Atheists To Hold Massive Rally On National Mall Next Month

ahh yes the Ultimate God of the Gaps arguement.

 

Well if one is considered a mental disorder the natural course would be to consider the other the same thing.

 

No such thing as a moral code.

 

Who's satan?

 

I'm actually very skeptical and liberal in my Christian faith, but I'll stand strong against atheism when it strikes. Being a Mason I am told I can't be Christian and even my individual beliefs I'm told I'm not conducive with Christ (but then again I'm sure there are plenty of modern Christians who are too extreme and ignorant to be Christian) and then I have atheists claiming religion is dangerous and a mental disability; I really am stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

Everything was created. Certainly your god must have been created as well. Oh yes it was by the human imagination.

 

He's an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)...

 

Must have missed it. It's responded to now.

 

If you are, then why don’t you see the scientific data that shows the bible to wrong? Or do you only see what you WANT to see?


Do you think I came to the conclusion that there is no 'god' because I happened to wake up one morning and go, hmm there’s no 'god' while on my way to get a bowl of cheerios?

 

If you are participating in the thread learn to read. You will find the information as posted.

 

A mason as well. That's two cults you belong too.

 

I accept some things have been wrong, but I also realize the Bible was edited and revised many times over the centuries. In addition to the Bible I've read the Jewish texts and many other religious texts. There are also many things the Bible has been proven to be right about. Mistranslations and social faux pas/taboos have led to such an ignorant grasp of Christianity by some and to the Bible varying in such a way that many cannot have a real grasp of its original meaning/wording.

Prime example is that many religious scholars point out that Genesis said "In a beginning..." versus what we see now as "In the beginning..." This could lead to many different views to creation. And don't get me started on "Lucifer" and the "Morning Star" used in the Bible.

I was guessing their was some indoctrination in your atheism somewhere (yes, this is me calling the kettle black as we are all indoctrinated in some way).

 

I'm also in the Kappa Sigma college fraternity, and I was raised in a Mormon community.

My goal is to just blow your mind.

EDIT: I'm not a follower of the Mormon sect of Christianity.

 

Like?

Different views of creation?

No there was none. I came to this conclusion on my own, after weighing all the evidence that I found.

 

In the red: You say "In a beginning..." This would mean that the beginning would be uncertain. A mean mean, one of, indicting more than one beginnings. If this were so it would mean that your god was not please with other creations. If this is so and this god is supposed to be omnipotent and all seeing it made mistakes or had lapses in judgment. This creates a problem. This being could not possibly make errors or it would not be a god.

If it made errors or changed it's mind it creates a flaw which would make anything that is attributed to god open to change and no promise could be relied upon.
It ends the idea of god completely.

It's like the old question, If god can do anything can it make a rock it can't lift. If this god can't make such a rock, it can't do anything. If this god can make such a rock, because it is unable to lift it it can't do everything.

Hmmmm

 

Yes and we could die every milisecond, just switching realities as we go. This is so broad of a statement it's pointless.

It's really not a coinflip. You have to avoid all observation for it to be 50/50. All observation tells me with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999~% certainty that I am not communicating with you through an electric beetle. It's not 50/50. The odds of this computer actually being an electric beetle are so close to 0 it's not even worth mentioning.

Yes, you can't make it air tight, just as you can't make an air tight case about anything. You can come close enough though that reasonable people will understand what is being said and come to the same conclusion. It really is an argument that is both pointless and undefeatable. Simply because an argument cannot be defeated does not make it sound, reasonable, or relevant. I'm done talking about this because it's pointless. You can't have a discussion if you throw all rational through away from the process.

 

You're avoiding the point entirely. The fact of the matter is that it's entirely possible that Harry Potter actually exists in some quantum universe, and if it's possible, then you cannot categorically rule it out, nor can you assign it any probability other than 50/50.

There is no mathematical reason why we should think it's anything other than 50/50.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that claim using formal mathematical reasoning. I mean, if we're going to be strictly empirical about this, then you must substantiate your assertions.

Right, I'm not "reasonable" because I refuse to rule out the existence of something I cannot disprove.

Maybe you should embrace the mystery of life instead of trying to strangle it with your atheist orthodoxy.

 

What is the difference between "science" and investigating truth?

By the way, we don't need to, and in fact can't, "ascertain" much of anything, other than, perhaps, a few axioms. So that's irrelevant.

 

Again, a pointless argument. Could this stuff exist, yes. Does it, almost certainly not. If we have no evidence for the existence of something there is no reason to believe there is a 50/50 chance of its existence. It's a dumb argument and I'm done addressing it. Again by this logic it's 50/50 that I'm typing, not even typing, but some how manipulating, or not, and electric beetle when in reality it is clear that I am using a keyboard to interface with a computer. This 50/50 argument is complete nonsense and proof of nothing.

 

I keep reading the posts below, in amazement.

My biggest question for all of you atheists is....

Why do you care so much what someone else believes in? Why does this bother you so much? This is something I could never understand.

Why is it that because you don't believe, we must remove the word of God? Why do you get offended seeing the word of God? Why is it that you should have the freedom to not believe, but another shall not have the freedom to believe? Do you think the words "under God" is trying to convert you? Why would this be offensive to you? They are words that should have no meaning at all to you, right? So, why do you fight them as is they are the most important thing?

Perhaps if you believed in something you would not feel the need to have everyone else void of faith.

It takes less effort to not believe in God than to believe.

 

As an atheist I know that you are wasting your life trying to apease a supernatural being, I dont really care.
But as a religious guy you believe ill burn and be tortured for eternity for not doing the same you do on sunday afternoon.


At the sime time you dont see radical atheists trying to be president and imposing their non beliefs on others, on the other hand you have guys like Santorum trying to impose their beliefs on everyone and trying to pass laws that affect everyone.

 

Yeah....let's see how many thousands....er,a....Hundreds actually show up, eh?

 

It really doesn't matter what personal beliefs a person has.
The difficulty is when those same believers want the rest of us to follow there rules by using their interpretation of a fanciful book to influence lawmakers.
The government stays out of religion for the most part, yet religion creeps into politics all the time. They are the first ones to scream separation yet they don't understand that practice when they attempt to create law by influencing politicians.
Personal belief is up to the person and matters not.

 

LOL....first of all....I am not a guy, and second, I am not very religious at all. Which I have explained here before. I do believe that every person has the right to believe or not believe. I don't feel that "In God we trust" or "Under God" should be removed just because a minority of people choose to not believe in God. I just wonder who in their right minds would be offended by these words. It makes ZERO sense to be offended by a word when you don't believe in God in the first place. These people are societies fray, and they have no tolerance for people who believe in something that they do not. Perhaps if they actually had a belief in something they would have learned tolerance along the way.

 

Like what? It seems to me tat nothing but good could come out of that. If it has a good influence on society, I am fine with that why aren't you?

You are not being for to do or not do something because of "religion" are you? And if so, what?