 3, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> I don't understand what you were trying to say .



That's ok, you're Brazilian, it's cool.


----------



## blueblip (Dec 3, 2014)

Oceania said:


> It also bothers me how most atheists I've spoken to love to say. "If there was no religion there would be no wars." Which is an illogical fallacy because people would always find something else to believe in. In doing so you would have extremests kill others that didn't think the same way.


While a no religion world wouldn't have stopped all wars from happening, it certainly would have prevented many more our current world has seen. And the primary reason for that is there would have been a lot more negotiation going on.

For one, ideological conflicts don't allow room for negotiations. Like the Crusades. These were fought on an ideological basis, and the reason there was no negotiation was because the there were only two options for Arabs: either convert to Christianity or die. As such, even when the true objective was more for economic and/or political gain, the reasons for going to war were usually given a religious ideological spin for this very reason. Most people do not normally like to forgo their own cultur, especially if they are being bullied into doing so. Ergo, war was an inevitability for many ideological conflicts that have occurred in human history.

On top of this, for whatever reason, nothing fires up a person than questioning his ideology's validity. Remove the religion factor, and you might find that people in older times would have less likely to take up the sword for king and country when the explanation for doing so was, "Because it will help your king gain more political clout amongst his neighbours!" over, "God wills it! Fight and die for God, or die for being a traitor!"


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 3, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> So because one group does it that means the other group can't?
> 
> I just think that there is a difference. Atheists tend to think they are intellectually superior while Christians tend to think they are morally superior.



Your opening statement isn't even relevant. When did I claim or even imply that "because one group does it that means the other group can't". I merely pointed out the special pleading. 

In regards to your latter paragraph, I think the two are usually interchangeable. People of both groups believe that they are morally and intellectually superior to the other. But its usually only members of one group that hold the belief that they have access to an absolute truth derived from their feelings.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 3, 2014)

Zyrax said:


> >Christians/Muslims violently Try to enforce their beliefs on others
> >Sicopaths and terrorists
> >Athiests do the same
> >Heros
> Shiggity diggity doo Where are yoooooouuuuuuu



Ok, I've been through most of the pages here and I can't believe people let this comment slip by.  Please, explain to me how  putting up a billboard qualifies as violently enforcing your beliefs on others.  Are you honestly saying that being a bit snarky and rude falls into the same category as suicide bombings, beheadings, and burning heretics at the stake?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Your opening statement isn't even relevant. When did I claim or even imply that "because one group does it that means the other group can't". I merely pointed out the special pleading.



Well, you did say there was no credibility in the accusation but it is credible. dp even admits to feeling superior to people. 



> In regards to your latter paragraph, I think the two are usually interchangeable. People of both groups believe that they are morally and intellectually superior to the other. But its usually only members of one group *that hold the belief that they have access to an absolute truth derived from their feelings.*



I would say that applies to both as well.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 3, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Actually they do apply to christianity.



No, they don't.  In christianity God has established unchangable laws of the universe, so hell is as real as gravity is.  My warning you of hell is akin to warning a person to be careful when they're standing on the ledge of the cliff.

You keep missing this point because you're keen on making an argument that has nothing to do with the definition of "threat".



Tsukiyomi said:


> Part of your religion is converting other people to follow your god, thats part of the calling of christianity, to convert people.  So yes, you do have something to gain by getting me to accept your beliefs.



I still don't gain anything personally from your conversion.  If you converted right now I'd be no richer, no better off.  Ultimately the one who benefits is you, not me.



Tsukiyomi said:


> If it bothers you then how can you claim your god is just and loving?  There is nothing just about giving an infinite punishment for a finite offense.



That's a whole other issue that you wouldn't understand even if I explained it a million times.  Suffice to say that your definition of justice and love is much different than mine.



Tsukiyomi said:


> So anyone who doesn't share your exact interpretation of the entire bible is what, lying?  Because they believe just as strongly in their interpretation as you do in yours.
> 
> If the bible were written in a truly unambiguous way such differences would be utterly non-existent.



I've already pointed out the vapidity of this argument multiple times.  The fact that something is written clearly has literally no connection to the stupidity of those interpreting it.  I've said many things clearly that others have misinterpreted.  My clarity is separate from your understanding.

The bible is very clear on most issues.  What it is unclear on we can learn clarity simply by education: studying the original language, culture, etc.



Tsukiyomi said:


> There is a reason that christians have to do mental gymnastics (you're quite good at it) to explain away things, like how god condones slavery in the bible or devalues women.  I've lost track of the number of times when someone has tried to say "well that part is metaphorical" or "you have to take that in context" or "thats a translation error".



Its usually very clear what is metaphorical and what is not.  Most the Christians who have to do too much "mental gymnastics" are the ones who just don't want to accept that Christian morality is different.



Tsukiyomi said:


> An all powerful, all knowing super being should be able to come up with a far more effective and consistent means of communication.



That's your presumption.  Its also your presumption that he wanted something more effective.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Gods power is limitless.



Technically that's not true, but I understand what you mean.  Even if his power is limitless he still did not will to do what you wanted so...

I can only shrug at this point.  Its clear you don't like what God did.  I don't see why that matters, tho.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Not the best example.



Its a good example because even sections that are very clear become ambiguous when people bring their agendas into their interpretation.  In my personal view most of the constitution is very clear but people pretend it is not to defend their point of view.  The same is true of the bible.  Its clear what the bible says on almost every issue.  The problem is that people don't want to change their behavior.



Tsukiyomi said:


> And they would be slaughtered without achieving anything.



The point is indisputable: you can still persecute people even if you don't hold absolute power.  I personally don't feel much persecution goes on in America, only people being jerks, but the point still stands.



Tsukiyomi said:


> The bible is extremely weak evidence for the things its claiming.  What makes the bible better evidence than any other holy book thats ever existed?



Again, that's your presumption.  The bible is a superior text to other religious texts, but that's an argument for another day.



Hitt said:


> Uh bacon, best to leave Philosophy for the experts.



I am, that's why I'm discussing, trying hard to educate persons like yourself.



Hitt said:


> You distorting and mangling the concepts used is clearly just an attempt to push your dishonest tripe.



Actually I'm not.  You said that if a truth is verified it is a fact.  That was factually incorrect, and I corrected you on it.  Then you stated that in your epistemology that you only believed in truths you personally verified.  That's a flawed epistemology if I ever saw one; pretending your position is valid is the dishonest side of the argument.

Dishonest suggests that what I'm presenting is intentionally untrue or misleading.  That's not the case.  If you can prove where I am wrong please do so - I prefer to be corrected than to persist believing in error.  But the fact that you're throwing around accusations rather than arguments implies that you cannot do so.  

In other words put up or shut up.  If I'm dishonest, prove it.  If I'm wrong state where.



Hitt said:


> Facts are facts is a fucking tautology.



True, but you missed the point.  A fact does not become a fact by being verified.  The fact that you missed this tautology shows how terrible your argument is: you don't even know the meanings of the words you're using.



Hitt said:


> You have to be more specific, and every fucking definition of fact ever includes the concept of verifiability.  People are convinced all the time stuff is true, but that doesn't make what they believe "facts".



A fact is simply something that is true, whether I can verify it or not is a separate issue.  Something that is believed is again separate from what is a "fact".  What I believe could be a fact; it does not become a fact when I verify it or because I believe it.  It is a fact because it is true and is consistent with reality.



Hitt said:


> Your wife is beautiful is an opinion, not a fact.  Beauty is subjective, facts are objective.  No matter how many times you claim it's a fact will NOT make it a fact.



Sigh.  It was an example showing something that was factual that I could not verify; it was not meant to lead you to a discussion of beauty.  I wrongly assumed you had the ability to understand what an analogy was.  I apologize for the error.



Hitt said:


> The speed of light can be verified, and has several times.  The same goes for radiologists and cancer.



You have a gift for missing the point.  The point is that you personally have not verified many of the things you believe are factual; therefore your own actions contradict your own philosophy, marking you as an intellectual hypocrite.

Have you verified that reality is rational?  That presumption is necessary for mathematics to have any application to the real world.  Have you verified that the rules of logic apply to the universe?  These are things you haven't verified, but you must believe or the world wouldn't make sense.  We start with assumptions, like any hypothesis, and then we make arguments.  That's true of both philosophy and science.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 3, 2014)

Zyrax said:


> >Christians/Muslims violently Try to enforce their beliefs on others
> >Sicopaths and terrorists
> >Athiests do the same
> >Heros
> *Shiggity diggity doo Where are yoooooouuuuuuu*





stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Ok, I've been through most of the pages here and I can't believe people let this comment slip by.  Please, explain to me how  putting up a billboard qualifies as violently enforcing your beliefs on others.  Are you honestly saying that being a bit snarky and rude falls into the same category as suicide bombings, beheadings, and burning heretics at the stake?



Because when u see a goofy ass post like this, you typically ignore it.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 3, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> First of all as someone who was one of the first 10 people to reply to this thread, holy sht! 200 replies in 2 days.
> 
> Anyway, blah blah blah stupid bible thumping response. No. simply no. The bible does not just mention these things. I could understand if that was the case. But the case is the bible is mostly filled with things that tell u what to do morally. And in the Bible it TELLS u that these things are okay. Read the bible before u spread ur ignorant Christian beliefs.
> 
> ...


I support *"traditional marriage"* 
Where all the slave women at? 



			
				Cyphon said:
			
		

> View Post
> So because one group does it that means the other group can't?
> 
> I just think that there is a difference. Atheists tend to think they are intellectually superior while Christians tend to think they are morally superior.



Everyone has their superiority complex.
Usually, if people are brought up Christian  and then educate themselves (I'm not saying Christians don't educate themselves) on world religions or world history or just don't see the feasibility of Abrahamic Religions they feel somewhat "enlightened" like religion had blinded them to certain truths (I'm sure religious people feel the same about their religion).
So... I don't know where I was going with that but there it is


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> I don't know where I was going with that but there it is



I don't either 

Guess you just had some thoughts you needed to get out there


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 3, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I don't either
> 
> Guess you just had some thoughts you needed to get out there




Maybe trying to clarify a different view point but I can't speak for everyone
Hipsters and their inflated egos are everywhere these days.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:


> In other words put up or shut up.  If I'm dishonest, prove it.  If I'm wrong state where.


Your entire post is proof you're dishonest.  I don't need to provide any more of it.  



> True, but you missed the point.  A fact does not become a fact by being verified.  The fact that you missed this tautology shows how terrible your argument is: you don't even know the meanings of the words you're using.


Such projection.  It's you who doesn't understand the definition of words...or rather, you do and are pretending you don't.  Look at what you just said.  "A fact does not become a fact by being verified".  That is a complete non-sequitir.  If something is not a fact, how can you then call it a fact?   



> A fact is simply something that is true, whether I can verify it or not is a separate issue.  Something that is believed is again separate from what is a "fact".  What I believe could be a fact; it does not become a fact when I verify it or because I believe it.  It is a fact because it is true and is consistent with reality.



You just said whether you can verify it is a separate issue, and with in the same damn paragraph said it has to be consistent with reality.  And how do we know something is consistent with reality?  You verify it with observation.  How are hell and heaven consistent with reality?  How can either be observed?  How can they be tested? 

Well you know the answer, you can't.  So then you spew out bullshit to cover that up...



> Sigh.  It was an example showing something that was factual that I could not verify; it was not meant to lead you to a discussion of beauty.  I wrongly assumed you had the ability to understand what an analogy was.  I apologize for the error.


How is beauty factual?  It's a goddamn subjective option.  Beauty can never be a fact.  Your analogy makes no damn sense.  I know what a analogy is you dishonest shit, you didn't even give a correct one.  



> You have a gift for missing the point.  The point is that you personally have not verified many of the things you believe are factual; therefore your own actions contradict your own philosophy, marking you as an intellectual hypocrite.
> 
> Have you verified that reality is rational?  That presumption is necessary for mathematics to have any application to the real world.  Have you verified that the rules of logic apply to the universe?  These are things you haven't verified, but you must believe or the world wouldn't make sense.  We start with assumptions, like any hypothesis, and then we make arguments.  That's true of both philosophy and science.



What in the world does this have to do with Heaven and Hell being a "fact" again?  You're trying to cloud the issue with BS about "what do we know is real?"  

We know what is real because we can observe and test it.  Science makes PREDICTIONS that you can test in the real world to see if they are in fact, correct.  Even if the universe is all an illusion or whatever, that is all we have.  In the rules of this universe we live in, logic holds.

Again, I ask, how is Heaven and Hell a fact?  You keep dancing around the issue.  What tests can I perform, IN THE REAL WORLD, that shows Heaven and Hell are real?

You have no answer.  So you try to change the meaning of words to dance around it.  That's not gonna cut it in here.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 3, 2014)

Hitt said:


> Your entire post is proof you're dishonest.  I don't need to provide any more of it.



Its those kinds of childish retorts that make your argument look even worse than it is.  Dishonesty is usually easy to point out.  If you can't state specifics then you're just wasting my time.  I could do the same: "your whole post is wrong!" but again, that's childish and not the point of this section of the forum.



Hitt said:


> Such projection.  It's you who doesn't understand the definition of words...or rather, you do and are pretending you don't.  Look at what you just said.  "A fact does not become a fact by being verified".  That is a complete non-sequitir.  If something is not a fact, how can you then call it a fact?



Its clear you don't understand what I said so I'll state it more simply.


If something is a fact it is a fact by virtue of its definition.
If A is "something" and B is a "fact" A does not become B through verification.  The process of verification does not bestow "fact" status on a piece of information.

Its clear to anyone with an objective reading comprehension that I never claimed something that is not a fact could magically become one.  Perhaps a more careful reading of my posts would help the quality of your responses.



Hitt said:


> You just said whether you can verify it is a separate issue, and with in the same damn paragraph said it has to be consistent with reality.



A fact is simply something that is true.  Verifying whether or not something is true is a separate issue.  Again, that's just logic.



Hitt said:


> And how do we know something is consistent with reality?  You verify it with observation.  How are hell and heaven consistent with reality?  How can either be observed?  How can they be tested?



How can you verify that absolute skepticism is false?  Through logic.  How can you verify that relativism is contradictory?  Through logic.  Observation itself cannot confirm most of what we know to be true.  This is the point you keep ignoring.

The process we use to consider something as truth is itself epistemology.  To me everything scripture states is true and truth.  You disagree with that.  That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions.  However to pretend that questions about what truth actually are to be dishonest or deflections is to miss the entire point of contention.



Hitt said:


> How is beauty factual?



It was an analogy.  I realize now that I'll have to use simple variables to converse with you since you lack the capability to understand a simple analogy.  The point was this: there are truths that you cannot verify but are still truths.  A blind man cannot verify that Naruto wears orange.  A deaf man cannot verify that Kenny G plays a saxophone by listening to his music.  "Naruto wears orange" and "Kenny G plays a saxophone" are both true, even if the person in question cannot verify that information.



Hitt said:


> What in the world does this have to do with Heaven and Hell being a "fact" again?



Everything.  The point is simple.  Rather than sit and try and look at individual points of contention the question should be "is Christianity true?"  If it is then heaven and hell are real.  If it is not true then heaven and hell may not be as the bible describes them.

The point I was making, which you missed, is that in order to function in this world you cannot operate only using knowledge you have personally verified.  At some point you use logic, faith and assumptions to reach conclusions; if your logic is valid and you start with true assumptions you will end with true conclusions.  That is the point.

This nonsense about validating things is irrational.

Heaven and Hell are real because Christianity is true.  Whether you accept this or not doesn't really concern me.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 3, 2014)

Bacon bruh, you are being very dishonest.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Its those kinds of childish retorts that make your argument look even worse than it is.  Dishonesty is usually easy to point out.  If you can't state specifics then you're just wasting my time.  I could do the same: "your whole post is wrong!" but again, that's childish and not the point of this section of the forum


I give you such retorts because you're a dishonest piece of shit that won't listen to what I post anyway.  You don't deserve anything better because you're not interested in honest discussion.  Your post history proves my point.






> A fact is simply something that is true.  Verifying whether or not something is true is a separate issue.  Again, that's just logic.


I see your are hell bent on playing the "truth" game, cause then you can bring out the horseshit apologists  like William Lane Craig or Sye Ten Bruggencate try to do.  I'm not interested in those philosophical games, and they go no further to actual knowledge. 




> The process we use to consider something as truth is itself epistemology.  To me everything scripture states is true and truth.  You disagree with that.  That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions.  However to pretend that questions about what truth actually are to be dishonest or deflections is to miss the entire point of contention.



So you're saying something is true because you say it is.  Typical apologetic crap.   Well I can just say it's false, and my point is just as valid by your logic.  You see how that gets us nowhere?

For knowledge to be gained, truth needs to be verifiable.  There has to be an objective way to show something is actually real.  Saying "the bible says so" is worthless and gives us nothing.



> It was an analogy.  I realize now that I'll have to use simple variables to converse with you since you lack the capability to understand a simple analogy.  The point was this: there are truths that you cannot verify but are still truths.  A blind man cannot verify that Naruto wears orange.  A deaf man cannot verify that Kenny G plays a saxophone by listening to his music.



He can't huh?  Well what is Orange anyway?  It's a wavelength in the visible light spectrum.  We have instrumentation that can measure that today.  Even if a man is blind, he can use tools to measure the spectrum of light that comes off the page, assuming Naruto is colored correctly.  So even here your analogy fails.  Same goes for your Saxophone.

You're trying to say God is real and that's the truth even if it's impossible to verify, I know what you're trying to do.  However, I can say that about any fantasical creature.  It's a pointless endeavor.  (And heck, even if I GIVE you that God is real, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the God of the Bible, or that Heaven or Hell exist.  You are just assuming that.)



> This nonsense about validating things is irrational.


No, exactly the opposite.  Our society has advanced on the concept of skepticism and verification.  We know what causes earthquakes now, rather than just assuming Goddidit.    We know what causes volcanoes, rather than just assuming Goddidt.  How do we get past bullshit assumptions?  We test them.  God is an untestable concept that doesn't further our knowledge in any way whatsoever.  His existence is, and always will be, a matter of faith.



> Heaven and Hell are real because Christianity is true.  Whether you accept this or not doesn't really concern me.


Absolutely unproven.  You, nor any apologist, have presented no evidence of this.  If you did, I would change my mind and admit I was wrong.  Something you would never do, like say if evidence of another true God that's not YOUR God was presented.  For you, nothing will ever change your mind.

So getting back to my original point.  Heaven and Hell have not been shown to exist, therefore their existence is NOT fact..  They are a matter of faith.  I don't care how fucking much you believe these places exist, or what the voices in your head tell you. 

So why don't you present evidence, other than the bible or your so called personal spiritual experiences, or just shut up.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Its clear you don't understand what I said so I'll state it more simply.
> 
> 
> If something is a fact it is a fact by virtue of its definition.
> ...



lmao, what the hell are you talking about? I'm going to give you the actual definition of a fact, the definition that Hitt has been trying to get through to your thick skull.



> A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. *The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability*, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.







> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information







> A thing that is known or proved to be true







> [*]If A is "something" and B is a "fact" A does not become B through verification.  The process of verification does not bestow "fact" status on a piece of information.



This is especially hilarious since the example in the Merriam Webster definition completely shits on it.



> 4
> 
> a :  something that has actual existence * space exploration is now a fact *





			
				Cyphon said:
			
		

> Well, you did say there was no credibility in the accusation but it is credible. dp even admits to feeling superior to people.



I said there isn't any credibility in the accusation when its coming from somebody that feels the same way. 



			
				Cyphon said:
			
		

> I would say that applies to both as well.



No, it really doesn't and it should be obvious why.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I said there isn't any credibility in the accusation when its coming from somebody that feels the same way.



You can still get a credible piece of information from a source you would usually distrust or that may be a hypocrite. 



> No, it really doesn't and it should be obvious why.



I think it is pretty obviously yes. Guess we can just agree to disagree.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 3, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> You can still get a credible piece of information from a source you would usually distrust or that may be a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is pretty obviously yes. Guess we can just agree to disagree.



What "absolute" truths do the majority of atheists hold and how are they derived by their "feelings"? The reason I said that it mostly applies only to one group is because atheism isn't even a dogma and so by itself, it doesn't claim absolute truth. Furthermore, atheists do not rely on "faith" nearly as much as many religious people do and by feelings, I was really referring to the notion of faith.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 3, 2014)

baconbits said:


> The process we use to consider something as truth is itself epistemology.  *To me everything scripture states is true and truth.* You disagree with that.  That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions.  However to pretend that questions about what truth actually are to be dishonest or deflections is to miss the entire point of contention.




Everything in the Scriptures are true and truth for you? Everything? -_everything_-?


Corinthians 2:2-5 If you are to be a good Christian you must try to know nothing (except for Jesus, of course). 

 Corinthians 11:5-6 If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved.  Please, I need video proof of you enforcing this law of God.

Corinthians 6:6-7 A believer should not sue another believer in court. Good luck with that.

Matthew 5:34-37 Jesus forbids the taking of any kind of oath. Related with the above, yet Christians in courtrooms throughout the United States place their right hand on the Bible swear to tell the truth. 

Corinthians 8:1 Knowledge is bad. (again... evil, evil knowledge... it makes people think and question. The Bible cannot allow that, can it??)

Timothy 6:20 Avoid science, especially that which disagrees with Paul. 

Romans 2:25 If you are circumcised and you break the law, your foreskin will grow back.  Do you really believe that one??

Romans 14:2 Only wimps are vegetarians. 

Hebrews 1:10 God set the earth on a foundation; therefore, it does not move.  You know, the reason why they took Galileo to court and imprisoned him. He was hated by most denominations, btw, not only Catholics. 


I have a longer list, but that won't be necessary. The New Testament should be enough. Go over each one and answer Truth/False. Thank you.


----------



## Pliskin (Dec 3, 2014)

American atheists are weird to me. I like that they have a politcal agenda to garner acceptance of their faith or lack thereof (do not wanna debate semantics) as should any group of faith but their methodology is just so..... flawed I guess.

Why not reach out in an empathic fashion? And I get that this is unfair since they are fighting an uphill batlle against prejudice (I vividly remember my fall from faith towards my catholic relatives) but at some point you have to ask yourself wether you want progress or to antagonize to feel better about yourself.

Personally I blame Dawkins, started out as a childhood hero and role model as a scientistz to me and degraded into a bitter old man. He who figths dragons I guess.


----------



## Tarot (Dec 3, 2014)

soulnova said:


> Everything in the Scriptures are true and truth for you? Everything? -_everything_-?
> 
> 
> Corinthians 2:2-5 If you are to be a good Christian you must try to know nothing (except for Jesus, of course).
> ...


Wow dude, really trying hard to promote dishonest literalism. It's not like Jewish people use idioms.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 3, 2014)

So what counts as an idiom and what doesn't? Because at least as far as Christianity goes, they can literally take two verses from the same chapter and say one is not literal while another is. Oftentimes, unsurprisingly, in accordance to their own interests an what they want to believe.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 3, 2014)

Apologetics:  Making the bible say what you want it to say regardless of what's actually written.


----------



## Tarot (Dec 3, 2014)

Fundamentalism is a fairly recent school of thought, so not really. For example, no one has ever actually believed that your foreskin will grow back if you sin. It's an idiom that means losing your Jewish identity.  If someone 2000 years from now saw the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" and came to the conclusion that we believed that literally happened, it would be just as dishonest. I know it may be a shock to some people, but ancient people could in fact make puns, use hyperbole, and speak in colorful metaphors. Especially considering it's a religion based around a guy who spoke parables most of the time.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 3, 2014)

Well it might be nice to have some footnotes.   That way we'd know which parts to take literally,  which parts are parables, which parts are idioms, and which parts are metaphors.  Isn't it an amazing coincidence that at same time scientific discoveries, such as the age of the Earth, started proving a literal interpretation of the bible completely incompatible with the evidence was the same time religious leaders suddenly realized that those exact same passages were actually metaphors and never meant to be taken literally.

You know, maybe an all knowing god should have left some footnotes.   I mean, given that he's all knowing,  you think we would have, what's the word... _known_ that so many faulty interpretations would lead to a splintering of Christianity so as that there are now thousands of denominations, all disagreeing with one another, and claiming that their's is the correct interpretation.   I mean shit, with eternity and eternal torture in the balance,  you'd think the all knowing creator of everything could write a book in such a way as to not be so fucking confusing to so many people.  I mean, he knew this was gonna happen, right?  Of course this is the same guy who also knew that he'd have to kill everyone on planet with a flood if he made it a certian way, then went ahead and made it that way, then was somehow disappointed that the world turned out exactly the way he'd knew it would.  Then went ahead and rage murdered everyone because, being all powerful, all knowing,  and all loving, supermurder was obviously the only possible solution to his own inability to plan correctly. 

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I disagree with you.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 4, 2014)

Hitt said:


> I give you such retorts...



Because you don't have the ability to make them.  That's really all there is to it.  If you won't substantiate your claim I have no reason to entertain it.



Hitt said:


> I see your are hell bent on playing the "truth" game, cause then you can bring out the horseshit apologists...



I don't typically quote other Christian thinkers; I form my own argument.  For one that claims to know my post history you should be aware of this fact.  I never quote William Lane Craig and I didn't even know who the other guy was until you mentioned him.

I play the "truth" game because truth is really all that matters.  Determining what is and isn't true is the whole point of this rhetorical game we're playing.



Hitt said:


> So you're saying something is true because you say it is.



Actually I'm not, and I already made it clear that this was the exact opposite of my point.  But you win points for having a reading comprehension worse than Tsukiyomi's.



Hitt said:


> For knowledge to be gained, truth needs to be verifiable.



To a degree you are correct.  That has nothing to do with what makes something true, however, which is what I was speaking to.  To convince someone else of a truth I need some way of verifying or use logic to convince them that my statement is true.  However the "truth is truth" tautology is still true .

In other words something doesn't become true because you verified it; its true on its own merits.  Verifying truth means you have a way of convincing someone else that it is true.



Hitt said:


> He can't huh?  Well what is Orange anyway?  It's a wavelength in the visible light spectrum.  We have instrumentation that can measure that today.  Even if a man is blind, he can use tools to measure the spectrum of light that comes off the page, assuming Naruto is colored correctly.  So even here your analogy fails.  Same goes for your Saxophone.



Again, you show your inability to understand how an analogy works.  An analogy simply seeks to show one point with a comparison that hopefully the audience, in this case you, will understand.  The only comparison was that, with his eyes, a blind man couldn't confirm the knowledge of Naruto's color choice, but that wouldn't make the color choice unfactual.  The inability to verify something does not make that something unfactual.

This point flew way over your head, possibly because you're more interested in bashing me than actually debating.



Hitt said:


> You're trying to say God is real and that's the truth even if it's impossible to verify, I know what you're trying to do.



You get points in my book for getting that obvious point.



Hitt said:


> However, I can say that about any fantasical creature.



You _could_.  I make no argument that would restrict your ability to make bad arguments or untrue statements.  You've done that with every one of your posts in this thread; I don't think it will stop now.



Hitt said:


> No, exactly the opposite.  Our society has advanced on the concept of skepticism and verification.



I would argue that we've advanced because of logic, but you have a point: skepticism and verification do have their purpose - I won't pretend they don't - but they cannot create truth.  Truth must be discovered.

Faith is one way of discovering truth.

However your point that something is not a fact unless verified or that you won't believe anything that you haven't verified is BS.  It won't stop being BS because you created another ad hominem attack, lol.



Hitt said:


> Absolutely unproven.



To you.  Christianity has been proven correct to me, therefore I accept the implications of it.  Whether you accept or reject that premise is your concern; it has nothing to do with me.



heavy_rasengan said:


> lmao, what the hell are you talking about?



I'm talking about how verification doesn't create facts; it only certifies them.



heavy_rasengan said:


> This is especially hilarious since the example in the Merriam Webster definition completely shits on it.



No, it doesn't.  The definition simply says a fact is something that is real, which is the same thing I've been saying: a fact is something that is true or reality.  You're conflating "fact" and how we can prove that something is a "fact".

A fact is something true.  If I want to prove that something is a fact one way I can use to convince another is verification.  Verification can only certify what we're looking at.  What we're looking at is either factual or not; certification only informs us which one it is.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 4, 2014)

Bacon, you're saying heaven and hell are real.  You're saying that they're real is a fact.  But you've given no justification that anyone can test other than "the BIble and Divine Revelation says so" which is the same thing apologists like William Lane Craig say.  You using it, nor they using it, provides sufficient justification to claim any of those as fact.

I ask again Bacon, and you continue to bullshit around my challenge.  Give me a fucking claim about Heaven or Hell I can test IN THE REAL WORLD.  God Tells You So, and "The Bible" are not convincing.  

If you can't do that, they're not fact.  I don't care what you think the word "fact" means, you're not entitled to your own definition that the rest of the world uses.  I don't care what you think YOUR truth is, because other people have their own "truth" that doesn't even remotely line up with yours.  The only way I or any other rational person can believe you is if you provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.  

Which naturally, you don't have.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Dec 4, 2014)

I've often wondered if Christians are purposely being disingenuous, or do they honestly forgo logic, and not question the words they hold so deeply.


----------



## Gino (Dec 4, 2014)

That's why these types of threads are a trap.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 4, 2014)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Well it might be nice to have some footnotes.   That way we'd know which parts to take literally,  which parts are parables, which parts are idioms, and which parts are metaphors.  Isn't it an amazing coincidence that at same time scientific discoveries, such as the age of the Earth, started proving a literal interpretation of the bible completely incompatible with the evidence was the same time religious leaders suddenly realized that those exact same passages were actually metaphors and never meant to be taken literally.
> 
> You know, maybe an all knowing god should have left some footnotes.   I mean, given that he's all knowing,  you think we would have, what's the word... _known_ that so many faulty interpretations would lead to a splintering of Christianity so as that there are now thousands of denominations, all disagreeing with one another, and claiming that their's is the correct interpretation.   I mean shit, with eternity and eternal torture in the balance,  you'd think the all knowing creator of everything could write a book in such a way as to not be so fucking confusing to so many people.  I mean, he knew this was gonna happen, right?  Of course this is the same guy who also knew that he'd have to kill everyone on planet with a flood if he made it a certian way, then went ahead and made it that way, then was somehow disappointed that the world turned out exactly the way he'd knew it would.  Then went ahead and rage murdered everyone because, being all powerful, all knowing,  and all loving, supermurder was obviously the only possible solution to his own inability to plan correctly.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I disagree with you.



Well, saying a woman has to shave her head if she doesn't cover it in church sounds pretty literal.  What are your thoughts on that line?


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 4, 2014)

> Nothing to do with that? hmmm if you have read well those parts these cataclysms were sent to punish the evil of the men,god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were so evil and corrupted,same for the flood god punish humanity for its evil,there is always a reason why these events happened.



Oh, it sounded like you were saying god acted through people/got people to do his bidding

We got plenty of evil nowadays, I want a flood dammit! 
Where my flood at!?


----------



## Saishin (Dec 4, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> Dude, what about the flood? People had nothing to do with that
> Or the plagues?
> Or Sodom and Gomorrah?


Nothing to do with that? hmmm if you have read well those parts these cataclysms were sent to punish the evil of the men,god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were so evil and corrupted,same for the flood god punish humanity for its evil,there is always a reason why these events happened.


dpwater25 said:


> First of all as someone who was one of the first 10 people to reply to this thread, holy sht! 200 replies in 2 days.
> 
> Anyway, blah blah blah stupid bible thumping response. No. simply no. The bible does not just mention these things. I could understand if that was the case. But the case is the bible is mostly filled with things that tell u what to do morally. And in the Bible it TELLS u that these things are okay. Read the bible before u spread ur ignorant Christian beliefs.
> 
> ...


Christian beliefs? I'm agnostic dude not christian.

These laws are part of the so called Law of Moses,as far as I know to me the bible do not promote or tells to follow these rules it just show on what justice system the jew society was based on,and in my opinion believers nowdays that think that these laws must be follow as the word of god are idiots.
You are missing another point,the historical contest.I don't understand why some of you get shocked when you read these laws that include slavery or similar things,in ancient times these things were the norm,were the normality because that was the society,it was  legal to have a slave to free him or do whatever you like or to marry more than a wife,in this sense the bible gives us a witness of historical importance because it let us know how the society of those ancient times was regulated by the authorities when disputes like the ones that you quoted occured among people.
The Law of Moses was influenced by other Eastern legal systems,wasn't very different from the Sumerian legal code or the Babylonian legal code,this is history dude not religion.

Law in the Ancient Near East
The "Law of Moses" in Ancient Israel is distinguished from other legal codes in the ancient Near East by its reference to offense against a deity rather than against society.[4] This compares with the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BCE), then the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BCE), of which almost half concerns contract law. However the influence of the ancient Near Eastern legal tradition on the Law of Ancient Israel is recognised and well documented.[5] For example the Israelite Sabbatical Year has antedents in the Akkadian mesharum edicts granting periodical relief to the poor.[6] Another important distinction is that in ancient Near East legal codes, or in more recently unearthed Ugaritic texts, an important, and ultimate, role was assigned to the king, whereas in the Law of Ancient Israel, Israel was intended to be a theocracy, not a monarchy


----------



## Saishin (Dec 4, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> Oh, it sounded like you were saying god acted through people/got people to do his bidding
> 
> We got plenty of evil nowadays, I want a flood dammit!
> Where my flood at!?


In fact god act through those people or better he acts along those people that decide to follow him.

Well didn't god after the flood said to Noah that will never send a flood again?


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 4, 2014)

Saishin said:


> In fact god act through those people or better he acts along those people that decide to follow him.
> 
> Well didn't god after the flood said to Noah that will never send a flood again?



So... did he lie?  (I know he meant like a great flood but it wasn't a Water World scale flood cuz it was only in the middle east)
We've been having floods and tsunamis and Il Ninos a lot lately


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 4, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Nothing to do with that? hmmm if you have read well those parts these cataclysms were sent to punish the evil of the men,god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were so evil and corrupted,same for the flood god punish humanity for its evil,there is always a reason why these events happened.
> 
> Christian beliefs? I'm agnostic dude not christian.
> 
> ...



tbh if it a holy book, why is that here in the first place. Better yet, why did god allow for them to do what they did. WHy wasn't god present for all the generations before christ. WHy did he let them all be damned. why did he turn sand and ribs into people and sht. Why couldnt he just poof sht if he exists.why does god give me the brains to think critically about him then want to punish me when i do so. i could go on all day. WHy is there eternal suffering in hell. why is the devil a thing. why do babies die when they are just born. why do atheists live for an entire life and christians don't have to. why not give everybody an equal shot at life if u really want to test how people react to life (considering that in experiments if u want to test something out, the only way to make the test run efficiently is to make all variables the same and test how they react to something. If not done this way then they might act differently for a different reason and it would give unfairness to it.

I will admit, i was curious about what u said. I might someday read the entirety of the bible (and be one of few thousand to do so). Btw tho,  my case would still be that it's not telling u these things as a story. the bible tells u things as if its telling u how to act. a holy book is supposed to guide u morally, no. that's the point. and it would be one thing, as i said, to have it just told in story form  but no. The bible speaks as if it is tlking directly to u. it is saying do this and do tht when ur daughter is raped and do this. it is saying in leviticus is a detestable sin. and tht is not acceptable and i'd like to see u counter that.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 4, 2014)

I cant believe we are really debating the definition of a fact. Like really..


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 4, 2014)

Normality said:


> I cant believe we are really debating the definition of a fact. Like really..



omg ikr. i was looking at tht hitt v. baconbits debate and was thinking " seriously?" XD


----------



## Hitt (Dec 4, 2014)

Well Bacon is using the same tricks used thousands of times when apologists try to argue their beliefs as actual fact.  They try to change the definition of what fact is or if that doesn't work argue "What is truth?" like they're some kind of philosophical heavyweights.


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> And then in the New Testament He changed and never slaughter another group. The End. Great fiction story the bible is.


God is the ultimate proof that having children changes a man, even if that child is just yourself in a different form.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 4, 2014)

WolfPrinceKiba said:


> God is the ultimate proof that having children changes a man, even if that child is just yourself in a different form.



He had plenty of "kids" in the OT


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Reminder that atheists are just as irrational as theists, just less specific about it.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 4, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Nothing to do with that? hmmm if you have read well those parts these cataclysms were sent to punish the evil of the men,god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were so evil and corrupted,same for the flood god punish humanity for its evil,there is always a reason why these events happened.
> 
> Christian beliefs? I'm agnostic dude not christian.
> 
> These laws are part of the so called Law of Moses,as far as I know to me the bible do not promote or tells to follow these rules it just show on what justice system the jew society was based on,and in my opinion believers nowdays that think that these laws must be follow as the word of god are idiots.





This is why I mostly focus on the "New Testament" so they can't say "_That's Old Testament stuff. It's doesn't count anymore_". And yet,  Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. MARK 7:10 



soulnova said:


> Corinthians 2:2-5 If you are to be a good Christian you must try to know nothing (except for Jesus, of course).
> 
> Corinthians 11:5-6 If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved.  Please, I need video proof of you enforcing this law of God.
> 
> ...






> You are missing another point,the historical contest.I don't understand why some of you get shocked when you read these laws that include slavery or similar things,in ancient times these things were the norm,were the normality because that was the society,it was  legal to have a slave to free him or do whatever you like or to marry more than a wife,in this sense the bible gives us a witness of historical importance because it let us know how the society of those ancient times was regulated by the authorities when disputes like the ones that you quoted occured among people.
> The Law of Moses was influenced by other Eastern legal,wasn't very different from the Sumerian legal code or the Babylonian legal code,this is history dude not religion.



You said it yourself.  The laws on the bible, old testament and new, were written by humans... based on their cultural background at the time. They were not "divinely inspired or flawless". On an historical context you can't pin point the exact moment in time when these laws should not apply to our "modern lives" any more...because they WERE taken mostly literally until just two hundred of years ago. They just had doubts on interpretation.  We have come a long way from then and WE KNOW BETTER.  But it was not because new divine revelations patching the rule-set for our time. It because we humans dared to question what the book said.


Luther speaking of Copernicus


> "! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."



Then they all went "well, it was meant to be taken metaphorically! God spoke in simple terms!".... Or perhaps the Bible is a combination of fiction and few historical events written by humans to try to explain the world around them, and failing at that.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Reminder that atheists are just as irrational as theists, just less specific about it.



I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.  Care to be a little more specific?


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 4, 2014)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> > Reminder that atheists are just as irrational as theists, just less specific about it.
> 
> 
> I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.  Care to be a little more specific?



I laughed 
Maybe Blue is just an atheist


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.  Care to be a little more specific?



He moronically believes to be atheist requires faith because he moronically believes to be atheist means to claim to know that a god does not exist.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He moronically believes to be atheist requires faith because he moronically believes to be atheist means to claim to know that a god does not exist.


When I explained to him the difference he ignored it completly. He's doing it on purpose.

//HbS


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 4, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> When I explained to him the difference he ignored it completly. He's doing it on purpose.
> 
> //HbS



Ironic coming from you.


----------



## sworder (Dec 4, 2014)

Pliskin said:


> American atheists are weird to me. I like that they have a politcal agenda to garner acceptance of their faith or lack thereof (do not wanna debate semantics) as should any group of faith but their methodology is just so..... flawed I guess.
> 
> Why not reach out in an empathic fashion? And I get that this is unfair since they are fighting an uphill batlle against prejudice (I vividly remember my fall from faith towards my catholic relatives) but at some point you have to ask yourself wether you want progress or to antagonize to feel better about yourself.
> 
> Personally I blame Dawkins, started out as a childhood hero and role model as a scientistz to me and degraded into a bitter old man. He who figths dragons I guess.



checkmate, atheists


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He moronically believes to be atheist requires faith because he moronically believes to be atheist means to claim to know that a god does not exist.



If by "moronically" you mean "factually", sure.

An agnostic is still not an atheist, no matter how many times you say it is.



Hunted by sister said:


> When I explained to him the difference he ignored it completly. He's doing it on purpose.
> 
> //HbS



I'm pretty sure I corrected you, but if I did ignore you it's because you so rarely say anything an educated person should waste their time on.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

I never said it was you dumb fuck. I have repeatedly stated that agnostic is not mutually exclusive to being atheist, the way you try to use it; or theist for that matter, but the latter is more rare since religious dogma not only demands faith but professed knowledge of their deity's or deities', existence.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I never said it was you dumb fuck. I have repeatedly stated that agnostic is not mutually exclusive to being atheist.



Well, no, it's not. Neither is it mutually exclusive to being a theist. 

An agnostic atheist (or theist) is simply a person who admits their beliefs are irrational.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Well, no, it's not. Neither is it mutually exclusive to being a theist.
> 
> An agnostic atheist (or theist) is simply a person who admits their beliefs are irrational.



No, moron. An agnostic theist and atheist are simply people that realize the concept can't be proven or disproven. An atheistic position is perfectly rational due to the fact that what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Meaning essentially, a person has no obligation to believe in claims that lack the evidence to substantiate them.

An agnostic theist relies on faith, and recognizes this, that a particular deity or deities exist. Yet do not claim to know it of course, acknowledging they lack the evidence to truly know. This again, is rare.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

>factually 

blue, atheism can mean non-theism as much as it can mean anti-theism 

also, claiming an agnostic can't be atheist is flat out false, that may be true if you're assigning gnosticism with both atheism and theism, but that condition is not necessary


----------



## Zaru (Dec 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> >factually
> 
> blue, atheism can mean non-theism as much as it can mean anti-theism
> 
> also, claiming an agnostic can't be atheist is flat out false, that may be true if you're assigning gnosticism with both atheism and theism, but that condition is not necessary



Blue and Seto have been going at this definition for years, there's no chance it'll stop until one of them leaves the forum.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> >factually
> 
> blue, atheism can mean non-theism as much as it can mean anti-theism



Taken literally, it can; however, in the vernacular, "atheist" has been taken to mean actively denying the existence of any god, while "agnostic" has been taken to mean "without belief", literally, without knowledge.

This has been the case since at least 1600. Persecution of atheists has been a thing for far longer than that. I assure you they didn't prosecute any newborn babies.

The modern atheist movement has been attempting to redefine "atheist" to include automatically agnostics, including newborn children, and came up with "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" to distinguish the two.

Besides being ridiculous and wrong, that's futile, because if all non-theists are atheists, a new word for what we call an agnostic today will simply be invented.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Blue and Seto have been going at this definition for years, there's no chance it'll stop until one of them leaves the forum.



I can still save afg from the jaws of stupidity!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Taken literally, it can; however, in the vernacular, "atheist" has been taken to mean actively denying the existence of any god, while "agnostic" has been taken to mean "without belief", literally, without knowledge.
> 
> This has been the case since at least 1600. Persecution of atheists has been a thing for far longer than that. I assure you they didn't prosecute any newborn babies.
> 
> ...



Belief and knowledge are two different things. 

No, atheism for longer than you, I, or anyone alive for that matter has been defined as someone that does not believe in god. It says nothing about how an individual came to that point, or the basis of their lack of belief. atheism literally means "without god", non-theism would be atheism; it's the same fucking thing.

Agnostic simply means to not profess knowledge that you know it to be true that some god exists or not. I haven't, nor have I ever, tried to claim agnosticism is the same as atheism. What I have disputed is your attempt to try and use it as a means to put yourself on a logical highground in regard to atheism or theism as if it were mutually exclusive to both when it's not. "strong" or gnostic atheism/theism, "weak" or agnostic atheism/theism are important distinctions to make. Distinctions we through time realize existed among individuals. Since we understand that to not believe in a claim is not the same as claiming to know that claim is untrue. 

This has been thing vernacular for a very long time now, it's clear you are way behind on an update.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, moron. An agnostic theist and atheist are simply people that realize the concept can't be proven or disproven. An atheistic position is perfectly rational due to the fact that what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Meaning essentially, a person has no obligation to believe in claims that lack the evidence to substantiate them.



"There is no God" and "there is a God" are two equally unprovable, unfalsifiable statements, and therefore equally irrational.

"The Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible, Koran, et al. does not exist" is demonstrable and rational. But that's not what's on trial.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> "There is no God" and "there is a God" are two equally unprovable, unfalsifiable statements, and therefore equally irrational.
> 
> "The Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible, Koran, et al. does not exist" is demonstrable and rational. But that's not what's on trial.



Christ. Get what I'm telling you. 

"There is no god" is an assertion, that's purely gnostic atheist or "strong" atheist. "I don't believe in any god" is not, that's agnostic atheist. The former requires knowledge to substantiate, the latter comes from a lack of evidence for the claim "There is a god", and a perfectly rational position to have in regard to a lack of evidence.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 4, 2014)

Agnostic atheistm would be to not believe a God exist, but to not be sure about it, right?

That is what I find closer to "hardcore atheism" that I can find reasonable. Gnostic Atheism is "God does not, exist, period. And I am 100% sure about it" a position that I found ridiculous and unreasonable.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> Agnostic atheistm would be to not believe a God exist, but to not be sure about it, right?
> 
> That is what I find closer to "hardcore atheism" that I can find reasonable. Gnostic Atheism is "God does not, exist, period. And I am 100% sure about it" a position that I found ridiculous and unreasonable.



Correct. However simply "agnosticism" is possessing neither belief nor disbelief in God, and a belief that it is unknowable at present. This is what Google tells me when I type in "Agnostic":



> a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



A person with no disbelief in God cannot, under any common definition, be an atheist.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

"no disbelief"...so belief.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> I'm pretty sure I corrected you, but if I did ignore you it's because you so rarely say anything an educated person should waste their time on.


And then I explained that your correction is wrong. After that you ignored me.

Let me repeat my answer to your correction: one of these sentenced implied belief, the other implied lack of belief. That's the difference.

//HbS


----------



## sworder (Dec 4, 2014)

Having a lack of belief means you don't believe there is a God and you don't believe there isn't a God.

So why are all these religion topics so controversial and get so many posts for something you guys don't feel strongly about?

Sounds like bullshit to me


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Taken literally, it can; however, in the vernacular, "atheist" has been taken to mean actively denying the existence of any god, while "agnostic" has been taken to mean "without belief", literally, without knowledge.
> 
> This has been the case since at least 1600. Persecution of atheists has been a thing for far longer than that. I assure you they didn't prosecute any newborn babies.
> 
> ...


but isn't taking it literally the point? 

the very fact that the word is vague is what allows these quasi political movements by people who identify with the word to develop; they don't necessarily dictate what the word exclusively means

the weak/strong atheist babble and political connotations aside, the literal extractions from "atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive, which makes contemporary reform within their usage valid


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Correct. However simply "agnosticism" is possessing neither belief nor disbelief in God, and a belief that it is unknowable at present. This is what Google tells me when I type in "Agnostic":
> 
> 
> 
> A person with no disbelief in God cannot, under any common definition, be an atheist.



I don't think it has to be so black and white.

For example an atheist could be an agnostic who says "I don't know if God exists, I think is likely he does not but I am not sure."

So I don't think an atheist require the unreasonable "God does not exist, period."


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 4, 2014)

Theism is the affirmative claim of believe.  Atheism is the lack of that.  So ANYTHING that is not "yes there is a god" is atheism.  There are many different levels within that but they all still fall under the broad umbrella of atheism.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> the weak/strong atheist babble and political connotations aside, the literal extractions from "atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive, which makes contemporary reform within their usage valid



The reformation and/or redefinition of any word is "valid" in the realm of public perception and the vernacular, which then dictates the meaning of the word in the literary.

Kaiba, along with parts of the atheist movement, would like "agnosticism" to be redefined in the vernacular to be inexclusive of atheism. He is an atheist and would like the term to be more inclusive.

I would not like that. Along with other agnostics, I am not an atheist and do not wish to be identified with atheists.

You are witnessing a small battle of a much larger conflict in the English language.

Like I said, if it is lost, then "strong atheists" can go on being atheists and we will call ourselves something else, because "weak atheist" sounds retarded even if you don't mind the word "atheist".


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 4, 2014)

Ignored again 


sworder said:


> Having a lack of belief means you don't believe there is a God and you don't believe there isn't a God.
> 
> So why are all these religion topics so controversial and get so many posts for something you guys don't feel strongly about?
> 
> Sounds like bullshit to me


We have low level of tolerance for stupid bullshit, that's why 

//HbS


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> The reformation and/or redefinition of any word is "valid" in the realm of public perception and the vernacular, which then dictates the meaning of the word in the literary.
> 
> Kaiba, along with parts of the atheist movement, would like "agnosticism" to be redefined in the vernacular to be inexclusive of atheism. He is an atheist and would like the term to be more inclusive.
> 
> ...



ok, i see what you're saying here, but i think the point you're missing (maybe both missing) is that neither words have a single, lone definition 

you know this, and i know you know this, but are you really applying this fact in your arguments?



> Like I said, if it is lost, then "strong atheists" can go on being atheists and we will call ourselves something else, because "weak atheist" sounds retarded even if you don't mind the word "atheist".


this is a political squabble that is frankly silly

strong/weak atheist is retarded, but if you logically identify with the attributes of a word or term (in this case atheism meaning non-theism), that word applies to you within that reference frame; it doesn't mean you need to identify with the word politically, just for the sake of discourse and clarity


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Correct. However simply "agnosticism" is possessing neither belief nor disbelief in God, and a belief that it is unknowable at present. This is what Google tells me when I type in "Agnostic":
> 
> 
> 
> A person with no disbelief in God cannot, under any common definition, be an atheist.



LOL "neither belief nor disbelief in God". This doesn't make sense, there isn't a third alternative. Disbelief in God is the default position of not believing in God. 

Why don't we go beyond your google nonsense and look at some acadamic literature?



> The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... *The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. *



Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p. 35: 

Now to address your other claims.

Atheism is both compatible and contrasted with Agnosticism whether you like it or not. 



> The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one."



Agnosticism: The Croall Lecture for 1887?88. William Blackwood and Sons
Flint 1903, pp. 49?51



> "It is important to note that this interpretation of agnosticism is compatible with theism or atheism, since it is only asserted that knowledge of God's existence is unattainable."



Holland, Aaron. Agnosticism, in Flynn 2007, p. 34



> "But agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism in that agnosticism entails negative atheism. Since agnostics do not believe in God, they are by definition negative atheists. This is not to say that negative atheism entails agnosticism. A negative atheist might disbelieve in God but need not."



Martin, Michael, ed. (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This is perhaps the most important for our discussion and one that Seto has been trying to tell you over and over again, so pay attention.



> People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" *The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief.* The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

In discourse, an Atheist has been someone who denies the existence of God and an agnostic has been someone who does not profess belief. It has been this way for hundreds of years. We speak of Humans and animals and they are exclusive in discourse, if not in literary terms. Agnostic and atheist are the same.

From the  (This is the definitive work):


> In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. *In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.*



People are trying to change that. I'd prefer they not.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Why don't we go beyond your google nonsense and look at some acadamic literature?



Good timing on my part, I suppose.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

but if someone said "i am not an animal, i am a human" in literal terms (not rhetorical), they would be wrong 

that's precisely because the terms aren't mutually exclusive

it's fine if you'd rather they not change the popular usage of the word, but you are both simply favoring one valid definition over another; it doesn't seem like you're taking a defensive position on this and merely asserting that your usage is valid, you're administering your definition over others as well


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 4, 2014)

Both the words "atheist" and "agnostic" do have solid, accurate definitions. Most people get them wrong, including people who identify as them. Especially self-labeled "agnostics." I've got another label I prefer. "Secular Humanist." That's my strong affirmation of what I'm actually about. It's unambiguous. It's strictly defined. I have a code. I have beliefs, not just disbeliefs. I am somebody and I do stand for something.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> Both the words "atheist" and "agnostic" do have solid, accurate definitions. Most people get them wrong, including people who identify as them. Especially self-labeled "agnostics." I've got another label I prefer. "Secular Humanist." That's my strong affirmation of what I'm actually about. It's unambiguous. It's strictly defined. I have a code. I have beliefs, not just disbeliefs. I am somebody and I do stand for something.



atheist and agnostic both have political history behind them that have added dimensions to their usage 

words inherently rely on their usage for literary effect

it's not that they're using the terms wrong, it's that they're using them differently


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> but if someone said "i am not an animal, i am a human" in literal terms (not rhetorical), they would be wrong


Nevertheless, you would know precisely what he meant, and would not question him, unless your name was Hand Banana.
Can you think of a good way to say "I am not a member of any species besides Homo Sapiens. I am Homo Sapiens." that isn't awkward? Do you think even in academic discourse, anyone would avoid saying "I am not an animal"?




afgpride said:


> it's fine if you'd rather they not change the popular usage of the word, but you are both simply favoring one valid definition over another; it doesn't seem like you're taking a defensive position on this and merely asserting that your usage is valid, you're administering your definition over others as well



Well, yes; my claim is that my usage of the words is historically accurate and accurate in the vernacular; Kaiba's is that his usage is literally accurate.

I contend that if we are to change the terms to keep them literally accurate, we will need another (literally accurate) term for someone who does not profess belief or wish to be categorized with those who profess disbelief.

Which is pointless. Unless you are an atheist and wish for your group to expand from 20 million to 3 billion overnight with the stroke of a pen.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 4, 2014)

Not my fault blue you have a hard time getting your words out.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

It also annoys me because this attempt to redefine atheist to the literal has a political agenda; atheists would love to be able to have this conversation with people:

"Are you an atheist?"
"Eh, no, I'm not."
"Oh, so what do you believe?"
"Nothing in particular, I suppose."
"Oh, so you're an atheist."

Right now, if they tried that, they'd be told to fuck right off, and for good reason. What they're calling atheist isn't anything like what the vast majority of people perceive an atheist to be. And so should the word bend (or rather, remain bent), or the people?

I believe the word.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Nevertheless, you would know precisely what he meant, and would not question him, unless your name was Hand Banana.
> Can you think of a good way to say "I am not a member of any species besides Homo Sapiens. I am Homo Sapiens." that isn't awkward? Do you think even in academic discourse, anyone would avoid saying "I am not an animal"?


actually, nevermind, you're 100% right on this point 

that definition is entirely a valid one, so they wouldn't be literally wrong 

be that as it may, the fact that their definition is most common in vernacular doesn't invalidate the scientific definition of the word, so if some scientist told him to stop referring to animals as living organisms separate from humans that aren't plants, he could tell that scientist to fuck off, but that wouldn't make the scientists' definition any less valid

that's the crux of the problem in this case, wrestling over who's definition should be exclusively used rather than conceding that both are valid



> Well, yes; my claim is that my usage of the words is historically accurate and accurate in the vernacular; Kaiba's is that his usage is literally accurate.
> 
> I contend that if we are to change the terms to keep them literally accurate, we will need another (literally accurate) term for someone who does not profess belief or wish to be categorized with those who profess disbelief.
> 
> Which is pointless. Unless you are an atheist and wish for your group to expand from 20 million to 3 billion overnight with the stroke of a pen.


that's a defensive position, though, which doesn't coincide with the rest of your rhetoric regarding this (from my comprehension)

if seto stopped telling you to only use the word agnostic literally, would you accept that the literal definition of agnostic is a valid one, and that being an agnostic isn't always exclusive to atheism?


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 4, 2014)

"Are you an atheist?"
"Eh, no, I'm not."
"Oh, so what do you believe?"
"Nothing in particular, I suppose."
"Oh, so you're an atheist."

That would be incorrect.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 4, 2014)

Saishin said:


> About babies died just born and other issues like that in other words why sufferings and evil exist? well the answer is very clear,go and read the book of genesis,everything started there.In the beginning god created the world perfect,everything was in harmony,no evil no corruption,the men were not subjected to any illness,or old age,our bodies were perfect,the world was a heaven but what happened then,Adam and Eve humanity's ancestors were subjected to a test by god.



Adam and Eve do not exist. You carry the proof. The proof is in your DNA. Each one of your cells has the information passed down by all the previous generation who managed to leave offspring successfully. It is A FACT, that at no point on our DNA shows we come from a single mating pair, "Adam and Even"... or that a genetic bottle neck of 8 people happened from the flood with Noah. If Adam and Eve do not exist, then the Original Sin does not exist either... and without Original Sin the whole basis of the Bible is simply fabricated.

From the very start of the Bible the Genesis story falls flat.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Christ. Get what I'm telling you.
> 
> "There is no god" is an assertion, that's purely gnostic atheist or "strong" atheist. "I don't believe in any god" is not, that's agnostic atheist. The former requires knowledge to substantiate, the latter comes from a lack of evidence for the claim "There is a god", and a perfectly rational position to have in regard to a lack of evidence.



Let me try this as someone who hates the fact that he agrees with Blue on any issue. 

If I ask you 
"Is there a god?"

If you answer : "yes". Then you are a theist. 
If you answer : "no". Then you are an atheist.
If you answer : "I don't know". Then you are an agnostic. 

Answering "yes" or "no" doesn't mean that you are 100% sure, without a doubt, that would be ascribed to "gnostic" it is just your current understanding. 

If I asked you "Are you going to wake up at before 7am?" and you said "yes" this hasn't ascribe the absolutely condition of your knowing when you will wake up. You can be unsure of it, but it is your current understanding. 

you could even say that.

If you answer : "yes, but I am not sure". Then you are an agnostic theist. 
If you answer : "no, but I am not sure". Then you are an agnostic atheist.
if you like. 

But the answering of the question, the fact that you have make a conclusion either way to the question sets you as either an atheist or a theist. 

-
The question "Do you have a *belief* in god?" shifts the focus of the statement from "God's" existence, to your "belief's" existence. 
Now you only have 2 answers. 
Where rejecting that there is a god, and not have an answer are grouped together. 

Many people feel, including myself, that group the undecided and the rejected together is wrong. As an undecided person is as far away from rejection as they are from acceptance.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 4, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Let me try this as someone who hates the fact that he agrees with Blue on any issue.
> 
> If I ask you
> "Is there a god?"
> ...



That's wrong.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 4, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> That's wrong.



no you......


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue, like all of us here, you are aware that the concept and claims of deities and their existence, exist. You like anyone are either gonna believe in the claims of those deities existence or you are not. This is not at all the same as knowing whether they really exist or not.

Being aware of claims of the existence of a deity or deities, if you have no belief any claim of such, then you are atheist. If you have "no disbelief", then you have belief in some concept of it, making you theist. Or like many of the Founding Fathers, deist.  

You as you have made clear before only call yourself an agnostic out of fear of the religious stigma behind being looked upon as atheist. Which is really stupid to be honest, but it's clear that has made you completely ignorant on this matter.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 4, 2014)

Hitt said:


> Bacon, you're saying heaven and hell are real.



Yes, I am.



Hitt said:


> You're saying that they're real is a fact.



Redundant but true.



Hitt said:


> But you've given no justification that anyone can test other than "the BIble and Divine Revelation says so" which is the same thing apologists like William Lane Craig say.



I don't care what they say.  Some apologists are great; some not so much.  The point is that Heaven and Hell are real because Christianity as a whole is true.  Proving this is larger than proving some individual aspect of Christianity.  In other words I'm focused on the mountain; you're looking at the rock.

The fact that I've given nothing to validate my opinion to this point does not make it unfactual; it only means its unvalidated.  In other words I've said nothing to convince you.

Convincing you is not my concern.  I can form arguments to support Christianity at any time.  It doesn't really concern me whether you believe me or not and to be frank, you're not an objective audience.  I know enough to know Christianity is true.  This fact seems to bother you; it doesn't bother me.



Hitt said:


> I ask again Bacon, and you continue to bullshit around my challenge.  Give me a fucking claim about Heaven or Hell I can test IN THE REAL WORLD.



Your challenge is stupid.  By definition heaven and hell exist in separate dimensions from this real world.  The problem with your challenge should be self evident: they keep you from recognizing heaven and hell even if they were factual.  Any system of thought that would not allow us to recognize truth is fatally flawed.  Your system of thought is fatally flawed.



Hitt said:


> If you can't do that, they're not fact.



Again, you're conflating "fact" and "convincing argument"; the two are not the same.  If I'm the only one who sees a rabbit backflip over a moving car that event doesn't stop being factual because I didn't happen to capture the event on camera.  What is true or real is factual.  You wouldn't find the account convincing because I couldn't prove it.  But not being able to prove something does not make the contention "unfactual".

It would help the discussion if you actually knew what the terms you're trying to use meant.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 4, 2014)

I used to consider myself "agnostic" as well, before I got educated on it and corrected myself.  Social stigma or not, I am an atheist.

Also bacon, you have failed my challenge, as expected.  You have not established Heaven or Hell exists in the real world, therefore they are not fact.  Facts are true in reality.  "Different dimension" is, by definition, not in this reality now is it?  I am well aware you BELIEVE they exist.  That is irrelevant to whether they are fact.  Which has not been established.

Your concession is accepted.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Blue, like all of us here, you are aware that the concept and claims of deities and their existence, exist. You like anyone are either gonna believe in the claims of those deities existence or you are not. This is not at all the same as knowing whether they really exist or not.
> 
> Being aware of claims of the existence of a deity or deities, if you have no belief any claim of such, then you are atheist. If you have "no disbelief", then you have belief in some concept of it, making you theist. Or like many of the Founding Fathers, deist.
> 
> You as you have made clear before only call yourself an agnostic out of fear of the religious stigma behind being looked upon as atheist. Which is really stupid to be honest, but it's clear that has made you completely ignorant on this matter.



I never understood you guys on this point.  A lot of you pretend that being atheist is simply the absence of belief; it is not.  Atheism is an affirmation that God does not exist in most cases.  If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

baconbits said:


> I never understood you guys on this point.  A lot of you pretend that being atheist is simply the absence of belief; it is not.  Atheism is an affirmation that God does not exist in most cases.  If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x".



No, atheism is simply not believing. Religious rhetoric in particular has tried to make it specifically an assertion too that no deities exist in an attempt to point at those that don't believe and approach them as if they are another religion, or form of faith. Religious dogma often demands a theist be gnostic, a lack of belief does not.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 4, 2014)

So can I go back in time and just not ask that question?


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 4, 2014)

Please don't

//HbS


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 4, 2014)

> Atheism is an affirmation that God does not exist in most cases. If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x".



But isn't it mostly an affirmation that God [as described] does not exist, and then there are squabbles about whether or not the bible is just a book, the origins of the religion, and other gotcha crossroads come crosshairs?

I don't know anything about gods. Who knows anything about gods? I don't even know anything about lions. Less atheist. I'm more of an ayouknowwhatyou'retalkingabout.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 4, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Let me try this as someone who hates the fact that he agrees with Blue on any issue.
> 
> If I ask you
> "Is there a god?"
> ...





baconbits said:


> I never understood you guys on this point.  A lot of you pretend that being atheist is simply the absence of belief; it is not.  Atheism is an affirmation that God does not exist in most cases.  If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x".



I don't understand what is so confusing about this.  The prefix "a" basically means not.

Apolitical means NOT political.

Amoral means a lack of morals.

Theism is the affirmative belief in a deity.  Atheism is...NOT THAT.  So anything that is not theism is atheism.

If you say I don't know that is still atheism, because it is NOT theism.  There are many things that fall under atheism (yes including the "I know with 100% certainty there is no god" position), but they are still atheism.

As for "If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x"." thats not always true.  If you're blind and I ask you "what color is the sky?" and you say "I don't know".  You don't believe its blue, that doesn't mean you believe the sky is not blue, you simply don't know.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

baconbits said:


> If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x".



this is a false dichotomy since "believe" is a conditional variable


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I don't understand what is so confusing about this.



Because you don't understand language.

To go back to my animal analogy, the root of the word is the latin _anima_, meaning soul.

You are an atheist, I presume, you do not believe in souls. So you don't believe in animals?

Or do you believe language can evolve? This particular bit of language - atheist as an active denier of the existence of deities - evolved hundreds of years ago. Now people seek to undo that.



			
				Kaiba said:
			
		

> Being aware of claims of the existence of a deity or deities, if you have no belief any claim of such, then you are atheist.


I disagree. 

You say if I have no belief, I am atheist, and if I have no disbelief, I am theist. There is no middle ground in your philosophy?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Because you don't understand language.
> 
> To go back to my animal analogy, the root of the word is the latin _anima_, meaning soul.
> 
> ...



Where are you getting that?  The root of the word just means "without gods".  That doesn't imply and active belief that a deity is NOT there, it just means you have no gods.



Blue said:


> You say if I have no belief, I am atheist, and if I have no disbelief, I am theist. There is no middle ground in your philosophy?



Disbelief doesn't mean that you think that what is being said is false.  If you don't believe it then you are in a state of disbelief.  If I told a blind person the sky was pink and they said they didn't believe me.  They aren't saying the sky is NOT blue, they're simply not accepting my claim.

If you have a lack of disbelief though then that is belief.  That's a double negative.  Not disbelieving something means you believe it, there is no third option.  Its like looking for a middle ground between on and off.

If you lack disbelief in a deity then you have belief in that deity, and thus are a theist.

If you take the position of "I don't know", thats still disbelief, the lack of belief.  Its a neutral position but disbelief is the default position.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Dec 4, 2014)

Serves the south right for owning Florida. Also for enforcing their religion on xxx people.
Let the bombing and raids begin.


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Where are you getting that?



You're either really dumb or not interested in having a real discussion. I'm honestly not sure which.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> In discourse, an Atheist has been someone who denies the existence of God and an agnostic has been someone who does not profess belief. It has been this way for hundreds of years. We speak of Humans and animals and they are exclusive in discourse, if not in literary terms. Agnostic and atheist are the same.



This isn't true. Historically, in "discourse", the term atheism has been thrown around to many different things. This is why, its definitive term is obviously superior to its "popular" usage. The early Christians were considered atheists by the Romans because they did not believe in the Pagan gods. The Epicureans were considered atheists even though Epicurus himself professed belief in deities. Historically, the term atheist has been used as an insult and would be thrown at anyone who did not conform to the religious thinking of the time. This is why its futile to go by popular usages. 

Furthermore, the term Agnosticism hasn't even been around for that long. It was popularized by Huxley who himself adhered to a false definition of atheism because the term was thrown around as insults in an atmosphere dominated by Christianity.   

Even if we go about one hundred years back;



> Robert G. Ingersoll, an Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and sought-after orator in 19th-century America, has been referred to as the "Great Agnostic".[
> 
> In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic, Ingersoll related why he was an agnostic:
> 
> _Is there a supernatural power?an arbitrary mind?an enthroned God?a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world?to which all causes bow? I do not deny. *I do not know?but I do not believe*_.



Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211?238. 



> In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterized himself as an atheist. He said:
> 
> 
> The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter.
> ...



Russell, Bertrand. Collected Papers, Vol 10. p. 255.





> From the  (This is the definitive work):
> 
> 
> People are trying to change that. I'd prefer they not.



No where in that excerpt does it say the two are mutually exclusive. If you are "undecided" about God(s) then you don't believe in it and hence you fall in the category of atheism.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> I disagree.
> 
> You say if I have no belief, I am atheist, and if I have no disbelief, I am theist. There is no middle ground in your philosophy?



Because "no disbelief" is a double negative. It's just a roundabout way of stating belief.

That's the issue with you. You only used "agnostic" because you think it is the middle, logical highground in matters of atheism and theism. You're only using it to go around "look at me I'm more logical than theists and atheists!" when completely misusing the term. You keep using it as if it is mutually exclusive to atheism and theism, and you keep confusing belief and knowledge as being one in the same, this is mistaken.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 4, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I don't understand what is so confusing about this.  The prefix "a" basically means not.
> 
> Apolitical means NOT political.
> 
> ...



Theism is the believing there is a god. 
a- (Not that), is NOT believing there is a god. 

I don't see your point, other then to try and misuse semantics.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 4, 2014)

*a*(not believing)*theism*(belief in the existence of a god or gods)


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 4, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Theism is the believing there is a god.
> a- (Not that), is NOT believing there is a god.
> 
> I don't see your point, other then to try and misuse semantics.



Again, taking a neutral stance of "I don't know" is still "not believing there is a god".  If you say I don't know, you aren't saying "I believe in a god", therefore you aren't believing in a god.

There is a difference between not believing something is there, and believing that thing is NOT there.  Its a subtle but important difference.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 4, 2014)

I told him he was wrong on that. Glad to know I got backup.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 4, 2014)

the semantics are off the chain in this thread


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 4, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Again, taking a neutral stance of "I don't know" is still "not believing there is a god".  If you say I don't know, you aren't saying "I believe in a god", therefore you aren't believing in a god.
> 
> There is a difference between not believing something is there, and believing that thing is NOT there.  Its a subtle but important difference.



only once again by a battle of semantics. Believing here isn't used as a term for "belief", but instead as an synonym for thinking.

The not, being a negation of the principal, not simply a rejection. 

As I said originally, the focus is on the existence of god, not the existence of your belief. Any definition of atheism that centers on the person's belief, instead of the nature of god is incorrect.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

semantics is the whole point of this argument you dummies


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> semantics is the whole point of this argument you dummies



I would disagree, the point of the argument is to get at accurate portrayal of the positions people hold. 

The semantics are arguments to get away from the true issue at hand.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> semantics is the whole point of this argument you dummies



I know

I just really wanted to post that


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 4, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> *only once again by a battle of semantics. *Believing here isn't used as a term for "belief", but instead as an synonym for thinking.
> 
> The not, being a negation of the principal, not simply a rejection.
> 
> As I said originally, the focus is on the existence of god, not the existence of your belief. *Any definition of atheism that centers on the person's belief, instead of the nature of god is incorrect*.



lol this entire debate is centered on semantics....

And the bold is an odd statement to make since the majority of the definitions for the term either define it on the person's belief or include it.


----------



## Nep Nep (Dec 4, 2014)

IMO All parties just need to shut the fuck up and leave each other alone lol. 

Treating people like shit only breeds more people that treat more people like shit.

End the cycle and just leave everybody alone. 

Who gives a fuck what they believe or don't believe in as long as they're not sacrificing your virgin daughter or other crazy shit like that? 

Besides, this is only going to rile up the aggressive stupid Christians. This isn't going to do shit. You can't fix the stupid people in any given group. Trying is just a waste of time and asking for more pain. 

Just like shoving religion down people's throat isn't the way to get them to try it, provoking the Christians isn't the way to get the stupid ones to behave properly. 

The smart ones on both sides will ignore this childish bullshit. This leaves only the stupid aggressive people on both sides to get into an endless argument in which both are unwilling to ever relinquish, breeding more hate and more stupidity.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 4, 2014)

Bacon: "Hell is a fact."

Okay, wtf. Nobody can be this blind to logic. It's bordering on hbs levels.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 4, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Your challenge is stupid.  By definition heaven and hell exist in separate dimensions from this real world.  The problem with your challenge should be self evident: they keep you from recognizing heaven and hell even if they were factual.  Any system of thought that would not allow us to recognize truth is fatally flawed.  Your system of thought is fatally flawed.



Under that reasoning can't then anyone claim that Unicorns are real, that Naruto is real and that Star Wars is real but in separate dimensions?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 4, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> only once again by a battle of semantics. Believing here isn't used as a term for "belief", but instead as an synonym for thinking.
> 
> The not, being a negation of the principal, not simply a rejection.



I don't see how defining believing as "thinking" invalidates anything I said.  Have a lack of "thinking" that there is a god would still be a simple rejection of that thought.  Its not necessarily the affirmative thought that that being does not exist.



sadated_peon said:


> As I said originally,* the focus is on the existence of god, not the existence of your belief.* Any definition of atheism that centers on the person's belief, instead of the nature of god is incorrect.



You're wrong.  Theism is the BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods.  Not having that would be the lack of that BELIEF.

Theism is not itself the actual existence of a god or gods, that definition would make no sense, its just the belief.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 4, 2014)

Kyokkai said:


> Who gives a fuck what they believe or don't believe in as long as they're not sacrificing your virgin daughter or other crazy shit like that?
> 
> Besides,* this is only going to rile up the aggressive stupid Christians*. This isn't going to do shit. You can't fix the stupid people in any given group. Trying is just a waste of time and asking for more pain.



.



"Agressive stupid Christians."

Do I fall under that heading?  Just curious.  I won't be offended or upset if anyone said yes.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 4, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol this entire debate is centered on semantics....
> 
> And the bold is an odd statement to make since the majority of the definitions for the term either define it on the person's belief or include it.



I have no problem if the definition of atheism includes it as a belief, my issue is that focus of that is. 



Tsukiyomi said:


> I don't see how defining believing as "thinking" invalidates anything I said.  Have a lack of "thinking" that there is a god would still be a simple rejection of that thought.  Its not necessarily the affirmative thought that that being does not exist.


"Have a lack of "thinking" that", doesn't make grammatical sense. Which is why I am pointing out the facility of ambiguity.  




Tsukiyomi said:


> You're wrong.  Theism is the BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods.  Not having that would be the lack of that BELIEF.
> 
> Theism is not itself the actual existence of a god or gods, that definition would make no sense, its just the belief.


I am not wrong, you are mixing up terms. 

Theism is a belief, of which the FOCUS of which is the existence of god or gods. I apply that same structure to atheism. You on the other hand want to change atheism to be a position of which it's focus is a belief. (As you don't claim that atheism is a belief)

Correct
Theism is a "belief" that god exists. 
Atheism is a "belief" that god doesn't exist. 
(belief is in quotes because I don't want it confused with religious belief, in another fallacy of ambiguity)

NOT correct
Theism is a belief that god exists. 
Atheism is a position(not have, reject, etc) on the belief that god exists. 

In this one, the focus of atheism has been moved from the question of the existence of god, to the a individual's position of theism.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, atheism is simply not believing. Religious rhetoric in particular has tried to make it specifically an assertion too that no deities exist in an attempt to point at those that don't believe and approach them as if they are another religion, or form of faith. Religious dogma often demands a theist be gnostic, a lack of belief does not.



If you do not believe in "X" isn't that the same as believing in some "y" that does not include "x"?

In other words a rejection of belief means a belief in something else.  If you reject "X"; are you not accepting "not X"?  And if X is theism aren't you therefore positively affirming that there is no God?



reiatsuflow said:


> But isn't it mostly an affirmation that God [as described] does not exist, and then there are squabbles about whether or not the bible is just a book, the origins of the religion, and other gotcha crossroads come crosshairs?
> 
> I don't know anything about gods. Who knows anything about gods? I don't even know anything about lions. Less atheist. I'm more of an ayouknowwhatyou'retalkingabout.



By your own admission then you wouldn't be an atheist; you could even be a theist, you're just not a orthodox Christian.  You simply reject baconism.  Which is sad.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Theism is the affirmative belief in a deity.  Atheism is...NOT THAT.  So anything that is not theism is atheism.



So atheism is the affirmative belief that there is no deity, correct?



Tsukiyomi said:


> If you say I don't know that is still atheism, because it is NOT theism.  There are many things that fall under atheism (yes including the "I know with 100% certainty there is no god" position), but they are still atheism.
> 
> As for "If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x"." thats not always true.  If you're blind and I ask you "what color is the sky?" and you say "I don't know".  You don't believe its blue, that doesn't mean you believe the sky is not blue, you simply don't know.



But the blind example doesn't relate to this subject, because the question should be "is the sky blue or not?".  On this topic the blind man may argue "I don't know", but if he doesn't know he could not state for sure whether he is a theist or not.  Not knowing is a form of not answering.

Or perhaps you're conflating "knowing" with "believing".  If so, then to say "he doesn't have a specific belief" is to not be theist or atheist.  He'd be a theistic/atheistic moderate.  He simply failed to answer the question that separates the two.



afgpride said:


> this is a false dichotomy since "believe" is a conditional variable



I'm not getting your point, AFG.  Can you explain in more detail?


----------



## Nep Nep (Dec 4, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know you so I can't say. 

I just find it amusing that the Atheists who hated the pushy Christians are now being pushy as fuck. 

I would say one of these groups needs to be the mature ones and ignore it entirely but that just doesn't happen since a group encompasses all kinds of people.  

It's not worth it to get riled up. Imagine the Atheist reaction if the Christians paid no attention to this pathetic provocation? Imagine their dumbfounded faces when the Christians they think to be inferior morons are completely unaffected. 

Then they'd actually show a trait of being like Jesus Christ wouldn't they?  Not saying all Christians or Atheists are stupid/rude/stubborn, just saying the ones that are could fix this problem very easily by not paying attention to the other.   

That's just my two cents on this matter. It's not worth the attention. They can put all the advertisements insulting people's intelligence for being Christian all they want.  

And Christians can give you all the dirty looks they want too.

At the end of the day, it's nothing but a small portion of each group being moronic. Don't give them the time of day.  

They want your attention, they want you to feel bad for what you believe or don't believe. Respond with silence or a hearty laugh and go on with your day. 

Just so you know I'm Christian. I don't however argue with only one viewpoint. I make it a point in all my posts to try to look at every side. I may not always accomplish that properly but I try.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 4, 2014)

Kyokkai said:


> I don't know you so I can't say.
> 
> I just find it amusing that the Atheists who hated the pushy Christians are now being pushy as fuck.
> 
> ...



.

In the back of my mind, I always compare religious vs atheist talks to naruhina vs narusaku arguments in the konoha library.  The same attitudes are present.  The same inability to compromise or communicate.  Similar tension and hostility.

I wonder if in 200 years things will degrade to a point where naruhina fanboys are suicide bombing narusaku fanboys whilst bellowing allahu naruhina.

Some atheists seem to think that fanboyism based violence is reserved only for religious factions.  I'm pretty sure, they're wrong.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

baconbits said:


> If you do not believe in "X" isn't that the same as believing in some "y" that does not include "x"?
> 
> In other words a rejection of belief means a belief in something else.  If you reject "X"; are you not accepting "not X"?  And if X is theism aren't you therefore positively affirming that there is no God?



No. It simply means not believing in "X". 

You are being patently dishonest here, this is what I was going back to before. Religious rhetoric always tries to twist the narrative this way. If a person says they do not believe that it is it, it's not a positive affirmation of anything. A position of skepticism, which atheism in itself is, is not positively affirming that there is no god.


----------



## Bringer (Dec 4, 2014)

What's all the humbug about?(Did I really just use humbug...)

Anyways, from my understanding

Theist- I believe in god
Atheist- I don't believe in god

Agnostic would be the middle ground, because they don't believe god exists, but they also don't believe god doesn't exist.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 4, 2014)

Problem is you are mixing up belief and knowledge as being the same thing. You can be atheist or theist and agnostic at the same time. Just because one doesn't believe in a god does not mean they are claiming to possess knowledge that none exist.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 4, 2014)

baconbits said:


> I'm not getting your point, AFG.  Can you explain in more detail?


sure

let's take a look again at your statement:


			
				baconbits said:
			
		

> If you do not believe "x"; you believe "not x".



in order for one to _believe_ something, anything, there should be enough intellectual investment in that proposition being true (in other words, evidence or reasoning. or even faith if you prefer)  

thus, if that intellectual investment or evidence/reasoning does not exist, belief is not necessary 

if you do not believe "x", you can still not believe "not x", as long as a lack of information for either proposition exists

for example: 
someone asks you "do you believe a boy named ted scored a homerun in a little league in montana?" 

and you say "no"

the logical conclusion is not that you believe that a boy named ted did not score a home run in a little league in montana, as belief is not a necessity for either proposition


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 4, 2014)

BringerOfChaos said:


> What's all the humbug about?(Did I really just use humbug...)
> 
> Anyways, from my understanding
> 
> ...



.

Atheists claim a _lack of belief_ in God to avoid a burden of proof and avoid needing evidence to substantiate their views.

They also do it to avoid their stance being classified as faith based or belief.

Its extremely silly and childish.

But, people are entitled to their own personal delusions, I guess.


----------



## Sadgoob (Dec 5, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I am not really sure why or how it has become a bad thing to believe in God.
> 
> I understand not wanting radicals of any particular religion running around, but this seems like it is intentionally meant to stir shit up.
> 
> The line should be "believe what you want". You shouldn't aim to make fun of or poke at someones beliefs.



Because some people that believe in God are easily stirred.

And... some atheists are trolls.


----------



## Bringer (Dec 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Problem is you are mixing up belief and knowledge as being the same thing. You can be atheist or theist and agnostic at the same time. Just because one doesn't believe in a god does not mean they are claiming to possess knowledge that none exist.




But I never said they claim knowledge that none exist. That's why I used the word believe.

For example, I believe god exists, but I can't claim I know he exists. It's impossible to know for sure. 

Likewise, an atheist can't claim with 100% certainty that he can't exist. So therefore they believe he doesn't exist. 

If there was an extremely hypothetical situation where your asked rather or not god exists, and if you answer wrong you die... I'm going with he exists as an answer. While an atheist would go with he doesn't exist.  That's the whole point of belief and faith, there's no facts or proof to back it up. 



Sanity Check said:


> Atheists claim a _lack of belief_ in God to avoid a burden of proof and avoid needing evidence to substantiate their views.
> 
> They also do it to avoid their stance being classified as faith based or belief.
> 
> ...





Technically speaking, wouldn't the burden of proof be on our end?


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 5, 2014)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Technically speaking, wouldn't the burden of proof be on our end?



.

If there were a debate on global warming.

Both sides would present evidence to support their views.  Its normal for debates to have two sides.  Both sides try to present evidence and reasoning for their stance / views.

The idea that only one side is required to present evidence or adhere to a burden of proof is...  as far as I can tell...  a lie atheists propagated to exempt themselves from being obligated to support their own views with evidence.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Dec 5, 2014)

Strategoob said:


> Because some people that believe in God are easily stirred.
> 
> And... some atheists are trolls.



I feel like some means 95% of God believers.

And some is supposed to be 100% for atheists.


----------



## Nep Nep (Dec 5, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> In the back of my mind, I always compare religious vs atheist talks to naruhina vs narusaku arguments in the konoha library.  The same attitudes are present.  The same inability to compromise or communicate.  Similar tension and hostility.
> 
> ...



Those types of people are always the loudest.


----------



## hmph (Dec 5, 2014)

> Technically speaking, wouldn't the burden of proof be on our end?



If you wish to prove God's existence, yes. Of course, a belief system is by definition not one you prove. If you could prove God's existence, it wouldn't be a religion anymore, it'd be science. 

If one wished to prove God's nonexistence, yes and no. You'd be obligated to provide proof to prove anything, but one cannot actually prove a negative, so the point is moot.

But really a religion is no more than an opinion. An opinion used from manipulating the ignorant to demanding exemption from laws, to genocide. Which I believe is why atheists are so very sick of organized religious crap.


----------



## Nep Nep (Dec 5, 2014)

hmph said:


> If you wish to prove God's existence, yes. Of course, a belief system is by definition not one you prove. If you could prove God's existence, it wouldn't be a religion anymore, it'd be science.
> 
> If one wished to prove God's nonexistence, yes and no. You'd be obligated to provide proof to prove anything, but one cannot actually prove a negative, so the point is moot.
> 
> *But really a religion is no more than an opinion. An opinion used from manipulating the ignorant to demanding exemption from laws, to genocide. Which I believe is why atheists are so very sick of organized religious crap.*



That's a generalization. I might as well say Atheism is an oppression of freedom for Christians or some other bollocks.

Yes SOME fucktards use it as excuses for their shit behavior. Let's not pretend like that's the norm.   

People use lots of excuses for their shit behavior though. Religion is just one... 

I'm tired of people accusing either groups of shit that only a few people participate in. 

It's also nobodies fault if some moron reads a book that tells them to kill all people with dark hair and that idiot goes and does it. 

People are always to blame, not objects and concepts.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 5, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> tbh if it a holy book, why is that here in the first place. Better yet, why did god allow for them to do what they did. WHy wasn't god present for all the generations before christ. WHy did he let them all be damned. why did he turn sand and ribs into people and sht. Why couldnt he just poof sht if he exists.why does god give me the brains to think critically about him then want to punish me when i do so. i could go on all day. WHy is there eternal suffering in hell. why is the devil a thing. why do babies die when they are just born. why do atheists live for an entire life and christians don't have to. why not give everybody an equal shot at life if u really want to test how people react to life (considering that in experiments if u want to test something out, the only way to make the test run efficiently is to make all variables the same and test how they react to something. If not done this way then they might act differently for a different reason and it would give unfairness to it.
> 
> I will admit, i was curious about what u said. I might someday read the entirety of the bible (and be one of few thousand to do so). Btw tho,  my case would still be that it's not telling u these things as a story. the bible tells u things as if its telling u how to act. a holy book is supposed to guide u morally, no. that's the point. and it would be one thing, as i said, to have it just told in story form  but no. The bible speaks as if it is tlking directly to u. it is saying do this and do tht when ur daughter is raped and do this. it is saying in leviticus is a detestable sin. and tht is not acceptable and i'd like to see u counter that.





Saishin said:


> What do you mean god wans't present for all the generations? god was always present form the start.
> Didn't get the part about why god create men from the sand and ribbs.
> Right now you're thinking critically,and it doesn't seems that you have been punished now or in the past,if you have been punished that's not god fault but people's fault that wrongly think to be some sort of god's messangers.
> About babies died just born and other issues like that in other words why sufferings and evil exist? well the answer is very clear,go and read the book of genesis,everything started there.In the beginning god created the world perfect,everything was in harmony,no evil no corruption,the men were not subjected to any illness,or old age,our bodies were perfect,the world was a heaven but what happened then,Adam and Eve humanity's ancestors were subjected to a test by god,which is the famous apple of the tree of knowledge,he wanted to see by ordering them to not eat it if they were grateful to him but the devil fooled our ancestors saying that eating the apple would have allowed our ancestors to be knowers of the good and evil and thus become like god,without being dependant by him.Thus Adam and Eve convinced by it ate the apple,it's the famous original sin,this act of arrogance by the men toward god provoked a punishment,Adam and Eve were expelled by the garden of Eden,and the world became a corrupted place,all the initial perfection was lost and the evil entered in the creation,also the men became evil in their actions,we lost our perfection and since then humanity was subjected to the old age,to the illness and death,everything from this act of rebellion was destroyed.This is the answer to your post and the answer that the bible gives why the world is such a cruel place.
> ...



Can someone answer this or reply to this guy please.. 

I have no idea what he is talking about. it just didn't seem to argue my questions at all and instead just gave me a retelling of the adam and eve story with no valid answers to anything. I hate when people answer with whatever they want.


----------



## Aeternus (Dec 5, 2014)

If people want to believe in something, just let them. I mean, I am an atheist as well but as long as what others believe in doesn't affect me, I don't really care. Plus believing in something isn't necessarily a bad thing, actually a lot of people have been helped by it. Just because some people go overboard with religion, doesn't mean that all are like them. Same goes for atheists. Not believing in God doesn't make you better than someone that does.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 5, 2014)

Eternal Dreamer said:


> If people want to believe in something, just let them. I mean, I am an atheist as well but as long as what others believe in doesn't affect me, I don't really care. Plus believing in something isn't necessarily a bad thing, actually a lot of people have been helped by it. Just because some people go overboard with religion, doesn't mean that all are like them. Same goes for atheists. Not believing in God doesn't make you better than someone that does.



When it starts seeping into legislation (like the bill right now being debated about employers being able to deny coverage based on religion) that's when I have a problem.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 5, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> Can someone answer this or reply to this guy please..
> 
> I have no idea what he is talking about. it just didn't seem to argue my questions at all and instead just gave me a retelling of the adam and eve story with no valid answers to anything. I hate when people answer with whatever they want.



I replied him. He ignored my post.




soulnova said:


> Adam and Eve do not exist. You carry the proof. The proof is in your DNA. Each one of your cells has the information passed down by all the previous generation who managed to leave offspring successfully. It is A FACT, that at no point on our DNA shows we come from a single mating pair, "Adam and Even"... or that a genetic bottle neck of 8 people happened from the flood with Noah. If Adam and Eve do not exist, then the Original Sin does not exist either... and without Original Sin the whole basis of the Bible is simply fabricated.
> 
> From the very start of the Bible the Genesis story falls flat.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 5, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> Atheists claim a _lack of belief_ in God to avoid a burden of proof and avoid needing evidence to substantiate their views.
> 
> ...



It's called intellectual honesty and I'm not surprised that you aren't familiar with it. Nobody needs to "claim" a "lack of belief" since the term "Atheism" *entails* a lack of belief. If the very definition of the term along with a plethora of academic literature is not enough for you then I guess you're entitled to your own personal delusion. 



> If there were a debate on global warming.
> 
> Both sides would present evidence to support their views. Its normal for debates to have two sides. Both sides try to present evidence and reasoning for their stance / views.



No.

If scientists posit global warming then they must provide evidence to prove it or else it won't be an accepted world view. The burden of proof is on them. This is basic shit, come on now. When the evidence for global warming becomes strong enough, then a debate ensues. 




			
				BringerofChaos said:
			
		

> For example, I believe god exists, but I can't claim I know he exists. It's impossible to know for sure.



You would be considered an Agnostic theist then which I personally find to be much more rational than both gnostic theism and gnostic atheism. But, unfortunately, many religions demand their adherents to be gnostic theists or in other words have one hundred percent faith in their deity's existence. 

Many people (not talking about you) are not aware that "belief" and "epistemology" are two distinct concepts in the discipline of philosophy. And while distinct, they are not mutually exclusive. To say that Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive is to say that belief and epistemology is mutually exclusive which makes little sense.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 5, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> I am not wrong, you are mixing up terms.
> 
> Theism is a belief, of which the FOCUS of which is the existence of god or gods. I apply that same structure to atheism. You on the other hand want to change atheism to be a position of which it's focus is a belief. (As you don't claim that atheism is a belief)
> 
> ...



Wrong.  Theism is the positive claim a god exists, atheism is NOT that.  Having absolutely no position still qualifies as NOT that.  Saying I don?t know, still qualifies as NOT that.  Anything other than ?yes there is a god? is NOT theism and thus is atheism.



baconbits said:


> If you do not believe in "X" isn't that the same as believing in some "y" that does not include "x"?
> 
> In other words a rejection of belief means a belief in something else.  If you reject "X"; are you not accepting "not X"?  And if X is theism aren't you therefore positively affirming that there is no God?





baconbits said:


> ISo atheism is the affirmative belief that there is no deity, correct?



No, because you could take an absolutely neutral position that doesn?t express a belief one way or the other.  You can totally reserve judgment and not take a stance.  Not doing that is still not believing in X, but it doesn?t requiring believing in anything else.




baconbits said:


> IBut the blind example doesn't relate to this subject, because the question should be "is the sky blue or not?".  On this topic the blind man may argue "I don't know", but if he doesn't know he could not state for sure whether he is a theist or not.  Not knowing is a form of not answering.
> 
> Or perhaps you're conflating "knowing" with "believing".  If so, then to say "he doesn't have a specific belief" is to not be theist or atheist.  He'd be a theistic/atheistic moderate.  He simply failed to answer the question that separates the two.



But even if you don?t answer, that?s still NOT theism, so that would qualify as atheism.  Atheism is anything that is not theism.  So yes it does include the position ?I know there is not god?, but it also includes all other positions other than ?yes there is a god?.  So someone who doesn?t answer the question is still an atheist.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 5, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Wrong.  Theism is the positive claim a god exists, atheism is NOT that.  Having absolutely no position still qualifies as NOT that.  Saying I don’t know, still qualifies as NOT that.  Anything other than “yes there is a god” is NOT theism and thus is atheism.



Which as I said before I disagree with as it doesn't deal with the actual matter at hand the question of the existence of god. 

theism/atheism should be about their response to "does a god exist", and not about "that or not that".(A definition that serves no purpose but to socially group people, and does not speak to the specifics of their position on the matter.)


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 5, 2014)

Why is it that most people can so readily accept that there are verying degrees of theism, from fundamentalist literalist, to moderate, to believing in god but not holding to any religion.   Yet when it comes to atheism, THERE CAN BE *THIS* AND ONLY *THIS* DEFINITION OF ATHEISM AND ANYTHING THAT ISN'T SPECIFICALLY *THAT* CAN'T POSSIBLY BE CALLED ATHEISM. 

It's like saying that Muslims and Hindus aren't actually theists because they're not Christian.




sadated_peon said:


> theism/atheism should be about their response to "does a god exist", and not about "that or not that".(A definition that serves no purpose but to socially group people, and does not speak to the specifics of their position on the matter.)



Ok.  That's it.  I'm done.  It blows my mind that people put this much effort into not understanding an exceptionally simple concept.  A statement of belief and a statement of knowledge ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.  

I believe that humans will one day have a colony on Mars, however I don't know if humans will one day have a colony on Mars.

See how those are different statements...  No! Fuck it.  I'm done.  This has been explained in every way it can be explained.   At this point you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're honestly just incapable of understanding the difference.   Either way I'm done wasting my time


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 5, 2014)

Neanderthals. Also in your DNA, stupid.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 5, 2014)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Ok.  That's it.  I'm done.  It blows my mind that people put this much effort into not understanding an exceptionally simple concept.  A statement of belief and a statement of knowledge ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
> 
> I believe that humans will one day have a colony on Mars, however I don't know if humans will one day have a colony on Mars.
> 
> See how those are different statements...  No! Fuck it.  I'm done.  This has been explained in every way it can be explained.   At this point you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're honestly just incapable of understanding the difference.   Either way I'm done wasting my time


I see the difference. I have no problem with the difference. 

Can you understand the difference between saying that I believe that humans will colonize mars, and saying I don't believe that humans will ever colonize mars?

I guess not.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 6, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> #1  It's called intellectual honesty and I'm not surprised that you aren't familiar with it. Nobody needs to "claim" a "lack of belief" since the term "Atheism" *entails* a lack of belief. If the very definition of the term along with a plethora of academic literature is not enough for you then I guess you're entitled to your own personal delusion.
> 
> #2  If scientists posit global warming then they must provide evidence to prove it or else it won't be an accepted world view. The burden of proof is on them. This is basic shit, come on now. When the evidence for global warming becomes strong enough, then a debate ensues.



.

*#1*  We're discussing atheists not having evidence for their views, evading a burden of proof and mangling terminology in a weak and irrational effort to avoid atheism being classified as a belief.  Or, at least we were until you completely evaded the topic.

Historically, the terminology was like this.

Theist -- Believes in God.
Agnosticism -- A lack of belief in God, neutrality, undecided.
Atheism - Doesn't believe in God.

New age atheism is a lot like new age feminism in that people make up a lot of things without understanding the historical roots.  The idea that atheism is associated with a _lack of belief_ is very new.  Its a trend that is probably less than 10 years old.  Yet atheists blindly believe in it, in blind faith, without knowing its a relatively new development as far as atheism goes.

Not that it matters.  Even if atheism was a lack of belief, you would still need evidence for your stance & would still be subject to a burden of proof if we're discussing things in rational terms.  Fence sitting doesn't necessarily exempt one from that.

*#2*  According to atheists, if global warming can't be proven empirically its rational to reject global warming.  That's not how things work in the real world.  

Global warming advocates cite glacier melt statistics and other variables.  Global warming deniers claim weather patterns are cyclical in nature and glacier statistics prove nothing.

Its never, ever, a thing where a burden of proof is reserved for only one side because rejecting a claim is a claim in itself.

You probably support police body cams.  By your own reasoning its rational to reject body cams as long as empirical evidence proving cams are necessary exists.

You probably supported healthcare reform in the united states.  By your own reasoning its rational to reject healthcare reform as long as empirical evidence proving its a valid policy, exists.

You accept and support many things in life that lack empirical evidence and violate your own professed rationale for requiring evidence or adopting the view its rational to reject things which lack evidence.

Tell me what evidence do you have that atheism is rational or even makes sense?  You have no evidence.  Therefore, by your own admission its rational to reject atheism as it has no evidence to support it.

.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Dec 6, 2014)

You can't say the burden of proof lies on both parties as one party has the scientific method back their claims. We can observe, and recreate the kind of things science claims to be truth. But we cannot do so for something like religion. Religion simply works off of the idea that it is usually god's word being truth. Which we can't verify, we can't physically see something like heaven, or hell therefore we can't be sure they exist. 

The burden of proof doesn't lie with both parties, it lies with the party that claims the word of their gods are true without having anything solid to back it up. Something material.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 6, 2014)

Oreo said:


> You can't say the burden of proof lies on both parties as one party has the scientific method back their claims. We can observe, and recreate the kind of things science claims to be truth. But we cannot do so for something like religion. Religion simply works off of the idea that it is usually god's word being truth. Which we can't verify, we can't physically see something like heaven, or hell therefore we can't be sure they exist.
> 
> The burden of proof doesn't lie with both parties, it lies with the party that claims the word of their gods are true without having anything solid to back it up. Something material.



.

Atheism isn't backed by the scientific method.

If Barack Obama says: "we need to reform healthcare".  The burden of proof isn't solely on him.  His claims aren't invalid if he lacks empirical evidence.

Someone supporting healthcare reform would be subject to a burden of proof.  Someone opposing healthcare reform would also be subject to a burden of proof.

This idea atheists have that only one side must adhere to a burden of proof isn't something that exists in the world.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Dec 6, 2014)

Atheism is to backed by scientific method. Atheists reject the idea of religion, and use science as universal truth as it has been studied, and can be observed. We have something that directly contradicts some theist claims, while the theist claims have no clout. Scientific  facts are called facts because they have been proven to be true. No theist claim has ever been proven as a fact. The burden of proof would lie on them as they don't have a comparable method to the scientific one. 

A method which is known to be truth.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Dec 6, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> New age atheism is a lot like new age feminism in that people make up a lot of things without understanding the historical roots.  The idea that atheism is associated with a _lack of belief_ is very new.  Its a trend that is probably less than 10 years old.  Yet atheists blindly believe in it, in blind faith, without knowing its a relatively new development as far as atheism goes.



That's false. Atheism was always associated with lack of belief. The word atheism was born from literally meant 'without gods' as the atheist rejected the belief of deities. Theists used the word as a pejorative term towards people who did not believe in their religion, or deity. The oldest known people to call themselves atheist lived in the 18th century. 

Your claim that it's relatively new is baseless, and uneducated.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Dec 6, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> Atheism isn't backed by the scientific method.


Atheism is *all* about being backed by the scientific method and proof.

//HbS


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 6, 2014)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> *#1*  We're discussing atheists not having evidence for their views, evading a burden of proof and mangling terminology in a weak and irrational effort to avoid atheism being classified as a belief.  Or, at least we were until you completely evaded the topic.
> 
> ...



Once again you make shit up because you don't know what you're talking about. 



> Historically, in "discourse", the term atheism has been thrown around to many different things. This is why, its definitive term is obviously superior to its "popular" usage. The early Christians were considered atheists by the Romans because they did not believe in the Pagan gods. The Epicureans were considered atheists even though Epicurus himself professed belief in deities. Historically, the term atheist has been used as an insult and would be thrown at anyone who did not conform to the religious thinking of the time. This is why its futile to go by popular usages.






			
				Sanity_Check said:
			
		

> The idea that atheism is associated with a _lack of belief_ is very new.  *Its a trend that is probably less than 10 years old.*







> The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.



Agnosticism: T*he Croall Lecture for 1887?88.* William Blackwood and Sons
Flint 1903, pp. 49?51



> But agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism in that agnosticism entails negative atheism. Since agnostics do not believe in God, they are by definition negative atheists. This is not to say that negative atheism entails agnosticism. A negative atheist might disbelieve in God but need not.



*Martin, Michael, ed. (1968)*. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



			
				Sanity_Check said:
			
		

> Agnosticism -- A lack of belief in God, neutrality, undecided.





> Robert G. Ingersoll, an Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and sought-after orator in 19th-century America, has been referred to as the "Great Agnostic".[
> 
> *In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic*, Ingersoll related why he was an agnostic:
> 
> Is there a supernatural power?an arbitrary mind?an enthroned God?a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world?to which all causes bow?* I do not deny. I do not know?but I do not believe.*



Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211?238. 



> In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterized himself as an atheist. He said:
> 
> 
> The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter.
> ...



Russell, Bertrand. Collected Papers, Vol 10. p. 255.


Oh yeah, its a trend created in the last "10 years". Don't talk out of your ass, if you're going to make statements, support them with evidence.




> Not that it matters.  Even if atheism was a lack of belief, you would still need evidence for your stance & would still be subject to a burden of proof if we're discussing things in rational terms.  Fence sitting doesn't necessarily exempt one from that.



Atheism is a lack of belief. If you want to go by retarded "popular" definitions then Christians are also atheists because they don't believe in the Pagan gods. Epicurus is an atheist because he believes but does not worship deities. The great Islamic deists of the golden age are all atheists because they don't believe in the God of the Quran. Oh and its funny that you should mention historical concepts since, historically, agnostics were considered to be the same thing as atheists by Christians. Now you're here trying to tell us that A, B and, C are the set in stone definitions of the terms historically lmao.

You only need evidence if you want to prove a negative. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Its a rather simple concept.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 6, 2014)

I can respect non antropohomorphic concepts of God.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Dec 6, 2014)

Proof that Sanity Check should be universally ignored.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 8, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Dude you questioned why things are like this and not that,why babies dies,why atheists cannot be treated well and stuff like that,From this I understand that you were asking why the world is full of evil and problems thus I gave you an naswer why the world is like this,that's whay I gave as an answer the genesis because the source of all the problems was born with the original sin,this obviously according to the bible and to those that study religion,personally I have no judgements on these kind of issues since I'm not a religious person,I just told you what I've understood from get inform myself,If you misunderstand well sorry.
> 
> Probably but you have to wonder from who humanity was born.To make a child you need a man and a woman so it is interesting to discover who were the very first woman and man on earth,there is always a starting point,so humanity was originated by a single pair? and if they were the couple no.0 who created them? did they had another pair that gave birth to them? but if that was the case Adam and Eve or the first man and woman weren't the first human beings.Or maybe on earth at almost the same time and in different zones appeared several humans that in a way or another met and start to reproduct,starting an offspring giving origin to the entire humanity,that would be interesting to know.
> That being said even if Adam or Eve as persons didn't exist someting happened between the first humans that were subjected to the test,this is just what the bible want to say,that our ancestors decided not to obey to the order to not eat the apple,provoking a huge damage to the entire humanity ,if that was indeed an apple or just a symbol used to describe something else it's impossible to know.



1st part: So basically you just want to mention the story that we all know of in which 2 people make a sin and decide that everyone ahead of them are sinners until jesus redeems them. Fairytale bullsht.

2nd part: I like this commentor you quoted. Anyway, i am no sciencehead and if any1 wants to contradict what im saying please do but from my understand it wasn't 2 people who just came out of nowhere. i do know that part. it's called evolution. it means that we started from a very very simple (unicellular) organism and then we developed and got more complex very very slowly over many millenniums. We reproduced from that point and had others like us then we got complex, the organisms that mutated into more complexity would survive more and dominate more from that point on and the chain continued and  with time we became animals and then we evolved to where there was a mass amount of people that were the same primitive. So we never inbred really unless u count the first few divisions. understand?


----------



## soulnova (Dec 8, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> 2nd part: I like this commentor you quoted. Anyway, i am no sciencehead and if any1 wants to contradict what im saying please do but from my understand it wasn't 2 people who just came out of nowhere. i do know that part. it's called evolution. it means that we started from a very very simple (unicellular) organism and then we developed and got more complex very very slowly over many millenniums. We reproduced from that point and had others like us then we got complex, the organisms that mutated into more complexity would survive more and dominate more from that point on and the chain continued and  with time we became animals and then we evolved to where there was a mass amount of people that were the same primitive. So we never inbred really unless u count the first few divisions. understand?



 You are right. I mentioned it some pages back but the post was ignored as usual. 

In general, our genetic material shows only one big diversity bottleneck back about 70~80 thousands of years ago, in which point it seems like only about 10,000 mating pairs survived from the previous human population.... 




 So, no. At no point in history we only had a single mating pair of humans... and then 4 related mating pairs again with Noah (his wife, his 3 sons and his daughters-in-law). We would not have survived that level of inbreeding... and it doesn't show on our genes. I rather trust our DNA to know how we came to be. Thank you very much.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 8, 2014)

[sp=Is this atheism campaign really more provocative than anti-choice campaigns?][/sp]


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 8, 2014)

To all people denying the idea of burden of proof, I have a question for you:

Do you believe in the existance of elves?

If you don't, then prove me that elves do not exist.

If you fail to prove that, then by your logic, elves are real.

That's the burden of proof.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 8, 2014)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> To all people denying the idea of burden of proof, I have a question for you:
> 
> Do you believe in the existance of elves?
> 
> ...


----------



## Shisko (Dec 8, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I am not really sure why or how it has become a bad thing to believe in God.
> 
> I understand not wanting radicals of any particular religion running around, but this seems like it is intentionally meant to stir shit up.
> 
> The line should be "believe what you want". You shouldn't aim to make fun of or poke at someones beliefs.



Nothing wrong with believing in any form of deity(s), but if this is a big deal then every church that has those sign and all those theistic billboards might need to come down telling me I am going to hell to burn for eternity for having no religion and having sex with a man.

However, religious should be questioned like anything else and should greatly be told to kids to question things. Lots of people are brought up in a faith and never question it because they are never encouraged too.

The only thing stirring up from this is Bill O'Reilly and the Fox news morons. Let us look back.

"Tides go in, tides go... You can't explain that."

Personally, when Dawkins was on for his book for kids, and we got a "AH HA!" he also said until science explains said thing, he will be with God. Fine, you can do that all you want. But that is what people like AA or David Silverman are trying to do. Make people question if using something to say you know how things work until we actually do is truly logical.

The sign should really even be "Believe what you want" because then it's kind of pointless and not harsh enough to get people to think about. Granted... Neither is this sign either. What they are trying to do, and they are not exactly doing the best at, is getting parents and kids to question their faith and anyone who is afraid to come out for whatever reason to come out.



dpwater25 said:


> No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant. No it's not okay to believe in God. This is because we atheists don't think "oh i just dont 'believe' in God". we know he doesn't exist.






What, no, absolutely not. Do not even begin to lump as if you know what we all thing, it's actually silly to think you know god(s) do not exist and every atheist is like that. In fact most atheist like I are agnostic atheist. We do not believe in the claim of a god and understand that we do not completely know for a fact and that we could be wrong.

It's more idiotic to say you know a god is real or not real. And yes, before someone bring sup god damn fairies, I can not 100% prove they are false, but I wont say that there is no possibility ever in the mathematical sense they could be. But I wont believe in them till I see evidence, but I wont say they for a fact do not exist.

You clearly have literally no god damn idea what you are talking about and asserting the notion we all have that same view as you.... Believe for a fact he is not real and that you know, but do not have the majority or all of us go in that boat with you. Hell, even Christopher Hitchens doe snot 100% think god is fake, because he knows he can not absolutely know.



dpwater25 said:


> His entire story is bullsht and the bible contradicts itself too many times to count.



And that makes it bullshit rather then written by man? The god of the bible would make more sense if it was written by man and the god was powerful, but not all powerful and had limitations. But you have pastors spouting he is all powerful, all good, all knowing, etc.

The bible being contradictory doesn't disprove it, it just means it was written by men who do not know anything about the world.





dpwater25 said:


> Also the bible has many things that go against basic morality (like slavery, letting someone pay off raping your daughter and then having to marry her).
> 
> Morals are  subjective. It goes against most, not morality of it's own, because morals are subjective.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 8, 2014)

Shisko said:


> The BoP is on the one making the claim. I do nt need to prove that a claim is real or not, the one making it does. If you claim you can fly and you do when no one is looking, the burden is not on me to prove you do not do that, it's for you to prove. Nuff said.
> 
> Saying I need to prove elves do not exist because I reject someone claiming they are, it silly. I am not saying they are real, they never were brought up till you said they where, therefor I just reject such a belief.
> 
> I reject it, but I will not say I 100% know it's false.



If you tried a little harder to understand my post instead of counterarguing it, you'd realize we are on the same side.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 8, 2014)

Among all the complaining over an extremely tame, and accurate, ad, the article actually had a much more interesting fact:





> However recent social surveys have shown a sharp rise in religious non-affiliation among young people, accompanied by a decline in attendance among mainstream Anglican, Episcopalian and Catholic churches over the past 30 years.
> 
> According to the Pew research group, one third of Americans aged 18 to 29 now say they have "no religious affiliation", compared with less than 10 per cent of their grandparents' generation.


Which is good news. It's demonstrates a lot of progress in society.

As for the thread, I've been unusually busy, but it's a pleasure to see the bullshit get shut down so quickly and thoroughly.


----------



## Shisko (Dec 8, 2014)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you tried a little harder to understand my post instead of counter arguing it, you'd realize we are on the same side.


It was hardly much of even an argument. I replied by what ti says, nothing more. I do believe I didn't even say it was wrong or out of place, rather my view on that post. but yes, I can see we are on the same side.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Dec 8, 2014)

one of you with the fucking spoiler, you piece of shit.  Stop advocating abortions like that.


----------



## ~M~ (Dec 8, 2014)

Has forcing religion ever worked in a grand scheme to make a real difference? I imagine terror or conquest but lets exclude those. This seems like a waste of time


----------



## Juda (Dec 8, 2014)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> To all people denying the idea of burden of proof, I have a question for you:
> 
> Do you believe in the existence of elves?
> 
> ...




Imo, there is no burden of proof when the evidence of his creation is shown all around us. Elvs were made by man to entertain ourselves in Christmas .You're comparing something man made up to satisfy himself with someone that existed before everything else. 

Napoleon's Les Invalides tomb was built to signify his greatness, his power and military strength. His tomb and historical records glorifies my country king and because of that. We all know, his works, his own enemies acknowledged his strength. People for centuries to come will say "Who was Napoleon" all it takes is for anyone to point to him his glory and works that he made on earth.

God doesn't need a tomb, he doesn't need people to build large sculptures to signify his works when the soil you walk on, the air you breath and the sun you're exposed to signifies his existence and perfectly crafted creation.


----------



## Shisko (Dec 8, 2014)

Juda said:


> Imo, there is no burden of proof when the evidence of his creation is shown all around us. Elvs were made by man to entertain ourselves in Christmas .You're comparing something man made up to satisfy himself with someone that existed before everything else.
> 
> Napoleon's Les Invalides tomb was built to signify his greatness, his power and military strength. His tomb and historical records glorifies my country king and because of that. We all know, his works, his own enemies acknowledged his strength. People for centuries to come will say "Who was Napoleon" all it takes is for anyone to point to him his glory and works that he made on earth.
> 
> God doesn't need a tomb, he doesn't need people to build large sculptures to signify his works when the soil you walk on, the air you breath and the sun you're exposed to signifies his existence and perfectly crafted creation.



I can't tell if you are being serious. Nothing about any of the gods are obvious in their creation. That is like saying the earth is so well designed therefor God has to be real. Granted I am new to this site and type of people, but I can not tell how serious you are being.

Gods were made for comfort, control, money, etc. There is an abundance as to why. Many times to explain what happens after death because we naturally are scared of death.

You can use the whole "God was created before everything yaddy yaddy ya" But that is a cop put in itself. That is similar to saying God is eternal when asked where he comes from when questioning where the Big Bang came from.

As for temples, your god (if you have one in the Abraham religion) does need one because he shows time and time again to basically have near ego issues. Hell, even to where you go to heaven to praise him for eternity. The very earth you walk on comes from star stuff, from the cosmic evolution, it wasn't created by a god, we know this as we know how the planets formed.




~M~ said:


> Has forcing religion ever worked in a grand scheme to make a real difference? I imagine terror or conquest but lets exclude those. This seems like a waste of time



Not much, I look at religion and anti-religion ad's like I will with Taco Bell on TV. It's so minute in my life I just brush it off. It doesn't even phase me, I just look at it and mentally block it naturally.

"You homo! you are going to hell you ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)!"

"Huh? Oh... Yea OK. Where was I?"

I practically laugh now as to the people who call me a demon, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), etc.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 8, 2014)

Juda said:


> Imo, there is no burden of proof when the evidence of his creation is shown all around us. Elvs were made by man to entertain ourselves in Christmas .You're comparing something man made up to satisfy himself with someone that existed before everything else.





Fuck you man, that's not that evidence of god of Abraham, that's the evidence of the great Amun-Ra, creator of all the cosmos after defeating the mighty cosmic snake Apophis, whose remains make the jet black sky. Who the fuck are you to say it was your god that did it? 

Your god is just a man-made delusion that you steal the credit that belongs to the great Amun-Ra, and slap it on your made-up god. The Jews just wanted to feel superior so they made up some bullshit god like kids on the playground make up a fantasy character, ascribing to it any bullshit power that contradicts its nature. But not the case for Amun-Ra! With he and the pantheon, they keep the universe in balance, as the aspects of his nature and wisdom spring forth new gods!



> Napoleon's Les Invalides tomb was built to signify his greatness, his power and military strength. His tomb and historical records glorifies my country king and because of that. We all know, his works, his own enemies acknowledged his strength. People for centuries to come will say "Who was Napoleon" all it takes is for anyone to point to him his glory and works that he made on earth.
> 
> God doesn't need a tomb, he doesn't need people to build large sculptures to signify his works when the soil you walk on, the air you breath and the sun you're exposed to signifies his existence and perfectly crafted creation.



There you go with that bullshit. The Earth is the creation of Amun-Ra, the peerless. 

Also, your made-up god  did demand worship of himself. In the books, he demanded temples particularly to worship and praise him. Early on, demanding burnt offerings made in his honor. Which is ludicrous and a waste of time, because everyone knows the route to deliverance is by made a yearly offering of crop yields to Amun-Ra for good rain and harvest.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 8, 2014)

heavy_rasengan quotes this passage and claims it says the definition of atheism was always associated with a lack of belief.



> The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.



Heavy_Rasengan if you were intelligent, you would realize that doesn't say the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in God.

It says atheists are sometimes agnostic and that agnosticism is a lack of belief in God.

Learn to read & stop making atheists look dumb, plz.

...

Oreo.

A burden of proof is simply defined as the degree to which a persons stance can be supported with evidence, facts, science, attempts at deduction, probability or whatever.

The idea that God exists is a claim.
The idea that God doesn't exist is also a claim.
The idea that a lack of belief in God is rational is a claim.

All claims are subject to a burden of proof.

Atheists tend to avoid a burden of proof and claim their stance is supported by science.

Tell me what does science have to do with a lack of belief in something.  Science deals with the material world with things that can be observed.  A lack of belief isn't science, its philosophy.

.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 8, 2014)

Juda said:


> Imo, there is no burden of proof when the evidence of his creation is shown all around us.


No there isn't. You are distorting information and trying to force it to reflect your views.

When you can produce *objective*,  *emperical* evidence,  you will have a case to work with. Otherwise, you're spouting bullshit.


----------



## BashFace (Dec 8, 2014)

I find it funny how we use the word provocative to describe a reaction evoked in ambiguous pretences. 

Christianity and Atheism both have their fallacies in reasoning and logic but why can't people believe in deities or no deities without the criticism of belief? I find people who are agnostic have the most to say in debate without sounding pretentious. The reason I say this is because everyone else has a strong opinion on the topic, agnosticism is a neutral stance that enables analysis more thoroughly or diversely I also shouldn't need to mention that this isn't always true but I notice more consistency with insight in agnostics than I do with theists debating. 

A suggestion for example is the manipulation of the god of the gaps debate, being confounded by beliefs in a god that would burn you in hell for masturbating but also held the title of Universes best mathematical genius. I say to myself that the books that people cling to or build the foundations for their faith and ethics off are obviously outdated if not just plain savage/fucked. God must have had some scientist dad that forced him into NASA without teaching him anything about morality or etiquette. I mean he put fucking monkeys next to the tree of life ffs and then said to them don't eat it... Seriously... Would I put my dog next to a T-bone steak and before leaving for a day or two say don't eat that... Do you think that I think that I'll find the piece of steak sitting there when I get back? Of course not God is stupid or something lol. Hes got some impairment but the reality is that he doesn't its some stupid man made concept. I can't refute it I accept that and I'll tell you why.    

Using the god of the gaps I could suggest that maybe god won't burn me in hell for masturbating and hes a good guy etc etc. When someone looks at a books passage they might get traits and ethics that they choose to take from the book. But in reality what happened is that someone made everything up that they want to follow in life and they have a god enforcing their ethical or moral standpoints.

Atheists doing campaigns like this only outrage theists but I guess in one sense it may bring some uninformed insight into giving someone a foundation or swaying of beliefs.  We focus too much on peoples beliefs we just need to burn these books and put muzzles on anyone preaching hateful or hurtful ideas. Atheists grasp certainty from nothing just the same as Christians. 

So a Christian won't accept anything that contradicts their belief and Atheists won't accept anything that doesn't comply with uniformitarianism and catastrophism but everyone is just trying to fill that void with shit at the moment. Like Global Warming is still controversial ffs do you think this shits going to be sorted as well as what we have to come to terms with when we witness what we witness if we do discover the origins of the origins of the universe. God of the gaps will be used that day too. 

I'm also hardcore against psychics and all of that shit, extorting money from a distraught widow or someone whose just lost their child and telling them that everything is all right and they're in heaven and god loves them all this bullshit. Its so damaging to pretend to know that shit, people empty their wallets because they think their talking to heaven via payphone apart from the other psychological trauma or delusions.  

Spirituality makes a lot a lotta people go stupid, you don't want to open your mind too much because your brain will fall out. Two more things I dislike is that theists glorify human sacrifice to the point that they believe that societies positive moral values have emerged from that and Atheists think that arguing nonsense with nonsense is productive or scientifically supported and stimulated.

If there is a God behind the will and making of this planet than catastrophe is too light a word.


----------



## Shisko (Dec 8, 2014)

BashFace said:


> I find it funny how we use the word provocative to describe a reaction evoked in ambiguous pretences.
> 
> Christianity and Atheism both have their fallacies in reasoning and logic but why can't people believe in deities or no deities without the criticism of belief? I find people who are agnostic have the most to say in debate without sounding pretentious. The reason I say this is because everyone else has a strong opinion on the topic, agnosticism is a neutral stance that enables analysis more thoroughly or diversely I also shouldn't need to mention that this isn't always true but I notice more consistency with insight in agnostics than I do with theists debating.
> 
> ...



While I think this is a good point, I also have to say I have never seen agnostic/gnostic as a position rather the strength of ones position on the idea of, for example, god(s). An atheist being someone without or no god, basically one who does not believe in any type of god, but an agnostic atheist being one who doesn't believe in it but also says they have no way of completely knowing.

Likewise you have the same with agnostic theist and gnostic theist. Because the idea of saying "I do not know if there is or isn't" and staying on the fence never seemed like a logical position from what I have seen. I do not know, it never seemed like something one should make as a position. You can say you do know or do not know if there is for a fact any type of god or gods, but to say you do not know therefor you will not say you deny the claim or accept the claim seems off to me. I'm sure I am the only one with this view though.

Plus many atheist I know will accept things against uniformitarianism and the like if such evidence is there for it to say so. Well... Unless you are Kan Hem, then you deny everything and remained closed to new views.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Dec 9, 2014)

Are we really gonna do this?  Are we really gonna have the same Theist/Atheist - Gnostic/Agnostic conversation that we just spent the last ten goddamn pages getting absolutely nowhere with all over again?

Here's what you can do ("you" here referring to no one in particular).  Read those last dozen pages or so.  Don't post about it, just read it.  Read all of it.  Then, after reading all of it, unless you have an actual original thought on the subject that neither side has already spent the last ten pages trying to beat into the others head... _*DON'T POST IT! *_


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 9, 2014)

Eh, well religious institutions have done much to damage the discourse on these matters. Even with people that are not or no longer affiliated with a religion.


----------



## BashFace (Dec 9, 2014)

Shisko said:


> While I think this is a good point, I also have to say I have never seen agnostic/gnostic as a position rather the strength of ones position on the idea of, for example, god(s). An atheist being someone without or no god, basically one who does not believe in any type of god, but an agnostic atheist being one who doesn't believe in it but also says they have no way of completely knowing.
> 
> Likewise you have the same with agnostic theist and gnostic theist. Because the idea of saying "I do not know if there is or isn't" and staying on the fence never seemed like a logical position from what I have seen. I do not know, it never seemed like something one should make as a position. You can say you do know or do not know if there is for a fact any type of god or gods, but to say you do not know therefor you will not say you deny the claim or accept the claim seems off to me. I'm sure I am the only one with this view though.
> 
> Plus many atheist I know will accept things against uniformitarianism and the like if such evidence is there for it to say so. Well... Unless you are Kan Hem, then you deny everything and remained closed to new views.



I don't deny every claim but I can say that I definitely don't agree with everyones subjective interpretations of subjectively subjective concrete information. It makes more sense to me to be able to criticize something that you aren't a part of from a idealistic interpretation or just being a non-participant. I seem to more trespass than participate. Also I wouldn't deny a claim I would "Investigate" why would I speculate on whether it exists or not I just have to take it that the person telling me believes they're telling the truth with things of this nature. Obviously what I preach is my very narrow conclusion but still at least valid everything is refutable. The self is an illusion nobody knows to what extent because they believe the same as me its silly to speculate until they can prove something and there's nowhere to investigate with it. 

I don't have to believe in a god or there being no god from a subjective stance because its preposterous to think I could give you something explainable,verifiable or valid excuse as to why I think a certain way. Neither can I convince myself to do so or I just don't have that speculation on ambiguity there. I wouldn't deny peculiarity but belief? Really? I'm obviously not talking about how people with ignorant or arrogant beliefs might conform,confide and converse about these illogical interpretations of air, earth, fire, water and our brain. 

Its so basic of humans to argue about how things work that they don't know the answer to, it must be embarrassing to admit that you don't know. Its like we have this interpretation of whether there is a motor or some foreign element that runs the universe but it doesn't make sense to believe that there is or isn't to me. Its so foreign to me and I would assume everyone that it doesn't make sense to speculate the answers sit as yes and no and you can't verify either.Unless someone can bring forth something provable or absolute without  false correlations and misconstruing an observation etc...

I don't have to believe in any strict set of standards except the ones I preach when referring to religion. I nearly think I'm more obliged to criticize peoples behaviours or tendencies regarding religion than those who oppose the views themselves. I'm pointing out that its catastrophic the length we go to express our views in absence of a common thought pattern or understanding of each other or each others views. If you could imagine this surmising the situation in an analogy with my religious debate I would express it as a teacher breaking up a fight between children in the playground. 

There is so much that happens outside of some set of restrictions someone applies to themselves regarding topics or prejudices. Its despairing how many things are controversial, we lack the ability to communicate in general on so many matters religion,politics,general affairs, law, validation and imagination. 

If there is a god he has set us to fail, so to any theists, think of that shit when gods good work is good and his bad work is mysterious. 
---------------------------

Also what do you and butters have in common? The blonde hair or the cross-dressing?


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 9, 2014)

Shisko said:


> Nothing wrong with believing in any form of deity(s), but if this is a big deal then every church that has those sign and all those theistic billboards might need to come down telling me I am going to hell to burn for eternity for having no religion and having sex with a man.
> 
> However, religious should be questioned like anything else and should greatly be told to kids to question things. Lots of people are brought up in a faith and never question it because they are never encouraged too.
> 
> ...


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 9, 2014)

Let me be the first one to post this for people like BashFace.

GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS ARE ABOUT AS CRAZY AS GNOSTIC ATHEISTS.

You can't be gnostic about any of this. if you are then tht means someone has spoken to u and given u all the answers. even with all the science behind everything since god is supposed to be almighty, he could still mask himself behind the science in a way that we could never comprehend.


----------



## Freechoice (Dec 9, 2014)

This stuff is poopoo


----------



## N120 (Dec 9, 2014)

Well, there's nothing biblical about Christmas or Santa clause, atleast upto here I can sympathise.

But why go out of your way to go beyond the mentioned "fairytales" and attack an ideology thats deeply rooted wishin many communities, Its unwarranted in my view. It's one to challenge an idea, have a debate, share, but to attack the very concept which in many cases they don't understand themselves is childish. 

Christians don't believe in Christmas or Santa, it's a commercial exercise that the church uses to push through its values. 

Not a Christian btw.


----------



## Freechoice (Dec 10, 2014)

N120 said:


> poopoo



I agree


----------



## BashFace (Dec 10, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> Let me be the first one to post this for people like BashFace.
> 
> *GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS ARE ABOUT AS CRAZY AS GNOSTIC ATHEISTS.*
> 
> You can't be gnostic about any of this. if you are then tht means someone has spoken to u and given u all the answers. even with all the science behind everything since god is supposed to be almighty, he could still mask himself behind the science in a way that we could never comprehend.



*How is that any less subjective/crazy than what I'm saying? You even say "are about as", like pointing out that someones belief is as about as invalid/crazy as another one. You use subjectivity to describe whats roughly crazy of someone when referring to being arrogant and/or subjective? But I also like the idea of god hiding himself in space and time and when it comes to ethical dilemmas in testaments he hides behind terror. Like longest game of hide and seek ever... Like not even playing anymore... Also realized I spoke too much, you don't need to tell me what I view as crazy unless I state it that way. Crazy is when someone is delusional/misinterpreting events/information. Similar to now but its not what I'm implying* 

If I'm forced to make an answer I'm more inclined to believe that their isn't a god but my subjective reasoning says its not appropriate of me to be righteous. I won't ever criticize the idea of believing in a deity or the person however I believe I'm allowed to criticize what you say on behalf of it or what your opinions are being driven or enforced by and what others think they're entitled to say in a righteous context or tone(especially when it comes to the word of god or the audacity of some people). And regardless of whether I believe or don't believe I'm going to live a subjective right and dispute other subjective rights. 

I still need to be able to compromise so I can live seemingly harmoniously let alone fulfill an objective. I never expect to change someones faith and ideals however I do expect to word something in a way which it can be understood as clear as "possible/plausible". Everything is disputable so I don't doubt there are fallacies in my reasoning. 

Like I've said, I don't have problems with the belief in a deity I have problems with subjectively savage,immoral and illogical behavior being condoned in ways that are counterproductive reflections of societies inconsistencies. We have animal activists and we condone/allow hunting, we created the sanctity of life and the death penalty, we're lacking the ability to comprehend the notion or presumption we have a choice in belief and destiny underplaying our inevitable death, instead we're stuck with choosing to believe if we pick the right answer when it comes to a hypothetical question we'll greatly prosper or benefit from it. I think understanding the foundations or fundamentals for our thoughts and morality lie beyond whether we can express our beliefs or prejudices, it should be more focused on forming them in a way that can be uniformed or relative to some form of absolutism, instead of talking about how morality is a joke looking at it from two polarizing perspectives(people might use different words to express morality or they may not see it as simply as two polarizing disinformed perspectives). Also nobody seems to really accept responsibility for any of this present day madness let alone the lack of communication being self explanatory. I'm not saying we need a martyr but there are a lot of patriotic people out there right? I mean can someone just advertise at least like they care enough to pretend to care... Its despairing, I'd even offer it as an idea "you can make money through this inconclusive,controversial,indecisive movement we'll just give it a name". Call it happy hour or global rotting, whatever not my business although it was my idea.   

Solutions are too complex, theorizing and disputing shit until it causes a genocide that damages people enough and forces them to withdraw from their beliefs temporarily is probably the way to go. Its like telling a kid not to touch the stove because its hot... Then after the kid burns themselves not telling them how to turn the oven on and off.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 11, 2014)

BashFace said:


> *How is that any less subjective/crazy than what I'm saying? You even say "are about as", like pointing out that someones belief is as about as invalid/crazy as another one. You use subjectivity to describe whats roughly crazy of someone when referring to being arrogant and/or subjective? But I also like the idea of god hiding himself in space and time and when it comes to ethical dilemmas in testaments he hides behind terror. Like longest game of hide and seek ever... Like not even playing anymore... Also realized I spoke too much, you don't need to tell me what I view as crazy unless I state it that way. Crazy is when someone is delusional/misinterpreting events/information. Similar to now but its not what I'm implying*
> 
> If I'm forced to make an answer I'm more inclined to believe that their isn't a god but my subjective reasoning says its not appropriate of me to be righteous. I won't ever criticize the idea of believing in a deity or the person however I believe I'm allowed to criticize what you say on behalf of it or what your opinions are being driven or enforced by and what others think they're entitled to say in a righteous context or tone(especially when it comes to the word of god or the audacity of some people). And regardless of whether I believe or don't believe I'm going to live a subjective right and dispute other subjective rights.
> 
> ...



I have almost no idea what you're saying because behind all the fancy words you're trying to use, your clarity lacks majorly. All i have to say about this is, You can criticize current religion. Because it's wrong. You can study the Bible and pinpoint its flaws and you can even criticize about every religion without having to study their holy book. I don't get why their are so many atheists or non-religious people like you. Atheists are supposed to be atheists because they not only don't believe in a god, but have a decent reason for not and can actually argue out why they don't believe in one. Otherwise you're just being lazy and there is little to no reason to be one.Check yourself


----------



## BashFace (Dec 12, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> I have almost no idea what you're saying because behind all the fancy words you're trying to use, your clarity lacks majorly. All i have to say about this is, You can criticize current religion. Because it's wrong. You can study the Bible and pinpoint its flaws and you can even criticize about every religion without having to study their holy book. I don't get why their are so many atheists or non-religious people like you. Atheists are supposed to be atheists because they not only don't believe in a god, but have a decent reason for not and can actually argue out why they don't believe in one. Otherwise you're just being lazy and there is little to no reason to be one.Check yourself



Even the interpretation of yourself to some extent is an illusion. When you think of yourself, you
think of yourself as having a body not being a body, you think of yourself as having a brain but not
just being a brain. We've got voices in our heads and we don't have answers to the sources of those but apart from the downsides of interpreting a common style of literature killing people in the countless numbers I can ignore all that and get to the point I want to make. Everything being up for debate is more at the source of our nature when we make these heinous actions and righteous statements. 

I want a progressive thought beyond the god of the gaps... I want people to educate themselves or something. Not stop believing in a deity. The books are dangerous that's it.  Don't call my view crazy because I've been forced to objectify a status quo. The audacity of your statements is more pretentious than your  righteous views that come along with it. 

*Stinky*


----------



## BashFace (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## Subarashii (Dec 12, 2014)

Well look at this constructive argument

If I may add to this argument, a quote

"A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)


----------



## BashFace (Dec 12, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> Well look at this constructive argument
> 
> If I may add to this argument, a quote
> 
> "A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 12, 2014)

Congrats, you know how to copy and paste


----------



## BashFace (Dec 12, 2014)

Subarashii said:


> Congrats, you know how to copy and paste



Is this your statement concluding our otherwise sensible religious debate?


----------



## Shikakumaru (Dec 12, 2014)

See? And they say they are not religious.


----------



## Bontakun (Dec 13, 2014)

Religion has not been about providing proof of the natural world since the days of the Olympian Gods in Greece. Since Christianity, it's been more like a social system for moral guidance.

Something which Atheism cannot easily replace. I don't know that it ever can.

I don't believe in deities myself, but I see the value in religion. Trying to force religious people to become Atheist seems to be rather counterproductive. Let them have a moral compass; it does more good than harm.

It's better to focus on curbing the more dangerous tendencies like resistance to stem cell research and using national budget to teach about creationism.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2014)

Bontakun said:


> Religion has not been about providing proof of the natural world since the days of the Olympian Gods in Greece. Since Christianity, it's been more like a social system for moral guidance.
> 
> Something which Atheism cannot easily replace. I don't know that it ever can.
> 
> ...



Someone makes a post in this thread that isn't totally retarded.

Color me surprised.


----------



## Rescuebear (Dec 13, 2014)

Its not particularly provocative. 

A little while ago I had a conversation about evolution with a christian who argued that "we didn't come from monkeys". I was amazed by the ignorance of such a comment.

You see, the problem isn't that they don't believe in evolution, its that they simply lack the ability to understand it because they were never taught it in school (this person was home schooled).

I don't care what you think about God, but its neglectful to not at least let your kids learn a very basic concept about how the world works.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 13, 2014)

So essentially, if I want a thread that consists of 20 plus pages of dumb people saying "No you lol" on NF I put "atheists" in the title. Gotcha.


----------



## Neruc (Dec 13, 2014)

I don't really see what this was supposed to accomplish outside of offending religious people. This campaign started of on the wrong foot by treating a large and significant part of the debate, religion itself, as something stupid, something only people of "lower intellect" would believe in. That and the girl believing in Santa and not in religion will probably serve to just offend them further.

Even if the other side of the debate is moronic, if you want them to see your side of the argument and listen to your points, you need to treat them seriously regardless of your personal feelings towards their side.

That being said, I don't think that other people should dictate what others should believe in. If people choose to believe in God, good for them. If they don't, that's good too.

The problem, imo, arises when people try to alter the world around them according to those beliefs without applying any sort of critical thinking to their decisions and to the things they read and hear in their groups.

Religious people protesting against gay marriage is an example that comes to mind 

This is what the billboard should encourage. Critical thinking. Coming to your own conclusions by analizing the evidence present. Don't resist progress and change just because the religious scriptures or whatever say no. They were written in different times with different standards, different ways of thinking.

Religion should always remain optional.
Religious people have no right to force it on others, and atheists have no right to take it away from people who take comfort in it.

As long as both sides remain reasonable, there's no problem 
(not that this will ever stop extremists/morons from doing dumb shit, but that's to be expected)


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 13, 2014)

Bontakun said:


> Religion has not been about providing proof of the natural world since the days of the Olympian Gods in Greece. Since Christianity, it's been more like a social system for moral guidance.
> 
> Something which Atheism cannot easily replace. I don't know that it ever can.
> 
> I don't believe in deities myself, but I see the value in religion. Trying to force religious people to become Atheist seems to be rather counterproductive. Let them have a moral compass; it does more good than harm.



I don't know dude..... a moral compass that depends on threats and fear? It can do as much harm. Although I have to agree not ALL Christian denominations do this, but the vast majority does.


----------



## Bontakun (Dec 14, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> I don't know dude..... a moral compass that depends on threats and fear? It can do as much harm. Although I have to agree not ALL Christian denominations do this, but the vast majority does.



Human minds are a sack of chemicals and emotions. In tight situations, threats and fear are much more effective than trying to reason with humans. Especially children, who don't have a sure understanding of how the world works yet, but still need guidance.

Besides Christianity from what I see of Christian friends, has a lot to do with community and familial love. And people want to be social. Instead of getting wasted on Saturday night, you go chat with well-behaved people Sunday morning. That's gotta be worth something.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 14, 2014)

Is it not hypocritical for this advertisement to declare that teachings of churches are "fairy tales," yet have someone writing a letter to Santa Claus? Since he is a religious figure, any attack against religion will need to attack his image, as well, or else risk losing any credibility that it may have.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 14, 2014)

Bontakun said:


> Human minds are a sack of chemicals and emotions. In tight situations, threats and fear are much more effective than trying to reason with humans. Especially children, who don't have a sure understanding of how the world works yet, but still need guidance.
> 
> Besides Christianity from what I see of Christian friends, has a lot to do with community and familial love. And people want to be social. Instead of getting wasted on Saturday night, you go chat with well-behaved people Sunday morning. That's gotta be worth something.



It can also drive people insane, and in fact it has.

Threats of endless horrible unimaginable punishment is in my opinion not a worthy moral compass. I guess, I could still see value in fear (though is not my thing) if it were proportionate.


----------



## Klauser (Dec 14, 2014)

And again a whole thread almost entirely wasted on the definition of atheism.No matter what arguments are produced, some "famous" people here always redirect the discussion to keep the focus on semantics since years now.

My English is too limited to enter the "atheism definition" debate, but all I can see is a compulsive preoccupation to put people in cases.

Is there a word for people who don't believe in Mermaids or Santa?
Probably not, and nobody cares because we don't need one.

There is no arguing that there is as much evidence for Unicorns and Fairies that there is for a God.Basically none.
And this is exactly what "atheism" is.As much as you wouldn't argue about the non-existence of the Monster Spaghetti because it is a damn waste of time, "atheists" don't rate "*God*" much higher than the millions of others man-made fantasies humanity has seen. 

However, if it is fine not to believe in Werewolfs, not believing in God strangely will put you in the "atheist case" just so religious people can knock their way in and say "_oh lol what a retard he doesn't believe in God but look at him he himself is in a group, atheists must really be mentally challenged because forming a group based on belief is the same as a religion lol lol_".

Guess what, 99.99% of your "atheists" aren't joining "groups" to share their beliefs.For the sole reason than 100% of humans born will not suddenly pop up in the middle of the street to share knowledge about God or Jesus IF they didn't suffer from the results of hundreds of years of religious brainwashing preying on our god damn KIDS.
This is what the billboard is all about, kids being taught about Santa and Jesus but in one case nothing is done to make you believe in Santa past a certain age whereas in Jesus case there are many communities and strong parental pressure to force and/or at least to never admit at any given time that Jesus isn't real.Which, to "atheists", is an aberration since there is a lack of evidence covering BOTH.You wouldn't want schools to teach your kids about unprovable facts, but surprisingly it is acceptable to teach children about religion until a late age presenting things as tangible facts even though there is as much observable facts in the concept of God than in any fiction book even created.And this is morally wrong, and coming from parent who themselves were brainwashed in the majority.
I don't blame these people for forming "atheists" group, which are simply trying to stop the perpetuation of the said circle making a brainwashed children to grow up and make children so he too can teach them his religion as early as possible to increase the possibility of the kids to never doubt their religion and to take it as adamant as science (now I'm just kidding, science is evil and shouldn't be taught).

You say that "atheists" don't believe, focusing mainly on the *"don't"* part and consequently engaging in the fallacy that therefore we have to prove why we don't believe.*This is total non-sense*.
People are smart enough to know they can't deny a product of the human imagination, but it's just that, fantasies until observable evidence is shown.Now, as stupid as a Flying Spaghetti God idea is, it is natural for most people to view the official religious God with the same detachment and disdain, even more after studying it, because honestly the amount of incredible WTF sentences you may find in the Bible make it hard to believe than any sane person would believe any of it if it wasn't for the brainwashing continuing circle.

The way I see it, religions are nothing more than sects that were highly prosperous thanks to a low level of education (initially).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 14, 2014)

Bontakun said:


> Human minds are a sack of chemicals and emotions. In tight situations, threats and fear are much more effective than trying to reason with humans. Especially children, who don't have a sure understanding of how the world works yet, but still need guidance.
> 
> Besides Christianity from what I see of Christian friends, has a lot to do with community and familial love. And people want to be social. Instead of getting wasted on Saturday night, you go chat with well-behaved people Sunday morning. That's gotta be worth something.



Church was always a waste of time to me.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 14, 2014)

Neruc said:


> I don't really see what this was supposed to accomplish outside of offending religious people.



In my home state, it's not uncommon to drive by moronic church signs warning against Hell or Satan. That's offensive to intelligent people. I'd say fair is fair.




> As long as both sides remain reasonable, there's no problem



Faith is not based on reason. It is inherently irrational. The attitudes and arguments of the faithful in this modern atheism debate are where the shrill, irrational, hateful comments largely stem from. If you pay attention to so-called atheist "extremists" they're not so extreme. The worst thing they do is to be snarky and offend people. And so fucking what? You don't have a right not to be offended or have your beliefs challenged. I'd posit that's one of the foundational concepts of living in a free and open society. Closed societies where beliefs are above reproach don't advance much in a positive direction. Look at North Korea.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 14, 2014)

Bontakun said:


> Religion has not been about providing proof of the natural world since the days of the Olympian Gods in Greece. Since Christianity, it's been more like a social system for moral guidance.
> 
> Something which Atheism cannot easily replace. I don't know that it ever can.
> 
> ...


Atheism _can_ easily replace that moral guidance, otherwise people who identify as atheists wouldn't be so relatively peaceful in practically any statistical measure you can conduct on earth.  Contrary to popular rhetoric, religion doesn't hold a monopoly on morality and social stability.  

Further, these atheists referred to in the OP aren't forcing anyone to become Christian.  Ridicule =/= forcing.



Bontakun said:


> Human minds are a sack of chemicals and emotions. In tight situations, threats and fear are much more effective than trying to reason with humans. Especially children, who don't have a sure understanding of how the world works yet, but still need guidance.
> 
> Besides Christianity from what I see of Christian friends, has a lot to do with community and familial love. And people want to be social. Instead of getting wasted on Saturday night, you go chat with well-behaved people Sunday morning. That's gotta be worth something.


Nah, threats and fear aren't that effective on children.  That's probably the worst example you can think of for your argument, since children are influenced by their environment and can only learn through example, not fear.  As for adults, even if you think scaring them into submission is great, that can be done through laws that are set in place democratically by the collective population.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Dec 14, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> In my home state, it's not uncommon to drive by moronic church signs warning against Hell or Satan. That's offensive to intelligent people. I'd say fair is fair.



You're supposed to be better than them. Above tit for tat.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 15, 2014)

BashFace said:


> Even the interpretation of yourself to some extent is an illusion. When you think of yourself, you
> think of yourself as having a body not being a body, you think of yourself as having a brain but not
> just being a brain. We've got voices in our heads and we don't have answers to the sources of those but apart from the downsides of interpreting a common style of literature killing people in the countless numbers I can ignore all that and get to the point I want to make. Everything being up for debate is more at the source of our nature when we make these heinous actions and righteous statements.
> 
> ...



I should have just ignored you once i saw your avatar.  You're clearly a troll.

Everything you just said was some weird bullcrap that didn't relate to what i was saying. it was just u praising ur self-acclaimed higher thinking by saying stuff like " i reject the status quo" and blah blah. Yeah i get it. Now can you please respond to the message i put in properly effectively and cohesively.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 15, 2014)

Neruc said:


> I don't really see what this was supposed to accomplish outside of offending religious people. This campaign started of on the wrong foot by treating a large and significant part of the debate, religion itself, as something stupid, something only people of "lower intellect" would believe in. That and the girl believing in Santa and not in religion will probably serve to just offend them further.
> 
> Even if the other side of the debate is moronic, if you want them to see your side of the argument and listen to your points, you need to treat them seriously regardless of your personal feelings towards their side.
> 
> ...



Getting a little tired of these posters. You people think that religion is okay to have and its okay to not have. Well the nicest comment I could make about this is that this pretense is ludicrous. If God was real then NO you are supposed to believe in God or else you will go to hell. If God isn't real then that means a whole bunch of people are praising nothing and being jaded all their lives and are believing that they will fly up into heaven for all of eternity after death. This is not something that you can just leave alone.

Religion is something that was initially made a long time ago that people used to justify things they couldn't explain (like in greek mythology and native american literature). These things would be passed down by generation and generation from whatever nutjob initally made the religion and then everyone would believe it do to some "miracle" that proved the existance of the God (if any). Ultimately, religion was made for people that didn't understand science and logic and for it to be brought over into the modern world where we are supposed to think is quite dangerous. And the thought of it lasting longer and even after my death is appalling to me to say the least. If our society abandoned these principles and valued their current lives on earth then we would have a more productive, rational society. A society where people don't fight about religion and religious beliefs.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 15, 2014)

Bontakun said:


> Human minds are a sack of chemicals and emotions. In tight situations, *threats and fear are much more effective than trying to reason with humans.* Especially children, who don't have a sure understanding of how the world works yet, but still need guidance.
> 
> Besides Christianity from what I see of Christian friends, has a lot to do with community and familial love. And people want to be social. Instead of getting wasted on Saturday night, you go chat with well-behaved people Sunday morning. That's gotta be worth something.





How would you explain Buddhism? Or Shinto?
Or, I don't know... REASONING WITH ANOTHER PERSON!?


----------



## Neruc (Dec 15, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> In my home state, it's not uncommon to drive by moronic church signs warning against Hell or Satan. That's offensive to intelligent people. I'd say fair is fair.


Yeah, those are dumb.
But, and correct me if i am wrong, purchasing those spaces for the advertisments is pretty expensive, and unlike religious people, the people who bought them didn't have funding from the Church or whatever group. They had to pay it own their own.

If you're paying such large amounts of money, wouldn't you want that money to be used to display better, more resounding arguments as to why they (the readers) should think for themselves and not let religion control their lives?

In my case, I was born into a christian household and I was taught about Jesus and the Bible and God and everything you'd expect from that enviroment.

What got me to see why all of that wasn't true like my family said it is wasn't an atheist saying "Your religion is fake", it was an atheist (well more but whatever) who explained the situation to me, why religion can and has easily been destructive, and above all, it was his advice to think logically and for myself. To analyze things and come to conclusions that are objectively correct, not conclusions that just suit me more regardless of whatever evidence to the contrary.

Wouldn't something like that stick more, challenge their currently accepted way of thinking more?


> Faith is not based on reason. It is inherently irrational. The attitudes and arguments of the faithful in this modern atheism debate are where the shrill, irrational, hateful comments largely stem from. If you pay attention to so-called atheist "extremists" they're not so extreme. The worst thing they do is to be snarky and offend people. And so fucking what? You don't have a right not to be offended or have your beliefs challenged. I'd posit that's one of the foundational concepts of living in a free and open society. Closed societies where beliefs are above reproach don't advance much in a positive direction. Look at North Korea.


You are absolutely right. and I agree.

Uh, since you posted this in response to that part, I guess I'll go ahead and clarify that i never said that religious people (the group as a whole) are  _*currently*_ being reasonable.



dpwater25 said:


> Getting a little tired of these posters. You people think that religion is okay to have and its okay to not have. Well the nicest comment I could make about this is that this pretense is ludicrous. If God was real then NO you are supposed to believe in God or else you will go to hell. If God isn't real then that means a whole bunch of people are praising nothing and being jaded all their lives and are believing that they will fly up into heaven for all of eternity after death.* This is not something that you can just leave alone.*
> 
> Religion is something that was initially made a long time ago that people used to justify things they couldn't explain (like in greek mythology and native american literature). These things would be passed down by generation and generation from whatever nutjob initally made the religion and then everyone would believe it do to some "miracle" that proved the existance of the God (if any). Ultimately, religion was made for people that didn't understand science and logic and for it to be brought over into the modern world where we are supposed to think is quite dangerous. And the thought of it lasting longer and even after my death is appalling to me to say the least. If our society abandoned these principles and valued their current lives on earth then we would have a more productive, rational society. A society where people don't fight about religion and religious beliefs.


No, that's not what I said.

Religion being "okay" to have or "not okay to have would be to say that it doesn't affect society in any way. Something which i never claimed.

I said that if believing in a higher entity helps you feel better then its okay to have, but if you try to force it on others and make society follow its backwater rules then its going too far. 

@Bold And no, I never claimed that either. I even said that the billboard would have been better of advertising critical,logical thinking, something that's required to analyze religion and see all the wrong shit that's being done with it, as it would have opposed the "blisfull ignorance" that many of them (priests, close minded religious parents etc) preach better.

I am not going to tell someone to drop their faith if all its doing is help them sleep better at night. I will tell them, however, to fuck of if they're using it as an excuse to persecute someone or stop sound, logical progress.


----------



## DavyChan (Dec 16, 2014)

Neruc said:


> Yeah, those are dumb.
> But, and correct me if i am wrong, purchasing those spaces for the advertisments is pretty expensive, and unlike religious people, the people who bought them didn't have funding from the Church or whatever group. They had to pay it own their own.
> 
> If you're paying such large amounts of money, wouldn't you want that money to be used to display better, more resounding arguments as to why they (the readers) should think for themselves and not let religion control their lives?
> ...



This, I can understand this a lot better. But would you be okay with someone praying to their wii u everynight, asking it to watch over him and giving him magical powers and a chance to someday float up into Nintendoland to play for ll eternity. Because I'm sure most of us would consider him crazy. What's the difference between that and faith in the Bible? Not much.


----------



## Hitt (Dec 16, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Church was always a waste of time to me.



I would've been an atheist a lot faster if I went to masses as long as YOU did.  5 freaking hours.


----------



## Neruc (Dec 16, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> This, I can understand this a lot better. But would you be okay with someone praying to their wii u everynight, asking it to watch over him and giving him magical powers and a chance to someday float up into Nintendoland to play for ll eternity. Because I'm sure most of us would consider him crazy. What's the difference between that and faith in the Bible? Not much.



Honestly, I wouldn't really care.
I mean, I would laugh at the absurdity of such a thing existing, but that'd only last for 20 seconds. After that I'd just continue on with my day.

If I were to meet him in real life I would certainly be more on guard though, in case he does something dangerous.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 16, 2014)

Onomatopoeia said:


> You're supposed to be better than them. Above tit for tat.



I am better than them, and my people make better signs.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 16, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> Faith is not based on reason. It is inherently irrational.



That's your definition of faith, not ours.  The problem with this discussion is that you will take a word we use, like faith, load it with a definition we would never agree with and then reinsert it into our theology as if that definition fits.  Its a version of the strawman argument.

Faith is not irrational; neither is it based off of emotion.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 16, 2014)

Not based on emotion? That simply isn't true, it's entirely based on emotion. Even the way you claim religious use. You believe God exists, and you claim to know he exists based on what you feel, not what you can prove to others.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 16, 2014)

baconbits said:


> That's your definition of faith, not ours.  The problem with this discussion is that you will take a word we use, like faith, load it with a definition we would never agree with and then reinsert it into our theology as if that definition fits.  Its a version of the strawman argument.
> 
> Faith is not irrational; neither is it based off of emotion.



You mean like how half the people in this thread have been trying to define atheism and apply that to all the atheists here?

But ok, give us the correct definition of faith that makes it rational.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Dec 16, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> This, I can understand this a lot better. But would you be okay with someone praying to their wii u everynight, asking it to watch over him and giving him magical powers and a chance to someday float up into Nintendoland to play for ll eternity. Because I'm sure most of us would consider him crazy. What's the difference between that and faith in the Bible? Not much.



The Wii U is crap though. The Bible at least has some interesting bits.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 16, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Not based on emotion? That simply isn't true, it's entirely based on emotion.



No, its not.  Christianity is based off of a belief of a set of tenets.  They must be intellectually understood, not felt.

This is not to say that some religions are not emotionally based; this is not to say that Christianity doesn't make people emotional, either.  Rather that Christianity is, at its core, a philosophy and a religion.  It is a mode of thinking, an act of the intellect.



Tsukiyomi said:


> You mean like how half the people in this thread have been trying to define atheism and apply that to all the atheists here?



Ignoring the fact that it was an atheist v atheist debate, yes.  There are many who want to redefine words in order to facilitate their beliefs.



Tsukiyomi said:


> But ok, give us the correct definition of faith that makes it rational.



Faith has two major definitions in Christianity:

1. It is used as a word to summarize all the tenets of the religion.
2. It is an acknowledgment of certain truths revealed through scripture, best summed up in the words "assurance" or "confidence".


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 16, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Faith has two major definitions in Christianity:
> 
> 1. It is used as a word to summarize all the tenets of the religion.



I don't think anyone is in disagreement about that usage of the word, but thats not how its used when people take issue with it.



baconbits said:


> 2. It is an acknowledgment of certain truths revealed through scripture, best summed up in the words "assurance" or "confidence".



So when you say you have faith in your religion are you simply stating that you have confidence in it?

Why not just use the word confidence then?  That would completely remove the problem of disagreements about the definition of the word faith.

That would also cut directly to the core of the discussion.  If you say you have confidence that there was a global flood that killed all but a handful of humans and 2 of every animal, we can simply ask "well _why_ do you have confidence that that happened?".


----------



## Aphelion (Dec 16, 2014)

I'm not against the idea of putting up billboards that promote atheism, but this is a terrible way to do it.

Why not a message that encourages skepticism and rationalism?  Just questioning ones own beliefs.

It would certainly be an improvement over this, which is basically "lol god iznt reel".


----------



## BashFace (Dec 20, 2014)

dpwater25 said:


> I should have just ignored you once i saw your avatar.  You're clearly a troll.
> 
> Everything you just said was some weird bullcrap that didn't relate to what i was saying. it was just u praising ur self-acclaimed higher thinking by saying stuff like " i reject the status quo" and blah blah. Yeah i get it. Now can you please respond to the message i put in properly effectively and cohesively.





> I have almost no idea what you're saying because behind all the fancy words you're trying to use, your clarity lacks majorly. All i have to say about this is, You can criticize current religion. *Because it's wrong*. You can study the Bible and pinpoint its flaws and you can even criticize about every religion without having to study their holy book. I don't get why their are so many atheists or non-religious people like you. Atheists are supposed to be atheists because they not only don't believe in a god, but have a decent reason for not and can actually argue out why they don't believe in one. Otherwise you're just being lazy and there is little to no reason to be one.Check yourself



Why do you feel like you can criticize or relate two different yet similar interpretations of the illusion of ourselves? What makes you feel righteous enough to say that agnostic-theists are as crazy as agnostic non-theists? As well as statements suggesting that I'm portraying myself as if I'm boasting,arrogant or deviating purposely outside of myself interpreting the information. Personally I'd rather people followed similar beliefs to mine as opposed to other beliefs and foundations in theistic documents that I find scary because of my own prejudices.

I think that extremist behaviour or literature can be criticized or critiqued but I don't think that you can compare interpretations of unfathomable information and suggest because people have a side in the debate that they're worth comparing with some fragmented meaning on your righteous podium. And then suggesting somehow I'm arrogant for providing information to clarify my personal beliefs.

I'm not a troll, I'm silly. You are also silly but you just don't realize it yet or you're not in touch with your silly side on purpose. Its brought out in small doses. YOU'LL NEVER CONTROL THE SILLY!!!! YOU CAN ONLY PRETEND OR TRY TO HIDE IT!!!!!

*In an ambiguous state of awareness as well as everything being up for debate and argument and basically remaining controversial. The only thing I(not myself but my agenda or belief or whatever you want to call it) can try to rectify is the encouragement of inhumane behaviour that has to be misconstrued to justify belief and morality in text. Even the word humanity and inhumane are subjective but more along the lines of clear infringements and rationalizing them than anything. 

You can't say something is wrong because what you have supporting that is a subjective opinion, so its not wrong. You or others who believe that think its wrong. I'm criticizing even yourself thinking somehow by acknowledging endless conflicting views as being just as valid or just as crazy as each other. Tell me what you're using to estimate or approximate your views? Because the last time I checked nobody knew shit. *



> GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS ARE ABOUT AS CRAZY AS GNOSTIC ATHEISTS.



How do I lack clarity? Do you even know what you're saying? Why do you think that statement has some contrast or validity let alone efficiency given the broadness of your criteria and lack of thought.

Just remember you were the one who was perplexed by my standpoint not the other way around. However I don't deny being silly, I do deny being silly.


----------



## Freechoice (Dec 20, 2014)

Holla WHOOP WHOOP!!!!!!


----------



## Freechoice (Dec 20, 2014)

agnostics are the worst, i get all mad when i think about em yo

i ball up my teeny fists and punch my bott


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 20, 2014)

And then they act all like "Christians don't respect our freedom to believe in whatever we want!"

It's a two way road.

But this campaign is nothing special. Mocking people for believing in something they don't is most atheists favorite hobby.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 20, 2014)

Luiz said:


> And then they act all like "Christians don't respect our freedom to believe in whatever we want!"
> 
> It's a two way road.
> 
> But this campaign is nothing special. Mocking people for believing in something they don't is most atheists favorite hobby.



Way to talk out of your ass. 

That aside, I am always amazed at the poor grasp of irony that exists among some people. The major religions of the world were and are built upon the idea that other belief systems and the lack of belief is philosophically and morally inferior to their own; an attitude which expresses itself in many faithful. Yet those same faithful are ready to whine and play victim when their beliefs are put under scrutiny.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 20, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So when you say you have faith in your religion are you simply stating that you have confidence in it?



In a sense, yes.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Why not just use the word confidence then?  That would completely remove the problem of disagreements about the definition of the word faith.
> 
> That would also cut directly to the core of the discussion.  If you say you have confidence that there was a global flood that killed all but a handful of humans and 2 of every animal, we can simply ask "well _why_ do you have confidence that that happened?".



True.  The problem is that the word has large implications throughout theology.  I could replace it with confidence or trust anywhere in scripture and no one would accuse me of producing a bad interpretation, but faith is still important in its own right.

When I say "I have faith in God" I mean "I have confidence in the God of the Bible.  I cannot prove that he exists, but my confidence in him has already produced something tangible that validates that confidence".


----------



## BashFace (Dec 21, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Way to talk out of your ass.
> 
> That aside, I am always amazed at the poor grasp of irony that exists among some people. The major religions of the world were and are built upon the idea that other belief systems and the lack of belief is philosophically and morally inferior to their own; an attitude which expresses itself in many faithful. Yet those same faithful are ready to whine and play victim when their beliefs are put under scrutiny.



People make the presumption that their view is righteous above every other because otherwise their more likely a for their hiney on their ego to get a smash. If they had the ability to ascertain their disinformation and illusions/delusions are the only thing preserving and enforcing their belief than people believe that the world would go nuts. I'd like to think that it wouldn't, but who knows.  

I don't think that beliefs should be free from criticism or that they should get a free pass or the chance to play a victims card except in the obvious extreme circumstance eg unnecessary discriminative aggression. This campaign is obviously more directed at the folklore, loose terminology or analogies you're supposed to use when exploring yourself through the bible.

I don't think the campaign is directly targeting the theist speculation or belief but more or less targeting their practices and current situational disadvantages.  

It would be like making a campaign about some dangerous area in Florida populated mostly by black people and drug addicts and having a child on a board saying I want to get out of here. And then the drug addicts and black people from the dangerous area in Florida accuse the campaign administrators of misrepresenting or defaming the area or some similar analogy or euphemism so I can dodge some rebuttals.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 21, 2014)

baconbits said:


> produced something tangible that validates that confidence".



For example?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 22, 2014)

baconbits said:


> True.  The problem is that the word has large implications throughout theology.  *I could replace it with confidence or trust* anywhere in scripture and no one would accuse me of producing a bad interpretation, *but faith is still important in its own right.*



When you say its important in its own right, that implies that there is some significant difference between confidence and faith.  Is there a difference or are they the same?  And if there is what is the difference?



baconbits said:


> When I say "I have faith in God" I mean "I have confidence in the God of the Bible.  I cannot prove that he exists, *but my confidence in him has already produced something tangible that validates that confidence".*



Really?  What would that be and how did you determine if came from your god?


----------



## Kenpachi TZ (Jan 31, 2015)

baconbits said:


> When I say "I have faith in God" I mean "I have confidence in the God of the Bible.  I cannot prove that he exists, but my confidence in him has already produced something tangible that validates that confidence".



... Your confidence in God has already produced something [we can touch]?

Elaborate.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 31, 2015)

Lol                          :ignoramus


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 31, 2015)

Richard Dawkins did something like this in the UK in 2008/2009 with his atheist bus tour.



That's how far the united states is behind the rest of the world.

It literally takes years for us to catch up.

...

Also

I see your necro and I raise you one thread derailment.


----------



## Kenpachi TZ (Jan 31, 2015)

As if both you fucks aren't interested in what this mysterious object produced of faith/confidence is. 

I'm not letting this thread die on that cliffhanger.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 31, 2015)

Dam doz reakshins.


----------



## Baroxio (Jan 31, 2015)

Zyrax said:


> >Christians/Muslims violently Try to enforce their beliefs on others
> >Sicopaths and terrorists
> >Athiests do the same
> >Heros
> Shiggity diggity doo Where are yoooooouuuuuuu





Zyrax said:


> >violently





Zyrax said:


> >Sicopaths and terrorists





Zyrax said:


> >Athiests do the same



lol wut? How many abortion clinics have atheists bombed for not following their religious beliefs again? How many planes have atheists flown into towers?

The only thing these atheists are doing are putting up billboards (to say nothing of the fact that there are far more religous groups which do the same, in some cases depicting HELLFIRE and ETERNAL TORTURE), so exactly what about that is "violent?"

Like, seriously.


----------



## DavyChan (Feb 1, 2015)

Oh my.

Y'all are soo wrong for reviving this thread.

I got ALL my argument and anger out from this (and it was a lot).


----------



## Sanity Check (Feb 1, 2015)

Baroxio said:


> lol wut? How many abortion clinics have atheists bombed for not following their religious beliefs again? How many planes have atheists flown into towers?



.



> *Atheist Jailed For Church Arson In UK*
> 
> An atheist was jailed for church arson in the UK.
> 
> ...





.

Historically, Stalin alone murdered more than 100,000 religious people in his purge of religion.  There are plenty of atheist mass murderers.  Unfortunately, most people suffer from tunnel vision and only look at the last 10 years or so in attempting to determine whether religious people are more violent than atheists.  10 years is nothing.  You have to look 50 or 100 years to get a decent indication of what is what.



dpwater25 said:


> Oh my.
> 
> Y'all are soo wrong for reviving this thread.
> 
> I got ALL my argument and anger out from this (and it was a lot).



Which page was it on?


----------



## Baroxio (Feb 1, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> Historically, Stalin alone murdered more than 100,000 religious people in his purge of religion.  There are plenty of atheist mass murderers.  *Unfortunately, most people suffer from tunnel vision and only look at the last 10 years or so in attempting to determine whether religious people are more violent than atheists.  10 years is nothing.  You have to look 50 or 100 years to get a decent indication of what is what.*



Are you...are you honestly suggesting that Atheists as a whole have committed more mass murders and atrocities than religious extremists? 

I suppose The Inquisition, The Crusades, The Salem Trials, The Holocaust etc. just never happened, huh?


----------



## DavyChan (Feb 2, 2015)

dpwater25 said:


> No, and I could go on all day talking about why this dumb and ignorant. No it's not okay to believe in God. This is because we atheists don't think "oh i just dont 'believe' in God". we know he doesn't exist. His entire story is bullsht and the bible contradicts itself too many times to count. Also the bible has many things that go against basic morality (like slavery, letting someone pay off raping your daughter and then having to marry her). People are forced to believe in these principles of the Bible but they only nitpick on what they believe in. They can have sex before marriage but ofc they can't overlook homosexuals wanting to be married (even tho marriage is a ritual that occured secularly). So at the end of the day, no. It's not okay to be Christian and it's not okay to breed lies and ignorance.





dpwater25 said:


> If you mean i don't have the problem with a perfect honest and merciful god then yes. But that isn't the case so yes i do have a problem with people believing in god. And as for the Christian, Muslim, or whtever god, I know no god that exists in the world atm is real. Anyone with common sense and a google search engine could find that out.





Saishin said:


> Want to clarify that I'm agnostic and not religious
> That being said what you said is quite wrong and quite right.First of all as far as I know the Bible doesn't have as principles the slavery or the rape of your daughter,let's not forget that the book tells events happened 2000-3000 and more years ago,the culture and the behaviour of the people of those times were very different,slavery was common,marry,I don't know your daughter,but marry someone else that wasn't your wife was common too.Acts that would make people shocked nowdays were usual in acient times.





dpwater25 said:


> True, I was using that argument to say that no existing god can be real in the sense that they aren't merciful. They are merciless. I mean look at all the genocide the christian god instigated. I' m not an agnostic-theist btw so I was just saying that. No I don't believe in a god at all.





dpwater25 said:


> Inexusable. If the Bible is supposed to be Holy then it should be a book that stands the test of time. It should not be a book that is outdated merely a couple thousand years later. I mean it's only gonna get worse from here as we evolve even more. I mean it's not gonna rewrite itself. No holy book should allow slavery, regardless of what time it was. It is not a good act and saying that it is ok because of the time period is dumb.



1-5 Basically. Why ur asking me is weird though because when I looked, we apparently were posting at the same time. U just never quoted me back then.


----------

