Disprove any, and you can disprove all. . .but you can't, huh???

Truth be told atheists (of the God does not exist variety) have diddly squat proof of anything. They simply believe the other side should go first - which is absurd given that the religious profess a faith (i.e. unscientific) and yet atheists profess scientific fact - i.e the burden of proof lies with atheists to back up their assertions or look like the fools they are believing in myths and makey-uppy facts.

 

Not true rockyg, attheist don't profess scientific facts, they only say that before believing anything, one should look at the evidence. And in the case of religion, the only "evidence" is their books, which is hardly any evidence at all. So waiting for anything which can be useful to start believing in whatever religion, well, god doesn't exist.

That's simple, and that's the reason why children are being taught religion, because they are mentally defenseless and their only need for evidence is that an authority figure such as parents or adults tells them it is so.

 

That's right! Scientists should also be backing up their assertions that gobblins & orcs don't exist either!

You tell'em!

 

I am not being personal about you. Lower level of intelligence and knowledge is prerequisite for believing in religion and this is true about any religious person including you.
look at Nehemiah going on about the BOOK, if he was educated and looked at other books in the library, he would have noticed that there are many many books which are much better but the authors never claimed to be God.

 

You chit the nail on the head. That's all Julian is. A Troll. He gives you Canadians a really bad name.

 

~ The atheist haven't to disprove anything but might attempt to write their own beliefs, reasons for lifes existence, in script form for a comparison / improvement over the teachings of the Christian bible and or all other (religious) writings for the simple reason to understand the ridiculousness of their argument to compare religion with scientific methodology that has no practical application what so ever. Religion and science are two different and distinct fields of study - that may or may not have overlapping concerns.

~ There is no evidence the Garden of Eden exists, scientifically of a physical form, is not a concern but that such a goal of its attainment is still possible by those whose experiences can construct its path that with the correct combination and energy is attainable as a state of mind if nothing else that will continue to exist after death. Gods presence for those choosing the Deity's existance is the assurance of its worthiness and is the physical proof of its existance with limitless options - No one is forced to believe in God.

 

Unfortunately many people are forced to pretend to believe in god for fear of family/social/state punishment.

 

There's a lot of truth to this. Usually when you catch parents in with the religion the kids are forced to follow. Of course this works the same way with everything. A mean jerk father will have jerk kids.

 

I specifically said atheists of the 'god does not exist' variety - i.e. those professing a fact. Atheists of the 'I don't believe' variety are perfectly fine - they profess a belief in no-god/no evidence of god/no sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion rather than stating fact - just like a religious person stating a belief that God does exist.

Seems to me that anybody professing scientific fact should have the burden of proof rather than stamping their foot like a child and insisting the other side go first. Which is about the sum total of the atheist argument. The only other arguments that atheism pulls together is an insulting and abusive demeaning of people's beliefs, when they can not produce one shred of evidence for their own. No wonder they still only account for 2% of the population.

 

Most believers of all kinds were forced to believe in god, the kind of god of the specific family. Very few people who grow up in a proud atheist house turn religious.
In this sense religion functions like cancer: once it catches a healthy cell, when the cell multiplies -> the next cells are cancerous as well.


You think that they had a chance to think for themselves?
To learn anything which is related to real knowledge?
I dont think so
You know how devastating mentally it will be for them to leave religion, even if they start somehow to be able to think? a family ban a social ban. fighting with a lot of childhood fears. This is so hard - very little people take this step and those who do are usually incredibly smart.

Some terminology:
"Atheist" = 'god does not exist'
"Agnostic" = 'I don't believe'

 

It is irritating, when you phrase it that way. As an agnostic, I have no issue with religion being presented to my children as a choice. If anything, the very consideration of religion and it's meaning should help their analytical thinking skills when they weigh that information with the other alternatives that I will insist they are presented with. When you consider that many(most?) children of the religious are not encouraged to make a careful consideration of all the facts, and in many cases, sheltered from most of those facts, it does seem as handicapping as you describe it. Perhaps on the bright side, they inherit a prefabricated tightly knit social circle they might not otherwise have as an Atheist/Agnostic.

 

Young children will believe whatever adults tell them. I don't know much about child psychology, but don't they begin to reason at 7 years old? Even if a child is older than that, they might take as fact, whatever a trusted adult tells them. It's not as bad if they tell them inconsequential stories, but what about the whole punishment theme so prevalent in religion?

I suppose the determining factor would be: what is presented, how it's presented, who's presenting it, and at what age.

 

~ Most are forced to read books written by people no different than themselves that never reach an end that justifies their declaration of Divine origin. Observing the Garden, the Stars and Planets we live in for the answers, allowing for science etc. when desired, at least is the root of the subject and will lead to real and verifiable truths being sought and in the end reach what already exist just not found including as well the existence of God if properly conducted as is the actual desire of the Divinity to begin with....Finding God as our Garden is proof of his existence is the cause of the Edenist congregation.

 

You can't force people to 'believe'. You can force them to conform. You can force them to pretend, but you cannot force anyone to 'believe' something they do not. Speaking of which, you'd think that when they grow to be adults they'd wake up and realise that religion is a whole load of hotchpotch. But they don't. They do think atheism is a load of rubbish bred by people with missing cells. In the brain area.

As opposed to atheist cells which ..., well, just kinda sit there. Dumb like. And just continue sitting there. Still dumb. Good to see your taking the default atheist position of just insulting religion and believers. After thousands of years atheism still hasn't got an argument worthy of any scientific merit. Which is why you insult religion I guess. Great cover up, but unfortunately, 98% of people see through just a paper thin tactic.

Yes, people think for themselves the minute they are born. What are you, nuts? Perhaps what you mean is that you want to instill atheism into people and instill your own particular brand of beliefs into people? Atheism is no better or worse than religion, it's just another belief system.

Sheesh, a bit of a drama queen are you? Plenty people change religion. Plenty people switch to atheism. Plenty people switch from atheism to religion.

perhaps you need to lie down for a bit? Or even better learn how to join dots, or take up scabble. You've obviously been force fed atheism and never really thought for yourself. It's obviously too much to comprehend people change their beliefs every day of the week as they deduce/conclude/analyse religion/atheism within their own experiences?

Yes, because we're back to insulting religious people again. Atheists are the really really smart guys, aren't they?. You have that pompous, self important attitude that the overwhelming majority of the population has decided can go stuff itself. Without a sound basis of argument to put forth, the majority of people have decided atheists are all talk no action. Or all tantrums and no proof.

Some terminology:
Scientific fact: indisputable logic or evidence.
Atheism: A position based on personal belief.

 

In your dreams, yes everyday!

 

Ach, come now buddy, there is no scientific proof of dreams ergo they do not exist.

I thought atheists refused to believe in something without proof?!

 

Nope, They believe that God does not exist and there isn't proof of that.

 

Do you have any proof that GHYX148YT doesn't exist? Therefore GHYX148YT exists and it is much stronger than your God and can kick your God's ass any day.

 

Being an atteist means that you either didn't grow up in a religious family or that if you did, you then got out of it by your own critical thinking, in both cases there's no way an attheist would ever go back to this non-sense, or maybe in an episode of depression or other mental illness.

 

~ Considering no society since time in memorial has ever been strictly atheistic, religion would be more the norm than atheism. The dilemma is what is being sought and how to find it for most than the denial and defeatist mentality of atheist.

~ Do fully agree religion in many instances has been parasitic (Christian bible) but is the goal of some to find the truth than fallacies that surly exist than deny their existence and simply succumb to death.