Can we get one thing straight?

Lack of evidence against religion is not evidence for religion!

Religion is a negetive theroy, people think just because you cant disprove god means that he exists. It doesnt! By that same logic I can prove there is a pink hippo the size of New York City orbiting around Mars. Or that there is a monkey that created God. etc. etc. etc.

Another thing, just because you believe it doesnt make it true exclusivly to you. If your god is the One God, then he is the One God for everyone, so please let's not mention the 'Because I believe in Heaven I go to Heaven, because you believe in nothing you go nowhere' argument. Pascal's wager is bust to the intelligence of any god that is intelligent enough to design the world as we know it.

Furthur more evolution is not questioned as true or false, the only question being asked is how, to what extent, when, etc. You can believe what you believe, but wishful thinking doesnt disprove science!

Sorry about the rant, I got a bit pissed from reading the 'To the un-believers' thread.

- Lord of Pie

Originally posted by Lord Of Pie
Lack of evidence against religion is not evidence for religion!

Religion is a negetive theroy, people think just because you cant disprove god means that he exists. It doesnt! By that same logic I can prove there is a pink hippo the size of New York City orbiting around Mars. Or that there is a monkey that created God. etc. etc. etc.

Another thing, e rant, I got a bit pissed from reading the 'To the un-believers' thread.

- Lord of Pie

Duh

1. Never made the argument about lack of evidence is evidence for.
2. Religion is not a theory more times than not is a matter of faith,
get your terms correct, that will help in discussions.
3. Just because you believe something does not make it true either
is also like saying just because you disbelieve something makes it
false as well.
4. The term "One God" does limit it to only one I agree.
5. I have never seen a "because I believe" I go to heaven or nothing.
Does seem very simple even in real life that is proven false by all the
people who gotten on the wrong plane or train and managed to leave,
they go where the train or plane is taking them no matter where they
thought they were going.
6. Pascal's wager is just that a wager, it is not the "bottom line" for
all truth it simply is a good standard that does not always apply.
7. Evolution depending on how you are defining it can be and should
be questioned. If you don't think that is true I suggest you read
statement number 3 again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Duh

1. Never made the argument about lack of evidence is evidence for.
2. Religion is not a theory more times than not is a matter of faith,
get your terms correct, that will help in discussions.
3. Just because you believe something does not make it true either
is also like saying just because you disbelieve something makes it
false as well.
4. Th ed. If you don't think that is true I suggest you read
statement number 3 again.
Kelly

First: Never claimed that was you, and I did not have you in mind when I posted that

Second: Yes, although I did not say it, it is. Religion's theory is that god exists. Evidence to support? None.

Third: I don't believe that is the difference between science and religion. All I 'believe' in science (wrong word) can be proven, there is no faith, nor belief involved.

Fourth: As Dawkins did in 'The God Delusion" I refer by default to the Abrahmic God of the New Testament, though this applys to religion in general.

Fifth: Firstly your statement does not make sense to me, this is probably due to a mis-communication on my part, if it is I appoligize, it is about 2 a.m. here.

Sixth: I never claimed it was, however it is a typical argument for belief in God, and quite captures the mindset.

Seventh: Evolution is questioned, just not whether it is true or not. There has been no evidence against it for 150 years, and everything Darwin predicted about heredity was later proven, only supporting his theory. Evolution is not a theory in the sense of the standard english word equating with guess, it is instead defined as it is through science, it is an explanation that accounts for things in nature and is supported by a large body of evidence. Gravity I feel is a poor example, some mathmeticians have proven theorems up to 10x10^1000000 numbers, but they still are cautious about calling it a law. We are so sure that these theories are true that we use them in construction where one small miscalcuation can cost the lives of thousands. What gives you the right to say they should be re questioned, what new information do you bring?

P.S. Thanks for posting with the numbers, it helps me count the number of ways you're wrong so I can counter them consisly.

Edit: Formating for greater ease of reading.

Why is it so important to you the we stop believing? I continue to be amazed that atheists need to evangelize. We do it because we are commanded to in the Bible. Why do you do it? It can't be because you love us. So what's this all about?

Originally posted by dinosaurus
Why is it so important to you the we stop believing? I continue to be amazed that atheists need to evangelize. We do it because we are commanded to in the Bible. Why do you do it? It can't be because you love us. So what's this all about?

atheists are just amazed at how much of the world believes in such a falsehood. religion affects everyone's lives, it is in the u.s. constitution and has been since the word "ordained" was included. gay marraige is outlawed simply because it says it is wrong in the bible. its terrifying; if people will believe in religion, who knows what they are capable of.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
atheists are just amazed at how much of the world believes in such a falsehood. religion affects everyone's lives, it is in the u.s. constitution and has been since the word "ordained" was included. gay marraige is outlawed simply because it says it is wrong in the bible. its terrifying; if people will believe in religion, who knows what they are capable of.

If you don't believe in something, you'll believe anything!

Originally posted by dinosaurus
Why is it so important to you the we stop believing? I continue to be amazed that atheists need to evangelize. We do it because we are commanded to in the Bible. Why do you do it? It can't be because you love us. So what's this all about?

Why is it so important for religion to try and force their beliefs on the rest of the world. An ancient text gives us nothing of value in todays society.

If religion tries to force itself into the classroom or believes it should be some authority in ethical scientific research etc then I will certainly point out the flaws in your belief, to stop the above happening.

I really don't care if you waste your life following worthless commands written by MEN many years ago. Just keep it to yourself and the world will be a better place.

Originally posted by dinosaurus
Why is it so important to you the we stop believing?...It can't be because you love us.

Maybe he finds it insulting that other people have incoherent world views. Maybe out of reverence
for humankind, he feels obligated to see the incoherence in other people's world views. Maybe
he loves the human condition so much that it pains him to see other people deluded with inter-
contradictory hermeneutics.

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
If you don't believe in something, you'll believe anything!

So that's why you believe in god! You have a needy sad personality, no life, and needed something to fill the gaps.

Originally posted by dinosaurus
Why is it so important to you the we stop believing? I continue to be amazed that atheists need to evangelize. We do it because we are commanded to in the Bible. Why do you do it? It can't be because you love us. So what's this all about?

I don't evangelize really for anything, but why can't it be because atheists love you?

Evangelists evangelize (a.k.a. annoy the hell out of) me all the time and they claim it's "because they love me" (I guess you only annoy the ones you love 🙂 ) - why would it be hard for you to believe atheists can't do the same thing?

Originally posted by Lord Of Pie
Lack of evidence against religion is not evidence for religion!

Religion is a negetive theroy, people think just because you cant disprove god means that he exists. It doesnt! By that same logic I can prove there is a pink hippo the size of New York City orbiting around Mars. Or that there is a monkey that created God. etc. etc. etc.

Another thing, ...[text shortened]... e rant, I got a bit pissed from reading the 'To the un-believers' thread.

- Lord of Pie

You may CLAIM evolution is not questioned as true or false all you want, "but wishful thinking doesn't make it so." 🙂 As much as you may want otherwise, the jury is still out on the Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You may CLAIM evolution is not questioned as true or false all you want, "but wishful thinking doesn't make it so." 🙂 As much as you may want otherwise, the jury is still out on the Theory of Evolution.

There isn't a jury and there isn't a trial. When Darwin and others first introduced the Theory to the scientific establishment it was more or less put on trial and it won the case. Since then it has been accepted by most of the scientific establishment and as far as I know only ever questioned by a small minority of theists.

Originally posted by dinosaurus
Why is it so important to you the we stop believing? I continue to be amazed that atheists need to evangelize. We do it because we are commanded to in the Bible. Why do you do it? It can't be because you love us. So what's this all about?

I used to believe in the "live and let live" philosophy when it came to theists. However, when some creationists tried to start teaching a bunch of lies they called ID in US schools, it bothered me enough to start a thread on the topic in the discussion forum. I was immediately told to 'take it to spirituality'. Since then I have come to enjoy some of the discussions here and have also changed my views on theism and how it harms or benefits society. So, to answer your question:
1. The very fact that you feel the need to evangelize - especially when theists resort to underhanded techniques including attacking science education, lying, indoctrination etc is a good reason to try to stop such practices.
2. Religions lead to divisions in society. Including outright wars and genocide.
3. Extremists are a direct danger to society and religions foster extremism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I used to believe in the "live and let live" philosophy when it came to theists. However, when some creationists tried to start teaching a bunch of lies they called ID in US schools, it bothered me enough to start a thread on the topic in the discussion forum. I was immediately told to 'take it to spirituality'. Since then I have come to enjoy some of the ...[text shortened]... and genocide.
3. Extremists are a direct danger to society and religions foster extremism.

debates forums is almost always inconsistent babble. dsr is omniprezent with almost always garbage. the debates are not debates but name calling. almost always people divert from the subject. and so on


here our debates are much more civilized. a shame that we are restricted to spirituality topics 😀.

and ID in schools is pretty stupid, i agree. god and science shouldn't mix. science is about fact, not "presenting another point of view" to the kids without proof.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and ID in schools is pretty stupid, i agree. god and science shouldn't mix. science is about fact, not "presenting another point of view" to the kids without proof.

I actually don't agree with that. If I was a theist, I would believe that the existence of God was fact and therefore would have no problem mixing science with God. I would have a problem when I realized that there was no scientific evidence for God.
ID on the other hand, at least what they tried to get into schools, was not science or God, it was lies made up with the express purpose of discouraging science education. Its proponents at the time made it quite clear that the key statement they wanted taught was that evolution was not necessarily right and that there were 'alternative' ideas. What they didn't mention was that the idea they were presenting was not in-fact and alternative idea as it did not in fact contradict the theory of evolution and also they had no evidence whatsoever anyway.

I do not think we have proof for anything in science - we only have convincing evidence - sometimes extremely convincing evidence. If I was a theist I think I would have evidence for it and should have no problem presenting such evidence. However it should still not get into the science classroom until I have presented my evidence to the scientific community and enough people have verified my evidence for it to be considered a reasonable scientific theory. We should never teach primary school kids about new hypothesis that have no supporting evidence or evidence which has not been confirmed yet. In fact I don't think even string theory should be taught before university level.