AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668 1487887
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,668 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

To the Athiests, what gives YOU the right to tell people what they should or shouldn't believe?


I never have. Mostly I just point out the contradictions people say, or argue the validity of certain scientific theories (I always low how something is "just a theory" when they don't agree, but every other "theory" is perfectly fine.)

Oh, Kasic, Mage, and HahiHa, you're really really doing bad impressions of Friedrich Nietzche.


Who?

And, seriously stop arguing.


That's sort of what this whole sub section of a forum is for, debating. On a side note, this is what I feel like "debating" with most Christians.

Monty Python Argument Clinic

Isn't that what 95% of all Christians do?


No, most either leave the debate when they can't find an answer, skip the point, or just say, "nothing you ever say will change my belief in God." and then proceed to call Atheists close-minded and tell them that they should believe in God.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Who?


Nietzche. Guy whom most people only know for saying ''God is Dead'', whilst not bothering to read up much more.

And, seriously stop arguing.


Don't come here then. We want to debate. Hence we will. We're not forcing you.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Seriously, it's a good thing for people to have something to hold onto when they're having bad times, it's hope, y'know?


It also makes people disillusioned when they realise after a while that that supernatural being who supposedly will help them doesn't. I'm not going to point out much except for the fact that the number of people believing in atheism is rising; and that comes with more and more widespread education and the diffusion of knowledge. We have much more to hold onto now other than ''God''.
AfterBurner0
offline
AfterBurner0
896 posts
Nomad

Do you know what cousins are? You come from your parents. Your parent's siblings give birth to your cousins. You don't come from your cousins, but if you did that would explain a lot...


I am aware of the literal definition of "cousin"

They aren't just random conclusions. They are well supported and tested conclusions.


Doesn't that mean that you are finding supporting facts for your conclusions? If yes, that means your science is the same as religion.

In other words no one is making this claim.


You just called Richard Dawkins a "no one"

The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field


You need an object to create gravity.

Yet your certainty is being placed in falsehood.

We can say it's 99.9999...% accurate, which is far better then anything religion offers.


Your certainty is placed in falsehood as well. There is no 99.9999...% in this business. It's either fact or fiction. If 0.0001% is fiction, that means the whole theory is fiction.

Religious claim which was dogmatically held onto.


This wasn't a religious claim...

Science doesn't require faith.


Says the one who believes we evolved from bananas.

Seriously? Why would God have a reason to do this?


So we can study the limitlessness of His power to create.

You're making a statement which you cannot possibly back up, based on nothing.


Based on the Bible...

100000 different people can read the bible, and interpret it 100000 different ways. In fact, I have never, ever, EVER, seen someone who holds the exact same beliefs as another person, in anything.


That's because some people are strange. And in my church everyone believes the same thing...

During cell division, minute changes will be introduced in the offspring.


That quote is from the link you gave. It is wrong. Asexual reproduction results in exact DNA copies. Minute changes are never made.

Bacteria can sometimes share their genetic content, which is a way of sexual reproduction


That is completely absurd. When two bacteria conjugate, there is a donor and a recipient. The donor gives DNA and the recipient does not. It is merely sharing of DNA. In legit sexual reproduction, both parents must contribute DNA to an offspring.

Again, you have absolutely nothing to back this up with.


I have the Bible. Which brings us back to our original discussion...

then how can you interpret it. you have to do it all literally


Jesus said "I am a door." ...What person in their right might would believe that Mary gave birth to a door. Or even that a door could even speak.

just means you need to expand your vocabulary, and then those facts will become explainable.


I doubt it would make sense even then.

we then adapted science so that we would know that it was harmful from there on out.


We didn't adapt anything. We discovered that lead is poisonous when ingested.

you nincompoop


Childish name-calling is a sign of losing a debate.

discovery is how science adapts


No. Discovery is how science discovers new facts.

when we learn, we can alter science to accomodate it. if it is disproven, then it isn't fact


Which means that you were once believing in nothing but foolery at the time. So what guarantee to you have, that the science you believe in now, is not also foolery?

(sigh) if we are only 75% accurate, that means there is still room to discover more


That still means you are believing lies until you can somehow get complete proof of a "fact."

we are looking back in time by looking at "old" light-waves


How can you tell the age of a light-wave?

we didn't evlove from bannanas


Then you don't believe the same thing as your fellow atheists? Because Richard Dawkins said we evolved from bananas. If you believe differently than another atheist, that sounds a lot like Christians differing in interpretations of the bible.

except maybe you since you seem to have the I.Q. of one


Insulting is another sign of losing a debate.

also, crap from the bible won't count because that was written by men


By your logic: Crap from science text-books shouldn't count because they were written by men.

But our methods have improved a lot since then, we have corrected many things


If science is always changing and "improving" how do you know that the science you believe in now, won't change? Then you will have ended up believing lies for your whole life.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't egoism considered a sin? If so, then why would God be so egoistic, demanding that everyone believes in if he/she doesn't want eternal suffering. I'd rather burn for all eternity than worship a egoistic maniac.


Putting your own interests before others, could be considered a sin. God is not egoistic because He sent His son to die for our sins.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

@crazyape
I'm perfectly fine with people believing in god or any other deity.
I just hate it when they brag around that theirs is the only way, make stupid (and false) jokes and comments about science, and say that without god there'd be no sense etc., because this simply is not true. You too seem to believe that us atheists are all depressed lifeless guys who don't see any sense in life and thus end up attacking any other one being happily religious. But this is wrong.

The nuance is that we think there is no objective meaning to life, no god-given sense. Which is great since it enables us to live for what we like, not what religion enforces on their followers. Imagine there is actually a goal to life; that means if you don't reach it, you've wasted your life. Does that sound great? It's exactly what heaven/hell is about. And that's definitely not what I would live for. I prefer to live for what I deem important, take pleasure from things I like etc. I don't need a god to give sense to my life. I don't need commandments to behave nice and correct.

Being a bit irritable at times, I do like to retaliate when attacked by ignorant believers, that's true. I also do like a good, reasonable discussion with friendly and reasonable believers.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Based on the Bible...


Might interest you.

http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

By your logic: Crap from science text-books shouldn't count because they were written by men.


Difference: Science books are largely backed by facts and data. The Bible isn't. In fact, it's largely a bundle of stories and second hand accounts.

Which means that you were once believing in nothing but foolery at the time. So what guarantee to you have, that the science you believe in now, is not also foolery?


The difference is that, a) No one has proven religion to be more than a dogma some ancient men have come up with; even with centuries of criticism, it still obstinately refuses to change itself, whereas b) Science doesn't take anything for granted, and it constantly changes and improves. I would rather believe in something that keeps improving, rather than a dogma that stubbornly tries to weasel it's way as we discover more about the natural world.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Says the one who believes we evolved from bananas.


No one has said that. Not even Richard Dawkins, if he in fact did say that. I can't find that quote anywhere except on creationist sites.

So we can study the limitlessness of His power to create.


*facedesk*

I doubt it would make sense even then.


An English book won't make sense to a Spanish only speaker. However, once they learn English, or it is translated, they can understand.

No. Discovery is how science discovers new facts.


And then further applies or ADAPTS them to our own use. Get a thesaurus.

So what guarantee to you have, that the science you believe in now, is not also foolery?


Because if our knowledge is always improving/expanding, and correcting itself, it will eventually be correct in every way. At this moment in time we don't know all the answers. HOWEVER, unlike religion, Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It deals only in facts and what can be proven.

Are airplanes going to be later shown to be incorrect? No. What about the buoyancy of boats? Thought not. You're just picking topics that you personally don't agree with because it contradicts your faith and then saying they don't make sense without even understanding them.

Because Richard Dawkins said we evolved from bananas.


Even using the quote you gave, he didn't say this. He said we're distant cousins in that quote. Now, you told me you know what a cousin is, so I presume I don't have to explain?

By your logic: Crap from science text-books shouldn't count because they were written by men.


You're right, by that logic they wouldn't. But we can prove what's in science books through independent testing and research. We can't prove what's in the bible unless we somehow find a way to travel into the past, at which point it is unknown whether that is even possible.

Even if we did travel into the past and found "Jesus" as a normal man, I would bet most Christians would just claim then that time travel was flawed and it was an alternate past or some other crap like that...

God is not egoistic because He sent His son to die for our sins.


And this. If God is so loving, why the hell does he need to kill someone via torture in order to forgive people who are "inherently sinners" because of the circumstances in which God made Adam/Eve?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

You just called Richard Dawkins a "no one"

You're putting too much importance to something I suppose was meant to be figurative, illustrating. Did you read the whole thing or only that quote?
I mean dude, a banana isn't even a species, it's a fruit. I'm sure you're taking it much too literally. Could you at least link us to that quote or something?

Your certainty is placed in falsehood as well. There is no 99.9999...% in this business. It's either fact or fiction. If 0.0001% is fiction, that means the whole theory is fiction.

That still means you are believing lies until you can somehow get complete proof of a "fact."

You have no idea about statistics right...
Anyway, science doesn't deal in dogmas. A dogma is the 100% business, and rejects any new evidence even if it disprooves it.
Science deals in finding facts, and making hypotesis' to explain the facts. You find new facts, you adapt your theory. It's not the absolute truth, and yes, it might and will change in the future, but understand that since a theory is the best explanation for all facts, it won't change fundamentally, and is still a reasonably good explanation. Not a 'lie'.

No. Discovery is how science discovers new facts.

..and, by finding new facts, adapts to those.

That quote is from the link you gave. It is wrong. Asexual reproduction results in exact DNA copies. Minute changes are never made.

DNA replication works pretty accurately, but even the most accurate replication machinery works with a certain rate of error, so even if theoretically the copies are exactly the same, errors can and will occur.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

quote]I never have. Mostly I just point out the contradictions people say, or argue the validity of certain scientific theories (I always low how something is "just a theory" when they don't agree, but every other "theory" is perfectly fine.)[/quote]

That's telling someone they're wrong, telling them what they beleive is a load of horse****, basically telling them what to believe, what NOT to believe.

That's sort of what this whole sub section of a forum is for, debating


Christian: Oh okay.
Athiest: But what do YOU believe? I honestly care to know.
^debate.

Christian: WEll you're a blah blah blah blah blah blah religious mumbo-jumbo.
Athiest: But science says, says logic says, uhm.... uhm... HA! So there! I'm better, you're stupid, I'm smarter YOU'RE DUMB!
^argument.

It also makes people disillusioned when they realise after a while that that supernatural being who supposedly will help them doesn't. I'm not going to point out much except for the fact that the number of people believing in atheism is rising; and that comes with more and more widespread education and the diffusion of knowledge. We have much more to hold onto now other than ''God''.


News break: 93% of all humans are too simple to hold onto anything they can understand.

Don't come here then. We want to debate. Hence we will. We're not forcing you.


QED, not a debate. It's an argument.

Being a bit irritable at times, I do like to retaliate when attacked by ignorant believers, that's true. I also do like a good, reasonable discussion with friendly and reasonable believers.


Laugh it off. When my religious parents "attack" me with shoving religion down my through, I objectively tell them to STFU, and/or go elsewhere. Though I have noticed, they don't tend to shut up. They keep going until they've said what they came to say. However annoying to me their crap is.

I'm perfectly fine with people believing in god or any other deity.


A dogma is the 100% business, and rejects any new evidence even if it disprooves it. Science deals in finding facts, and making hypotesis' to explain the facts. You find new facts, you adapt your theory. It's not the absolute truth, and yes, it might and will change in the future, but understand that since a theory is the best explanation for all facts, it won't change fundamentally, and is still a reasonably good explanation. Not a 'lie'


^^Apparently not?

And this. If God is so loving, why the hell does he need to kill someone via torture in order to forgive people who are "inherently sinners" because of the circumstances in which God made Adam/Eve?


http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0804/explanation-demotivational-poster-1209100230.jpg
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

Based on the Bible...


and the cycle now continues.

That's because some people are strange. And in my church everyone believes the same thing...


nope, even in your own church, people believe different things. it may be small differences, or even big ones, but they are never exact replicas. if it was, then the church can also be considered a factory for the mass production of thralls.

I have the Bible. Which brings us back to our original discussion...


a book that uses dogma, not actual fact, to assert its claim. without logic, the bible is nothing but a book a rhetoric designed to make people able to swallow any fallacy of logic down their throat.

We didn't adapt anything. We discovered that lead is poisonous when ingested.


tell that to the romans, who used lead for everything, and even ate it with their food as a seasoning. and even medicine in the renaissance who used lead for many medicinal products. science changed that, not religion.

How can you tell the age of a light-wave?


apparently, I do need to make the explanation simpler.

-Blade
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

xD Why do you pop other people's bubbles for?


Because those false beliefs do harm.

It keeps them secure, and that's a good thing. If nobody was religious, nobody would be good just for that reason, and the world would be in chaos.


How do you figure this? So what if no one is being good based on false premises. One can take security in very real and tangible things and at least in this way they will not feel as if they have had the rug pulled out from under them if or when they realize what they placed those feelings in was false.

it's a good thing for people to have something to hold onto when they're having bad times, it's hope, y'know? Leave them be. What do Athiests have? Absolutely nothing.


Agaim this runs into the same problem as above. It's a false hope that can leave a person in a bad situation. Also atheist do have things that give us hope, it's just not based on fantasy and mythology.


Now on to AFterBurn.
Your certainty is placed in falsehood as well. There is no 99.9999...% in this business. It's either fact or fiction. If 0.0001% is fiction, that means the whole theory is fiction.


Wrong the other 0.0001% doesn't need to a false just an unknown.

This wasn't a religious claim...


Flat Earth was most definitely a religious claim. This is why the church initially opposed the findings of a spherical Earth.

Based on the Bible...


The Bible is not evidence but the claim that requires evidence.

Then you don't believe the same thing as your fellow atheists? Because Richard Dawkins said we evolved from bananas. If you believe differently than another atheist, that sounds a lot like Christians differing in interpretations of the bible.


Your coming up with that through a quote mine fallacy at best. The quote you stated doesn't have him saying we came from bananas and turnips, no more then saying This is my cousin would be saying I came from this baby.

We share a common ancestor which branched off in two directions one eventually resulting in us in the animal kingdom and another resulting in bananas and turnips in the plant kingdom.

Science is always improving. "How?" By discovering new facts and changing old ones. "Doesn't that mean that since science is always changing, that the science you believe in now might be false?" Yes, but soon we will have factual proof of evolution and the big bang. "How?" -Repeat.


No science isn't changing old facts, just building upon them. We currently have factual evidence of these theories.

Let's take the statement that there are no numbers between 1 and 2. Now we can test this 1, 2 okay this seems to hold up. However we over time gain new evidence we find 1.1, 1.2 and so on. Now when we retest we find there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2. This however doesn't rule out our previous evidence. Now we can better explain in more concise terms that there are no whole numbers between 1 and 2.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

Because those false beliefs do harm.


Yes, the world could really do without all those charity groups.

How do you figure this? So what if no one is being good based on false premises. One can take security in very real and tangible things and at least in this way they will not feel as if they have had the rug pulled out from under them if or when they realize what they placed those feelings in was false.


Somehow, I couldn't take security in something I could see, and have. That wouldn't secure my faith that if I was a good little ****er, I would go to a better place when i died. Which is the point, yes? Nobody wants to think of not existing after they die, except for some weirdies.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Nobody wants to think of not existing after they die, except for some weirdies.

How about being convinced about non-existence after death, whether you like it or not? Do you reject your conviction and choose some nice afterlife out of the catalogue and do a brainwash to feel better?
I actually came to terms with not existing after life; after all death is what gives life it's true worth, and an afterlife would just invalidate that and make the actual life an unimportant speck in existence..
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

And you can draw illogical ones.


Good thing we're not doing that.

It doesn't have to prove anything.


So why'd you bring it up.

God is outside of time. He did not come from anywhere. He has no beginning and will have no end.


Okay, same for the universe. Now tell me why your statement is true and mine isn't.

Tis called covering up unexplainable "facts" with big words.


Go get a phd in physics if you want to understand it, don't accuse it of being wrong because you don't understand it.

So what is at the end of the universe?


Nothing.

A bunch of "Universe construction workers" leaning on their shovels next to their orange cones?


No need for unwitty jokes.

Give me one example of an argument that has change because it has been "disproved."


Christians always thought that everything revolved around the earth (not to mention that there was nothing outside our solar system). When people discovered this false, the church tried to cover up and didn't allow people to publish books about this. Now it is undebatable that we live in a geocentric solar system, and that there is things past it.

Yup no one believed that the earth was flat.


I wasn't referring to the beginnings of civilization. Once people started exploring the seas, it became obvious.

Which I will now thank you for proving this through your sentences.


Lol
Showing 3301-3315 of 4668