Are you an atheist?

[Galaxiom]

One stone discussing with another stone whether to move, or remain in place.
Intransience on both sides. Neither side in any doubt about their case. No point in the discussion, No change on either side.

The goal is not changing the mind of the believer but to expose the facts to those contemplating a religious future.

For centuries speaking against religion was an invitation be killed. Then it became an impolite subject to be avoided.

Now we can speak out about the ridiculous facade that is religion. Religion cannot sustain this. I won't see its complete demise in my lifetime but I will certainly continue to experience its decline.

Ultimately the future of this planet depends on the young everywhere rejecting religion for the archaic superstition that it is.

 

[Galaxiom]

Your right. People can either accept what I preach by faith or they can rejected it, but I will not debate it as it can not be proven by sight. Also it is perfectly acceptable to say it is a crutch that we use.

I don't have a problem with who have a place for religion in their lives. I subscribe to my own personal myths for their positive aspects too. Something does not need to be true to be useful.

However I draw the line when such beliefs are raised as the basis for public policy.

I also object to the notion that any belief deserves automatic respect and immunity from criticism.

 

[Galaxiom]

Talking stones!!! You need to stop using LSD buddy

Nothing particularly new to the Bible and its sequels. Talking bushes (Exodus 3) and a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28).

The Quran (19:22-33) has Jesus speaking as a baby in the crib.

Yet otherwise intelligent people actually believe this rubbish.

 

[ozzi]

Hi Galaxiom

Religion is not actually a symptom but another face of the same issue. At least removing religion removes an excuse and a means of recruitment.

Still a symptom of the underlying Life imperative to dominate inorder to spread ones genes. agreed that is religion an excuse, but my point is that unless one uses ones intellect to evaluate real motives people will still use and fall for other excuses,(ideology, nationalism, patriotism, etc.).

It would certainly force those who use religion in this way to be more upfront about their real motives.

You think so? its more likely they will attempt to shout louder and seek out weaker minds

Genghis Khan literally thought he was a god. Napoleon was close too. Many Roman emperors put themselves at a similar level.

Just because they thought of themselves as god doesn't mean their motives were of a religious nature. the very idea shows their desires to be the pack Alpha.

ozzi

 

[ozzi]

The goal is not changing the mind of the believer but to expose the facts to those contemplating a religious future.

keep your religion out of our schools, and we will keep our logic out of your church.

For centuries speaking against religion was an invitation be killed. Then it became an impolite subject to be avoided.

Now we can speak out about the ridiculous facade that is religion. Religion cannot sustain this. I won't see its complete demise in my lifetime but I will certainly continue to experience its decline.

Ultimately the future of this planet depends on the young everywhere rejecting religion for the archaic superstition that it is.

all true, but only if we stop legitimising religion by not giving them the opportunity to debate. why give them a forum outside their closed group. why would you talk to a "stone" and why would you listen to one.
the debate/ discussion seems to be more about which group is dominant Alpha.

surely it would be more "Intellectual" to discuss methods of improving Education than to be trying to score points against the indefensible?

ozzi

 

[Galaxiom]

Still a symptom of the underlying Life imperative to dominate inorder to spread ones genes. agreed that is religion an excuse, but my point is that unless one uses ones intellect to evaluate real motives people will still use and fall for other excuses,(ideology, nationalism, patriotism, etc.).

One less excuse is still a step in the right direction. Indeed religion is the most powerful of motivators, threatening the non-compliant with eternal suffering. Breaking down the facade of religion is using intellect to expose the real motives.

You think so? its more likely they will attempt to shout louder and seek out weaker minds

Thus reducing the pool of susceptible minds by removing the stronger minds. The weakest of minds are already in the clutches of religion. Shouting louder won't help them much. Indeed it makes them look more desperate.

Just because they thought of themselves as god doesn't mean their motives were of a religious nature. the very idea shows their desires to be the pack Alpha.

Regardless of their primary motives they still used divine purpose as the justification for their actions.

You seem to be confusing motive with the means. Removing religion removes one of the historically most effective of all means.

 

[Galaxiom]

keep your religion out of our schools, and we will keep our logic out of your church.

But they don't keep religion out of our schools.

all true, but only if we stop legitimising religion by not giving them the opportunity to debate. why give them a forum outside their closed group.

Religion already has influence well beyond their churches. They don't need to debate atheists to legitimise their cause. They are well organised political lobbyists. In the UK they have places set aside for them in the House of Lords.

Moreover their attempts at debate are the most effective means expose the ridiculous nature of their doctrine. The faithful do more in attempted debate to demolish the credibility of their organisations than any atheist could hope to achieve. Read some of the posts by Aziz Rasul earlier in this thread and it will be clear that facts don't come into their thought processes at all.

why would you talk to a "stone" and why would you listen to one.
the debate/ discussion seems to be more about which group is dominant Alpha.

As I said before, the primary target audience is not the religious but those not already hopelessly poisoned by doctrine.

surely it would be more "Intellectual" to discuss methods of improving Education than to be trying to score points against the indefensible?

By all means start a thread on that subject rather than trying to discourage interactions on this one.

I suspect you are in fact a religious apologist simply trying to shut down debate because you fear its effectiveness at undermining the foundations of religious beliefs which you actually support.

 

[Fifty2One]

I love the way atheists and agnostics are so hard line on their beliefs that they want to force other religions out of schools, public places, government institutions, etc.

 

[scott-atkinson]

I am surprised that religion has lasted as long as it has now that science has explained away most things that before were attributed to some kind of religious activity..

 

[Alc]

I love the way atheists and agnostics are so hard line on their beliefs that they want to force other religions out of schools, public places, government institutions, etc.

To someone who doesn't believe in gods, there is no distinction between them and any other fantastical creature, beyond the fact that noone bases government or school policy on what fairies, unicorns, giants, etc. think.

If you believed those with power over yours and your family's lives were basing their decisions - at least in part - on things that you were certain were not just untrue but were ridiculously so, would you not try to fight against it?

If someone says they are doing anything at all solely because some magical being does/doesn't want them to act in a particular way then unless you also believe in that magical being, you might be tempted to view it as dangerous. What if the being wants them to to the opposite tomorrow?

 

[ozzi]

But they don't keep religion out of our schools.

If they have a majority they can get away with it. It is up to atheists to educate enough people so that we are the majority and have them treated for their mental illness

Religion already has influence well beyond their churches. They don't need to debate atheists to legitimise their cause. They are well organised political lobbyists. In the UK they have places set aside for them in the House of Lords.

Then do something about it, instead of trying to convince people that religion is stupid (which will never work) push for places reserved for Atheists. Fight to keep intelligent design off the curriculum, get on your schools Parent, teacher and citizens group and fight to keep chaplains out of schools.

Moreover their attempts at debate are the most effective means expose the ridiculous nature of their doctrine. The faithful do more in attempted debate to demolish the credibility of their organisations than any atheist could hope to achieve. Read some of the posts by Aziz Rasul earlier in this thread and it will be clear that facts don't come into their thought processes at all.

As I said before, the primary target audience is not the religious but those not already hopelessly poisoned by doctrine.

Exactly. you think they are p1ssing into the wind and will get their shoes wet. the poison is in all of us already. we are all searching for the meaning of life(which as no meaning or purpose) , and religion targets people who want to believe, and they will over look any inconsistencies to find what they are looking for. facts don't come into it, you are wasting your breath.

I suspect you are in fact a religious apologist simply trying to shut down debate because you fear its effectiveness at undermining the foundations of religious beliefs which you actually support.

Not so, I consider myself a Militant Atheist. Any one attempting to preach to me has ten seconds before the Wrath of Me comes down on them. Until atheists stop being complacent and stand up for what they believe in and stand as a group, religion will win.

By all means start a thread on that subject rather than trying to discourage interactions on this one.

Valid point. I will leave you to debate with stones, while I do something more practical.

Bye ozzi

 

[Rabbie]

The poll is missing an option.


option: this concept is not worth discussing.

ozzi

If that is your view, Ozzi, then just ignore this thread and don't discuss it. As you have joined in the discussion you obviously think it is worth discussing.

 

[spikepl]

...
The Quran (19:22-33) has Jesus speaking as a baby in the crib.
...

Well, you never know ... what babies can do ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RztwddJku94

 

[Alc]

If that is your view, Ozzi, then just ignore this thread and don't discuss it. As you have joined in the discussion you obviously think it is worth discussing.

At some length, too. Rather like the people who precede lengthy statements with 'It goes without saying..'.

 

[stergio33]

To everybody:
You cannot prove God's existence!! You just believe in or not! But sometime, maybe in another life we will know!
To me, God exists for sure. This I was not taught in school or church, but through mistikism.

 

[aziz rasul]

stergio33 if you have read the whole thread you will see whether there is proof of God's (Allah in Arabic) existence.

 

[Galaxiom]

Despite the implicit claim, this thread contains no posts whatsoever that successfully explain anything as evidence for the existence of any gods.

In every attempt to demonstate the purported deity aziz rasul invariably reaches illogical conclusions and is incapable of comprehending this reality.

Those who seeketh religion are already losers. - Galaxiom

 

[aziz rasul]

Let people make their own mind up just as you have reached yours. What you regard as being illogical may be logical to others.

You will probably always remain a loser.

 

[Galaxiom]

Let people make their own mind up just as you have reached yours.

Then why don't you let people make their own mind instead of posting your opinion?

What you regard as being illogical may be logical to others.

Logic doesn't work like that. Logic is objective. Logic has a basis where each claim is built on foundations that can be traced to more than subjective opinion. Your postings that claim there is evidence for the existence of a god are not logic but opinion because the flaws in the chain of claims can be objectively demonstrated.

An example of unsubstantiated opinion is your claim that that polygyny is justified while polyandry is not is because there are so many more women in the world than men. I provided actual statistics demonstrating the basis of your claim was false.

Your reponse was that you were "entitled to your opinion". That is not only illogical but downright dishonest. Dishonesty always has been part and parcel of religion.

 

[Dick7Access]

QUOTE]
I laughed when I read this post, because many years ago I had to take a course in college that was called “Logic”. At the time I thought it was the most illogical course I had ever had. Did anybody else ever have a logic course that had “Apes and Nuts”, in it?