The society they throw chains over, however, loses much.
Blaming an entire religion for something a small group is responsible for. This shows real critical thinking and intelligence.
Look at the exact words I said and stop trying to mold them to your personal attacks against me. That shows, as your other posts are, that you'd much rather try and swing your *** around than do anything else.
A Christian who believes in his own house that his sky fairy is good is no problem; that's his business and doesn't hurt anyone. The perpetuation of his rules over his fellow human beings makes the society lose much, however. He loses nothing. The fact that his rules dictate society makes society lose much.
I'm asking you to show me your proof that Christians are wrong, nothing more and nothing less. If you're right, then do it.
If these same Christians came to your house and tried to convince you to believe in a god, the god, etc. Would you not ask them for proof?
Again you are grouping everyone of the Christian faith together and blaming them for the faults of a few.
I think my last post on page 7 covers that I cannot disprove what has not been proven.
I will admit: I should have added a fricken disclaimer. "It's when Christians that spread their rules into areas where it affects people who do not share their faith that society is given chains and therefore loses much."
I am not a religious man but i do find the canvessed attacks on the christian faith upsetting. I mean if you look back, the Holocaust did not start over night. it was generations of propaganda that canvased a whole group of people to be a threat of evil.
I just do not think it is fair to continue to make so many hate filled statements across the whole of a religion.
I think I have made myself clear on how I feel about all this. But again, every person should have the freedom to uphold their own sets of beliefs as long as it does not effect the health and safety of others. A religious/political propaganda machine hurts all involved.
I still sy scientific method cannot prove how the world came into existance, so athiests arguing about it is just as bad as religious people.
We know how the world came to be though... @.@
Non one "Knows" There is no law, speaking in scientific terms, of how mankind exists. And to take a step down, there are many in the scientific community who do not even find evolution "theory" of mankind as a theory at all since it lacks hard physical evidence that can be tested many times over resulting in the same outcome, yada, yada.
Therefor, all it is, is a commonly held belief that such may have occurred (kinda like the stories, or Alla, or Ra, etc.)
I still sy scientific method cannot prove how the world came into existance, so athiests arguing about it is just as bad as religious people.
We know how the world came to be though... @.@
How?
A very tl;dr version is that "enough cosmic dust clumped together due to it all orbiting the sun that we had this giant rock that was spinning really fast because of inertia and thus the molten core happened. Then, even more dust hit it and we developed an even larger rock with gases around it because its size was large enough to hold some stuff around it due to gravity. Enough cosmic dust reacted with the other cosmic dust over a long period of time to make earth as we knew it."
I'm not a specialist, though; I think that's the gist of it.
I still sy scientific method cannot prove how the world came into existance, so athiests arguing about it is just as bad as religious people.
We know how the world came to be though... @.@
Non one "Knows" There is no law, speaking in scientific terms, of how mankind exists. And to take a step down, there are many in the scientific community who do not even find evolution "theory" of mankind as a theory at all since it lacks hard physical evidence that can be tested many times over resulting in the same outcome, yada, yada.
Therefor, all it is, is a commonly held belief that such may have occurred (kinda like the stories, or Alla, or Ra, etc.)
I was assuming he meant the actual rock we're standing on.
I still sy scientific method cannot prove how the world came into existance, so athiests arguing about it is just as bad as religious people.
We know how the world came to be though... @.@
Non one "Knows" There is no law, speaking in scientific terms, of how mankind exists. And to take a step down, there are many in the scientific community who do not even find evolution "theory" of mankind as a theory at all since it lacks hard physical evidence that can be tested many times over resulting in the same outcome, yada, yada.
Therefor, all it is, is a commonly held belief that such may have occurred (kinda like the stories, or Alla, or Ra, etc.)
I was assuming he meant the actual rock we're standing on.
I still sy scientific method cannot prove how the world came into existance, so athiests arguing about it is just as bad as religious people.
Quite frankly I agree, I personally loathe outspoken atheists. they are exactly the same as the demon they wish to change.
I'm done with this discussion but I'm leaving this example of how this discussion went, feel free to comment, it's your right and I no longer care.
-------------------------------------
You believe in (A)
I don't believe in (A) I believe in (B)
If I confront a believer of (A) I should bring proof of (B)
I believe in (B), a believer of (A) comes to confront me, they should bring proof of (A)
----------------------------------------
Apparently my logic is wrong.
This is what I've been told so far.
---------------------------------------------
You believe in (A)
I don't believe in (A) I believe in (B)
If I confront a believer of (A) They should convince me (A) is correct. Except I believe in (B)
I believe in (B), a believer of (A) comes to confront me, I should have proof that (B) is correct ready,
-------------------------------------------------
If you are capable of understanding how absurd this sounds. Then you now understand the argument of theists and atheists both claiming that they are right and the other is wrong. Both sides do not seem to understand the concept of "burden of proof". I tried to explain it to them. But they just will not have anything else. Both sides that is.
This is the most absurd illogical thread that I have ever commented or posted in. I am done. Thank you for your time.
But how has scientific method proved this. Where is this experiment in which this was recreated, making it a truth?
If you were to make a containment chamber that somehow could emulate very, very low gravity and placed a mock sun in the center and comparable elements of similar magnitude to what the earth is made out of you would, quite literally, be able to render the experiment and watch the dust cluster together and create a giant rock.
You can also do that as many times as you'd like. That's science! :D
Sun came from where? Not earth, this entire universe, how did it come into being?
Cosmic dust.
Where did the cosmic dust come from?
I personally am not 100% sure. More specialized men than I are talking about that. The bounds of my knowledge on this subject end at the rearrangement of cosmic dust into the entire existence we have today.
Fortunately for us, every day there's just a little more insight than the day before. We'll hit the answer sooner or later.
Sun came from where? Not earth, this entire universe, how did it come into being?
Cosmic dust.
Where did the cosmic dust come from?
I personally am not 100% sure. More specialized men than I are talking about that. The bounds of my knowledge on this subject end at the rearrangement of cosmic dust into the entire existence we have today.
Fortunately for us, every day there's just a little more insight than the day before. We'll hit the answer sooner or later.
But you haven't, so until you do, the basis of your entire argument has no proof, and is no better than an argument for religion. Something cannot be proven unless it can be repeated by an experiment, and there will always be unanswered questions. It is your belief that this is how the universe was created, nothing more nothing less.
Sun came from where? Not earth, this entire universe, how did it come into being?
Cosmic dust.
Where did the cosmic dust come from?
I personally am not 100% sure. More specialized men than I are talking about that. The bounds of my knowledge on this subject end at the rearrangement of cosmic dust into the entire existence we have today.
Fortunately for us, every day there's just a little more insight than the day before. We'll hit the answer sooner or later.
But you haven't, so until you do, the basis of your entire argument has no proof, and is no better than an argument for religion. Something cannot be proven unless it can be repeated by an experiment, and there will always be unanswered questions. It is your belief that this is how the universe was created, nothing more nothing less.
We can emulate every part except for the creation of the universe at the moment. You cannot discount that every other part works just because we don't yet understand how to do the first part.
I cannot explain existence, but the steps that happened after that are provable and, once my astronomer guy gets back to me, probably have been proven.
If you want to say that I have no case, than admit that 'god' has none either: who created him?
To add to that, I am not trying to prove to you that God exists.. I do not feel the need to try and prove anything to you. I have my own personal evidence in my life that would be irrevelavent to you, so no need in mentioning it. My entire point is live and let live. All the threads created about religion lately were created by the board's athiests constantly picking fights. So, who is shoving what down who's throats?
To add to that, I am not trying to prove to you that God exists.. I do not feel the need to try and prove anything to you. I have my own personal evidence in my life that would be irrevelavent to you, so no need in mentioning it. My entire point is live and let live. All the threads created about religion lately were created by the board's athiests constantly picking fights. So, who is shoving what down who's throats?
One thing I don't understand is why any atheist needs to prove god doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense. I believe that you die you are just dead. Like any living thing when it dies its dead. That to me is a fact, when you die you are dead hence rotting corpse. ANYTHING that someone believes happens after is what needs to be proven. Earth has been here for millions of years and humans have not been here that long. To me its common sense, but people want to believe in Something after to help them cope with it than awesome. Nobody actually follows the bible anyway.. We can't keep bending the rules to make it more believable. Believe whatever makes you feel good.
I just choose to believe what I can see right infront of me.
To add to that, I am not trying to prove to you that God exists.. I do not feel the need to try and prove anything to you. I have my own personal evidence in my life that would be irrevelavent to you, so no need in mentioning it. My entire point is live and let live. All the threads created about religion lately were created by the board's athiests constantly picking fights. So, who is shoving what down who's throats?
Double quoted!!! For justice, or so the kiddos say.
Honestly though... What does science have to do with atheism?
Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the Universe. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions; to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs.
I feel faith in general is detrimental to human society. To teach that it is okay to accept something without any proof and just on the merit of "feel good" or "preacher told me so" severely cripples the practice of critical thinking and challenging ideas.
Neil deGrasse Tyson had a good video on this, I'll try and find it after lunch. He basically explains why math and science are so important to know even if you aren't going to be a mathematician. It's all about the betterment of society as a whole.
I feel faith in general is detrimental to human society. To teach that it is okay to accept something without any proof and just on the merit of "feel good" or "preacher told me so" severely cripples the practice of critical thinking and challenging ideas.
Neil deGrasse Tyson had a good video on this, I'll try and find it after lunch. He basically explains why math and science are so important to know even if you aren't going to be a mathematician. It's all about the betterment of society as a whole.
But taking someone's personal faith away from them is throwing the proverbial chains on them as you put it earlier, isn't it? People in general, theist or athiest, should worry about themselves instead of constantly worrying about others.
My personal faith has never caused you any harm at all. why are you so worried about.
Now, I have said in other threads, it shouldn't be thrown at people. Religion needs to stay out of schools and government practices. But, what I practice in my own home, or when I pray before my meals, should not be attacked by anyone, because I am not hurting anyone.
But taking someone's personal faith away from them is throwing the proverbial chains on them as you put it earlier, isn't it? People in general, theist or athiest, should worry about themselves instead of constantly worrying about others.
My personal faith has never caused you any harm at all. why are you so worried about.
Now, I have said in other threads, it shouldn't be thrown at people. Religion needs to stay out of schools and government practices. But, what I practice in my own home, or when I pray before my meals, should not be attacked by anyone, because I am not hurting anyone.
That kind of logic only works in a society where people's votes and legislation don't directly affect everyone around them.
Now if you don't vote or make any decisions what so ever based on your beliefs, then I'm more than happy to support your beliefs in imaginary men. Since that's not the case, knock it off.
