Why do Atheists care about religion?

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Sorry, I don't subscribe to you knowing the origins of agriculture- simply because you weren't around back then....and No. I don't claim to know either.

But Kriskali, I was there [taps nose].

Oh I think this is the thread you're looking for.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And yes, I don't know, but this is the most informed general hypothesis based on what is known.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by jd140

They tried and failed to keep Herb whatever to be the notary. Thats why it is a dead law. It cannot be upheld.

Yet they tried. People in office actually tried to use a dead law against someone just because he was an atheist. Unsuccessful discrimination, but prejudice all the same.

The segregated prom you are talking about wasn't state or school supported. The school held a prom for everyone. The parents held a segregated private prom.

www.cnn.com...

I never said the 2007 one was.

Why do you ignore the supported segregation that only ended in 2005?

reply to post by Welfhard

Ahhhh.....thankyou for showing me the way "heavenly father"- and thankyou for the sacrament of your holy blog.
Cheers

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by spy66
They have nothing in common with The God mentioned in the Bible. And you don't really see the difference her at all.

The God in the Bible wasn't borne her on earth as a human from a human. The God in the Bible was never borne but always was and always is. That makes this God something totally different then Zeus and his family tree.

Pfff. The god of the bible is anthropomorphized all the damn time. You think it impossible for Zues' image to be a similar allegory. The flying spaghetti monster was never born either, "just always was."

Also, like Zeus, god is said to have a son, the trinity is exactly the same to the family trees of the greek mythos.

Now what about gaia? it wasn't born in the way a human is born of a human either.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Welfhard]

Well first of all God in the bible is not mentioned as a human, spaghetti monster, planet, mountain, fish and so on like the myth Gods are mentioned.
God in the bible is the "source" to everything. Making God in the bible something totally different.

You have got the whole image wrong. God was not made in our image we where made in Gods image. You still don't get this image part do you?

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage



Look, I'm not going to argue dead laws that don't work with you all night. You want to feel discriminated against then go ahead. I really don't care.

If you can show me where someone was prohibited under these laws from running then I will jump on your bandwagon. As of now, all you have shown was a town who tried to use it and failed for several years now.

The article about the segregation said that for several years the parents in this town held a private prom, It didn't say the school or state. The parents did it. I did not ignore the 05 incident you was referring to. As the article stated that this has gone on for years I thought this was the story you was referring to.

If it was a differant town and it was put together by the school as a school function then post a link.

edit for the grammer that I saw was wrong.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by jd140]

reply to post by spy66


I didn't say the god of the bible was made in our image, did I? He is often anthropomorphized plenty however. No religious person agrees what it meant by "man made in his image." And you think you know any better?

This is also a good time to point out the mountain of times the bible referrs to god as "He" "Him" and "father", meaning a male person, no "a source". For someone who isn't in to family, he sure is into family a lot.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

I didn't say the god of the bible was made in our image, did I? He is often anthropomorphized plenty however. No religious person agrees what it meant by "man made in his image." And you think you know any better?

This is also a good time to point out the mountain of times the bible referrs to god as "He" "Him" and "father", meaning a male person, no "a source". For someone who isn't in to family, he sure is into family a lot.

I didn't say the god of the bible was made in our image, did I? He is often anthropomorphized plenty however. No religious person agrees what it meant by "man made in his image." And you think you know any better?

Well since you couldn't tell the difference from a human God and "Thee God" its hard to tell.

This is also a good time to point out the mountain of times the bible refers to god as "He" "Him" and "father", meaning a male person, no "a source". For someone who isn't in to family, he sure is into family a lot.

Yes it sure is. This is where you make your mistake. That's why you get the image wrong.

God is just a name. And when you give something a name your whole world falls a part. You can't see past it.

God is mentioned as many things by man. Even as energy and light. Because they can see past the name God.
They can see what the source is,but you can't. Your still stuck on the name "God" and that's where your image stops to.

If i talk about a atom i bet you do get the right image. But when God is mentioned you don't have a clue.

If a man called his boat for Maria. Do you think the boat turns into a female (Human) just because of the female name?

Do you think a boat with the name Shark becomes a fish just because the name Shark is given to it?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by jd140

You want to feel discriminated against then go ahead.

Um, I'm not an atheist, dude.

your bandwagon.

I don't have a "bandwagon" on this issue. Just pointing out one person's ignorance who thinks atheist don't get discriminated against. Dead law or not the discrimination in SC is clear for anyone to see.

The article about the segregation said that for several years the parents in this town held a private prom, It didn't say the school or state. The parents did it. I did not ignore the 05 incident you was referring to. As the article stated that this has gone on for years I thought this was the story you was referring to.

You're referring to something that has nothing to do with Georgia's history until 2005, which is touched on in the other article I posted, in which the governor finally did away with the dead laws for good. You instead decided to focus on claims I never made about another article. Good for you, a waste of both of our time on a topic that I was replying to another poster on that has nothing to do with this thread.

Night.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Saying that God = energy & the universe and saying that energy and the universe exists therefore God exists is silly. All your doing is redefining what God is to energy and then implying that it has a godly consciousness which in the end you need faith for still!

Pink unicorns = pizza.
I've seen pizza before, therefore pink unicorns must exists.
And God too. Why not.

I don't see the flaw in logic.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Faith is useless, I cannot stress that enough - it means nothing, it proves nothing and it can be blinding. It's just the stupidest thing.

Faith is inherently flawed. It will ultimately lead you where you want it to lead you.

But many people need faith... It's the first and most widely used antidepressant.

reply to post by TruthParadox

But many people need faith... It's the first and most widely used antidepressant.

I can think of another one. It comes in many calibres.

reply to post by spy66

God is just a name. And when you give something a name your whole world falls a part. You can't see past it.

God is mentioned as many things by man. Even as energy and light. Because they can see past the name God.
They can see what the source is,but you can't. Your still stuck on the name "God" and that's where your image stops to.

If i talk about a atom i bet you do get the right image. But when God is mentioned you don't have a clue.

If a man called his boat for Maria. Do you think the boat turns into a female (Human) just because of the female name?

Do you think a boat with the name Shark becomes a fish just because the name Shark is given to it?

The name is irrelevant. The "image" that you speak of is of a non naturalistic entity that's very existence is unconfirmed. You problem is that you cannot be assured that your particular "image" of god is more accurate than any other, after all both Zeus and the FSM are "images".

Give me some evidence so that reason can be found to believe in a hypothetical entity.

LoL here we go again

I can't prove anything to you about God. And you know it.

And You can't disprove anything about God either. And i know that.

So who is right Me or You?

Originally posted by spy66
It is for you. And you share that fact with the rest of your clan. Not much anybody can do about that. And that is a fact.

The Bible does have fictional elements. You can't argue against that... The gospels disagree on several fronts, so one or more of them have to be partially fictional. The story of Noah's ark has been scientifically disproved and even raped. It's obviously fiction.
The story of Adam and Eve has to be fictional, unless you want to argue against the dating methods we have which say humans are millions of years old and not 6,000 - good luck there. And not only that, but most Christians would admit that the story of Adam and Eve is not literal.
Many stories in the Old and New Testament share no link with historic data, and several links to that of a children's book.

Originally posted by spy66
The fact is that you dont believe in God that's all. That doesn't bother me at all.

You can argue >Gods non existence to your eyes pope out for all i care, its not my lose if you don't get it.

But you will never convince me that God doesn't exist no matter how hard you try,because you can't produce any facts that he doesn't exist.

coo.

Originally posted by spy66
You can't produce any more facts of Gods non existence then i can prove to you that God does exist.

Well then, I present a challenge to you. I'm interested in the result though I think I already know it...

You admit you can not prove God as I likewise admit that I can not disprove God.
Because of this, I can not KNOW that there is no God.
Likewise, you can not KNOW that there is a God.

Will you meet me half way and admit to that (simple logic).
OR will you claim a 'feeling' or 'knowing' as your ultimate truth (blind faith).

Either way, I'll let you in on a secret.
Logic always wins in the end.
Faith will only take you where you want it to take you. It's good for making life seem like a mystery or an adventure, nothing more.

Originally posted by spy66
Because you think God is a man or a magician that is you re scale of knowledge in this matter.

How can some one argue with you or your kind?

By using logic.
By not claiming to 'know' something based a gut feeling, or worse, indoctrination.
You may not know the source of your faith, but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us that the source is NOT logic or evidence.
So then what's the point in even arguing?

Just say: this is what I believe and you should believe it too because I believe it and it's true and you're wrong and god exists because the universe exists and I know god exists because I'm right and your wrong.

Except you already said that, didn't you?

reply to post by spy66

So who is right Me or You?

That depends.

You say that god exists (albeit in this kinda new-agey energy way) which is indeterminable. Meaning you're not right or wrong since a conclusion can't be drawn.

I say that since no conclusion can be draw on any deity, there is no point believing in any particular one or especially in a man-authored holy book.

Our arguments are not mutually exclusive, meaning if one of us is wrong, that doesn't determine that the other is wrong, so the simplicity of saying "which one of us is right?" misses the point.

You are not right.
But that doesn't make you instantly wrong either. In a similar way, not believing doesn't make one instantly believe the thing doesn't exist - just non-concluded.

Isn't non-concluded better when no evidence is available?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by spy66


Which my friends is why we will always have Atheists. Until individuals are forced to embrace something, albeit, by the sword; they will always have personal choice to worship/or not what they like!
One may even invent their own ideal to worship, call it Pziforg or whatever- then they would, no doubt, have some Christian tell them that Pziforg is in fact Satan in another form. Back to square one.
I guess Atheists exist because of Christianitys' intolerance.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

that is why it would be gods fault if I were to die thinking it didn't exist.

Priceless

An atheist blames God for not letting him develop any faith.

You are blaming the the wrong spirit entity, he is the guy that is not letting you develop any faith, and it's working.

Is God all powerful?
Is God all knowing?

If so, then he also must be "all responsible".
The creator of all, knowing all ends before he created the beginnings, which means he designed all ends. That makes him responsible for the beginning and the end.
There's no avoiding it.
The knowledge of the end and the action with said knowledge makes a person responsible. To claim otherwise is foolish.

If I fire a gun, what makes me responsible is the fact that I knew what would happen before I fired the gun, and yet I fired it anyway.

reply to post by TruthParadox



Yes when it comes to the bible there are many things i don't understand.

Like.... what did God mean by: Let there be light! This light has a time of creation. Its the 3rd creation by God.
Many claim that this light is Jesus, but i don't see the connection here at all when i read the Bible. Because the time the light was created compared to Jesus. The sentence Let there be light doesn't apply a single clue to being Jesus in the way it is written.

And why does Moses describe creations in two totally different orders. The 6 day creation in chapter one does not match the the second chapter by Moses.

And humans and animals possessed by Angles. Like the snake in the Garden of Eden. In our reality this becomes quite fictional. I don't know what to make of this either. It doesn't fit into our reality.

The punishment given to the snake in the garden of Eden doesn't make sense either. If the snake was possessed by the Devil, why would God just punish the snake?
The snake didn't really have anything to do with the sin. The snake was possessed by the Devil. The Devil took control over the snake. The snake couldn't do anything about that.

But then later on in the Bible the Bible depicts the Devil as a snake or Dragon and so on?
I can't make sense of this at all. Either the Devil is a Angel or he is a snake or a Dragon. He can't be all at the same time. That goes against Gods perfect creation. Or logic.



When it comes to faith and feelings you can challenge it all you like. Faith and feelings is something that is personal.

What i believe, feel or have faith in you can't do anything about. Only i can do anything about that.

You can challenge my believes and faith,but i bet you can't change them.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

So who is right Me or You?

That depends.

You say that god exists (albeit in this kinda new-agey energy way) which is indeterminable. Meaning you're not right or wrong since a conclusion can't be drawn.

I say that since no conclusion can be draw on any deity, there is no point believing in any particular one or especially in a man-authored holy book.

Our arguments are not mutually exclusive, meaning if one of us is wrong, that doesn't determine that the other is wrong, so the simplicity of saying "which one of us is right?" misses the point.

You are not right.
But that doesn't make you instantly wrong either. In a similar way, not believing doesn't make one instantly believe the thing doesn't exist - just non-concluded.

Isn't non-concluded better when no evidence is available?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Welfhard]

Well if i am right you would be wrong. If you are right i would be wrong. But who is to tell?

If i like to have faith and believe that there is a source to everything is that wrong?

My image of God is far from your image.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
When it comes to faith and feelings you can challenge it all you like. Faith and feelings is something that is personal.

That's cool. It is personal.
But why argue about it when you only have faith?
Faith doesn't translate well to a forum.

You're pretty much saying you believe something and all of us are wrong because we don't believe it.
Then when we question the source of that belief, you say that you know it's true, but it's a personal faith that is in your head.

To be blunt - pointless.

I'm interested in discussing the logical aspect, not faith.

Originally posted by spy66
What i believe, feel or have faith in you can't do anything about. Only i can do anything about that.

You can challenge my believes and faith,but i bet you can't change them.

I'd bet I can't change them as well.
And we'd both be right.

You either run on faith or logic...
You can have faith that you're using logic, or you can use logic to see the flaws of faith.
One always trumps the other, in my opinion...
And my opinion is always right. cuz' it's mine.
w0rd.

reply to post by spy66

If i like to have faith and believe that there is a source to everything is that wrong?

Nothing is wrong with that as long as you recognise that you may be wrong. I have. My position is one of non-committal in absence of evidence. I'd love for a god to exist but I can't justify it to myself without evidence. With human limitations, evidence is the most important thing.