Deep into Atheism

ignis

ignis

New Member
Well do you? Why is shiva not as relevant as allah or god?
I really dont get theists.. your one way road to the truth blinds you so that merely saying that you might be/ probably are wrong bewilders you.

You want us to believe in a god, that you dont even know what’s his nature.
At the end of the day, the universe as we know it today, does not need this god to function. Nor does it need us. So why make such a big fuss about it?
This is exactly what i'm talking about and this is exactly what bewilders us; you are putting God in Christianity on par with zeus/shiva and claiming to be dismissing it for the same reasons Christians dismiss zeus/shiva, and thinking yourselves to have made a successful argument in this regard, without actually demonstrating that what Christians believe and uphold of God is on par with or belongs in the same category with what is held about shiva/zeus, for the dismissal of the latter to apply on the former.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    This is exactly what i'm talking about and this is exactly what bewilders us; you are putting God in Christianity on par with zeus/shiva and claiming to be dismissing it for the same reasons Christians dismiss zeus/shiva, and thinking yourselves to have made a successful argument in this regard, without actually demonstrating that what Christians believe and uphold of God is on par with or belongs in the same category with what is held about shiva/zeus, for the dismissal of the latter to apply on the former.
    So in essence, you're saying that your god cannot be dismissed because unlike all other "gods", your god is real. You should use this argument against all non-Christians, I am sure they will be convinced and convert immediately. I can't believe they haven't realized this themselves.

    Look, I appreciate the importance of Christianity and the incredible mark it has left on all civilizations, especially western civilization. It's impact on culture is more important than anything I can possibly say. But once you step into the metaphysical sphere and un-provable domain, all are equal in the face of scientific scrutiny. I'm afraid what our dear friend Ruins said earlier, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (even though this example is not what he meant) applies here.
     
    Last edited:
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    T
    So in essence, you're saying that your god cannot be dismissed because unlike all other "gods", your god is real. You should use this argument against all non-Christians, I am sure they will be convinced and convert immediately. I can't believe they haven't realized this themselves.

    Look, I appreciate the importance of Christianity and the incredible mark it has left on all civilizations, especially western civilization. It's impact on culture is more important than anything I can possibly say. But once you step into the metaphysical sphere and un-provable domain, all are equal in the face of scientific scrutiny. I'm afraid what our dear friend Ruins said earlier, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (even though this example is not what he meant).
    thank you Ser!
     
    ignis

    ignis

    New Member
    So in essence, you're saying that your god cannot be dismissed because unlike all other "gods", your god is real. You should use this argument against all non-Christians, I am sure they will be convinced and convert immediately. I can't believe they haven't realized this themselves.

    Look, I appreciate the importance of Christianity and the incredible mark it has left on all civilizations, especially western civilization. It's impact on culture is more important than anything I can possibly say. But once you step into the metaphysical sphere and un-provable domain, all are equal in the face of scientific scrutiny. I'm afraid what our dear friend Ruins said earlier, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (even though this example is not what he meant) applies here.
    You are either missing or misconstruing what i said. "My God being real while others' not" is not the point here. The point rather is the ineptitude of the atheists' objections which are paraded as the opposite of what they truly are such as this particular "one god further" one for instance, which actually boils down to this: "i dismiss your god for the same reason (that i think, or i would like to believe, without actually bothering to demonstrate it, to myself before others) you dismiss others' gods for, therefore you cannot argue against me, otherwise you will be arguing against your own position".

    As inept as that objection is, comes the infamous one-liner-response to the charge that atheism is a belief system, which goes like this 'if stamp collecting (theism) is a hobby (a belief system), not stamp-collecting (atheism) is not', or your version of it 'atheism isn't a religious claim/position, just as abstinence is not a sex position'. However, this objection fails for the simple reason that if by religious or belief system we mean primarily and ultimately a metaphysical claim/position, then atheism is indeed a religious/belief system (a sex position rather than abstinence, as per the analogy of the objection, hence the ineptitude), and this is for the simple reason that atheism is a (counter) claim about reality that ultimately rests on metaphysical assumptions (as any other belief system). Interestingly enough, as we are witnessing here, once the atheists are faced with this seemingly difficult reality, they proceed into dismissing and denigrating the category of the metaphysical altogether, by using metaphysical based assumptions nevertheless (Scientism), no matter how self-contradictory this might seem (i would explain it as that being their self-defense mechanism at work trying to absorb the shock, but there's no escaping it, and they know it deep down).

    Also, as inept as the previous two objections are, is the infamous "Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence". While it does sound good and fair, to certain extent, it doesn't stand as an ultimate truth-seeking maxim. I indeed wouldn't believe my neighbor if he were to tell me he will rise from the dead if he dies, or the fact that he rose from the dead, and i would be fairly justified by that, until my neighbor dies and all the data at hand point in that direction; that he actually rose from the dead, and him rising from the dead is the best explanation for that data. Hone bi ballish l tokhbees from the truth deniers, in their attempt at denying reality and not admitting a seemingly difficult truth, they fecklessly start parroting that otherwise useful mantra, boiling down to this (my input in it in bold); "rising from the dead is an extraordinary event (it indeed is), however the data at hand is not extraordinary (not that the presented data doesn't support the claim, or not that there is a better explanation of it than him actually rising from the dead), therefore i need to have an extraordinary data to admit the truth of the claim, pending what i define as extraordinary, and i will not mind the circularity (or ineptitude) that i'm suck in with this, most will not notice anyway)"
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    ** beyond the day ** *

    Soulless corpses denied but pain
    Crawling down the heart in vain,
    Unending flows of timeless eyes
    Darkened by marks of reprimanded lies!
    .
    Endless mourning of souls that fell,
    Devoted to walk their way towards hell!
    Clawing their flesh and keeping pace,
    To reach the beast deprived from grace...
    .
    Prolonged sobs and agonizing shrieks,
    Echoed afar in a haze of reeks.
    A day ago, a minute past,
    Delusions of lives to longer last,
    Crashed on the heart, the eternal flame,
    Of he who came for sins to blame,
    .
    And now the blood, the torch and chains,
    The unholy touch of infernal reigns,
    His armies roaring his nameless names
    The fallen beast those souls now claims
    .
    And far beyond the judgment day,
    To where a child was meant to lay,
    An empty cradle covered with white
    awaits the child born of light
    .
    baring the marks of an everlasting fight
    His mother drifts into the night,
    strides the path she vastly fears,
    The eternal pass towards burning tears

    * ** DARK ANGEL ** *
    Harmonious flow, much striking scenery and powerful words. Well written darky. Bring us more.:)
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    So in essence, you're saying that your god cannot be dismissed because unlike all other "gods", your god is real. You should use this argument against all non-Christians, I am sure they will be convinced and convert immediately. I can't believe they haven't realized this themselves.
    that is a misrepresentation. the 4 likes that you have received also stem from a deep misunderstanding.

    we do not understand of God except that little amount which He Himself has revealed to us in many different ways. the faculties that we possess should always be put to work in order to keep that reality in check. we do not possess the full knowledge of the Divine, we rather perceive things strictly within the reach of our limitations, but from what we gather so far is that we have the closest perception to the reality of the Divine.

    and even Christ Himself points that out: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

    so yes, the Divine is very real. the Christian perception of the Divine is the closest mankind has ever possessed. it is not about real and unreal Gods fighting it out, to portray it the way you did would only give you victory over a straw man, there is no glory in that :p

    Look, I appreciate the importance of Christianity and the incredible mark it has left on all civilizations, especially western civilization. It's impact on culture is more important than anything I can possibly say. But once you step into the metaphysical sphere and un-provable domain, all are equal in the face of scientific scrutiny. I'm afraid what our dear friend Ruins said earlier, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (even though this example is not what he meant) applies here.
    the part of the equation that you have failed to recognize is that what you refer to as an incredible mark left on all civilization is actually rooted in Christian spirituality; it does not materialize itself out of the blue in the concrete world without that underlying belief system.

    and is that not the eternal story of the struggle between chaos and order? is this is not the essence of the torah? the recorded cycles experienced by the jews from slavery, chaos, depravity into order, success, prosperity? 6 times that cycle was repeated and documented, whenever corruption drove the jewish people away from God, their destruction soon followed, and only when they reform their vision and ideals and return back to God do they ascend back to prosperity and success.

    it is the same reality we are still experiencing today, in your weakness you find refuge in God, but when you are on your feet you are very quick to forget the role that the belief in God plays in setting things right, thinking that you understand it all and have no need for anything other than what you can provide yourself, but what you do not know is that this has always been the gateway to chaos. you should at least get this much from the bible.

    at this moment, you are an agent of chaos ( under the influence of vega and mudammer #1 :p ), wrongly thinking- just as mankind have always thought when they were prosperous across millennia - you now can proceed forward without subscribing to the transcendent.
     
    Last edited:
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    This is an excerpt from the new book “The Four Horsemen”, which is relative to the discussion here:

    “…The emperor had been parading about for centuries, and it was time someone pointed and reminded the world that he was naked. The response was, as might be imagined, intense. The four became media stars to the extent that they were asked to comment and debate at all times and in all places. But a counter-reformation followed. Religionists of all stripes, most of whom appeared not to have read the books, fought back against these new voices:

    ‘The New Atheism is just like a religion.’
    ‘These New Atheists are fundamentalists themselves.’
    ‘How dare they affront and wound people for whom religion is so great a solace, balm, and support?’
    ‘Lenin and Stalin imposed atheism in the USSR, and look where that led.’
    ‘They define all of us according to the behaviour of the worst of us.’


    Such accusations – which are assertions, of course, not arguments, with their resentful air of noble hurt – were brandished as if they constituted a refutation of all that this New Atheism stood for. After thousands of years of supremacy, suppression and censorship, the champions of religion managed to transform themselves miraculously into victims of cruel verbal abuse, snobbish bullying and intellectual persecution. It is against such a background that this conversation takes place…”

    In addition to the above, one can certainly understand (though not sympathise) the bitter reaction of theists towards the new atheism movement, since they unapologetically declare themselves ‘anti-theists’… But what bewilders the mind is why on earth would any theist resent Carl Sagan. A reputable scientist and probably the original populariser of science through mass media, notably his groundbreaking TV series ’Cosmos: A Personal Voyage’. This can only stem from deep insecurities and the age-old conflict between theism and science, an outcome of their incompatibility. To put it simply, mythology and science don't mesh and theists need to come to terms with this fact.
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    In addition to the above, one can certainly understand (though not sympathise) the bitter reaction of theists towards the new atheism movement, since they unapologetically declare themselves ‘anti-theists’… But what bewilders the mind is why on earth would any theist resent Carl Sagan. A reputable scientist and probably the original populariser of science through mass media, notably his groundbreaking TV series ’Cosmos: A Personal Voyage’. This can only stem from deep insecurities and the age-old conflict between theism and science, an outcome of their incompatibility. To put it simply, mythology and science don't mesh and theists need to come to terms with this fact.
    It is not doubtful that Sagan has been and continues to be a potent inspiration of many theists who have pursued a career in science. In fact, one can argue that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are indeed theists do consider Sagan as being one of the most respectable scientists of the 20th century. Your assumption that theists carry a grudge or a resentment towards Sagan is highly exaggerated. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to consider it as a bitter reaction of an atheist towards theists, something you proclaimed to be the other way around in the first sentence of your paragraph.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    It is not doubtful that Sagan has been and continues to be a potent inspiration of many theists who have pursued a career in science. In fact, one can argue that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are indeed theists do consider Sagan as being one of the most respectable scientists of the 20th century. Your assumption that theists carry a grudge or a resentment towards Sagan is highly exaggerated. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to consider it as a bitter reaction of an atheist towards theists, something you proclaimed to be the other way around in the first sentence of your paragraph.
    Perhaps then you haven’t read the comments of your fellow theist forum members on Sagan just on the previous page…
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    This is an excerpt from the new book “The Four Horsemen”, which is relative to the discussion here:

    “…The emperor had been parading about for centuries, and it was time someone pointed and reminded the world that he was naked. The response was, as might be imagined, intense. The four became media stars to the extent that they were asked to comment and debate at all times and in all places. But a counter-reformation followed. Religionists of all stripes, most of whom appeared not to have read the books, fought back against these new voices:

    ‘The New Atheism is just like a religion.’
    ‘These New Atheists are fundamentalists themselves.’
    ‘How dare they affront and wound people for whom religion is so great a solace, balm, and support?’
    ‘Lenin and Stalin imposed atheism in the USSR, and look where that led.’
    ‘They define all of us according to the behaviour of the worst of us.’


    Such accusations – which are assertions, of course, not arguments, with their resentful air of noble hurt – were brandished as if they constituted a refutation of all that this New Atheism stood for. After thousands of years of supremacy, suppression and censorship, the champions of religion managed to transform themselves miraculously into victims of cruel verbal abuse, snobbish bullying and intellectual persecution. It is against such a background that this conversation takes place…”

    In addition to the above, one can certainly understand (though not sympathise) the bitter reaction of theists towards the new atheism movement, since they unapologetically declare themselves ‘anti-theists’… But what bewilders the mind is why on earth would any theist resent Carl Sagan. A reputable scientist and probably the original populariser of science through mass media, notably his groundbreaking TV series ’Cosmos: A Personal Voyage’. This can only stem from deep insecurities and the age-old conflict between theism and science, an outcome of their incompatibility. To put it simply, mythology and science don't mesh and theists need to come to terms with this fact.
    i do not resent carl sagan. i resent you for misappropriating and wrongly investing science in a made up war against theism. but this is very true to your long tradition of intentionally ignoring the nuances in order to keep your personal case alive as you are unable of any original thought and have to continuously dip into the life of repeating the atheist mantras that have been fed to a regressing public by people who deal with theism through straw men and at the level of perception of 10 year old kids, let alone with an uncalled for animosity; which turns the discussion from an enriching interaction to a repulsive quarrel.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    i do not resent carl sagan. i resent you for misappropriating and wrongly investing science in a made up war against theism. but this is very true to your long tradition of intentionally ignoring the nuances in order to keep your personal case alive as you are unable of any original thought and have to continuously dip into the life of repeating the atheist mantras that have been fed to a regressing public by people who deal with theism through straw men and at the level of perception of 10 year old kids, let alone with an uncalled for animosity; which turns the discussion from an enriching interaction to a repulsive quarrel.
    i give him credit where credit is due, and take it away from him where it is not.
    we can add the sagan ritual, a morgan freeman worthy moment, music playing in the background, artificially colored space images, and sagan himself sprinkling some magic star dust over the mix.
    you don't believe me? try rereading the above with the voice of carl sagan in your mind, with photos of galaxies moving slightly across your screen, and a sinister yet easy music playing in the background. or you can simply reexamine the first post in this thread
    stardust does not sprinkle, stars do not scintillate, galaxies do not vibrate with perplexing colors, there is no music playing in the emotionally manipulative background of sagan's youtube clips circulated by atheists. it is all an overlay of interpretative information projected by our brains. which is yet another evidence that information transcends the vessel of matter, sagan and other should recognize that and examine its consequences. if they are at the service of truth that is..
    I would say you're resentful of scientists who don't subscribe to your fantasies. I doubt very much the scientific community is seeking credit from theists who believe in zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem or your own personal belief of Christ spawning a new universe by simply dying.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I would say you're resentful of scientists who don't subscribe to your fantasies. I doubt very much the scientific community is seeking credit from theists who believe in zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem
    i am surprised, you are evidence enough that zombies are real. you are brain dead, have no soul, and you yourself believe that you are a slowly rotting lump of flesh, roaming around with neither purpose nor meaning. if that is not the very definition of a zombie then what is? it is only a wonder you do not believe zombies are real.

    your own personal belief of Christ spawning a new universe by simply dying.
    people who raise the flag of science should at least have some respect for truth. either you are incapable of distinction or there is absolutely no truth in you. given that you have been playing this broken record for the last decade on this forum, chances are that it is probably a combination of both.

    presenting the opinion of a particle physicist who studied the shroud of Turin does not make it my own personal belief. here is the clip in question. pretty interesting for anyone who is not brain dead.

    ba3dein shou khassak bel scientific community inta? you are neither a scientist nor good at science for that matter. so nazzel el scientific community 3an dahrak w 7ej 7emil hal sellom bel 3ard. the only relation you have with science is that you wrongly play that word against theists. that is the closest you will ever get to science. yalla rou7 ndab.
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Towards the end 90s and early 2000s I debated for years with atheists on what was called egroups the bought by yahoo to become yahoo groups.
    Of course I have no intention to repeat it again, but the major impression I had from this long debate is that most of them are as fanatics as religious fanatics, and they have a big tendency to twist science to fit their goals. They (some who I debated with) even twisted history claiming Hitler was a devoted Catholic, while all evidences proved that Nazis worked hard to undermine Christianity because it spreads the message that all people of all races are equal, which is a fundamental contradiction to the Nazi's superior race notion.
    In short they are as ideologues as others.


    On the other had, up until 1930s and the work of Hubble, science believed that the milky way is whole universe, Hubble was the first to discover other galaxies, Andromeda being his 1st discovery.
    Up until 1960s the main belief was that the universe has always existed, then came the theory of creation of the universe with the bing bang.
    While this is very interesting and important that science is evolving and correcting itself, this also proves that there is still a long long way ahead in terms discovering and knowledge of the universe, yet some people feel they have the answer.

    For me God exists, and the what we see in terms of laws of physics and universe is simply the discovery of his work.
    Now who is HE and where is HE, this question is difficult to answer, that's why there are religions because people want to know GOD.
    As science is still lurking behind, faith comes to fill this gap
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    Towards the end 90s and early 2000s I debated for years with atheists on what was called egroups the bought by yahoo to become yahoo groups.
    Of course I have no intention to repeat it again, but the major impression I had from this long debate is that most of them are as fanatics as religious fanatics, and they have a big tendency to twist science to fit their goals. They (some who I debated with) even twisted history claiming Hitler was a devoted Catholic, while all evidences proved that Nazis worked hard to undermine Christianity because it spreads the message that all people of all races are equal, which is a fundamental contradiction to the Nazi's superior race notion.
    In short they are as ideologues as others.


    On the other had, up until 1930s and the work of Hubble, science believed that the milky way is whole universe, Hubble was the first to discover other galaxies, Andromeda being his 1st discovery.
    Up until 1960s the main belief was that the universe has always existed, then came the theory of creation of the universe with the bing bang.
    While this is very interesting and important that science is evolving and correcting itself, this also proves that there is still a long long way ahead in terms discovering and knowledge of the universe, yet some people feel they have the answer.

    For me God exists, and the what we see in terms of laws of physics and universe is simply the discovery of his work.
    Now who is HE and where is HE, this question is difficult to answer, that's why there are religions because people want to know GOD.
    As science is still lurking behind, faith comes to fill this gap
    The Church did much worse than Hitler over the centuries. Par example, the persecution of the jews by the Church was an ongoing phenomena for nearly two millennia since the early church fathers developed the false belief that the jews killed jesus...

    Apart from that, basing your faith on God of the gaps pretty much sums up the poor state of theism in the Information Age.

     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Towards the end 90s and early 2000s I debated for years with atheists on what was called egroups the bought by yahoo to become yahoo groups.
    Of course I have no intention to repeat it again, but the major impression I had from this long debate is that most of them are as fanatics as religious fanatics, and they have a big tendency to twist science to fit their goals. They (some who I debated with) even twisted history claiming Hitler was a devoted Catholic, while all evidences proved that Nazis worked hard to undermine Christianity because it spreads the message that all people of all races are equal, which is a fundamental contradiction to the Nazi's superior race notion.
    In short they are as ideologues as others.


    On the other had, up until 1930s and the work of Hubble, science believed that the milky way is whole universe, Hubble was the first to discover other galaxies, Andromeda being his 1st discovery.
    Up until 1960s the main belief was that the universe has always existed, then came the theory of creation of the universe with the bing bang.
    While this is very interesting and important that science is evolving and correcting itself, this also proves that there is still a long long way ahead in terms discovering and knowledge of the universe, yet some people feel they have the answer.

    For me God exists, and the what we see in terms of laws of physics and universe is simply the discovery of his work.
    Now who is HE and where is HE, this question is difficult to answer, that's why there are religions because people want to know GOD.
    As science is still lurking behind, faith comes to fill this gap
    some people have their minds set in stone, these are the people that you should avoid like the plague, some of them are atheists, others are theists, but they all share the common denominator of failing to grasp the reality of both faith and science, they do not even perceive that there is a preexisting and underlying truth being discovered by science, and that this truth is always unique, and they do not concern themselves with that fact either because they do not perceive it and are incapable of understanding its repercussions or because they intentionally want to ignore it.

    instead they go about constructing straw men to attack and destroy, one moment it is zeus, the other it is the god of the gaps, while the only gaps they need to deal with is the one between their ears and the one in their chest, as is the case with this @Dynamite Joe character who has not progressed at all over the last 10 years, even the least gifted of people would have evolved their arguments over the course of a decade, but not this character. he is still calling Paul a gangster, Christ a deprived homosexual, and still subscribes to the retarded belief that science is the destroyer of our faith, because he understand nothing about science nor about faith. a true atheist version of abu hujayra w abu sukhayra full of hatred, ignorance and certitudes.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    where did the notion of the God of the gaps that has become the mantra for some atheists come from? like most notions, this one was also introduced by people who can actually think for themselves and exercise their critical thinking faculties, in particular Christian theologians.

    the God of the gaps notion was first introduced by rev henry drummond, a scottish evangelist, who was a biologist, a writer and a lecturer.

    the notion is now stolen and abducted by the same caliber of mindless and insolent orcs who repeat it blindly without understanding how it is rooted in Christian theology.

    "God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The "gaps" usage was made by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1][2] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theology, to mean that the existence of a creator is almost always proposed for anything not currently explained by science.​
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The Church did much worse than Hitler over the centuries. Par example, the persecution of the jews by the Church was an ongoing phenomena for nearly two millennia since the early church fathers developed the false belief that the jews killed jesus...

    Apart from that, basing your faith on God of the gaps pretty much sums up the poor state of theism in the Information Age.

    there is probably no youtube video about Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Briane Greene and others that I didn't watch, in particular this video. So it is unlikely that you will come with something new.
    You totally missed my point, which is very different than what you suggested.
    I am not basing my faith on God of gaps as you are claiming.
    What I meant is that science is lurking behind in terms of proving the existence of GOD, and there is a vey long way ahead before science reaches this point, that's why people rely on faith.
    I can philosophically argue with you about the existence of God but I can't give any scientific proof because science is not there yet.
    The funniest stuff I find when I saw this video for the first time, is that God is dark matter :)

    Concerning for what the Church did, I never claimed that the Church didn't commit errors, actually I am a person who despises clergy and regard them as corrupt. However, there has been many good members that have tried to steer the Church in the right direction of the Christ teachings.

    Finally, as I said previously I am not interested in this debate, I have debated with atheists for years and I shared my experience.
    What I saw in most people with whom I argued, is that they think they are SMARTER than me because they don't believe in any form of deity, and they are ANGRY people ( I was insulted many times simply because I say I am a believer), and they are as FANATIC as religious people which is something weird because since they don't believe in any god they should be more open minded than people who hold religion dear to themselves.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    there is probably no youtube video about Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Briane Greene and others that I didn't watch, in particular this video. So it is unlikely that you will come with something new.
    You totally missed my point, which is very different than what you suggested.
    I am not basing my faith on God of gaps as you are claiming.
    What I meant is that science is lurking behind in terms of proving the existence of GOD, and there is a vey long way ahead before science reaches this point, that's why people rely on faith.
    I can philosophically argue with you about the existence of God but I can't give any scientific proof because science is not there yet.
    The funniest stuff I find when I saw this video for the first time, is that God is dark matter :)

    Concerning for what the Church did, I never claimed that the Church didn't commit errors, actually I am a person who despises clergy and regard them as corrupt. However, there has been many good members that have tried to steer the Church in the right direction of the Christ teachings.

    Finally, as I said previously I am not interested in this debate, I have debated with atheists for years and I shared my experience.
    What I saw in most people with whom I argued, is that they think they are SMARTER than me because they don't believe in any form of deity, and they are ANGRY people ( I was insulted many times simply because I say I am a believer), and they are as FANATIC as religious people which is something weird because since they don't believe in any god they should be more open minded than people who hold religion dear to themselves.
    Its isnt about watching videos and scoring points over definitions and semantics.

    There are two very distinct ideas, either you believe that some all wise and knowing alien being created you and gave you rules to follow in order to lead a fulfilling life, or you believe that through chance this galaxy came to be and whithin it, through chance too, you came to be.

    We all know the root of all religious movements, since man tried to make sense of his surroundings: order and morality.
    Science is not here to prove that god exists as u claimed, science is here to tell you the story of everything around you.
    Forget for a moment your own religious bias, and think about religion as a concept and not your own identity. That concept is severly lacking when it comes to explaining life and its repercussions.
     
    Top