Religion: A thing of the past?

Posted by: ben_chezz

Are religions with deities a thing of the past?

  • Yes, religion cannot exist in our modern world, whether we like it or not.

  • No, religion can exist, even with science bearing down on it.

52% 204 votes
48% 187 votes
  • Well, it's very unlikely, but it can fool many blind people.*

    Posted by: yay842
  • Religion is completely Out-Dated and Out-Done by everything, knowledge, science and Ethics. Modern Ethics has advanced well beyond Theistic concepts of Morality. We all now know, thanks to science and neuro-psychology, that Evil and Sin don't exist. They and the religions that created those false notions are dinosaurs and need to die out.

    Posted by: Sagey
  • Religion looks VERY outdated. It should be left in the past where it belongs.

  • No evidence and questionable morals and ethics verses supported of evidence and better morals and ethics.

  • it is a die cause

  • Religion is very outdated, time to grow up and accept what is true base on hard evidence. I am all for religion in a person if it is what they choose and what makes them move forward. However, people should not make a big deal out of religion. Religion is not an excuse to do hateful things to others. We need to move forward as one and not follow a book made thousands of years ago.

  • It is in modern time. we must keep moving for to do that we must get off our knees

  • I think it will continue to exist for a very long time but eventually it will die out. Maybe that is wishful thinking.

  • I mean, technically it can exist, but I interpreted this answer to mean "if we continue to progress, religion will eventually need to die."

    Posted by: Jake0
  • In modern countries religion is on a downward spiral.

  • It will always clash with our science and Science will be the only one with actual evidence to back itself up

  • Science is being held back by the restraints of unneeded, illogical religion.

  • I'm jewish and my people are still being killed because of their religion sothat shows that people still have strong opinions of religion.

  • Religion has no evidence, scientific explanations are current and do have evidence.

  • Religion won't last simply because of its failure to adapt with technology/society. For example the monotheistic god represents tyranny and disregards human rights. Why must we put him first?

  • It is scientifically incorrect

    Posted by: basils
  • The benefit of religion is to give one a better direction in life than succumbing to habits and addictions, but we need to be able to do it for ourselves now, not "God." I believe God exists, but in a much more abstract way than a bearded man who occasionally grants wishes. The power of God is within our human potential, accessible through our minds and imaginations.

  • It's illogical. In a world of evidence, you shouldn't blindly believe something that has no evidence.

  • Religion throughout history has been the root cause of violence.

  • This is the most accurate description of religion ever:

  • Religion holds our society back.

  • Come on, saying science explains God's creation and masterpiece is completely dodging the point. I might as well say science proves the incredible creation of Piggieman, peace be with him. What an absurd claim.

  • it should be left behind. but sadly people hold one to it and try to convince many other people.

  • Christians are idiots.

  • Religion had it's uses in the past perhaps, but today we know better.

  • Religion is just a political tool invented over a millennium ago to rule the blind fanatics. We do not need that kind of brainwashing anymore since nowadays we can think with our own brains,

  • Well. It's very unlikely, but it can still fool some people.

  • An old roommate I had, had a little thing posted on a bookshelf "science explains how, religion explains why"

  • science has been around for a long time, religion has been around longer.

    Posted by: Josh_b
  • Science isn't "bearing down" on religion. Science is the discovery of God's creation. As Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  • More atheist circlejerking over science... science has nothing to do with the truth of believing there is no Goid, so why not stop making a joke of yourselves.

  • While I would like to claim that with our advances in science we will somehow convince the world to abandon religion, I think that religion is nowhere near disappearing. Many religious organizations do everything that they can to indoctrinate youth and shield them from information or opinions that will cause them to doubt their god. Finally religion and science are not mutually exclusive; while I believe that religious beliefs and science are in conflict, I know that many people can reconcile their beliefs with science and will not abandon them regardless of the evidence.

    Posted by: Yevon
  • Let's assume for the moment that religion is like believing in Santa Claus- not that I accept the comparison. Well anyway, there are alot of modern kids who still believe in Santa Claus.

  • Religion will exist as long as uncertainty exist.

    Posted by: Quait
  • Religion will always exist like it or not. I certainly don't.

  • Religion and science are not enemies, and they do not always contradict each other. Science and religion both have a role. People who call themselves "nonreligious" are fools: every person has a religion, whether or not it has anything to do with a god, because that is part of our humanity. Religion has, at different points in history, carried science and culture. Religion and science only contradict when we try to use one to explain the other; if we try to substitute religion for science or use science to prove or disprove religion they come into conflict and cause ignorance. A common view now is that religion is backwards and useless since we have science to explain the world around us, and that religion is detrimental to scientific progress, but this is not fully understanding the role of religion.

  • I do not like this option, because science and religion are not enemies. Religion does not tell people the laws of physics, it tells people how to live their lives in accordance to the laws of God. When it does mention something about science, though it is correct. Psuedo-sciences, like Macro evolution (unlike micro-evolution) do bear down upon religion, even though they are false. So, in essence, I believe that God exists, and that there are people who follow him, and that science does not disprove the existence of said God

  • Many intelligent people, yes even scientists, have been religious. Example, Albert Einstein was a Christian.

  • Religion IS outdated, but it is now an integral part of many, if not all, cultures. To take away religion would be to take away that people's identity. Now, whether people need to grow up and stop resorting to religion for all their answers is another question...

  • There may be a correlation between religion and science

  • I'm going to argue this from a religious standpoint. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He died to pay the price for our disobedience to God. I believe that His sacrifice is the only way to be acceptable to God, thus avoiding eternal separation from God. I believe because of the evidence I have seen. Nothing can change my mind on this. I would die before I rejected Christ. Does that answer your question?

  • No matter how much we Advance in Science, the Hope that there is a God will always be there until you kill all Remaining Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikh, Buddhists. Then there will only be Science.

  • People need to learn to reject young earth creationism, biblical literalism (or an religious text literalism), and conflict thesis. The rise in atheism comes from people trying to explain science from a religious point of view and it drives people away from it when science contradicts. It doesn't seem logical a god would implement science as a trick for disbelief. He's supposed to be on your side. If atheism becomes the majority, there will likely be a young counterculture that is pro religion and the cycle may repeat. Religion is on a rise in the east due to the fall of communism and less restrictions in Asia.

  • Of course! It's completely inhumane and frankly rude to tell the world that the two can't live together on this earth- we just have to enforce the separation of church and state, so that everyone can live their lives how they wish.

  • I am a devout Christian, I do get persecuted for it but my faith I's stronger than their words of hate.

  • People can find God within themselves. It is not always to give a name to the unexplained.

  • Mindless clinging is something I see more of from the non-religious community.

  • Well, that's a too much generic question to be made (a common neo-atheistic way of dealing with religious issues, btw). There are all kinds of religions and many of them make different claims about different issues using different reasons to hold them, and a particular claim of a religion that is demonstrated to be false by lately acquired knowledge doesn't necessarely invalidate the entire religion (in the same way that a particular claim demonstrated to be true my later knowledge doesn't validate the entire religion as well)

  • Though Religion has been suffering greatly for the passed few decades, there are still many people who have a great amount of faith in their beliefs and I don't think anyone is ever going to stop them. Not to mention that there are still 2 billion people who consider themselves some sort of Christian alone, and Mega-Churches such as Hillsong having so much success, I think that the Scientific age will pass before Religion does.

  • Some scientific theories contradict god. But god could have created evolution and all that not that i belive in evolution but i still belive in him.

  • Religions and science are two incomparable things. They are totally different. Neither can disapprove one another.

    Posted by: Adie
  • A lot of the science and math we used today was actually based by mostly religious people (for example the first person to theorise the big bang was a catholic priest) this "conflict" between religion and science didn't even appear until the Enlightenment when many scientist started turning towards atheism. So religion and science are still very compatible.

  • science 'bearing down on it' a smile out of that one!

  • People need a source of peace in this life of technology so they rely on religion

  • The fact that people think religion is outdated I laugh at that remark take a poll on how many people believe in a religion and compare that to the average population and you will be suprised espically yay842 is saying Religion is completely outdated? HA outdone by everything? read the bible and it explains alot of theroys of scientist you will be suprised by the greed of man to prove something false

  • Science isn't bearing down on religion or Christianity.

  • Maybe in several decades or so reason will overcome brainwashing and indoctrination - but until then, the cure for this cancer is non-existent.

  • It needs to now more than ever with the world being destroyed people need hope

    Posted by: AFDLS
  • Even if there was no organized religion people can still be spiritual and believe in God.

  • Science and religion at not mutually exclusive despite what everyone seems to assume. Science helps us to understand the physical world around us and to use it for good. Religion helps us to understand who we are and how we should live, its the story of human fulfillment. They don't have the same goals and are scarcely in the same category. I am a chemical engineer who can't get enough of science and follows astronomical exploits like its American Idol, but I am also a faithful Eastern Orthodox Christian who is at church every chance I can get. My inner scientist explores and is fascinated by the world around me, and my faith in God brings me joy, peace, and fulfillment like nothing else ever has. The depth of the Church is as infinite as the cosmos for those that are willing and looking.

  • Science does nothing to disprove religion in any way, shape, or form.

  • Of course religion can exist! Science does not have to influence your beliefs. Science and religion AREN'T 'enemies' and it doesn't really matter if one or the other has been around longer. Why can't religion exist? Why do people have to be influenced by some things today? Religion still exists, and so does science, but neither have to be influenced by the other.

  • Science is not bearing down on religion.

  • Science does not disprove religion. It explains the things we did not understand before that religion had to step in for so people did not freak out, but the belief in a creator is not affected by science. There can easily be both.

  • Like people religion evolves over time. As a Catholic like many other Catholics, I believe in theistic evolution. This means I think God created humans and all other life through evolution. I also belive God set forth all the scientific principles. The theories of all of these ideas were just not made when the church founded. The Catholic Church acknowledges evolution amd science. For more proof I go to Catholic school and they teach us evolution.

  • Religion isn't explainable by science, and if religion stops existing completely, what will happen to morality? Religion is what keeps people from losing aight of purpose, without religion, the world would fall apart.

  • What most people do not realize is that, the purpose of religion, is to set forth a moral compass for people to follow. It is supposed to help keep us in line. Without it, there would be caos.

  • Nah, there would always be the faithful in the world.

  • The debate is not between science and religion. Science is a separate study whose findings have so far entirely supported the claims of the Bible.

    Posted by: Queue
  • Some say science eliminates the need for God. I say science lets us know more about how he works. Many scientists have become theists upon years of research and many more explain that there is some "design" to the universe without mentioning God. It really depends on how we define "Religion." It will of course evolve as we do and our understanding will expand and views will change but I think even with the increase in theism, religion is here to stay. This is for a few reasons 1. (Almost) everyone has a moral sense of right and wrong. Why is it wrong to hurt someone else? Can this be answered without just saying, well it is wrong because someone else is getting hurt. People who seek to do what is right and seek to know the truth will usually travel more towards theism as it provides a code of ethics and a reason for our "shared moral views" on items like this, and on morals with grey area it can provide a path. 2. There is a great two part episode of South Park (Go God Go) where one of the characters ends up in the future and is with a group that insists they have the right answer. We then find out they are athiests fighting other athiests who all disagree on the "big question" of what they should be called (something like Athiest Alliance or United Athiets, etc.) The point here being is that we will always have something to fight about. Even if no one believes in God other philosophical items will become the new "religion" and we will want each other to continue to think as we do. 3. We all worship something. Maybe you worship God, maybe you don't. But we all have things that we let consume us whether positive or not: spouses, shopping, gambling, smoking, debating, politics, pornography, etc. We all give up a part of ourselves for something or someone else. 4. There will always be unanswered questions. It is human nature to be curious and explore and want to know more of the world. We will always want to have a greater understanding. That won't mean religion for everyone but that is definitely where some people will arrive with their curiosity. Conclusion: It is sad to see scientist make a journey out of proving their is no God and in some cases even ignoring data or keeping quiet about the fact that the everything in the universe speaks to a creator. It is just as sad to see the religious ignore science to accommodate their long held beliefs acting as if everything they believe is correct without question. The beauty lies with that small minority that see how amazingly science and religion go together and how our curiosity is the result of a God who made a us part of a remarkable universe.

  • If religion isn't a thing of the future, we can say goodbye to the West. Science in no way disproves god. Science seems to support god.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
janetsanders733 says2014-01-21T22:01:17.3635587-06:00
Science has not, nor will it ever disprove the Existence of God.
abyteofbrain says2014-01-21T22:09:15.9394682-06:00
Science shows what you want it to. People see what they want to see. Science "proves" the existence of God as it "proves" the absence of one.
abyteofbrain says2014-01-21T22:10:23.9060540-06:00
Frankly, this is a stupid poll.
FathomTheDeep says2014-01-22T00:29:21.5407427-06:00
If religion is what you believe about the origin of the world/universe/mankind, and what happens when we die, then EVERYONE IS RELIGIOUS.
BrunoFarber0059 says2014-01-22T19:58:23.7262509-06:00
Religion never was anything but a false hope for the ignorant. You can make anything false hope. Abyteofbrain is right, this is a futile poll.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T20:39:03.6956454-06:00
So atheism is the truth? Where's the evidence for it?
DudeStop says2014-01-22T20:52:43.2738269-06:00
Well I see no good reason to believe in god, and I don't think it's rational to believe in something I have no good reason to believe in. Atheism is not the assertion, but rather the belief that god exists. Theists cannot possibaly prove god's existence. I think god probably does not exist.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T20:55:34.1668494-06:00
@Dudestop so then why don't you believe in God?
DudeStop says2014-01-22T21:00:34.5619109-06:00
I don't see any good evidence for god. I also know that man created god when we were clueless about the world around us- It's about the idea you'd expect from a species half a chromosome away from an ape. In order to prove there is a god there has to be a need for one. There is no need for one. Therefore there probably is no god.
DudeStop says2014-01-22T21:00:57.3042774-06:00
* In order to explain the mechanics of our universe.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T21:02:04.3652382-06:00
So then your agnostic? Not atheist. Also I think your commiting the Genetic fallacy by saying that man created God in order to cope with fear or anxiety. Even if that were true (and it's not) that does not mean that Religion false. You have to judge a belief based upon its truth content.
DudeStop says2014-01-22T21:14:02.5056086-06:00
1. I never said god created man out of fear, rather I said he was made when we were clueless about the world around us. Man clearly does fear the unknown, and made god to compensate for the fear. Though that is irrelevant to the arguments and I don't see any reason for you to bring that up. 2. Call me what you'd like, but I think god probably does not exist. On the Dawkins scale, that makes me a de-Facto atheist. If you're asking for 100% proof, then really you'd define everybody as an agnostic. 3. You ironically committed the bare assertion fallacy when you put words into my mouth. 4. I've seen no evidence provided to assert that god exists. Could you please prove to me 100% that god is real?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T21:18:51.2156022-06:00
1. But you said that Religion is false by trying to say that man created it to explain our universe. Even if that were true, you simply can not argue that as your conclusion. You have to argue something by facts and evidences. 2. Dawkins is a terrible philosopher. I never asked you about certainty. Your confusing knowledge with certainity. You said that there is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist. In the absence of evidence, it does not logicall follow that there is no God. That does not leave you with atheism but agonsticism. But when you argue for atheism you are simply saying you have knowledge that God does not exist based upon some sort of facts or evidences.
DudeStop says2014-01-22T21:31:16.6077750-06:00
Point to the time I said that. Please give me the direct quote... Otherwise, I think I have made it quite clear that the point I was trying to get across is that because there is no good reason to believe in god, there is no need for a god to be real, and that man created god as a dimwit who cried wolf on god for many occasions, (Which were disproven) that there *PROBABLY* is no God. And yes, because you seem to have missed that for the last several posts, I decided to make it quite clear so you could read it. I see no reason to believe in something that has no good evidence. Sure, there is definitely a chance of god existing. Go ahead and quote me on that. But I hold the beliefs that he probably does not exist, I never said I had certainty that he does not exist. I need to press the question though, on what your evidence of god is?
STALIN says2014-01-22T21:31:53.2676416-06:00
Too much religion!
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T21:36:26.1587773-06:00
, "I think I have made it quite clear that the point I was trying to get across is that because there is no good reason to believe in god, there is no need for a god to be real," I'm not asking you for certianty. I am simply saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order for you to be an atheist, you need to give positive reasons for the non existence of God. You said "there are no good reasons".
DudeStop says2014-01-22T21:36:31.3889167-06:00
If anyone's confused, those liquids are the things that have disproven god.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T21:44:29.8695025-06:00
DudeStop says2014-01-22T22:44:36.1046060-06:00
* Joke obvioulsy*
DudeStop says2014-01-22T22:48:33.4392317-06:00
I've given reasons that god probably does not exist. You haven't disproved any of them. I also have not seen you answer any of my questions. I do not need to give positive reasons, but I can if you'd like to. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I really only needed to show that he probably does not exist. The outline this for you, I'll just put it in the post below...
DudeStop says2014-01-22T22:49:33.3135669-06:00
1. In order to prove there is a god, there has to be a need for one in order to explain the mechanics of our universe 2. There is no need for a god to explain the mechanics of our universe. 3. Therefore there probably is no god.
DudeStop says2014-01-22T22:50:04.2223856-06:00
Now please answer the question: What is your evidence of god?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-22T23:11:38.1302180-06:00
@Dudestop Remember before I gave you the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. 2. You didn't really give any postiive reasons for the non-existence of God. You need to show reasons why the reality in which we live is best explained by Atheism. You need to show purpose, meaning, morality, and destiny objectively. You also need to epxlain what you mean by mechanics of the universe.
002682 says2014-01-23T00:30:20.7705710-06:00
I'll answer it. God is the principle of consistency and of cohesion, which is what holds the universe together. We're all pieces of God, we're all one, because the universe is the mind of God.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T00:36:42.8154764-06:00
@dudestop, when the rapture happens, you'll have a first class ticket to hell.
002682 says2014-01-23T00:42:56.6765260-06:00
As will you, by default, for making such a judgment.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T00:44:51.5446784-06:00
Not really no, the bible says that the only way to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus, so im quoting theBible, not making judgement, let me rephrase my quote, " when the rapture happens, the bible says you will perish", is that better?
002682 says2014-01-23T01:00:33.9356312-06:00
Much better. Splitting that hair frees you from defaulting your own premise.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:01:41.3094398-06:00
Are you an atheist?
002682 says2014-01-23T01:04:32.4972554-06:00
By no means. But, I don't believe in a 'personal God' (a God of prayer). I believe in the God that created the universe.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:05:26.1891280-06:00
Oh, so you're just Godist.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:07:07.2589028-06:00
Sure, if that's what you want to call it.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:09:28.4945408-06:00
It's a real religion.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:12:18.9757120-06:00
He sounds more like a 'Deist'.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:13:34.6232036-06:00
I haven't really researched deism, but I will now.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:14:20.4404264-06:00
^ accurate statement
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:14:29.1743054-06:00
"@dudestop, when the rapture happens, you'll have a first class ticket to hell" Even though I'm a good person?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:14:58.3607828-06:00
At least I'll finally get to meet Gahndi and Albert Einstein...
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:15:25.6597328-06:00
Ooh not to mention Christopher Hitchens mate...!
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:16:05.6721938-06:00
Evil exists, therefore God exists.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:18:01.5445370-06:00
Even good people can go to hell, I believe that you could be a great person, but if you don't accept that a person thought you were worth dying for, God doesn't forgive people for that, no matter how good the person is. Once you accept christ you will know what I mean. I requoted as well "when the rapture happens, the bible says you will perish"
002682 says2014-01-23T01:18:27.5507624-06:00
...Because: what is good without evil? What is faith without doubt?
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:19:26.3428754-06:00
I always tell atheists that, they just let it blow past them...
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:25:14.9894654-06:00
Well, when I receive my judgement at the large pearly gates I'll merely exclaim to god that he failed to have given me enough evidence. Then I'll of course ask him some questions, as he has a lot to answer for. But seriously, why dos god value faith over morality?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:25:28.0617626-06:00
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:26:44.0932382-06:00
God hasn't failed to given you enough evidence Dudestop. You simply chose to be an atheist out of preference. Not because you have evidence for atheism.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:26:46.9791272-06:00
He values faith over morality, because he doesn't judge by works, he judges by belief.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:27:25.9829680-06:00
Why? I don't know. Neither do i need to know, because i have faith.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:28:47.6872844-06:00
DudeStop, you got to realize the power of love my brotha. Darkness will never drive out darkness, only light can do that; in whatever form you see that light to be, as long as you see it (I.E. Judaism, reincarnation)
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:32:05.8620620-06:00
I realize that he judges by belief, I question why that's the most appropriate way to judge someone. A murderer who "asked for forgiveness" from your God gets eternal happiness. While the man who worshipped Islam decided to keep the faith he had his entire life, and goes to eternal hell?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:33:53.6539160-06:00
Because of Christ. That is the reason. The only reason why the murderer would go to heaven. Your trying to justify yourself by using the Law, which you and I have broken. But Christ is the only one who died for you and I, so that we wouldn't be judged. Believe in him as your Lord and Savior.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:34:26.7413564-06:00
Sorry, why did he have to die?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:35:21.7015656-06:00
For our sin. We broke God's moral law. All of us, that is why there is evil in the world.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:38:48.7009676-06:00
Open up your mind my friend. What if THIS is heaven? How selfish is the person who dismisses the beauty of this reality? Don't turn your head away from things just because you find examples in which you disagree. There's exceptions to EVERYTHING.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:40:31.8909986-06:00
@002682 Is it your assertion that everything is true?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:41:33.9298124-06:00
So why could god not merely forgive us rather than having a sacrifice?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:42:43.4563382-06:00
He did forgive us. He forgave us on the Cross through his son Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:43:36.9466808-06:00
Oh I know he did that. I'm asking why a sacrifice was required.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:43:54.7299968-06:00
It all depends on how you define 'everything' as well as what you consider to be 'truth'
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:44:16.5144784-06:00
In other words, I can forgive you for something without killing of another human. I god unable to just merely forgive?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:45:20.8854830-06:00
How would you know God forgave you if he didn't come down in the form of a man?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:48:47.0566152-06:00
By warping the knowledge into my head. Or maybe telling me directly.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:49:31.4241528-06:00
The sacrifice wasnt required, he could have done it any other way, but Jesus chose to take the cross to see what it was like to physically die.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:50:12.3440020-06:00
He made himself known. He sacrificed himself on the cross by the shedding of blood. There is no greater love than that
002682 says2014-01-23T01:52:02.6700308-06:00
That's actually a good question. The answer is: forgiveness is a man-made construct. Such a question is defaulted by its own premise.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:54:08.3167964-06:00
... I received several different answers: Did he want to die because YOLO, or did he want Christianity to be more well known?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:55:26.4385916-06:00
He died to forgive us of our sin
DudeStop says2014-01-23T01:56:27.1358570-06:00
I was referring to the reason the sacrifice was required to forgive someone.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T01:58:04.8177164-06:00
Forgiveness can only come from the shedding of blood. The punishment for sin is death. Christ had to die in order to be punished for our sin.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:59:34.6718438-06:00
Yes, according to Christianity.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T01:59:43.7242524-06:00
Well, after he died, records show that the curtain was torn and the ground shook.
002682 says2014-01-23T02:03:59.0348756-06:00
Interesting. I didn't know that had the instruments to quantify seismic activity or record whoever tearing whatever curtain, back then.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T02:08:30.9324176-06:00
@002682 Why do you think Christianity is subjective?
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T02:09:49.7249870-06:00
The bible is technically a historical record
002682 says2014-01-23T02:16:14.8176644-06:00
Because, perception is reality. *mind : abstract :: reality : concrete* Another reason is simply because more than one religion exist.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T02:17:24.2915030-06:00
@002682 Your argument doesn't logically follow. Christianity is not subjective. It is based upon objective facts.
002682 says2014-01-23T02:18:28.9031024-06:00
And yes, the bible is a historical record *within itself*. These facts represent themselves.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T02:20:10.1443238-06:00
@002682 Okay, so then you agree that Christianity is objective and not subjective?
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T02:22:37.6678496-06:00
The bible is obviously historical because we know Jesus was a real person, and we know he did things people couldn't explain, and we know Gods exists.
002682 says2014-01-23T02:25:30.6911172-06:00
It's only objective within itself, making it only objective to the people that believe in it. And yes there's exceptions but again, there's exceptions to everything.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T02:27:39.8126282-06:00
Do you know what objective means?
002682 says2014-01-23T02:31:42.4330488-06:00
Jesus may have indeed been a real person but (1) was he the son of God and(2) history has a tendency to be diluted by time.
002682 says2014-01-23T02:32:33.9299692-06:00
Can that be proven outside the realm of Christianity?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T02:38:14.7675084-06:00
Objective means independent of human thought, opinion, or feeling.
Sagey says2014-01-23T07:44:41.6329544-06:00
Secular Nations are more Ethical than Christian Nations: Christianity = more crime and unhappy inhabitants. Secularism/Atheism = Less crime and happier inhabitants:
Sagey says2014-01-23T07:47:02.1833616-06:00
Also: http://www.Atheismresource.Com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
SweetTea says2014-01-23T07:56:52.8045123-06:00
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 ... As a Christian, I share your beliefs. However, based on my previous experience with some in this crowd, you are banging your head against a brick wall. Atheists must feel threatened by non-believers and/or faith of any kind. They appear to soothe themselves by attacking believers of any religion. Yet, they expect believers to respect them. Go figure! Say a prayer for them and just move on.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T09:46:20.2306115-06:00
@Sweettea: What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T10:00:25.5733802-06:00
It's at about the same level of someone saying atheists are atheists just because they want to sin...
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T11:03:46.6381471-06:00
Objective moral values and duties exist, therefore God exists.
002682 says2014-01-23T11:06:55.3873867-06:00
According to......You
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T11:08:15.3731869-06:00
What do you mean according to me?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T11:12:37.8785683-06:00
They can easily exist withtout god...
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T11:13:20.3428571-06:00
They wouldn't exist without God. Everything would become relative
Romanii says2014-01-23T12:16:04.6738288-06:00
Morals ARE relative...
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T13:27:46.3668829-06:00
You can explain life, but what you cannot explain, is what happened before life, and that, is where the whole atheist community falls, I know about cells and reproduction, but what happened before the "big bang"? Answer that for me.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T13:33:58.9736267-06:00
Morals aren't realtive, Morals are objective.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T13:34:34.3085327-06:00
Morals aren't realtive, Morals are objective.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T13:35:06.9110167-06:00
Morals aren't realtive, Morals are objective. They don't depend on the person's thoughts opinon or feelings.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T13:37:23.7133697-06:00
Well, you sure like that statement, lol, my ipad does the same thing...
DudeStop says2014-01-23T15:00:33.4895017-06:00
Well a plausable explanation before the Big BNg could be simultaneous causation...
Sagey says2014-01-23T16:29:39.3450000-06:00
@ Janetsanders: Then why are Atheist societies better to live in, have less Crime (evil in your case). This has been proven time and time again by research, the latest was a Christian research team, who also discovered that there is less crime in Atheist societies. Christian societies breed more criminals, like more murderers. Surely this is absolute evidence that Christian societies are NOT AS MORAL AS ATHEIST SOCIETIES. I gave the evidence for this previously. Atheism Wins Outright in all facets of Improvements In Society. Intelligence, Morality, Happiness. You lost the argument decades ago!
Romanii says2014-01-23T16:29:52.8002307-06:00
There is an exception to each and every rule of morality.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T16:30:40.5870666-06:00
@Romanii Okay...That doens't make it "relative" to the individual. It doesn't matter if you think murder is right. Murder will still be wrong.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T16:32:22.8136771-06:00
@Sagey You clearly have a misunderstanding of the moral argument Sagey. I am simply saying that if there is no God, then there are no objective moral values. We are simply just primates and nothing more on your worldview. You have no foundation for grounding objective moral values and duties, and hence your lost in a sea of social-cultural realtivism. You would have no objective way to condone/condemn a moral action on your worldview.
Romanii says2014-01-23T16:33:31.7403918-06:00
That's not what I meant. If murdering is bad according to morality, then does that make a police man who murdered a criminal to save several innocent lives a bad person? Would it be bad if someone were to invent time travel and go back in time to kill Hitler before he came to power? Would it be bad for a hostage to murder is captor in order to escape? Morality is relative. It all depends on the situation and the people involved.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T16:38:17.4575703-06:00
@Romanii To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill. “Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think.
Romanii says2014-01-23T16:39:29.9058279-06:00
Janetsanders, is homosexuality immoral?
Sagey says2014-01-23T16:39:45.5842299-06:00
@ Rebel: We don't care what happened prior to the Big Bang, there are many Hypotheses for this and the one I like is that our universe is the result of the deaths of previous universes. Universes (stars/planets, etc..) gravitate and collapse into Black Holes. These Black Holes are massive, unstable clumps of infinite mass, like imagine a brick collapsed into the size of a pinhead, but maintaining the same weight, because the brick is mostly space, so it can collapse that small and smaller. Occasionally these Black Holes will collide and being unstable, they are capable of producing a Big Bang on a collision. So that is the current theory, that our universe "Big Bang" was the result of the deaths of two previous universes into Black Holes and these collided to produce Our Universe. Simple and Rational, isn't it. Sometime int the distant future, our universe will also collapse into Black Holes and be the potential start of another Universe. So long as we don't experience being sucked into a Black Hole, it's okay. :-D~ There is no way of disputing this Hypothesis. It is a very, very probable one and likely the TRUTH.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T16:42:21.6886161-06:00
@Romanii yes
Romanii says2014-01-23T16:51:06.0268767-06:00
Says who?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T16:52:05.1367923-06:00
bman77 says2014-01-23T16:53:45.8997759-06:00
That theory I think is just as likely as the theory of a creator.
Romanii says2014-01-23T16:54:44.6737491-06:00
And how do you know he said that?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T16:58:27.6898011-06:00
Because we have his word
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:00:07.0603488-06:00
How do you know it's his word?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:00:53.4520722-06:00
Because it has a point of referrence to verify it's claims.
bman77 says2014-01-23T17:04:08.2621335-06:00
Janet sanders, Romani. You guys need to have a debate on whatever topic you are discussing
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:04:35.7032371-06:00
@bman77 We already have.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T17:05:50.7709182-06:00
Why is it immoral?
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:06:01.4251035-06:00
Moses's Ten Commandments have no point of reference.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:06:36.3514884-06:00
@Romanii They aren't Moses. Their from God.
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:07:25.5978471-06:00
Yes, but anyone can make up ten commandments and claim that they're from God.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:08:13.6408251-06:00
The ten commandments are written on everyone's heart, That's how we know they're from God.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T17:10:01.5108516-06:00
My heart pumps blood actually...
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:10:24.1763439-06:00
Wha-? No... They're not... Millions of people disobey them every day with no regret whatsoever.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:11:08.1312991-06:00
@Dudestop Heart refers to soul. You have a moral conscience because an objective moral-law giver(God) has written his moral standard on your heart.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T17:12:21.7807875-06:00
More like billions- Most of the Christians let alone the world do not actually take the bible word for word.
Tophatdoc says2014-01-23T17:12:28.2549535-06:00
You guys should stop wasting you time and breath. Your not going to convince the other because one or both of you are very stubborn.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:12:40.3920647-06:00
@Romanii That doesn't mean they don't know what they are. Everyone knows it's wrong to steal, murder, commit adultery, hate your neighbor,etc.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T17:13:28.5817003-06:00
That's simply not true.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:14:07.3838658-06:00
@tophatdoc haha sorry. I bet your feed is popping up all these notifications.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:14:57.5039803-06:00
@Dudestop So you don't have a moral conscience?
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:15:48.6376239-06:00
There are situations in which each of those would be perfectly okay. And you forget the rest, less reasonable commandments like not taking God's name in vain and not keeping the Sabbath day holy.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:16:49.2869247-06:00
@Romanii so it's okay to murder someone? It's okay to commit adultery? It's okay to steal?
Tophatdoc says2014-01-23T17:17:45.6464730-06:00
@janetsanders733 , I close one notification then another pops up a second later. I'm worried about the health of the participants. What is the point when you are more interested in proving points and gaining face rather then learning, discussing, and explaining?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T17:17:56.4722484-06:00
Well I dislike my neighbor because his dog pooped on my lawn the other day. Doesn't mean I don't have morals. I also killed a bug the other day, so killings out. Then on top of that. I stole a pencil from my sisters room.
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:18:24.1936799-06:00
It is okay to commit murder out of self-defense. It is okay to steal something back which was already yours.
theta_pinch says2014-01-23T17:18:37.7348271-06:00
@Janetsanders733 "But Christ is the only one who died for you and I, so that we wouldn't be judged. Believe in him as your Lord and Savior." This doesn't make sense. Why did god turn himself into a human, and get everyone to crucify him so he wouldn't judge them? I think this quote from explains my question better: "(God looking down on earth thinking) Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin... Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human being right down to the nanosecond level for all eternity. If I didn't like how it was going to turn out, I could have simply changed them when I created them. And since I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem. So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me. That, finally, will make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me -- that will satisfy me. I feel much better now.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:20:12.6632611-06:00
@Romanii That's not murder. That's killing. Murder is the premeditated unlawful killing of an individual. That's not stealing since it belong to you in the first place.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:23:09.7021764-06:00
@Theta_pinch No, God took the punishment of our sins. Imagine we were in a Court of law and your standing before the Judge. You have just been tried for robbing a bank, murdering the President, etc. The Judge, being good and just has to punish yo ufor what you did. Now you try and justify yourself with the Law by saying "Well judge, I may have done all those bad things, but here is a list of good things" What do you think the judge is going to do with you? He is going to have to lock you away and give the punishment that you deserve. But because the Judge loves you so much, he decides to give his son up as an offering and takes your punishment for all the crimes you did, so that you will be justified. Not because of what you did, but becuase of the sacrifice of the Judge's son.
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:23:10.4454195-06:00
It's been translated both ways. How about stealing something that the current owner will misuse?
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:25:43.8836808-06:00
@janetsanders: Why did the judge have to sacrifice his son? Why couldn't he just forgive without anyone getting hurt if he loves us so much?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:25:55.0994337-06:00
@Romanii It's not ben mistranslated. Murdering someone is taking someone's life unlawfuly. When a police officer or law-enforcement takes the life of a criminal for example, he is not murdering. He is killing because it is within the law. Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. If it belongs to you and someone takes it from you. Then that person stole it, not you since it belongs to you.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:27:19.3030003-06:00
@Romanii Because that's how much God loves us. How could God forgive us without taking the punishment for our sins. The penalty for sin is death. God took on our punishment for our sins. The father sent his son to die for you and me. There is no greater love than that.
Romanii says2014-01-23T17:32:18.6931583-06:00
How about I start a forum on the Objective Morality thing?
janetsanders733 says2014-01-23T17:32:50.7998496-06:00
@Romanii Sure thing buddy:)
Sagey says2014-01-23T17:45:31.6552651-06:00
Fact: Objective Morality never existed: All Morality is purely Subjective. Nature pushes no Objectivity onto Human Morality. Objective Morality is a human Delusion. That's all. Those that believe in Objective Morality are living in a Subjective Delusional Fantasy. The basic laws of Physics which are derived from the Physical World around us are the only Objective Laws in Existence. These form the only Objectivity in our existence, these laws are those that we find influencing Chemistry, Biology, Land Movement (Geology), Astronomy/Cosmology, etc... These Objective Laws are the Scientifically derived Laws. Morality has no framework in Scientific Laws. They are purely the subject of Sociology and Psychology/Neurology. These are all Sciences of the Human Mind and thus Sciences working with Subjectivity. Psychopaths fit into Objectivity, as physical damage/deformity often prescribes their Thinking and Actions, so their activities that some consider as demonic/evil, but really are results of Objective Errors in their Brains. Thus Evil does not exist, it is often a disfunctional brain structure. Religion has no answers to Psychology and Neurology, both leave Theism for dead and are between them demonstrating Theology WRONG and Irrational. Thus theism is being exposed by these sciences as nothing more than stupid delusion. As I have stated many times: The only Objectively Wrong accounts exist in the Bible. The Raising of the Lazarus from the dead and the Resurrection of Jesus are both Objectively Wrong. Because they defy the Natural Laws that create Objectivity in our Universe. Simple, Isn't it. :-D~
Sagey says2014-01-23T18:33:29.2121086-06:00
Objectively Wrong? Raising of Lazarus, Resurrection of Jesus. Both Objectively Wrong. Walking on Water: Objectively Wrong. The Bible is full of teachings that are Objectively WRONG The Bible is thus Objectively Wrong. :-D~
Sagey says2014-01-23T18:38:47.3399745-06:00
@ bman: Creator is not a Theory, it is an argument. The concept I put forth is only a Hypothesis. To be a Scientific Theory, it needs evidence. Some scientists believe that they have evidence that another neighboring universe is distorting the one we exist within. If they find enough confirming, evidence, then my hypothesis may become a Theory. There is no confirming evidence for a creator so it is not even a Hypothesis as yet. A Creator did it, is still just an Argument.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:40:34.2294062-06:00
The Big Bang isn't a theory, its a fairy tale made for people who can't accept a higher being because they're selfish.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:42:12.8707354-06:00
^That might have to go in the Weekly Stupid my ignorant friend.
002682 says2014-01-23T18:42:30.5147878-06:00
They have pictures of the Big Bang on 'nasa.Gov'.
002682 says2014-01-23T18:43:34.0864178-06:00
Believe whatever you want though, it's a free country
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:44:26.6203995-06:00
Where are you from? The US? Good for you, not everyone lives in the US, its not a free country everywhere.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:44:43.1554455-06:00
@Dixy: How does atheism make someone selfish?
Sagey says2014-01-23T18:44:44.0913915-06:00
There seems a high possibility that our universe is not the only one in existence, there may be an infinite number of universes in infinite, deep space. So the hypothesis that universes die and create new universes would then be a highly probable hypothesis. If those scientists that think they have evidence for another neighboring universe affecting this one we are in. Then we will know that the Big Bang is nothing unique. Big Bangs may be occurring somewhere else in space as I type this note. Another new universe may be popping into existence, to eventually after 12 billion years or so, it will produce life somewhere within it, much like our own planet's history. Some creature on that planet may be posting similar posts to this one! :-D~
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:45:06.9128748-06:00
*being an atheist.
002682 says2014-01-23T18:45:15.7107672-06:00
Which is more of a theory: the Big Bang or religion?
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:46:05.7682791-06:00
They can't accept a higher being, especially atheist humanists who believe that the human race is the most important. If you can't accept a higher being, you're selfish.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:46:16.4224644-06:00
Well we should put it in his words, and try to determine which one is more like a Fairy Tail...
Installgentoo says2014-01-23T18:46:42.9136594-06:00
@DudeStop Tell me where the weekly stupid is posted, I wanna see it.
002682 says2014-01-23T18:46:58.7948666-06:00
Oh I believe in a higher being.
002682 says2014-01-23T18:47:25.3467474-06:00
You just posted it
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:49:05.8913254-06:00
I'll put down the link to the latest episode. Also, if you want to get caught up, American Bench on Youtube is Imabench's channel. It has all of the videos of TWS.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:49:34.8612682-06:00
Lets do it, evolution: the belief that a fish decided to turn into a frog and then turn into a squirrel and then into an ape and then to a pre human and then into a human which would eventually go to space.... Https://m.Youtube.Com/watch?V=1LzSX37C5J4&app=m Your turn
002682 says2014-01-23T18:52:10.5844610-06:00
Evolution and creationism can both exist. Why would the fact that evolution exists discredit the potential that something created the universe?
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:52:58.8948435-06:00
Because the bible says that god specifically made man from dust not from an ape.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:52:59.2577090-06:00
Christianity: The belief that a man came out of a pile of dirt then a Sky wizard cut open his chest and took his ribs which made a woman, and the woman ate from an easily accesable fruit next to an ultra persuasive snake and then god descended down and kicked them out of the garden. Oh, and this Skywizard made a Virgin pregnant somehow as well.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:53:15.8822634-06:00
Certain religions mix with evolution but Christianity doesn't.
002682 says2014-01-23T18:53:45.7701390-06:00
Man, I can't get past this ignorance
DudeStop says2014-01-23T18:54:33.7025306-06:00
I hope you're not talking about me... I was just mirroring him.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T18:58:50.2511086-06:00
Skywizard? If anything, that'll go on the weekly stupid, also, a pile of dirt, no, listen and you might learn something, dust, not dirt, dust, there's a difference. God put his son into the Virgin Mary, no magic, he's God, just because science cant explain him doesnt mean anything. Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bang either.
Sagey says2014-01-23T19:07:21.9442286-06:00
Genetics demonstrates clearly our ape heritage, we are closer to chimps than chimps are to the other apes. Don't deny our cousins!
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-23T19:08:58.8946557-06:00
Well the fact that there are still apes disproves evolution because if evolution happened there wouldnt be any more apes.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T21:07:09.4811598-06:00
I must have sounded ignorant- On purpose. It was the equivalent of your rant.
DudeStop says2014-01-23T21:07:37.5036382-06:00
Oh my god did you just say that???
DudeStop says2014-01-23T21:08:02.5336989-06:00
That's so stupid... Do you understand how evolution works?
DudeStop says2014-01-23T21:09:11.8860582-06:00
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-24T00:16:16.7326674-06:00
Wa WOW. That is a pure "D" in science!
Sagey says2014-01-24T00:24:01.5465854-06:00
Looks like RebelRebel failed science, possibly Thinking as well!
janetsanders733 says2014-01-24T00:28:30.6152662-06:00
@Sagey Are you friends with Theists?
DudeStop says2014-01-24T00:28:53.7019342-06:00
That's the question I asked when I barely had any knowledge on evolution...
DudeStop says2014-01-24T00:30:00.0437774-06:00
He has several on DDO
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-01-24T09:05:57.7263852-06:00
You almost change your picture as much as I do
DudeStop says2014-01-24T09:47:07.9093216-06:00
I was here first.
Sagey says2014-01-26T18:01:55.0478766-06:00
Yes, Janetsanders, I have a few theistic friends, from Islam, Hinduism and Christianity, though Christians are becoming the minority here. They are all infinitely more knowledgeable and open minded than yourself, some are scientists. They agree with me that the only evidence for the Resurrection is subjective and non-authoritative. We often have philosophical discussions. On most of these posts, they agree with me and not you. While I'm places like the university cafeteria, they like to read my philosophical rants and they do indeed laugh at your comments, even they think you are ignorant and a loser in the intelligence stakes.
yay842 says2014-01-26T18:18:28.3097442-06:00
Sagey says2014-01-26T18:18:34.9138541-06:00
Yes: Functional Intelligence, which could be written shorthanded as fIQ. Is a combination of Birth IQ or potential IQ pIQ, divided by how Irrational they are. A basic formula could thus be stated: Functional IQ (what you work with today) = pIQ * (%Rationality/100) So if you are born with an IQ of 140 but are only 50% rational in your thinking, then you have a working IQ fIQ of 70. If you were 100% rational, you would retain a fIQ of 140. I'm around 80% rational as most of my lecturers have stated this,, as I did hold to some old Chinese remedies and myths, that I learned from my Taoist Guru. My indoctrination. So my fIQ is around 120. My psychologist colleague has looked at Janetsanders posts and decreed Janet as around 30% rational, so whatever Janetsander's birth IQ was, we can divide it by 3 to give Janet's functional IQ level. Likely below 50.
yay842 says2014-01-26T18:18:44.3001542-06:00
Link to the forums where yous can argue
janetsanders733 says2014-01-26T18:35:57.0278894-06:00
@Sagey I could give a rat's butt what your friends and you think of me. I care about evidence. The evidence is objective and doesn't depnd on thought feeling or opinion. Second, what the heck does "Rationality or Irrationality" have to do with IQ? Your IQ has noting to do with rationality, but several other things like motor skills, criticla thinking, etc. Rationality or Irrationality is a bias and skews the evidence. YOu mereley only assume someone as rational if they're atheist, but irrational if they're theist, so you can't get an accurate reading of my IQ.
yay842 says2014-01-26T18:37:58.8958706-06:00
Sagey says2014-01-26T20:17:47.6828763-06:00
No Janetsanders, you are entirely wrong, the only resurrection evidence for anybody, not just Jesus is all subjective. There has never been any objective evidence for anybody being resurrected in the history of humankind. All the evidence you have is vague and subjective, nothing that can prove it happened in a court of law. Debates are not courts of law, nor scientific challenges. If we were to battle it out in a court of law as to whether anybody was resurrected, those supporting the resurrection would certainly lose. Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius are all definitely Hearsay evidence, thus not considered as Objective Evidences. The Bible is Collaborated Evidence which is too likely Contrived and Conspired by the Authors, thus is also non-admissible as evidence. Nothing you can offer will stand up as genuine, provable evidence in any law court. That is a FACT! Http://debunkingchristianity.Blogspot.Com.Au/2010/10/evidence-for-jesus-resurrection.Html Regardless of your Brain-Dead Assumptions.
DudeStop says2014-01-26T20:23:26.0329650-06:00
Lol yay, you can discontinue the messages...
Sagey says2014-01-26T20:53:56.3667990-06:00
BTW Janetsanders: There is no evidence of Rationality, nor critical thinking in any of your posts so far. These are things your brain is now incapable of, the lack of these lowers your Functional Intelligence. To be functionally Intelligent, a person must have a high degree of rationality. That is well known by psychologists and sociologists. What made Einstein intelligent, was not his IQ, but his rationality. What makes any person intelligent is their ability to Rationalize. Without the ability to rationalize well and think critically, they can no longer be considered as Intelligent. A good example of this is George Bush, measured (potential) IQ of 120, yet he was only 60% rational and this showed in his statements and decisions which were typically of a person with an IQ in the 70 to 80 range. The statements by yourself depict a person with a functional IQ far lower than that. There is nothing much in any of your posts but Irrational nonsense. Even Bush was twice as clever as yourself.
Sagey says2014-01-27T01:24:43.5092201-06:00
Charles Darwin admitted himself that he was only of fairly lowly intelligence, yet the man was so very rational that he practically turned the science of biology on it's head and spanked it. He is now regarded as one of the greatest scientists who have ever lived, like Einstein. Their intelligence came from open minded, rational, critical skepticism. High IQs are not required to be extremely Intelligent individuals. Only a high degree of ability to think critically, rationally and skeptically. Many people consider Dr Karl Kruszelnicki as being one of the most intelligent people on the planet, with his science radio broadcasts heard around the world and his books giving average citizens a look into Scientific concepts and ideas that they may never had thought of, all explained in extremely simple everyday language. Yes, I agree, Karl is way above myself in Brilliance, I can only aspire to his ability to consider everything critically and skeptically and then explain it to common folk in exciting and interesting ways. Though Karl readily admits to having a measly IQ of 110, but since he is so extremely rational, like close to 100% rational, his functional intelligence is likely the same as his measured IQ. Possibly well above mine. My measured IQ is well above Karl's, but, I lack his rational, critical thinking skills, which brings my functional IQ (actual intelligence) down to or even below Karl's. Here's a glimpse at How or Why, Smart People (seemingly high IQ) can be so very Stupid???? Http://www.Yale.Edu/yup/pdf/090331_front_1.Pdf And: http://www.Newyorker.Com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/daniel-kahneman-bias-studies.Html Drugs and head and fight trauma, like in boxing, can also damage the frontal cortex, reducing a person's ability to be a rational, critical thinking, and thus intelligent human.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-27T09:21:35.1553248-06:00
@Sagey I'm not the one with the court Jester as their profile pic.
Sagey says2014-01-27T20:49:57.8360227-06:00
Ha Ha Janetsanders, profile pics mean very little: Court Jesters, comedians are usually more intelligent than their audience, because they know how to control and fool their audiences. They can make an audience laugh at themselves, not that is clever. Christians have been executing Atheists for centuries (heresy and blasphemy laws) and now it's time for religion to suffer Pay-back. Though Atheists are far more Ethical/Moral than Christians as we will not be burning Christians at the stake or pulling their tongues out with red hot irons. Which is just some of the excruciatingly painful tortures Christians committed on Atheists during the dark ages, for simply not believing in their God. Atheism is far more Ethical or Moralistic than Christianity. That's a provable Fact! Your so called God given Goodness, is non-existent, just like your God.
DudeStop says2014-01-27T20:53:17.6252497-06:00
Name one moral or ethical action or behavior that can only be committed or carried out by a religious pardon, that could not have been committed or carried out by a mom believer. Then look at something that was done by a believer in the name of god.
Sagey says2014-01-27T21:07:59.6294235-06:00
From the History of Christianity, Christian Objective Morality is a Massive Joke. They were among the cruelest mongrels on the planet. You are indeed Proven so stupidly WRONG Janetsanders.
Sagey says2014-01-27T21:19:07.4981479-06:00
"How dangerous it was to be accused of being an atheist at this time is illustrated by the examples of Étienne Dolet who was strangled and burned in 1546, and Giulio Cesare Vanini who received a similar fate in 1619. In 1689 the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński, who had allegedly denied the existence of God in his philosophical treatise De non existentia Dei, was condemned to death in Warsaw for atheism and beheaded after his tongue was pulled out with a burning iron and his hands slowly burned. Similarly in 1766, the French nobleman Jean-François de la Barre, was tortured, beheaded, and his body burned for alleged vandalism of a crucifix, a case that became celebrated because Voltaire tried unsuccessfully to have the sentence reversed." From: These were just a few noblemen who lost their lives because of the Christian Heresy laws. There were thousands of others who were burned for being witches and non-believers in God. Many were actually innocent of non-belief, but opposition deliberately framed them as non-believers to get them out of their way. So the heresy laws actually convicted and murdered many theists as well. These laws were devised by the Catholic church and pushed onto governments to stop any rival beliefs and most certainly Atheism, which was seeing a rise in France after the revolution. Though Atheism has been around thousands of years, a Pygmy tribe existed in Africa that was Atheistic or had no God, they had likely been Atheists for many thousands of years, before Judaism originated.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-27T21:35:41.9266959-06:00
You live as though you have purpose, meaning, and value, but your worldview says otherwise. Were nothing more than a collection of atoms if God does not exist. Hitler wasn't really evil according to atheism. He's just acting out fashion.
Sagey says2014-01-28T05:57:10.0288338-06:00
@ Janetsanders: You know nothing about Atheism whatsoever. Atheists are in general, more Moralistic and less Narcissistic than devout Christians. Most Atheists are far more Honest Than Fundamentalist Christians, Atheists don't massacre Christians like Christians massacred Atheists. Hitler was a Catholic Megalomaniac, just like the Old Testament God. The Old Testament God made Hitler look like an angel in comparison. At least Hitler didn't think of pouring burning oil or molten rock over his victims, like the Bible God did in designing Hell. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was God, not Satan, because Satan didn't Exist until Chronicles and no badness existed in the Garden. Stalin was also a psychopath and not any normal Atheist, so his regime doesn't count as a good representation of Atheism. There has never been any good examples of Atheist government, because Atheism has never been prominent until the last century. Though that is changing rapidly. Australia has had an Atheist prime minister, Sweden and Japan are becoming examples of Atheist Governments. They are peaceful places. World Peace can only truly be achieved by Secular Governments around the World. History has proven that Christian based governments Always Fail! For an idea of the atrocities committed against Atheists by Christians, here is a 3 part BBC documentary on the History of Atheism. Maybe if you watch this, you may understand Atheism. Currently, you have absolutely no idea. Your concepts of Atheism are not even on the same planet as the Truth. This BBC documentary is entitled "The History Of Disbelief". Because all Atheism is, is disbelief, it is not a belief in anything, it is only a disbelief in God. Atheism has no set beliefs in anything! Thus Hitler was never an Atheist. Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=S2J232lPZno Part 2: https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=jUn9bOh3e9g Part 3 https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=Ft2SypNRvUk Anybody who watches these will know all there is to know about Atheism. Even watching half the first episode, will take them way beyond Janetsanders's current knowledge of Atheism.
Sagey says2014-01-28T06:16:07.6412026-06:00
If you know anything about Atheism in the US, it was seeded by Deism, from Thomas Paine (a founding father) in his book "Age Of Reason". So the US constitution was Deist in nature, but it also signified the beginning of Atheism in the US. Essentially, US Atheism was born from Deism. Thomas Paine a Deist, was the father of US Atheism.
Sagey says2014-01-29T23:38:35.3789184-06:00
No evidence for God, means no earthly reason for teaching it exists. All intelligent people are skeptics, skeptics disbelieve in things that there is no evidence for. There is no evidence for God, therefore skeptics like myself should disbelieve in it. Thus all intelligent people disbelieve in God. Because it is intelligent to be Skeptical, or not believe blindly in things that are not supported by evidence. Those that are not skeptical will easily be conned and easily ripped off in life by charlatans selling wares and belief systems. So it is intelligent to be skeptical. Since the evidence for God is zero, it is intelligent to be skeptical and disbelieve in God. Unless evidence arises for God, there is absolutely no reason for religion to remain. Because it is more intelligent to Disbelieve in Religion. Religion had it's day, when people were less knowledgeable. Times have Changed!
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-29T23:40:37.3572738-06:00
janetsanders733 says2014-01-29T23:41:50.3792031-06:00
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your not an atheist but an agnostic. You just like to claim the title of atheism because you feel it makes you cool. Unless you provide evidence for atheism, then don't call yourself an atheist.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-29T23:43:39.2416791-06:00
Janet, to whom are you typing? You're being vague
Sagey says2014-01-29T23:53:14.4290854-06:00
@ Janetsanders: In the real world, lack of evidence is reason enough for disbelief. To continue upholding something without evidence for it can only be classed as Delusion. In reality, there is no Justification For Teaching Others About Things That Have No Evidence Supporting Them. You might be better off believing in the Lock Ness Monster, as there is more evidence for it than there is for God and Religion. You still don't understand the meaning of the word: "Atheist". Definition of Atheism: A Disbelief In The Existence Of a God or Deity. That is all is required to be an Atheist. Oxford Dictionary Definition: "A person who does not believe in the existence of God or Gods." Which is the same as my everyman's encyclopedia definition previously. So I disbelieve in anything that has no evidence for it, thus I disbelieve in God, thus I am by the very definition of the word, an Atheist. You are so, so wrong! As per Usual! You evidently failed dictionary! :-D& Nothing should ever be taught as truth that has no evidence supporting it. To do so is actually a type of Fraud. Thus Religion is Fraudulent!
janetsanders733 says2014-01-29T23:54:21.3773535-06:00
Sorry I was typing this to @Sagey
janetsanders733 says2014-01-29T23:56:32.0393522-06:00
@Sagey No it's not. Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. If you say "there is no God", then you better be prepard to offer justification for the non-existence of God. Just like Theists who say "There is a God". Both parties require Burden of proof.
Josh_b says2014-01-30T00:01:45.2641834-06:00
There is a recognizable social change in the people who accept Jesus into their heart. I'm not a scientist and I can't put a whole bunch of Christians and non christians into a test tube in a controlled setting to compare their attributes. Unfortunately there isn't any method for testing such a thing as religion.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:06:48.7231642-06:00
"Nothing should ever be taught as truth that has no evidence supporting it. To do so is actually a type of Fraud. Thus Religion is Fraudulent!" That statement cuts both ways Sagey. If you can't provide evidence that God does not exist, then Atheism is fraudlent. God could exist. To say he doesn't means you have some knowledge or justification to show that he doesn't exist.
Sagey says2014-01-30T00:17:13.4972528-06:00
Yes there is Josh: Line them up for fMRI trials and compare their brain scans. It has been done, the accepting Jesus is like Prayer, self reflection and Meditation. Though Meditation is more effective. They would likely improve more from meditation than believing in a character who really did nothing, except introduce Buddhist teachings into Judaism.
Sagey says2014-01-30T00:20:36.6847886-06:00
@ Janetsanders: The legal term for teaching people that things that have on evidence for them are True is DECEIT. Religions are definitely guilty of Gross Deceit! Whether there is a slight possibility of a God existing: Probability close to 0.00001%, Though to teach that something with such little probability of existing is the source of Truth, is Deceit. You are simply being entirely DECEITFUL.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:21:43.5777086-06:00
@Sagey Do you have any justification for thinking that God does not exist. Or in other words proof or evidence that shows that there is no God?
Sagey says2014-01-30T00:22:40.2851626-06:00
Though I personally believe the probability of a God existing is 0%. Which is certainly deceitful to teach as being any form of truth.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:23:43.9819904-06:00
I'm still waiting Sagey.....
Sagey says2014-01-30T00:31:07.8961099-06:00
@ Janetsanders: You still don't get Rational Thought, perhaps it's something you've never applied in your life. The lack of Evidence to most Skeptics is enough to condemn it. Condemning it due to lack of evidence will likely force out any evidence that has been hidden or exists. We skeptics have been attacking the lack of evidence for a couple of centuries now and still, neither the believers, nor their God have been able to provide the least convincing piece of evidence. So when considered Rationally: If nobody has been able to cite evidence for 200 years to criticism of the lack of evidence, started by Thomas Paine (a Deist), or the father of modern Atheism, then the likelihood of there ever being any evidence approaches Nil, Zero, Nudda! The continuing lack of evidence, makes a very safe assumption and practical conclusion that God definitely does not Exist. That is all we need to arrive at such a conclusion. It is a Hypothesis that will remain until any such evidence arises. Since that is infinitely unlikely, it is a Hypothesis that will likely remain forever and gain followers.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T00:32:46.1007850-06:00
Joshb, humans are needy, hungry and tired most of the time. They make loads of mistakes. Using Jesus as a grown-up way of sucking-the-thumb is not impressive
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:32:52.6081117-06:00
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Until you provide me evidence for the non-existence of God, then your just as "irrational" as the people you claim.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T00:39:51.0503918-06:00
Janet, 1. Look through the pictures from the Hubble. 2. Notice that there is no "god" out there. There are only things that we CAN identify. 3. Now, let's say that "god" is closer in and NOT as big as the universe. 4. Let's say that "god" can fit into our Solar System...Still, big but, NOT ubiquitous. 5. Since we HAVE studied the Solar System, the ONLY thing that "god" might actually be is: ghosts. Which would explain "god"'s petty, vindictive, jealous, meanness and the anthropomorphism. 6. If "god" is bigbig, then we are nothing to "god" which explain why "he" and "his secondary-sex-features" ignore our troubles and prayers. 7. The ONLY thing that is, really, in all places at all times, not human, ruthless and kind, and in another dimension is: MATH. So, really the only proof that i see is that "god" is: ghosts or Math
Sagey says2014-01-30T00:40:05.6367658-06:00
@ Janetsanders, proving a negative is logically Impossible, you should know that if you ever did Philosophy, though I covered that in Science. Nobody in existence can prove a negative assumption. So since proving a negative is impossible, the next best approach is to work on Probability. A history on no positives makes the assumption of a negative more likely. When tested rationally and prodded and poked for centuries without any positive results, and many millions of tests had been taken into account. Then no positives in all that time: Defines the Negative as the Most Likely Condition. Thus rationally the Negative (No God) is the most probable and thus truthful conclusion. Your circular argumentativeness is just ridiculous.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:44:41.2487899-06:00
Proving a negative is not impossible. That statement itself is a negative. Not even the most advanced atheist philosophers argue this. If you can show something to be a self-contradiction like "There are no married bachelors" "There are no Square circles",etc. Your simply just trying to avoid burden of proof. Philosopher Steven Hales points out that typically one can logically be as confident with the negation of an affirmation. Hales says that if one's standards of certainty leads them to say "there is never 'proof' of non-existence", then they must also say that "there is never 'proof' of existence either".[9] Hales argues that there are many cases where we may be able to prove something does not exist with as much certainty as proving something does exist.[9] Second, I'm not asking you for certainty. I am asking you for knowledge.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T00:46:04.2275602-06:00
Also, Janet, your desperation regarding your pretending is a good example of the repulsive behavior of Christians that makes me stay away from Christians and churches. It's one thing to pretend. It's another to be a pushy, insulting, unlearning jerk about it
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T00:47:20.3539030-06:00
OK, Janet, prove to me that fairies and pixies and leprechans do not exist
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:47:32.2294166-06:00
@dawndawndawn Your argument doesn't logically follow from the premises. You suddenly bring in an emotional argument that doesn't really support itself
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T00:48:54.4591250-06:00
@dawndawndawn I'm sorry if I sounded mean:( I'm really trying to be humble, but Sagey is the one being a bulley and calling Theists irrational and stupid. I am simply asking him to provide evidence for the non existence of God.
Sagey says2014-01-30T01:00:44.0907852-06:00
Well I didn't word it properly, Janetsanders is partially right in that sometimes a negative can be proven, but there is no way to prove something does not exist or proving a negative existential claim. So I'll reword it. Nobody can logically prove that anything does not exist. Especially if the subject being proven to non-exist is an entirely Subjective character, like a God or Ghost. Since there is no knowledge on how to detect either subjective entities. Infra-red. Motion cameras? There are no devised techniques for such detection in the Bible. We can prove no wild panthers exist in a forest by searching the entire forest in a human chain fashion. But we cannot do that for detecting Gods nor Ghosts or any other subjective concept. Though if a God existed and interfered withe laws of nature/science to communicate with humans (as it would have to do) then we have never detected any such interference. So the laws of Probability still apply. Using the laws of Probability, God cannot exist! To prove non-existent of subjective entities is Impossible. We cannot prove Leprechauns don't exist. We can only hypothesize the they don't exist. The same way we hypothesize that God does not exist.
Sagey says2014-01-30T01:12:06.4204154-06:00
The proof that wild panthers don't exist in a forest by chain searching is not logical proof it is practical or proof by testing, logically we could not prove a panther doesn't exist in the forest. Some claim to have photos of panthers in the forest near here, though nobody has ever been attacked by one. Though some photos are more likely feral cats, not panthers. The stories still go on, because nobody can prove they don't exist and the forest is way too large for such a search as I described before. Traps and hidden, motion detecting cameras have not found any, but, that won't stop the mythology. Since nobody has proven they don't exist in the forest, people still believe they are there. Those people are like Janetsanders. I know that there are no Panthers in the forest, I've searched and camped there often, Infra-red sensors have never found any, nor picked up by Helicopters with infra-red cameras that can pick possums in a tree from half a kilometer away. They've been all over the region checking for camp fires left unattended. The only wild animals sighted by these choppers have been feral cats, pigs and dogs, with a lot of possums and small rats/mice along with owls and many birds. No Panthers. I tend to believe in what evidence has presented, so far. No panthers and no god.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T01:18:14.1374438-06:00
@Sagey That's not entireley true. Your still saying we can't prove the non-existence of something. However, that is false. We prove the non-existence of things all the times. There is no Santa Clause. There are no Unicorns. There are no married bachelors,etc. It is true that proving a negative is hard to do because there aren't many ways to do it, but there are still few ways to prove the non-existence of something. All you would have to do is show how something is a contradiction in order for it to not exist. Or you would have to show how it would be false. Stephen Law is an atheist philospher and he agrees. Here is the link to his article: Sagey, I want to apologize for getting off the wrong foot. I hope you can forgive me. I let my emotions override my thinking. The same with Dawndawndawn.
Sagey says2014-01-30T01:21:43.4480106-06:00
The other evidence against black panthers being in the forest is the origins story is wrong, thy claim a panther escaped from a circus passing by. Yet there never was an circuses in this region that had panthers, we checked with the only two circuses that tour this region, none of them ever recall having panthers. The same can be said of the Bible origins story (Genesis) the book of Genesis is so ludicrously Wrong, that it could not have originated from a Omniscient being. So the same reasoning applies for God as for the Panthers. Origins are flawed, thus the stories are Fraudulent. Neither the Panther, nor God Exist.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T01:22:36.0057582-06:00
Do you forgive me Sagey?
Sagey says2014-01-30T01:25:41.8221226-06:00
Wrong Janetsanders, where is your proof that unicorns do not exist? Where is your proof that Leprechauns do not exist? Remember, just saying that they do not exist because the original writings came from the hand of a story teller is not proof, since the story teller may have actually sighted one. So such is not proof. If you call that proof, then God does not exist, because he too originated from a Story Teller. These are subjective, not objective. There is no objective evidence that there are no Unicorns. There is just no objective evidence supporting their existence. There is a difference. Evidently the difference escapes you Irrationality.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T01:26:37.2636096-06:00
Did you read the article I sent you where it talks about it?
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T01:33:33.5958307-06:00
Janet, sending me numerous friend requests when you have been declined makes you a real weirdo
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T01:34:38.1929461-06:00
Janet, theists ARE irrational because the do not use rational thought and the are stupid to insist on pretending and being jerks about it much of the time
Sagey says2014-01-30T01:34:50.7689978-06:00
We are fairly certain Unicorns, Leprechauns and Santa Clause don't exist, because, apart from some being created by story tellers, like Abraham's God, there is no Objective Evidence for their existence, in exactly the same way that there is no objective evidence for God's existence. So my saying there is No God is exactly the Same as my saying there is No Santa, or No Leprechauns. The decision is based on exactly the same grounds. All created by story tellers, all have no Objective Support. God is essentially no different to Santa Claus. Same origins, same objective evidences.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-30T01:35:18.9745210-06:00
Janet, provide me with evidence of non-existent fairies
Sagey says2014-01-30T01:45:47.9670486-06:00
I read that article Janetsanders and it still supports my concepts, though I admit I should restate that My Disbelief in God comes not from Absolute Proof, but from the term Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt. To get it more accurate. The accumulated, Lack of Evidence for a God billions of people have believed in and been searching for in the last few thousand years has yielded so little evidence that it can be concluded in a court of Law, that the non-existence of God conclusion is a Conclusion Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Okay: Get It Now!
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T01:48:43.3856729-06:00
@dawndawndawn Fariries were written as a genre for story tell and not history. They were meant to be a product of story tell and folklore in Europe. That doesn't mean though that the supernatural doesn't exist. Second I don't think it's kind of you or nice of you to call me irrational, for simply being a Christian Theist. I would understand if you said my belief was irrational, but your saying that Theists in general are irrational because they're theists. I never once said that you or Sagey were irrational because you're atheists. That pre-supposes that in order to be intelligent, one has to be an atheist. There are many great Theists of the past and present who are rational and intelligent. C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Isaac Newton, Francis Schaffer, Alvin Plantiga,etc. I believe you and Sagey are rational thinkers and educated, but I don't agree that atheism is rational.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-30T01:51:03.3447350-06:00
@Sagey it supports my concepts because Stephen Law gave Positive reasons or evidence for the non-existence of something. He didn't say Unicorns don't exist because of a lack of evidence, but because of evidence against the existence of Unicorns. In order to prove the non-existence of something all you have to do is give positive arguments or reasons for something not-existing.
Sagey says2014-01-30T05:59:46.6179778-06:00
Arguments without evidence is Subjectivity. So there is no proof, just arguments, a play on Semantics. Semantics, arguments, are not proof, they are subjective. Real proof needs to be Objective. | | Nothing in religious thinking or scripture is Objective, it is all Subjective. >>A list of Subjective Elements: Philosophy, Theology, Semantics, Logic. >>A list of subjective evidence: Hearsay, Semantics, Anecdote, Memories, I Think, I Believe. >>Objective Elements: Retrievable, Observable Objects or Physical evidence, Replicated Corroborative Experimental Data, non-tampered Videotaped Evidence. Trace Evidence-Fingerprints/DNA/Blood, Written Evidence from The Actual Person In Question. None of the Objective Evidence is available in that Blog, nor in your concepts. All you are supporting and throwing at me is Subjective nonsense and pretending it is evidence. When it is not. Even that Blog states that nobody can definitely prove the non-existence of anything, unless it is physically provable, like there is a Unicorn in the workshop, by checking the workshop. All the proof available is subjective, which as stated, is not definite proof, it is only a case of, well as far as we are concerned, it doesn't exist So the best we can determine is subjective concern that something does not exist. Just as my consideration of the non-existence of God is also subjective. So, My Disbelief In god Is A Subjective Decision I Made, Based On The Lack Of Objective Evidence For god. That is all it is!?! That is all it Needs To Be!
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-31T00:44:55.2626065-06:00
Janet, it is irrational, rude, and weird for you to insist on sending me multiple friend requests. So, yes. You're irrational. Theism IS, by it's very nature, irrational. Theism requires that it's adherents do not use rational thought, that they follow without thought or questions. If you think that atheists are irrational, then, you are telling us that we should pretend. There is no mental glory in that. You're making it toooooo easy to call you "irrational". I did not call you, "stupid" or "ugly" or "dumb" or "useless". PS. In the last 30 years, human knowledge has surpassed the previous sum total of human knowledge. So, giving examples of "smart" theists from the past, a past where they were NEVER allowed to be unchurchy is, mentally UNimpressive and not worth your typing.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-31T00:47:40.1890633-06:00
Janet, I am not kidding. DO NOT send ANY more friend requests to me. I am not here to find friends. I was not looking to be your friend and NOW, that you have been a stalky weirdo, I SERIOUSLY will never be your friend
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:00:48.0696815-06:00
@dawndawndawn I thought I only sent you one friend request. Must be a glitch? And no, I'm not a stalky weirdo. Second, you were saying that me as a person am "Irrational" because I'm a Theist. That's ad-hominem, and quite frankly doesn't disprove Theism mam or sir or whoever you are. Your calling Philosophers and Theists with Phd.S and IQ's higher than yours or mine "Irrational". Pssht Wake up to reality and get a life! Where's your degree? Where's your PHD? Who do you think you are? LITTLE MISS OR MR. KNOW IT ALL. You know it's people like you that give atheists a bad name. Your one of those militant types like Richard Dawkins who is close-minded and not even open to evidence or facts. That's Hypocrisy. So before you judge me, look in the mirror and judge yourself because your a Hypocrite, plain and simple. YOu PHARISEE! Your just like the Pharisees in JEsus day. They were highly educated and knew the LAW. But their hearts were so so so far from God. In fact they denied the one true God who came down and died for their sin and the world's sin to his face! Third, I don't think Atheists are Irrational People. I think very highly of atheists as rational thinkers. I just find their POSITION irrational, but not them as a people. Fourth I think I'm going to block you and or report you for insulting me and misrepresenting me.
yay842 says2014-01-31T01:01:34.3298572-06:00
"Is God Real?" all over again
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-31T01:02:40.9854112-06:00
I got four friend requests from you. I've never blocked any one, any where, ever. I blocked you. I am willing to believe that it might be a glitch. I do not want to know why you ever sent one to begin with. Do not send any more.
yay842 says2014-01-31T01:03:49.2332056-06:00
This is the "Is God Real?" all over again
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:05:48.6206206-06:00
I won't and I already reported you. I bet you don't want to be friends because I am a Christian. You don't like Religious people. I bet you talk down on them and mock them and ridicule them. You Hypocrite! You want to free the world of religion and establish peace, but your not willing to respect someone who is not an atheist. You Hypocrite! I hope you know Christ someday.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:09:17.7824150-06:00
You know what dawndawndawn, I'm sorry I got mad at you, and you know what. I forgive you for what you said. I hope you can forgive me of my rant, but you really got me upset with your words.
dawndawndawndawn says2014-01-31T01:12:42.5805278-06:00
Janet, if you are use irrational ideas to eat or dress or like a house, that isn't your bottom line. Religion IS used as a bottom line in theists. You-all hold religion closest. That is what makes theists irrational. PS. Don't makes christians look dumb by using, "your" when you KNOW that you mean, "you're". Think of how the lives of people in the past were lived. They had no way to opt out of religion without serious hate or worse. You do not know my schooling. So, please, don't make christians look dumb by guessing and guessing wrong. It's pretty sad to type that I should wake up to reality when you are on the side of pretending in this. There is no evidence that god is real. So, I AM operating on evidence being not there and facts being there. There is nothing hypocritical about seeing no proof and deciding to not pretend. Name-calling is not making you, or christians, look smart or, well, christian. In the time of Jesus, THE MOST educated people thought that Earth is flat. So, offering them up as brilliant is not your best choice. If you find that people who want real proof and are given nothing close to real proof, lacking in rational thinking and you think that it would be rational for us to pretend that a mean old man lives in the sky, you might want to do a word-study for the words, "rational" and "pretend".
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:18:10.3387053-06:00
But your using Ad-hominem to try and disprove Theism. So instead of attacking theistic arguements. You attack me because I'm a Theist. Quite frankly that's childish and uncalled for. Is that what you militant atheists are all about? Just trying to get your sick kicks by making fun of theists instead of actually having a rational, respectful, conversation? I know many atheists on here and in person who would be upset with people like you. You haven't shown how Theism is irrational, so I would like to hear
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:22:38.4865407-06:00
Sagey says2014-01-31T01:34:05.4185766-06:00
@ Janetsanders, Dawn only attacks those who beg to be attacked by making comments that anybody with an IQ over 20 can see as Irrational. I used to be worse than that, as I've mellowed with age. Though, sometimes Janet tempts me to return to my old Super Nasty Sagey Ways. Compared to what I used to be, Dawn is an Angel. But then again Angels don't exist. :-D~ It's got nothing to do with proving Theism. It is to do with attacking those who make absolutely no rational sense. Regardless of what they are trying to support with their nonsense. If an Atheist posted such Irrational nonsense, I'd attack him/her as well. It's all about attacking those who fail to use their brains to Think Properly. All we want is for you to make some kind of rational sense. If you supported your Theistic views with real, sensible, rational, well thought replies. We would not attack you at all, in fact we'd commend you for making us aware of some sensible arguments for Theism. I have many theistic friends who are completely rational and their reasons for their beliefs make perfect sense. I respect them for that. If you made sensible, rational comments and pushed sensible concepts, I'd show you respect as well. Though I cannot speak for Dawn.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:36:33.7045830-06:00
So it's about attacking someone's character, rather than their arguements? Because that's what you 2 are doing to me. Sagey, I know you hate me, but I don't hate you or dawndawndawn.
Sagey says2014-01-31T01:39:46.7776753-06:00
No Janetsanders: You are wrong there, I don't hate anybody in this world, even you. All I want you to do is to make sensible claims, not claims that have been defeated time and time again by every skeptical, rational thinker and researcher in the last century. That's all.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T01:41:22.4824483-06:00
Ya'll keep pushing that I'm making irrational claims. What are these irrational arguements? And what makes a Theist rational?
Sagey says2014-01-31T02:00:35.9334760-06:00
Your claims of objective evidence was all subjective, nothing objective existed in any of them. That's what I mean by Irrational. Making claims of objectivity when no objectivity can be found. Words on paper, claims of Judaic tradition, claims of sightings are all subjective, because they came from others words on parchment or paper. Objective evidence is tangible evidence, or that which can be shown to confirm the objective by touch, sight or hearing by anybody wanting to view it. Words describing things by witnesses or second hand writers such as Josephus etc.. Are all Subjective Evidence. Inferences of complying with Judaic tradition by the Romans is Subjective. The only objective evidence for a resurrection would be a video recording of the event, but since video recordings can be tampered with or it could be a magician's act, even such evidence would not be absolute proof. That is what is meant by Objective evidence. Jesus's DNA would be objective evidence. A drawing of the event by a contemporary eye-witness would also be considered as objective evidence. As then we would have some idea of what Jesus actually looked like. We know he didn't resemble many of the images produced by believers fantasies as seen in churches, etc. They are all breaking the Bible law by adhering to the idolizing of false Images. Real Christians would get rid of all the fake effigies of Jesus and Mary. None of them or truthful representations. Same goes for Objective Morality. Theists have a weird, irrational concept of the word Objective. Their concept is extremely delusional, because such objectivity cannot possibly exist in the real world. Many species follow the basic laws of group cohesion, as they needed to for survival, in the same way cavemen applied the basic tenets of group cohesion for their survival against a world full of predators and rival hominids. That is how the commandments and the golden rule were developed. Not from some sky daddy.
janetsanders733 says2014-01-31T02:02:55.8501980-06:00
Subjective according to who? These have all been proven objectively by Religious and non-religious people, including your fellow atheists.
Sagey says2014-01-31T02:19:16.3741876-06:00
Well then, you will have to explain what is objective (tangible) within those evidences, because nobody here can spot any objective evidences in them. Remember that Tacitus and Josephus's writings are all entirely subjective (hearsay) and the same goes for Saul/Paul, who described the empty tomb, from hand-me-down or Hearsay (Subjective) evidence. Anecdotal evidence is also subjective. Subjective means anything that can be altered by the mind of the person carrying the information. All anecdotes are therefore subjective. Thus the stories from Disciples even a week after the event can be considered Subjective, because details will change in that time. If the information was recorded the same hour or day after, it would be more Objective. Objectivity fades with time, like it becomes subjective even a few weeks after the event. The Gospels were written 25 to 100 years after the event, in many cases the disciples were already dead, so the information in the Gospels are more likely third hand, so they are extremely subjective. Nothing Objective exists in the Gospels. They were written by ancient Greek speaking people. The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speaking people. There would also be a loss of clarity, details and emphasis in the translation. Making the Gospels even more subjective in nature. Again: Where is your Objective Evidences? And What Makes Hearsay Objective? Because all the evidence for the life and deeds of Jesus, including the Crucifixion and Resurrection is Hearsay. It is impossible to make Hearsay Evidence, Objective in any Way, Shape, or Form. That's the Rational Look At IT. Considering Hearsay as Objective Evidence is Extremely Irrational. I don't care whether they be Theists, Atheists or Martians. All people considering Hearsay as Objective, haven't a Rational brain in their heads.
Sagey says2014-01-31T02:30:18.2148298-06:00
Here is the only way Hearsay can be objective (less distortion or contamination by the mind). Person A is watching an event and relays directly to person B who records it onto paper as Person A speaks. This is the only possible way that second hand information can be considered as objective. Though there is still distortion: The sources of distortion are: 1: Person B may have not understood every word spoken by person A, so ad-libs or guesses a few words. 2: Person B may have a different concept of what Person A is describing and puts his own interpretation of the events onto paper instead of the actual words. 3: Person B may have a different first language to Person A, so is writing a Translation (translation Errors) of Person A's descriptions. So you see, even direct recording in real time from the descriptions of a witness can also have some subjectivity. The only true objective evidence would be the witness recording the event in writing as it occurred. None of these apply to the Bible. The writings in the Bible suffer Gross distortion, so they are completely Subjective. No rational, Bible Scholar ever claims there is Objectivity in the Bible. That is completely Impossible.
Sagey says2014-01-31T02:51:49.1506700-06:00
You see: I majored in Communication Theory. Anything that can be distorted by a person's hearing, lack of attention, mental state, misconceptions or preconceptions is considered as entirely Subjective. Objective Evidence should not have any such Distortion, it must be as real as possible for all time. As it must appear to people today, just as it did the first time it was noticed or recorded. That is what objectivity is all about. Clarity. Writings change meaning as language changes. What Josephus wrote would be viewed entirely differently by people in his age as it is by people today. Thus these writings alter with the reader or suffer translation distortion/errors, thus they are Subjective. Get it now! A cubic Rock is Objective, because it may be described in different languages and different ways, but it is tangible and appears the same to caveman as it does to modern citizens, even though the languages have changed. Objective Evidence must be ageless and not depend on interpretations or translation of words. It must appear the same to us as it did to the originator. Thus a drawing of the crucifixion of Jesus is objective, because regardless of a person's language, the image would appear the same. A letter by a disciple describing the event at the time is less objective, because it will alter with language and translation. So there are degrees of objectivity. Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci is objective evidence of Leonardo, because it depicts how he saw the woman and another drawing of the same woman by another artist would be recognizable. In the same way that the distorted face of the woman in Picasso's famous painting was objective, since a child viewing the painting actually recognized the model who was also in the gallery. The depiction of the woman's features were accurate or objective even though it was somewhat distorted. So Objectivity also translates to Accuracy.
Neopatriarch says2014-02-08T20:28:45.7823213-06:00
Religious beliefs regard something or other as having the status of divinity, that is, something is regarded as that nondependent reality on which everything else depends. So, although something like materialism, which does not consider the material world a deity, still gives the material world the *status* of divinity in that it regards it as that nondependent reality on which everything depends. Observe how many materialists claim that everything is explainable, at least in principle, in terms of physics. All scientific explanations must derive from and relate to the physical world. Hence, materialism is a religion.
Sagey says2014-02-09T01:15:45.5480713-06:00
@ Neo: Completely wrong! Our perceptions only are dependent on Physics, because we cannot see beyond what we can detect. Some believe dark matter is what everything in the universe depends on, different materialists cite different dependencies. Our view of the material world is somewhat an illusion which is based on our frame of reference. Most rationalists understand this and realize that the material world we perceive is a product of the forces that formed our universe, and many other universes now appear very likely. Materialists don't bestow divinity on any particular set of forces, because materialists don't really know what forces were there to initiate the Universe, Big Bang or otherwise. Though Creationists and Theists don't know either, yet they naively bestow divinity on an entity that they cannot even show exists and claim to know this divinity exists. At least materialists are quite happy to admit they don't know (as Nye often admitted in his debate with the Hamster) and are thus a thousand times more Honest than The Theists who claim to know what they certainly do not know. Theists that assert God did it, are actually Liars! Because they are asserting what they could not possibly know to be true, without any evidence! That's Fraudulent and Lying!
miles-pro-libertate says2014-02-14T15:12:25.3405096-06:00
Why do some atheists claim to be the rational ones when they beat down on religion and try to destroy the beliefs of theists? It does not make sense to me. When I'm thinking logically and rationally, I usually consider it a bad idea to bash other people for no reason.
Sagey says2014-02-14T17:15:40.3146725-06:00
@ Miles: I'm really not about attacking personally held beliefs so much as attacking institutionalized religion, you know, the ones that make a habit of indoctrinating (contaminating mindware of) children so that their business (church) is profitable for the future. Established religion has never truly been about belief but profit. Thus their child abuse (indoctrination) is all about ensuring survival of the establishment, not the survival of Belief. People can believe and worship in groups without requiring a business model hierarchy. I'm all for individuals believing in what they want to believe. But, the business model with it's nasties (proselytizing and Indoctrination practices) needs to be destroyed. Their documentation which fuels their horrid and unsubstantiated doctrines (Bible/Koran) need to be done away with. I'm not saying people cannot worship the God of Abraham or the teachings of Jesus or Muhammad, but these should be private beliefs, not the domain of any business hierarchical church model. Just like Atheism in the Secular world, it disappears. Sociologists have noted that while a nation is religious, Atheists are visible and actively organized, once a nation becomes secular, the atheist organizations disappear, they just return to being complete individuals who ignore others personal belief systems. In a secular nation, atheists no longer attack religions nor personal beliefs. They are only visible in the US while it stupidly attempts to be a naive Christian Nation, which is philosophically ridiculous. Once the US becomes as the Founding Fathers Envisioned, "A Secular Nation", Atheism and attacks on religious belief will vanish as it has done in all other fully secular societies, then everybody will be free to believe in whatever belief system they chose, without any attacks.
miles-pro-libertate says2014-02-14T17:23:37.9083787-06:00
Okay, I understand. It just seems sometimes like the intolerance is more prevalent than desire for tolerance. I believe our country should not be based on any specific religion, but on religious tolerance. That is what I think the Founders meant for it. I am not sure that religion is institutionalized as some claim, although many fundamentalists want it to be. My main concern when I posted my comment is people attacking theists' beliefs; telling them that they should not have their beliefs because their beliefs are not based on science alone. I was making a general statement about many of the comments here, and not a specific commenter. Thank you for discussing it civilly.
Sagey says2014-02-14T18:47:06.0478049-06:00
I do attack those that try and push the Bible as historically supported, such as Jesus really performed miracles and that he was really resurrected. Fact there is that there is no historical support by evidence for any of the deeds of Jesus Christ. Belief in Jesus is purely subjective, you can believe that he was a great person and his humanistic values that he taught are worthy of following, that is great, I have no argument with this, as I too wish everybody would adopt humanistic attitudes, regardless of which hero they got them from: Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Buddha, Krishna, Nelson Mandela or any other great person in history that promoted Humanist philosophies. But to say that Jesus is truly the Son of God and his divinity has been historically proven, thus everybody should believe and worship Jesus, is a position that is Extremely False and Worthy of Attacking Vehemently. I attack such idiots with Gusto.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-03-05T10:00:48.8053678-06:00
Sagey, there's no proof that you exist, or that I do, or that anything exists at all, or if the whole world is inexistent and we are all thought processors in the matrix awaiting our deaths to be turned into batteries for robots on the outside world.
Sagey says2014-03-05T15:05:49.8734475-06:00
True RebelRebel, I don't exist, so while I don't exist, I'll make as much use of my non-existence as it is possible! :-D~
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-03-11T20:54:58.9458717-05:00
Please do so
Sagey says2014-03-11T22:51:22.9857334-05:00
Welll, here I am, again, making use of my non-existence to post on DDO. Funny how there is more tangible evidence for Socrates than for Jesus Christ. Because most leaders, even 300 years before Jesus Christ had busts and drawings made of them so people could recognize what they looked like. No such drawings nor bust exist for Jesus until the over 100 years after his death, so there is nothing tangible that actually depicts what Jesus looked like. All there is to go on is vague, worthless descriptions in the Gospels that were not written by people who actually saw Jesus in person. Saul's imaginary Jesus, possibly looked nothing like him either. Had there been a drawing of him in his life time, then there would be evidence for him. It's wonderful not existing!?!
Sagey says2014-03-11T23:04:31.8796565-05:00
Though it is funny how a person of Judaic decent, who are mostly brown skinned has been for centuries depicted as white and the same goes for the fake pictures and effigies of Jesus and Mary. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus http://truthbook.Com/urantia/faq/paintings-of-jesus http://www.Israelite.Net/image.Htm http://www.Religionfacts.Com/jesus/image_gallery.Htm http://www.Dailymail.Co.Uk/news/article-1372741/Hidden-cave-First-portrait-Jesus-1-70-ancient-books.Html There is no definite evidence of how Jesus looked, the shroud of Turin was never confirmed as being from Jesus, and it may have been his loin cloth and what is considered as his face may not actually be his face, but a not so recognizable part of his anatomy. :-D~
derplington says2014-06-09T13:06:53.4233591-05:00
Three words... God's Not Dead!
PreferNotToBeLabeled says2014-06-09T14:41:58.6394524-05:00
To be dead you had to of existed lol
bigthinker says2014-06-20T00:48:51.6541484-05:00
Science and Religion coincide. Without Religion science can't explain a vast majority of things and without science we cannot truly appreciate nor understand the wonders of God
derplington says2014-06-20T00:54:54.1830609-05:00
Evil lol all you want prefernotobelabeled, but God saw that comment.
derplington says2014-06-20T00:56:26.8548444-05:00
Good thing he's not dead prefernottobelabeled...
Sagey says2014-06-20T00:57:29.7567634-05:00
Science has never needed religion to explain anything, the explanations religion offer are nearly always Wrong. Science is observations and evidence teaching humans what they mean. Religion is having a meaning and making observations and evidence fit that meaning. Thus in Science, we don't know the outcome and the evidence will provide the answer, the outcome must fit the evidence. In religion the evidence must fit the Scripture or else the evidence is wrong. Preconceived conclusions and outcomes are not science. Religion can never be scientific, it starts at the wrong end of the logic, Science is Inductive with the premises forming the conclusion where religion is deductive with the premises being altered to fit the religion.
derplington says2014-07-05T23:08:12.6614870-05:00
I don't even feel like scrolling to the bottom of this.
derplington says2014-07-05T23:15:34.0805302-05:00
I did anyway so.... The only reason you think science has anything right is because of threatened live in. When people say they don't think that religion makes sense I the modern era, it basically means that had to conform to "the next big thing". I'm a Christian, but when Christianity took over, people conformed to it, even though it started so small. People's beliefs provide what they want to believe in that era, or the thing that seems to make the most since. I'm not saying Christianity isn't true, I'm saying that it clicked with that era, and that is why it is so huge. Same thing with modern atheism, it clicked with what modern science had to say, and that is why it is growing.
Sagey says2014-07-05T23:22:40.7093302-05:00
Yes derplington , people did not have the knowledge nor technology to help them understand Nature in past eras. Now we have the capability to better understand what Nature is telling us about reality, we are able to listen. Nature Rules. Well our ability to understand Nature, through Science Rules. Reality is Nature, Science is about listening to what Nature has to say about Reality. Something those living in the Pagan and Christians era did not have, we now have a better way to interpret Reality so we should take notice of what Reality has to say about Humans and our precarious place in the Universe.
1313socialist says2014-10-19T15:28:58.2406610-05:00
The renaissance and the scientific revolution started pushing religion out of the way. But it wasnt until the last century where science, philosophy, psychology, ethics) lost their need for a god.
AnonymousAthiest says2014-11-05T12:30:19.7412226-06:00
@rebelrebeldixiedixie (union won the war, get the f#%k over it), how do you know that this is true? How do you know that the bible is true? Science is based on observations and rational thinking. Religion I blind guessing. @ janetsanders. It already has!!!
ES4321 says2015-04-15T08:42:48.2908549-05:00
Religion is not just something made up to control the masses but an intelligent reason to believe that humans have a purpose to live on this Earth for, and that morality is something clearly defined, like murder being wrong. If you think that you are morally right, call your mom and ask her if she thinks you morally right.
brahmeek says2015-09-07T22:06:52.3229446Z
Where I'm at the usa you can believe what you want and you do not have to follow what everybody else does so it is your choice
LittleBallofHATE says2016-03-08T04:24:26.8977193Z
Isn't it interesting, that so many people are trying to prove that God doesn't exist? Kinda leads one to believe that there just might really be a devil. And if there is a devil, there is most certainly a God.
LittleBallofHATE says2016-03-08T04:25:50.9967220Z
Isn't it interesting, that so many people are trying to prove that God doesn't exist? Kinda leads one to believe that there just might really be a devil. And if there is a devil, there is most certainly a God.
The-Holy-Macrel says2016-03-29T18:08:27.6581944Z
Who wants to go? Anyone wanna go? Huh! (debate XD)
AlwaysRight12345 says2016-04-06T16:09:28.5860263Z
@miles-pro-liberate, the dictionary definition of religion is the belief in an omniscient power, meaning that those who don't believe in God are nonreligious.
mgm5790 says2017-06-07T08:28:19.4894704Z
*increase in atheism I meant.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.