philh 0
Recommended Posts
Shotgun 1
It's based on the fact that there is no evidence of god or god's and that as we understand the world we live in more and more the less that people attribute to their god or god's.
Personally, I don't believe in God. I have no evidence to prove that God does not exist, so my belief (or lack of) is based on a feeling.
I don't think that it is possible for us to ever fully understand the world we live in. There will always be unanswered questions, so there will probably always be people who attribute the unknown to the work of a god of some sort.
Royd 0
So now, the nicest guy to ever walk the earth is a bi-polar homeless dude?I never said that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. He could have been a very misguided man (as to his divineness) with very good ideas on how one should live their life.
The Old Testament Jews gave a tenth of everything plus the first fruits of the harvest and the herd to the priests of the temple. Some was used for sacrifice, some to sustain the priests while they ministered in the temple.So he can remain part of my argument. Would Jesus (who you guys worship) really appreciate the state of money squandering in modern churches?
Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's[tax], and unto God that which is God's.[tithe]
philh 0
How do you know he was the nices guy ever?
kallend 2,106
>The lack of evidence cannot be evidence.
Correct. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is a god. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is NO god. Therefore, a hard claim in either direction is not supportable by science. To put it another way, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When search for such proof has been going on for millennia, when much previously supposed evidence has turned out to be fully explained by natural laws, and the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to intervene in the affairs of humans, I'd venture to suggest that the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. I don't believe magnetic monopoles exist either.
The absence of evidence argument can be used with anything you like - pigs with wings, fire breathing dragons, the FSM... The burden of proof is on those who wish to prove existence, not the reverse.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
My suggestion is merely that the Pope was wrong in this regard and did not represent what he was commissioned to do. Being the former leader of the Catholic Church, he should have represented the word of God and not faltered in his efforts to do so.
YES. It's all becoming clear to me now. Popes J-P II and Benedict (with some help from the Archbishop of Canterbury) are obviously leaders of a world-wide conspiracy of paleontologists, archeologists, chemists, geologists, mineralogists, biophysicists, geneticists, zoologist, botanists, astronomers, cosmologists, particle physicists and biochemists to foist Darwinism and its associated "theories" on the world.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Royd 0
They are just as religious as any churchgoer. They get together in groups and light candles or incense. They talk to trees and think that they are one with Mother Nature. They study the stars to see what tomorrow will bring.don't understand the comment - "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" it makes no sense
Yea, they're on a higher plane than the rest of us.
Don't know if my reply is in the correct place, not real computer savvy.I could write pages of arguments supporting"why I'm an atheist."But I think the original post was in regards to thinking for ones self.I have just lost my husband who was also an atheist.I have never taught my children to be one or not.I've been honest about my beliefs, while encouraging them to learn about religeon and science and decide for themselves.Out of the four children the ones with faith in God are drawing comfort from there beliefs through this sad and trying time.Who am I to take from them or anyone. I think losing the love of my life is harder for me because I know I won't find him again.He is simply gone forever.I almost envy the comfort of a faith I can never logically accept.So instead of arguing why not just let everyone do what's right for them.
"I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, except I'll die in the end, she said. So what could really go wrong? -----Brian Andreas
billvon 3,070
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>They are just as religious as any churchgoer.
Many christians are similar. They get together in groups and light candles or incense. They talk to Jesus and a pantheon of saints, angels and spirits, and think that they are getting closer to God. They study the New Testament to see what tomorrow will bring. And they're on the same plane as any other devout group of religious people.
If talking to an oak tree is absurd but talking to a dead saint is perfectly logical and reasonable - then I think you may be missing the point when it comes to religion. Because if you're going to descend to that level, and take such rituals/myths literally, christianity is as silly as any other religion. (i.e. if you really believe in the literal transubstantiation of the Eucharist, you're a cannibal. Silly when you look at it at that level, eh?)
Many christians are similar. They get together in groups and light candles or incense. They talk to Jesus and a pantheon of saints, angels and spirits, and think that they are getting closer to God. They study the New Testament to see what tomorrow will bring. And they're on the same plane as any other devout group of religious people.
If talking to an oak tree is absurd but talking to a dead saint is perfectly logical and reasonable - then I think you may be missing the point when it comes to religion. Because if you're going to descend to that level, and take such rituals/myths literally, christianity is as silly as any other religion. (i.e. if you really believe in the literal transubstantiation of the Eucharist, you're a cannibal. Silly when you look at it at that level, eh?)
Royd 0
So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"?
And you spoke with such authority about the beginning of life in previous threads.We don't know yet. We have several theories on how it _may_ have begun, but we can't yet say with any certainty which is correct yet.
Royd 0
Their argument would be that it's because it's only Christians arguing.Does anyone else notice that when people on these forums deny the existence of God they are often denying the existence God based only on the Christian religion?
I think it's because Christianity teaches that you will never be good enough under your own power to reach the goal.
All other religions use the scale mentality. If the good outweighs the bad, then you're good to go.
Correct. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is a flying spaghetti monster . There is no physical, testable evidence that there is NO flying spaghetti monster . Therefore, a hard claim in either direction is not supportable by science. To put it another way, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites