God is the worlds most prolific Abortionist

[palerider]

Guys come on... no need for the name calling.

Agreed. There is an ever growing group here that believes that calling names is an acceptable alternative for actual debate.

 

[palerider]

Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.

Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.

Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.

I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.

Interesting, no?

Verry well said. To be an athiest requires exactly as much faith as to be a religious sort since both believe in a thing that can not be proven.

 

[palerider]

Is it anymore rational to believe that the universe was created from nothingness without any outside influence? Science clearly states that is an impossibility, so why to athiest believe that it happened without help from something more powerful? Science has also said that it is a statistical improbability, if not a statistical impossibility, for life to be created, and the odds are even less for life as complex as humans, yet atheist believe it happened all on its own without any outside influence. To me, that seems pretty irrational.

For one to accept the big bang theory, one must accept miracles. One must accept that the laws of physics were suspended for a time and that indeed constitutes a miracle.

 

[palerider]

Furthermore the atheist you have created, once again, is an utter strawman.

He made an observation. That does not constitute a strawman. He observed that it reqires as much faith to be an athiest as it does to be a religious person.

 

[vyo476]

No, the atheist I created was an atheist. The atheist you're trying to create is an agnostic who is angry at organized religion. I can empathize with that but if you want to talk about "rationality" and all that then the first stop ought to be asking yourself if you can show people why their beliefs are irrational.

You haven't done that yet; you keep saying they are but you never back it up.

The sad thing is that I don't think our two personal philosophies are all that different, Fonz. I highly doubt that if a higher being does exist that He (or She, or as is more likely It) conforms to any set of earthly principles. In short - "God" would be on a level that we just wouldn't be able to understand, meaning that most religions on Earth would be complete BS.

So why am I not an atheist? Because I can't prove them wrong and that bothers me just enough to say that yeah, maybe there's a chance they're right - and in the mean time there is no reason to try to get them to halt their beliefs.

 

[vyo476]

The religious people on here seem to have come to the conclusion that there is a god, because something kickstarted the universe.

I admit, there could be a higher being. But how do you know you've picked the right one? I'm agnostic, but at the same time anti - religion. People just make up a God, and people follow. Theres no proof that any of the world religions are definetly right and they are all just as convinced as each other.

If you say atheism is impossible because we just don't know, then your grounds on belief are pretty poor as well because you don't know whats out there scientifically after death.

If you reject atheism, you have to reject religion too and be agnostic.

I'm not saying that atheism is impossible, just that the idea that atheism is the only rational belief system is not very fair.

It's good to see a fellow agnostic - we're rather few on the ground, but I think that's only because people don't really know what the term means. I had a conversation with one of my professors about religion the other day and when I told her I was an agnostic she called me a "wimp."

 

[Fonz]

This is what you end up with when you are a relativist. You see no difference between a muslim flying a plane into an occupied building killing thousands, and an old lady kneeling in church on saturday evening saying hail marys?

Sorry I'm not a relativist. Nice strawman though.

 

[Fonz]

Verry well said. To be an athiest requires exactly as much faith as to be a religious sort since both believe in a thing that can not be proven.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Fonz]

He made an observation. That does not constitute a strawman. He observed that it reqires as much faith to be an athiest as it does to be a religious person.

Thats simply not true. You sound uneducated.

 

[9sublime]

Ha, a wimp because your agnostic. I think its her who is a wimp because she isnt willing to accept she doesn't know what there is after death and instead makes up something to comfort her in her darkest hours.

Secondly, why is it more likely a she and not a he who created the universe?

And why do you have to accept that the big bang is a miracle? All through history anything people can't explain they turn to religion and/or miracles. We don't understand enough about the big bang to start making claims like that.

 

[Fonz]

No, the atheist I created was an atheist.

IM sorry but you are wrong. As I said you know not what you are talking about.

 

[vyo476]

Ha, a wimp because your agnostic. I think its her who is a wimp because she isnt willing to accept she doesn't know what there is after death and instead makes up something to comfort her in her darkest hours.

Secondly, why is it more likely a she and not a he who created the universe?

And why do you have to accept that the big bang is a miracle? All through history anything people can't explain they turn to religion and/or miracles. We don't understand enough about the big bang to start making claims like that.

Actually, she's an atheist like Fonz here. Ironic, huh?

The more likely name that I indicated was "It." Sorry, that wasn't terribly clear - I meant that it would be "He," "She," or "It," and "It" would most likely be the best identifier for a higher being - as a being of such immense power and scope probably doesn't conform to any standard of gender we could understand.

As for the miracle thing, that was pale rider's point, not mine. Still, I understand where he's coming from. Scientists are working on explaining the Big Bang. The common people aren't; instead, they have to make an incomplete scenario fit in their heads. The two of us, as agnostics, are cool with the idea that the explanation is out there and we'll get there someday; others turn to religion to explain things that they don't know yet. That's just how they deal. Most of them just need that little reassurance so that they can go about their daily lives; its the ones who get so obsessed with the questions that turn into extremists.

 

[vyo476]

According to dictionary.com:

Atheist - Someone who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods.

That is what an atheist is. If you wish to deny that a God or gods exist than you must provide some form of tangible proof; if you simply don't believe that a God or gods exist than you are putting stock in an unsubstantiated belief, much in the way those religious people you despise are.

On the flipside, if a Christian made the assertion that God does factually exist, he/she would then have to factually prove it; if he/she simply stated that he/she believes that God exists than he/she is putting stock in an unsubstantiated belief - a little something they call "faith."

Just for your brain to munch on a bit, here's the definition of agnostic:

Agnostic - A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Bottom line? As far as logic is concerned there is presently no way to know whether or not there is a God. The sad thing, Fonz, is that the only theological difference between us is that I'm willing to admit that it is still possible - unlikely, but possible.

 

[palerider]

Sorry I'm not a relativist. Nice strawman though.

You said:

"There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin."

Clearly a relativist statement. So you hold relativist views and positions but are not a relativist. OK.

 

[palerider]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course I do. That you are unprepared to argue the point with nothing more than an impotent insult is evidence of that. An athiest can no more prove that there is no God than a religious sort can prove that there is. Both are working entirely from faith and the more they believe in their postion, the greater their faith.