Wrong. You are expressing a preconceived notion based on your ignorance of the subject matter.... the "pure-bred theocrat". Presumptuous imaginations hard at work.
Oh, so now energy magically transforms into matter through an explosive process, that, BTW, we can detect a residue of the explosion confirming the Big Bang, but when that statistically points to a greater possibility of design rather than accident ... Well, it merely morphed. Let me know when Einstein's equation can make the residue of an airstrike magically return itself to the state of pure packed C4 that began the explosive process - that was merely a morph. Interesting things that atheists come up with to deny God - certainly isn;t science is it?
Again, the Big Bang is not a typical explosion nor should be regarded as such. How does cosmic background radiation statistically point to a greater probability of a creator? Do you contest that matter and energy are interchangable?
Well, then your rational revolution has no chance - so quit. I'll let the missionaries know as well. I am sure they too will quit based on your statistic. Did it ever occur to you that the reason most people wind up ACCEPTING their parents faith is because that faith is an important part of their parents lives, and, as they grow and become more wise, they too adopt it? Never question it though? Right. Really? So tell me, what curiosity is on display by telling people that they lack the balls the question their parents faith as they set their own? Thet seems far more like a delcaration that a curious hypotheisis? You are talking to a former atheist. It isn;t difficult to be an atheist and go about your business. I become difficult when you start prostylizing and running ariound telling religiou people how stupid your are. I have no problems with my faith. I don't run around telling people, "I am Christian, hear me roar MORONS!" And if I did, guess what would happen? I am sure that my life would similiarly become just as difficult as it 'is' to be an atheist. Mutual respect is generally the cornerstone of civil relationships, and regardless of your faith, a failure to maintain that stance tends to result in ... difficulties. Now, if you would, as you precah reason and logic, care to tell me what part of Jesus's message is stupid? Irrational? You guys have it all figured out, apparently, should be easy.
Rational revolution? Where'd you get that idea - the expurgation of faith requires changing human nature itself. The ignorance of most theists towards the finer articles of their respective religion leads me to hypothesise they don't question it, yet. And it is an irrefutable point of developmental psychology that many children in one way or another hold their parents as models which they hold as how people should behave - it also well known that there are many aspects of behavior that people never question because it comes naturally as a result of that very imitative process. Religion is one of these. Also, the high incidence of polls in which people state they believe because that's how they were raised or that's what their parents believed is demonstrative of the original point. They don't go through an "accepting" process, it's always "accepted" until they question it. A trait endemic to some atheists, not all. *pats* Relapse happens to many recovering addicts. I was not talking about direct prosyletism. Like it or not our culture is suffused with theistic elements, not to mention the majority of people are theists. Both act on subconscious psychological imperatives which work against the conscious choice of atheism - actors which are absent for theists who enjoy a majority.
I stated "test it for yourself". Your reply is of course ignorance of the empirical technique required. Why did you pretend otherwise?
When did we introduce the qualifiier Semitic to the question: Is there a God? Maybe if you followed the logical trail I laid out, you would see why I am logically required to be toleranet and learn from other faiths? Just a thought. Yep, conventional explosions generally don't creat universes. Do you think the underlying premise of a fuel source (which we know in this case) and a detonator/trigger (which we DO NOT KNOW) in this case is invalid? You do realize we can STILL detect the residue from the EXPLOSION correct? Statistics. Just like I said. Are there? So, these natural explsions occur in methods that are creative and productive do they? I mean, as a military planner, I can count on a random explosion breaching any given wall at the appropriate time and place? And of course, these, entirely natural explosions create universes do they? Pure energy comes from what natural source? You are merely speculating at this point. Why should your beliefs hold sway? Oh, so supernova create universe do they? They are the result of pure eneregy? Or they are part of the fabric of something that was ALREADY created? And once again, we know the fuel source(s), we know the trigger. We can predict those events (within a certain range at any rate). Where does the enregy for entire multiverse come from? In the size of pin head? THat creates? Once. Supernova, huh? Mount Rushmore. Then where did the residue that we detect that confirms it comes from? It science. Yes, it did. There was NOTHING. It spread matter throught the universe laying the foundations for everything that followed. In fact, if you want to create something from nothing .... seems to be about the ONLY way to do it, doesn;t it? No energy = No matter. Bang! There it is. Nothing created? Preposterous! And you just contradicted yourself. Nothing was created except everything. And you have no idea where it came from, or what set it off, or why? There are no natural phenomena or similiar occurances, and, purposeful explosions, like redirecting a river to irrigate parched land, indicate .... design. But you are telling me that the act of creation itself cannot be considered creation - sceintifically - and it so well understood that we can eliminate the possibility of a Creator .... based on ... your faith. You have no idea. Stop lectiring people like your ideas about creation are the right answer - they aren't. That is your faith speaking. #1 - you are speaking like the first three pages is the most important part of the Bible. It isn't. Jesus. #2 - our understanding continues to deepen, religion remains. We push back our understanding and processes, BUT, and this is key, at some point EVERYTHING comes from NOTHING. Matter and energy cannot be made or destroyed. Yet it was. In a Big Bang. The closer we get, the more we realize that this process is not random. Faith, not science speaking. Let me know when knowledge removes the need for wisdom. The truth of the matter is that the rational revolution is nothing but a rebuttal, in non-solutive, and solves nothing. It is a declaration of faith, one that thinks knowledge makes us God. It further ignores those things that make us human, honor, emotion, relationships, purpose. Your revolution's worst enemy is itself. I suggest you review the French Revolution, and then notice that the Catholic Church remians active in France. Islam is growing.
Why did you assume that I did not? Both personally and in subsequent debate where I rather specifically addres the question about "questioning" and whether "questioning" inordinately leads to dropping your parents faith? The assumption is that there is nothing to religion - billions disagree. I am sorry that portion esacped your grasp.
Where did you get that from anything I wrote? The Rational Revolution is a term being used by atheists to describe what they are doing. Not me. As I said, I see this quite a bit. I even did it when I was an atheist. Claimed that I knew the Bible better than Christians. Like most atheists however, I too avoided Jesus, focused on deuteronomy and other DELIBERATE misrepresentations. And when asked about Jesus? Now, on the other side, I see this anecdotalk claim of ignorance in Christians, and see in it the DELIBERATE avoidance of learned worshippers. There are plenty of extraordinarily educated Christians. But yes, if you look up something in a Bible to taught Christians, who do not walk around with the Bible memorized .... I can do the same thing with a chemistry book. SO can you - and I know chemsitry pretty well as well. Just bear in mind, I read the Bible AFTER I started believing in God - that is when I really READ IT, and attempted to LOGICALLY work through the contradictions rather than just saying, "HA, a contradiction!!! See how smart I am!!!" Now, I understand things like context, that eliminate the APPARENT contradictions in most cases and from that I learn ... Wisdom. As an atheists who know more, can you explain why NO atheists speaks about or acknoweldges the WISDOM and attempt to inculcate it through the parables of the Bible? But you know more do you? Once again, your assumption is that there is nothing to religion. If you grow up in faith, and it is important to the family, a cornerstone of what they are, then as they go out and start familes of their own ... what are they going to do? You think people don;t ask questions at that point? You think, "Ma and Dad," is the effective response to any Christians faith statement? In all the rationals for belief I have seen spelled out on this forum, I have never seen a Christian write, "I believe in God, indeed have a relationship with him, because ... Mom and Dad." Ask Megadethfan - raised Catholic - now an atheist-Christian. Odd. A point I often make myself. I was raised atheist. There is no relapse. And I am talking about the atheist propoganda that laces the web, radio, TV, advertising, etc. Like it or not, atheism suffuses our culture every bit as much as religion does. The only problem is that modern atheism spenda all its time bagging on religion rather than talking about atheism (except to remind people that they are not bad people). Go to the Catholic Churches web site. See how much time religion spends baggin on atheism? So, what happens if atheism wins .... and there is no religion to bag on anymore? Are you beginning to see why atheism defined through rebuttal rather than solution will never get anywhere. Eventually, people follow plans - not rebuttals of someone else plan that just produces perpetual criticism and self declared rationality that results in ..... more criticism of religion.
The 'god' you are positing comes from the Western monotheistic tradition; there are an infinite number of other possibilities, but you don't seem to concerned with them... particularly when they potentially reflect cosmologies hostile to your feelings of self-importance. Yes, as arguments from analogy are fallacious; why should we assume the BB resembles a conventional explosion? Statistics only deal with natural probabilities, not extra-universals... try again. No cosmologist has ever maintained that there ever was or could be a state of affairs in which there was absolutely 'nothing'; indeed, how would one verify matters that lie OUTSIDE OF EXISTENCE? Instead, they speak of energy forms that, though unlike what was to become our current universe, were nevertheless existent. (Fzzzzzppt... your fuse just went out.) More analogies, more hand-waving. The BB was not some timed explosion, and nothing need have set it off... apart from quasi-naturalistic conditions that existed 'before'. Pffft. If that's what you call your faith, then by all means... remove thyself. None of which require any sort of deity. None at all. NONE AT ALL.
Perhaps a few... but this has little to do with the rest of us. Studies have shown that this is quite valid. And yet... they still brick when it comes to apologetics, and fall back upon ye old invective in the end. If something is a logical contradiction, then there's no 'working through' it; it's just structurally wrong. This... ... is how ya'll make excuses for them: Like magic, huh? AND we're more wise than you, to boot! Most don't, no... doubting those presumptions that undergird one's certainty and self-worth? Most shy away from such matters. Of course not... no believer is going to outright admit such indoctrinated fear and laziness on their part. False equivalency; religious institutions and their supporters possess FAR more social, economic, cultural and political power in the US than non-believers. Indeed, it's a long haul fighting the forces of monotheist tyranny.
You've simply had a tantrum over a comment that is clearly valid. That parental attitudes will be a vital explanatory variable for the attitudes of the offspring is just obvious. The only aspect in debate is whether this reflects rationality or not: i.e. whether we can explain it using the concept of social capital, which can be used to try and explain herd behaviour whilst maintaining an individual utility maximisation objective
Cool, I haven't heard about that in terms of atheism. Though I far better like words like "enlightenment", that wouldn't be such a bad term for the growing irrelevancy of theistic religiousity. It is already taken, however, by the political sciences where it denotes the process of rather pragmatic considerations before participation in a revolution, or "by-product theory of revolutionary participation" as P. G. Roeder called it (The Western Political Quarterly, no. 1, 1982).
I don't have faith. I know that, because there isn't any proof of his existence. Do you doubt of the existence of Gandalf or Harry Potter? What makes it different? That one is fiction of the XX century and the other is 2000 years old? I don't deny anything without irrationality. I am telling that faith is irrational, and that's a fact. And affirm things that exist based in faith is absurd and irrational. I trust my friends, but I have to give trust, but not faith that's different. You're wrong again I repeat about the faith of no existence of God. You must prove his existence, the person that affirms something must show the proofs of his existence, and no one has confirmed his existence then it can't be considered as real. Only you can leave it as a possibility in the field of the imagination, no more. Accept it. The faith is irrational, and always will be irrational. If I am discardding something it is based in the reason and the observation, so I am being rational. If there is a conclusive proof of the existence of God, then I will accept it. BUt until then, the logic is think that it doesn't exist.
If there was "proof" then you wouldn't have faith anyway. Then you could have knowledge instead. Proof, evidence, observation, verification, empiri, etc., those are always terrible reasons to give for an absence of religious faith. Faith is absent because it isn't present. That's all there is to it. A person with no religious faith just does not believe in gods. That's it.
I definitely fit into the latter category. I was even 'prepared' for the priesthood. Phew! That was a lucky escape!
Well, if you don't believe in God or gods, then why do you expend so much time and energy in your efforts to convince others regarding your alleged points of view on religion? If, as you infer, there is no God, then you are in fact chasing a phantom, ghost, apparition, something that goes bump in the night. In other words, you are fighting your own imagination. That is a terrible reason to be engaged in a fight... you imagine something and then have to resort to fighting in the form of debate(s). Gee ,,, is God really hiding in my closet?
I definitely fit into the latter category. I was even 'prepared' for the priesthood. Phew! That was a lucky escape!
No, we're actually fighting YOUR imaginations... and the manifold harms belief in such phantoms cause.
you all are on our side each thinks for his own looking like and easy target for your marching raws You know I met atheists who tried to think personally. What are you going to do with them in your fight?
Please show the evidence to support your claim that "belief" in 'imaginations' or 'phantoms' have caused "manifold harms" In other words, show where the 'belief' in and of itself has caused any of those alleged 'harms'. You say you can't show where a 'belief' has caused a harm? No wonder the courts will not allow statements such as "the devil made me do it" into the court as a defense mechanism.
