Atheism is the new religion

oh...let's just throw another label on me shall we? I am not a creationist. Creationists believe the earth was built in 6 literal days.

In regards to cell theory and all those other theories, what makes you say I would refute these theories? That's an assumption on your part. However, it depends on what "angle" the theory is being explained. For one to have a theory, one must have a conclusion. Hence, where we differ.

 

No, It's a conclusion based on deductive logic. You have a problem with evolutionary theory because, in your words, "Theory is just theory. Not proof", Ignoring the FACT that a theory can never be proof because it isn't a rung on the ladder of certainty. A "theory" is an explanation of facts. A theory NEVER becomes a proof. it can't because that isn't what it does.

So given that you disbelieve in evolution on the grounds that it is "just theory" you should also disbelieve in cells, tides, knots, gravity and germs because each can be succeeded with the word "theory" when the facts are being put into an explanation. Or are those areas of science safe because they don't contradict your magical book?

You continuously rest on this intentional misrepresentation and deliberate misunderstanding of what a theory is. How many times do i have to explain it to you before you feel your intellectual dishonesty becomes so obvious that you are no longer able to continue with this fraudulent charade?

No, one doesn't. To have a theory one must have a set of data and facts. From this set of data and facts an explanation of their relationship is formulated.

 

KILL ME.

 

fraud?? wow..any more labels you wanna throw?? You can have the last word. There's no point in even speaking to you anymore because you simply can not allow anyone else to have a different view to your view.

Here's something I read recently and made me think of you:

An atheist lecturer in a Russian prison camp was giving lectures about atheism to a group of believers in God, in the hope that the believers would be convinced God did not exist. Here's the conversation:

Woman from the audience: "What would you call a person who stands in a field and yells, "I'll kill you!" when there's no one around?"

Lecturer: "Well you could hardly call him smart"

Woman from the audience: "If God does not exist, why fight against him? If he doesn't exist, then there is no one to fight with."

 

Is this another one of these made up "quotes" that always seem to involve an idiot and a science person with the idiot seemingly getting the upper hand?

The lecturer would have replied "Nobody is fighting god, Atheists just disbelieve he exists.. What atheists fight is religion, something which is very real and very much has the capacity to harm us, our children and our civilisation."

 

While Christians are in church, Atheists stand in fields?

 

It's an illustration to make a point.

 

Oh really....

 

God is very real.

Realer than the real deal Holyfield.

 

Amen Webwork

 

The world of theism: Where arguments, critical thinking and logic are replaced with statements that two or more people can agree on.

 

I as going to make a witty comment about atheists, then I remembered all my atheist friends and how open minded they are and how quickly they will admit they don't believe in the forms of deity they have been presented, and how they do not KNOW there is no such thing they just don't believe. You on the other hand are a whole other breed, something akin to an antitheist perhaps, or maybe a militant atheist?

 

I haven't claimed to know that there isn't a god, I only claim that the arguments for the existence of god are fatuous, infantile, wishful thinking and illogical. Sorry for pointing that out and disrupting the mutual agree-a-thon that was inevitably going to occur between the theists.

 

Nah my fault for assuming you did claim the nonexistence of God. I posted this before, my little "theory" of God, I'll post it again and you can pick it apart if you like. I will go ahead and point out that it is not evidence at all, just a less than infantile argument for the possibility.

If you define God as I do, as everything manifest and unmanifest and also something that is omniscient, then to prove God's existence is as easy as proving that everything shares a collective conscious. Jung seemed to think it likely, but of course proving it is, so far beyond the realm of human possibility.

First we would have to be able to define and quantify the totally of reality. Then we would have to see if all things in that reality where conscious. And finally we would have to discover if all those things shared some part of that consciousness.

If all things created and all things yet to be created, including thoughts, feelings, ideas, and emotions constitute the totality of all reality, including inner reality such as the subconscious, then it is not a very far step to believe that some part of that reality is shared across space/time with everything. That is to say that reality has some consciousness of itself that is shared with everything reality contains. Even if that sharing is as simple as the fact that everything has a consciousness.

The question is "If I am conscious of my existence, is existence conscious of itself and if so then does that make it conscious of all selves." The question is too big to even put odds on. You can't even say it's 50/50 whether or not there is a conscious all knowing power to the universe, because even the term universe is a placeholder word for all things, which of course we do not know of "all things".

So there is your logical argument for the possibility of a God. It is as possible that reality knows itself as it is that you do. Of course this is all philosophy.

 

As far as arguments for the possibility of god go it's a pretty good one. It seems to be a kind of buddhist/deist approach to god, Something which i don't really have much of a problem with. I don't think it's right, but i don't have a problem with it.

I have a lot of time for philosophical arguments for the existence of a deist god, But very little time for the theist approach that god DOES exist, He DOES listen to prayers and he DOES want them to hate particular groups of people. And nothing is going to change thier mind.

 

Using a term like "him" to describe a potential god implies that the god has a personality & thought processes (and male genitalia). What could possibly lead to such a hypothesis?

 

The Bible portrays him as a father figure. Hence, why "HIM" is used. It's just a way we can relate to God.

 

I actually relate more to God as a mother figure, one with really large breasts who smells like flowers, but when I said that in church they called me a heretic.

 

Religion hates women.

 

9/10 of the world are religious.

There are 1 Billion Catholic (Christians) And 700 Million Protestants (So called Christians) And about 1 Billion Muslims, and other significant religions such as Buddhist, Jewish etc.