end your faith now.

Originally posted by amannion
You could probably call it meditation and have the same effect.Prayer is, in essence, just a form of meditation, don't you think?

It all depends on what your prayer consists of.

Prayer by definition suggests that you are trying to communicate with god or some other diety. Meditation or self-reflection doesn't involve asking a diety for help or for anything.

Some people's prayers include self-reflection and they associate that with prayer. You'll get the benefit from the self-reflection, but not really the prayer part of it.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
your religion is not a special one, it is one among millions upon billions. god is just not real. every minute you spend praying to your god is a minute you have wasted on an imaginary being.

religion and mythology comes in two parts. neither part is based on fact. part one is one of ignorance, and dates back to early civilizations who looked up to ...[text shortened]... you need to make the change though, turn away, and live life. for yourself. not for god.

Everyone's beliefs are not special or just those beliefs that have gods
or God in them?
Kelly

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
your religion is not a special one, it is one among millions upon billions. god is just not real. every minute you spend praying to your god is a minute you have wasted on an imaginary being.

religion and mythology comes in two parts. neither part is based on fact. part one is one of ignorance, and dates back to early civilizations who looked up to ...[text shortened]... you need to make the change though, turn away, and live life. for yourself. not for god.

Who is this "you" you keep talking about and how do you read his mind and know some much about him?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
your religion is not a special one, it is one among millions upon billions. god is just not real. every minute you spend praying to your god is a minute you have wasted on an imaginary being.

religion and mythology comes in two parts. neither part is based on fact. part one is one of ignorance, and dates back to early civilizations who looked up to ...[text shortened]... you need to make the change though, turn away, and live life. for yourself. not for god.

Very curious...I remember months ago when I was a regular poster on these forums and I could have sworn you were a staunch theist back then!

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i don't believe he is saying that the bible is true

Correct: I am not saying the Bible is true. I am saying that a number of highly educated scholars, linguists, etc. have studied the earliest documents they could find and have reached certain conclusions about the literary styles employed, initial meanings vs. current interpretations, connections to true historical events (those confirmed by other sources outside the "religious circle" of the original authors), etc. I have not seen historians and scholars who have taken these same documents and reached different conclusions or proved the events within them were deliberately falsified. Mostly I hear that Richard Dawkins got a book published and therefore it must be true that all religions are false, etc. Find me research by someone who used the same documents as the first group and did their own research to come to a different conclusion, and you'll have my undivided attention.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Who is this "you" you keep talking about and how do you read his mind and know some much about him?

every theist here, because i used to be one.

Originally posted by Agerg
Very curious...I remember months ago when I was a regular poster on these forums and I could have sworn you were a staunch theist back then!

this is true. i am much happier now

Originally posted by pawnhandler
I would be very interested if someone took Biblical scholarship and refuted it by their own educated research.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Correct: I am not saying the Bible is true. I am saying that a number of highly educated scholars, linguists, etc. have studied the earliest documents they could find and have reached c ...[text shortened]... their own research to come to a different conclusion, and you'll have my undivided attention.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that Biblical scholars never disagree with each other? Are you claiming that studying the Bible invariably leads to theism? And I didn't understand the Dawkins comment either.

I would willingly take up your challenge if you made it a bit clearer what the challenge was.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Are you associaged with any atheist organizations? I'm sure there are many which have events.

The atheist church is the fastest growing church in Europe and one of the fastest growing in the US.

I'm sure you could find lots of Atheist Services to attend.

Originally posted by Red Night
The atheist church is the fastest growing church in Europe and one of the fastest growing in the US.

I'm sure you could find lots of Atheist Services to attend.

Athiest "churches?"

Atheist "churches" with "services?"

Copycats.

Do they ever come up with anything original?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
your religion is not a special one, it is one among millions upon billions. god is just not real. every minute you spend praying to your god is a minute you have wasted on an imaginary being.

religion and mythology comes in two parts. neither part is based on fact. part one is one of ignorance, and dates back to early civilizations who looked up to ...[text shortened]... you need to make the change though, turn away, and live life. for yourself. not for god.

How do you know that God is not real, EcstremeVenom? I'd venture to say that you have no proof. None. And since you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, your atheism is therefore a position held by faith. Yes, faith.

Your posts betray the typical ad hominem defense of an illogical claim. Atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position.

At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
How do you know that God is not real, EcstremeVenom? I'd venture to say that you have no proof. None. And since you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, your atheism is therefore a position held by faith. Yes, faith.

Your posts betray the typical ad hominem defense of an illogical claim. Atheists must go on the attack and negate an ...[text shortened]... ndeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible.

It seems you are suggesting that the default is that god exists and atheists should have the burden to prove that he doesn't. Something doesn't exist by default with the requirement to prove it false.

Atheists are right to require theists to provide real evidence that god exists before they do believe one exists.

I don't believe in god - not out of faith, but because I haven't been shown, nor have I found any real evidence that there is one. I also don't believe in unicorns. That isn't faith that there are no unicorns, it's just requiring proof in order to believe in them.

Atheism isn't a position held out of faith, it's a position held out of requiring more than just faith to actually believe something exists.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
How do you know that God is not real, EcstremeVenom? I'd venture to say that you have no proof. None. And since you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, your atheism is therefore a position held by faith. Yes, faith.

Your posts betray the typical ad hominem defense of an illogical claim. Atheists must go on the attack and negate an ...[text shortened]... ndeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible.

that would be equivalent to a man proving his innocence in court rather than the other way around, and we just can't have that.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
It seems you are suggesting that the default is that god exists and atheists should have the burden to prove that he doesn't. Something doesn't exist by default with the requirement to prove it false.

Atheists are right to require theists to provide real evidence that god exists before they do believe one exists.

I don't believe in god - not out sition held out of requiring more than just faith to actually believe something exists.

It seems you are suggesting that the default is that god exists and atheists should have the burden to prove that he doesn't. Something doesn't exist by default with the requirement to prove it false.

But, if I claim unequivocally that God does not exist, then I am asserting that which I cannot prove. If I have no evidence to back up my assertion, then I must maintain my position by faith.

Atheists are right to require theists to provide real evidence that god exists before they do believe one exists.

And theists are right to require atheists to provide real evidence that God doesn't exist before they cease believing. It is vastly more difficult, though, to provide evidence in support of a negative than a positive.

I don't believe in god - not out of faith, but because I haven't been shown, nor have I found any real evidence that there is one. I also don't believe in unicorns. That isn't faith that there are no unicorns, it's just requiring proof in order to believe in them.

Atheism isn't a position held out of faith, it's a position held out of requiring more than just faith to actually believe something exists.

Fair enough. But what you've just described is not atheism, but agnosticism.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
But, if I claim unequivocally that God does not exist, then I am asserting that which I cannot prove. If I have no evidence to back up my assertion, then I must maintain my position by faith.
And theists are right to require atheists to provide real evidence that God doesn't exist before they cease believing. It is vastly more difficult, though, to provide evidence in support of a negative than a positive.

A typical theist strawman argument. Are you honestly telling me that you did not know that or did you intentionally make it in order to mislead? I am just curious, because I find it interesting how often Theists in these forums repeat an argument that they have already been shown is fallacious.

1. Existence or non-existence can never be mathematically proved for anything. For non mathematical proofs you have to define what you really mean by 'proof'.
2. The assertion that God does not exist is far easier to back up with good evidence than the reverse.
3. We often assert that which we cannot 'prove' but for which we consider we either have sufficient evidence for or do not have sufficient evidence to the contrary.
4. Most theists have self contradictory claims about God and thus one could dismiss their God as being incoherent so no need to proceed to a non-existence proof.