Support NeoGAF

[Chinner]

if atheists are so smart then explain how jesus turned water into wine.

 

[Raist]

if atheists are so smart then explain how jesus turned water into wine.

http://www.homewinery.com/cgi-bin/concen.cgi

 

[jaxword]

The argument is silly, yes. But to imply that Mao's responsibility for the death of all those people had nothing to do with religion is also.



Yes I know it wasn't because he was atheist. This argument is ridiculous.

Bulbo Urethral Baggins didn't read the thread, because Mao's Cult Of Personality was already discussed as blatantly religious in its design.

If anything, Mao was MORE RELIGIOUS than most religious people are. He set HIMSELF up as the savior, and used religious brainwashing and indoctrination techniques to make the people BELIEVE everything he said and did.



The best thing that can come out of these threads is that you can determine who is willing to lie and spread false information to further their religious beliefs, and can subsequently call them out on it. That's really the only thing that can be done--you won't convince them, but you can discredit them.

 

[ruttyboy]

So if Stalin and Mao were religious then none of the bad stuff would have happened? Is that where people are really going with this?

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

He set HIMSELF up as the savior, and used religious brainwashing and indoctrination techniques to make the people BELIEVE everything he said and did.

Yes very very religious in nature. Mao killed non believers probably more adamently than any other religion, doesn't he get a super reward in the heaven he made up?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Bulbo Urethral Baggins didn't read the thread, because Mao's Cult Of Personality was already discussed as blatantly religious in its design.

If anything, Mao was MORE RELIGIOUS than most religious people are. He set HIMSELF up as the savior, and used religious brainwashing and indoctrination techniques to make the people BELIEVE everything he said and did.



The best thing that can come out of these threads is that you can determine who is willing to lie and spread false information to further their religious beliefs, and can subsequently call them out on it. That's really the only thing that can be done--you won't convince them, but you can discredit them.

Are you for real? The lengths people will go to try to smear "religion" is downright hilarious. So, Mao was slaughtering millions to create a self-based religion? Or... are you saying his persecution and destruction of religion created a void that was replaced by another type of religion? A sort of persecution complex where the people began worshiping him in place of their abandoned religion? Is that what you are saying? If so, that's quite a stretch. And what does that say about mankind then? That we can't eliminate religion no matter how hard we try?
I don't believe in god btw. If I had to classify myself I'd call myself an agnostic atheist.
The reason I entered this thread was to call out the idiocy in a post that no one else seemed to have a problem with - the implication that only religious people start wars, murder and torture. Funny how I was the only one here who had a problem with that.
....But I guess Mao was creating a religion now. Lol. That's a funny little twist.

 

[travisbickle]

if atheists are so smart then explain how jesus turned water into wine.

because it's a piece of written fiction.

 

[Bisnic]

because it's a piece of written fiction.

Or maybe the people who wrote the bible were drunk and thought the wine was water for a moment.

Who knows, it happened ~2000 years ago.

 

[ruttyboy]

Are you for real? The lengths people will go to try to smear "religion" is downright hilarious. So, Mao was slaughtering millions to create a self-based religion? Or... are you saying his persecution and destruction of religion created a void that was replaced by another type of religion? A sort of persecution complex where the people began worshiping him in place of their abandoned religion? Is that what you are saying? If so, that's quite a stretch. And what does that say about mankind then? That we can't eliminate religion no matter how hard we try?
I don't believe in god btw. If I had to classify myself I'd call myself an agnostic atheist.
The reason I entered this thread was to call out the idiocy in a post that no one else seemed to have a problem with - the implication that only religious people start wars, murder and torture. Funny how I was the only one here who had a problem with that.
....But I guess Mao was creating a religion now. Lol. That's a funny little twist.

Erm, religion has always been about population control, that's arguably it's primary purpose, so yeah, that's what actually happened. It's not like that's controversial or anything, you are the first person I've ever seen deny it.

 

[Divvy]

Are you for real? The lengths people will go to try to smear "religion" is downright hilarious. So, Mao was slaughtering millions to create a self-based religion? Or... are you saying his persecution and destruction of religion created a void that was replaced by another type of religion? A sort of persecution complex where the people began worshiping him in place of their abandoned religion? Is that what you are saying? If so, that's quite a stretch. And what does that say about mankind then? That we can't eliminate religion no matter how hard we try?
I don't believe in god btw. If I had to classify myself I'd call myself an agnostic atheist.
The reason I entered this thread was to call out the idiocy in a post that no one else seemed to have a problem with - the implication that only religious people start wars, murder and torture. Funny how I was the only one here who had a problem with that.
....But I guess Mao was creating a religion now. Lol. That's a funny little twist.

Well just because you find it hilarious for some reason doesn't negate it's accuracy. Also, this thread is littered with people stating that some people are dicks, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

 

[plasticpassion]

I accept those two things. The only conclusion I can muster up, right now, is that this question about existence I am asking is not leaving me satisfied and kind of pissing me off...and I shouldn't be feeling this way. I have better things to do. I should be happy like anyone else...we can either be happy or sad and I want to be happy...so the only logical thing to do is ignore this question and not think about it, anymore. Cool. It's a question that has no straight answer. *Goes back to studying math where everything makes sense. (so far lol)*

Well, it's a journey for sure. I don't think you should dismiss it with the bitter feeling of the lack of religion causing distress. That's not healthy. Continue exploring how you believe and feel and develop that. It's entirely possible to be happy in religion, but more relevant to this post, outside of it. Outside of it may be a tougher experience initially for those raised Christian because you've shifted your entire worldview, but once you're out man does it feel great.

So just because I believe I am not a grown up? great to know.

I was more so referring to the OP's feelings of having a difficult time accepting change.

 

[Chinner]

because it's a piece of written fiction.

are you suggesting that people who lived in tents in the desert are not as smart as modern-day scientists?

 

[tiff]

Cult of personality is not religion.

 

[Raist]

Cult of personality is not religion.

Replace an supernatural creator of the universe by a human dictator and it's pretty much the same thing.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Cult of personality is not religion.

in its social functions it mostly is

 

[travisbickle]

are you suggesting that people who lived in tents in the desert are not as smart as modern-day scientists?

I'm sayin' it's just made up, innit?

 

[LosDaddie]

:lol
Stalin/Mao are the trumps cards for Culture Warriors in these debates. It won't be taken from them, ever.

 

[Wickwire]

I feel anyone fanatical in their beliefs is bad for the world.

 

[Jintor]

in its social functions it mostly is

ding

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Cult of personality is not religion.

Once divinity and/or supernatural powers are associated with the personality in question (and they often are), it is basically indistinguishable.

 

[Casp0r]

Going with your gut on this one, huh.

Unfortunately, this is a complete lie.

You only have to look at the political clout of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to realize you're completely wrong, and I doubt anyone on the internet could be that media-blind.

Just say what you really mean: You don't like atheists. It's alright if you're being honest.

You possibly can't be serious?
The fuck??
Do you ever come out of your house?
I have never been asked on the street if i heard about Atheism, and if i wan't to convert.
People who bother me about Jesus on the other hand..

FYI this is my personal experience.

I have never been accosted by religious folk that don't like my belief. I have never had my intelligence or my moral certainty attacked by religious folk. That is both in the real world and online.

Pretty much all the Atheists I've met have made it clear that they believe anyone that isn't atheist is mentally deficient and part of the worlds problems.

The only reason I know someone is an atheist is because they bring it up to confront any religious ideals that might leak out in a conversation.

Of course I do realise that my view might be somewhat skewed since I don't like in the bible belt of america. However my point stands. I've found atheists to be far more confrontational and disrepectionful to other peoples beliefs than any religious person I've met, and I've met a lot of Christians.

 

[Raist]

FYI this is my personal experience.

I have never been accosted by religious folk that don't like my belief. I have never had my intelligence or my moral certainty attacked by religious folk. That is both in the real world and online.

Pretty much all the Atheists I've met have made it clear that they believe anyone that isn't atheist is mentally deficient and part of the worlds problems.

The only reason I know someone is an atheist is because they bring it up to confront any religious ideals that might leak out in a conversation.

Of course I do realise that my view might be somewhat skewed since I don't like in the bible belt of america. However my point stands. I've found atheists to be far more confrontational and disrepectionful to other peoples beliefs than any religious person I've met, and I've met a lot of Christians.

So you're saying that you haven't been annoyed by people who believe in the stuff you do, and vice versa? What a surprise.

 

[Jintor]

Of course I do realise that my view might be somewhat skewed since I don't like in the bible belt of america. However my point stands. I've found atheists to be far more confrontational and disrepectionful to other peoples beliefs than any religious person I've met, and I've met a lot of Christians.

I could count the number of athiest evangelists i've run into on-campus on zero hands. The amount of Christians who would love to 'conduct a simple survey on faith and belief' is a different matter. It's different on the internet, of course, which is generally speaking a more hostile environment to matters of faith, but...

Of course there's the other matter that atheism is inherently a 'negative' mindset (in that it's the lack of belief in something) and thus seems comfrontational in most situations.

 

[travisbickle]

disrepectionful

I am using this word from now on.

 

[Jintor]

I'm trying to think of a polite way of saying "I think what you believe in is a self-propogating meme that wraps up some decent moral precepts in a lot of harmful nonsense" without sounding like an asshole. I'm not sure it exists.

 

[MetatronM]

But yeah, I started to stop believing 2 or 3 years ago and one of the coolest reasons to live was taken away from me. :.( But there is still the possibility that there is a mad cool reason why we even exist and maybe some cool stuff does happen when we die.

I've never really understood this sentiment. I mean, yeah, I get the idea of eternal awesomeness and all, but, you know, life can be pretty darn cool.

I'd much rather live thinking about what I'm going to do when I'm alive than worry about what I'm going to do when I'm dead.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

It was cool believing that you could go to Heaven, a sick magical place, just if you were a good person which was easy. Then people became party poopers and said there was no such thing.

ie like it was cool to believe in Santa, Big Foot, the Lockness Monster and all those other magical, mythical creatures that you thought might have existed.

Out of curiosity, what made you stop believing? I mean, with things like Santa, you eventually become old enough to get the scoop that he's not real. With things like Big Foot and Nessy, this information is only really spread by those on the fringe of society. But religion? There's never a point where the pastor/reverend/priest at your church takes you aside and lets you in on the big truth that this is all a lie.

So, how did party poopers ruin it for you? When did you wake up and question your beliefs? Basically, I'm trying to understand where you had that moment where the older bully told you that Santa Claus wasn't real and thus your worldview was shattered. I mean, for me, it was kind of a gradual thing as I got older where more and more with each passing day/week/year, I hated going to church and started to not see the point of it all. Eventually, I let go of the idea that it really had any relevance for me.

But that was more of a journey of self-discovery. I stopped believing because it stopped making sense to me. There really wasn't any big epiphany about it when speaking about myself. As such, I don't necessarily understand the sentiment. Saying "I wish I could believe in something I don't believe in" doesn't really hold water as something to lament, in my humble opinion.

 

[LosDaddie]

I have never been accosted by religious folk that don't like my belief. I have never had my intelligence or my moral certainty attacked by religious folk. That is both in the real world and online.

You must not know any Culture Warriors then.

 

[Red]

The question I have is: does anyone ever actually believe in Santa Claus? I always understood him to be fictional, like Spiderman or the Easter bunny. The idea that

that moment where the older bully told you that Santa Claus wasn't real and thus your worldview was shattered

can exist is strange to me. You see it in movies and stuff, but when does it ever happen in reality?

I was raised Catholic but never really considered myself Catholic in any way. Went to Catholic school until I was a sophomore in high school, but never believed the same things they did -- tried actually to question everything they threw at me, including the necessity for a "religion class," which to me was a total waste of time. I would assume it would be the same for other people. To believe in God is one thing, I can understand the want for a Creator, but all that other stuff? Parting the sea, living inside a whale, turning water into wine? It's all obviously untrue. Much of it is parable, or fiction meant to teach a moral lesson. But it's often skewed by religious folk and turned into some book of absolute truth, which is not and was never intended to be the case.

Even growing up I considered it about as true as a bedtime story. When my parents told me it was all real, that the bible didn't lie, I thought they were joking and carrying on like when asked about things like Santa Claus.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The question I have is: does anyone ever actually believe in Santa Claus? I always understood him to be fictional, like Spiderman or the Easter bunny. The idea that

that moment where the older bully told you that Santa Claus wasn't real and thus your worldview was shattered

can exist is strange to me. You see it in movies and stuff, but when does it ever happen in reality?

I was intentionally using a cliched example, mind you, but I don't know. We're going back to when I was five years old, and there was more of a blur between imagination and reality. I can't really state with confidence what I believed. I'm pretty sure I had some notion that my parents were buying the Christmas presents, but at the same time I was five years old, and I heard tales of Santa Clause. Did I really believe he was a real person? I don't know, but I know I thought he was one cool cat and that the thought of him riding around on flying reindeer was gnarly.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yet, we live in a world where two of the biggest mass murderers/criminals/torturers/killers//abusers in history were not following a religious doctrine.

They were creating their own religions.

 

[Tears For Fears]

Hive mentality, sheep, lunatics, did I cover all of the basics of religion? I mean really, I am an atheist, but I have no problem with humans believing what they want to believe in. As much as I hate humanity, I can at least hear their opinions and thoughts. The only people who are bring the world down are humans themselves from all walks of life. Atheist, religious, gay straight, black,white etc. Doesn't matter their all shit.

 

[Melchiah]

Yet, we live in a world where two of the biggest mass murderers/criminals/torturers/killers//abusers in history were not following a religious doctrine.
And, we get posts like this.

Yeah, those damn atheists, just think about how many wars they started, and how many people they persecuted, tortured and mass murdered. What a bunch of bastards. They'd have a thing or two to learn from the peace loving believers.

Now, how should one respond to such an idiotic religion-bashing post other than to point out that the world's largest mass murders/torturers/abusers/criminals were not religious?

I already answered your post:

Stalin and Mao, perhaps? Ever heard of them?

With this:

Crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, Third Reich, Pol Pot, the Darfur genocide, Jim Jones, David Koresh, 9/11 and muslim terrorists, ever heard of them?

No-one in their right mind can ever argue, that more wrong would have been done in the name of atheism, than in the name of god.

Shouldn't your post about Stalin & Mao be considered "idiotic atheism-bashing" as well? Bearing in mind the thread's title, Anyone think Atheists had a negative impact on the world?, and the fact that Stalin & Mao were already mentioned on the thread's first page, shouldn't those who disagree be allowed to express their opinion, and drop some names and historical events as well?

I wonder why didn't you answer me directly, instead of trying to get others to do it for you? And by the way, opting for the route of insult only harms yourself, and the point you're trying to bring forth.



P.S.

... and who killed the most people.
I agree. Such a pointless argument.

If it's such a pointless argument, why are you constantly using it?

 

[electroshockwave]

The question I have is: does anyone ever actually believe in Santa Claus? I always understood him to be fictional, like Spiderman or the Easter bunny. The idea that
can exist is strange to me. You see it in movies and stuff, but when does it ever happen in reality?

I was raised Catholic but never really considered myself Catholic in any way. Went to Catholic school until I was a sophomore in high school, but never believed the same things they did -- tried actually to question everything they threw at me, including the necessity for a "religion class," which to me was a total waste of time. I would assume it would be the same for other people. To believe in God is one thing, I can understand the want for a Creator, but all that other stuff? Parting the sea, living inside a whale, turning water into wine? It's all obviously untrue. Much of it is parable, or fiction meant to teach a moral lesson. But it's often skewed by religious folk and turned into some book of absolute truth, which is not and was never intended to be the case.

Even growing up I considered it about as true as a bedtime story. When my parents told me it was all real, that the bible didn't lie, I thought they were joking and carrying on like when asked about things like Santa Claus.

Until my brother told me Santa wasn't real I completely believed in him. I had no reason not to as it was all I was told. It didn't shatter my world or anything I just kind of thought "Hmm, I guess that makes sense."

I was raised a Catholic too and went to Catholic schools. I never felt God when I prayed, and I didn't feel the Holy Spirit coming to me when I was confirmed but I didn't doubt his existence because it was all I was told. It was only when I learnt about the transubstantiation in religion class at school that my doubts began to form. God may be beyond our senses but I knew for certain that I wasn't eating the literal flesh of Jesus instead of some flat bread every Sunday. Some stories in the bible were definitely false and didn't match up with what I knew about the world and its history. How could you decide which ones were true and which were false from this unreliable source? What made Catholicism or Christianity right and other religions wrong? So I went with the default assumption that it's all false until proven true.

It seemed like an odd way to think at the time compared to my family and most people apart from some of my friends at school but when I look at religion from an outside perspective and not from within the sort of indoctrination that comes from being told it's true your whole life, atheism just makes sense.

 

[Ben Pierce]

I would like meet the person who first proposed the idea of a god. He is a genius and he found the perfect tool to control the masses.

This thread is ridiculous. It proposes Atheists can have a negative impact on the world? What about Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc...? This fucking thread is an attack against me. As an Atheist, I pride myself on rationality and realistic views of the world and universe. What harm can that cause?! It's an empowering feeling.

I really want to insult you, but I won't. It's unbecoming and uncivil for a forum that encourages intelligent discussion. None of which can be found in this thread. I will say, however, that your view of Atheism is very childish and uninformed.

 

[Divvy]

I would like meet the person who first proposed the idea of a god. He is a genius and he found the perfect tool to control the masses.

This thread is ridiculous. It proposes Atheists can have a negative impact on the world? What about Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc...? This fucking thread is an attack against me. As an Atheist, I pride myself on rationality and realistic views of the world and universe. What harm can that cause?! It's an empowering feeling.

I really want to insult you, but I won't. It's unbecoming and uncivil for a forum that encourages intelligent discussion. None of which can be found in this thread. I will say, however, that your view of Atheism is very childish and uninformed.

Well there is a disparity between what the topic title says and the actual content of the OP. I believe he meant that atheism removes positivity in people's lives and thus makes the world a less positive place, rather than atheists are bad people.

 

[njean777]

If you're getting hung up on the word "logical," try reading it as "based on real-world evidence and inductive reasoning."

I'm not getting hung up on the word at all, logic can and is faulty. There is still no proof he/she (god) is not real. There is no proof that he/she is real either. So logically this debate would stop right there. Neither sides have answered the most important questions to date. to continue this debate would be futile due to the fact neither side is right/wrong.

We still don't know how the universe has come to be, we don't have the missing link in evolution. We don't have the proof of saddom and gmorrah. We dont have anything yet. We can assume all we want but assuming can be faulty and some times when assuming something you can be very wrong.

Also the pope has approved evolution. So it could very well be real, but until they find the missing link we may never know. I believe in it and I'm a Christian. But it's not 100% true until we find that link.

Also this thread would have to have atheist's really look at themselves and judge if atheism has made the world better. Which is hard for people to do. Admitting that your "people" are bad or negative is a hard thing to do for most. I for one will say the church is evil, and I as a Christian do not go to church. I do not have to have a organization tell me if I am serving him right or wrong. I just live my life right and treat people with respect. Just like I think god would want me to do.

 

[Red]

Well there is a disparity between what the topic title says and the actual content of the OP. I believe he meant that atheism removes positivity in people's lives and thus makes the world a less positive place, rather than atheists are bad people.

Atheism is freedom, if anything it should increase hope. Even were God real, someone or something who'd freely allow his creation to suffer for eternity for a few years of a bad life, or who'd wipe out an entire city in anger, is someone who deserves to be rallied against.

There's a substantial difference between Old and New Testament God, though. I actually agree with a good deal of what's taught in the New Testament: understanding, equality, sacrifice. It's not as Big Brother-ish and abandons a totalitarian God.

But then Revelation goes on to make him an asshole again, of course.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I would like meet the person who first proposed the idea of a god. He is a genius and he found the perfect tool to control the masses.

This thread is ridiculous. It proposes Atheists can have a negative impact on the world? What about Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc...? This fucking thread is an attack against me. As an Atheist, I pride myself on rationality and realistic views of the world and universe. What harm can that cause?! It's an empowering feeling.

I really want to insult you, but I won't. It's unbecoming and uncivil for a forum that encourages intelligent discussion. None of which can be found in this thread. I will say, however, that your view of Atheism is very childish and uninformed.

"I won't insult you, but you're an ignoramus"

It's a legitimate question to ask. Although the reason given for asking is insane.

 

[renitou]

I'm not getting hung up on the word at all, logic can and is faulty. There is still no proof he/she (god) is not real. There is no proof that he/she is real either. So logically this debate would stop right there.

Why would you start believing in a god to begin with, except by say of explanation for natural or (seemingly) supernatural phenomena.

If it's not observable or provable, why make the move toward belief? I can observe how gravity works, and witness its manipulation by way of our knowledge of it. I can neither observe or affect "God."

 

[ThisWreckage]

I'm sure a lot of atrocities have been committed in atheism's name, but they're only a drop in the bucket compared to the atrocities that have been committed in the name of God, Allah, etc.

 

[Ben Pierce]

"I won't insult you, but you're an ignoramus"

It's a legitimate question to ask. Although the reason given for asking is insane.

Just simply just showing him the error of his ways; I'm not trying to be demeaning. I thought that was rather reserved.

 

[Red]

Why would you start believing in a god to begin with, except by say of explanation for natural or (seemingly) supernatural phenomena.

If it's not observable or provable, why make the move toward belief? I can observe how gravity works, and witness its manipulation by way of our knowledge of it. I can neither observe or affect "God."

By his logic, Pastafarianism is equally valid. Which I, as an atheist, also agree with.

 

[Divvy]

I'm not getting hung up on the word at all, logic can and is faulty. There is still no proof he/she (god) is not real. There is no proof that he/she is real either. So logically this debate would stop right there. Neither sides have answered the most important questions to date. to continue this debate would be futile due to the fact neither side is right/wrong.

We still don't know how the universe has come to be, we don't have the missing link in evolution. We don't have the proof of saddom and gmorrah. We dont have anything yet. We can assume all we want but assuming can be faulty and some times when assuming something you can be very wrong.

Also the pope has approved evolution. So it could very well be real, but until they find the missing link we may never know. I believe in it and I'm a Christian. But it's not 100% true until we find that link.

But we have found the "missing link", and several other links inbetween:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution

While I do agree that both sides have their pig-headed arguments and that this whole evidence is futile, I don't think it's fair to equate assuming logic and faith. There's a very fundamental difference between the two. Someone who believes in rationality and empirical evidence can certainly have their beliefs and understandings changed. They accept that science can be wrong sometimes, but it is only through the observation of new evidence.

Devout religious people however, cannot have their opinions and beliefs changed because their beliefs are based on faith. There's no amount of evidence you can present that will take that away from them. This is called blind faith and it is why any attempt to argue logically is ultimately futile.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Just simply just showing him the error of his ways; I'm not trying to be demeaning. I thought that was rather reserved.

I know : ) Sometimes it's hard to hold back around here.

 

[Orayn]

I'm not getting hung up on the word at all, logic can and is faulty. There is still no proof he/she (god) is not real. There is no proof that he/she is real either. So logically this debate would stop right there. Neither sides have answered the most important questions to date. to continue this debate would be futile due to the fact neither side is right/wrong.

Speak for yourself, I'd rather know about the existence of magnetic monopoles or the Higgs-boson.

We still don't know how the universe has come to be, we don't have the missing link in evolution. We don't have the proof of saddom and gmorrah. We dont have anything yet. We can assume all we want but assuming can be faulty and some times when assuming something you can be very wrong.

There are a lot of links in evolution. Which one's missing?

Also the pope has approved evolution. So it could very well be real, but until they find the missing link we may never know. I believe in it and I'm a Christian. But it's not 100% true until we find that link.

Nothing in science is 100% true or certain. Every scientific fact is implicitly preceded by "To the best of our knowledge..." Also, what missing link are you talking about?

Also this thread would have to have atheist's really look at themselves and judge if atheism has made the world better. Which is hard for people to do. Admitting that your "people" are bad or negative is a hard thing to do for most. I for one will say the church is evil, and I as a Christian do not go to church. I do not have to have a organization tell me if I am serving him right or wrong. I just live my life right and treat people with respect. Just like I think god would want me to do.

Hey, me too! At least we can agree on that.

 

[njean777]

But we have found the "missing link", and several other links inbetween:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution

While I do agree that both sides have their pig-headed arguments and that this whole evidence is futile, I don't think it's fair to equate assuming logic and faith. There's a very fundamental difference between the two. Someone who believes in rationality and empirical evidence can certainly have their beliefs and understandings changed. They accept that science can be wrong sometimes, but it is only through the observation of new evidence.

Devout religious people however, cannot have their opinions and beliefs changed because their beliefs are based on faith. There's no amount of evidence you can present that will take that away from them. This is called blind faith and it is why any attempt to argue logically is ultimately futile.

The same thing can be said for militant athiests's also. Both sides would be futile to argue with. They would never relent their beliefs. Also interesting post about evolution will read later I'm on my phone.

Also to the other person who quoted me, people will believe what they want. Some people believe in god due to other reasons then faith. You can not tell them they are wrong either because you are then judging them for something they can not explain. The same thing may or may not happen to you.

This whole argument needs to be argued by two reasonable people. With the way this thread is going we have unreasonable atheists defending their choice. Which is fine, but to belittle Christians for their beliefs is not right. And I Wont let christians get off either you doing the same to atheists is wrong also.

 

[Red]

The same thing can be said for militant athiests's also. Both sides would be futile to argue with. They would never relent their beliefs. Also interesting post about evolution will read later I'm on my phone.

Also to the other person who quoted me, people will believe what they want. Some people believe in god due to other reasons then faith. You can not tell them they are wrong either because you are then judging them for something they can not explain. The same thing may or may not happen to you.

If the existence of God were scientifically proven to be true, I don't think anyone would try denying it. And what the heck is a "militant athiest"??

This whole argument needs to be argued by two reasonable people. With the way this thread is going we have unreasonable atheists defending their choice. Which is fine, but to belittle Christians for their beliefs is not right. And I Wont let christians get off either you doing the same to atheists is wrong also.

Faith is by its definition unreasonable, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

 

[Divvy]

The same thing can be said for militant athiests's also. Both sides would be futile to argue with. They would never relent their beliefs. Also interesting post about evolution will read later I'm on my phone.

I don't understand what a militant atheist is. Someone who does not believe religious arguments? Perhaps that is because religious arguments have no basis in science and logic. If definitive scientific evidence of god were presented, then I imagine all atheists would become theists.

 

[Cyan]

I'm not getting hung up on the word at all, logic can and is faulty. There is still no proof he/she (god) is not real. There is no proof that he/she is real either. So logically this debate would stop right there. Neither sides have answered the most important questions to date. to continue this debate would be futile due to the fact neither side is right/wrong.

Logic doesn't go "I'm not absolutely 100% certain, so I'll throw my hands up and call it 50/50." Based on real-world evidence, and inductive reasoning, there is no reason to believe in a deity. That's what atheists mean when they say it's not "logical" to believe. Is that the definition of "logic" you're using?

We still don't know how the universe has come to be, we don't have the missing link in evolution. We don't have the proof of saddom and gmorrah. We dont have anything yet. We can assume all we want but assuming can be faulty and some times when assuming something you can be very wrong.

Also the pope has approved evolution. So it could very well be real, but until they find the missing link we may never know. I believe in it and I'm a Christian. But it's not 100% true until we find that link.

What missing link?

Also this thread would have to have atheist's really look at themselves and judge if atheism has made the world better. Which is hard for people to do. Admitting that your "people" are bad or negative is a hard thing to do for most. I for one will say the church is evil, and I as a Christian do not go to church. I do not have to have a organization tell me if I am serving him right or wrong. I just live my life right and treat people with respect. Just like I think god would want me to do.

But nobody's really done that in this thread. I'd be interested, too, if someone could say "here are the positive and negative results of atheism" and list them out. But instead we get "B-but, Mao! Stalin!" which doesn't really tell us anything about atheism.