Which is, once again, exactly what I said. The EEG results tell us nothing in this argument and that's the point I made by first mentioning it. I'm not sure why we're still on this one.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that atheists don't have an agenda, and that they never use the laws to pursue it?
By "Just as bad", I mean the fact tthat both the atheist and the Christians seem to think that Christianity is the only faith in existence. Every argument you'vgiven me is something trying to debunk Christianity, which has nothing at all to do with the argument. This is akin to me claiming that all science is false and basing my arguments on debunking phrenology or alchemy.
I've already stated this twice in the thread.... The core of any genuine spiritual practice lies in a connection with a pure and loving divine energy. Whether you consider this a collective consciousness, a god, a higher self, nirvana, heaven, or enlightenment isn't that important. Most genuine spiritual practices will also include some general guidlines for living your life such as being kind to others and basic moral and societal values.
Sure, from a fundamentalist staindpoint, your argument makes sense. Once again, you're painting the world black and white, and once again, just as bad as fundamentalist christianity. Christianity has some good messages behind it, but a lot of it comes from a really sideways direction because it has been so affected by politics and agendas over the years. There are some sects of christianity, such as evangelism, that don't fous on anything spiritual at all but rather focus on making other people know that they are going to burn in hell. This is wrong. Some sects focus on morality and being kind to others, and tell you to work on yourself in a spiritual aspect. There is nothing wrong with that because it's a good message.
Whether it's athiest, christian, or muslim, fundamentalism is a bad thing.
Everybody has an agenda. The Christian agenda doesn't pass the equal rights test.
Atheists have zero power in Washington, don't kid yourself.
Why does this matter? I touch on this pretty often too with believers, how is it not obvious to you guys? We (as far as I know, who knows, maybe I'm wrong about this, in which case I think you'd have a pretty valid point, and I'd admit I made an ass out of myself) live in the United States. I live in California, it's regarded as pretty secular, if not the most secular state in the union and still, 90% of the people in my own personal life are CHRISTIAN. Not MUSLIM, not JEWISH, CHRISTIAN. So when I address religious people or religious questions, in my mind, much like guessing on a test, I go with what's the most likely answer, in this case, the default is usually Christian. If I walked around talking about Islam, what do you think would happen? 90% of the people WOULD AGREE WITH ME that it's nuts. Those same people don't see the flaws in Christianity, because that's what they believe. That's where I come in![]()
Don't get me wrong, I think all of them are equally as incorrect, it's just that we live amongst a sea of Christians that don't like to be told they're wrong.
No, one of the core tenets of Christianity is in one form or another "accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness for your sins". Has nothing to do with "divine energy". I've never heard any Christian talk about a "divine energy". Just like MP said, it does sound a lot like new age type language.
I'm curious, what are your actual beliefs karri0n?
I hate the "logic and reason" BS that atheists throw out there. These people are pushing something that hasn't been proven, just as the religious folks are doing. These tag lines are as ridiculous as "pro choice", "pro life", or "patriot act". Nobody is anti life, nobody is anti choice, and there's nothing patriotic about the latter. Please refrain from use of propaganda tag lines in the future.Arguing adamantly for reason and logic is not "atheist fundamentalism".
It's seriously bullshit how people say that type of stuff about what Dawkins does. People like him, and me, and MP, are sitting here saying "lets find the collective truth together, here are our tools, lets test shit, experiment, learn, test again, observe, research, we can do it if we work together", while religious people say "we already have the answers, trust us, we're absolutely positive this is the way existence works, there's no need for science, we already have the answers, that stuff isn't right, it's just there to confuse you and test your faith"...
Science and education has been oppressed by religion for centuries. I'm only speaking for myself, but I know Dawkins feels the same way, but fuck that, I'm done with that shit. You want to tell me I'm wrong, OK that's fine, that's fuckin' GREAT actually, I LOVE being proved wrong, but that's the thing, you have to fuckin' PROVE it. If you don't come with proof, don't come at all, because that's what I'm interested in. And if you don't know the definition of proof, go learn it first because he said she said anecdotal stories aren't proof of anything. A 2,000 year old book isn't proof of anything. A shroud from the middle ages isn't proof of anything.
Proof is the fused gene in our genetic code that says we share a common ancestor with great apes. Proof is DNA, it's vestigial organs, it's the genetic code to make teeth in chickens. That is proof.
The Atheist agenda doesn't promote Equal Rights either. Children are disallowed from praying privately in school(though special exceptions are made for muslim children), people putting up religious symbols on their own property are sued to remove it because someone might see it. It's absolute BS to claim that the atheist movement has no political power. Your assertion of Equal rights is correct in that atheists seem to be fond of all religions having equal right to be oppressed(except Islam, of course, they are special.)
No, I don't think so. Especially in CA, if you went around saying a bunch of things about Islam, you'd get quite a few people ostracizing you and calling you a bigot.
As far as my own beliefs, that's difficult to quantify. A vastly broad term for my spiritual practice is Pagan. I value learning as much about religion and spirituality as possible, from as many diverse sources as possible. I look at the every day world and strive to see the divinity in everything from the world around me to the choices that people make. From outside I'm sure you could view me as "new age", but of the people I know I'm one of the first to point out when someone is blathering on about some ridiculous new age crap. As I've pointed out previously, I think modern science has a whole lot of good in it in regards to the parallels we can see in science and spirituality. I value learning above most anything else in spiritual practice, I think of family to be extremely important, and I tend to follow a basic code of morality including truth, honor, fair treatment of others, and respect for the natural world.
I hate the "logic and reason" BS that atheists throw out there. These people are pushing something that hasn't been proven, just as the religious folks are doing. These tag lines are as ridiculous as "pro choice", "pro life", or "patriot act". Nobody is anti life, nobody is anti choice, and there's nothing patriotic about the latter. Please refrain from use of propaganda tag lines in the future.
Claiming with absolute certainty that your position is correct to the point that there can be no truth in any other position is fundamentalism. If Dawkins' and other Atheists' message were truly "Hey let's learn, guys!" and not "God is bullshit!", I wouldn't have a problem. This isn't the case, though. The stance that Dawkins and Bill Maher take is one that claims they can KNOW that there are no gods, but are incapable of providing proof beyond what basically boils down to anecdotal evidence. You're kidding yourself if you think all the "research" being done is with a blank slate, and not with a preconceived nod towards an atheistic viewpoint
Evolution isn't really related in this discussion. I have no doubt of the process of evolution or natural selection, but even it hasn't been proven absolute. Even if evolution were proven, the only thing that shows is the obviously wrong notion within Christianity regarding the age of the planet.
I'm very much interested in your "proof" as well. Prove the nonexistence of Gods. Come with proof or don't come at all. My position is already proven, as Gods as you know them exist as concepts created by man - personifications made to understand something that really can't be conceived of by our minds - especially to more primitive peoples. If you know of them, if they've been named, if they have attributes attributed to them, they exist.
The ACLU has filed MANY lawsuits under the guise of "separation of church and state" that seek to do nothing more than boot things they see as christian out of peoples' lives(when the people involved really didn't give a hoot if there was a cross on something or not), and has more resources than any of the lobbies you mentioned, but if you want something that explicitly labels itself as atheist, we have a couple here:This whole post is disingenuous and you know it. Children aren't allowed to pray in public schools? Bullshit. That propaganda has been pushed from the religious right since they removed teacher led MANDATORY prayer in public schools in 1962. Kids can pray all they want privately, they just don't.
People are sued for putting up religious symbols on their own property? That sounds like bullshit too. I would have a problem with that, and I'm a fuckin' atheist. Prove your statement, give me one source, please.
What's the atheist lobby in DC called? You know, like how they have
the ACLA - http://www.americancla.org/acla_home_page.html
the CCA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Coalition_of_America
the CRF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Religious_Freedom
the TVC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_for_Traditional_Values
or the MM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
You point out later in this post how people like Dawkins approach science, but look at what you just admitted to. You approach the world and "strive to see divinity in everything". Conflict of interest in seeking truth much? Be honest with yourself man.
Christianity doesn't tell the truth, it doesn't promote fair treatment of others and it doesn't respect the natural world. This life is a stepping stone for the next one.
No atheist I know has ever said "No God exists", ever, including Dawkins. The most common atheistic position to take is "I don't know if a god exists".
It's not going to get any stronger than it is right now? So we're going to halt all paleontological research and exploration? Give me break. The theory of evolution is strong but discovery is not going to stop any time soon. We find new discoveries in the fossil record every day, and to this day we haven't found the "missing link" to modern humans. I'm not going to argue about evolution because it's been done already in this thread, and like I said, It's stupid to doubt it with all of the evidence we have. I did just remember something that throws a pretty big wrench in the current timeline that we have regarding the evolution of modern humans, though:Explain to me what you mean when you say "proven absolute" because like I said before, nothing in science is absolute. This is a clear indication you're looking at it the wrong way. Evolution is proven to the highest degree of provability in science, the theory will not get any stronger than it is right now.
Another clear indication you're approaching the whole thing incorrectly. You asking me to "disprove God" is like me asking you to disprove the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. So go ahead, prove the "nonexistence" of my invisible fire breathing dragon.
You can't disprove a negative. You have to prove god exists before I can disprove it. There's zero proof of any god because they all require faith to believe.
Existing in reality and existing as a concept in the mind are two completely different things.
The ACLU has filed MANY lawsuits under the guise of "separation of church and state" that seek to do nothing more than boot things they see as christian out of peoples' lives(when the people involved really didn't give a hoot if there was a cross on something or not), and has more resources than any of the lobbies you mentioned, but if you want something that explicitly labels itself as atheist, we have a couple here:
Secular Coalition for America: http://www.secular.org
American Atheists, Inc., which was responsible for a lawsuit mandating the removal of 12 memorials for fallen Utah highway patrol officers, because the memorials had crosses on them.
Ok you got me here - I suppose a better word than "strive to" is I do see the divinity within everything - because it's there. That doesn't change the perception - 2 + 2 does not equal 5 just because I might view every day life to be more sacred than you do.
This is just outright incorrect. What you're talking about is Agnosticism. I was going to address this earlier because I had a feeling you thought atheism meant agnosticism. It is for this reason that before very recently, Atheist was a derogatory term. Now that it's hipster to be an atheist, people start calling themselves that, but when questioned, state this "we can't know" stuff, which is agnosticism. Agnosticism is certainly an intelligent position to take if you don't have a compelling reason to believe, and I have no problem whatsoever with this stance. The fact that you are even taking part in this discussion, however, tells me you are more atheist than agnostic. Authoring a book titled "The God Delusion" is certainly close enough to "no god exists" as well, by my standards. Bill Maher has also said things remarkably close to "no god exists" in exact verbiage.
It's not going to get any stronger than it is right now? So we're going to halt all paleontological research and exploration? Give me break. The theory of evolution is strong but discovery is not going to stop any time soon.
We find new discoveries in the fossil record every day, and to this day we haven't found the "missing link" to modern humans.
I can speak with my gods. I can glean insights from them that I could not do for myself. I can see, hear, feel, smell, and presumably taste them. I'm not the only person who does this. If I want to speak to a specific deity, and they are willing to speak with me, I can, and that deity has the same attributes that someone else would see when speaking to them. MY reality exists not just in the physical, but in my thoughts, emotions, and spiritual impressions as well.
There's a problem with your analogy in that atheists didn't create a book that claims that in order to be atheist you must fuck sheep. You can try to rationalize the bible all you want but the fact is that it is supposed to be an account of the history of a god and his preferred desert tribe and how he sent his literal son, who also is himself, to be sacrificed for the vicarious redemption of his followers. Try to soften it all you want but the people that are most anti-science are religious fundamentalists, be it Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Trying to come out and say, "but not AALLLL Christians are this way" ignores the main point and the reasons that many atheists get upset at Christians that influence science education and laws. I could care less if you have a kinder, gentler version of Christianity, Christine O'Donnell and others like her are the ones grabbing power. SHE believes in literal 6 day creation, SHE believes in an earth history of only 6-10,000 years, SHE wants to introduce special creation into the science curriculum of schools.It's as offensive as me saying all atheist must be gay because a few support gay rights or that I once knew an atheist that screwed sheep so all atheists are sheep fuckers. See my point?
I simply believe that what we call science is just another revelation given to us by God so that we may understand him. God is just revealing to us how he accomplished his work.
Instead we should look at the purpose of the stories in the Bible.
So quit putting all Christians into a category with the most extreme conservatives. Do more research and try to understand the different interpretations. It's as offensive as me saying all atheist must be gay because a few support gay rights or that I once knew an atheist that screwed sheep so all atheists are sheep fuckers. See my point?
There's a problem with your analogy in that atheists didn't create a book that claims that in order to be atheist you must fuck sheep. You can try to rationalize the bible all you want but the fact is that it is supposed to be an account of the history of a god and his preferred desert tribe and how he sent his literal son, who also is himself, to be sacrificed for the vicarious redemption of his followers. Try to soften it all you want but the people that are most anti-science are religious fundamentalists, be it Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Trying to come out and say, "but not AALLLL Christians are this way" ignores the main point and the reasons that many atheists get upset at Christians that influence science education and laws. I could care less if you have a kinder, gentler version of Christianity, Christine O'Donnell and others like her are the ones grabbing power. SHE believes in literal 6 day creation, SHE believes in an earth history of only 6-10,000 years, SHE wants to introduce special creation into the science curriculum of schools.
You illustrate another really common trait among believers. Most of the ones I know also do the same thing. They believe what they believe, usually the foundation is pretty similar as they've all been told the basic stories of Christianity and some have a vague idea of names, and when questioned about it, I usually get a response similar to "well, it's just what I believe.." and the conversation moves on to the right to believe whatever one wants, which they already know I'll agree with.
Anyway, all that brings me to a question for you.. If faith is a requirement for salvation, that is, not knowing for sure one way or the other that the religion you're following is the correct one, then why would God choose to reveal anything to humanity? Wouldn't that render existence on Earth meaningless?
If you believe what you say you do, that God uses science to reveal how he works so humanity can better understand him then how do you reconcile that with the concept of faith present in all the major religions?
Why can't people learn the moral lessons the Bible teaches without everything else?
Doesn't the fact that every time someone mentions the cult sect of the religion and everybody else immediately distances themselves from any of their crazy views mean anything to you?
Those crazy ones, the ones you guys all distance yourselves from... they're the ones who are actually following the religion. What it actually says. If you bothered to read it, you'd know that. When I talk about religion, those are the idiots I'm talking about. The Westboro Baptist people. The fanatics. The people who follow the shit word for word.
Passive Christianity makes up 99% of Christians. They don't pray regularly, they don't read the Bible, they don't know the names of the four Gospels... But they check the ''x'' next to Christian whenever applicable to feel the little tickle in the morality sector in their brain because they've been conditioned to feel that way.
Yes those people are idiots, yes they feed the fire that is fanatical Christianity, and yes they're completely fuckin' oblivious to it...
Its funny how no one has a problem with a school teaching Socrates or any other philosophy and just accept them, but when it comes to religion you just don't want to hear it. The reason you don't want to hear it is because it points out your flaws. It exposes you to yourself and you don't like what you see. So its just easier to ignore it.
When it comes to religion, it promotes inequality and divides people. All of them have an "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.
More generalizations. I don't think anyone is against my beliefs unless they specifically state such.
And again, you have a watered down version of Christianity, as far as I can tell.
I'm now pretty sure you're either trolling or not reading the thread at all.
My faith bears no resemblance to Christianity - and I've stated multiple times in this thread that I'm not Christian.
Also,
Would you marry someone devoutly religious? "Nuff Said"
You've spent several days arguing with someone, trying to prove a point to them that their beliefs are wrong. You're very much taking a "with us or against us" stance.
All I'm stating is that any set of beliefs someone has can be valid. Very much the opposite of with us or against us.
we can see atoms..We can't see atoms but we know they exist. There are things the naked eye cannot see yes, but we can still find their existence.
You can't possibly believe that. Tell me why I wouldn't want to be exposed to my flaws? crackerboy, if I have a flaw, I want to know about it, you know why? So that I can fix it. Why would I want to carry around a flaw or a belief that I know isn't true?
When it comes to religion, it promotes inequality and divides people. All of them have an "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.