The best reasons to believe that there is a God

[handsofdoom]

We can never know everything because new information is always being created.

 

 

that is until this new information can be anticipated.

[EastHastings]

It's quite hard to prove a negative to a group of people that widely accept the belief that is does exist, especially, through generational tradition. We can all exist with and without the acceptence of a deity. It is all relativity and personal opinion.

[handsofdoom]

We can all exist with and without the acceptence of a deity.

 

"the true believer cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee." - Christopher Hitchens

 

we can exist together with our differences, true. but how harmoniously? everyday, thousands of people are killed because of contrary beliefs. it disgusts me.

 

for one second, imagine a world without religion. hundreds of millions of lives spared. scientific and technological progression unhindered by prosecution and prohibition. community without religious differences and prejudices.

 

i get real depressed thinking about all that.

[EastHastings]

Truth. Despite generalized and default views, Atheism works great in theory. But, in practicality, it is but a mere fantasy, atleast for now. We are approaching a post-Christian era. Either a turn for the better, or worse.

[handsofdoom]

Truth. Despite generalized and default views, Atheism works great in theory. But, in practicality, it is but a mere fantasy, atleast for now. We are approaching a post-Christian era. Either a turn for the better, or worse.

 

i disagree. the God reflex cannot be killed. the idea of "god" will continue to exist for as long as the human race survives with our current level of cognitive advancement.

[EastHastings]

Yes, but now Atheism is the minority, if you will. I am not stating that the idea of God will be completely deminished and forgotten. Atheism continues to grow, but on the counter, it mirrors the salty Islamic faith in the Eastern Hemisphere. And absolutely the idea of God will forever remain with humans. We do not all think alike. Alas, this thread!

[Fist 666]

an atheist society would not spare lives, it would just kill differently.

war and atrocity will happen no matter what cover it is allotted.

it is foolish to think that man's liberation from religion would result in an agenda free science/tech field.

when man liberates himself from one god he will find another to replace it.

 

also, asking questions, as casek is, is as valid a method of arguing as typing 'arguments.' if questions can't be answered, or offer alternate possibilities, they further the initial point w/o simply derailing it.

 

dawkins-atheists are the worst.

[twonpoo]

word. this thread is about making a claim and supporting it. unless you have evidence for any of your posts or a potential for realization of your theory, don't bother.

 

this goes both ways. Except Im believing in things that can be proven via science. And the flipside of the coin is people believing in fairy tales and saying prove me wrong. Like the Easter bunny, he must be real cuz' I cant disprove it. :lol:

 

And just because you don;t like Dawkins doesnt make his rationality any less punctual. If he wrote a book and called it "The Holy Fable" is it ok to believe him then? What if we rewrite The Holy Fable a ton of times and pass it forward a couple thousand years, is it ok to quote Dawkins on this thread then without you downplaying his work?

 

 

 

Thanks tho, I'll continue on my path of interest. Unless you know where the Easter Bunny lives, I'll go ask him a few questions.

[handsofdoom]

an atheist society would not spare lives, it would just kill differently.

war and atrocity will happen no matter what cover it is allotted.

it is foolish to think that man's liberation from religion would result in an agenda free science/tech field.

when man liberates himself from one god he will find another to replace it.

 

 

no, no, no. you apparently misunderstood. when i was describing a world free of religion, this implies the past was free of religion. i was describing how i feel that the human race would be more advanced without the negative impact religious persecution has had on our society. it's quite common knowledge the Church would do anything to destroy any scientific evidence or prevent evidence from becoming (see: burning at the stake) that was contrary to the teachings of the Bible, etc.

 

same with the lives part. i was talking about all the lives taken in the name of religion. see: Inquisition, et cetera.

[lord_casek]

this goes both ways. Except Im believing in things that can be proven via science. And the flipside of the coin is people believing in fairy tales and saying prove me wrong. Like the Easter bunny, he must be real cuz' I cant disprove it. :lol:

 

And just because you don;t like Dawkins doesnt make his rationality any less punctual. If he wrote a book and called it "The Holy Fable" is it ok to believe him then? What if we rewrite The Holy Fable a ton of times and pass it forward a couple thousand years, is it ok to quote Dawkins on this thread then without you downplaying his work?

 

 

 

Thanks tho, I'll continue on my path of interest. Unless you know where the Easter Bunny lives, I'll go ask him a few questions.

 

 

You deify science.

Except Im believing in things that can be proven via science

 

Of course you can disprove the Easter Bunny. It's pagan in origin and symbolizes rebirth and renewal, as does the egg.

 

You just deified Richard Dawkins (something which I believe he has already done to himself).

 

How do I believe in a fairytale? Did I say which faith I believe in? I don't think I ever did say. I said I believe in God. I said that I believe that all that we see and don't see is part of God. I never said which god. (notice I use big G and little g to differentiate)

 

Again, you're as bad as the streetcorner crazies damning all to hell because they don't believe as you believe. What with your snide comments on fairytales, etc.

 

You're smarter than that.

[twonpoo]

I didnt deify anyone, I used sarcasm to make a point about the parallels that get overlooked. It's said by some that things have to be proven wrong or else you can believe in it. but there's proof like you said, there is no Easter Bunny and then you tossed in the little Pagan info, also of which Christianity stole tons from. I'm sure you know this so I won't go there. But there's people ( not saying yourself "lord") that actually say if you can't disprove that there isn't a God how can you say he doesn't exzist? and then go on believing in this concept as the backbone for why their belief system is a reality.

 

I also never eluded to you believing in Christianity either, again I made a parallel example. Why question one man who wrote a book( Dawkins =up to date Scientific rationality), and not another book( Bible= dark aged beliefs and stolen stories)?

 

It's irrelevant whether you believe in a "God" or if you're a bible pumping Christian, I talked about religion being a fairy tail and basically a game of telephone, and you jumped in to tell me when and why I came to this conclusion , like I just found Dawkins on Youtube last week and now he's trendy.

 

for the record I've not followed Religion for feelings of it being foolish my entire life. I don;t stand on the corner of 42nd street preaching anything, but if someone wants to get into a debate with me I donlt hold back and most times people like yourself get ass bent and dance around pointing the finger back at me, instead of themselves.

 

Stay on topic, you dance around a little too much with the "you you you" bit.

[lord_casek]

I kinda see your point, but at the same time don't understand how one can be "oh, this is a fairytaie" and this guy (Dawkins) is right because it sounds logical (it must be truth b/c it sounds good!). He does seem a bit trendy these days...as well as pompous and very full of himself.

 

Yes, I'm aware of where a lot of Christian parables come from. I also think a lot of people lose the message when they try and explain it all away.

 

I've got a neat book that some of you may be interested in titled "Jesus Interrupted". I'll up it if you'd like.

[twonpoo]

There is a reason for Dawkins recent popularity, because for the first time the issue of being an aethiest is not being shunned and people are realizing in a commercial way that there's others out there who are not alone in NOT believing the organized religion fairy tail. And it doesn't help the wildfire that he's an incredibly educated and rational man who has shut down every question ever thrown at him based on facts and reason. Pompous? Could be, but confidence comes with success, no matter where you look. Reguardless of how pompous he may come off, I prefer to call it character, the guys has character and his professional standpoint is respected by colleages as well as some highranking religious figures he's had debates with. And ONLY through those debates these high ranking figures have come out and said things in the vein of "yes, religion has a lot that isn't right and maybe it's time things are changed"

 

If it takes his pompousness to be recognized in ways prior Dawkin types have failed then let him continue to travel the world and be pompous. It's getting a message out and whether you or I, like it it is a dawn of a huge pivoting change of public opinion, and that is what I would say people like yourself and these religulous types fear the most, the idea that your belief systems could become a minority that forces you to look and actually question your own ideals. That can kill a man's ego, who's been believing something since birth, someone who's made decisions in his life based on these beliefs.

[lord_casek]

There is a reason for Dawkins recent popularity, because for the first time the issue of being an aethiest is not being shunned and people are realizing in a commercial way that there's others out there who are not alone in NOT believing the organized religion fairy tail. And it doesn't help the wildfire that he's an incredibly educated and rational man who has shut down every question ever thrown at him based on facts and reason. Pompous? Could be, but confidence comes with success, no matter where you look. Reguardless of how pompous he may come off, I prefer to call it character, the guys has character and his professional standpoint is respected by colleages as well as some highranking religious figures he's had debates with. And ONLY through those debates these high ranking figures have come out and said things in the vein of "yes, religion has a lot that isn't right and maybe it's time things are changed"

 

If it takes his pompousness to be recognized in ways prior Dawkin types have failed then let him continue to travel the world and be pompous. It's getting a message out and whether you or I, like it it is a dawn of a huge pivoting change of public opinion, and that is what I would say people like yourself and these religulous types fear the most, the idea that your belief systems could become a minority that forces you to look and actually question your own ideals. That can kill a man's ego, who's been believing something since birth, someone who's made decisions in his life based on these beliefs.

 

 

For the first time? Really? Ever heard of communism in the USSR?

 

Care to explain what a "person like me" is?

 

Also, you're all up in Dawkins ass. Perhaps original thought would do you some good?

[EastHastings]

I kinda see your point, but at the same time don't understand how one can be "oh, this is a fairytaie" and this guy (Dawkins) is right because it sounds logical (it must be truth b/c it sounds good!). He does seem a bit trendy these days...as well as pompous and very full of himself.

 

Wait, so, logic and intellect is "trendy" now? I seriously doubt that the type of person who recreationally reads Dawkins' literature is the same prototypical sponge which absorbs the fairytale-esque writings of the Bible. I have never met a single person who claims Dawkins' as a prophet or messiah for atheism synonymous to that of Mohammad or Jesus. Face it, atheism is being a sociological acceptence. Whether or not this loose logic seems "trendy" or not, it gives concrete backing to atheism.

 

I agree with you that there are a small number of people that do tend to discern the idea of god for the wrong reasons, but there are a hell of alot more in favor of theism.

[lord_casek]

Wait, so, logic and intellect is "trendy" now? I seriously doubt that the type of person who recreationally reads Dawkins' literature is the same prototypical sponge which absorbs the fairytale-esque writings of the Bible. I have never met a single person who claims Dawkins' as a prophet or messiah for atheism synonymous to that of Mohammad or Jesus. Face it, atheism is being a sociological acceptence. Whether or not this loose logic seems "trendy" or not, it gives concrete backing to atheism.

 

I agree with you that there are a small number of people that do tend to discern the idea of god for the wrong reasons, but there are a hell of alot more in favor of theism.

 

No, Dawkins is trendy these days.

 

Seems to me a lot of atheists seem to think they are above people because they think they know the answer(s).

 

As for Dawkins being deified, look at how twon talks about him. He's just a man and yet he has followers praising him as if he was granted the answers. Logic can be twisted as evidenced by political speech writers, propagandists, etc.

 

http://creatingminds.org/tools/delphi.htm

 

http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271474562&sr=8-1

[twonpoo]

again, youre pointing and pointing and pointing elsewhere.

 

I enjoy what he has to say, not sure why that's bad.He only verbalizes things I already beleived. With a quick tongue and facts to back up what he says. Still not sure why that's a bad thing? Cuz you don't like him? mmkay....

 

lol

[twonpoo]

Wait, so, logic and intellect is "trendy" now? I seriously doubt that the type of person who recreationally reads Dawkins' literature is the same prototypical sponge which absorbs the fairytale-esque writings of the Bible. I have never met a single person who claims Dawkins' as a prophet or messiah for atheism synonymous to that of Mohammad or Jesus. Face it, atheism is being a sociological acceptence. Whether or not this loose logic seems "trendy" or not, it gives concrete backing to atheism.

 

I agree with you that there are a small number of people that do tend to discern the idea of god for the wrong reasons, but there are a hell of alot more in favor of theism.

 

 

 

thank you. Intelligence will never be out of style. And the day it's trendy to just follow story books fro thousands of years ago and base your life around an old belief system blindly is a day I dont subscribe to. I'll be over here with the rational folk. Believing in the tangible.

[twonpoo]

For the first time? Really? Ever heard of communism in the USSR?

 

Care to explain what a "person like me" is?

 

Also, you're all up in Dawkins ass. Perhaps original thought would do you some good?

 

first time on my radar since I've been alive, yes. You're talkin' about communism now? C'mon man focus. lol I'm talking about today's Science, today's knowledge of things. Thing's I like to use to base my opinions.

[Fist 666]

dawkins' atheism (T) is trendy as fuck. the man has attached an image and attitude, a brand if you will, to the last 5 years of atheism. he's made it "cool" or "chic" to be an atheist. he utilized youtubes viral nature to get people to proclaim their atheism in public--another clique of college-borne rebellion. the people that adopt atheism from his books are exactly the same people who fall for fairy tale religion. (and saying they aren't is another prime example of atheists saying they're better, smarter, wiser, etc than non-atheists)

 

he's fucking annoying. he's a scientist that is pushing his agenda, but not pushing science.

[lord_casek]

first time on my radar since I've been alive, yes. You're talkin' about communism now? C'mon man focus. lol I'm talking about today's Science, today's knowledge of things. Thing's I like to use to base my opinions.

 

It's ok if you don't know. It hasn't been that long.

 

"The Soviet Union was an atheist state from 1928-1939, in which religion was largely discouraged and heavily persecuted, and a secular state in 1945 until its dissolution. According to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the country's people professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers"

 

.

again, youre pointing and pointing and pointing elsewhere.

 

I ask direct and legitimate questions.

 

You also never told me what a "person like me" is.

[lord_casek]

dawkins' atheism (T) is trendy as fuck. the man has attached an image and attitude, a brand if you will, to the last 5 years of atheism. he's made it "cool" or "chic" to be an atheist. he utilized youtubes viral nature to get people to proclaim their atheism in public--another clique of college-borne rebellion. the people that adopt atheism from his books are exactly the same people who fall for fairy tale religion. (and saying they aren't is another prime example of atheists saying they're better, smarter, wiser, etc than non-atheists)

 

he's fucking annoying. he's a scientist that is pushing his agenda, but not pushing science.

 

 

Exactly my point. It's somehow being avoided, though. I'm sure yours will, too.

[twonpoo]

dawkins' atheism (T) is trendy as fuck. the man has attached an image and attitude, a brand if you will, to the last 5 years of atheism. he's made it "cool" or "chic" to be an atheist. he utilized youtubes viral nature to get people to proclaim their atheism in public--another clique of college-borne rebellion. the people that adopt atheism from his books are exactly the same people who fall for fairy tale religion. (and saying they aren't is another prime example of atheists saying they're better, smarter, wiser, etc than non-atheists)

 

he's fucking annoying. he's a scientist that is pushing his agenda, but not pushing science.

 

You're out of your mind. If these people are just followers, then why isn't his entire "fan"base already stuck wearing crusifixes around their necks? No one to my knowledge is Atheist to be trendy. this isn't baggy jeans or trucker caps here, this is finding something rational that makes sense. It's the easiest thing for any religulous person to call Dawkins a "trend". but that's the extent of the smear campaign. That doesnt change things. Just shows your anger more. :lol:

 

post edit: a brand and a face? he's a normal science teacher type of white guy, you sound real U MAD right about now. Acting like Science in the new Coca-Cola or something. and he'sNOT pushing Science? hahaha, you're really lost in the sauce.

[twonpoo]

It's ok if you don't know. It hasn't been that long.

 

"The Soviet Union was an atheist state from 1928-1939, in which religion was largely discouraged and heavily persecuted, and a secular state in 1945 until its dissolution. According to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the country's people professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers"

 

.

 

I ask direct and legitimate questions.

 

You also never told me what a "person like me" is.

 

 

Listen man, youre baiting, and it's see thru. You arent asking legitmate questions, youre throwing assumptions around and tossing in text book comunist google search facts around from the 40's???? Cmon man. chill.....

 

And again, I donlt care to form some answer about you, when you didnt tell me where you stand, what's the point of it? so I can be wrong, and you say tuche' ?

 

Who cares? Im not trying to win points with you, just curious why some people are die hard about old religion stories but the minute Dawkin's gets brought up everyone gets nervous and says someone is just hopping on a bandwagon. haha, I haven't even redirected that one yet as to what religulous types do, but that's cuz i could care less about those kinds of followers.

 

stay on track Lord Casey Jones.

[twonpoo]

dawkins' atheism (T) is trendy as fuck. the man has attached an image and attitude, a brand if you will, to the last 5 years of atheism. he's made it "cool" or "chic" to be an atheist. he utilized youtubes viral nature to get people to proclaim their atheism in public--another clique of college-borne rebellion. the people that adopt atheism from his books are exactly the same people who fall for fairy tale religion. (and saying they aren't is another prime example of atheists saying they're better, smarter, wiser, etc than non-atheists)

 

he's fucking annoying. he's a scientist that is pushing his agenda, but not pushing science.

 

his agenda goes hand in hand with his science, you cant be half right, if Science is right, he is right, he's the one being asked questions.

 

And let's get something straight since you seem to just wanna hate on anyone who says "they are better then others 'cuz they don't believe in fairy tales"

 

If you believe fairy tales and base your life around them, there is no outright statement by someone like me being better for not. It's just me saying I don't and seeing people who do, seems pretty fuckin silly to me, Im not making myself some type of elitist. If that's the way it seems, then my bad but it's not like I believe what I believe just to rub it in someone's faces. Im pretty secure with my self esteme, I dont need to put people down to feel better. This is just the way it's looked at by people with their eyes open. And it's kinda silly to hate on people who use Science to form conclusions in 2010. Science only gets better and better. As things become more and more clearer, then what? You gonna call Science a trend next? Think about it.

 

 

Im typsy and typing fast, sorry if any typos

[lord_casek]

 

If it takes his pompousness to be recognized in ways prior Dawkin types have failed then let him continue to travel the world and be pompous. It's getting a message out and whether you or I, like it it is a dawn of a huge pivoting change of public opinion, and that is what I would say people like yourself and these religulous types fear the most, the idea that your belief systems could become a minority that forces you to look and actually question your own ideals. That can kill a man's ego, who's been believing something since birth, someone who's made decisions in his life based on these beliefs.

 

 

Listen man, youre baiting, and it's see thru. I arent asking legitmate questions, youre throwing assumptions around and tossing in text book comunist google search facts around from the 40's???? Cmon man. chill.....

 

And again, I donlt care to form some answer about you, when you didnt tell me where you stand, what's the point of it? so I can be wrong, and you say tuche' ?

 

Who cares? Im not trying to win points with you, just curious why some people are die hard about old religion stories but the minute Dawkin's gets brought up everyone gets nervous and says someone is just hopping on a bandwagon. haha, I haven't even redirected that one yet as to what religulous types do, but that's cuz i could care less about those idiots.

 

 

I'm baiting no one. I am discussing this with you. I don't have an agenda to turn you to religion or anything else. I would like you to realize that by calling religion a fairy tale and

calling followers of any religion idiots, you are doing the same thing that you are preaching against.

 

You don't care to form an opinion about me, but you make a comment about "people like me". I'd really like to know what that means. Am I a religious nutcase telling you that you

are going to hell because we disagree? I hope not. I don't think I've condemned anyone.

Not yet. If I do, call me out on that shit. I don't want to be like that at all.

 

Am I challenging your line of thought? A little. I like the debate. Probably somewhat the same reason you're here with less mocking of peoples spiritual beliefs and less image posts.

 

As for tossing in google search facts, dude....you said it was the first time atheism has been on your radar in such a popular fashion. I knew about communism/marxism and it's

damning of the church in the Soviet Union beforehand.

 

I haven't made fun of you for your beliefs once. Not one single time and yet you continue to say I'm derailing, fingerpointing, etc. Either I am and don't realize it or you're misinterpreting what I say. I apologize if I'm not being clear enough, but it seems as though you are doing what you accuse me of doing.

[lord_casek]

his agenda goes hand in hand with his science, you cant be half right, if Science is right, he is right, he's the one being asked questions.

 

And let's get something straight since you seem to just wanna hate on anyone who says "they are better then others 'cuz they don't believe in fairy tales"

 

If you believe fairy tales and base your life around them, there is no outright statement by someone like me being better for not. It's just me saying I don't and seeing people who do, seems pretty fuckin silly to me, Im not making myself some type of elitist. If that's the way it seems, then my bad but it's not like I believe what I believe just to rub it in someone's faces. Im pretty secure with my self esteme, I dont need to put people down to feel better. This is just the way it's looked at by people with their eyes open. And it's kinda silly to hate on people who use Science to form conclusions in 2010. Science only gets better and better. As things become more and more clearer, then what? You gonna call Science a trend next? Think about it.

 

 

Im typsy and typing fast, sorry if any typos

 

You say you aren't, but then you do. Sober up and then respond.

[twonpoo]

 

 

sorry my man, I enjoy debate, but you're type annoying.

 

and I never said I was wasted, I said Im typsy.

[Fist 666]

You're out of your mind. If these people are just followers, then why isn't his entire "fan"base already stuck wearing crusifixes around their necks? No one to my knowledge is Atheist to be trendy. this isn't baggy jeans or trucker caps here, this is finding something rational that makes sense. It's the easiest thing for any religulous person to call Dawkins a "trend". but that's the extent of the smear campaign. That doesnt change things. Just shows your anger more. :lol:

 

post edit: a brand and a face? he's a normal science teacher type of white guy, you sound real U MAD right about now. Acting like Science in the new Coca-Cola or something. and he'sNOT pushing Science? hahaha, you're really lost in the sauce.

 

 

whether someone wears a crucifix or dawkins' cock in their mouth--its all the same to me. cling to what you choose to believe.

 

a brand and a face, yes. if i need to break that down further, then you're already out of your element. basic english terms.

 

for the record. i am an atheist. if you were anything more than a troll and could follow your own arguments for multiple pages, let alone the entirety of this thread, you would know my stance.

 

science and dawkins are not interchangeable. i did not, and have not mocked science once. dawkins and his books i have problems with. its not a smear campaign. its cold cut.

 

yes, you are proclaiming you're better by calling what most of the world believes a fairy tale. you're so in, so modern, so 2010 to accept the last 300 years of learning. you're not smarter or better--you've been given a different upbringing and education, and the fact that you're latching onto dawkins as your source and inspiration furthers the fact that you're exactly the type of person who is looking to fill the gap that religion fills for everyone else.

 

serious question: at what point in your life did you proclaim yourself an atheist? were you raised as such, or was there a turning point and what inspired it?

 

as i said a few pages back, you really aren't worth my time or anyone elses. your arguments are base fodder that only support one idea w/o accepting or growing yourself. you miss the point of debate.

[Fist 666]

no, no, no. you apparently misunderstood. when i was describing a world free of religion, this implies the past was free of religion. i was describing how i feel that the human race would be more advanced without the negative impact religious persecution has had on our society. it's quite common knowledge the Church would do anything to destroy any scientific evidence or prevent evidence from becoming (see: burning at the stake) that was contrary to the teachings of the Bible, etc.

 

same with the lives part. i was talking about all the lives taken in the name of religion. see: Inquisition, et cetera.

 

perhaps i misunderstood, but it doesn't change my point.

i'm pretty sure i also made this argument in the fast few pages, but it might have been a while back in dawood's thread.

 

religion provided the societal structure and order for us to develop basic scientific principles. it allowed for the order of weights and measures. religion kept society in check so that it could grow as it did. w/o religion math, science, and art would be drastically different.

to say that science would have been unfettered and would have blossomed is dreamy.

 

of course religion has had a negative impact, but it has also done a lot of good for the structured world we live in to allow the technology we now have. perhaps later, perhaps earlier, pointless paradox to discuss.