...I thought I was pretty clear with my post. What needs clarification?
I'm not even sure, I was tired and I wasn't making the effort because it was a big paragraph lol XD
Probably my fault.
Yes, that is my definition.
Also, wow. The topic kinda exploded :P
Indeed.
Mind you we come in many flavors (agnostic, ignostic, apathetic, etc.) but that's for another thread.
Is there a word for the group like that? Atheist is one that sounds like people are on a side of the fence, when not always is that the case.
Admittedly some aren't very competent but others were very fun to talk to about religion and other things.
It's fun listening to you talking about white chocolate macadamia cookies,
Eh, it's the majority atheists. The reason theists don't come here is because it's plain boring. After about 20 times of saying something to an atheist just have it go in and out their head everything. Then the atheist will turn around, proclaim him/herself as highly superior in intelligence, call the theist ignorant for sticking to their beliefs, send a link to Wikipedia/an atheist site, call the religous site uncreditable and biased, recycle another question, insult religon(and often do a pisspoor job of it) and call the theist a troll for defending his/her faith, the science is brougt in, the theist us called ignorant for being spectical of part if science, more debate that barely has to do with religon, the theist is called ignorant just for fun this time . And so it continues. And people really wonder why there are very few theists...
Fail...
So much fail.
Perhaps the only thing we can't wrap our head around is how you can turn away logic and reason that is nearly proven when you follow a 2,000 year old book. Essentially since you are a small group on Armor Games you're a cult, especially with how some of you present yourselves.
Other people like Vesperbot I actually respect, sure, different beliefs but he hasn't run out on anything and he's been talking for 150 pages roughly.
They keep using the same tired facts over and over again. What they don't realize is that they are keeping such a closed mind that they are on a warpath to destroy religion rather than have a clean debate. They are accepting theories and speculations as truth, then calling me an idiot for doing the same thing, but they're so all knowing cause they have some shaky- pseudo science speculations and biased resources to back themselves up
You realize I do neither? I would like to destroy religion but never do I attempt to do so in these forums if it appears there is someone I can help. We say the same question because you fail to answer - something you seem to fail to understand even now, also, pseudo science applies to things like 2012, you got confused with it.
Biased resources? Pfft! Biased or not, they're resources, and that's more than what you could reliably back yourselves up with.
Maybe because any point made about Science and Religion would be biased otherwise it's probably just preaching.
I can has epic win from Cowmaster. MageGray, don't you dare deny me this one!
I already have.
Because you're too stubborn to even look at them or consider them.
Ignorant*
They're stubborn when they say they look at them and disregard them because they feel it is not Gods intention.
I'm perfectly open to a new idea. I'm not against religion other than that, there is absolutely no proof for it other than vague personal feelings. If god was to talk to me, i'd beleive in him. If he was to show me a sign, i'd beleive in him. God could if he wanted to, and since he supposedly loves all, he would, but he hasn't, and thus I can only conclude that he does not exist.
Personally I think God is an immoral ****** - Biblical interpretations have made a ton of bad stuff go down and it's rediculous that people never seem to blame it, I guess the worst thing about Religion is the special treatment it receives.
Or maybe, just maybe, they are complete crap and have been considered but rejected. Maybe I don't need a fancy explosion in front of me or God's voice to speak directly to me to believe. Maybe Ive tried being atheist for a time but it just was miserable and pointless. Maybe I felt a calling and that was enough for me. But because of all that I have become the stubborn one? Apparently I can't except both science and religon, because we all know that would be crazy?
Self illusions, yet again.
If you take a step outside the box, tell your feelings to stfu and look, it looks nowhere near as bad as you think, you WANTED Religion to happen because it was a scapegoat by most chances and therefore you was compromised.
There is no supporting evidence for the Big Bang other than some coincidental evidence. They just assume that it's the truth, and everything else is complete bullcrap and we're idiots for believing in something different
Sorry, are you saying we're offensive as a self defense or are you saying being offensive is our self defense?
Either way, you're wrong. Because the amount of stockpiled information is significantly more than what "
roves" God, also, any smart Atheist would be open minded and it's not always the Big Bang. Personally I think the Big Bang is the most logical given the evidence that backs it up but I'm not saying it for certain - same with Aliens, according to the Drake Equation there are 10,000 more inhabited planets (roughly, and if I remember correctly), do I believe there are ? No. Do I believe there aren't? No, I'm just waiting and seeing.
Obviously. Kasic, this is another problem non-believers have, their inability to let go and explore their surroundings, to truly experience what life is. If you wouldn't cling to earth like a shy child, then you might receive some personal inspiration.
The ironic thing is we look at things in much more depth than you ever could. You say this and it makes me think "You have to belive in it to see it".
Fail.
Why do atheists waste their time arguing if they are so sure of their truth? They haven't proved God doesn't exist.
1) You haven't proven he does, therefore we require no disproving.
2) Why do you continue preaching if you're so sure it's the truth?
'EH?
Same reason, to spread the word, then again I think someone being told they can think for themselves and can help explain many holes in theories etc is better than saying that an invisible parent will handhold him through his life.
Because it is human nature and human nature is weak.
Because of Religion.
Using
Science it's pretty obvious that biological information can help us understand and thus take action on what we do. Therefore your argument is invalid as its a direct partial cause of Religion.
Why does everyone have to name call and stereotype? Do we really need sarcasm and direct insults on intelligence?
I've only seen that in this post and the complaining thepyro222 has did.
God gave us free will to believe what we want. I find God in the little things, because the big things don't exist. And if they did, scientists would just slap another theory together that sounds good to the average person to explain it, without really explaining it. This is why atheists who claim to know "science piss me off." They don't look at their evidence, they don't think. They're hypocrites
You are officially talking out of your ***.
Sorry, but can a moderator come here and sort this out, this is becoming quite annoying.
Atheists do, because they have no other way of truly defending themselves
Logic and reason.
You, sir, fail.
I want to know the truth, and if god is that truth, than my free will is that I am open and willing to accept him, if only he shows me that he is real.
Sad thing is he is so unreasonable that he won't show you himself, therefore not having you believe and therefore having you go to Hell.
Oh well, another nail in his coffin.
Pyro, there are more pages of evidence, attemtps to debunk theories, and explanations of any single theory than you could read in a lifetime. They are still around because there is no instance proving them wrong, and despite all attempts to disprove, they still stand. The only "uncertain" part is that science KEEPS AN OPEN MIND and is NOT ADVERSE TO CHANGE SO LONG AS IT CAN BE PROVEN. The "Uncertainty" is that we do NOT know everything, and thus CANNOT say that this is the ABSOLUTE truth, even though it DOES currently explain EVERYTHING about that. That is NOT hypocrisy.
You just wasted your breath.
"Herpa derp all you can do is deny it without any sources of information."
Do you even hear yourself? There are scientists who have dedicated their lives attempting to disprove things. We DO look at our evidence. Religion is the only thing that says "This is this and no other thing is right"
You can see to the extent some people go.
It always starts with a question, which the theist cannot/does not answer, or responds with some utterly bigoted or nonsensicle answer, and it devolves from there.
^This
Oh, and not to mention that HEY! We question it, because we should be allowed to explore our surroundings and create different theories which funnily enough are much more logical.
Mythology (like Greek Mythology) is basically a cross between ancient history and religiou education, therefore we're talking about modern mythology, because it's about fairytales of people who sustained grievous wounds, was able to do spectacular things in the name of God and has been spoken to by a God as well.
You are one of the most insulting ones that I have seen and you just made a very obvious stereotype showing that you (a religious) resort to these methods of "discussion" as well.
Yeah but he's religious you can't insult him.
Special treatment? Yep.
I've been trying to convince people this forever... Some people just ignore strong evidence and go onto ideas for some reason. I know that contradicts my belief in God, but I don't want to get in another religious debate. I'm already running a thread similar to this...
At least I can respect you for saying "stfu I know, but I still believe in him", and I'm not being sarcastic either.
That's the definition of the truth buddy, there isn't any relative form of it.
Yes but mathematics dictates 2+2=4 which in turn from our perspective makes it right. Not just that but relative truth is not what we're seeking, we're seeking the large amounts of possibly truths whilst not claiming any one of them is absolute.
Well i'd first call them an idiot, because they obviously are (Unless they were like 1-4 years old)
Bad example. You just took the bait.
But hey, you just
reminded me of something.
If christianity is the truth, then what is wrong with saying this? The answer is nothing. Time should be spent refuting christianity, because until someone succeeds, they will continue to proclaim themselves the truth. Why believe something is wrong about the truth? It is silly to assume that 'arts' of the truth are incorrect. Would christianity say, 'we are right about this and wrong about this'? No, of course not.
IF. Because of indoctrination of children at early age to not think for themselves and are usually taught about religion, the persistance in their mind is clear and they don't. It's not only the persons fault sometimes, but quite often it is.
Christianity has never been proven, there are more logical answers and people haven't wrapped their heads around that. Stop screwing with wanting to hold Gods hand because you're afraid to do it yourself and take a step with everyone else. (Message to everyone)
You may not but there are quite a few who do on a daily basis
Logic and reason hasn't worked, in its own way its justified.
There are some people, like Samy who have turned over over the last couple years which is pretty great but hell, that's the only one person I know who has.
And who are you to talk? I suggest you please add to the current subject at hand and stop critiquing everyone's debating methods, however crappy they may be. Sterotypes happen, get over it. I know it's not good but we have to deal with it. You may not like it. I don't like swearing yet every where I walk I hear the Fbomb there isn't anything I can do. If I ever tell someone to stop I get 10 more Fbombs in return. I'm sorry but it just won't work :/
That was just aggressive.
He has got a reason for going against that debating method - to be fair, it's an ARGUING method.
And hell yeah he probably knows it won't work, but what does on these forums?
Community-wise, not technically.
Then why do so many atheists try? That would make them illogical. Not to mention that God is very easy to observe, if you only open your eyes to him.
No, opening your eyes to him is like saying Santa is real because you haz presents, what you're looking for is a gap in our life where we need to rely on something (probably for moral support) to get past and haven't got the integrity to stick up for their beliefs, ultimately changing it.
And yeah, they do try, but I don't, so how about you debate with me and Kasic?
while five others say that is impossible because THEY didn't see it, yet they themselves can give no explanation?
"Well mate, I was told a high school kid fell out of the window".
Is there any need to lie? No, not really, not too much liability there, plus that's life, half the things I'm told is never proven to my EYES but I still believe it because its got evidence and eye witnesses.
Same for court.
So tell me, why should I believe in a unicorn if it can't be disproven
Because the unicorn can guide you to eternal salvation if only you follow his book: The Unible.
If you don't wish to follow him then he will do the same, and your life would become dark for his fortitude does not protect you.
That's the difference.
Not really, the difference is that it's not perceived from indoctrination and it is not a "truth" followed throughout someones life, it's just a possibility and a likely one considering circumstances.
I don't know, I certainly don't, but i'm sure you could use the same reasoning that you use for god...
What I said, basically.
Except he hasn't been raised believing in the unicorn, so he probably won't because he's already stuck with another religion.
Kasic come now. If God exists and made the world, what could him and his religion disprove about the world that HE made? If you cannot comprehend this point, please move on, because I've stated it before and you refuse to recognize that your argument is futile.
You believing his argument is futile is biased, from my observations you're going into small insults to maintain your argument.
He didn't make it, though - is it 6,000 years old? No, it's been proven much longer, at least 10 billion.
You have circumvented the purpose of the analogy with your failed logic.
Even if he's wrong I think what I said was right, and since we're a joint faction, I think my one counts as both of ours?
Yes science hasn't 'found' God but they havenr tried too hard and won't ever given the scientific method and other sciencey stuff I learned in Bio last year Nd Chemistry this year
Because the idea is stupid, you can see in the Bible and what people say that it is a guide to make people feel better about themselves. I guess that shows why some Christians are utter ******s, they feel clean and that does make you a worse person, from what I remember.
Not stating as a fact, but hey man I think it's been supplied with evidence (not by me) and it isn't exactly incoherent with what I just said.
He could at the very least make his own "holy text" non contradictory.
He's supposed to be perfect, therefore the fact that is contradicts itself can only be blamed on the imperfect human he has made.
Either way, there's not much they have to say about this.
I honestly must ask, are you stupid? I did not say he had a mminor injury. You do not call an ambulance for a sprained ankle. Hence why I said 2nd story, broken glass, etc, which implies that he had an injury that could not be locally treated at the school.
He put words in your mouth if he was implying that you infact said that.
How's that?
Complex scientific situations, I haven't looked into this in greater detail so I will ask MageGrayWolf to help.
Does your teacher read you the answers to a test before he gives them?
Life isn't a test, it's an assessment between an A (Heaven) and F (Hell), the only difference is F can also be filled with genius's.
Of course he could. But the erroneous humans who wrote it for him? I think not.
God made them, he made them flawed, thus allowing innocent people to suffer.
There, stupid thing to do, God, bad!
Why, it does Kasic. What on earth (pun intended) could have happened without I.D.? I mean honestly, what of the law of conservation of matter?
I didn't quite get what you was saying, but was it you saying that the conservation of matter is what allowed us to live?
If so, this fails because we would not have come to be if it were indeed the case.
I have come across theists who say, if evidence contradicts their bible, then the evidence must be wrong and not their ancient book.
Give those we are debating with the benefit of the doubt, past examples shouldn't underlie the basic arguments we have.
Fellow Christians, from past experience this argument leads nowhere. Both sides are biased, either you want to believe in something or you don't. Both sides will fail to realise the other's point of reasoning. This thread has traveled beyond its main topic of the "Athiesm Majority", so ending the debate now and discussing on a different thread before insults break out would be a good idea.
Yeah, I'm biased but the funny thing? It's because of the people of Christianity - I don't know any who've thought for themselves or debating using some actual believable methods (with the possible exception of Vesperbot), when I look at an Atheist, say Samy, MageGrayWolf and Kasic, I see much more reliance on their own knowledge logic and reasoning.
Rather, if you have serious questions with need of higher knowledge, seek a pastor or priest.
To my knowledge people who have done so on "my side of the fence" have discovered they know more than the person they are talking to.
I just have a low stupid tolerance is all.
That didn't become apparent to me when we first met.
Arguing against a comittited athiest or christian is next to impossible if your goal is to try and convince them that you are right.
Committment often from indoctrination, I've been raised to think for myself, and I'm not lieing (anyone who says otherwise... I don't know why you would say I'm lieing) about that, but it's when I'm showing as much logic and reason I can that they don't accept because "God is out there"... it makes little sense to me.
I would say that many people are raised with the knowledge of their parents understanding, so a bias is formed, creating a rejection of all other religions.
Nevermind, you beat me to it.
Yet for some, it is the misunderstanding of a religion that causes them to deny it.
I threw all science and religion aside and made my own morality, then when I looked at Science, there was no morality, and it was open to what I believed, when I looked at Religion I disagreed with the ethics they attempted to portray as right, and immediately went to the logical side of the picture.
I am merely hoping that both sides will see the uselessness to this discussion.
Samy pulled through, I'm just hoping someone else will.
In the past it was because they were killing people who wouldn't convert but throughout time it was because that religions was the first one introduced to them or the one that makes the most sense.
^This
I think I have already answered this question. However you came to follow a certain religion, you decide that the religion you follow is correct. Thus, other religions are incorrect, which leads you to not follow those religions.
There is no reasoning behind it, so therefore that argument is invalid (No this is not directed at you
).
I guess what I am getting at is atheists are considered blind for not seeing God. Muslims see God but see him in a different way from a Catholic. Maybe all of these people are just seeing an illusion?
Atheists try piecing together what they see and make a reliable reason for it. Religious people take what they're told and don't question it.
For some, it is the lack of understanding that leads one to deny a religion.
Very few people truly understand religion - in some ways, I feel Atheists understand it more than others.
This is said to be impossible to know, since neither religious or theist has 100% proven that what they follow is true.
But it's the ongoing debate that scientific understanding is more logical.
It pains me to say that through the 2 1/2 years I've perused this forum it has gotten to a point where I haven't seen a reasonable debate (by definition) in over 6 months.
From which side? Or both?
I think both since you haven't said which :/
the views hardcores have on each other in this forum.
Earlier in this post I called Kasic on something, did I not?
The point of me following Science is because I can learn mroe but also because anything I've done wrong I can easily get over about and correct it. Especially if a fellow person points it out.
I don't understand why its so hard to have a reasonable debate on this forum. I just don't, it happened in the past, why did things have to change?
Don't know. However you said reasonable. I lol'd XD
Kirby998, you're right, we could at least have the decency to understand that many people have different beliefs and that there is nothing wrong with that. "Reasonable" is a word not known in the modern day arguments, sad to say.
I don't either, like, was it Paarfam? I think so, earlier in this thread he said he believes in religion despite contradicting beliefs - there, to me, that's a won debate (although usually a debate to me is to boil down to the base components and understand eachothers points and hopefully use both traits of both sides to accomplish something better) and I even said I respect him for saying that.
It's just that most theists realise that their arguments just don't hold up against logic and slink off.
That's visible in other threads like CHRISTIANITY FTW and before that ATHEISM FTW.
That or they begin to question their faith
In which case it's good they're not coming to us for guidance, in a way.
I think the unicorn idea has surpassed its purpose. The basic idea was that it's been said to be true in a book, why not believe it?
TL
R; tough. I just spent an hour writing all this and they're direct responses.
- H
