[Serious]Why are you not a believer of the existence of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Where did you get that from? That a day = 1000 years?

Even if you found a passage in a bible that said that, 2.2 million years still is way off from the 10 billion + light years away galaxies we see.

---

2 peter 3:8

and astronomers are constantly refining these estimates. 10 billion is the latest one. Before it was considered much higher until it was discovered that light waves lose energy in a vacuum (redshift). I wonder what other discoveries will be made that show the current estimate to be wrong as well? and anyway i said that number was a basis. Nowhere in the bible does it say how old the earth is. All it does is give you a means of estimation by listing the ages of generations.

also there is an issue with numbers and hebrews in general. They consider 7 and 10 to be perfect therefore 7 heads, 10 horns, 7 days, etc. half of 7 years for the prophets, etc. It's all a multiple of divisor of 7 almost always and 10 the rest of the time. Most scholars agree that "created in 7 days" meant to them "created in the perfect amount of days".

the number of the beast is another example: words in hebrew also could be directly translated to numbers, and the number of the beast could be represented as a name. As it so happens, Nero equals 666. Coincidence?

Quote:

---

One of the things followers are SUPPOSED to do is spread their faith.

---

This is the one thing i object to the most !!, i have no problem with people believing anything they want i mean its their life, what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me !

Quote:

---

Guys like that are the only ones that really do it properly, and they can never give up on a sinner. As far as he's concerned, as long as you are taking them, there's a chance that you can be dragged from the cesspool of sin it is stuck in.

---

Guys like that are the most deluded of the lot, firstly assuming that the rest of us non-believers are stuck in a cesspool of sin in the first place, and secondly assuming that if even if we were that standing around on a street corner shouting out passages from some old book would change anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

the number of the beast is another example: words in hebrew also could be directly translated to numbers, and the number of the beast could be represented as a name. As it so happens, Nero equals 666. Coincidence?

---

Revelation was written in greek. I'm sure if you play with numbers and grids enough, you could even match the newest nobel peace prize winner with 666.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardLee

I believe this is serious.
And I believe peoples beliefs [(god),(no god)] are serious!
no matter how thay voice there belief.

---

I love your username, but it's hardly worth a mention!!! (couldnt resist sorry !!!)

I will come back here in 10 years and this will still be getting discussed. I did think the "why do we hate the us " would have rumbled on but i now have this for entertainment.

2 Peter 3:8 is the writer trying to cover his rear and explain why the lord is late in coming (2 Peter 3:4 for the bible thumpers out there). It has nothing to do with some magical time-frame shift of reference. I've heard better excuses from my coworkers why assignments are late. I can't wait for one of them to come up to me and say "Oh, it's due today? But one day is as three for me..."

Once again, scripture taken completely out of context. It's actually kinda funny, the whole 2 Peter 3 section, because here's the writer is put on the spot with the question "Ok, so when is this last days stuff supposed to happen and when exactly is the lord coming, because you've been saying "soon" for way too long..." and it's a huge cover his rear speech followed by doom and gloom for non-believers; the same thing you'd hear a bum wearing a cardboard "end of the world is neigh" billboard, screaming at passerby's on the streets of Manhattan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

This is the one thing i object to the most !!, i have no problem with people believing anything they want i mean its their life, what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me !



Guys like that are the most deluded of the lot, firstly assuming that the rest of us non-believers are stuck in a cesspool of sin in the first place, and secondly assuming that if even if we were that standing around on a street corner shouting out passages from some old book would change anything.

---

NeedSomeAnswers

I needed to repeat your post this gos for me to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

People who are unwilling to judge faith is the source of many problems.

Why can't you judge "God", at least as he is portrayed in your Holy Book?
If God can kill innocent people (Job's Family) for the purposes of showing his power or testing a single man's faith, then how is he considered just and loving?

If God killed every human except Noah's family, how is that considered a just and loving god? Did Noah's family have to repopulate the Earth through inbreeding? I would estimate at least 10% of the population were small children that got drowned, and I doubt the majority of the people drowned did anything that really deserved death, probably some subjective sin like pre-marital sex or not going to temple on Saturday (all of which the Bible/Torah has said is punishable by death).

Sit down, read through every passage that has violence in it. Does that sound like a just God or is it written by ancient peoples making up stories to control their people and keep them in their "faith"?

---

You are wrong, you can judge, 'they may judge', one of, the two God's they believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

... This is the one thing i object to the most !!, i have no problem with people believing anything they want i mean its their life, what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me !

---

I am agnostic (a fence sitter) leaning towards atheism.

People that shout their beliefs are not forcing anything on you or me. You are not being tied down and brainwashed. You could very easily just ignore them or walk in a different direction. Same scenario if a parade was marching down main street. You can stop, look and listen or take a different route.

What would you have society do? Tell religious fanatics that shouting from their soap boxes is illegal and cannot be done? Then stop where, dictating to all colleges exactly what they can teach? Telling all scientists exactly what they can research? Dictating exactly what gets printed/aired in every possible medium? The world has been there from time to time, wasn't a pretty time then and wouldn't be now either.

When all TV and radio stations you receive are shouting the same religious beliefs, when newspapers, books and magazines pages are all printed with the same religious beliefs, when you are required to attend daily prayers or go to jail, then those beliefs are being forced on you. The book 1984 comes to mind.

As a non-believer myself, listening/hearing to others' arguments/beliefs has never truly bothered me. Whether you are a believer that refuses to listen to other religions/atheists arguments or whether you are a non-believer that refuses to listen to religious arguments, I categorize all of you as the same: close minded and biased, regardless of religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaVolpe

People that shout their beliefs are not forcing anything on you or me. You are not being tied down and brainwashed. You could very easily just ignore them or walk in a different direction. Same scenario if a parade was marching down main street. You can stop, look and listen or take a different route.

---

People that shout :down:
I believe shouting is wrong. :down:

And I believe they are trying to force something on me and you. :down:

Quote:

---

What would you have society do? Tell religious fanatics that shouting from their soap boxes is illegal

---

Hell no enough things are illegal already without adding more to the list.

Quote:

---

People that shout their beliefs are not forcing anything on you or me. You are not being tied down and brainwashed. You could very easily just ignore them or walk in a different direction. Same scenario if a parade was marching down main street. You can stop, look and listen or take a different route.

---

Ok so they may not be actually forcing in the true sense of the word but they are attempting to push there belief system on to others, but if you look at the quote i copied it said -

Quote:

---

One of the things followers are SUPPOSED to do is spread their faith.

---

I was objecting to this in general rather then just the guy who stands in the middle of town shouting at people.

Also to clarify i am not into censorship i certainly don't think we should be banning people from saying what they like but it doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

Quote:

---

I categorize all of you as the same: close minded and biased, regardless of religious beliefs.

---

what so am i in this category ? where have i refused to listen to others arguments, and i don't think you can use my recent post as an example i was merely professing a dislike for people trying to force beliefs on other.

Are you not being a bit close minded yourself ?

how do you know whether someone has listened to something and rejected it or not listened to it at all ?

and finally do you believe that sitting on the fence in an argument gives you the moral upperhand ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Quote:

---

One of the things followers are SUPPOSED to do is spread their faith.

---

...I was objecting to this in general rather then just the guy who stands in the middle of town shouting at people.

---

Why object about people voicing their beliefs and attempting to spread "their" word? If this type of objection was supported by the entire world, I think the world would still be flat, the earth in the center of the universe, evolution would have a completely different meaning, and we'd all have one religion now (whichever destroyed the others) and, ironically, would then be forced upon all of us.

We as a people grow from many catalysts. Among them is the amazing ability to communicate different ideas and argue over those ideas. Once someone stops listening, then their ability to grow stops, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Also to clarify i am not into censorship i certainly don't think we should be banning people from saying what they like but it doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

---

And that's the beauty of it. You don't have to agree with it. Whether the reason is because you are so completely devoted to your beliefs (i.e., close-minded and biased) or whether you gave the idea some serious contemplation and came upon your decision, it was your choice. But people should still be able to voice their opinions even if it differs from yours.

However, before some mentions it, no I am not in favor of people voicing their opinions/beliefs that are so inherently perverse to the commonality of society. In other words, I do not promote beliefs in human sacrifices for example.

In cases where your society prevents or stunts your opinions, beliefs, ideas or bans the same, then I think you have 3 basic choices: 1) adapt, 2) leave, 3) contribute towards change (interpreted how you may).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

....how do you know whether someone has listened to something and rejected it or not listened to it at all ?

---

I don't and cannot, how could I? It's their decision not mine. When someone argues/dismisses hard/proven evidence, then they are close-minded (world is flat example). When someone dismisses ideas simply because it came from a "certain type" of person or from a person with different religious beliefs, then they are biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

....and finally do you believe that sitting on the fence in an argument gives you the moral upperhand ?

---

I am not discussing morality. I do not claim to be more or less moral than anyone else. Taking this statement: "This is the one thing i object to the most...what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me". I interpret that as, let them believe what they want and I don't want to hear about their beliefs. Sounds a tad close-minded to me. Maybe what I interpreted is not what you meant.

Once someone starts shouting, they have stopped listening,
furthermore he who is shouting is close-minded.

There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas,
it is the way they go about it.

By shouting, I believe they are trying to force their opinions, beliefs or ideas on me and you.

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

LaVolpe
A lot of peoples minds are close to the hard/proven evidence that the world is still flat, and the earth is the center of the universe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms?

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

---

So, if opinion is expressed in writing or a soft voice that is ok, but a loud voice is not ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms?

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

---

Those that are close-minded have historically promoted/expressed their beliefs as have those that are not. Have you stopped to listen to (not just heard) what was shouted? Have you taken that literature home and read it (not just looked at it)? Maybe, just maybe, those "closed-minded" shouters are shouting some truths? Maybe it isn't shouting or knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets that is troublesome, maybe it is anything that challenges your beliefs. And if that is true, then maybe you are now seeing yourself as biased or closed minded and that bothers you. And finally, if that is true, maybe you are now becoming more open minded and are growing again.

The above are rhetorical questions and statements to anyone and everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms

LaVolpe
A lot of peoples minds are close to the hard/proven evidence that the world is still flat, and the earth is the center of the universe

---

Ignorance is another topic altogether, but can be a player in similar topics to this one too. But when one decides to stop growing and just exist, that is also their decision.

Edited: Before anyone accuses me of calling you ignorant, the above statement was not aimed directly at you. Also, most people find the word ignorant as offensive but unenlightened unoffensive even though it is a synonym for ignorant. One definition for ignorant: "the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."

Quote:Me
Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.
End Quote.

LaVolpe reply

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaVolpe

So, if opinion is expressed in writing or a soft voice that is ok, but a loud voice is not ok?

---

So, if opinion is expressed in writing or a soft voice that is ok.

Yes, why not?

Quote:Me
There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas,
it is the way they go about it.
End Quote

And why not, voicing their opinions in writing, on tv, net and so on?

Originally, did not say "loud voice", Originally, that shouting is not ok.
And
Quote:Me
Once someone starts shouting, they have stopped listening,
furthermore he who is shouting is close-minded.
End Quote.

And again
Suggestion:
Stop and listen!, listen!, listen!, listen! to one of those shouting their beliefs, then give them your opinion, you'll see who is close-minded, See if they will listen to you.

Quote:LaVolpe
Those that are close-minded have historically promoted/expressed their beliefs as have those that are not.
End Quote.

This true!
But!!!
Those that are close-minded have historically promoted/expressed their beliefs the loudest

Shouting is one-way communication, so as to force their opinions on you.

And finally, if that is true, maybe They are now becoming less open minded and have stopped growing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

and finally do you believe that sitting on the fence in an argument gives you the moral upperhand ?

---

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms?

Once someone starts shouting, they have stopped listening,
furthermore he who is shouting is close-minded.

By shouting, I believe they are trying to force their opinions, beliefs or ideas on me and you.

---

Your first sentence is hearsay, and your second implies that someone standing in the middle of a square shouldn't be able to have people hear him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms?

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

---

It's not censorship. That's written or published works. It's violation of Freedom of Speech and it is grounds for jailtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

Revelation was written in greek. I'm sure if you play with numbers and grids enough, you could even match the newest nobel peace prize winner with 666.

---

Doubtful. The reason you can do it is their alphabet, every letter has a value to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenner

2 Peter 3:8 is the writer trying to cover his rear and explain why the lord is late in coming (2 Peter 3:4 for the bible thumpers out there). It has nothing to do with some magical time-frame shift of reference.
Once again, scripture taken completely out of context.

---

that particular passage is actually talking about people that will begin to appear in the final days and ask those questions, not about people already asking them.
Finally, nowhere in the bible does it say he created the universe in 6 days. It said he created the earth and surrounding area. Obviously something existed before that or there wouldn't have been him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ms? View Post
Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.
It's not censorship. That's written or published works. It's violation of Freedom of Speech and it is grounds for jailtime.

Don't you mien, It's in violation of Freedom of shouting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Doubtful. The reason you can do it is their alphabet, every letter has a value to it.

---

Again, revelations was written in greek, not hebrew. The greek sum is 552.

Also, you doubted Obama can be tied to 666:

Barack Hussein Obama is 18 characters - which can be calculated with 6+6+6. Imagine that.

A quick google search also shows that Jesus = 666 in alphanumeric base 9 code.


So who is the real 666? The possibilities are endless.

Lord Orwell

You think this sentence implies that someone standing in the middle of a square shouldn't be able to have people hear him.

By shouting, I believe they are trying to force their opinions, beliefs or ideas on me and you.

O..K..

Quote:

---

Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

---

I think it would be you. Rather than listening, you would merely be practicing patience until it's your turn to talk. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the "shouter" to fully listen so they can respond accordingly...

Quote:

---

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

---

You can voice an opinion with a shout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaVolpe

Whether you are a believer that refuses to listen to other religions/atheists arguments or whether you are a non-believer that refuses to listen to religious arguments, I categorize all of you as the same: close minded and biased, regardless of religious beliefs.

---

There's nothing wrong with having a closed mind. It stops junk getting in. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

I think it would be you. Rather than listening, you would merely be practicing patience until it's your turn to talk. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the "shouter" to fully listen so they can respond accordingly...

---

You can't listen when you are shouting.

And I personally, find it very difficult to propose an opposite view if I do not listen to the view I'm opposing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

There's nothing wrong with having a closed mind. It stops junk getting in. :)

---

Bang on :thumb:

I don't personally believe in God but I have no problem with people that do. I do think however that it's quite foolish to believe, as some people do, that the bible is the literal word of God. The bible (particularly the old testament) has been translated from one language to another several times, and, given human biases it's unlikely that the text is the same now as it was originally. Also even if the words have been strictly translated I'm sure there are many cases where the meaning of the word(s) have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

There's nothing wrong with having a closed mind. It stops junk getting in. :)

---

And unfortunatley for many, prevents letting junk out. Maybe a well-balanced closed mind ain't so bad :rolleyes:

If heaven is true and I will go there and don't see you guys there then I will be saddened, that's why I need to spread my belief to you guys. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

If heaven is true and I will go there and don't see you guys there then I will be saddened, that's why I need to spread my belief to you guys. =)

---

Come to hell with the rest of us. :bigyello:

La Volpe, i think you are making some far reaching assumptions here, firstly just because i don't like something doesn't mean that i want to censor it or am closed to. Dislike is exactly what it is nothing more or less.

Also you seem to think that because some people here don't agree with believers that we don't listen or are closed minded.

I don't agree with them because from my learning, either through reading or experience i have looked at the available evidence and formed an opinion, but that does not mean i am closed minded, if new evidence come up which challenges my beliefs then i am more then happy to take it on board and alter my beliefs.

It happens in Science all the time, someone makes a hypothesis and tries to prove it through tests and evidence. Sometime they succeed to the point where we have generally accepted theories like Gravity which no-one disputes, others have in the past argued that the world is flat which many people believed for a long time until someone was able to come along and prove otherwise.

Anyway my point is that i am happy to re-evaluate my beliefs in the face of new evidence is it this that makes me closed minded ?

Quote:

---

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

---

Well put !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

If heaven is true and I will go there and don't see you guys there then I will be saddened, that's why I need to spread my belief to you guys. =)

---

Is there a Hell?

If we go to Hell merely for not believing, would you think that's overkill on God's part?

Or do you not believe in Hell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Is there a Hell?

If we go to Hell merely for not believing, would you think that's overkill on God's part?

Or do you not believe in Hell?

---

hell isn't even in the old testament. the evil angels were cast to the earth, not hell.

So capsulecorpjx you'll have to stay on earth like the rest of us.

Sorry!!! :cry: :cry:

First post in this thread was July 29. Just under 100 days since first post and this thread is up to 273 posts. Averaging around 2.7 posts per day for over 3 months. This may win the prize for most popular thread in 2009 or I would think it's among the most popular. Anyone have a list handy of most popular chit chat threads. I remember that Photographography thread had quite a few posts in it a while back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

First post in this thread was July 29. Just under 100 days since first post and this thread is up to 273 posts. Averaging around 2.7 posts per day for over 3 months. This may win the prize for most popular thread in 2009 or I would think it's among the most popular. Anyone have a list handy of most popular chit chat threads. I remember that Photographography thread had quite a few posts in it a while back.

---

That would be this thread.

You should try to change you settings to list all threads from the beginning and then click on the replies column header.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

---

Sounds like a Rush to judgement;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

As it so happens, Nero equals 666. Coincidence?

---

Makes sense to me. The latest version has certainly caused me torment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abhijit

That would be this thread.

You should try to change you settings to list all threads from the beginning and then click on the replies column header.

---

The Post Race thread would be the most popular but I was talking about the most popular thread in 2009. The Post Race had less than 80 posts made in it during 2009 so this thread would be more popular than that in 2009 though using the technique you suggest one could probably easily find what thread was most popular in 2009 and what thread that was started in 2009 was most popular which may or may not be the same thread.

I think Volpe has stated my position better than I could myself. Personally I'm agnostic and, while I don't believe for second that that gives me any moral high ground I will claim that it does give a slightly broader perspective. And from this perspective the worst of the atheists seem to be just as shrill, stubborn and close minded as the worst of the theists. In fact, they generally appear to be worse.

To be honest, Dee-U invited it with the title of the thread but I'm talking generally, not just this thread. There is a culture of proselytizing atheist's who seem to think that it is their duty to convince theists that they are wrong, delusional or possibly just plain mad if they believe in a God. They are happy to argue their own beliefs and try to convince others that their position is the correct one and I applaud that. But it is these same people who are the first to be offended when a theist returns the favour. Can you seriously not see the hypocracy of that position? I have absolutley no objection to someone trying to convince me that there is no God but I do find it bizarre when that same person takes it as an affront when some else tries to convince them that there is one.

It might seem that I'm siding with the theists here, and I probably am, but only because I see the atheists shouting far louder that the theists and I've always been cursed with an urge to challenge those who shout. If you don't believe that the atheists are the shriller group then take a step back from you're beliefs for a bit, allow yourself to accept that there is a possibility, however unproven, of a God and then read this thread again. You'll find it to be pretty one sided on the whole.

A few things I'd like to add:-
1. While it's true that shouting is a one way form of communication so is talking, whispering and, indeed, posting on forums. Two way forms of communication include conversing, debating, arguing and engaging. Volume is irrelevent.
2. When measured alongside the track record of nations that have mandated a religion, that of nations which have mandated atheism really does not stack up well. The latter include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly the highest paragons of virtue.
3. Censorship, while often abused, is an entirely necessary and desirable mechanism in society. I, for one, have no desire to see poedophillia re-enacted on BBC primetime. I specify re-enacted to separate the sensationalising such a thing from the act itself which would, of course would be illegal if carried out for real; rendering any debate about censorship moot. Now that's obviously an extreme example but does serve to debunk the blanket belief that censorship is neccessarily a bad thing. Where you draw the line between the extremes is really a matter of opinion but I personally don't believe our society (UK) has benefited by the more licentious aproach we've adopted in the last 20 years or so and is, in fact, rather the worse for it. Whether that applies elsewhere in the world I have no idea.
4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point.


edit>

Quote:

---

This may win the prize for most popular thread in 2009

---

Personally I'd vote for it to be moved into World Events. It's deader than Zoroastrianism (wouldn't you just love a religion that worshipped Zorro?) in there and I'm not really sure this thread still constitutes 'Chit Chat'

edit a bit more>Shaggy, there are some countries where you're puns would get you stoned... and not in the hippy sense either. Thank your anthropomorphisised concept of choice that you live in the US. :)

I just tried what you suggested abhijit and if I'm not mistaken this thread is the most posted in Chit Chat thread for a thread that was started in 2009 and it's also the most posted in during 2009 of any Chit Chat thread. You might have a thread with thousands of posts but only a small number of the posts were made during 2009. This thread is 68th(if I counted correctly) on the list of Chit Chat threads with most replies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point.

---

Pulling passages out of any or all is what most religious debate is about, and it always has been. The entire fight over the heresy of Arius, which led to the Nicean Creed has to do with trying to reconcile a handful of individual sentences. All the use of the bible to support slavery, attack homosexuality, attack slavery, support women, repress women, and so forth, is nothing but grabbing individual sentences, taking them out of context, and fitting them into a modern context. The whole debate is over sentences. Heck, the book is divided up so that you can reference single phrases. Why would they allow you to simply address (in the programming sense) such small scale elements of the book if you were never to work with such small scale elements?

Quote:

---

and not in the hippy sense either.

---

If you hadn't added that, I would have made a further quip.

Quote:

---

Pulling passages out of any or all is what most religious debate is about

---

It's not the pulling out of individual bits and pieces that's the problem. It's doing so while disregarding of the overall message of the whole that's the problem. Religions (excluding the slightly fruity ones like satanism, which aren't really the ones we're talking about here anyway) universally preach tolerance, peace and love for your fellow man.

Quote:

---

If you hadn't added that, I would have made a further quip.

---

The horror... the horror...:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

A few things I'd like to add:-
1. While it's true that shouting is a one way form of communication so is talking, whispering and, indeed, posting on forums. Two way forms of communication include conversing, debating, arguing and engaging. Volume is irrelevent.

---

Fortunately, the closest we can get to shouting around here is CAPS LOCK.

Quote:

---

2. When measured alongside the track record of nations that have mandated a religion, that of nations which have mandated atheism really does not stack up well. The latter include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly the highest paragons of virtue.

---

Agreed. However, there is an important distinction to be made here that5 is often missed. Neither the Nazis, nor the Russians, nor the Chinese, nor anybody else as far as I know, has marched under the banner of atheism, taking the wonders of godlessness to the uncivilised masses by force. Dictatorships which do not attach themselves to a religious flag almost inevitably embrace atheism and persecute those of a religious leaning, simply because religion constitutes a threat to their power. However, I have never heard of atheism being the motivator.

Religion, on the other hand, is very frequently the main motivating tool.

Quote:

---

3. Censorship, while often abused, is an entirely necessary and desirable mechanism in society. I, for one, have no desire to see poedophillia re-enacted on BBC primetime. I specify re-enacted to separate the sensationalising such a thing from the act itself which would, of course would be illegal if carried out for real; rendering any debate about censorship moot. Now that's obviously an extreme example but does serve to debunk the blanket belief that censorship is neccessarily a bad thing. Where you draw the line between the extremes is really a matter of opinion but I personally don't believe our society (UK) has benefited by the more licentious aproach we've adopted in the last 20 years or so and is, in fact, rather the worse for it. Whether that applies elsewhere in the world I have no idea.

---

I don't think anybody disagrees that expressing your opinion and incitement to violence are two different things. As ever, there is a large grey area surrounding what people say, what they claim to mean, and what listeners infer. Unfortunately, judgements can only be taken after somebody has said their piece (sometimes with knock-on effects) and it is then up to the courts to decide.

Quote:

---

4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point

---

Which works both ways...those of a religious persuasion can use various parts of their chosen text to indicate that slaying the unbelievers (etc) is entirely justified. To my mind, that indicates that for a lot of people, religion is used selectively to justify the things that they wanted to do anyway, and also explains why sufficiently talented orators can use skillful argument to persuade normally sensible people to do entirely unsensible things.

In a recent example reported as a feature in the Times, some academics interviewed groups of Muslims on their thoughts on the Balkan war, and how America was instrumental in preventing a genocide in the region by the Bosnian Serb army. The result was, by and large, complete indifference. Then, an enthusiastic chap got up to speak about the American-Jewish plot to subjugate the Muslim Brotherhood, and was met with a chorus of cheers, despite evidence that had been laid before the same group minutes earlier.


It is not difficult to see that, in general and with no reference to a specific religion, a group of people:

1) who feel united across racial, national and gender boundaries sharing a particular belief system

2) who have demonstrated by the very fact of that belief that they are prepared to suspend logic or a requirement for evidence (that is the definition of faith, a point often missed by atheist argument)

3) which, historically, has proven susceptible to manipulation by skillful argument

4) whose belief system almost invariably promotes conversion of the non-believers as a requirement for achieving salvation

...are fairly intimidating to those who are not a part of that united group.
When members of a rival group feel threatened, they have a tendency to unite closer....and so friction builds up, and we know what the consequences are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think Volpe has stated my position better than I could myself. Personally I'm agnostic and, while I don't believe for second that that gives me any moral high ground I will claim that it does give a slightly broader perspective. And from this perspective the worst of the atheists seem to be just as shrill, stubborn and close minded as the worst of the theists. In fact, they generally appear to be worse.

To be honest, Dee-U invited it with the title of the thread but I'm talking generally, not just this thread. There is a culture of proselytizing atheist's who seem to think that it is their duty to convince theists that they are wrong, delusional or possibly just plain mad if they believe in a God. They are happy to argue their own beliefs and try to convince others that their position is the correct one and I applaud that. But it is these same people who are the first to be offended when a theist returns the favour. Can you seriously not see the hypocracy of that position? I have absolutley no objection to someone trying to convince me that there is no God but I do find it bizarre when that same person takes it as an affront when some else tries to convince them that there is one.

It might seem that I'm siding with the theists here, and I probably am, but only because I see the atheists shouting far louder that the theists and I've always been cursed with an urge to challenge those who shout. If you don't believe that the atheists are the shriller group then take a step back from you're beliefs for a bit, allow yourself to accept that there is a possibility, however unproven, of a God and then read this thread again. You'll find it to be pretty one sided on the whole.

A few things I'd like to add:-
1. While it's true that shouting is a one way form of communication so is talking, whispering and, indeed, posting on forums. Two way forms of communication include conversing, debating, arguing and engaging. Volume is irrelevent.
2. When measured alongside the track record of nations that have mandated a religion, that of nations which have mandated atheism really does not stack up well. The latter include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly the highest paragons of virtue.
3. Censorship, while often abused, is an entirely necessary and desirable mechanism in society. I, for one, have no desire to see poedophillia re-enacted on BBC primetime. I specify re-enacted to separate the sensationalising such a thing from the act itself which would, of course would be illegal if carried out for real; rendering any debate about censorship moot. Now that's obviously an extreme example but does serve to debunk the blanket belief that censorship is neccessarily a bad thing. Where you draw the line between the extremes is really a matter of opinion but I personally don't believe our society (UK) has benefited by the more licentious aproach we've adopted in the last 20 years or so and is, in fact, rather the worse for it. Whether that applies elsewhere in the world I have no idea.
4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point.


edit> Personally I'd vote for it to be moved into World Events. It's deader than Zoroastrianism (wouldn't you just love a religion that worshipped Zorro?) in there and I'm not really sure this thread still constitutes 'Chit Chat'

edit a bit more>Shaggy, there are some countries where you're puns would get you stoned... and not in the hippy sense either. Thank your anthropomorphisised concept of choice that you live in the US. :)

---

And from your slightly broader perspective the worst of the atheists seem to be just as shrill, stubborn and close minded as the worst of the theists. In fact, they generally appear to be worse.

I'm not an agnostic nor (a fence sitter) nor atheist, But I'm not a believer in Dee-U god's either.

I've have been to Christian summer camps, Sunday schools, church and had religions instruction classes at school.

"then read this thread again. You'll find it to be pretty one sided on the whole."

To be honest,
This thread should be totally one sided .
This Thread was for those with no belief in God's what so ever, or those that are not a believer in Dee-U god's.
Dee-U invited them, because he was curious why they did not belief in his God's.
See Post #1

So In fact I do think that this is the wrong Thread for posting for those that are believers in Dee-U god's.

Now read this thread again, But do start with the title.

I absolutely object to someone trying to convince me of there beliefs being the correct ones, I do not try to convince any person of My beliefs, Personally I'll only some times talk to someone about beliefs, when they are genuinely curious to know about My beliefs, or I'm genuinely curious to know there beliefs.

I've never had atheists impress there beliefs on me, shrill or otherwise, and I've only ever had theists think that it is their duty to convince me that I'm wrong, But have found the theist not atheists, the first to be offended when I return the favor,
I do think atheists may hold on to there beliefs stubbornly, the same as theists and me...(hypocrisy of that position?)
At Home Knocking On The Door, only theists, never ever atheist's....(hypocrisy of that position?)
On the street only theists, never atheist's....(hypocrisy of that position?)
Oh yes..... (The hypocrisy of it all)!
Oh..... (The hypocrisy of it all)!

I'm siding with the atheist's here, but only because I see the theists shouting far louder that the atheist's and I've always been cursed with an urge to challenge those who shout.

Now read this thread again, and do start with the title.

One thing I'd like to add:-
1. I think Volume is relevant.
I've never have had a rational conversation with some one shouting. (Worth noting that: any person shouting only wants to be herd, and are not interested in conversing/conversation, solely instructing)

Yet I've had conversation at a whisper, normal talking Volume, and indeed, [posting on forums('Chit Chat')], E-Mail, PM's, So on.............
And yes 'Chit Chat' is conversing/(conversation).


May be it's because I don't have a broad perspective, like you

Read this thread again, and do start with the title, and see DAMMED atheist's answering Dee-U question....(hypocrisy of that position?)

Quote:

---

I think Volpe has stated my position better than I could myself. Personally I'm agnostic and, while I don't believe for second that that gives me any moral high ground I will claim that it does give a slightly broader perspective.

---

Everyone thinks that they have the broader perspective, but why does being Agnostic make anyone have a better perspective on things ? it seems to me a bit of a kop out, i neither believe something nor do i not believe something.

People seem to get caught up in this trap that if you completely disagree with something then you are incapable of understanding the other side, i don't believe that this is true, people are perfectly capable of understanding things they dislike or disagree with.

Quote:

---

To be honest, Dee-U invited it with the title of the thread

---

Yep, the title of the thread asks why people are not believers so unsurprisingly there are a lot of people on the thread who are stating just that.

Quote:

---

There is a culture of proselytizing atheist's who seem to think that it is their duty to convince theists that they are wrong, delusional or possibly just plain mad if they believe in a God. They are happy to argue their own beliefs and try to convince others that their position is the correct one and I applaud that. But it is these same people who are the first to be offended when a theist returns the favour.

---

Are you being serious ? in this particular thread you may have come across examples of this but in the world at large i would say the opposite is true.

There is a large culture of theists who seem to think that is there duty to convert non-believers or believers in different faiths to there religion. And the theists are the first to be offended when an atheist returns the favour.

Quote:

---

I have absolutley no objection to someone trying to convince me that there is no God but I do find it bizarre when that same person takes it as an affront when some else tries to convince them that there is one.

---

I have no problem in talking about god or faith with believers but there is a difference between having a discussion or argument about belief and someone trying to convert you to there position.

I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism, nor am i about to be converted myself and yes it does annoy me sometime when people think it is there duty to convert people to there religion.

I also think that the idea that atheists (in general) are offended if some try's to explain there position is also wrong, if anyone wants to have a rational discussion with me about belief or the nature of belief then i am all for it, i am not likely to agree with them but it wont stop me listening.

I don't try and force my atheism on anyone else and yet last week alone i have had both Christians and Mormons knocking on my door trying to convert me.

Quote:

---

Religions (excluding the slightly fruity ones like satanism, which aren't really the ones we're talking about here anyway) universally preach tolerance, peace and love for your fellow man.

---

While it is true that most major religions do preach this, isn't it a pity that many of there followers through out history have taught, rape slaughter and death.

Show me a war in the world today and you can bet that religion splits the two sides.

(disclaimer, yes i know there is bound to be a war somewhere that is not either directly about religion or where the two sides are not split along religious lines, but i bet if you really think about it you would be astonished with how many are)

My final words on this topic is:
1) I don't believe in any Religion because non have evidence, and there are plenty of plot holes, inconsistencies in their core religious text, not to mention it doesn't agree with Science at all on the nature or creation of the world. Not to mention their idea of a Just and Loving God often directly opposes the idea of Human and Individual Rights, rights which I don't believe is subjective, but absolute.

2) Religion does cause more violence, but so does every idealogy (Communist Class hatred, French Revolutionary Atheists who killed Clergy), and sometimes no idealogy (Mongolian / Viking hordes who looted and conquered).

Thank you, NeedSomeAnswers and capsulecorpjx, I thought I killed the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Everyone thinks that they have the broader perspective, but why does being Agnostic make anyone have a better perspective on things ? it seems to me a bit of a kop out, i neither believe something nor do i not believe something.

---

Agnosticism is not a copout. Agnosticism is the position that man does not know whether a God or gods exist. Strong agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know this.

Agnostics can also be classified as either theist or athest depending on their personal beliefs.


Personally, I am 'ignostic' (or 'noncognitivist') which means that I believe that the word 'God' is not intrinsically meaningful and therefore I can only classify myself as theist or atheist within the context of a specific definition of a God or gods. For example, I don't believe in omnipotence, but if you gave me a definition of a God who was not omnipotent then I might be able to say whether I could believe in them or not.

Is that a copout? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that it gives me a better perspective on anything. One can have an open mind no matter one's theological beliefs.

NeedSomeAnswers was Quoting FunkyDexter having the broader perspective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms?

Thank you, NeedSomeAnswers and capsulecorpjx, I thought I killed the thread.

---

it's going to take somthing special to kill this thread, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davadvice

it's going to take somthing special to kill this thread, my friend.

---

:lol: good good :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

I thought I killed the thread.

---

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything :bigyello: but I'm struggling to find the time lately. I'm still reading though.

Quote:

---

it's going to take somthing special to kill this thread

---

I'm guessing the second coming would do it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything :bigyello: but I'm struggling to find the time lately. I'm still reading though.

---

I know I'm wrong about everything, but would like to know why? :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

I'm guessing the second coming would do it...

---

I'm here! ;)

Quote:

---

Thank you, NeedSomeAnswers and capsulecorpjx, I thought I killed the thread.

---

why would you want to do that, this thread is one of the most amusing still open :0)

Quote:

---

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything

---

Excellent, and when your done telling us why we are wrong i for 1 will be here ready to tell you why what you haven't even said yet is also wrong

and in that we have an agreement, we are all wrong in each others eyes. i however, am perfect and can commit to say that there is no god.

in time people may actualy believe Dan Brown, heck the may even believe Deren Brown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Agnosticism is not a copout. Agnosticism is the position that man does not know whether a God or gods exist. Strong agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know this.

Agnostics can also be classified as either theist or athest depending on their personal beliefs.


Personally, I am 'ignostic' (or 'noncognitivist') which means that I believe that the word 'God' is not intrinsically meaningful and therefore I can only classify myself as theist or atheist within the context of a specific definition of a God or gods. For example, I don't believe in omnipotence, but if you gave me a definition of a God who was not omnipotent then I might be able to say whether I could believe in them or not.

Is that a copout? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that it gives me a better perspective on anything. One can have an open mind no matter one's theological beliefs.

---

Very well said. :thumb: :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davadvice

in time people may actualy believe Dan Brown, heck the may even believe Deren Brown

---

Their both mythological beings you pathetic, pontificating, pantheistic, poop! I don't believe in the physical incarnation of either one of them...or something like that...or whatever. However, if you want to take it on faith that they exist, then I take it on faith that I believe you may do so.

Is pantheistic poop better than polytheistic poop? Perhaps monotheistic poop is the best poop of all. Whenever you're in the market for poop you should always be discriminating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davadvice

and in that we have an agreement, we are all wrong in each others eyes. i however, am perfect and can commit to say that there is no god.

in time people may actualy believe Dan Brown, heck the may even believe Deren Brown

---

I know I'm perfect,
My mum would tell me all the time, "you are a perfect little S#!T"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Agnosticism is not a copout. Agnosticism is the position that man does not know whether a God or gods exist. Strong agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know this.

Agnostics can also be classified as either theist or athest depending on their personal beliefs.


Personally, I am 'ignostic' (or 'noncognitivist') which means that I believe that the word 'God' is not intrinsically meaningful and therefore I can only classify myself as theist or atheist within the context of a specific definition of a God or gods. For example, I don't believe in omnipotence, but if you gave me a definition of a God who was not omnipotent then I might be able to say whether I could believe in them or not.

Is that a copout? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that it gives me a better perspective on anything. One can have an open mind no matter one's theological beliefs.

---

Very well said. :thumb: :)

To be or not to be.
I to have a strong believe, that I have a believe.

OK, I've got a bit more time now. Damn this whole employment lark getting in the way.:)

First of all, I never said a 'better' perspective, I said broader and that's an important distinction in this case. You can only define 'better' in the context of a known truth and the whole point of this debate is that the truth isn't known - or at least we disagree on it which means our views of what is 'better' will differ.

I'll still stand by broader, though, because it is absolutely part of human nature to discount arguments that conflict with our beliefs. We seek out media that reinforce our beliefs. We surround ourselves with people whose beliefs roughly correspond to our own. We are, of course, able to open our minds to the other argument but it is something that we must conciously do and, whether we like it or not, the tendancy is not to. That doesn't mean we can't give the opposping view credence, or that we won't, but it does mean that we're considerably less likely to. In that context I would argue that anyone who hasn't made their mind about any argument has a broader perspective in that argument. The very act of "making up one's mind" about anything must, by definition, involve closing that mind to some extent.

Zaza, I agree with a lot of you're response but I'd argue a couple of points.
1. I don't believe any war has truly been fought or persecution pursued because of religion. Religion's name has been invoked as a rallying call, certainly, but there are always underlying socio political causes. The troubles in Ireland were rooted in foreign occupation and more recently were driven by a lack of political representation for the South in government. The march that turned into Bloody Sunday was a protest against the fact that poverty in the South had reached the point where people were starving, not that people were Catholic or Protestant. The situation between Isreal and Palestine and all it's spin offs are again rooted in Foreign Occupation and, again, the poverty and starvation in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians don't bomb the Jews because they're Jewish, they bomb them because they see them as the cause of their misery and want to fight back. Equally the Jews don't send tanks into Palestine or Lebanon because these are Arab countries, they do so because they think it will help protect themselves against terrorist attacks. When Ferdinand and Isabella called for the Spanish Inquisition against the Jews it wasn't because they were Jewish, it was because the Jews had all the money and Ferdinand and Isabella wanted it. Yes, religion is used as a rallying call but so is nation, skin colour or what football team one supports. Getting rid of religion wouldn't reduce the number of wars that are fought one jot, it would simply change the rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Which works both ways...

---

Absolutely, but two wrongs don't make a right. Argue against how selective interpretation of a religious text can be used to justify an evil act, certainly. But don't then selectively quote religious texts in an attempt to demonstrate that the religion is, itself, evil.

Quote:

---

racial, national and gender boundaries

---

Why are any of these boundaries any more valid than religious ones. Wherever there is a boundary there will be division, regardless of the nature of the boudary.

Quote:

---

they are prepared to suspend logic or a requirement for evidence

---

Nothing to do with religion I'm afraid. That's just human nature. Have you seen reality TV?!

Quote:

---

susceptible to manipulation by skillful argument

---

pfft, doesn't even need to be skillful, just passionate. And it certainly doesn't need to be religious.

Quote:

---

promotes conversion of the non-believers as a requirement

---

the only difference between religions and any other grouping is that in religion this is explicit. It's Human Nature that, not only do we group with people who are like us, but we want everyone else to be like us too. That's why we debate. That's why we argue. It's because we want to convince the others that our's is the right way to be.

In truth I think we're saying almost exactly the same thing: that human beings form arbitrary groups and then rail against each other. The only difference is that I don't see why a religious grouping is any different to any other. You wouldn't argue with someone for being German... but identifying with that group caused alot more problems in the last century than religion did.

NSA, I'll answer a few of your points too:-

Quote:

---

Yep, the title of the thread asks why people are not believers so unsurprisingly there are a lot of people on the thread who are stating just that

---

That's why I made a point of saying I was speaking generally. Of course, I did then go on to challenge people to look back through this thread which is a bit clumsy but, instead, go back and look through other threads there have been about religion in this forum. You'll find the same balance of responses no matter how the original question is phrased.

Quote:

---

Are you being serious ?

---

Yes, absolutely. I may not get atheists knocking on my door asking if I've heard the good news (although at 37 that's still only actually happened once with a theist) but I do get atheists taking out banners on buses and creating works of theater which are undoubtedly designed specifically to offend, for example. I would also point out they've increasingly begun publishing their own 'religious texts'. One thing I want to stress here is that I'm talking about proselytising atheists - not the great mass who just just go around quietly not believing in God. But then I don't think you're really objecting to theists who don't proselytise either are you? In truth I think the vast majority on both sides of the debate are quite happy to keep themselves to themselves and most of the people I know who are religious haven't felt the need to mentioned it for quite a long time after they've known me - they didn't think it was any of my business.

However, when an atheist does proselytise they do tend to be extremeley aggressive and insulting about the their theist couterparts. In this thread you yourself (and I think your arguments been very measured, well put together and innoffensive on the whole and I really wish you'd given me some better examples to quote) have compared God to Father Christmas and called Christians deluded. That sort of language always seems to creep in when atheists argue against theists. I rarely, if ever, see it from theists in return.

Quote:

---

I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism

---

Possibly not, but viewed from the outside that is how it appears I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

I don't try and force my atheism on anyone else

---

that, on the other hand, I fully accept. You see to be trying to convince rather than to force. But at that point I go back to what I was saying right at the beginning of this thread: these discussions are never about a desire to achieve understanding of the other sides point of view. They're always about trying to get the other guy to accept your own point of view. I don't really believe that when Dee-U started this thread he truly thought there was a chance that your arguments would convince him to abandon his religion, he just wanted a platform to put his own opinion across. It's what we do, we can't help it. It's hard-wired in and I am, of course, doing it right now. <shrug>

Quote:

---

isn't it a pity that many of there followers through out history have taught, rape slaughter and death.

---

Yes! but the fact that something is abused does not necessarily invaidate the thing. People have done alot of good in the name of religion too. A huge number of our charities have their roots in religion. The very concept of a welfare state in the UK traces back to Victorian Christian values. To be honest, I don't believe this good was done because people were Christian, they were done because they were humane and, just as rape and slaughter are part of human nature, so are charity and compassion. We do what we do because we are what we are. We then go on to justify in whatever manner makes us feel best about ourselves.

Quote:

---

Show me a war in the world today and you can bet that religion splits the two sides

---

I'll do that when you can show me a war where the underlying cause is not either greed or desparation.

5Ms? I had wanted to respond to your points too but I've been writing this for nearly an hour now (I really need a life:rolleyes:) and I've run out of steam. Your making some good points but could I direct you to the quote function. Without it your posts can be really hard to follow.

Apologies to all for the huge post but I saw a soap box and jumped on it.:)