religionisbullshit.net

Tim -

You are playing Humpty Dumpty with the language again. Just because the root derivation of a word is x does not mean that the meaning of the word is x - as you ought to know. So whatever the original Greek words mean is irrelevant to what the words mean now.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist. You are describing an agnostic with a bias to atheism. But you can equally have an agnostic with a bias towards theism (which roughly describes my own position).

Furthermore, words are about ideas. The fact that the words were coined in the last few hundred years is again irrelevant.

Just because people called post traumatic battle stress
by other words in the past does not mean there is not a single connected concept
being described by those various words. In the past people used other words to describe agnosticism - doubt would be one; scepticism another.

Your criticism of the analogy of the channel is misplaced. The idea of a NW passage COULD have been logically impossible e.g. if we knew that America was connected to Eurasia. The fact that it wasn't was because it was true.

I note that you suffer from the same problem you allege religious people do - you think you have won the argument before you start. Just because it is your opinion that the idea of god is logically impossible doesn't make it so. You haven't even said why you think it is logically impossible. I can't think of any reason why the idea offends logic. You may be confused and thinking about PARTICULAR ideas of gods which may of course be logically impossible.

field, 21.06.2006, 1:58pm #

Atheists are liars!! They know the bible is the word of God.
Atheists, most likely are card carrying communists, and/or radical socialists.

Atheists serve and worship Lucifer.
This website has his markings all over it.

RHF, 22.06.2006, 1:25am #

Tim, I'm more open minded than you. I've gone to your beloved, talkorigins.com and learned some things about evolution.
Your closed minded ! How can you possibly know so much that you can 100% rule out the existence of a higher being?
The fact is you can't rule out the existence of God. I know this thought is in the back of your mind.

Your not a rational thinker and never will be.

RHF, 22.06.2006, 1:31am #

Field, I'm pretty sure that every question you've asked I made clear in the original post. If you want me to clarify anything, stick to one question at a time. This may make me feel less like banging my head against a wall every time I go to respond to your comments.

Tim, 22.06.2006, 1:18pm #

Field, admittedly I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't myself saying that nothing can exist without a cause, just pointing out the flaw in the first cause argument. If nothing can exist without a cause, there cannot be an un-caused cause. If there can be an uncaused cause, we have to at least accept the possibility that anything - the universe as we know it for example - may be uncaused (therefore no "need" for a creator in the traditional sense). The intelligent design argument is flawed in the same self contradicting way: if the complexity of the universe means that there "must" be a creator, surely the creator itself must be complex ... and therefore need a creator?

Quantum physics probability is general given as the "cause" of the big bang - a singularity just popping into existence and all that. A singularity however is not an all powerful god type creature or something that most people would refer to as a "creator".

A tiny seed can grow into a massive tree. Two tiny cells, when fused, can go on to be a complex self aware life form. My personal view (based on the above) is that it makes sense to postulate that the universe started in a similar way. The idea of a omnipotent being who presumably suddenly popped into existence then decided to create the universe, along with inferior life forms, seems absurd.

Tim, 24.06.2006, 8:36pm #

Field: "You have jumped from a possible acceptance of an uncaused cause of the universe, to there being a whole class of uncaused causes which can create themselves."

- No, just pointing out that if you accept the possibility of one thing being uncaused you have to at least accept the POSSIBILITY of other things being uncaused, therefore the argument that there HAS TO BE an uncaused-caused is invalid.

Field: "I does not follow that because the universe is complex the creator is complex and must therefore have a creator. The creator may be more simple than the universe. Many authors of books admit that they don't fully understand their creations."

- Then it's not a "creator" in the accepted sense, like some omnipotent "being" (see below)

Field: "The creator does not need to 'exist' as you suggest. The creator stands outside space and time and therefore does not need to exist."

- 'Outside space and time' is an convenient expression to use in these matters. Can you fully define the expression?

Field: "The idea of 'seed' for the universe is nonsensical. Where did the seed come from?"

- This is the problem in arguing with you. I'm pretty sure that you are fully aware that I wasn't literally saying that the universe came from a seed. My point was that things tend to start simple and then expand and grow and become more complex. Entropy increases, if you like.

Field: "It is only once you get outside causality i.e. accept a creator force of some description (you don't have to sign up to a personal deity) that you begin to make some progress."

- Get 'outside causality' to accept a creator force - i.e. causality ...? WTF?

Creator force ... but not a personal deity. Fine. I have no problem with the POSSIBILITY of a creator force. I've been arguing against the idea of a creator as an omnipotent being, which is what most people mean when the use the word "god". BUT the arguments I've used I think prove that there doesn't HAVE to be a creator force, just that there is a possibility of one. And that this creator force is not a "God".

Tim, 25.06.2006, 1:56pm #

Entropy - a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system, which increases over time. I'm not an expert on the subject, but a quick look at the entry on wikipedia seems to back me up. Anyway, it's largely irrelevant at I wasn't using it to back up any arguments (interestingly though that many creationists use the second law of thermodynamics in an attempt to prove that evolution is not possible, without realising that the arguments they use (misunderstanding the concept) could also be used to make any form of growth or reproduction impossible).

Occam's razor is another convenient way to make a point. But it's not some kind of universal golden rule that applies whatever - and it's usually thought of as "the simplest answer is always right" rather than the more accurate "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". If you take the simplest answer you might as well just say "God made everything" and be done with it. Although the idea that a singularity popped into existence and exploded giving birth to the universe seems simpler.

You mention the impossibility of grasping the concept of being outside space and time, yet still use it in your arguments. You also continue to insist that there must be a "creator force", yet all your points at best merely suggest the possibility of such a force. Still you go further and talk of a "relationship" with this force, "even if the relationship is entirely the product of human imagination". How can that be, as you state, rational?

I have a love of nature without wanting to get snuggly with some unknown creative force. Have you ever read Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow"?

Tim, 26.06.2006, 5:29pm #

Um, I think all Tim did was ask you if you'd read a certain book. Where's the line about Dawkins saying there's no joy in creation?

Ben, 27.06.2006, 8:12am #

Ben -

Heard that one from the horse's mouth - a lecture. He started with a homily about his young daughter talking about the beauty of some aspect of nature, and he said firmly there was no joy for the organism concerned - it was simply trying ot ensure it got replicated and bugger everyone else. It was a long time ago, but that was the essential message. He also claimed (I doubt he does now) that EVERY aspect of animal behaviour was fully explained by genes. I've read several Dawkins books and I am not convinced by them. I think the developing science of epigenetics shows that he is now demonstrably wrong about his previous claims that natural selection of genes explained all behaviour.

Tim -

You were definitely wrong on entropy but you seem to be having a problem with that. Look it up on the internet. No need for "ifs". You were wrong. I accept that it wasn't crucial to your thesis, although I suppose you were trying to suggest that the universe was somehow becoming more complex, and that this was natural and in line with the laws of physics, whereas - with the exception of organic life - it has been becoming LESS complex. Anyway, don't expect some physicist to come wandering in here - look it up on the internet. It's perfectly clear.

I wasn't saying you called me a creationist, but you said "you might aswell" believe that God created everything (instantaneously or in six days perhaps - though you weren't explicit on that).

I don't say there MUST be a creator force. I say it is more RATIONAL to believe that there is such a force.

Saying there is probably such a force is the first step.

You then have to ask what kind of
force it might be. Again I think reason guides us to the conclusion that it cannot be a completely anonymous "law of physics". It is something more than that, but equally I would say reason guides one to say it cannot be a truly "personal" God, of the type that some naive theists think might have a conversation in English with you while you pray.

However there is another big jigsaw piece missing: this is the question of our consciousness and how that fits in. Most people who have thought about this deeply come to the view that our consciousness must be intimately linked to this creator force and therein lies a clue as to its nature perhaps - and also an answer as to why we might wish to have a relationship with that force but not with gravity.

As for Occam's razor I am not a fan of the principle and am happy to leave it to one side and simply observe that as a matter of fact we have experience of only one universe and we should proceed on the basis of that experience.

field, 28.06.2006, 1:36am #

Ben -

I have read several Dawkins books over the last twenty years. Climbing Mount Improbable or something was one. I haven't got the greatest memory. But I did attend a lecture of his as well.

I think I understand his thesis well: it is that behaviour in animals is the product of selfish genes (selfish in the sense of wanting to propagate themselves) which are themselves the product of random mutation and natural selection. That is the pure Dawkins gospel and it is wrong. It is wrong because of what we now know. So it is pointless for you to simply assert that he is right when he isn't. The only way you can prove Dawkins is right is by proving epigenetics wrong and that you clearly can't do.
You tried before and I wiped the floor with you on that. If you want a re-run, please begin.

field, 29.06.2006, 12:55am #

So you've not read Unweaving the Rainbow.

I get it - this is the bit where you go "chicken! bwak bwak bwaaaaak!" and I get riled and go "right, I'll show him a thing or two" and then we get to have another dispiriting argument where you change the subject every time you're shown wrong on something. No ta, but I'm studying biology at the moment and if I can be bothered to knock something together at some point I'll be sure to email field@tiscali.co.uk to let you know you can come and wow us with your wrongheadedness.

A little tidbit to keep you going though - you don't need to disprove epigenetics to prove Dawkins right. Epigenetics is central to the selfish gene theory.

Ben, 29.06.2006, 7:04am #

The I at the beginning of my post should have been an it - don't think it was a Freudian slip.

field, 30.06.2006, 12:44am #

No, completely on the wrong path, now stop posting stuff about this on an atheism thread.

Ben, 30.06.2006, 1:12am #

"it was you who raised the question again". Did I? Where was that, pray? I'm fairly sure I was just trying to pin you down on whether or not you'd read a book, then said I wasn't going to get into a debate on a different topic. If you keep this up I'm going to assume you're trolling.

Ben, 01.07.2006, 8:20am #

Sweet zombie jesus.

To hell with it, I’ll make one last effort, seeings as it’s a lazy Sunday and there’s cock all on telly. Sorry about this thread hijack, Tim, if he had the nads to supply a proper email address I’d send it to him direct.

This – the last few exchanges right here – is why no one wants to debate you after a while. It isn’t, as you probably believe, your devastating arguments or irrefutable logic. Frankly you can’t argue your way out of the proverbial paper bag and I’ve never seen someone wield logical fallacies with such gay abandon. It’s that since you very first surfaced here, you’ve been an arrogant, dishonest, slippery prat. After a while, everyone comes to the conclusion that it’s just not worth the effort. Look back at this thread. You were the first to bring up epigenetics, saying “I think the developing science of epigenetics shows that he is now demonstrably wrong”, and I responded that I didn’t want to get into that debate again, that I thought you were wrong, and that I might address it again some other time, BUT NOT ON THIS THREAD. It was a little hint that you should stick to the topic of the post. That’s all, the total intent behind my statement. Then you have the cheek – after explicitly raising the subject yourself - to accuse me of doing so. It’s beyond mind-boggling, it really is.

More pointers as to why no one enjoys engaging with you:

Statements like “it is pointless for you to simply assert that he is right when he isn't.” – where did anyone say anything like that on this thread before then? You just have some bizarre scattergun approach that seems to bear no relation to the conversation in question.

“You tried before and I wiped the floor with you on that” and “This was clearly designed to give the impression that we had had a debate on epigenetics previously and that you had somehow proved me wrong” – these, I think, get to the nub of your main problem, something that Charlie Brooker highlighted a few weeks ago. You’re not actually arguing with me, you’re playing to some dimly perceived ‘live audience’. Why else the concern about what impression I’m giving, and the rush to assume that impression is that I won? (Can you not tell the difference between ‘I think you’re wrong’ and ‘I kicked your ass’?)How different would it be if we were having a debate via email instead, so you didn’t have an audience to pander to and assure that you’re winning and have won previously? I’ve noticed it before, and it’s pretty pathetic. It’s the same reason, I reckon, why you blither on about shutting down debate – something else you’ve done before, despite the fact that you’ve NEVER been edited or deleted; if someone doesn’t want to argue with you anymore because you’re a cock, I really don’t think that’s any danger to the principle of free speech, but that’s what you’ve accused me of before. I addressed it at the time too, and surprisingly enough you went quiet because you hadn’t a leg to stand on. My theory about this is pretty well supported with your line “It will prove to any neutral observer who has won” – that’s pretty much all you’re bothered about, isn’t it? Whether or not the crowd think you’ve won? And do you really think this hypothetical observer honestly gives a shit?

Now here’s the final word on evolutionary theory on this thread: The science behind epigenetic inheritence is not something I fully grasp yet (but I do know damn well that you don’t either) and I'm not about to rush my study or slap what incomplete knowledge I do have into a comment or post just because your ego thinks you deserve a reply. When I'm satisfied that I've fully understood the process, and assuming I can write something that is accurate and relevant to this blog, then I'll probably post something. But I'm sure as hell not going to do it just to satisfy your hankering for an argument, because you've consistently demonstrated a complete refusal to acknowledge even the simplest point if it contradicts something you said. Doing some feeble ‘research’ by trying to find a quote regarding Dawkins and epigenetics (gawd bless Google, eh?), and even more laughably, hopefully posting your initial ‘research’ to see if you were on the right lines is bad enough. To then claim that I can’t provide a reference just because I won’t, well, that’s just one more logical fallacy to the pile, isn’t it?

I know you struggle with the definition of a troll (quote: “I thought trolling was where one assumed an identity”. This is from the last time you tried to troll, and funnily enough do it by trying to get a response out of me regarding epigenetics again, by saying “I did do with Ben on the subject of evolution to show that naive neo-Darwinism is quite incapable of explaining evolutionary phenomena.”). Why not toddle off back to Google and do some research, eh?

So, then, summing up. We have a comments policy. You’re not abiding by it, you’re trying to turn a debate about the nature of atheism into one about evolutionary theory, because it’s a particular favourite topic of yours. But you don’t get to supply the topic, and you don’t get to steer it towards one you like. And don’t start up about freedom of speech. You can say what the hell you want whenever the hell you want – just not here. By all means, start your own blog and wibble about epigenetics til the cows come home – just don’t abuse our hospitality trying to find someone to argue about it here.

Now sort your attitude out, or fuck off.

Ben, 02.07.2006, 7:58pm #

You have to be self-obsessed and egotistical to believe no one is reading your blog? Super logic there, just super.

Anyway, I could highlight all the usual crap but what's the point? I can't speak for Tim or JGJ, but you're not welcome on any of my threads any more, and will get the same treatment as RHF. Email me if you want to discuss anything any further.

Ben, 03.07.2006, 9:44am #

The fact that evil in the christian sense exists is proof that a christian (ie, benevolent and omnipotent) god does not exist.

God would be able to create a rock so heavy that he couldnt lift it, but he would lift it anyway. He would also be able to make 2 + 2 = 5. If he couldnt, then he wouldnt be omnipotent.

God is not, technically, logically impossible, but he is logically redundant and infinitely improbable.

For the record, I am a strong Atheist and I love your website.

Voxx, 14.09.2006, 10:45pm #

Matt,

As tim said in his original post, the "problem of evil" is an argument that most atheists would be better off not using...as it is mostly subjective and evil varies from person to person. Example, I think GW Bush is evil and toppled saddam's regime in iraq in order to secure our future oil interests. GW thinks that God told him he should spread freedom and democracy by destroying soverign governments that have nothing to do with terrorist attacks, and creating chaos in an already unstable region. See how that works?

In order for me to believe that god is all surpassing, i have to first belive that he exists. As in a court of law, innocent until proven guilty (unless you've been declared an enemy combatant) means that you have to prove i did something before you can lock me away. I don't have to bother proving i didn't until then. In other words, since you're telling me that a mythical creature exists, the burden of proving that rests squarely on your shoulders and because you can't...i don't have to prove the opposite as it would be quite the waste of energy attempting to prove that nonexistence doesn't exist. So either you charge me with something or this interview is over, detective (watches too much law and order) unless you'd rather take this before a grand jury.

And yes, god has to abide by the rules of the existence he was magically sitting outside of when he magically created all that exists.

theAntiBush, 17.09.2006, 9:52pm #

sagar,

i have had the same problem. i don't know if this is true in the rest of the world but here in the states, atheism means devil worship. i've actually been told before that i'm an atheist because the devil is playing with my head. the thing about devils is...they only influence you if you believe they exist, which means you're actually playing with your own head. Funny how what presents itself as a good case study in maddness is accepted as normal in our society as long as enough people suffer from the same illness.

i wonder sometimes if all this religious masquerading is done not to appease a wrathful god, but to please a potentially wrathful mob...should they find out you have the nerve to think differently.

theAntiBush, 19.09.2006, 4:15am #

I'd like to add to my previous comment.

I haven't read the 'holy books' in detail but what I have come to observe is that the books seem to have many things in common. Example, in the Bible, there is a point where Jesus makes way for himself and the people behind him through the sea or water or whatever. In quite the same way, Lord Rama in the Ramayana makes way to Lanka by having stones placed on the sea water which floated on it since his name was written on them.

What I mean is that religion and holy books seems to be something like what website/blog templates do. There is a common template and everyone picked up one for himself/herself and made a few changes. That's it.

And as for the question that where did the original template came from, belief, imagination, bullshit, call it anything you like. :)

Sagar, 20.09.2006, 7:45pm #

Matt, saying that "god is not bound by the logic of our finite minds" is a cop out, I would say.

People who break the 10 commandments on a regular basis, and then get sent to hell for it, would not exist if god was both benevolent and omnipotent, end of story. It doesnt mean that god doesnt exist, but if he does, we have no grounds to label him these things.

I am also quite aware that the common response to the problem of evil is the argument from free will, but absolute free will doesnt exist. After all, you couldnt, walk into a school and murder everyone, even if you are physically capable of it.

Voxx, 27.09.2006, 3:24am #

Lol, give it up, religion is bs. People are so soft and impressionable it's ridiculous. Religion is just a tall tale that grew even bigger and bigger and out of proportion over the years and everyone is just so eager to believe what they're told with no form of proof whatsoever.

S, 10.10.2006, 12:03am #

Hey, maybe this has nothing to do with what your saying, but i was looking at your introduction thingy. And you said it wasn't a hate site? Your saying religon is bullshit, that's hating in my book. I agree with what your saying but most christans would give up their relgion. Maybe there just closed minded, but i think what you are doing isn't going to change how they think. Most of them are just stuborn like that, oh well. I just wanted to get my point out.

Stephanie, 30.10.2006, 3:35am #

I'm kind of confused, christans say that you have to believe in god to go to heavan. But there are many gods not just one, if people don't believe in the christan god they automaticly go to hell? Is heaven only for christans?

aNonOmOuS, 03.11.2006, 1:17am #

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy
You are in a way both right on the whole entropy argument.

Locke, 08.12.2006, 10:24pm #

I rule out the existence of a supreme being as I rule out the existence of my imaginary friend.

Sources do not cite themselves.

Karl, 25.12.2006, 1:16am #

I've been an atheist ( See reason for even usingthis word) my entire life...53 years. I simply think calling oneself "Strong" or "weak" is, well, stupid. I never needed an adjective to the label I was given. See, I don't even really need the label but others seem to so that's the only reason I use it. Discussions like this make me laugh...the "let's get all cerebral" about atheism. I Prefer to do what I can to actually change things.. such as object to religions of any sort controlling my government and discuss atheism ( with live human beings) in a positive way and leave the arrogance behind. You may not think it's much but it beats laying around trying to figure out what weak vs strong atheism is.

Some of you that "blog" really are amusing. Find something more positive to do.

anyone, 10.01.2007, 8:00pm #

Tim - "Not really - I hate the religion and what it stands for and causes people to do, not the people themselves."

I know that I am as likely to convince you of my position as you are to convince me but when it comes to hate, Please don't.
Almost all of the Bible cam be thrown out as superflous, all you need is two sentances, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. Love your neighbour as yourself.' Are these really so bad? Even if you don't believe in them, think that they are utter crap and think that we are stupid, ignorant,and in need of a crutch? I ask you to hate us, the people, who distort, misuse and abuse the Christian message to create war, suffering, injustice etc.etc.etc rather then the message itself.
Anyway, there's my two cents. Attack away!
p.s. to jw I'm sorry if I have made any spelling mistakes it's twenty past one in the morning and I'm rather tired!

P, 04.03.2007, 1:20am #

Holy Bible - Rated M for Mature for scenes of intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content (including incest), and references to alchohol and canibalsism.

WARNING: All persons and events depicted in this book are purely fictional and are intended for personal entertainment only. Any resemblence to actual persons, living, dead, resurrected, or transubstantiated is purely coincidental. Reading this material may result in a false sense of security and superiority, hypocrisy, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance. Side effects may include a strong desire to sacrifice animals, self flagellate, go door to door handing out worthless shit on non-recycled paper. Symptoms may also include uncontrollable laughter, pettiness, hair-splitting, cherri picking, racism, ethnic cleansing, sadomaochism, filicide, homocide, and infanticide. People should check with their doctor and/or psychiatrist before reading this book. People with heart conditions or common sense should not read this book or check with your doctor before beginning a daily reading program.

JGJ, 01.04.2007, 8:12pm #

I lost my faith in god when I was 13 years old, and since that day have been an atheist. Religion just seems to get more and more ridiculous as the years go on to the point where it sounds just like the yammering drone of the multitude.

I salute Tim and Ben for their contributions to the collective knowledge of the human race. May you both live long and see your dreams flourish.

Make the most out of the life you have, because it is the only one you will ever have.

Life - the greatest chemical screwup of the cosmos.

Joshua, 19.06.2007, 6:01am #

Schoolgirls and zealots... They both use emotional arguments, and they're both ultimately whores just like the rest of us.

shemail, 25.06.2007, 2:28am #

First of all, great site. I hope it helps some people open their minds.

I won't be drawn into proving that god(s) doesn't exist, because nobody can prove that god(s) exist. Statements like "God is beyond space and time so we can't realise him" can't convince me. In the same way I can state that byond space and time exists a farm with firebreathing winged cows with serpent tails. Of course nobody is supposed to believe this, and I'm not supposed to believe that god(s) exist.

However, let's assume that in a moment of madness I accept the fact that god(s) exist. Then which religion should I follow? My familys religion? The religon of my country? A random religion? This is just pointless. How can I be sure that my religion is the "right one"?

Religions were created by really clever people to serve some reason. Jesus created christianism to unite the people against the Romans. Moses used the same religion to free his people from the Egyptians, and later the catholics used it as a reason for the crusades. Muhammad created Islam to make his nations warriors strong and fearless. These are the facts. Either you accept it or not.

@cristians: Have you ever heard of Mithraism? If not, take a look -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithranism- and think.

Marios, 05.07.2007, 5:59pm #

This is kind of going to go all over the place, so forgive me.
I think if any religion has the right idea, it is the Hindu. Or is it Hindi? Anyhu, most sects of Hinduism accept all incarnations of the idea of God as being just one of god's many faces. So it doesn't matter if you believe in Jehovah, Yahweh, Agwe, or the invisible pink unicorn since they are all manifestations of god. Currently there are about 33 million, yes million, in the Hindu religion. This type of religious tolerance puts others like Islam and Christianity to shame, shame, shame.

Personally, I think it is pointless to argue for or against a personal belief. The religious can only use personal experience or recite the personal experience of others. When there is no direct verifiable evidence for the existence or non-existence of a belief there is no point in debating it. It's personal. And people should be entitled to their personal beliefs when they do not harm others, interfere with other's freedoms, yada yada yada.

Even though I no longer debate the question of existences, I do still believe that "religion" is bullshit. Especially the commercialized, mass marketed, money and power hungry versions of Christianity and that pretty much covers every denomination and their leaders. I'm sure there are a few rural preacher men out there who honestly think they are doing good work and have yet to be sucked in to the sin they are preaching against, but they are few and far between.

Why bullshit? I just have this crazy itchy feeling whenever I think about the Bible. (Yes, I have read it and it is what made me an atheist.) Jesus, the main focus of the New Testament, never wrote a word of it. You would think that such an important book would have descended from heaven written on golden plates in a universal language that everyone could clearly understand. But, instead it was written by several men over a period of 300 years, 2000 years if you include all the editing/corrections/mistakes, etc. Now Christians have ended up with over 10,000 denominations of which many cannot agree on the basic tenants of faith.

God is not the author of confusion? Maybe not, but man sure has made a hash of Jesus’ “preach only to the Jews” idea and anything made or modified by man regarding the supernatural will most likely be bullshit.

Take for example Jesus’ instruction to pray in private. How many Christians do you know who pray out loud? Even if they don't admit it, there are thoughts or feelings running through their minds that wonder things like, "I hope people think this is a good prayer" or "What should I say that will impress people about my faith?" There is a plethora of thoughts that could go through one's mind when praying aloud. That is not even mentioning the feelings, pride in your flowery praying ability, nervousness of its quality, etc. There is a reason Jesus wanted people to pray privately, and that is so the temptation or accidental sin does not occur. If I were a Christian, I wouldn't tell a soul. I wouldn't shout it on the mountain tops, or give anyone a hint of my faith, because by doing so I am trying to make a statement about myself. And that is just pride. It makes me chuckle though when I see some prideful kid running around in a “Got God?” T-Shirt.

Hey! Like I said believe what you want! I don’t care in the least. The only thing that gets me is when public policy and taxpayer money is dictated and used by non-tax paying religious doctrine and it violates the freedoms of those who do not follow that religion. I don’t care if they post the 10 commandments in my courthouse or school. They are common moral truths to which I also believe. But things like forcing, or even optional, prayer in schools or prayer before class among those of other faiths does get on my nerves. There is nothing more annoying in adolescent life than peer-pressure. The Christians know this and this is why they want prayer in schools. So those who do not participate can feel left out, and kids, being mean little bastards, will rub it in hard.

JGJ, 15.08.2007, 7:37am #

You would make a reasonable atheist Eric. A rationalist who knows he has an irrational belief.

JGJ, 08.09.2007, 11:57pm #

well, way I take religion is that it's a load of rubbish. I mean, if one believes the bible and all its fantastical stories, how can one NOT believe fiction stories??

Now, I know that we haven't proved the existence or non-existence of a higher-being, so I could be wrong. Fat chance I think, because science has been continually breaking down barriers and proved that many things aren't the feat of higher powers...so i think it will only be a matter of time...

that's my take anyway...

Moon, 26.09.2007, 11:34pm #

the universe, and us are part of this wonderful intelligence . our universe continues receiving information about itself from its constituent parts. not one god- but this parts were the initial atoms that were formed of quantum waves of electrons, protons and neutrons. the photon is considered a messenger particle, and carries information from one particle to another.
this atom sings vibratory notes of attraction and repulsion.

these ways of informations being true, seems logical that the increase in volume, energy, and movement of the universe can be a measure of increased awareness in itself .. i mean as an intelligent force in itself.. just like the rain is the cause of many intelligent events and not necessary one person doing it but many different sources.

this events do not prove that there is this individual (god) doing the work.. remember - we are part of this energy, it lives in us. therefore we are GOD - we are part of what god is..

You can ascribe as much intelligence to our universe as you like. It can be very basic, or it can be super intelligent

Our planet Earth in all that lives in it is part of this cosmic harmony as US. The quantum researchers are beginning to accept the theory that all entities are universally ONE...not one god, or such and such religion.
Quantum laws indicate that all particles are aware of the condition of each other. Quantum activity on one end of the universe is instantly recognized at the other.
Religion can't reconize this unity simply because they need to propagated their greedy power structures that has always been based on an interpretation of scripture (bible, coran) which created more conflicts, confusion, war than understanding.

clary, 07.10.2007, 8:13pm #

I like the idea of separating a religious and moral life. Gets rid of Christians excuse for doing horrable shit, and gets rid of Athiests excuse for not giving a shit. Also, is anyone aware of american christian rightwingers ushering in the apoclypse? Sounds cheezy, I'll post the article when i find it.

Eric, 18.10.2007, 3:50pm #

Hi. First to put my forthcoming comments in perspective. I consider myself an atheist. Although I have called myself agnostic for most of my life preceeding my current belief..or lack thereof. I agree with your basic definition of Atheism but the further qualifying statements on Agnoticism I have to disagree with. In fact, I may go so far to say that there may be no such thing as atheism as an absolute belief. While I agree it is highly unlikely there is god(s), intelligent design, and all things deist, I cannot say that it is an absolute that there is/was no God. Of course I'm not foolish enough to think that just because something cannot be proven to be non-existent that it must then exist. (Afterall, finding the evidence for something that doesn't exist is impossible.) Rather, my atheism is based on a scale. for example, on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the knowledge that someting doesn't exist, I would be a 9 w.r.t. theism. That is enough for me to say that I am MORE OF an atheist than an agnostic. But still cannot close my mind to any of the possibly infinite number of explanations for life, the universe, and generally things beyond human cognisance. I would consider it to be typical human arrogance that we even possess adequate senses to be aware of everything. We know that cats and dogs have senses we don't, for example. There is still a probability in "highly unlikely". It is just unreasonable to go with such odds. I say that agnoticism is a valid stance provided in is not from some underlying belief or fear of god. Rather, look at it in terms of mathematical probability. I think it is reasonable to use probability in making choices. We do it everyday.

Dan, 01.02.2008, 4:42pm #

'Agnostic' generally means 'without knowledge." So when asked whether there is a god., one answers, reasonably, "I don't know." Where is the confusion here?

Wayne, 10.02.2008, 5:40am #

I posted a comment earlier tody in reply to Wayne. It's not appeared, so here's the gist of it.

Wayne, you're right about the etymology of 'agnostic'. As glossed by you it is in accord with the definition given by Huxley, the coiner of the term. Unfortunately, the term as so glossed makes no sense, as I argue in my comment above at 13.02.07. Seee in particular paragraph four, but you'll need to read the whole comment to understand the argument.
Regards,
Chris

Chris, 10.02.2008, 7:21pm #

To put it simply John, it is like trying to explain the 3rd dimension to a shadow or trying to describe what a railroad track (if you never saw one before) looks like from orbit.

JGJ, 14.02.2008, 10:13pm #

I'd argue a counter point that as we increase our understanding of science, we become more aware of our lack of scientific knowledge. 'The more you know, the less you know' and all that.

Eric, 26.02.2008, 6:04am #

The thing about the entropy argument is that creationists often use it against atheists. Because of entropy, nothing complex should have arisen. Therefore, God organized life. However, the key is that entropy describes the behavior of a CLOSED system. The earth is NOT a closed system. It is constantly being irradiated by the sun. It is the sun that is increasing in entropy. The energy released from the sun that reaches earth is sufficient enough that it allows for the increasing complexity of life.

Rob, 18.09.2008, 6:00pm #

Chuck Norris can make a square cirle

Shane, 31.10.2008, 3:31pm #

I have found that most people are atheist but are too scared because of their dogmatic conditioning to admit it. I was thinking today about the absurdity if religion. I find it funny how people think of their religions as the only true religion when in fact, through the history of human existence there have been various theistic cycles with different deities and doctrine. I mean, there are ancient religions that laid the foundation for Jewish thought and Christianity piggy backs on Judaism. Then you have eastern religions that have no real deity but rather a philosophy. So my point is, how can anyone's religion be the true religion when first of all, every religion is basically a copy of some older religion before it with different doctrine and sometimes even completely different gods (Islam shares characteristic of older middle eastern "pagan" religions) and second religion is archaic because people use to use it to explain why the sun was in the sky and why wind blew?

Alex, 26.02.2009, 2:24am #

To some weak in faith christians,this may seem totally true. It seems what here is almost right. HOWEVER those who are athiest should first read and study the whole bible before making a judgement. It is just like deciding not to read a textbook on a particular subject while saying that this subject sucks or in this case full of bullshit if you havent even began to read the first page. ALSO when atheist use scriptures from the bible, they SELECTIVELY pick these verses. However, you should read in full CONTEXT and read all the series of verses before that single verse that has been taken.

bob, 01.03.2009, 10:55pm #

Give please. Life is consciousness.
I am from Norway and learning to speak English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "We realize that most of the web shoppers are looking for a bargain, a cheap airline tickets."

:) Thanks in advance. Kennedy.

Kennedy, 05.04.2009, 4:09pm #

As an atheist, I am so glad you have made this website. I live in the "Bible Belt" of the United States and I have been fired from jobs before because of my beliefs. In America, we are supposed to have the right to religious freedom. I am assuming that this also means that we have the right to abstain from religion also. Why are so many Christians afraid of people who have no faith? Are they really that insecure or are they seriously afraid that I'm going to hell? It makes no sense.

Betsy, 10.04.2009, 3:00pm #

Actually, since church and state weren't separated till sometime past the 1600's, it could have been influenced by the church. Like "moon" and "month" (1 month is 1 "moonth").
A good tip on the christianity: the sooner you stop trying to make sense of it logically, the better. It's pretty dam obvious that it's outdated and flawed.

Numerous, 14.04.2009, 3:58am #

Hell yeah, buddy. I'm with you all the way. I'll be following this site for quite a while.

Mr. Burnside, 18.04.2009, 8:48am #

Field: Attempting to argue the existence of something outside of our structure of causality is, at best, a logical paradox, and at worst illogical. It has an indeterminable truth value, and so has no use within rigorous logic. It is not a useful statement/assertion.

Your chess analogy, while suffering from the same flaw, does however provide for some interesting thought experiments about how the universe would work with some sort of "turn" system.

David, 03.05.2009, 11:29am #

Seconded.

Numerous, 07.05.2009, 10:56am #

Theists and atheists are two side of the same coin. Ask me why that coin, while politically expedient, intellectually unnecessary

jim, 08.05.2009, 5:59am #

Suppose it "exists". It doesn't matter.
In the big picture that entity is strictly a local phenomenon. Sort of a human village boss. It has its place but I am looking at much more permeating forces. Beyond monkey-human recipe books that need only common sense to conceive.

jim, 12.05.2009, 9:30am #

why do you care about gays if you have no inclination yourself?
Or if you do why not more understanding?

jim, 13.05.2009, 5:35pm #

The human masses and their "post animal natures" as it gets translated into societal action... I feel very sorry about that too. The larger brain size brings more madness too. Animals are not as likely to get quite as deranged as humans when the daily tribal madness hits them.

jim, 14.05.2009, 7:03am #

well put thats all i have to say

Chalie, 03.06.2009, 3:16am #

There is no god so get over it. It's better known as the last great fairy tale.

Christopher Robinson, 15.06.2009, 7:57am #

Attention Numerous and other atheists:
Bring it on. You don't scare me.
I've defeated tim, brother jeff, mark smith. Step aside, chumps.

RHF, 16.06.2009, 1:43am #

You haven't refuted one argument, numerous (fumerous -- after smoking weed)
You have no proof of evolution, no proof that something comes from nothing.
Evolution is fiction, pure fantasy with no basis in reality.
There is not one legitimate shred of scientific evidence that proves evolution -- NONE, deal with it.
Get a life, you teenage idiot.
You are out of your league pea brain.
Come back when you know how to put together a logical argument.

Numerous, you are an atheist fundamentalist with a closed mind.
Just like Tim, Mark smith and brother jeff.
I don't see any atheists rising up to my challenge.

Numerous, I'm done with you. Your a waste of time and a first class LOSER.

RHF, 18.06.2009, 1:07am #

RHF -- atheist destroyer and defender of the truth.

RHF, 20.06.2009, 10:38pm #

RHF -- atheist destroyer and defender of the truth.

RHF, 20.06.2009, 10:40pm #

Except you can't "destroy" the truth. "ignorer of the truth" would make more sense.
So that would make it:
RHF -- Atheist annoyer and ignorer of the truth

Numerous, 22.06.2009, 12:12pm #

The WORSHIP IMPULSE is the problem. If encouraged it creates an object which is better than your neighbor's..etc
For some the Lottery is perfect for that. Emotions toward parents should be modified to cut out this dangerous worship impulse completely

jim, 30.06.2009, 5:29am #

I don't see the big deal about the existence of possibly more advanced creatures than us. Some may be quite a bit more advanced. Like Einstein to ants and on a number of dimensions other than consciousness. This is a scientific possibility or even probability.
I am sure however that none of "these" is concerned about my sexual habits or role models in the human tribes which is a small and distant, albeit remarkable, little branch on the larger whatshumIcallit.

jim, 04.07.2009, 7:59am #

The easiest thing to do is ask where their god came from. Whatever they say, you say. Or even better; when they asked what created the universe, say "whatever created your god".

Numerous, 07.08.2009, 6:17am #

Sorry... I meant the first comment. Figured the comments were sorted newest to oldest.

Jason Payne, 05.09.2009, 3:20pm #

Not that I support ignorance.

Numerous, 09.09.2009, 9:56am #

We are, as a race of beings, are both**

I apologize for the repetition.

Paul J, 25.09.2009, 4:38am #

There are obviously processes in the universe way above us, but to assume that they're necessarily conscious beings goes against everything indicated about the universe so far.

Numerous, 29.09.2009, 7:00am #

it looks like you were implying that there probably was a god/conscious higher being, [but that we shouldn't use it as an excuse to kill etc]

Numerous, 30.09.2009, 7:47am #

Wait a sec... when you say there *could* be, do you mean it's theoretically possible, or it's theoretically likely?
Because it might be possible, but it definitely isn't likely.

Numerous, 06.10.2009, 1:04pm #

You are absolutely right but...
and this is how somebody explained it to me why: political necessity.
The "theist" bastards and their idiots must be opposed on their battle field. In which case you need a "flag" called "Atheism". It has nothing to do with religion, everything to do with the weak minded and the bastards who exploit them.

jim, 14.10.2009, 7:01am #

you know....is there really a NEED to even discuss the possibility of anything "creating" or "evolution" ? If you're atheist....you're atheist, and personally, i don't give a shit about religion, much less the thought of wondering why we exist in the first place anyways. Since we CAN exist though, might as well spend our lives doing something productive before we hit our graves, eh? I could kill myself now since living my crappy life is somewhat tiring, and that would be a waste....though i am VERY curious about what happens after your death. My greatest fear about that is you somehow get stuck in an eternity of darkness. But that's just crap made up by me. It would be extremely ironic though if a heaven and hell really did exist, then i would laugh my ass out after admitting how wrong i was LOL.Who knows, looks like all of us gotta wait until we hit our deathbeds to find out. For me,in 50 years or so, still got a long and fucking shitty life to live out. *sigh*

somejackass, 30.10.2009, 5:34am #

It seems to me we have already been where we are "going."
But what I enjoy most is a kind of mystery. It is big and it's got parts we never thought about - if we don't let the "folkways" get in the way. Those too have their place in everyday life but NOT in the imagination.

jim, 02.11.2009, 7:37am #

All religion is bullshit.There is no God.All the efforts and objectives of mankind are futile and pointless.Mankind sucks and will eventually destroy itself and put an end to all this verbal diarrhoea.

les irving, 06.11.2009, 9:55pm #

Someone wrote:
"Why not just say "I have no religion and do not believe in bullshit deities?"

Because religious beliefs are the root of many issues in the world, people who lack religious faith (i.e are rational) should take an active stance against the keeping of irrational and limiting beliefs.

How, if at all, is beliefs in a higher spirit different from schizophrenic delusions (apart from the fact that the wording 'higher spirit' has inevitable positive connotations and being mentally deluded does not)?

Sofia, 07.11.2009, 9:44am #

Actually, no. It doesn't go without saying. go on, give us an answer that isn't quite so vague.

Numerous, 26.11.2009, 6:56am #

I think that's a healthy attitude mainly because the other "side" is sooo sick.

Good medicine.

jim, 06.01.2010, 2:06pm #

I LOVE YOUR SITE.
People that believe in god and hate atheist, so terrible. I think that people should keep their believes to themselves and not worries about others believing.
LEAVE ME ALONE JEHOVAH WITNESS.!!!!
I WAKE UP WITH THE SUN AND GO TO SLEEP WITH THE SUN.!! HE IS MY GOD!!! THAT'S what i mean in the previous mail..
Theres a saying on the bible book and it says something like that.. i rise with god and go to sleep with god. The Pharaohs and greeks used to say this about the sun and the sun was their god. Dont get confused ppl.

vivi, 22.02.2010, 5:10pm #

Sorry about the typo. In the second to last sentence, now should be not.

John, 23.02.2010, 6:16am #

There are so many reaches in the universe vastly larger and personal than the xtian god.
Get out of the mud, rise above this stone age fantasy of hunter-gatherer children! Use your consciousness shared by the cosmos (as everything is shared) and start using it in an open style, without programmed conclusions

jim, 28.02.2010, 6:22am #

I find it hard to understand how any human can deny the existence of something that is definitely beyond our understanding. If it were that simple than there wouldn't be so much debate for so many centuries.
A passage from ecclesiastes states (11 v5) "as you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."
I do however, understand that people find it hard to accept one particular view point on the origin of the world - and one particular God. This is a personal decision that occurs because of a personal encounter/experience with God. I can't prove it.
I only feel sad because so many Christian people are such aweful examples of who God is & of the Role model that Jesus Christ provided (and tells us to demonstrate) of God's true love.
Being a doctor - I have the privilege of seeing people at their worst (and sometimes at their best)- but mostly when they are vulnerable. What it has taught me is that we are all innately selfish and self-serving. I also get to see arrogance/pride (particularly in other doctors, but also just in general)pretty much on a daily basis.
These are intrinsic human characteristics which lead to hurt, deciet, mistrust and destroy relationships.
There is arguments from every angle- and I know many learned people that have studied in detail the bible, and can come up with counter-arguements for all the mainstream discussion points - and at the end of the day it comes down to the fact that you have to take a step of faith (believing in the unseen).
The thing is, the principles in the bible (whilst I know you will point to all the horrible things in the old testament - it depends on the bias with which you read - because the old testament I believe was primarily written to display in a narrative view - how humans separated themseves from God and how God will protect & love the people that choose to accept and believe in him) - particularly the new testament - which is the start of a new covenant and shows how Christains should live - and I will highlight these points (because I am sure you cannot find any part of the new testament which disagrees with the basic principles by which christian people are guided to live):
- Loving your neighbour as yourself
- giving to poor, disadvantaged & widows - which does mean humanitarian efforts
- NOT JUDGING OTHERS (it is not our place)
- not pursuing self-serving ventures- but serving others (this gives us the greatest joy)
- Being a witness, by our actions and words to tell others of God/Jesus Christ
Unfortunately- this goes against the very nature of humans and therefore - humans (including me) fail to show the true example of who God is and unfortunately then put others off ever knowing the real truth.
Sorry - I studied science (not english) if this is hard to follow.

Becky, 07.03.2010, 6:28am #

Becky,

I agree with Jim and I'd like to add that this is a quote that you said that debunks yourself ----
(Another tedious example of how religious people are so 2 faced without even realizing it)

You: "so many Christian people are such awful examples of who God is & of the Role model that Jesus Christ provided (and tells us to demonstrate) of God's true love"
Are debunked: "- NOT JUDGING OTHERS (it is not our place)"


Becky, god is the thing in your head that you have created to answer questions that cannot be answered. But that does not mean it’s real. It may be real to you and that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t prove a thing. (By the way did you know there's green flies on Pluto. I know because john told me... and john walked with Jim!)

On closing:
"also get to see arrogance/pride (particularly in other doctors, but also just in general)pretty much on a daily basis."
Becky you’re "JUDGING OTHERS!!!!" again!

Your not even following what you quote from the thing you so call believe in. Come on, get real girl!

Vaughan, 10.03.2010, 11:48am #

Lets not for get the emotions! Whenever I hear bible, jc, gd, xtian I could scream!
It hasn't always been like that. For I while I thought I was missing something. Then it dawned on me: they who try to believe have a serious developmental issue.

jim, 11.03.2010, 6:51am #

I am all for the use of imagination in the freest way possible.
Tradition does not do well in the spiritual area. That realm reflects the cosmic: changeable, contradictory, strange and awesome. I don't want to short change myself by wasting imagination on the products of the stone age - however much clarity they seem to have - they are traps. I have nothing against judgment as long as I can feel for both sides. Truth and certainty is a dream of the believer yearning for simplicity. Fairy tales?

jim, 11.03.2010, 10:17am #

Interesting opinions you all have about believing and not believing. The fact of the matter is that it makes no difference if you believe or not because the truth is none of us know everything that is 100% without doubt. All we know is what we see and read but what about the things that aren't available to us; the things so far out of reach and the discoveries yet to be discovered. You either chose to believe in something you can't prove a fact or don't believe everything you are told or read just because it's popular belief. People can be so very intelligent or amazingly idiotic. You can be a simple man simple education and be more open minded than an extremely well educated man that is incapable of thinking outside the box that is his thick cranium. Human beings are hilarious creatures.

Walter, 28.03.2010, 12:47pm #

Allow me to first say that I am a fan of this site in general. I agree with many of the ideas stated by its creator. My personal opinion of religion is that it is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It was, and still is, a political and social tool used by those in power to manipulate and stimulate the masses. Before logic and education was so widely spread and available throughout society leaders often used quick slogans or "war" cries o attract the attention of the general public. Why? Because people were more willing to listen to a quick, inspiring tidbit than they were in learning the facts about a subject. Even in the modern age the general population is willing to stand behind a charismatic, inspiring, and even unjustified leader who will protect them from all the "bad" logic out there in the real world. Example include... well Hitler (Germany), Moa (China), Stalin (Soviet Union), and most recently [and unfortunately] Obama. Even though these leaders did not appeal to logic or fairness they empowered the people, even if most of the people are lower class, less intelligent individuals. And doesn't religion do the same thing? Even if your a slobbering moron if you follow what the religion says your granted a spot in heaven (Christianity) or a bunch of virgins (Islam). this wide reaching idea is what makes religion such a versatile tool in the hands of a political leader, a tool that can turn and manipulate a population to its controller's liking. It's not so much that the ideals of a religion are bad but that the way it is used is bad. Very few religions or belief systems have avoided this corruption. The only major one that comes to mind is Buddhism, which is not actually a religion (it is a set of moral and ethical beliefs). In conclusion, religion itself is not a bad idea, most even promote peace, but the uses and twisted interpretations that many believers attach to it outweighs any good said religion might do in the world.

Locke, 03.04.2010, 3:49am #

the god complex

Human evolution I think gives rise to a god "complex". Just look at
an anthill, or cat or a monkey and the space station.
Good, bad, it is there.
Now look at the traditional "God" of the universe. Just like us,
much more powerful and perhaps a little moodier. The throne we
put him on is our throne. Now this shmoe is there waiting for us to
take our place.
Every one of us will have a star, nay a personal solar system
for built in energy source with a convenient black hole for waste
disposal. Life span in the billions of years, brain size: a planet.
The rest I leave to your imagination.

jim, 05.04.2010, 8:42am #

It is politically correct to say one man one vote and everybody has a valid opinion to which entitled...etc.
Nevertheless I prefer Plato's opinions to those of Bush's (both dad and slightly retarded son) and Einstein's opinion to my uncle Julius's - although Einstein did make a big mistake. Why is that? Aren't they equally entitled?

jim, 07.04.2010, 1:58pm #

Religion gives wars a lethal edge. It gives cohesiveness to the tribe and it also instigates same tribe to continue fighting while the other, "wrong" god has people left. Your call to remove this website is the first step toward burning the heretics - another religious custom this time within one's own tribe.
Suppression of thought is impractical especially in a mass world like this one.

jim, 09.04.2010, 5:48am #

Atheism has no connection with morals. Atheists can be good or bad (although I would argue that an atheist with morals is better than a theist who only does good things because he fears his gods wrath).

I totally agree man! I'm a Christian but I sooo agree. Also it really annoys me cause I have this friend who's atheist and she's always walking about yelling how she hates Jesus. I just kinda laugh with her and don't say anything cause ya know its whatever, but still it doesnt make sense since she can't hate something she doesn't believe in right??! hahaah. I mean my best friend is atheist, she never says she hates God or Jesus she just has her reasons ya know! and whenever she's curious about christian art and the story behind it or the bible i tell her and that's that! no big deal ya know! for all agressive Christians out there- chill. you're not getting anywhere by screaming at people to believe and trying to answer their questions about God that we can't answer bc nobody knows! okayy?? Just live your life as a good christian and if people want to follow, they will.

Molly, 24.04.2010, 5:10pm #

"You pray to vent, or see if you can find some guidance deep down"
says Mollie and I can't find fault with that.
Consider the label Atheist or Xtian or Republican or Democrat etc. Take away the label and you find individuals choosing whatever makes them comfortable. When they start using labels we cannot use rational arguments anymore because as soon as one ducks out from under a label the game insists to apply another one. Unfortunately there are not enough labels around.

jim, 25.04.2010, 6:54am #

Christians see things that aren't there, they are so blinded by their religion and fear that they accuse anyone non-christian of being a devil worshipper/lucifer follower/evil.

Just more proof of their childlike, brainwashed minds.

Your article is very true, the definition on Atheism has been twisted by the deluded christians.

inyoureyes, 20.05.2010, 5:18pm #

Ah, what a nice way to spend a religion lesson.

Yazmin, 26.05.2010, 1:29am #

people only beleive in religion because they're either scared of death and wanting to feel as though there is something more. They may have been brought up in to religion, so that they know no different, but you cant overlook the comlplete absurdities people believe.

tom, 01.06.2010, 3:43pm #

Religion is most certainly bullshit. Its nothing more than a bunch of concocted stories that have no basis in reality. There is a reason why people must teach their children to believe in the same stories and fairy tales that they themselves believe in, because if people are not brought up on these foolish stories at an early age they will most likely not conform to them unless they get to a point of desperation in their life where they believe religion is the answer.

Atheist, 08.07.2010, 2:58am #

Let me just begin by saying that I play for your team. I am an anti-theist who tends to think that religion is detrimental to society because it discourages scepticism and creates lazy minds.

However, I feel you have missed the mark in your discussion of agnosticism. Frankly, you DO NOT have perfect knowledge and you can't ever be sure of the existence of god. To say, flat out, that you are "as sure as possible" that gods do not exist is arrogant. Anyone who claims to have knowledge of or to believe in something that can never be proven is a zealot. And isn't zealotry what we atheists fear the most? Don't we want to discourage any kind of "faith?"
Frankly, I am often disturbed by my own abhorrence of religion. I used to think it was important to be militant in order to try to change the status quo and discourage theists. Now, though, I think that that is actually very dangerous. Why should I presume to kow any better than they? And when does my atheism cross the line into something ugly- something akin to faith and doctrine?

Sarah, 22.07.2010, 8:26pm #

i have always been a non believer in most part of my life. My fundamental argument is – why would the so-called god create human beings and ask them to worship him, build magnificent churches / temples / mosques for him. Any body who is so self centric cannot be having the traits of godliness and hence cannot be a god.

ravi, 11.08.2010, 8:37am #