I have got a horsey Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 LOL... I am a proud atheist and agree that religion in Amercia and the rest of the world is the root of much evil. It isn't so much religion, it's more the lunatics who run the religion. If we had no religion, then these people would find other excuses to hate. I'm an atheist but I wish to God that I could believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabbalahone Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 It isn't so much religion, it's more the lunatics who run the religion. If we had no religion, then these people would find other excuses to hate. I'm an atheist but I wish to God that I could believe I love the word atheist Aleph Tav first and last ciphers in Hebrew alphabet A.T.Heist. he he Or A.T.H (hey which symbolises life) e.i. (environmental issues, or IE in reverse) St. Like that one? You can also do A.T.He.Is.T A.The.IS.T A.The.I.St. AI, lol Artificial intelligence? Art I face you all intelligence? Arthur, you're off your rocker... If only words had only two meanings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 It isn't so much religion, it's more the lunatics who run the religion. If we had no religion, then these people would find other excuses to hate. I'm an atheist but I wish to God that I could believe Them too, lol. I am happy not believing in something that is so illogical. I believe in ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I guess the closest belief I have would be agnostic. I say that because I'm descendant from Jewish, Catholic and Christian ancestors, and I'm not religious but I'm open to the concept. I was never raised with any religious belief, but, and I can't really say why, I'd always felt a slight 'affinity', if you want to call it that, towards Judaism. Maybe it's because my last name is Jewish, as were my father's family. I dunno. However I don't think that any religion is particularly 'better' than the other, and whoever chooses to belief in what is fine with me, so long as they don't use it to promote hate. You believe in the things you do for your own personal reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Them too, lol. I am happy not believing in something that is so illogical. I believe in ME. What if you are illogical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Them too, lol. I am happy not believing in something that is so illogical. I believe in ME. But that's the trouble with logic: it rests on a bed of absurdity. Like the way the flat ocean turns into the curve of the earth, somewhere along the line, logic becomes illogical. You'll have to forgive me but i don't remember who argued this point, however their scientific argument was if you drop a ball, to us it falls straight to the ground, however as the world is turning, the ball is moving, not falling, not straight, but curved, and if our solar system is turning, then the ball is curving in a different direction, and if our galaxy is rotating, then the ball is actually moving in a different way again, if our universe is expanding etc etc point being there is no actual way of telling how the ball is actually moving through space unless one can see the total universal picture of movement, the only way we can judge that movement is how it moves relative to us in our locality. Therefore our logic can only be viewed in terms of how it relates to us in this minscule locality. There is potential that the further you expand that locality to incorporate more space and, ultimately, universe, the more illogical our logic becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Think about space for a minute. All matter that exists in the Universe exists inside what I suppose is most simply desribed as space...and yet this space challenges every notion of human logic. As far as we know it is an indefinable space, it is potentially a nothing that holds everything. It exists as being the absence of matter. The void of everything in which all this can exist. And again as far as we know it has no beginning and no end, and is not finite, it exists to the point where existing and not existing are no longer relevant, and if it has no beginning and no end, then time is purely irrelevant applied to it. All these principles so far make it completely and purely illogical. If it is finite, or does have a beginning in time then the expected logical questions arise: what existed before it existed and if it has an end, what's on the other side of that end? That leads you to more illogical problems: if space is finite, then is what's on the other side finite or infinite? And if that too is finite, then what's on the other side of that? Is there just new space after new space that goes into infinite? The problem is human logic cannot deal with this situation because the framework of human logic has expectations: on the other side of one wall there must be something else; everything has a beginning and end, nothing can exist forever...these are in-built human logic fundamentals and at some point to understand the universe or space, our logic has to be contradicted. Think about yourself: most atheists believe that when you are born, you are created, you live and then you die, after which you cease to exist. Seems perfectly logical. But human logic also contradicts this. If nothing lasts for ever, then, theoretically, you not existing can't last forever either...because if you believe you die and then simply no longer exist, your non-existence would have to happen for the rest of eternity...to the point again where time is irrelevant. So if human logic concedes that it is impossible for something to exist for ever, theoretically-speaking then nothing can't exist for ever either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euro Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 What makes you think evangelicals are "crazy?" Do you even know what an evangelical is or are you just spouting your bigotry because you think you are right? To criticize a body of ideas and belief is bigotry? No idea or religion should be beyond criticism.This is different from criticizing someone for their skin colour(which is racism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I use the word crazy when maybe I should have used irrational instead. I do know what an evangelical is and interact with many of them regularly. I hold no ill will toward them as people. I just find their ideas bizzare and I don't like having their ideas being made into laws forced upon us when they are in a position of power. True Jimmy Carter is one of them but he was one of the few who believed in separation of church and state. Can you name for me any evangelical politicians (especially recent Presidents) who do not believe in the separation of church and state? I'll bet you can't. You have already admitted that you don't really understand the terms that you choose to just throw out there in an attempt to belittle Christians (including Barrack Obama). And then when I challenge you on that fact; all you do is substitude the word "irrational" for "crazy." Can't you see your own bigotry in that position? Why is it that the so called progressive liberal secularists are the most biased people out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I met this Athiest once, boy what a wierd M*&%F*&%R I met this Evangelical once, boy what a wierd M*&%F*&%R I looked in the mirror one day, boy what a wierd M*&%F*&%R So we're all wierd M*&%F*&%RS to some one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zooma Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 Can you name for me any evangelical politicians (especially recent Presidents) who do not believe in the separation of church and state? I'll bet you can't. You have already admitted that you don't really understand the terms that you choose to just throw out there in an attempt to belittle Christians (including Barrack Obama). And then when I challenge you on that fact; all you do is substitude the word "irrational" for "crazy." Can't you see your own bigotry in that position? Why is it that the so called progressive liberal secularists are the most biased people out there? If you wish to call me a bigot to make me seem closeminded feel free. Labels like that are silly and don't mean that much to me, they are a way to make the politically correct feel superior when confronted with a different view. george bush does not believe in the separation of church and state. Check for yourself the number of graduates from Pat Robertson's LAW SCHOOL that were allowed into the Justice Dept during his first term. It is scary to say the least. Their only qualifications were that they were on the same team as our president.. I also do not identify myself as a liberal in the way that you imply. I am quite conservative when it comes to political beliefs and am not a Obama supporter, due to his economic policy's, inexperience and belief in government to solve the problems we face together. I understand the terms that I used to describe evangelicals, and the reason I later said irrational was because crazy implied they were mentally ill, which I do not think they are as a whole. Irrational I stand by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 george bush does not believe in the separation of church and state. Check for yourself the number of graduates from Pat Robertson's LAW SCHOOL that were allowed into the Justice Dept during his first term. It is scary to say the least. Their only qualifications were that they were on the same team as our president.. There are many faith based private universities in this country. If I were to use your line of reasoning then I would have to assume that any laywer who granduated from Harvard, Princton or Yale are not in favor of separation of church and state too. But actually you got it all wrong, because your assumption is based on the false premise that being from a 'faith based' background means that you are automatically against separation of church and state. Since many of our most prestigous private universities are faith based, I don't see how you can make that claim. The history of this nation and our leaders pretty much proves that you are wrong. If this nation was going to become a theocracy it would have happened a long time ago. Our founding fathers where in fact very much men of faith. Even more so than many of our current politicians and leaders are. But you misunderstand the meaning behind the separation (which by the way is not what our constitution says). The first amendment says in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It's the free exercise part that you seem to have the problem with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 What if you are illogical? Sometimes i am, but i have no problem with my belief that there is no such thing as God. You are welcome to believe what you like. I don't spend my time trying to change people's religious beliefs. My daughter will be raised with religion, but her mom will remain indifferent to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I do not believe in a god, but i do believe in the sun. I see the sun, I feel the sun. Without the sun I am nothing. It based on the George Carlin skit. But I do believe the greatest charity in the world is your local church. I still go once in awhile with my GF to make her happy and churches are at thier best when they preach love for one and other, not love for Christ. Which the church I go to does. Than again the church that preaches love for Christ are a lot better than the ones that preaches hate. I think we know who goes to that church. Still, even though i do not practice any religion. I still work for free for my home town church for the hunted house they do. The numerous pancake breakfast they do. The food drive. The charity event they do so all children who need glasses get glasses. I had the pastor over for dinner a few times. and do you know what, he never once tried to preach to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zooma Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 There are many faith based private universities in this country. If I were to use your line of reasoning then I would have to assume that any laywer who granduated from Harvard, Princton or Yale are not in favor of separation of church and state too. But actually you got it all wrong, because your assumption is based on the false premise that being from a 'faith based' background means that you are automatically against separation of church and state. Since many of our most prestigous private universities are faith based, I don't see how you can make that claim. The history of this nation and our leaders pretty much proves that you are wrong. If this nation was going to become a theocracy it would have happened a long time ago. Our founding fathers where in fact very much men of faith. Even more so than many of our current politicians and leaders are. But you misunderstand the meaning behind the separation (which by the way is not what our constitution says). The first amendment says in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It's the free exercise part that you seem to have the problem with. Which of the founding fathers are you thinking of? Washington, Adams, Jefferson perhaps. I don't recall any of them espousing a evangelical agenda. In fact I think the opposite is true. "The United States is NOT a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammenedan nation" John Adams "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of a blindfold of fear" Thomas Jefferson The george bush administration has had more than 150 graduates of Regent University (Pat Robertson's law school) in it's employ over the last eight years. One of the most notable is Monica Goodling (remember her) Google her if you are interested. Or maybe John Ashkroft (sp) Alberto Gonzales. Don't tell me these people didn't have an agenda to push their "Christian" brand of bullshit right up our ass. The very essence of evangelical's is to convert the "unsaved" to their way of thinking and believing. It is their duty and calling to convert and "save" every one of us. Their job in the secular world is secondary to what the true mission is. I'm not having any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Which of the founding fathers are you thinking of? Washington, Adams, Jefferson perhaps. I don't recall any of them espousing a evangelical agenda. In fact I think the opposite is true. But what is your point? Are you saying that George Bush has espoused an Evangelical agenda? "The United States is NOT a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammenedan nation" To not recognize that there has been a preponderance of Christianity in this nation, from the Pilgrims to our founding fathers and all through our history. And then to claim that the Chrisitanity in our history is equall to both the Jewish and Muslim history here, is to deny reality. The george bush administration has had more than 150 graduates of Regent University (Pat Robertson's law school) in it's employ over the last eight years. One of the most notable is Monica Goodling (remember her) Google her if you are interested. Or maybe John Ashkroft (sp) Alberto Gonzales. Don't tell me these people didn't have an agenda to push their "Christian" brand of bullshit right up our ass. Sorry, but your conspiracy theory is starting to sound a little crazy to me right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 That's because the moral are a minority. How right you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I'm a dyslexic athiest, and i dont believe in DOG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Sometimes i am, but i have no problem with my belief that there is no such thing as God. You are welcome to believe what you like. I don't spend my time trying to change people's religious beliefs. My daughter will be raised with religion, but her mom will remain indifferent to it I have no problem if your atheist. That's your choice, no worries. But you missed my point. I don't mean you literally, I mean you as in everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Religilous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Religilous? Cross between religious and ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabbalahone Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Think about space for a minute. All matter that exists in the Universe exists inside what I suppose is most simply desribed as space...and yet this space challenges every notion of human logic. As far as we know it is an indefinable space, it is potentially a nothing that holds everything. It exists as being the absence of matter. A.B.sence of matter. All these principles so far make it completely and purely illogical. If it is finite, or does have a beginning in time then the expected logical questions arise: what existed before it existed and if it has an end, what's on the other side of that end? In.finite.... all of a sudden, the meaning has changed. No vowels in original languages. End or And? What if it all comes down to belief? What if die never had to do with life/death but gambling? What if death is a variable that doesn't have to adhered to? nothing can exist forever...these are in-built human logic fundamentals and at some point to understand the universe or space, our logic has to be contradicted. Perhaps nothing can last forever, because nothing doesn't exist. Can something last forever? Think about yourself: most atheists believe that when you are born, you are created, you live and then you die, after which you cease to exist. Seems perfectly logical. But human logic also contradicts this. If nothing lasts for ever, then, theoretically, you not existing can't last forever either...because if you believe you die and then simply no longer exist, your non-existence would have to happen for the rest of eternity...to the point again where time is irrelevant. So if human logic concedes that it is impossible for something to exist for ever, theoretically-speaking then nothing can't exist for ever either... Nice to see fear based religions losing their stronghold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabbalahone Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 george bush does not believe in the separation of church and state. Check for yourself the number of graduates from Pat Robertson's LAW SCHOOL that were allowed into the Justice Dept during his first term. It is scary to say the least. Their only qualifications were that they were on the same team as our president.. Yikes, that explains a lot. btw, go to You Tube and check out vids for Jesus Camp Everyone ought to be happy to know, the place was closed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabbalahone Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I'm a dyslexic athiest, and i dont believe in DOG. Well, listen here buddie, My Dog.ma ran over your karma, ok? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shankly Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 As Richard Dawkins put it, we are all anti-theist up to a point. Do you believe in the Sun God? Do you believe in the Spirit of the Forest? Do you believe in Hindu Gods? If you are a Christian, then the answer will be no. Athiests just go one god further. There is just as much genuine evidence supporting the belief in any of the above (ie none), so why choose one over the other? I choose not to believe in something for which there is no evidence, so I am an athiest, which I consider to be the 'default' position. I'm happy to change my mind if anyone can provide proper evidence (but I'm not going to hold my breath) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.