And I'm kinda thinking that your feeling for and understanding of the word "faith" is a personal one Quint. Which I guess could be a valid interpretation considering the way it's used but...

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs synonyms see belief — on faith : without question -- took everything he said on faith.

I'm just waiting for Aliens to come along. That will throw an almighty spanner into the wheels of religion. I think I could worship an alien as long as it looked like something Captain Kirk would shag!

Interesting read. Nothing I didn't already know in one way or another, but fun to watch a calm, intellectually rigorous analysis and deconstruction of the emotional need for a Big Brother In The Sky.

Me, I'm of the opinion that one of the main indicators that religion and faith are entirely a man-made idea is the way religions are constantly being created specifically to suit somebody's unhappiness and unease. Most people (At least in the West)shop around until they find a belief system that suits them - instead of confronting their own biases and hang-ups through the kind of self-examination and honest self-appraisal that many faiths call for.

Instead, it's just browse the aisles until you find a faith that screams "We LOVE You JUST THE WAY YOU ARE!! Come On In!!!"

Highly revealing, if you ask me...

Now, nalapou.......you WERE being facetious, weren't you?

This makes me smile.

Funny, in a seventh grade kinda way...

I think we have advanced intellectually and emotionally to a point where many can live their lives without the everyday need of ancient writings to determine how they interact with their fellow humans. However religions do now present a threat to our continued advance and even to those who chose to live without them as they are mostly designed to assimilate outsiders and an increase in secular influence in society makes it harder for them to do so. So religions are fighting back. The most insidious tendril religion has poked out at the moment is the "science is a theory" hook. This has to be countered everywhere it is met.

The Earth IS billions of years old. Its also round and orbits the sun.

Evolution IS the force which has created all species. Including us.

These facts are enough for some people to chose to reject all spirituality (but it makes me wonder at how freakishly amazing it is that I have been created with a brain that is able to understand how slim the chances are of there being any life and how very infinitely low the chances are that I should be).

Anyway my point is that I will be very disapointed with this film if it fails to say what religions are which is a set of superstitions shrouding a code of ethics designed to coerce the general population to act in accordance with the interests of its preachers.

I'm not saying those interests are necessarily selfish tho. For example "lets not kill each other" is the best idea religions have promoted IMO but I'm tired of pussy footing aethists but I'm even more pissed off with the notion that religions should be compared to science as if they were different versions of the same thing. As if science is only "real" if you chose to "believe" in it. Its not. The fact that this has become a common misconception shows a trend in our society towards increased religious influence in education and government.

This is a BAD THING.

Does he

A) Stick it out, wait to see if there's really something there, and if it's safe move on with the hunt, or

B) ASSUME that there is something terrible in that bush and proceed to run like hell, to hide and hunt another day. Evolutionarily speaking, the one that ran like hell was more likely to survive and pass his genes on to his descendants - even if there was never anything more in that bush than a gust of wind. Anyway, who says that life has to have any greater "Meaning"? What's so bad about the idea of accepting that we only have so long on this dirtball, and making life easier - rather than harder - for everybody else is it's own reward, instead of letting your hopes for an unprovable Happy Hunting Ground in the Hereafter guide your every thought and deed?

Its not really clever to use religious language to subvert analytical thinking but it is a common trick. Atheists don't put their faith in anything. Thats really the point.

Also I think you have your objectives and subjectives the wrong way around. Religions can't be objective external stories (or someone elses fairy tales) for those that believe in them. A persons faith tells them who THEY are and where THEY came from. The stories have to be about their life in some way for them to believe them. It's when the stories don't work that religions fall apart for the atheist. Although a half clever religious follower might excuse these problems saying "well obviously some of the teachings are allegory" meaning the rest is true because the fairy tales bits and real bits are not the same thing. In Christianity, for example, its hard to argue that all of the stories in the old testament are historical fact because some of them are so outlandish, however it is easy to take the ten commandments as a clear set of rules by which to judge your worth in the eyes of God. Most modern Christians would follow those and take what they can from the rest of the stories. BUT. The moment you think of moderating your belief in parts of your religion then you must ask yourself when would you stop questioning it and why would you stop? This a slippery slope towards secular thought. But you ask is that a higher intellectual/enlightened ground? Yes it is.

Isn't the Christian (its late and my parents were christian so excuse me not using religions I don't know as examples) who believes -OK, Noah didn't really manage to get 2 of every species of animal onto a gigantic floating zoo that he hand built- not more intellectual/enlightened than one who believes he actually really did it. Noah actually rounded up 1.8 million species. In pairs. And also, I guess, he must have put all the fresh water fish into a really big tank. And bought along a few "spare" animals so that some nasty viruses would survive - you know a couple of rabid foxes, monkeys with aids, people with small pox, that sort of thing. Sure he did!

What do you think? It could be you are very much smarter than someone who thinks the opposite is 100percent true. Do you have faith in your fictionalized fairy tale or, in this case, is there a blazing obvious truth? Religions are very dangerous because they allow people to believe that reality is maleable because they appear to be. Reality isn't, regardless of how much our perception of it is.

The true story of the origins of everything has always been the same and it always will be even if we are too stupid to ever understand it. However it would be a shame if we didn't WANT to understand those truths if they mightn't be what we were told to expect hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

Religions should be treated like literature. There are many interpretation and nuances. You have to actually study the work to truly understand the work. You can't just get all you need to know from a pastor. It takes discipline and time to truly understand a sacred text.

That being said, I don't believe. So long as someone else isn't trying to convert me, then I have no problem with their own belief system. I get my ethics from my own moral compass and from art.

I can attest that true compassion and forgiveness does happen outside of God's grace. Besides the inordinate amount of compassionate friends that I have who are non-religious, I have not changed my charitable activities since a) I converted to Christianity or b) I converted to agnosticism.

If the only thing stopping you from being a selfish asshole is God, then that just makes you a shitty person. In my opinion.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence that religion is a positive thing. I think the best you can argue is that religion is neither positive nor negative. In fact, I have met more moral atheists than I have met moral Christians. It's just a personal observation so take from it what you will.

I did like that chatty priest outside the Vatican. He wasn't saying there were errors in his faith, he was saying there were errors in the way people interpret Chrisianity. (Like Italians praying more to 4 other saints than they do to Jesus.) I also liked the astronomer preist too - he agreed with my beliefs on science and religion.

Checks watch.

Wereplatypus posted this link http://tinyurl.com/5dt4hq

I think this is on the money. These discussions are always fun but pointless unless both sides are prepared to say that the other might be correct. It would be very easy to convince an atheist with any of the evidence requested in the video but what would convince a theist that they were wrong?

"Prove there is no God" is not an ok response because it is unclear what is required. "Prove there is, never has been and never will be any alien life" is more valid because it is clear the evidence required would be physical (despite the search being currently impossible and practically never ending). It is up to the believer to tell the atheist what logical conditions or physical evidence must be supplied to form a satisfactory proof of there not being a god. I think this is impossible for theists to do because it would also clearly define their faith in empirical terms. Also if the evidence required for one to change their position is unreasonable or illogical then that itself is a critique on their faith.

I didn't mean to start the day this way... This film had better be good. I'm going to do my taxes now. Maybe if I try really hard to deny them then they wont exist either...

Regarding Christianity, how many Christ-like folks will he have to meet before he "signs up"? 100? 10,000? 1,000,000? That's his cop out. Surely he's met a few in his lifetime but he despises it so much that he will most likely never give it a chance. I say he should forget about trying to meet perfect human followers and try to meet the Deity itself.

I certainly would not apply that understanding to geopolitics or military strategy but I would apply it to spirituality and religious belief. I don't spend much time thinking about who our Creator is, but I do spend a lot of time witnessing man's brutal injustices against each other and against nature, and sometimes wonder if a Creator exists and why such things are allowed.

For me, someone who is highly skeptical about beliefs derived from major organized religions, I cling to some measure of belief in a higher entity if only to hold out some hope of a greater explanation, and perhaps even retribution, for those injustices.

Hopefully it makes more sense now.

Believe it or not, English is my first language.

Absolutists and control freaks like you are one of the main reasons that I left religion behind decades ago, ya chump....I debated priests and nuns when I was in GRADE SCHOOL, and these "learned" people that were judged good enough at the game to be allowed go out and indoctrinate little kids couldn't answer some of the simple questions that a sixth grader could come up with. So I was "asked" to leave that school, for "unacceptable" behavior.

If that makes ME un-"Christ Like", then that's fuckin' fine with me. Who needs to hang around with "Christ-like" behavior like theirs? And for your fevered rationale that these experts of yours have "DEGREES" - Ooooh, a DEGREE. From Bob Jones University, I assume? No scholarly bias THERE.....I got news for you, Bilbo. My boss has a business degree - from a community college, and he can't subtract 11 from 20 in his head. But that (and his ability to kiss the right asses) doesn't stop him from taking home 60K plus a year....so I'll do my OWN math, thank you, whether or not that's all right with you.

Isn't this kind of agitprop bullshit kinda childish and stupid in this day and age? Isn't it fairly obvious that it isn't religion that drives the human race to extraoridnary acts of kindness AND extraordinary acts of utter evil - religion is one of a plethora of catalysts that spark people into action depending on their point of view? A nutjob will kill someone whether his evil god tells him to, his football team, his nightstand or his fucking dog. Conversely, a good deed can be done out of a feeling of altruism, from being taught to do the right thing, from feeling a need to atone for past misdeeds, or because they think God wants them to be good people. Religion does not make people good or evil - PEOPLE MAKE PEOPLE GOOD OR EVIL. Anyone saying otherwise is following their own agenda more than the tenets of their personal faith, philosophy or life plan.

Point is, Jesus' words can be twisted to fit whatever your point-of-view is. The shame of it is that we don't get to hear what He REALLY meant from the Man Himself.

BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER. PARTY ON, DUDES!

Party on spud mcspud!

Nuff said?

I gather an athesist has no chance of being elected President in your country ?

We can deal with issues like the spread of Aids in Africa, and not preach abstinence (clearly worked in the Palin family) and no condoms and actually be realistic and intelligent about our approach.

We can look at ideas like abortion or stem cell research and consider the suffering caused by not taking that solution rather than simply ruling it out.

In a sense the removal of religion will allow the human race to "grow up", say good bye to our imaginary friends,take more responsibility for our actions, understand the value of life, how short it is and then really excel at tackling issues with a more informed and scientific approach.

fasism, like communism is an anti religious philosophy as a result of the belief that the state should be one's highest allegiance which is contradictory to the catholic faith. basically some people want to believe that religion is evil and the catholic church is the worst of them all and nothing i or anyone else can possibly say will change that (which means it is time for me to exit this discussion). The facts simply don't bear out on your statement.

people forget that mussolini was hitler's greatest ally and co fasist and that pope was trapped by them in the vatican (similar to what occurred under napoleon) a fair minded person would realize the extent to which this would limit his ability to oppose fascism, and yet he did anyway. Pius XI spoke out against antisemitism and had priests across germany read a statement calling hitler insane. as was obviously going to occur this lead to the persecution of practicing catholics. for this reason john paul II had to study to be a priest in secret. he also personally helped many jews escape the nazis. over the course of the war thousands of priests were murdered by the nazi regime as part of the holocaust because the chatholic church was at loggerheads with the nazis.

Not only was the catholic church not in bed with the nazis but it was persecuted by them. This is well documented and is easy to look up. you won't look it up though because, despite your finger pointing it is you who is the dogmatic one. you have no interest in any facts that dispute the idea that catholics were complicit in the holocaust and that it was a religious purge rather than a secular one. most fair minded people know this to be ridiculus .

No-one would. But that doesn't prove that God exists. Live by a code, be nice to other people - sure, great, all for it. But don't live your life under the influence of a lie. To say that religious people can be good people bears no relevance on the central issue that God does not exist.

The Nazis used this sentiment to their own needs.

Cults of personality and dictatorships are not an argument against athesism. Whether a dictator is a man or an imaginary friend in the sky it is still about human submission, and something that the human race should not accept.

I think any athesists who thinks ridding the world of religion will rid the world of war is crazy.

As per my earlier post ridding the world of religion is about the growth of the human race and being more informed and intelligent in our approach to issues.

In the beginning, religion told us that the Earth was made by God some 6,000 years ago in the space of 7 days. Science proved that to be untrue.

Now God is defined as infinite and outside of our understanding. Says who? It is you who has defined God as such, but only when all previous "proof" that he existed has been exposed as a lie. It is therefore the only place left to retreat to. Don't you see the pattern that is emerging? As scientists come along and discover the truth and expose the lies created by religion the only inevitable outcome is that they will prove that God does not exist.

"in the realm of things we don't know there exists the possibility of God". The possibility of God is not the same as the certainty of the existence of God. This is what leaves many people as agnostics. They believe that it can't be proven that God does not exist, but there is a very very very small possibility that he may - therefore an agnostic would not say outright that God does not exist, as an atheist would. That does not mean that the two sides of the argument are equally plausible and hold the same weight. It is not just as likely that God does exist as doesn't. It is likely that God does not exist as there is no proof that he does - but as long as there is a tiny element of uncertainty the agnostic will wait until the proof of his non-existance is found.

"If a Giraffe evolved a long neck to reach the food in the trees and evolution takes millions of years wouldn't they have died out before they evolved?" Holy shit you really have just exposed your ignorance with that doozy.

"Where did the gases come from? How can you create something from nothing?" Again - the answers to these questions have all been found by scientists. Just because you are unable to grasp these concepts it doesn't mean you should turn to the default answer. Oh, I'm confused, I can't get my head around this - er...God must have done it! Ahh, now I feel better. Things are nice and simple again.

Am guessing you are an athesist in respect of Egyptian gods, greek gods etc.

For me, I am a secular humanist and in short this means that I support reason, justice, ethics and reject the supernatural in how I make my decisions or life choices.

I agree that athesist is not very descriptive.

The beginining of the universe argument, think every major athesist author has made the point, that if God created the universe, who created God, for me that argument clearly works for neither stance.

2) the fact that most of the major genocides of the last 200 years have been purpetrated by athestis does not prove or disprove the existence of god, nor in of itself say that religion is or is not a bad thing. it does say that religion is not the root of all evil as some here suggest and it does say that genocide is not limited to religious organizations and it does say that lately, no religious organization (cristain mulslim ect) would even make it into the top ten. all one can draw from this is religion is not the only cause of that type of behavior.

For me I can see the world going backwards to some extent the rise of Islam, the rise of fundamentalism in the US, as the world becomes more uncertain.

But also is hope that we can be better, focusing on the West (cause I know it better), we have done well even within the shackles of religion, end of slavery, advance in medicine, women being treated as equals etc, and think without those shackles we could become even better.

Re your 2,000 year old organisation comemnt. The basis for the Christian religion is a 2,000 year old document, that is at the same time the word of god but is also being constantly reinterpretated which says alot about how it is the word of god.

The United States has a Constituition, which via the amendments has had some accepeted changes to it, i.e. abolotion of slavery.

Imagine if someone now made an amendment to the bible, "yeah we don't like the laws about slavery in the old testament, lets remove that." Its either the word of God or it isnt.

communism is specifically anti religion. communist philosophy (similar to your own) dictates that religion has been designed as a method of oppression for the workers and that this is only purpose and as such should be wiped out. karl marx referred to it as 'the opiate of the masses'

My main argument here is like all issues athesists can come to the table, with an open mind and fully discuss all the issues associated, with reason with thought and after that discussion make a decision.

Is it fair to have a child, that is going to suffer through their life, from known physical problems not an easy thing to discuss but one that needs to be.

Is it fair for a child to be born as a result of rape or incest, is that even fair to the mother.

Is it fair to the other starving children in a family that there is another mouth to feed.

I agree that abortion should not be considered part of family planning, it is too often used for this, people (mostly my gender- men) don't use condoms enough.

But not having a 2,000 year old document telling us how we should live our lives we can explore the above, with careful and considerate thought.

well lets look at a few facts. One of the reasons I began to turn my back on my Church Of England upbringing was precisely because so much of the Bible is utter horseshit. I began to look at it as a historical document and like any other you have to look at it and ask "why was this written? who was the intended audience? what biases inflect its prose?" When you look at it like that you see that it is nothing more than a way of fitting one religion into the place of those already existing at the time, with the ultimate goal of furthering [the wealth and power of] the Church.

Examples. Well lets look at what the Bible tells us about the birth of Christ. We all know the story - Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. He went to Bethlehem because of a census relating to Joseph. He was born in a stable and was visited by shepherds and 3 wise men. The date of his birth was given by the Church as the 25th of December.

Lets look at these one at a time. Jesus was born of a virgin. Really? Why that would break all known laws of the universe. Not to mention it is exactly the same story surrounding the birth of the Roman God Mithras, who was quite popular at the time of Jesus (Anyone who doesn't know about Mithras should look him up - he also died and was resurrected). It is also the same circumstances in which many other Gods pre-dating Christianity were supposedly born. So, is this "fact" placed into the Bible because it actually happened, or is it simply a way of easing the populace into the ideas of a new religion? The people at the time would have expected any God to have been born of a virgin as this was very much the archetype. It would be easier for people to accept if this indeed was the case with the new Christian deity.

Next - Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of a census involving Joseph. Well yes historical documents do show there was a census during King Herod's time, but it took place a good 5 years after the supposed birth date of Jesus. Furthermore - there is no record of any census requiring someone to return to their ancestral hometown. The reason given in the Bible is that Joseph returned to Bethlehem as he was descended from David who once ruled there. Well, given that David lived around 2,000 years before Joseph what kind of rationale would this be? Unless you also consider that actually, it was part of the OT phrophecy that the messiah would be from the line of David, and then we start to see why this little story might be concocted.

The birth story. Out of the 4 gospels only Matthew mentions that there were 3 Wise Men. Why not all 4 if this was an established fact? Furthermore Luke asserts that Jesus left Bethlehem when he was 40 days old, which contradicts the 3 Wise Men story. Furthermore - these Gosepls were written decades after Jesus died. In that time how accurate could any story passed down by word of mouth actually be?

Not strictly in the Bible, but the Church tells us that Jesus was born on December 25th (coincidentally or not, also the birthdate of Mithras). Was he actually born on this day? We have no way of knowing. What we do know is that the early Church picked this day because it fitted in with a pre-established pagan winter festival. Another example of co-opting existing religion to make the transition to the new Christian religion easier for the masses.

Oh and Easter? Named after the pagan Goddess Eostre whose magnificence was celebrated by the non-believers in springtime.

Once you start to look into what is written in the Bible, knowing that much of it is not historical fact, that it was written with specific purposes - you are left to ask: what ELSE is it lying about? Can any of it be considered genuine? The answer I reached was a resounding "no".

we know that he was not born on dec 25 but that as said above that was a detail added later, basically in order to keep a holiday. we have examples of this today. we celebrate the queen's birthday i'm going on limb again and assuming you come from the uk on a totally different day to the queens actual birthday. why? to keep a holiday that we had before the birth of the current queen. does this mean she is not the queen? keeping old holidays despite switching religions or sovereigns or whatever is an old practice that neither proves nor disproves anything.

we know we have the year of his birth wrong and that the problem cropped up in the dark ages. We have actually changed calenders several times since then as well. We also know a lot about the census. seutionius and other authors (who were roman centric and certainly pagan) tell us that at the time augustus was reshuffling the senate after the purges of a series of civil wars in rome. legally this reshuffle required a census, and this is the purpose of the one mentioned in the bible (we know the dates and so forth, it is neither a mystery nor something only religious scholars agree on)

he certainly does bear similarities to other deities. but then jfk has strong similarities. both have become mythological figures due to their materdom. does this show that jfk did not exist. if you don't like this example there are plenty more examples of historical figures fitting toposes and yet still being real figures.

the bible is a wildly contradictory source (fundamentalists seem not have read it) yes it was a man written document put down years after the fact. we know from the eye witness misinformation effect that four people observing the same event will give different accounts of it. again this does not prove the event did not occur.

i agree that your conclusion is a reasonable one, it is just not the one that i have reached.

It is simply absurd to suggest that the Bible is a statement of fact when by any standards that you may apply when analysing a historical text no such claim could possibly be made. This is not to say that nothing in the Bible is true, but it is certainly not possible to say everything contained within - particualrly vis a vis the life of Jesus - is true. As any rational person must conclude, the Bible cannot be held up as unmitigated fact. EVERY historical document must be asked of itself "who wrote you? when did they write you? what was the purpose of you being written?". And lets not forget we are not talking about the Bible being written at a time of journalistic impartiality - everything contained within was written with a predisposed agenda in mind.

The conclusion you must reach therefore is that some of the Bible MAY be true, but how much of it is false? And how can you possibly say at this late stage what is and what isn't? It therefore becomes difficult to simply concede that the bits you don't hold dear will be false, whilst the important stuiff must be true, because the laws of probability dictate otherwise. I don't believe that Christians want to accept this though, because to do so picks at a loose thread which will eventually see the whole fallacy unravel.

i did not say i agreed with this, i do not, i used it to point out that as a political theory communism is inherently atheist. As an after thought i pointed out the the above theory, (that religion is designed to keep the dumb people in line and is a tool of oppression wielded against the stupid) is very much in line with the statements made by many of the atheists who have posted here. I don't see how i am all over the shop, i thought it was clear, but if it is contradictory i'll try to clear it up.

Then don't vote for McCain. I attended a McCain rally in Michigan on Friday hoping that the John McCain from 2000 was the real John McCain and that he'd just been pandering to the right to get the nomination. Well it appears I was right, but the religious nut jobs were out in full force and it was scary. Before Palin took the stage they had a reverend come out on stage at a political rally to lead a prayer where he actually thanked God for "blessing us" with McCain and Palin.

That's where I draw the line. I don't care if McCain is the McCain of 2000. The Republican party has been taken over by religious nut jobs who have usurped Christianity for their own political purposes and in so doing have taken a religion that is about loving they neighbor and about forgiveness and turned it into a religion of discrimination and hate.

I was flirting with supporting McCain but I simply can not. While McCain may not be a nut job, Palin and those who are "enthusiastic about her candidacy" (aka are right wing nut jobs) would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and they would most certainly continue on in position of power because McCain will be appointing these people to positions of power within his Administration if he's elected.

I also caught the Alaska Governors debate from 2006 featuring Palin where she said she is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The moderator asked her, as well as the other candidates who also all had daughters, if they would still be against abortion if it was her daughter that was rapped and she said yes. That makes me sick to my stomach. Any mother who would force their child to carry a baby to term that was a result of rape or incest should be drug outside and rapped themselves. Then rapped again multiple times for the next nine months so they are forced to relive it over and over again. IMHO that's child abuse.

Mainly, Jesus. Any my hotrod.

Anyone interested should buy/download that spoken word album of hers that I mentioned above. She gives a very insightful overview of faith. Also, I like that at the end of her spiritual journey, she ends up as a Naturalist (much like Greg Graffin).

As opposed to atheists, who are still dogmatic, naturalists rely only on what can be proven by science or the natural order. They don't rule out the idea of "god", but they don't believe it unless it can be proven (i.e. the "thinking person's" agnostic).

Nihilism: existence is without objective meaning (belief in nothing).

Agnosticism: the truth of certain claims are inherently unknowable.

Religious: practices often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality

Mythology: other people's religion

Its a comedy starring a stand-up comedian (a rather B-list comedian at that).

Seriously Atheists - I have no problem with you living your life by whatever personal code you want to, but that does not make you the smartest person in the room. You have to earn that title, and insulting those who disagree with you for no other reason than that disagreement - its not really the best way to be nominated.

And then, as usual, she handed me a stack of Sweepstakes Entry Forms that she wanted me to drop off at the post office.... That said, unless some goober on this board comes up with a SPECTACULARLY stupid argument, one just BEGGING for a good kick in the metaphysical nuts, I have had enough of this thread.

We need something NEW to jabber about....

(2) Science isn't the be-all-and-end-all of human knowledge and intellect. A few hundred years ago, science absolutely KNEW the Earth was flat. Then it KNEW that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Fuck, for all we know, a few years from now science may actualy find that petrified cotton candy restaurant on the far side of Neptune!

At least the concept of BELIEF allows for doubt - though I BELIEVE something, I may not have proof of it - proof denies faith. Ergo, my belief may or may not be justified - but that choice is mine to make: to believe or not to believe. To say that you KNOW something because science is on your side - or because you are an atheist and therefore you KNOW there is no God (for whatever convoluted reasons you need to prop up your worldview - a crutch of sorts, n'est-ce pas?!?) is just as much a leap of faith as being a believer. But I do note it's the atheists who seem to be frothing at the mouth more and doing more smug-looking-down-on-you-dumbe r-folk high-horse patronising in this TB. Score one to the believers for being the more polite side this time out, and a big shout out to the agnostics for having the balls to just say "I don't fucking know!" and get on with life regardless.

Jerry's Final Thought: non-believers, chill the fuck out. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Whether my neighbour has one God or ten, it neither breaks my fence nor robs my wallet". So enough with the superiority already, you guys are a fucking drag.

Ok here's my impersonation of Bill Maher doing and impersonation of Jack Nicholson.

Anyone else seen that abortion of a movie by the other Seinfeld (HAHAHAH Seinfeld is on spell check!) guy Sour Grapes? God whats that doofus done with his life since Jerry died?

"To say that you KNOW something because science is on your side - or because you are an atheist and therefore you KNOW there is no God (for whatever convoluted reasons you need to prop up your worldview - a crutch of sorts, n'est-ce pas?!?) is just as much a leap of faith as being a believer."

So if I told you not to drink a cup full of cyanide because I KNOW it will kill you and science is on my side you would consider that statement a leap of faith and do it anyway?

tompiltoff: I call dibs on Boo Berry.

LaserPants: I'd recommend you read C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' -- only the first coupld of chapters, actually -- for some insight into how SOME people might think that morality IS divinely informed and appointed, but it's up to you. Your statement about "in this day and age, all I see is religion causing mass idiocy and inciting mass murder" is far too accurate for me to refute, but I place the blame on the weakness of men, not on faith itself as some manner of prime mover. It makes me sad to hear such sentiments as your expressed, though, not because I think I'm "better" than you or anything because I have a faith system, or because I think you're defective, but because I believe good people have become soured on matters of faith because of the actions of lesser people who wield it as a club. I wish it weren't so.

Anyway, thank God [chuckle] it's still legal for me to cling to my guns, my religion and my ignorance. Until January, at least.

BSB: You know, you're right. Christ WAS a "community organizer," among many other things. Props.

Iframan76 articulates an extraordinarily cogent point: The "idolatry" (would use a more accurate word, there, but, frankly, I can't be bothered at the moment, I have other fish to fry, today) of science echoes certain aspects of organized religion, and the scientific method -- unwavering belief in the accuracy, completeness and purpose of what is scientifically observable and "provable" -- is ITS OWN "faith system". To paraphrase Whittaker Chambers, each person must ultimately choose: "God, or man?" Either we accept that God is the singular and complete explanation and Creator of all that is, or, we come to believe in another, man-observed, man-reasoned and man-articulated, explanation. There is no middle ground, which is one reason why the numbers of people who believe in the former are dwindling, since we live in an "enlightened" age that simply doesn't accept the premise of absolutes, even (especially?) in matters of science. A hypothesis is reasonable only until data is collected that contradicts it. A theory is viable only until some experiment or observation is seen to refute it. A Law is only binding until some other equation supercedes it. Which is what makes the perspective of people who claim that contemporary scientific thinking is somehow ABSOLUTE, so ironically hilarious to me: If there's ONE thing that the modern Scientific Method has impressed upon our culture, it's that THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. There is only our momentary explanation for the evidence at hand, a plausible fiction agreed upon.

I'd like to clarify something, though: I, for one, am NOT "ANTI-science". Far from it. Yes, I call myself a Christian, and by all definitions an extremely conservative one, perhaps even "fundamentalist," quite possibly, to some eyes, "extreme". However, I for one am an ADVOCATE for science, for observation and experimentation and unfettered postulation and ever-increasing knowledge bases. Faith and science are ultimately mechanisms for apprehending the same (perhaps unachievable) goal: truth. In fact, personally, I believe God's first instruction (to be distinguished from, "commandment") to His Creation was for us to BE scientists, to use our own senses and abilities and devices to try and catalogue, describe and comprehend the world around us. To wit, Genesis 2:19: (NKJV) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what HE [Adam] would call them: and whatever ADAM called every living creature, THAT WAS THE NAME thereof." (My emphases.) From the beginning, God INSTRUCTED AND FACILITATED, ENCOURAGED AND APPROVED man's apprehension of his reality through HIS (Adam's) means, not God's. So, to those persons of (any) faith who froth at the mouth and condemn scientists as heathens and infidels, I say, read your Bibles.

toadkillerdog: You're quite correct to point out that "Just because [a person] profess[es] to be catholic, is does not make them a christian" -- any more than me stating that I'm handsome makes me good-looking, or that I'm smart makes me sensible, or that I can bark makes me a dog. However, there is SOME -- by no means incontrovertible -- evidence to suggest that Pope Pius XII, or at the very least some Vatican representatives during the course of his papacy, was aware of, if not complicit IN, certain of Hitler's actions and policies toward the Jews (and others he deemed undesirable). Pope John Paul II's visit to Yad Vashem in March, 2000, and his request of the Jews for forgiveness at that time, would SEEM to lend credibility to these allegations. However, as far as I know, no actual documentary evidence exists to suggest that the Holocaust was approved or even condoned by the Vatican. One thing, at least, is certain: It's one of many issues and debates that has weakened and impeded the Catholic church over the last half-century.

I find myself in 100% agreement with toadkillerdog's statement, "[M]an's inhumanity towards himself is in no way mitigated by a lack of religion, and in some ways is more pronounced." However, Juemad's assertion that religion IN AND OF ITSELF is neither the cause, nor the explanation, for ALL of man's "inhumane" acts, is equally true in my opinion. To paraphrase a popular NRA slogan: Faith doesn't kill people. People kill people. LORDRANDO's contributions, indicting the track records of atheistic societies, support this perspective.

I find Miyamoto_Musashi's comment, that transcending religion "Will allow [humanity] to look at...issues more intelligently, without being guided by a book written by some men 2000 years ago," flat-out HILARIOUS. All of Western higher education embraces Socratic Method, Plato's Ideas, and Aristotleian logic. Confucius, Protagoras and Heraclitus continue to influence all manner of disciplines, from funsamental logic to basic spiritualism and every point on the map in-between. Mathematics, the foundation of science, is based in large part on the Pythagorean theorem, which, by the by, is STILL, TO THIS DAY, CONSIDERED A "THEOREM," and NOT A LAW. Thomas Aquinas, ALbertus Magnus and Anselm of Canterbury, all of whom have been dead some eight centuries or more, are quoted in every law school in the Western world. Clearly, it's not WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, but WHAT IT SAYS, that makes a text no longer useful to some, unless you're also suggesting that at some point Euclidian geometry, Copernican cosmology, Newton's Laws of Motion and even Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' will no longer be relevant, either. Which would reinforce my earlier point about the temporary "nature" of doctrinal science.

And I agree completely with SlickyVonBoner when he says: "If there is a god...he has a twisted sense of humor." As is His prerogative.

For whatever it's worth.

Bubblehead.

A lot of the non-believers on this TB are going on about the believers being wrong because science deals in what is KNOWN, whereas believers deal in what is BELIEVED. Well, it's a FACT that scientists hundreds of years ago BELIEVED the Earth to be flat - as in, they thought they KNEW it as a fact. Then they were disproved. Ditto with the "Earth being the centre of the universe" thing. So science isn't always factual. There's no getting around that with a trite argument equating my recap of a few examples of where science was spectacularly WRONG with a hypothetical me drinking cyanide because, hey, what WAS factual years ago may not be now.

The difference is - cyanide has been PROVEN to be dangerous. There's no room for belief there - anyone who believes cyanide is dangerous will be proven wrong the minute they drink it and then die. So genuinely - where the fuck were you going with your cyanide argument? It IS possible to have faith and still trust in science, you know. They're not incompatible. What seems to be incompatible according to the non-believers on this TB is the idea of being intelligent and rational, and yet being able to believe in things you cannot see. Which, frankly, is ridiculous.

Science tells you what stars are and what they're made of, how they were formed etc. Yet YOU haven't actually seen a star up close, done the math on distances, measured them, carbon dated them - hell, all you have for evidence are specks of light in the night-sky and some statements of fact given you by scientists and mathematicians - all of which you take as FACT by FAITH.

We're all believers, in the end.

To try and further clarify some people of faith's viewpoint: Religion sometimes gets in the way of our Faith and our view of God.

"Have you read the bible? If Jesus wasn't imaginary he'd be most repulsive human being on the planet. An eternity of torture? Kinda makes Abu Graib look like Disney Land. You can't criticize the hate-mongers for picking and choosing bible passages and then just pick and choose the nice bits while applauding Maher's exposing of the contradiction of Muslims claiming their religion is one of peace. It's all the same crap!"

...are entirely reasonable, from the perspective of someone who opposes the notion that Christ was God, incarnate. I'm not the first person to come up with the assertion: Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Son of God.

There is indeed an (apparent, to some) contradiction between Christ's own judgments on fallible, fallen man -- indivudally, and corporately -- and His admonitions to His followers to embrace, if you will, the better angels of their nature in their earthly affairs and relationships. To some this might well seem to be an example of, "do as I say, not as I do." So, here's an analogy -- not, I admit, a terribly complete or even accurate one, but it's the best I can think of on short notice: Christ is like a breeder of dogs. He encourages them to get along with one another, but, ultimately, He is in a position of absolute authority over them, and can -- and will -- discard those He deems undesirable, according to His OWN standards. You may argue, well, that's all fine and well, if you believe in a God, but Christ WASN'T God, you just got done saying He was the SON of God, what about that? To which I would reply, (I believe that) Christ was 100% God, AND 100% man, in somewhat the same way that I, myself, am 100% son, and 100% father, both equally and completely, at the same time, and in the same flesh. And, in both the Old and New Testaments, Christ was referred to as the Judge of all men. On earth, judges are given the authority (by society) to impose what would otherwise seem to be unjustifiable cruelties, were their actions undertaken by mere citizens: denial of freedoms, incarceration, torment, even death. We may balk at some of the sentences they pass, but most will allow that, even if they DISAGREE with a judge's punitive actions, they have the RIGHT to take them, under our (human) laws. For a moment, think of Christ as a judge who can't be removed, recalled or impeached, and of humanity as the criminals before the bar, so to speak, and you'll be closer to understanding the perspective of (some) Christians, I think.

What you (I suspect) choose to identify as hypocrisy, I view as a matter of context. Few earthly judges would permit me, a mere citizen, to inflict the sort of actions THEY are EMPOWERED to undertake, on my neighbors. I, after all, am no judge.

chipps: Excellent dissertation on the nature of fascism. Props.

Cedar_Room: "To say that religious people can be good people bears no relevance on the central issue that God does not exist." Glad Europe could clear THAT up for the rest of us, too...

I agree with Miyamoto_Musashi, who says: "[A]ny athesists who thinks ridding the world of religion will rid the world of war is crazy." Seconded.

darquelyte: Great, GREAT stuff about the congruity of atheism and religion. Nice.

Cedar_Room: Science hasn't "PROVED" ANYTHING. (Neither, one could say, has FAITH, but, then, that's not really faith's job, is it? That's sort of the point, actually.) There are explanations and equations and predictions that, through observation and experimentation, have been demonstrated to fit what we think we perceive and experience. However, NO tenet of science -- no matter how accepted, familiar or repeated -- is EVER more than one shred of data, one divergent result, one compelling notion away from obsolescence. Funny, you mock the notion of an inerrant, omnipotent and ultimate God, because you have no "proof" of Him...while elevating a relatively recent philosophical matrix, the construct of fallible men, to same, even though men and their supposed wisdom have been PROVEN, through the ages, to be fallible, narrow and wholly changeable. Yet you fail to see the inherent, unavoidable contradiction.

Catching up, slowly... More later. Bubblehead.

"what WAS factual years ago may not be now"

Well, quite. People once stated as a fact that God exists - until science came along and proved them wrong. The first steps have already been taken. It was once proof that God existed to say the Earth did too. After all, He created it, the great and good once told us. Well, scientists proved them wrong. It was once a well established fact for men of science to say that God created man. But this too has been proven to be false by science. But surely you hold science up to standards which religion is not subject to? You criticise scientists for saying something hundreds of years ago that has subsequently been found to be untrue. Couldn't the exact same apply to religion? To those who wrote out of ignorance thousands of years ago that God created our planet, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Isn't it possible that these "facts" are no longer fact? The more we learn the closer we get to the truth, and the process is ongoing.

Cedar_Romm, we may need to get M-O-M involved here to explain the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I understand where Bubblehead is going though.

ALL postulations, no matter how well-practiced, observably compatible with theory or congruent with known data, come with a certain degree of UNCERTAINTY. Repeated experimentation reduces said uncertainty, but it's never entirely quantifiable, since, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are ALWAYS unknown unknowns.

And, actually, smartass, there ARE fundamental and persistent problems with Newton's Theory (note: THEORY, though it is commonly assumed to be a Law) of Universal Gravitation... notably, that the application of gravitational force is not instantaneous across great distances, and the fact that light's divergence from a straight line cannot be fully attributed to the impact of gravitational force upon said light. Which is why Einstein was compelled to formulate his Theory (!) of General Relativity... Which also, by the by, fails to explain EVERYTHING, which is why physicists and mathematicians continue to pursue the elusive Theory of Everything.

I sense you're becoming frustrated. Just a suggestion, but you might enjoy our little game more if you weren't so insistent on batting for MY side, partner. You make it all so easy... But, then, I forgot. You don't care, right?

Bubblehead.

First, a belief that either there IS no God (definition: a singular, supernatural entity that created the observable universe), or that the hypothetical existence of God is irrelevant;

Second, that morality is, like justice, good and evil, and virtue, a philosophical construct of the human mind;

Third, that humanity is subject only to its own judgments; and, lastly,

Fourth, that the concept of a "soul," or of an afterlife, or of eternal life, is entirely inconsistent with reason.

...Of course, I'm open to argumentation on these (and other) points. You might disagree that these generally accepted maxims of atheism constitute a "faith system," but I believe a liberal interpretation of that term would argue for atheism as an organized faith, just not a religion.

And I, for one, don't mind looking like "a complete fucking fool." Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last, I assure you. [Grin]

Cedar_Room: I'm beginning to discern a pattern, here: anyone who disagrees with you to any extent is "absurd," and anything that contradicts your worldview is "ridiculous," and anyone who wastes your time by discussing things YOU'VE reached a conclusion about is "backwards." For someone so theoretically enlightened, your closemindedness is really something. And for someone so apathetic, you sure do get agitated easily. And for someone who has so little patience for people who disagree with you, you sure do seem to devote a lot of minutes, not to mention energy and initiative, to sparring with them. [Shrug]

Suit yourself.

Bubblehead.

What if I were to tell you that I have discovered a celestial teapot that orbits the planet Mars? Prove it you'd say. Ah, I would say, but it cannot be seen by any currently available telescopic methods as it is too small. Well - this teapot may be there, after all you can't prove that it isn't. But the probability that indeed it is there is so remote as to be discounted by any reasonable or rational person.

Of course if we were then to discover the teapot mentioned in a text which had been written and buried 2000 years ago - my claims might start to make sense. If those claims then began to be made to every person in the world every Sunday morning people might even start to believe it to be true.

And if being around your loved ones for all eternity sounds like Hell to you, well, gosh, partner, I'm sorry about that, truly. But, then, I LIKE my family. Erm. Most of 'em, anyway. [Grin]

I don't mind telling you, that your statment, "So thats it? or is there an after-afterlfe? you tell me, cause you felt there would be more when you where still in the womb," is totally and completely incomprehensible to me at the moment. If you want me to respond, please rephrase.

"Sounds pretty selfish (and bitter) to me that this life is not enough for you and that you demand to live forever." Huhwhuh? I don't DEMAND anything, partner. Not from you, not from God, not from anybody. Who am I to make demands on He who made me? I believe -- because I CHOOSE to believe -- that those deemed worthy by Christ will spend eternity with Him, and with God and with others who are deemed worthy. And, not that it matters, but I for one DON'T believe the way I do because of what I can "GET" out of it. I believe the way I do because I also believe I am commanded to believe that, and I choose to obey. Even when it sometimes doesn't make sense to my small, feeble and finite human mind. I don't have all the answers, and I'm comfortable with that, actually.

You'll notice, however, that I'm not challenging what YOU believe, or don't believe, nor am I ridiculing you for thinking as YOU do, nor am I in the least impatient or frustrated by your seeming lack of agreement with my beliefs. It's fine, I understand. You have no patience for those who don't agree with you, and find it personally offensive that they don't, and can only respond with wisecracks and infantile lampoonery. You don't even have the good grace to be happy for someone else who finds contentment in this world, believing in SOMETHING, and who isn't trying to attack or deride or insult or convert you, but just desires to have a public conversation on a subject you find tiresome. So much for "tolerance," eh?

2)it is not so much the level of probability but rather the fact that the strength of science lies in its requirement for testable theories and that yes it is semantics but that people who show them selves to be ignorant of these semantic are going out on limb when naming calling toward people who do understand them. newton understood these semantic. newton believed in god. is newton an idiot?

3)interesting that you had an unlimited number of possible examples for your teapot point but that you choose to regurgitate someone else's example. Interesting that you rely on the fact that science has PROVEN there is no god, but don't really seem to understand the scientific method. methinks you have traded prophets and that rather than questioning (which plenty of the other atheists seem to have done) you have in fact conformed to set of arguments rather than develop your own free thought.

As for my own free thought - I think we discussed earlier up the page how I developed my own views on why God does not exist, which are quite independent of any other thinkers. And yes I did borrow Dawkins teapot idea, but it was the first one that came to mind.

Furthermore, if we are to discuss blindly following what others say without developing our own thoughts - how to explain your faith that Jesus is the son of God? You know this because......you were told so by someone else? Am i right? And who exactly have I name called in my posts?

But theories change, laws change, the bible is not seen as theory it is described as the word of god and is absoltue.

That is my problem, taking absolute approaches to issues. Whereas science as many people have commented is constantly about theories, proving, disproving with reason, experimentation etc. Science doesn't claim to have an underlying explanation for everything.

As I have said before there are many intelligent, much more eloquent people than myself who have wrote books on the issues, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins etc and if you can open your mind, take a scientific approach to the issue I suggest you have a read.

Please don't get defensive or silly about it, I'm just asking.

Also to anyone who says science hasn't proven anything. Sure, if you want to get pedantic about it then nothing can be proven. We can know nothing absolutely because we don't have an absolute frame of reference in which to view things. Anything that we prove with scientific techniques is implied to be within a certain frame of reference and hence using the word "proof" holds.

It just comes down to what do you prefer: a fallable human trying to work things out by the numbers, or a fallable human working things out by the book.

all i would say is there is no proof or disproof of god. there is no link between atheism and intelligence or intelligence and theism (there are geniuses and retards in both camps) and there is no link either between theism or atheism and leading a good life. the only consistent difference is one group has faith (which is belief in the absence of knowledge) and one group does not.

"In everything we know, in everything we see and feel there is always a tiny element of doubt that what we know to be true may be wrong. But when I say scientific fact I mean proven beyond all reasonable doubt..." 'Reasonable' to whom? And when? You offered up Newton's 'Law' of Universal Gravitation as an exemplar of something that science had "proven." Then, I pointed out that Newton's Theory had been demonstrated to be incomplete, and even showed you that its purported 'correction' was widely regarded in the scientific community as being insufficient, also. Then you accuse ME of trading in "semantics," when you can't even stick to your own postulate or defend your terminology! No wonder that you simply gave up debating with me earlier.

Anyway. I'm about out of here for the evening. Hope everyone has a good one.

Bubblehead.

P.S. Ya know, my above post to Windowlicker ended up pretty friggin' whiny, didn't it? Nevermind. Bring it on! I don't mind being challenged, not one bit. Do your worst. [Grin]

Miyamoto_Musashi: Gotcha. And, you're right, to certain Christians (including myself, by the by) the Bible IS seen to be both the Word of God, AND absolute. Which may seem to be a contradiction on my part -- didn't I just get done trashing the Scientific Method, and saying that there ARE NO ABSOLUTES? Yes, indeed, certainly, but, then, matters of faith cannot be quanitified under the Scientific Method, or any other logic system. Matters of faith require a PRIMARY ASSUMPTION, that SUPERCEDES what we would term, "reason." There's a basic choice involved there, right at the outset: Either you choose to believe that god (any god) is possible, or you choose to believe that the notion of a god (any god) is impossible.

Science, of course, has its OWN initial presumption: That what is observable is ACCURATE. Both require a leap of faith, so to speak, an original hypothesis.

I appreciate your thoughtful contribution, and your recommendations. I'm VERY familiar with the works of Harris and Dawkins, and also Christopher Hitchens, who I've spoken with on a few occasions. But, I'm always up for more reading, and for exposing myself (quit laughing) to other points of view! Amy: In response to your question, *I* believe there will be three separate criteria applied at the Judgment: One for those who have been exposed to the teachings of Christ, one for those who have not, and one for the Jews. In my (fallible) opinion, only the first REQUIRES acceptance of Christ "as their personal saviour". The second measure will be based upon Hebrew law; the third, I suspect, would be more worldly works-based. But I'm hardly an authority, here, and I may well be wrong. Here's what I can state unequivocally: I believe that, for Gentiles such as myself, who have heard the Word of Christ, there is only one way to the Father, and that is through His Son.

"Hell" is described as spending eternity outside of God's presence, by the by. I can't speak to fire, brimstone or Satan's love condo with Saddam Hussein.

Sorry to be "pedantic," or obtuse, or namby-pamby; it wasn't my intention. And thanks for your question, and the respectful manner in which you articulated it. It's appreciated.

Love the "handle," by the way.

chipps, thanks for your comments as well. And, with that, I really am outta here.

Bubblehead.

But why should I have to know the intricacies of every fundamental law of physics before I can accept it as true? Where does this logic end? Do I have to physically go to Australia before I can accept it is an actual real country? Do I have to throw myself off a cliff before I know that jagged rocks will kill me? You make the point I think yourself. Your religious faith is a belief, in the absence of knowledge. If I was to have "faith" in the big bang theory it is not despite an absence of knowledge - all the knowledge is there and has been accumulated by other people. We learn certain things through personal experience, we learn other things through being taught. It is not practically possible to experience everything. There is nothing wrong with accepting something as true which you have never experienced yourself. If that is something within accepted earning, that HAS been experienced and tested by other people. You can call that having faith in these theories if you want. The difference is that having faith in God is not backed up by any scientific tests or facts. Really, is it not just an accident of birth? You say you have a blind faith in the existence of God. Would you still have that if you were born in India to Hindu parents? Would you have faith in God or would it be Lord Brahma?

As to your final points. I am happy to say that I do not know everything, and am happy to be persuaded by the facts should they present themselves. I do not believe that being for or against the existence of a celestial superintendant makes you any better or worse of a person. I do however think this. If you refuse to follow reason and logic do you not close your mind to what we are all ultimatelty searching for - the truth?

So much for your argument that "Scientists use to believe that the world was flat, so see, they can be wrong about stuff and why can't they be enlightened like Christians and just go along with us...."

...You Moron.

the idea of these idiot ancients is a fallacy, atheism as an idea is older than christianity. look up a guy called Critias who said that religion was invented by some cunning individual in order to serve his own political purpose. critias said that over four centuries before the birth of christ, so it is not a new idea.

1) the church was not suppressing the idea that earth was round but rather that it was not the center of the universe. it was well accepted that earth was not flat the arguments that Galleilo and Copernicus got in trouble for was that the earth traveled around the sun and not Vice-versa. you have just provided another example of a person who calls another person (the wrong person i think) a moron when it is you who does not know what they are talking about.

this point is extended by the fact that it was the ancient greeks who discovered that the earth was round and quite accurately discerned it's circumference. I believe the greeks would qualify as europeans and they knew the earth was round before there were muslims. credit where credit is due, the enlightenment occurred as a result of the reintroduction of ancient greek texts into europe, texts that were maintained by muslim scholars. again if you are going to call some a moron get your facts right. now i'm going to watch guns of navarone, then on the waterfront. enjoy your days.

Sorry. My Bad. Whoever that guy was, though, he's definitely a goober...

But I'm still pretty darn sure that some of the earliest Euro astronomers ran into serious shit from the Vatican....Isn't there something about the Official Vatican Position to this day is that the Earth is flat....because to admit that it's a sphere would be contradictory to some medieval pope's decree? That would jack up the official Party Line that ALL of the Big Papas are Infallible, right?

Besides, even if I did get the particulars wrong, my point still holds....

"I've got all the proof I need". Great, then let us see it. I didn't set out in life with a predisposed agenda to believe only what I wanted to believe. I made an assessment based on the facts. You have decided to ignore the facts and draw your own conclusions. Don't be surprised if other people disagree.

"Fact is, everyone either worships or feels the pull to worship something". Human history would probably support you on that. But again, does that prove that God is real? I would argue that it is simply a result of humans trying to seek an explanation for things they could not [yet] understand. When they could not find the answers they sought to invent them. It wasn't that long ago that you could speak to someone who would tell you that it was a fact that the sun was controlled by Ra.

"We all have a void in our lives we have to fill in order to get through the next day". Fine, if you use God as an emotional crutch. If you use him as an emotional support structure that is up to you. But again, does that prove he is real?

"honestly, I think those who reject God have the most belief in God". You do realise how nonsensical this sounds don't you?

"trying to destroy something they claim not to believe in". I don't think I or anyone else is trying to destroy God. Like you say, you cannot destroy something you don't believe in. Ultimately, none of this debate really matters or makes any difference to anything. But when your religion gets shoved down my throat, when people prefer to push ignorance over reason, I hope to intervene and unravel the great fallacy that has been woven through the ages.

But most of the humanitarian stuff seems to have been at a grassroots, local level, while the Big House has Gotten It Wrong a LOT more than they've Gotten It Right...the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Rape of Mesoamerica, Women's Rights, Looking The Other Way during the rise of the Nazis, Northern Ireland, the Child Molestation scandal...

Which is more than I can say for the USA. All things considered, I think that we've still got a pretty high batting average...

"Where did humans come from? Hmm - we must have been created by someone...perhaps there was a great maker who did this? Would this be the same maker who made the world we live in? Why - yes!" Problem solved. I do not blame these people or find particularly sinister motives in why they came up with these explanations, but that is not to say that our first stab at "the answer" is necesarily the right one.

You talk about faith, and yes people have always had faith. But where does this faith come from? For me, growing up as a child who went to church, who went to a Church of England school, it was derived from the Bible. I have read passages from the Bible, I was told by my vicar that certain things were true. But we have now discovered two fundamental things 1) That God did not create our planet, either 6,000 years ago in the space of a week or at any point - and 2) God did not create us, humans, we actually evolved from a common ancestral ape - why then SHOULD I believe in God? If these fundamental "truths" have been proven to be false what else is there to fall back on? The story of Jesus is one that I looked over, and increasingly from a historical perspective. I'll confess that I'm not a scientist so everyone else can slaughter me over my knowledge of scientific method or the specifics of Boyle's Law, but I am a historian. And I defy anyone to analyse the Bible, specifically the Gospel and the story of Jesus - along with the history of the early Church and how it was spread by co-opting existing religions - and not come away with the same impression that I did. It is virtually impossible to say with any certainty that ANYTHING in those books actually happened. Specifically things that have been attributed to direct quotes from Jesus, as not one of the Gospels was written when Jesus was alive - the closest was started 30 years after his death. And yet these are the very things that people base their entire lives around. It is very difficult for me to look at these, look at the reasons why the Bible was written, look at how the church grew by soaking up power and wealth, and not be suspicious of the literatures motives. So then if we know so much is not true - how can I say for certain that Jesus WAS the son of God? Can I really be so brazen with what I pick and choose?

The answer I came to was no, and the whole fallacy began to unravel. So then I have to ask you, how can you believe with a certainty that something unprovable exists? How on earth can this be justified? In any other circumstances this would be an indicator of mental illness. "But I KNOW theres a monster living in my cupboard, and you can't tell me otherwise". The proof for God does not exist, so why shouldn't my default position be just that? Why should I believe in something unprovable? Yes, in another 1000 years all we know about science may have changed again - and maybe then proof will have emerged. But at this precise moment in time?? Its not there, and theres nothing to suppose it ever will be.

I haven't yet read the article you refer to - and I don't think i'll bother if it doesn't fit into my existing world view [smiley winking face]

It was marketring. Pure and simple. Zoraastrinism was heavily used, as well as many pagan beliefs. That is not debatable.

I am a Catholic, and my faith is not shaken because the early church co-opted other beliefs and practices in order to survive. The basic Dogma never changed though. Belief in something greater than the human condition, is a wonderful thing. You may deride it as an ancient palliative to explain Man's existence, but consider this: If science, or any form of man-made explanation could supplant Religion, why has it not done so?

Most of the people on this planet believe in some type of deity.

But I read Hitchens book and though he had really good points in that she promoted poverty.

I really didnt know much about her but heard good things about her in the media, and I accepted this without question, but once I investigated its interesting how my views changed.

Essentially what it said was that geneticists were pretty sure that they had uncovered a "Superstition" gene closely coded into the "Fight Or Flight" sequence...Their scenario was a Paleolith prowling the savannah for food saw - or THOUGHT he saw - something move in a bush. Something that might not have been food.

Now, he could either stand his ground and see what was in the bush, and maybe get eaten himself as a result. Or, he could run away and live to hunt another day, and DEFINITELY live to pass on his particular genes to the next generation - even though there may never have been anything more in that bush that a gust of wind.

In other words, an inclination to believe the unknowable rather than risk an unpleasant reality is hard-wired into our brainpans....and no matter how reason and logic-based our thinking may have become, that atavistic impulse is still lurking in there...

On a side note, every reference that the Bible makes of the word 'Religion' is in a negative context. The only exception is when it is called 'True Religion'. I believe that true religion is YOUR relationship with God. No one else can judge you on it, and no one else should be judged. So love your God and love your brethren; it's all you really have.

Which is sort of the same point that I would make to toadkiller dog. You say that "Most of the people on this planet believe in some type of deity". But is this proof of the existance of a deity? The people of the world once believed the earth was flat.

Scientific consensus has never for one second thought the world was flat or that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Again, no one ever actually believed the Earth was flat. No, not even the Queen of Spain. And Columbus merely proved that crossing the globe westward was actually NOT quicker than skirting the African coast if you wanted to get to India. Simplified of course...but no where in actual history was there any notion of a 'flat earth' as any kind of valid academic idea.

And Science said Earth was the center of the Universe? You do realize that Galileo changed his view that the Earth was merely an object orbiting the Sun and not the other way around because he didn't want to end up burnt to a crisp on the stake, right? Yes, I'm over simplifying the whole story but there was never any scientific consensus that the Earth was either (a) flat, or (b)the center of the Universe.

I'm not attacking religion here...my views are irrelevant to this response and like any "ism" there's always a line of batshit crazy psychonauts ready to use it for their own selfish means (burn people at the stake, etc), but please learn about history and science before you go making absurd claims to back up whatever argument you're attempting to make.

Thanks and be excellent to each other!!!

paragraph?

"How can they be happy?..there's nothing to be happy about...they must simply be stupid."

We project our own views on to others and dismiss those who don't jibe with our perception of the herd.

if we are going to talk about medieval science we must realise that it was infact considered philospy. for example my girlfriend has a phd in science. this is technically called 'a doctor of philosophy in the field of science' of course these days we certainly differentiate the two but at that time they did not.

it is certainly true that not the church few of the lay and not 'science' said the earth was flat for a long period of time, that shit was a while ago. it is also true that it was not just the church but also 'science' that claimed we were geocentric.

phythagorus, a noted monotheist, believed in a heliocentric model but this was rejected by plato and aristotle, who developed a geocentric model. I think that it is fair to call the same ancient greek community that proved the earth was round and invented modern maths and medicine (as well as many other things) 'science' and these guys were geocentrics. i might also point out that they were not christains.

obviously none of that really has anything to do with religion, just thought you might find it interesting

Half-baked...no need to apologize...as I said, I know zilch about Chinese history so I happily stand corrected if they actually believed what is quite easily proven false through relatively simple mathematics; but I must admit to wondering if their notion of flat-earth was also a bit of a historical exaggeration. Another case of "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend" (even if the fact was bullshit to begin with!) I was speaking purely of Europe and the fact that, nationally speaking (yes, meaning basically Europe at the time), there was never any scientific consensus for a flat earth or a Earth-centric view of the Universe.

a study i read recently though concluded that it was not the MONEY that made people happy (say when they got a raise) but the status associated with this. a raise is like the boss saying he values your work. consequently you feel respected and important. this makes people happy. bizarly when some people were asked 'which would you prefer: fifty k a year in a firm where everyone else gets 25 or 100k a year in a firm where everyone else gets 200 (assuming that the money has the same purchasing power) some people would pick the first option despite the fact that it runs against the underlying assumptions of economics. conclusion, above a certain amount we seek status not money.

And PERISH the thought of catching the High Priest with HIS hand in the cookie jar. One bad word from him in god's ear, and you're on the Divine Shitlist.

With THAT kind of herd mentality going on, only the most blatantly blasphemous can be safely addressed and given the old Heave-Ho. So because nobody's willing to rock the boat, little infractions that get swept under the rug eventually snowball into really BIG atrocities. And that's when all of the believers stand around, scratching their asses and wondering "How the hell did THAT happen?"

Happiness/peace/contentment come from within not without. God/spirituality/truth...whate ver label you wish to give it...is within...not 'out there' somewhere.

Thanx.

I don't prescribe to his particular brand of faith but you calling him a "hate/fear mongering self important jackass" qualifies YOU as the intolerant one.

Try not to project so much.

Bad cops: you're always going to find corrupt individuals who SHOULDN'T be cops. Knuckleheads who abuse their authority in small ways to vile individuals who do horrible things with the power entrusted to them. That being said, most cops are good, trustworthy people who serve the public and try to do the right thing. It's safe to say the police provide FAR more good deeds and stabilty for society than not.

Same for religion. Sure we can talk about all of the wars, persecution etc done in the name of God over the centuries...all of which are well documented and part of historical record...but the countless UNTOLD stories of people sacrificing to help others during famine,war flood,disease etc easily tips the scale. On a daily basis all types of religions help needy kids,families,elderly,animals, veterans,sick and dying etc.

Don't let a few bad cops lead you to think the world would be better off without the police.

And I'm not a Christian. What leads you to believe that I am? Because I didn't attack him?

I'm a pretty cynical cat at times but not enough to agree with your view that "pretty much all Churches were established to perpetuate themselves, control and exploit their adherents, and enrich the clergy". That's a pretty big sweeping generalization of a lot of good people and their intentions. We humans are flawed and imperfect(to say the least) so our institutions,goverments laws etc will reflect that.

I'm of the opinion that just because 'religion' or America or (fill in the blank) is not PERFECT does not in any way diminish the incredibly good things that they still produce. On the contrary it validates them.

One could argue that'religion' (or more accurately peoples belief in a God or something transcendent) is what has kept civilization from slipping into the pit of barbarism throughout the centuries.

Thanks for the response and no offense taken to the belief assumption thing.

Hard to find that kind of dialouge at AICN though considering the conspiracy mongers and hard left and right wingers here (mostly left). I'm right of center (never been a card carrying Republican) and notice more personal attacks rather than IDEAS being challenged. That's a generalization though.

I appreciate your honesty. You sound like thoughtful, logical cat. I don't know too much about Antonius. I'm the first to defend 'religious' people being piled on unfairly which is pretty rampant in the US...but man, the first sign of dogmatic, intolerant religious bullshit and I'm right there with you bro.