Religion Board

First of all, if you take the position that teaching people what right or wrong is based on the scripture you are not doing good, as the scriptures defintion on what is good is not a good one (Rape is legal according to the bible, as well as genocide, descriminating, etc...).
Also, there is a problem with saying you don't bother anybody, but you are trying to convert people. That is contradictory. If you were to keep it to yourself I would have no problem with that at all.
Also, the teachings of the bible hurt certain people. The Homosexuals are beeing dicriminated against based on what is said in the bible.
It is nice to see that you try to do good, but it depends on what you define as good.

You're not hurting anyone as long as you're not shoving it down someone's throat. Just as the atheist isn't hurting anyone as long as he/she is not shoving their beliefs down someone's throat. Some people get all upset that someone has different beliefs than them, don't take it personally.

Though I would like to point out that even if you are teaching someone "right and wrong" you are still indirectly teaching them the Gospel since morality is subjective and you derive yours from the Bible.

Depends on the person you're asking. Most atheists don't have a problem with you being christian, if you're a good person then it really doesn't matter. There are some bad things religious people do, but these are easily recognized as flaws of the human not of the religion. (However, I do think most atheists see religious folk misrepresenting their religion and will point this out)

The real problem I would have to say for most atheists anyway, (and I'm not really speaking for all atheists, just my interpretation of the situation) is when religion isn't purely within the philosophical sect. Such as when it either objects against findings in science or what have you. Evolution being the prime example in this case. There is a difference between simply having a belief and using that belief to dispute scientific theories/findings simply because they go against said belief.

Then there is the other side, anti-theists like myself. Who view not only the objective use of religion as a negative but religion itself as a negative to society. Where I find religion as influencing ignorance, which is used by adults who make choices that affect others. Case in point as a prime example, the gay marriage debate. Not saying I want religion wiped off the planet or anything, just explaining why I view it as a negative.

Hope that clears a few points up atleast.

Pretty much the same as christianity, although often more moderate, and often not as crazy. (There are exeptions though).

yup

the first humans were black or brown0skinned and probably originated around the middle-east or Africa

I've only met one person who wears a tribly( or fedora, idk anymore) and I have no idea of his religion. I don't think there's a correlation between them and atheists, however they do look silly on most people, though you may be an exception.

I've only ever met one atheist who sported a fedora, and 99percent of people I know are atheists

If there were a grammar god, he would not be in FJ.

www.reddit.com/r/worstof/comments/15yl38/ratheism_user_creates_quote_in_this_moment_i_am/

Why would you be against babies? Do you just not like them or do you think that's what pro choice means?

What have the babies done to you?

Stop being so emo.

i cant help it ;~;

Doe it hurt having aspergers?

perfect grammer

lol says u kid

I don't have aspergers, so I don't see why you're saying that.

nigga i bet u dont even smok da danke kush all night
noob get a lyf lol
nerd

Your appearances are sad times, faggot.

What's it like wearing a fedora everywhere you go?

Super euphoric, excuse me for now, I have to bash some dumb fundies.

I seriously don't know what you mean.

The Islamic people get our attention because they currently occupy land that many countries want for many different reasons. And after constant bombings of their land, property and people, after occupation of their countries, and intimidation tactics, it is no wonder they resort to terrorism.

That being said, Islam is only the second highest terror threat in the world. You rarely hear about the other because they are our allies. Can you guess who?

the quran describes this thing called jihad, or holy war. its meant to be an internal war for someone who is struggling with their faith, but extremists have interpreted it to mean that they should destroy infidels who deny or threaten their religion.

just wanted to correct you, jihad translates to "struggle" not holy war. But everything else is correct, some take it to mean struggle against other religions/cultures

There are different ways of interepting the Quarn as well as the bible and tehre are extremists on both sides making there side look worse. There are a very small minority of muslims that actually believe in out right killing. I know a good amount of muslims and i ask them that same exact question, most of the time they tell me to fuck off but usually thay say that they dont even believe in killing. They say that the people that go out and kill in the name of Muslims are a bunch of crazy derp heads.

if i remember correctly, if muslim dies in holy war they will automatically go in heaven

Obviously nothing that proves Christianity (I'm agnostic so apparently it didn't work that well lol) but most of C.S. Lewis' work is pretty thought provoking, especially The Four Loves. I don't agree with a lot of parts about Christianity, but the messages he's sending are pretty moving and make you reconsider how you view things.

A good filmmaker can make nearly anything convincing. Just look at the pharmaceutical industry, look at the media, government, look everywhere. The difference is, are you willing to look past the nice music, beautiful scenery, happy smiling people and look at the actual facts, or will you take it at face value like any gullible person would?

an incredibly thorough refutation of naturalism(alvin plantinga): www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApvLxnHq8Zs

a refutation of physicalism(william lane craig): www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfykgip82dA

arguments for theism and Christianity(william lane craig): www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLmHODwWyQ

Arguments for theism and christianity
A.) Why anything at all exists. (Why is being used here in the "reason" sense, which is pointless for figuring out "what" caused it's existence.)

My lord, how Craig loves the Kalam argument even though it is so useless in proving anything. It's a knowledge through percentage peice that doesn't work when the amount of knowledge we have concerning the main point ("creation" of the universe) is essentially 0.

1A.) Yes every contingent thing has an explanation of how it came to being. However, please remember this point is drawn from observation only in this universe and cannot apply to the universe itself.

2A.) I can understand maybe a transcendent entity from his flawed thinking, but personal being? That's a huge leap of faith.

3A.) The universe is not a contingent thing in the way we understand basic entities in the universe itself. As with every other time you've brought up the Kalam argument, we have never seen anything begin the way the universe did, therefor cannot make conclusions on how it must act when we have no reference point.

4A.) Therefor, the universe does not have an explanation for it's existence.

B.) The origin of the universe.

Same fundemental problems, and it's the same freaking points. Next.

C.) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

1C.) It was incredibly hard to watch this part since it shows just how idiotic Craig is when talking outside of anything besides philosophy. Mathematics are DERIVED from the physical world, not independent of it and just so happened to match up.

2C.) "The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence" No duh? That's the equivalent of me taking a block of wood and shaping it so it fits into a square hole and then being amazing it fits in the square hole.

3C.) Therefor god exists, due to my square piece of wood miraculously fitting into the square hole.

D.) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

1.) The universe is not fine-tuned. Anyone saying it is, is a moron. The universe has no presets, no defaults, no kind of standard to go by. It is, in essence, whatever it is.

It forms itself around the forces acting upon it and comes to a form of "equilibrium". Whatever the result, is the universe. It's not "Fine tuned" for life, life just so happens to be a by-product.

Done with this section since as I've said, the universe isn't fine tuned.

E.) Intentional states of consciousness in the world.

1.) "If god did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist."

First, WLC is hilarious as he compares objects without brains to organisms with brains to say "Look this chair doesn't have consciousness, therefor god exists".

You need to prove there would be no state of consciousness without god, otherwise, the point means nothing.

F.) Objective moral values and duties in the world

1.) There is no such thing as objective morals, they are subjective, it's a moot point with theists, not bothering on this one.

G.) The historical facts about Jesus of nazareth

1.) I digress on the point that the evidence for even the existence of Jesus is lack-luster, instead I will focus on the main point WLC tries to make: First and foremost: Even the existence of Jesus means absolutely nothing in proving god.

2.) "The hypothesis "god raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts."

No it isn't. Why the hell would the supernatural answer be the best explanation? We have people who fake being dead longer than Jesus is claimed to be. We have people who are stone ready in the belief that Elvis is still alive, yet we write this off as insane. However, someone writes that Jesus rose from the dead and no scrutiny whatsoever? Nope god must have done it.

H.) God can be personally known and experienced.

Therefor Odin is the true god and not Yahweh.

I'll get to the other two videos later, can't watch all three in one sitting.

Great job!

i watched the second one because it is a reasonable length of time and first of all, i know it has nothing to do with anything, but i absolutely hate william lane craig's voice. it just sounds condescending all the time even though i know he's not trying to be (Kent hovind is trying to be though)

anyway, his arguments are really flimsy. all he does is quote other people who share his opinions. he always appeals to authority instead of arguing his point. and the people he chose are unreliable anyway. how in the world is anyone supposed to trust the recounting of an experience someone had while their brain was "off"? how does he know exactly when this experience happened in the progression of his coma? how do we know he didn't glorify it in retrospect? how do we know that dualism interaction must have been the answer instead of that we just don't understand absolutely everything about the human brain?

the second guy basically says the same thing the first guy says "since we can't explain it with current methods it must be spiritual in cause"
It's lazy and almost insulting to see this used as an argument. and also its just one big appeal to authority. the only actual "argument" involved there was that he says its hard to explain consciousness, but that doesn't mean its supernatural.

It's how Craig is unfortunately, he's a decent debater...when he can get the ball in his court. The court being philosophy and theology. He however, knows very little when it comes to astrology, chemistry, mathematics, etc. Yet uses these to make his claims.

His main points are almost always linked to the Kalam argument and even though it's been proven to be useless in proving a god, he still uses it to this day.

Astronomy*

The appeal to ignorance. It is the backbone of any religious, spiritual claim.

"Does God exist?" by Hans Küng

Thank you

Recommending any specific chapter as it is a fairly long book and I have far less than enough free time to guess at which point I could read it in a way a book is meant to be read?

Like 1000 pages, it depends what you're looking for like a chapter is normally working out the flaws of the atheism of a specific person like Hegel, Marx or Feuerbach.

I honestly do not care why people are atheists. There are oh so many bad reasons to join a school of thought and even more so to remain in it.
I'm interested in the parts where he attacks the concept of atheism in general, it's only real stance, it's very definition if you will, specifically the lack of belief in a deity. The reasons behind this lack of faith, or claims of people that they can disprove the existence of god(s) do not interest me as it doesn't attack atheism, just individuals. The only real way of doing it would be providing proof for the existence of your god(s), shifting the position from disbelief which is what atheism more or less is.

tl;dr: any chapter that claims proof for the existence of the judeo christian god (briefly went through it and saw that's the position he's defending instead of, say, the muslim god) that does not have to do with semantics (god is love, god is nature) or philosophy.

Sorry for being this wordy... even my tl;dr was too wordy... it's what happens when I don't get enough sleep... I feel every btw and bracket is too important to backspace, even though I do it... you do not want to see the novel I wrote before editing this comment.

If so, I believe Hans Küng is the wrong thing for you. But I'll tell you if I find something that suits you.

Thanks again.

The thing is that some things are done deals. I mean even the pope and the catholic church accept evolution and the big bang
I personally lost my religion long before the god delusion came out, when I realized at eight years old, how inconcistant the bible and the teachings of the catholic church were with what I learned about reality.
What helped me a lot wasn't books about atheism, but actually reading science books and publications. Because if that process of beeing exposed to actual evidence and facts happens early enough, you are more receptive to it, as your faith hasen't manifested itself so far as that it would keep you from just ignoring evidence.

What books helped me probably the most when I was young were books about physics, astronomy and the workings of the universe. It offered a real alternative, as it was another explanation for existence, and unlike the story you get told in sunday school, it even had evidence.

I, too, unconverted in the absence of external help. Got to an age where I noticed inconsistencies between what I believed and what I was taught in school, also between the different beliefs I held or was told I should have within the context of my particular denomination... but I'm getting way side-tracked here.

A good few years after my leaving of faith and discovering there's a name for my particular stance, I stumbled upon literature, shows, etc. advocating for it. It happened that I agreed with most of what I've read and watched, and wondered if there are parallels where someone has met cases advocating for theism, or against atheism, that they were surprised didn't convince the opposition to rethink their position.

For example, creationist books. They do the best with the little they have and it's what a lot of people recommend when arguing for it. I said to ignore those in this thread as I studied more than enough to know all but one claim is demonstrably false (i.e. that there could exist a Creator, emphasis on could)

In short, and I know I'm repeating myself but I need to know this is clear, I'd like examples of anything that has left you or others surprised that someone can remain an atheist after going through it.

You'll never make me stop believing in the moon man.

Stop, you're making us look bad.
Unless of course you're trolling. In which case still, stop.

U phoric, bro?

Just thumb down and hide all posts from user. No point in responding.

He says, responding

More of a response to those reading not the actual post itself.

I know, but its vaguely amusing

We're all so mad right now at your glorious spamming

The fact that some people are still dense enough to interpret that verse in a literal sense pains me deeply. At the time He created man, God didn't have a physical form. So it couldn't possibly mean physical image.

If there is a god, he definitely made gays and bis and trannies for a reason

Also, if he/she created humans, both men and women, in his image, what does that tell you about his/her gender?

Well the bible says he made man in his image, then made women after
So, I don't know

1. I don't see why not. They're human too.
2. No. Souls would require self-awareness, which androids do not possess.
3. Yes, if sapient aliens exist, I'm sure they would have souls too.

Human clones yes aliens yes androids no
I assume souls are an organic product

I personally don't. I'm just learning about people who do.

Yes, although to me the "soul" is just that bit of electricity that is in your brain.

That's how Aristotle viewed it. The soul is your consciousness. You know you have a soul because you are the soul. However, your soul dies with your body.

Not necessarily, electricity is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, it just goes back into the earth or something.

Electricity is not Energy (NOT synonyms). Electricity in the brain is just a change in charges, in the case of our brain the difference between the inside of axons and the outside, as they are separated by a membrane. This is a common misconception. There are not actually electrons flowing through our brain.
And even if energy could not be destroyed, which is not actually the case, if our body dies, there is no more ATP left to power the different electric potentials on the inner and outer side of axons to be upheld, and with the decay of your nerval system, all differences between charges, that lead to our neval impulses will be gone, leaving nothing but chemicals behind. So if you're dead, you really are dead.

That statement is somewhat connected to Pantheism.

Doesn't matter. The soul is a collection of energy and neurons, and the collection can be destroyed. Matter can't be destroyed, but a chair can.

The soul is the system, though. You don't exist, even if the energy does.

Yes Yes and Yes. Androids are a tough one though. You could build an android with or without a soul, and only he would know, because we wouldn't see a difference.

human clones: yes, i believe souls are reflections of personality, so human clones would still have individual personalities

androids: no, they do not experience consciousness in the same way humans do

sapient aliens: yes, souls are a basic component of living things if they're real and they are what i think they are.

Just saw that on tv, YouTube comments are always 100% predictable.

YouTube makes parodies of atheists seem too real sometimes.

HesAPooka gets it right. She doesn't really care, she's not an uppity douche, no one else should be as well.

Apparently, the Washington Free Beacon is not a legitimate news website, so thousands of people on the internet have been fooled.

Also, I should stop looking at MSF-related content. Many of those comments are too similar, yet they're serious. Then again, YouTube is dumber than Reddit anyway (although Reddit is responsible for most of the views. Hmm...).

Is MSF /r/magicalskyfairies? It's funny as fuck going on there.

I don't get polytheism. To conceive of it would require stretching the definition of what a "god" is. I've always felt that a god is meant to be a perfect being. If multiple gods are necessary, then all of them must be imperfect. And if they're imperfect then how can they be gods?

but in many polytheistic religions gods aren't perfect. Take the Greeks for example, Zeus banged every chick he laid eyes on, Hera was jealous all the time, etc. The point was that they were human as well, and therefore imperfect, just as nature and mankind was. But there was beauty and art in their imperfections, just as there is beauty and art in the imperfections of humans. If Romeo and Juliet and their families were both perfect, it'd be a pretty shitty story. Without hubris, there would be practically no Greek tragedies.
You probably couldn't convert to polytheism, because you define God(s) as something perfect that is above humans and nature, whereas polytheism views gods as just a part of nature.

Hello

Hi

So.
What gods do you believe in

Norse religion so Odin, Thor, and Freyr.

That sounds stupid.
I wasn't even aware people still believed in that. What makes you believe more or less in them?

I believe in them, because they make more sense than a God that just watches people suffer, and doesn't do anything to help. My gods actually care for those who fall in battle regardless of what they are battling against. The final reason I believe in them is, because I'd rather believe in a group of gods that don't randomly smite people for not solely worshipping them.

LOL, freyj is gon get his ass chopped in half!

SURTR FOR THE WIN

I don't know much about norse mythology besides the basic, but it always seemed interesting. But still, I think only people who die in combat can go to Valhalla or something, is that correct, or not really?

Yes, you must die in combat the misinterpretation of what combat entails is what throws most people off when it comes to norse polytheism the truth of the matter is combat ranges from fighting on the battlefield to fighting cancer or even old age. These changes to the religion came around in the early 1900s with the creation of Neopaganism.

What happens to those who don't "fight"?

They just die and cannot be reunited with their families in Valhalla because the gates are closed to those that just except death instead of fighting to the end.

Do the ones who go to Valhalla eventually die or live there for the eternity?

They live there for eternity.

Why them in particular?

I don't recognize any such persons here.

I guess that means I'm the only one.

We aren't attacking, were learning both sides.

I don't see how atheists telling religious people they're wrong is any different from religious people telling atheists they're wrong.

"Religion" is simply the topic of the board. This isn't an exclusive community for religious people.

This

Because they're here to discuss religion.

Not from what I have witnessed, but maybe thats only cause I absorb butthurt from the obvious 12 year olds and miss out on the good aspects of this thread.

Yeah well, why they're here and how good of a job they're doing are 2 different things.

"Atheism isn't a religion correct, so why is the religion board filled with all these Atheist posts? "

Because atheists on this board also like discussing religion and talking about certain points? I was unaware you had to be religious to express views on religion. Also unlike your picture says, criticism of religion is free speech.

"Atheists rage about people forcing their religious beliefs onto them, but then they come into a board solely focused on others religious ideals, and attack them for having faith in something that may or may not be true. "

This board is based on a general idea for people to converse around that general idea, it isn't exclusively for theists. Also noone really attacks anyone, we tell each other why we think the other side is wrong, and most of the time fairly reasonable conversations stem from it. You see, there is a difference between attacking someone, and telling someone why they are wrong and presenting a reason behind that accusation.

"Am I the only one that see's an issue with these double standards?"
I'm not seeing a double standard since I can safely say all the theists and atheists I talk with on this board have a clear understanding of "shoving a belief down someone else's throat" and "explaining why you're wrong".

"If there was an atheist thread would religion come in and fuck with it all the time or would they leave it alone?"

So you're saying no theist would? Seems like you're giving special attention to the theist side by saying only atheists would attack the religion board and not vice versa*.

*Implying any attacking is going on by either side.

"Atheists I honestly don't care if you have faith in a higher power or not; however, what gives you the right, to attack other people solely for the fact that they have belief in something you don't. Seriously, what you all do is the equivalent of telling 3 and 4 year olds that Santa isn't real. It's not funny it is cruel many people have religion, because they want to believe there is something waiting for them in the afterlife."

Two problems,

Again we're not attacking anyone, we are telling them they are wrong. People are allowed to believe whatever they want but that doesn't mean I can't tell them why they are wrong and delusional. You would tell a child who is eating glue, not to eat glue because it's bad for them correct? Well by your standards, you're attacking him and his beliefs. Obviously this is a joking situation but you have to understand that many anti-theists like myself and others on this board, view religion as a negative in society, hence why we approach it as such.

Second,

No, it's not like telling a 3 or 4 year old there's no santa, because these aren't children we are talking about. These are fully grown adults that spread their ideals and logical pathways to their children and make choices that influence others in society, there is possible damage coming from delusional thinking, where as with a child, noone is hurt by them believing in santa and they haven't fully learned the distinction between fantasy and reality with mythical beings like santa.

Like adults however, children slowly fade out of the wonderment and learn about things like death, pain, and suffering. They see reality with all the good and bad, some earlier than others unfortunately. They also learn one lesson about reality that many adults still seem to never figure out even though it happens to them on a daily basis, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

#euphoric

Oh please, is this what you've reverted to? No more creationist arguments or Rip-offs of Kent Hovind false "research"?

what's the point of seriously engaging you? you're only interested in mentally fellating yourself with pseudo-intellectual babble.

I'm actually interested in intellectual conversation, something you only mildly produce since you don't realize when you know very little on a subject or your position is false scientifically.

heh. that little insult can be attributed to you so much more accurately. irony at it's finest

Hardly.

mightily

Fine I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In what discussion/position have I displayed "mentally fellating myself with pseudo-intellectual babble.". Most situations I'm in, people have no problem understanding what I explain, otherwise I re-word it. Or if I don't know something I reference someone who does.

Atheism would not exist without religion, therefore the two are connected and important to one another. So atheists on a religion board is quite the norm, as unfortunate as it is for you.

They just happen to be among the group on FJ that wants to discuss religion.

It's good that they want to discuss religion, but a majority of them don't want to discuss it they prefer to try and troll it which does nothing for anyone except cause shit storms.

I'd love to discuss my religion rationally but that doesn't happen when a group of pseudo-intellectuals decide it's okay to attack people without rational arguments, and instead like comment #29852 clearly shows use their personal fantasies to dictate their arguments.

FYI, noblex is a well-known troll. don't take him too seriously.

i just made the terrible mistake of feeding him. he won't shut up until he gets the last word, so i'll just give it to him and let him tell himself that he pwned me

Really? Because I can guarantee almost every other regular on this board would say the opposite.

Noted

he's not a troll, zlamous uses the term "troll" very broadly

a troll is someone who acts stupid for attention. ironically, noblexfenrir is an even bigger loser than the person he's pretending to be

you can't just call someone a troll because they're mean to you

i knew that noblex was a troll before he started acting like a twat

except he's not..... i usually read what he wrotes in discussions and i dont know what you're seeing but i dont see him troll you ever

your troll radar must be broken. he's not exactly subtle

whatever you say, but his arguments are sound and correct as far as i've seen

they are neither sound nor valid. his arguments are intentionally bad

you're the only one who thinks so

notafunnyfaggottwo, jokeface, and a couple others have eviscerated his arguments before, and i'm sure they know that he's a troll

I notice you didn't include yourself in that list zlamous. Also no they didn't, no offence to either of them, I haven't had many discussions with notafunnyfaggottwo and Jokeface while I like him, relies more on personal evidence and faith than most theists on the board so he really can't "eviscerate" my arguments when his responses are purely built to justify belief from his perspective innately

I asked for examples of arguments that were bad, you have yet to give me an example.

its news to me

29852 is a shitposter, please don't include him with the people who actually come to this board to converse. He and others like him such as many anons that come on here, should just be ignored.

I figured he was a shitposter the second he said he had a PhD. I have no issue actually conversing about religion it is the blatant outright attacks on theist/polytheistic beliefs that piss me off everyone has the right to say someone else's beliefs are wrong its when they attacks become personal that the issues arise in my opinion.

GTFO you stupid fundie, go pray for shit that won't ever happen with the other sheeple of your cult. You're not a scientist like me so you couldn't possibly understand how idiotic the very idea of religion is. Once you abandon your idiotic cult and obtain a PHD in logic and reason like me, then maybe I'll consider you sane.

Now let me tell you why your post is full of lies.
1. There is no such thing as a PhD in logic and reasoning (There however is a PhD in Theology and Religious Studies)
2. There aren't any PhD's honorary or otherwise that would lurk on /religion/
3. I never said I practiced any religion
4. If I was a 'fundie' I'd be waving my religion in your face like a fag yet not once did I mention my actual religion
5. Prayer is known to cause psychological euphoria that makes you feel better
6. It's better to have faith in humanity than to have faith in nothing

Total atheist rating 1/10 you got a response good for you.
<my gods

I'd love for you to elaborate on your fifth point. I've never heard that, nor have I ever experienced euphoria while praying.