Why do athiests bash religious folks as much as they do? Do they make fun for the sake of it? Why do they belittle somebody else's faith and expect someone else to respect their faith

I might be wrong as you might PROVE to me, but isnt science based on some postulates.

I read some quotes from this book Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance purely since I cannot read the book right now for the time constraints I have. I might have quoted them out of context.

"For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses"
I havent read much quantum mechanics. Just the usual stuff that everyone reads in high school and I've probably forgotten most of it. But there are numerous hypothesis' and postulates on which laws are build on. For the record I am not against science and am fascinated by physics. Was really good at it in the school.

But I do think that religion is misunderstood. It has been for the lack of understanding and insensitivity of thought of the religious leaders.

Isnt it an overgeneralisation to say that every priest is a pedo and isnt the bashing Jesus become a fashion these days. You need to say certain things to be a part of the in crowd. Needless to say that these people must be minority and are a blot on the people who really consider themselves ATHIESTS. After all, they are all for science and have enough proof to base their theories than bash the religions. I dont really understand religion and I do have a HUNCH that its misunderstood and misrepresented. tHE question is, do you understand it fully?

Another quote I read from the above said book.

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. (No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They *know* it's going to rise tomorrow.) When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds
of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

I do believe that there is God. I wouldnt really profess it fanatically till the idea seems to be intuitive. The question is are you SURE that there's no god. If you are, is there any chance that you mightve jumped to conclusions. Probability is that if you have the yes as answer to the former question, I think the answer to the second one would also be in affirmation.

Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Robert M. Pirsig
- Read only once -
"[...] the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's mind"
28

"If someone’s ungrateful and you tell him he’s ungrateful, okay,
you’ve called him a name. You haven’t solved anything"
41

"Some things you miss because they’re so tiny you overlook them. But some things you don’t see because they’re so huge"
48

"Mark Twain's experience comes to mind, in which, after he had
mastered the analytic knowledge needed to pilot the Mississippi
River, he discovered the river had lost its beauty"
70

"If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. (There's so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.)"
88

"The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you don’t actually know"
94

"Einstein had said:
Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits in best a
simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus overcome it... He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience. ... The supreme task ... is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them...."
99

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. (No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They *know* it's going to rise tomorrow.) When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."
134

"Peace of mind isn't at all superficial [...]"
146

"To doubt the literal meaning of the words of Jesus or Moses incurs hostility from most people, but it's just a fact that if Jesus or Moses were to appear today, unidentified, with the same message he spoke many years ago, his mental stability would be challenged. This isn't because what Jesus or Moses said was untrue or because modern society is in error but simply because the route they chose to reveal to others has lost relevance and comprehensibility"
168

"For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses"
171

"The more you look, the more you see"
171

"The past exists only in our memories, the future only in our plans. The present is our only reality."
222

"Look and notice well; but as there isn't time to see everything and as it's better not to see than to see wrongly, it's necessary for him to make a choice."
238

"The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one, like the difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this ability to select the good facts from the bad ones on the basis of quality." (He has to care!)
253

"The way to solve the conflict between human values and
technological needs is not to run away from technology. That's
impossible. The way to resolve the conflict is to break down the
barrier of dualistic thought that prevent a real understanding of what technology is - not an exploitation of nature, but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that transcends both"
261

"We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly" (Time for real reunification of art and technology is really long overdue)
264

"Peace of mind produces right values, right values produce right
thoughts. Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions
produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all"
267

"Well, he should somehow try to slow down deliberately and go over ground that he has been over before and see if things he thought were important really were important [...]"
282

"We just have to keep going until we find out what's wrong or find out why we don't know what's wrong"
308

"[...] the real evil isn't the objects of technology but the tendency of technology to isolate people into lonely attitudes of objectivity"
322

"(The One in India has got to be the same as the One in Greece. [...] The only disagreements among the monists concern the attributes of the One, not the One itself.) Since the One is the source of all things and includes all things in it, it cannot be defined in terms of those things, since no matter what thing you use to define it, the thing will always describe something less than the One itself."
349

"- Will you show me all of them?
- Sure
- Is it hard?
- Not if you have the right attitudes. It's having the right attitudes that's hard"
372

I wish ryan was here:no:

ryan?

Nevermind. I dont understand the purpose of thread.

amanamagus, if you're actually serious then I offer the following video as good point of departure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugU2xQfOIh8

amanamagus, if you're actually serious then I offer the following video as good point of departure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugU2xQfOIh8
Will watch.

Why do athiests bash religious folks as much as they do?

If you met someone that believed that 2 + 2 = 5 would you care? Probably not. Now what if that person was building skyscrapers? Then you'd care because those buildings would be deathtraps that kill people.

Now take religion. Who cares if someone believes whatever delusion that takes their fancy. But what if that person was a political leader that invaded other countries because of their delusion? Or if that person is a parent who brings up their children to believe the same deluded crap they do? Or if that person is a leader of a corporation who doesn't care about destroying our environment because they believe some mythical saviour will fix everything?

Some atheists are opposed to religions because the damage isn't just confined to the believer.

If you met someone that believed that 2 + 2 = 5 would you care? Probably not. Now what if that person was building skyscrapers? Then you'd care because those buildings would be deathtraps that kill people.

Now take religion. Who cares if someone believes whatever delusion that takes their fancy. But what if that person was a political leader that invaded other countries because of their delusion? Or if that person is a parent who brings up their children to believe the same deluded crap they do? Or if that person is a leader of a corporation who doesn't care about destroying our environment because they believe some mythical saviour will fix everything?

Some atheists are opposed to religions because the damage isn't just confined to the believer.
Well that delusion can also be suffered by athiests. How do you equate religion with delusions.

amanamagus, if you're actually serious then I offer the following video as good point of departure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugU2xQfOIh8
That vid changed nothing bro. I can blabber a lot and I probably will at some point of time. Given that there are narrow mindsets in religious peeps but same is the case with athiests, not all of them.

I probably would've written a post after getting back from school but a friend of mine has advised me to focus on some stuff that I have to take care of. So it will wait but it'll surely come.

I dont think there is a relation between intolerance and religion. Or for that matter, I dont think science and religion are and should be enemies.

Well that delusion can also be suffered by athiests. How do you equate religion with delusions.

Which delusion are you talking about?

Which atheist political leader invaded another country because that country wasn't an atheist country?

Which atheist doesn't care about destroying the environment because they believe it will be magically fixed?

I'm lead to assume to mean that atheists pass on their beliefs to their children. Actually they pass on their non beliefs. They don't believe in the easter bunny, nor Zeus, nor Allah, nor Ra, nor Yaweh, nor Jesus, nor Isis ...

So, what delusion are you talking about?

Which delusion are you talking about?

Which atheist political leader invaded another country because that country wasn't an atheist country?

Which atheist doesn't care about destroying the environment because they believe it will be magically fixed?

I'm lead to assume to mean that atheists pass on their beliefs to their children. Actually they pass on their non beliefs. They don't believe in the easter bunny, nor Zeus, nor Allah, nor Ra, nor Yaweh, nor Jesus, nor Isis ...

So, what delusion are you talking about?
I just cannot think of religion as a delusion. Delusions have nothing to do with faith or lack of it.

And the thing you call their non beliefs - that's THEIR FAITH. They believe themselves to be true.

And one of my friends who's father is a religious person, doesnt stops his son from exploring and following the athiest's line of thinking. So they tend to be pretty liberal. Truly religious folks do. The stress is on the word truly. And both of them have had discussions whenever the son is interested.

Why do they belittle somebody else's faith and expect someone else to respect their faith

I missed this on the first reading. I think your fundamental misunderstanding as that atheism is a faith just like Islam, Christianity etc. Atheists don't have a faith. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god. I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in unicorns.

But if you do believe that the moon is made of green cheese but can give no proof for it, then don't be surprised if you are ridiculed for that belief.

I missed this on the first reading. I think your fundamental misunderstanding as that atheism is a faith just like Islam, Christianity etc. Atheists don't have a faith. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god. I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in unicorns.

But if you do believe that the moon is made of green cheese but can give no proof for it, then don't be surprised if you are ridiculed for that belief.

Not exactly what you're thinking.

Well that was meant to be based on the fact that Science is based on some postulates.

And I think so is religion. You build theories based on those assumptions, you get credibility.

And the thing you call their non beliefs - that's THEIR FAITH. They believe themselves to be true.

A theist believes "there is a god".

An atheist does not believe "there is a god" because there is no proof or the proof doesn't hold to scrutiny.

This is not the same as believing "there is no god".

There is a big difference between believing "there is no X", and "I don't believe in X because there is no proof".
The first is a belief, the second is absence of a belief.

A theist believes "there is a god".

An atheist does not believe "there is a god" because there is no proof or the proof doesn't hold to scrutiny.

This is not the same as believing "there is no god".

There is a big difference between believing "there is no X", and "I don't believe in X because there is no proof".
The first is a belief, the second is absence of a belief.
What if he's beyond comprehension. What if the lack of proof is holding us back? What if he we are looking in the wrong direction for proof.

I sound naive coz I'm still beginning. I'm still learning, hopefullly with an open mind.

We're drifting off topic as the original question was "Why do athiests bash religious folks as much as they do?" but here goes.

Well that was meant to be based on the fact that Science is based on some postulates.

And I think so is religion. You build theories based on those assumptions, you get credibility.

I think you're case is "Both science and religion have postulates then build theories on those postulates so they are the same / similar".

A scientific postulate would be "there is a magic force that pulls objects downwards". If I hold and then let go of an apple I can verify this postulate. But what if I hold and let go of a bird? The bird goes up, so either there is a stronger magic force for birds or the postulate is wrong. Science is willing to drop postulates in the face of differing evidence.

A religious postulate would be "there is a god that answers prayers". I can verify this because yesterday I prayed that the sun would rise and it did. Now today I pray that the sun doesn't rise tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and the sun does rise am I allowed to question the postulate? No, because that is what religion is. A fixed set of beliefs that can't be changed regardless of evidence to the contrary.

What if he's beyond comprehension. What if the lack of proof is holding us back? What if he we are looking in the wrong direction for proof.

I believe that the moon is made of green cheese. I assume that you don't.

The reason you don't believe this is because you are beyond comprehension, or the lack of proof is holding you back, or you're just looking in the wrong direction for proof.

No, you don't believe what I say because I haven't given you a credible argument that is consistent with the knowledge you already have or what your senses tell you.

If you don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese it is up to me to convince you. I can't just turn it around and put the onus on you.

The burden of proof is on me.

I just cannot think of religion as a delusion. Delusions have nothing to do with faith or lack of it.

m-w.com/dictionary/delusion
A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

m-w.com/dictionary/faith
firm belief in something for which there is no proof

They sound pretty similar to me.

That vid changed nothing bro. I can blabber a lot and I probably will at some point of time. Given that there are narrow mindsets in religious peeps but same is the case with athiests, not all of them.

I probably would've written a post after getting back from school but a friend of mine has advised me to focus on some stuff that I have to take care of. So it will wait but it'll surely come.

I dont think there is a relation between intolerance and religion. Or for that matter, I dont think science and religion are and should be enemies.

It's really hard to know where to start... That video wasn't suppose to change anything. If you remember the very first thing you wrote on this thread was "Why do athiests bash religious folks as much as they do? Do they make fun for the sake of it? Why do they belittle somebody else's faith and expect someone else to respect their faith".

Now you just heard the reasons why from a best selling author. At the very least it should enlighten you to fact that there is an opposition to religious oppression based on logic and limits of what is knowable in terms of metaphysics. As it relates to intolerance/science and religion its important understand the holy books, dogma, and history of the major religions. The only way someone could say what you did is if they either have no understanding of this material or they don't believe random parts of it.

As of now, I do concede you have a point and I have something to think about. Thanks for that. I need to do my bit of work.

m-w.com/dictionary/delusion
A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

m-w.com/dictionary/faith
firm belief in something for which there is no proof

They sound pretty similar to me.

Well I dont think its either false or psychotic. Indisputable evidence to prove that god is a hoax? I havent seen anything like that.

Well I dont think its either false or psychotic.

Psychotic as in psychosis. That definition is using the word in the technical sense rather that the erroneous common usage.

Delusions have nothing to do with faith or lack of it

Delusion - believing in something that is demonstrably wrong.
Faith - believing in something for which there is no proof.

These seem very similar to me. I do not agree that "delusions have nothing to do with faith".

Indisputable evidence to prove that god is a hoax? I havent seen anything like that.

Wow, you're jumping all over the place. Who said anything about a hoax? How about you give me your fixed definition of god and let's continue with that.

Can you provide me links to help me understand the athiest's point of view better?

"There is one Reality,
The Unmanifest-Manifested
Ever-Existent, He is Naam (Conscious Spirit)
The Creator; pervading all
Without fear, without enmity;
The Timeless, the Unborn
And the Self-existent;
Complete within Itself.
Through the favor of His
True Servant, the Guru,
He may be realized.
He was when there was nothing;
He was before all ages began;
He existeth now, O Nanak,
And shall exist forevermore."

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Mool_Mantar

One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace

This is my definition of God.

Can you provide me links to help me understand the athiest's point of view better?

Do you don't believe in leprecorns then you're an aleprecornist. If you don't believe in fairies you a afairiest. If you don't believe in a god then you're an atheist. If you don't believe the moon is made of green cheese you're an agreencheesemoonist.

That's all there is to it. There's nothing more to understand about atheists. They just don't believe in a god, the same way you don't believe the moon is made of green cheese.

One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace

This is my definition of God.

Okay, so you believe that God is the Creator of the universe, this world and everything on it. God has always existed. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Q1. What is your reason for believing this? Do you have evidence for this or are you just repeating what someone has told you?

Q2. Is God still around today? Does he/she care about us as individuals?

Okay, so you believe that God is the Creator of the universe, this world and everything on it. God has always existed. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Q1. What is your reason for believing this? Do you have evidence for this or are you just repeating what someone has told you?

Q2. Is God still around today? Does he/she care about us as individuals?
No I dont have any proof for it. The definition is not mine. The reason : I dont know. Honestly. Probably what I feel. Here you might say that I'm suffering from delusions. I wish I could defend my self here but I cannot. But I know of one thing, Insanes and Genius' have one thing in common. They are both not understood by the society at large. One has a higher state of consciousness.

I am making a fool of myself. I need to get my facts right. Thanx for pointing it out to me.

But just coz I cannot defend myself, doesnt means it'd not be valid anymore.

I am making a fool of myself. I need to get my facts right. Thanx for pointing it out to me.

I'm not stating that you're a fool or suffering from delusions. I think you've got some beliefs that you've never really questioned or seriously thought about. We all have beliefs like that. I was brought up to hate mulsems. Then I lived next door to some and found out that they're nice and they love their kids just like we do. If this discussion causes you to question why you believe the things that you do, then I think that's a good thing, regardless of the outcome.

Can you provide me links to help me understand the athiest's point of view better?

Yes I can. But it would probably be more helpful for you to read at least sections the Bible, Torah, Talmud, Qur'an, and the Hadith first.

Yes I can. But it would probably be more helpful for you to read at least sections the Bible, Torah, Talmud, Qur'an, and the Hadith first.
k. thanx.

I'll keep posting questions as I get them.

As lancaster said "aetheism isnt a faith".
Aetheism is at least based on science and objective thought.
If its scientifically proven that the earth is millions of years old then how does the biblical concept of it being 10,000 approx years old stand up to believers?
Religion is delusion because of the fact that science can now prove its theories are invalid, and IMO to overlook such evidence could hardly be deemed rational.

As lancaster said "aetheism isnt a faith".
Aetheism is at least based on science and objective thought.
If its scientifically proven that the earth is millions of years old then how does the biblical concept of it being 10,000 approx years old stand up to believers?
Religion is delusion because of the fact that science can now prove its theories are invalid, and IMO to overlook such evidence could hardly be deemed rational.

I've heard them say that a day wasn't necessarily 24 hours in the beginning. Something like that.

I dunno, i just wanted to say something other than... :damn: jimmy smart!

I've heard them say that a day wasn't necessarily 24 hours in the beginning. Something like that.

I dunno, i just wanted to say something other than... :damn: jimmy smart!

Im not smart,I know nothing.I just enquire and speculate.

Im not smart,I know nothing.I just enquire and speculate.

thus spake socrates:sifone:

Proof God exists lies in the historical account in the Bible. In addition to the coded information in DNA, and in all living things. The fact that no scientist can recreate the origin of life or even understand how this happened in the first place. Among many other thngs. It's ignorant to think that you, who do nothing but listen to other babbling fools have all the answers and have it all figured out. I can close my eyes and say there are no cookies on the table and pretend I don't smell them. But everyone else around me with full use of all their faculties would think I'm an idiot.

Atheists are idiots. Nothing more, nothing less, they are utterly wrong and are very outspoken in trying to maintain that in being wrong they are right and that you cannot use that against them to judge them. Well I got news for you. You're wrong and you have absolutely no proof to show that you are right.

What a stupid arguement to have.

[Atheists] ... You're wrong and you have absolutely no proof to show that you are right.

You don't understand what an atheist is.

As an atheist I don't believe in any of:
* the easter bunny
* the tooth fairy
* Zeus
* The flying spagetti monster
* Ra
* Bible god

As a theist you only disbelieve in one imaginary deity less than me.

I have a few questions for the atheists.

Q1: Where did the original matter come from?

Q2: How did we get lucky enough to have the correct constants to sustain any form of known life in our universe?

I have a few questions for the atheists.

Q1: Where did the original matter come from?

Q2: How did we get lucky enough to have the correct constants to sustain any form of known life in our universe?

Q1 - I don't know.
Q2 - I don't know. Maybe go ask a physicist?

Now a question for Theists. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Q1 - I don't know.
Q2 - I don't know. Maybe go ask a physicist?

Now a question for Theists. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Exactly, you don't know and neither does anyone else. Infact a proposed answer to how we got so lucky to have the correct constants in our universe is the idea of a multiverse, but there is no emprircal evidence for that either. All this leads to an easy conclusion that atheism is just as faith based as theism.

I have a few questions for the atheists.

Q1: Where did the original matter come from?

Q2: How did we get lucky enough to have the correct constants to sustain any form of known life in our universe?

What makes more sense?


Q1
answer A: Nowhere
answer B: Somewhere

Q2
answer A: No reason
answer B: There's a reason

obviously A makes sense in both the questions

Exactly, you don't know and neither does anyone else. ... All this leads to an easy conclusion that atheism is just as faith based as theism.

No atheism isn't faith based because it's not about belief, but rather lack of belief.

Q - Some question that no one knows the answer to

A (Atheist) - I don't know
A (Theist) - My invisible sky god did it.

Yes Atheism is infact a believe system and a worldview based solely upon faith. In order to completely affirm that there is no God, you must be God. Meaning you must have full knowledge of all in order to know that no God exists.

PWNED! End of discussion

No atheism isn't faith based because it's not about belief, but rather lack of belief.

Q - Some question that no one knows the answer to

A (Atheist) - I don't know
A (Theist) - My invisible sky god did it.

If you claim God didn't do it yet have no evidence for how it happened otherwise that would be a faith based statement. But if you don't know and you're not claiming God didn't do it just that there is no evidence for it then you are an agnostic.

Atheism = the belief that there is no God. This IMO is just as faith based as saying there is a God.

Agnosticism = There could be a God there could not be a God I don't know because the evidence doesn't suggest one over another.

Yes Atheism is infact a believe system and a worldview based solely upon faith. In order to completely affirm that there is no God, you must be God. Meaning you must have full knowledge of all in order to know that no God exists.

PWNED! End of discussion

Majority of Atheists don't actually believe there is no God. They just believe the evidence suggest an alterntive to God.

What makes more sense?


Q1
answer A: Nowhere
answer B: Somewhere

Q2
answer A: No reason
answer B: There's a reason
For Q1
Well you basically have to believe in one of two things an eternal being or eternal matter. There is no real evidence to suggest one over another. Hell, we've never even experienced either to know they exist, but they seem like the only logical conclusions at this point.

For Q2
The Multiverse is a good explanation for how it could happen randomly. When you have infinite possibilities you're bound to wind up with a correct universe at some point.

If you claim God didn't do it yet have no evidence for how it happened otherwise that would be a faith based statement. But if you don't know and you're not claiming God didn't do it just that there is no evidence for it then you are an agnostic.

+1 A good distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

By your definition then yes, I am a agnostic towards the concept of God. I'm also agnostic toward the easter bunny.

I'm 99.99999% sure that the easter bunny doesn't exist, but I'm not completely certain. This technically makes me agnostic towards the easter bunny, but practically I say "There is no such thing as the easter bunny", as saying "I am 99.99999% sure there is no such thing as the easter bunny" is retarded.

Similarly, I'm 99.99999% sure than no God exists. So technically I'm agnostic, but in everyday use I just save words and say that I'm Atheist.

+1 A good distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

By your definition then yes, I am a agnostic towards the concept of God. I'm also agnostic toward the easter bunny.

I'm 99.99999% sure that the easter bunny doesn't exist, but I'm not completely certain. This technically makes me agnostic towards the easter bunny, but practically I say "There is no such thing as the easter bunny", as saying "I am 99.99999% sure there is no such thing as the easter bunny" is retarded.

Similarly, I'm 99.99999% sure than no God exists. So technically I'm agnostic, but in everyday use I just save words and say that I'm Atheist.

Like I showed in my previous posts the alternative to God is just as faith based. The Easter Bunny is inconsequential whereas the origins of everything is very relevant. Basically there is no more evidence supporting an alternative to God then there is for God, therefor 50/50 Agnosticism would be the only logical way to look at it without taking a leap of faith.

Like I showed in my previous posts the alternative to God is just as faith based. The Easter Bunny is inconsequential whereas the origins of everything is very relevant. Basically there is no more evidence supporting an alternative to God then there is for God, therefor 50/50 Agnosticism would be the only logical way to look at it without taking a leap of faith.

Theism is 100/0. Atheism is 0/100.

Agnosticism ranges from 99.99999/0.00001 through to 0.00001/99.99999

50/50 Is a good place to start on the God debate. Each bit of gathered evidence moves the percentages to either the Theism or Atheism end of the scale.

The bible promises that God answers prayers. None of my prayers have been answered so that moves the percentage towards the Atheism side. The bible (a supposedly infallible book) contains historical errors. More evidence for the Atheism side. No other historical evidence colloborates the Jesus miracles - shift more towards the Atheism side. And so on.

After examining a bunch of evidence, the percentages are adjusted and my conclusion is that it is 99.99999% likely that God doesn't exist.

Of course it is possible that I just haven't been exposed enough evidence that goes the other way. But until then, it is only logical for me to say that God doesn't exist.

I'm 100% sure there is a living God. How can this be possible with no physical proof? Its possible because God has blessed me with faith from above that can not be denied. My faith in Jesus in itself is proof there is God.

The bible promises that God answers prayers. None of my prayers have been answered so that moves the percentage towards the Atheism side. The bible (a supposedly infallible book) contains historical errors. More evidence for the Atheism side. No other historical evidence colloborates the Jesus miracles - shift more towards the Atheism side. And so on.

Where does it promise prayers will be answered? Where are the historical errors?

Also some people don't even believe the bible to be literal. For instance some don't believe the earth was made in six literal days and instead took place over a long time period in which evolution occurred.

And if there is no evidence for the Jesus miracles then it will be on par with things like the mulitverse which are need to explain our existence without a deity.

We've been over this in another thread. But since you asked, here's one place. There are many more. John 14:13-14



Well you could just google something like "bible historical errors", but here's an example. The bible story about Herod killing all the babies never happened. Remember that Jesus is reputed to be born after the Census of Quirinius (6AD). But Herod died 10 years earlier in 4BC. Oops.



The only logically sustainable position is to believe the bible to be literal.



This seems like an oranges to apples comparison but okay, assume they cancel each other out. There's still more evidence on the Atheist side of the scale than the Theist.
Prayers are answered by God in His season. It's best to pray let your will be done in my life. Not... I pray for world peace, because the Bible clearly states that isn't going to happen. Or pray for $1 mil. because God will not give you something like this because it isn't His purpose in your life. See, when you pray for things like, please Lord I come to you right now, help me to save my marriage so that I may be a better husband, or pray that my parents do not divorce, or pray that my car makes it to this life changing interview, or pray that I can adequately minister and teach to these people in Ninjashoes, or the like... You see the difference.

Also, Herod... Just as you did a search or have reference in your favorites to things like the Skepticsannotatedbible, there are alternate references to PROVE or SHOW how that crap you use has been CONSISTENTLY refuted TIME and TIME again. It's monotonous that every newly converted atheist (some young kid, that wants to spite their parents by not being a Christian) comes up with the same tired old lame arguements, which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with why they became and Atheist in the first place. You are boring me now Lamecaster. Time to get on with your life already, time heals all wounds, so make up with your parents and be a good son again.

I'm 100% sure there is a living God. How can this be possible with no physical proof? Its possible because God has blessed me with faith from above that can not be denied. My faith in Jesus in itself is proof there is God.

This works great for you, but it doesn't settle things for me. You tell me that Jesus exists 100%. An ancient Greek would tell me that Zeus exists 100% A Hindu would tell me that Ganesh the elephant god exists 100% And so on with the believers of the 1000s of other gods.

Do you see the problem? Who do I agree with?

Where does it promise prayers will be answered?

We've been over this in another thread. But since you asked, here's one place. There are many more. John 14:13-14

Where are the historical errors?

Well you could just google something like "bible historical errors", but here's an example. The bible story about Herod killing all the babies never happened. Remember that Jesus is reputed to be born after the Census of Quirinius (6AD). But Herod died 10 years earlier in 4BC. Oops.

Also some people don't even believe the bible to be literal.

The only logically sustainable position is to believe the bible to be literal.

And if there is no evidence for the Jesus miracles then it will be on par with things like the mulitverse which are need to explain our existence without a deity.

This seems like an oranges to apples comparison but okay, assume they cancel each other out. There's still more evidence on the Atheist side of the scale than the Theist.

This seems like an oranges to apples comparison but okay, assume they cancel each other out. There's still more evidence on the Atheist side of the scale than the Theist.

Could you present some of the evidence?

Why do athiests bash religious folks as much as they do? Do they make fun for the sake of it? Why do they belittle somebody else's faith and expect someone else to respect their faith

I might be wrong as you might PROVE to me, but isnt science based on some postulates.

I read some quotes from this book Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance purely since I cannot read the book right now for the time constraints I have. I might have quoted them out of context.

"For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses"
I havent read much quantum mechanics. Just the usual stuff that everyone reads in high school and I've probably forgotten most of it. But there are numerous hypothesis' and postulates on which laws are build on. For the record I am not against science and am fascinated by physics. Was really good at it in the school.

But I do think that religion is misunderstood. It has been for the lack of understanding and insensitivity of thought of the religious leaders.

Isnt it an overgeneralisation to say that every priest is a pedo and isnt the bashing Jesus become a fashion these days. You need to say certain things to be a part of the in crowd. Needless to say that these people must be minority and are a blot on the people who really consider themselves ATHIESTS. After all, they are all for science and have enough proof to base their theories than bash the religions. I dont really understand religion and I do have a HUNCH that its misunderstood and misrepresented. tHE question is, do you understand it fully?

Another quote I read from the above said book.

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. (No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They *know* it's going to rise tomorrow.) When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds
of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

I do believe that there is God. I wouldnt really profess it fanatically till the idea seems to be intuitive. The question is are you SURE that there's no god. If you are, is there any chance that you mightve jumped to conclusions. Probability is that if you have the yes as answer to the former question, I think the answer to the second one would also be in affirmation.

I was into christianity for a time when i was younger so i can at least know of the inner happiness and joy that faith can bring because ive felt it.
Some people can still remain objective towards what they believe despite knowing that this objective analysis of what they hold dear can interrupt the comfort zone they r in.
Many cant do this,for others its easier to overlook or explain away anything contrary to what they want to be true and thus preserve their comfort zone.
Rational analysis,commonsense and even facts can then be disreguarded without a 2nd thought when that security and feelgood comfort is challenged.
Its where faith kicks in....but what is faith?To me its placing ur trust and belief in something u,or anyone for that matter, dont know fully about..Faith can be good and bad, not unlike a double edged sword.It can be exploited and peversed and it can bring strength and compassion in times of great need.

I am an atheist based on what ive learnt and experienced for myself.Technically im an agnostic because i cant say with certainty that there is or is not a God.

For me I dont hate christians or any particular belief system,what i do dislike is assholes and ignorant people who spout off and push their beliefs on others when its apparant they dont know what they're talking about themselves.
Its a strange irony that certain people can be so adamant and fanatical about something that they themselves dont even fully understand.
I dislike asshole aitheists too.Its all about the person inside and how they carry themselves reguarding their beliefs
IMO Our religous beliefs or lack of are merely window dressing as to who we really are.I never judge anyone from a religous viewpoint or based on religion.
That would stupid and narrow minded.

This works great for you, but it doesn't settle things for me. You tell me that Jesus exists 100%. An ancient Greek would tell me that Zeus exists 100% A Hindu would tell me that Ganesh the elephant god exists 100% And so on with the believers of the 1000s of other gods.

Do you see the problem? Who do I agree with?

You have to learn the truth for yourself. God is your closest relative and its part of nature for you to follow his word, whether you realize it or not God is pulling you in his direction. If you open your mind and follow your heart its only a matter of time untill your 100% sure. The first step is to realize you are nothing, life is not about you. You can only have faith in God and Jesus through the gift of faith. If you humble yourself to the point that you can recieve this blessing called faith, only then will you have no doubts.

Could you present some of the evidence?

What's wrong with the historical errors and failed promise of prayer?

What's wrong with the historical errors and failed promise of prayer?

Well like I said some people don't take it literal some take some parts literal and not other parts. Hence why there are so many different belief, some are very different from other so who knows how the bible should really be interpreted.

Btw the passage you referenced appears to be Jesus talking to a particular person saying he will do anything for them if he(Philip) believes in him.

I think instead of debating the flaws of Christianity we should stay on topic with the flaws of atheism (afterall dispelling one deity does not dispell all deities). There is no more evidence supporting an alternative to an intelligent designer than there is for the designer itself. Without anymore evidence to support on side or the other the logical stance is 50/50 agnosticism. So please present your evidence against an intelligent designer or rather in favor of creation without a designer.

“I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” (Mark 11:23-24)To begin, let’s picture ourselves on the road from Jerusalem to Bethany with Jesus and his disciples. This road takes us through the Mount of Olives with the ridge sitting about 2500 feet about sea level. Looking east, we can see the Dead Sea about ten miles away at an amazing 1600 feet below sea level. Jesus uses this view to show the disciples what it means to have faith in God. These verses we read are challenging at first, because we can easily jump to the wrong conclusions. For instance, we can say, if only I had strong enough faith, than I can not only move mountains, but perhaps receive a new car, a new job, better health or even better relationships. And If I am not receiving these blessings, than maybe I just don’t have strong enough faith. Then, when we come across verses about the necessity of bearing good fruit, we can make the mistake of misdirecting our focus. I don’t believe the strength of our faith is what Jesus is saying here. What we receive and ask for is not dependent on the strength of our faith. It solely depends on the object of our faith. For instance, we could say that we have faith in a certain chair. We strongly believe and have the utmost confidence that if one of us sat down in this chair, it will hold us. However, what if the chair is broken without us knowing about it? You go over and confidently sit down, but collapse with the chair to the ground. What happened? Was our faith in the chair strong enough to hold you? No, it all depended on the object of our faith—which was the broken chair. It was the chair that let us down. For Christians, what is the object of our faith? Faith always has an object and the object of our faith is in God and His promises. What God is telling us in these verses is that there is an incredible power in that object, which does not come from ourselves. It is this same miraculous power the disciples were connected to through faith. We pray with a heart that believes God can do anything he promises.

What does prayer look like that bears good fruit of faith? Jesus provides us an example. Not only do we see him praying regularly throughout Scripture, but we receive a specific example of fruit-filled prayer when Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane. We see him pray, “Not my will, Lord, but your will be done.” We don’t see him praying on behalf of his self-interest, but we see him submitting to the wisdom and to the will of his heavenly father. If it is God’s will to have a mountain thrown into the sea, He certainly has the power to answer our prayer. If I pray for the miraculous healing of a loved one, I pray with confidence for them to be healed if it is according to God’s will. The object of our prayer is God and His power to heal. His plan, His will and His ways are always the best and that is where we place our faith in. Probably the greatest example of power God has done which is more amazing than moving mountains is the fact that God has removed all our sins and thrown them into the sea. God uses this picture in Micah 7:19 by stating, “You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.” Again, it’s faith we have in the object, which is God, that trusts in his promises that our sins are removed, that Jesus has done the work for us and we can come to him in prayer with a full confidence in God’s power to do whatever he wills to do. Our faith is what Jesus expects to see — the realization that we cannot come to God based on our own righteousness, but on the righteousness of God. And, this fruit of faith reveals itself when we pray with a full trust, “Thy will be done, Lord, on earth as it is in heaven.”


Yes I copied this.

50/50 agnosticism

Before we go further, what are the two ends of your scale?

Yes I copied this.

Questioner: "Explain this troubling bible verse at Matthew 12345"

Apologist: "That's easy to answer. blah blah blah blah turtles blah blah blah Luke blah blah blah Sadam Hussein blah blah blah goldfish blah blah blah Jesus blah blah blah anxiety blah blah blah apricots blah blah blah random bible verses blah blah blah. See, I've easily answered your question."

Questioner: "Huh? Well I guess I'll just go back to watching porn".

Whay are you trying to say? Were you not confused to why Jesus sais all your prayers would be answered? Its very simple, all your prayers will be answered because you submit your will to God and whatever Gods will is becomes your will. Does that make sense because I would be happy to go morte in debth if your still confused.

Before we go further, what are the two ends of your scale?

Do you mean like A believer of a creator vs a believer that a creator was not present? Those would be the extremes. Really I kind of see it as an all or nothing thing if you say one has more evidence then you're adopting that one as your belief hence the term atheist or christian. So in my view and this is in no way accepted by the masses an atheist is one who believes more so that there was no creator A christian believes there was a creator and an agnostic believes that there is not enough evidence either way to determine an answer. If you've read the God delusion that's where I picked up the 50/50 agnostic term and we could use that scale as a reference.

Here's an interesting video about the author of God delusion. I hope this helps.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1xP5ienoieU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1xP5ienoieU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Here's an interesting video about the author of God delusion. I hope this helps.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1xP5ienoieU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1xP5ienoieU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Why was that guy filming in the middle of the woods?

On a more serious note Intelligent Design is stupid and should not be taught in schools. I also believe that origins in general should not be taught. Evolution should because it has evidence supporting it, but I don't think it should be taught as the origin of man more so as a process that can occur.

Also Dawkins never said there wasn't a God. He said he believes there isn't. Which I disagree with as I don't feel the evidence supports his conclusion, but the difference between people like Dawkins and people involved with ID is that people like Dawkins are constantly looking for more evidence and breaking things down; whereas ID makes people say "that's complicated I bet it was created by a superior being." That simplistic thought process brings nothing to the table and basically eliminates the scientific process.

But really I don't blame them I mean it seems pretty hard maybe even impossible to find evidence for a metaphysical being. Assuming the intelligent designer is the Abrahamic God and does want to be known by the people why doesn't he show himself and end the debate. He could save alot of souls that way, oh well this is getting too theological now.

Assuming the intelligent designer is the Abrahamic God and does want to be known by the people why doesn't he show himself and end the debate. He could save alot of souls that way, oh well this is getting too theological now.

If God made himself obvious to everyone we would have no choice but to accept his power as the truth. God wants us to be able to chose to follow him by our own free will.

If God made himself obvious to everyone we would have no choice but to accept his power as the truth. God wants us to be able to chose to follow him by our own free will.

Well sometimes a responsible parent has to step up and do what's in their child's best interest and not just let the cards fall where they may. That's just my belief though.

Well sometimes a responsible parent has to step up and do what's in their child's best interest and not just let the cards fall where they may. That's just my belief though.

Sin leads to failure, we must learn from our mistakes. Gods plan is perfect.

Do you mean like A believer of a creator vs a believer that a creator was not present? Those would be the extremes.

I think we're discussing different concepts. You're talking about creator vs no creator, while I'm talking about personal deity vs no personal deity.

Your scale is Deist <---> Adeist

My scale is Theist <---> Atheist

Did a creator god make the universe and then bugger off? Who knows? 50/50 agnosticism seems as good as any answer.

Is there a personal god who answers our prayers and interferes with our lives (and who also happened to create the universe)? Most likely not.

Sin leads to failure, we must learn from our mistakes. Gods plan is perfect.

If you say so.

I think we're discussing different concepts. You're talking about creator vs no creator, while I'm talking about personal deity vs no personal deity.

Your scale is Deist <---> Adeist

My scale is Theist <---> Atheist

Did a creator god make the universe and then bugger off? Who knows? 50/50 agnosticism seems as good as any answer.

Is there a personal god who answers our prayers and interferes with our lives (and who also happened to create the universe)? Most likely not.

So you agree creator vs no creator is logically held at 50/50 agnosticism?

I would disagree on the personal God just because like I said there are so amny different interpretations that it would be hard to disprove them all(or even provide evidence against all). I mean the God the Bible describes is tricky to comprehension in some ways like his time frame. He is outside space and time he is also all knowing therefor his mind has always been made up and has never changed I find it strandge when people talk about the old testament and compare the good of then to the God of the new testament when it's the same God and he hasn't changed a bit just presented himself differently.

So you agree creator vs no creator is logically held at 50/50 agnosticism?

Yes, I agree with you on this. That question is unanswerable.

I would disagree on the personal God just because like I said there are so amny different interpretations that it would be hard to disprove them all(or even provide evidence against all).

I agree that you can't prove or disprove the existence of a personal god. But you can look at the available evidence and determine if the existence is likely or not.

Yes, I agree with you on this. That question is unanswerable.

If scientists find evidence for a multiverse then the evidence would suggest atheism over theism IMO. But as of right now they are deadlocked. What do you mean by unaswerable? It can be answered as well as any other question through the gathering of evidence.


I agree that you can't prove or disprove the existence of a personal god. But you can look at the available evidence and determine if the existence is likely or not.

So then your evidence is more on a philisophical level than an empirical one? There are many things that don't make sense in the Bible and tend to contradict out of rationale moreso than empirical qualities.

If scientists find evidence for a multiverse then the evidence would suggest atheism over theism IMO.

Not really. If there is a multiverse, then a creator god could have created it.

What do you mean by unaswerable? It can be answered as well as any other question through the gathering of evidence.

It can be either easy, hard or impossible to answer a particular question.

Easy is what color eyes does Paris Hilton have. Just look a picture.

Hard is what color underwear is she wearing today. It's hard because you have to find her and convince you to show you her underwear.

Impossible is what is the exact temperature inside her vagina. By trying to measure by sticking a thermometer inside you change the temperature as heat is imparted to/from the thermometer.

Did a creator god create the universe is impossible to answer because we can't go back in time to observe the universe's creation.

So then your evidence is more on a philisophical level than an empirical one?

Mainly philosophical, but some is empirical. In the case of historical / geographical errors in the bible, that evidence is empirical.

i like apples

Not really. If there is a multiverse, then a creator god could have created it.

So in your opinion there will never be any evidence to sway the scale one way or the other and it will be left in the middle forever?