SFW religious posters

[abt5]

What is the category called now?

the gomer category, duh

[crabber]

the gomer category, duh

Are you like 10 years old or something?

[gomer_tree]

Ah, that passage. I remember a homily on this exact topic. Nowhere does it say for the young man to give everything to the poor. A technicality, but an important one. At the time, if a young man was wealthy, he was generally a trader, which means he would have goods to sell. A second interpretation of the same words could mean keep selling, but give away more money to the poor, and in this way you are following Jesus. Basically, continue your work, but give back a little more to the community.

Not that I think most Christians even follow this watered down version, but I wanted to throw in a clarification on the passage.

I love these games. Let's find something said by the guy I don't believe in and try to trip up the Christian!

First of all, HJ mistated it. Jesus never said "unless you do this, you won't get to heaven." It was already established that this guy did a lot of great things and was a follower of Jesus. The guy specifically asked the question, "what else can I do?" Jesus did not say that he didn't appreciate all that the man had done, but when asked what else he could do he gave him an answer that gives us all the message that we can always do more. That if we live in comfort, it means we could always give more. The man showed that even though he was a follower of Jesus, it is a very difficult thing to go "all-in." Temporal draws are tough to overcome. We are all attached to material things of this world.

For the Catholic, this has a number of messages. First, that Jesus does demand faith accompanied by works. We are called to give, sacrifice, and do. Second, that even for the faithful, this is a very difficult calling. That, unlike what many want to suggest about Christianity, that it's not all about just feel-goodedness. Being a Christian does demand work and sacrifice in service to others. Third, that since very few of us will probably achieve this perfectionism, it doesn't mean we're damned or that we don't believe. it means that we fall short. It means that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is all the more necessary. That while these works are important and we are called to do them, they do not solely merit salvation. Fourth, that in the Catholic view, it supports Purgatory, in that our attachments to this world must be left behind. If we die with continued material desires and attachments, we are not yet ready to enter the kingdom of God, but it doesn't mean we're condemned.

I'm sure some Christians try to excuse their own lifestyles with that passage. Most probably would admit that it's reflective of a direct challenge to followers of Jesus to completely and utterly leave the attachments of this world behind and completely turn your life over to Christ, generally in either the form of service or in the form of a vocation dedicated to Him. I, for one, recognize that I fall short and that Jesus probably has a lot more admonitions towards me on that same question.

[abt5]

Are you like 10 years old or something?

I'm not the one with an imaginary friend, and it's a joke.

[MAX.]

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/744/jesuska.jpg

:llol:

(It's OK though. I'm already going to hell for making out with that priest.)

[gomer_tree]

http://www.yeeeeee.com/wp-content/2008/06/jesus-dinner.gif

Not only is this one not funny, but there was no "Paul" at the Last Supper. Paul was still Saul at the time and was going to be persecuting Christians in the near future.




Stupid atheists.

[gomer_tree]

nukes dont kill people - people kill people

Let me be chrystal

Scientific progress gives irrational superstitious apes the power to destroy the world.

This is one reason why I am so passionate.

And if you think I'm millitant now - faithbots wont want to know me if I survive a religiously precipitated armageddon

Interesting. And it's posts like this that makes a religionist wonder if a certain anti-religionist could be convinced to "do the right thing" should the world devolve into rounding up Christians and imprisoning them. You know... for the good of the world.

[abt5]

Interesting. And it's posts like this that makes a religionist wonder if a certain anti-religionist could be convinced to "do the right thing" should the world devolve into rounding up Christians and imprisoning them. You know... for the good of the world.

If they threaten the wellness of society, as in, intentionally starting wars in hopes of hastening the coming of armageddon, why shouldn't they be imprisoned?

[abt5]

Not only is this one not funny, but there was no "Paul" at the Last Supper. Paul was still Saul at the time and was going to be persecuting Christians in the near future.




Stupid atheists.

I don't think historical accuracy was what it was going for, but nice try.

[gomer_tree]

If they threaten the wellness of society, as in, intentionally starting wars in hopes of hastening the coming of armageddon, why shouldn't they be imprisoned?


And interestingly, Christians are the brainwashed ones. I learned that on the internet.

[gomer_tree]

I don't think historical accuracy was what it was going for, but nice try.

Well, sheesh. If you're going to take the time to do that and you have 12 apostles to choose from, you'd think you'd take a moment to google "names of the 12 apostles" or something.

[abt5]

And interestingly, Christians are the brainwashed ones. I learned that on the internet.

Who's talking about brainwashing?

[gomer_tree]

The internet. Try to keep up.

[abt5]

The internet. Try to keep up.

How does that relate?

[Jack]

First, that Jesus does demand faith accompanied by works. We are called to give, sacrifice, and do. Second, that even for the faithful, this is a very difficult calling. That, unlike what many want to suggest about Christianity, that it's not all about just feel-goodedness. Being a Christian does demand work and sacrifice in service to others.

These are excellent points. First works are not an optional nice to have, they're required. Jesus directly tells us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. I also 100% agree that being Christian isn't about a warm fuzzy feeling. While being Christian provides comfort it also issues challenges that aren't often easy to meet. We fail but we start again. Some of the great fathers of the Church failed, dusted themselves off and started again. St. Peter denied God 3 times, wept and moved forward with God's forgiveness. The same forgiveness that's available to all of us.

[crabber]

I'm not the one with an imaginary friend, and it's a joke.

Oh, well in that case :lolup:

[abt5]

GILDA RADNER'S ARGUMENT
(1) What's all this fuss I hear about whether God exits?
(2) Well of course he does!
(3) If I'm going to go somewhere else, I have to exit this room.
(4) And God's been everywhere, so he must have done a lot of exiting.
(5) Therefore, God exits.
(6) [told that debate is whether God exists.]
(7) Oh. That's different. Never mind.
LOL

[Gentle Giant]

nukes dont kill people - people kill people
Likewise:
Religion doesn't kill people - people kill people.

(i) "But, GG, you stupid, superstitious ape, religion PROVIDES the so-called RATIONALE for people to kill people and do countless other terrible things."

(ii) But, Noddy, science PROVIDES the so-called TOOLS for people to kill people and do countless other terrible things.

(iii) "But, GG, science also provides a long, long list of technology, ideas and advancement in general by which we have all PROGRESSED IMMEASURABLY."

(iv) But, Noddy, religion has provided countless people with the motivation to do countless extraordinary things for the sake of fellow humans, including some of those advancements.

(v) Goto (i)

And around and around it goes... :horse:

And if you think I'm millitant now - faithbots wont want to know me if I survive a religiously precipitated armageddon
(1) I'm pretty sure the bolded is not conditional on what follows.
(2) So, what you're saying is, you support what I quoted as the Marxist/Leninist agenda further up? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Likewise:
Religion doesn't kill people - people kill people.:iatp:

[QMO]

Not only is this one not funny, but there was no "Paul" at the Last Supper. Paul was still Saul at the time and was going to be persecuting Christians in the near future.




Stupid atheists.Tastes in humor differ, I guess. I thought that was one of the more amusing ones, myself.

I wasn't especially worried about the Paul thing. I guess it's because early on in the first page I stopped expecting them to be accurate.

[gomer_tree]

(1) I'm pretty sure the bolded is not conditional on what follows.

:iatp:

[gomer_tree]

Tastes in humor differ, I guess. I thought that was one of the more amusing ones, myself.

I wasn't especially worried about the Paul thing. I guess it's because early on in the first page I stopped expecting them to be accurate.

Well, when it's implied that religionists are stupid and ignorant, and when it's implied that atheists really actually know more about the various religions than religionists do [hence their studied enlightenment and reasoned abandonment of it], it doesn't exactly help the case when such a fundamental error is made, intentioned to be humorous or not.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Hmm. I'm torn. I think expectations of accuracy should be abandoned before clicking on the thread. OTOH, if they're going to make an effort, at least actually make some effort and get the basics right.

[abt5]

Well, when it's implied that religionists are stupid and ignorant, and when it's implied that atheists really actually know more about the various religions than religionists do [hence their studied enlightenment and reasoned abandonment of it], it doesn't exactly help the case when such a fundamental error is made, intentioned to be humorous or not.

the names don't matter, if the switch the names around would the picture not make sense? no. that's not why it's funny. nor is it trying to make a case with the premise of whos at the dinner or whos not

[gomer_tree]

I disagree. The names matter greatly. I simply cannot find someone named Paul humorous. Maybe it's just me.

[TheGillotine]

Likewise:
Religion doesn't kill people - people kill people.

(i) "But, GG, you stupid, superstitious ape, religion PROVIDES the so-called RATIONALE for people to kill people and do countless other terrible things."

(ii) But, Noddy, science PROVIDES the so-called TOOLS for people to kill people and do countless other terrible things.

(iii) "But, GG, science also provides a long, long list of technology, ideas and advancement in general by which we have all PROGRESSED IMMEASURABLY."

(iv) But, Noddy, religion has provided countless people with the motivation to do countless extraordinary things for the sake of fellow humans, including some of those advancements.

(v) Goto (i)

And around and around it goes... :horse:

(1) I'm pretty sure the bolded is not conditional on what follows.
(2) So, what you're saying is, you support what I quoted as the Marxist/Leninist agenda further up? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I tend not to care at all about the effects of beliefs, but rather whether the beliefs themselves are true. And I'm pretty secure in that arena. The only people making arguments for the existence of god(s) are fairly obvious trolls. I actually find it a little strange that the vast majority of religious debate on these forums centers around whether "religion" is bad, which I think is irrelevant if the propositions of the religion are false.

[yankeetripper]

I disagree. The names matter greatly. I simply cannot find someone named Paul humorous. Maybe it's just me.

meh, most people christian or not have heard of Peter & Paul (even without Mary :rimshot:) but I'd bet there are a lot of people who call themselves Christians who can't name more than 2 or 3 apostles after Peter. :shrug:

[SamTheEagle]

meh, most people christian or not have heard of Peter & Paul (even without Mary :rimshot:) but I'd bet there are a lot of people who call themselves Christians who can't name more than 2 or 3 apostles after Peter. :shrug:

Most could probably get James, John, Judas, and Thomas, I would think.

[abt5]

Most could probably get James, John, Judas, and Thomas, I would think.

yeh, just call out random names, ull hit a few

[yankeetripper]

Most could probably get James, John, Judas, and Thomas, I would think.

probably but just as many are likly to add Mathew, Mark, & Luke to your list only one of which would be the name of an actual apostle. most won't know that Peter = Simon in most cases but that there is actually a different Simon and few will correctly know that there are 2 James. And I'm thinking Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew and Thaddeus won't be named very often.

In fact I'd guess Paul would incorrectly be thrown in more often than any of those 4 if a random poll of christians was taken.

[Brock]

Mary doesn't count?

[ditkaworshipper]

the names don't matter, if the switch the names around would the picture not make sense? no. that's not why it's funny. nor is it trying to make a case with the premise of whos at the dinner or whos not
Yeah, but it did lose something for me when Paul was there. I thought the premise was pretty funny though.
Mary doesn't count?
Don't go da Vinci code on us. That book is almost straight bullshit.

[Gentle Giant]

I disagree. The names matter greatly. I simply cannot find someone named Paul humorous. Maybe it's just me.
My dad has his moments. :shrug:

[Gentle Giant]

I tend not to care at all about the effects of beliefs, but rather whether the beliefs themselves are true. And I'm pretty secure in that arena. The only people making arguments for the existence of god(s) are fairly obvious trolls. I actually find it a little strange that the vast majority of religious debate on these forums centers around whether "religion" is bad, which I think is irrelevant if the propositions of the religion are false.
Good for you. Obviously some atheists here disagree, and those are the ones I was addressing.

[NotUrAvgXBar]

I also don't think most Christians interpret that passage (nor have ever interpreted it) as needing to sell everything and give to the poor in order to go to heaven.

It's just something Jesus recommends, and actually is probably a pretty reasonable path to happiness (Buddhists have similar teachings).

All humans are flawed, however, so not following this particular thing in no way implies you will go to hell.

I think if most Christians spent more time reflecting on their own flaws instead of on how everyone else is going to hell for gay marriage, abortions, leaving the toilet seat up, etc then there wouldn't be so much hate on the christians. Same goes for Muslims.

[Gentle Giant]

I think if most Christians spent more time reflecting on their own flaws instead of on how everyone else is going to hell for gay marriage, abortions, leaving the toilet seat up, etc then there wouldn't be so much hate on the christians. Same goes for Muslims.
While I certainly understand why you would say that, it should go without saying that most Christians do spend plenty of time reflecting on their own flaws. You don't see them doing this, of course, because most people don't announce that they're doing so.

Obviously, there are a number of very vocal groups who seem, very disproportionately, to do otherwise, and who get media attention for it. They are - to use Gomer's term - asshats. Jesus was a bit more diplomatic, but made his point just the same. (Log in your eye, etc.)

[Entropy]

I tend not to care at all about the effects of beliefs, but rather whether the beliefs themselves are true. And I'm pretty secure in that arena. The only people making arguments for the existence of god(s) are fairly obvious trolls. I actually find it a little strange that the vast majority of religious debate on these forums centers around whether "religion" is bad, which I think is irrelevant if the propositions of the religion are false.

I'm on board with this, notwithstanding my stupid joke about the Brontosaurus.

Although I usually try to focus on how one can be so sure that their religion is uniquely "correct", and the luck of being born into it.

[crabber]

I'm on board with this, notwithstanding my stupid joke about the Brontosaurus.

Although I usually try to focus on how one can be so sure that their religion is uniquely "correct", and the luck of being born into it.

I need to read more about the arguments for/against god. It's difficult for me to fathom how to construct such arguments, since it seems to me that such arguments would rely on a number of shaky assumptions about what one would expect to observe given that he does/does not exist. That's probably why these threads tend to focus on criticizing religion, which really doesn't require much work at all.

[Atheist Man]

This is the only argument against God you need:

There is zero evidence that God exists.

[crabber]

There is zero evidence that God exists.

How do you know that?

[abt5]

How do you know that?

the same way a detective says there's 0 evidence that a murder took place

[Atheist Man]

How do you know that?
It's not a fact, it's an argument. If someone wants to present a counterargument, they're free to offer up some evidence. But no one has in my life so far, so at some point you realize that the search is a waste of time.

[crabber]

the same way a detective says there's 0 evidence that a murder took place

'Cept that the detective knows what evidence of a murder looks like.

[crabber]

But no one has in my life so far, so at some point you realize that the search is a waste of time.

Sure they have, you just reject said evidence. Or fail to accept it. Or whatever the correct debate terminology is.

[Atheist Man]

Sure they have, you just reject said evidence. Or fail to accept it. Or whatever the correct debate terminology is.
Calling something "evidence" doesn't make it evidence.

[gosuruss]

the invisible and the non existent look very much alike.

[abt5]

Sure they have, you just reject said evidence. Or fail to accept it. Or whatever the correct debate terminology is.

if all crazies say things like this, psychiatrists would be out of jobs

[crabber]

Calling something "evidence" doesn't make it evidence.

Rejecting evidence also doesn't make it not exist.

[crabber]

the invisible and the non existent look very much alike.

Most of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible, IIRC.

[Atheist Man]

Rejecting evidence also doesn't make it not exist.
Are you implying that you are aware of some actual evidence for the existence of God? If so, just stop beating around the bush and present it.

[abt5]

Most of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible, IIRC.

false, we can detect them easily

[crabber]

Are you implying that you are aware of some actual evidence for the existence of God? If so, just stop beating around the bush and present it.

No, I'm asking for the arguments for and against god, and I have not been presented with any so far.

[crabber]

false, we can detect them easily

false, we can infer they exist based on things we can actually detect

[abt5]

false, we can infer they exist based on things we can actually detect

umm, thats actually not true. but okay.

[crabber]

umm, thats actually not true. but okay.

umm, if you say so.

[Atheist Man]

No, I'm asking for the arguments for and against god, and I have not been presented with any so far.
There is only one possible argument against the existence of something which does not exist. The one I gave you.

[gosuruss]

No, I'm asking for the arguments for and against god, and I have not been presented with any so far.

Why don't you tell me the one you used against the fella who said Zeus lives on Mount Olympus and then I will use your method

[crabber]

Why don't you tell me the one you used against the fella who said Zeus lives on Mount Olympus and then I will use your method

Do you have me confused with someone else?

[abt5]

Do you have me confused with someone else?

I'm curious about your answer to this as well. how do you disprove any gods based on your logic for "evidence"

[crabber]

There is only one possible argument against the existence of something which does not exist. The one I gave you.

That's not what I asked for. Suppose someone believes in god, how would you argue he doesn't exist? Suppose someone does not believe in god, how would you argue for his existence? These are interesting questions, surely someone has come up with such cases? I am familiar with your approach, but it's passive and boring.

[abt5]

That's not what I asked for. Suppose someone believes in god, how would you argue he doesn't exist? Suppose someone does not believe in god, how would you argue for his existence? These are interesting questions, surely someone has come up with such cases? I am familiar with your approach, but it's passive and boring.

but he just told you? Suppose someone believes in an invisible unicorn, how would you prove that it doesn't exist other than, "there's no evidence to suggests that it exists"

[Atheist Man]

Suppose someone believes in god, how would you argue he doesn't exist?
You find out what evidence he thinks he's seen, then you explain to him why that isn't really evidence. 99.99% of the time you'll be wasting your time, but whatever.

Or, he might admit to you that he doesn't have any evidence but he chooses to believe on pure faith. At which point you know he's brain dead so you you'll be wasting your time 100% of the time.

[crabber]

I'm curious about your answer to this as well. how do you disprove any gods based on your logic for "evidence"

Again, you must have me confused with someone else. I have not attempted to disprove the existence of any gods. I am asking the questions here, attempting to learn more about the various arguments and evidence. I have not heard either side present a valid argument or evidence, either way. The atheists say "I have no reason to believe in something I have no reason to believe in", and the theists say "god must exist because if not how did this happen and that happen?" Both answers are lazy and attempt to shift the burden to the other side.

I want to hear from the non-lazies.

[Atheist Man]

Again, you must have me confused with someone else. I have not attempted to disprove the existence of any gods. I am asking the questions here, attempting to learn more about the various arguments and evidence. I have not heard either side present a valid argument or evidence, either way. The atheists say "I have no reason to believe in something I have no reason to believe in", and the theists say "god must exist because if not how did this happen and that happen?" Both answers are lazy and attempt to shift the burden to the other side.

I want to hear from the non-lazies.
So because we atheists can't do the impossible (prove a negative) that makes us lazy?

[crabber]

You find out what evidence he thinks he's seen, then you explain to him why that isn't really evidence. 99.99% of the time you'll be wasting your time, but whatever.
Attacking another person's reason for believing in something doesn't prove that thing doesn't exist, it proves that the other person can't prove the thing exists.


Or, he might admit to you that he doesn't have any evidence but he chooses to believe on pure faith. At which point you know he's brain dead so you you'll be wasting your time 100% of the time.

This statement is useless to our conversation.

[ditkaworshipper]

While I certainly understand why you would say that, it should go without saying that most Christians do spend plenty of time reflecting on their own flaws. You don't see them doing this, of course, because most people don't announce that they're doing so.

Obviously, there are a number of very vocal groups who seem, very disproportionately, to do otherwise, and who get media attention for it. They are - to use Gomer's term - asshats. Jesus was a bit more diplomatic, but made his point just the same. (Log in your eye, etc.)
Very true, which is why I don't attack religion unilaterally. Just specific dangerous elements.
This is the only argument for God you need:

There is zero evidence that God does not exist.
IFYP to show it works both ways. This is actually something we neither have evidence for or against, so this argument is just a waste of time. A metaphysical debate is all you can get into on this one imo, which I would find interesting, but most people get into name calling before anything productive can get going on that one imo.

[crabber]

So because we atheists can't do the impossible (prove a negative) that makes us lazy?

All I'm asking for are the arguments against the existence of god, and for the existence of god. If one side could actually prove their claims, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Atheist Man]

:shake:

:wall:

[gomer_tree]

Calling something "evidence" doesn't make it evidence.

Meh. Been there, done that. Some people actually thought OJ was innocent, too.

Evidence is evidence. It's either accepted as relevant or it's not. The fact that evidence is rejected by you is more your issue that the presenter of evidence. What you're seeking is "proof," and you are confusing the two.

[Atheist Man]

:wall:
:wall:
:wall:

[gomer_tree]

They are - to use Gomer's term - asshats.

I think I borrowed this term from one of the atheists or agnostics here. Can't remember who exactly... Travis or Ditka I think.

[gomer_tree]

if all crazies say things like this, psychiatrists would be out of jobs

Strawman.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Calling something "evidence" doesn't make it evidence.

What about people who claim to have heard from God?
Or people who die on the operating table and come back and say they saw god?
What about the bible?

It's all evidence.

[Agadefe]

I tend not to care at all about the effects of beliefs, but rather whether the beliefs themselves are true. And I'm pretty secure in that arena. The only people making arguments for the existence of god(s) are fairly obvious trolls. I actually find it a little strange that the vast majority of religious debate on these forums centers around whether "religion" is bad, which I think is irrelevant if the propositions of the religion are false.

The problem with this is that the 'existence' of God being 'a negative' is predicated on religion.

God is whatever you want Him to be for each person. So I may 'feel' God at certain times and believe that a God exists. Another person might ask 'God' for help, get help (possibly from his own mind), perceive that as God, and continue gaining strength from it.

The only type of God that is 'harmful' to society, is one that cares about your physical actions on this world. Additionally, if every religion was purely "God wants you to help people as much possible, so do it" very few people would have a problem with it. So the argument against God is fairly irrelevant in a societal POV, whereas the argument against religion is much more poignant.

[gomer_tree]

Are you implying that you are aware of some actual evidence for the existence of God? If so, just stop beating around the bush and present it.

Evidence of design will be dismissed.

Evidence of miracles will be dismissed and ridiculed.

Evidence of personal anecdotes of spiritual encounters will be labeled delusional.

Evidence from the Bible will be considered fantasy.


This is why I find most debates here entirely disingenuous. You already know that you'll reject any such evidence before it's even presented, regardless of what's presented, because it's not an absolute proof - in your mind anyway - of the existence of God. And yet you continue to press people to present it. And then you seem shocked when people choose not to engage in that ridiculous exchange.

[Agadefe]

I think if most Christians spent more time reflecting on their own flaws instead of on how everyone else is going to hell for gay marriage, abortions, leaving the toilet seat up, etc then there wouldn't be so much hate on the christians. Same goes for Muslims.

I think "most" casual Christians do this.

The issue is the "vocal" Christians that use religion to discriminate and oppress are an inordinately strong voice in our societal construct.

[gomer_tree]

but he just told you? Suppose someone believes in an invisible unicorn, how would you prove that it doesn't exist other than, "there's no evidence to suggests that it exists"

Have I mentioned how stupid it is to bring up these analogies?

I have? And no one cares?

OK, then... carry on.

[gomer_tree]

99.99% of the time you'll be wasting your time, but whatever.

lol

[Agadefe]

Evidence of design will be dismissed.

Evidence of miracles will be dismissed and ridiculed.

Evidence of personal anecdotes of spiritual encounters will be labeled delusional.

Evidence from the Bible will be considered fantasy.


This is why I find most debates here entirely disingenuous. You already know that you'll reject any such evidence before it's even presented, regardless of what's presented, because it's not an absolute proof - in your mind anyway - of the existence of God. And yet you continue to press people to present it. And then you seem shocked when people choose not to engage in that ridiculous exchange.

I agree with this, mostly.

However, way too many things can be interpreted as 'God' or 'not God' depending on what they are, so it's pretty difficult to make an argument one way or the other. People that believe will see miracles, people that don't believe will see random chance and say "why did this person get healed but not this one". Both are correct.

My issue is being unable to comprehend how and why God would care about what we do. How these metaphysical pieces of evidence turn into a religion.

Is it a coincidence that people tend to 'experience God' in a way that aligns with their religious beliefs?

[gomer_tree]

This statement is as useless toas our conversation.

ifyp

[gomer_tree]

However, way too many things can be interpreted as 'God' or 'not God' depending on what they are, so it's pretty difficult to make an argument one way or the other.

I'm not even really talking about this. I entirely agree that individual anecdotes from random individuals can be the most suspect "evidence". On the other hand, there are some very powerful individual anecdotes. The story about an atheist with a near-death experience immediately converting and becoming a Pastor or something carries a lot more significance than a woman who claims God told her to go shopping at this particular place and - lo and behold - the item she wanted was 50% off! The fact that I believe in God and believe that God can even be part of my life doesn't mean I just accept everything I hear with the same level of confidence. It doesn't mean I'm never skeptical of some things I hear. That's kind of what evidence is. Some things are more important than other things, and some things that may not be at all relevant to the case do not undermine the case, unless it's contradictory evidence. And then, some seemingly contradictory evidence, upon further evaluation, may actually not be contradictory at all. And so on.


My post was general. Certainly, everyone can find people claiming certain things that won't be true or accurate. Some people hear one or more of those stories and then toss the entire household out with the bathwater.

[Atheist Man]

Evidence of design will be dismissed.
Because it isn't evidence. The only things in the universe that have evidence of having been designed by an intelligence were designed by human beings.

Evidence of miracles will be dismissed and ridiculed.
At my mother's request, I've looked into a few miracles. They've all been quite easy to see through, or highly conflated.

Evidence of personal anecdotes of spiritual encounters will be labeled delusional.
And with good reason.

Evidence from the Bible will be considered fantasy.
And with good reason. The Harry Potter books aren't evidence that Hogwarts School exists.

[abt5]

Have I mentioned how stupid it is to bring up these analogies?

I have? And no one cares?

OK, then... carry on.

you have, but you never really explained why. you just keep repeating that the analogies are stupid.

[TheGillotine]

Evidence of design will be dismissed.

Evidence of miracles will be dismissed and ridiculed.

Evidence of personal anecdotes of spiritual encounters will be labeled delusional.

Evidence from the Bible will be considered fantasy.


This is why I find most debates here entirely disingenuous. You already know that you'll reject any such evidence before it's even presented, regardless of what's presented, because it's not an absolute proof - in your mind anyway - of the existence of God. And yet you continue to press people to present it. And then you seem shocked when people choose not to engage in that ridiculous exchange.

I expect your "evidence" to be such that it would hold up in a court of law.
1) I've never seen any "evidence of design" that's even remotely convincing. Enlighten me.
2) I've never seen evidence of a miracle (ie a suspension of the laws of nature).
3) The personal anecdotes in support of gods you don't believe in don't convince you, so you shouldn't expect your personal anecdotes to convince anyone else.
4) Evidence from the Bible is no more convincing than evidence from the Baghavad Gita. It's not so much the fantasy of it (although that is evident) so much as it is the circular logic. "The Bible is true because God inspired it, God exists because the Bible is true, etc."

I'm relatively new here, so maybe I haven't seen what you're talking about.


The problem with this is that the 'existence' of God being 'a negative' is predicated on religion.

God is whatever you want Him to be for each person. So I may 'feel' God at certain times and believe that a God exists. Another person might ask 'God' for help, get help (possibly from his own mind), perceive that as God, and continue gaining strength from it.

The only type of God that is 'harmful' to society, is one that cares about your physical actions on this world. Additionally, if every religion was purely "God wants you to help people as much possible, so do it" very few people would have a problem with it. So the argument against God is fairly irrelevant in a societal POV, whereas the argument against religion is much more poignant.

You're referring to the "vague notion of a god". Many people "believe" in that, but most believe in a specific god with specific attributes, and the claims of the religion can be proven or disproven explicitly.

[TheGillotine]

The fact that I believe in God and believe that God can even be part of my life doesn't mean I just accept everything I hear with the same level of confidence. It doesn't mean I'm never skeptical of some things I hear. That's kind of what evidence is. Some things are more important than other things, and some things that may not be at all relevant to the case do not undermine the case, unless it's contradictory evidence. And then, some seemingly contradictory evidence, upon further evaluation, may actually not be contradictory at all. And so on.


This is called compartmentalization. If you applied the same level of skepticism towards Yahweh that you do towards Krishna, you wouldn't believe in either.

[ditkaworshipper]

OK, guys. I think I have identified the problem. We are approaching this from what we disagree on rather than creating a set of conditions that we can all accept as fact. In the interest of constructing parameters and furtherin discussion, let me offer a first posulate:

1. Boobs are awesome.

[abt5]

OK, guys. I think I have identified the problem. We are approaching this from what we disagree on rather than creating a set of conditions that we can all accept as fact. In the interest of constructing parameters and furtherin discussion, let me offer a first posulate:

1. Boobs are awesome.

what if you're gay

[TheGillotine]

OK, guys. I think I have identified the problem. We are approaching this from what we disagree on rather than creating a set of conditions that we can all accept as fact. In the interest of constructing parameters and furtherin discussion, let me offer a first posulate:

1. Boobs are awesome.

2. Scarlett Johansson is naked on teh internets.

[crabber]

I expect your "evidence" to be such that it would hold up in a court of law.


A court of law starts with an assumption (null hypothesis) that someone is innocent until there is proof that they are probably not innocent.

The atheist assumption or null hypothesis is that nothing exists unless there is evidence for it, but out of the other side of the mouth comes the statement that there is a lot we don't know. This is why I used the term "lazy", but in fact the term "passive" is more appropriate.

[yankeetripper]

what if you're gay

Jesus boot camp can cure that. I read it on the internets it must be true.

[yankeetripper]

http://atheistpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/atheism_motivational_poster_27.jpg

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/occamsrazorbu0.jpg

[Anitha Desai]

Serious question to Christians - if you believe that personal anecdoates of experiences are God are enough to convince you of God's existence, what do you say about people of other religions having experienced God? If their God didn't exist, they should not be experiencing similar feelings/emotions/miracles, right?

[├●┤]

EUUUURAAAGHHH

PEW! PEW!

[Brock]

Serious question to Christians - if you believe that personal anecdoates of experiences are God are enough to convince you of God's existence, what do you say about people of other religions having experienced God? If their God didn't exist, they should not be experiencing similar feelings/emotions/miracles, right?

It's the devil trying to mislead them. Obviously.

[TheGillotine]

A court of law starts with an assumption (null hypothesis) that someone is innocent until there is proof that they are probably not innocent.

The atheist assumption or null hypothesis is that nothing exists unless there is evidence for it, but out of the other side of the mouth comes the statement that there is a lot we don't know. This is why I used the term "lazy", but in fact the term "passive" is more appropriate.

To continue the courtroom analogy, that would be like the prosecuting attorney walking up to the jury and saying "Well, we don't have any evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but there's a lot we don't know, so you should go ahead and convict him."

Until such evidence is found, disbelief is justified.

[crabber]

To continue the courtroom analogy, that would be like the prosecuting attorney walking up to the jury and saying "Well, we don't have any evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but there's a lot we don't know, so you should go ahead and convict him."

Yeah, well that depends on your relative preference for Type I errors vs Type II errors. We prefer to let lots of guilty people off the hook if it means we can avoid convicting a few innocent people. Other societies have different values and don't mind sweeping up a few innocents along the way. In the god debate, you are requiring a high standard of proof in order to avoid accidentally believing in something that doesn't exist. Cue Pascal's Wager.

[gomer_tree]

you have, but you never really explained why. you just keep repeating that the analogies are stupid.

It's at least remotely reasonable to think bringing up an old Greek god or goddess makes some point. But I did explain that one.

To somehow think that the example of other fictional characters that nobody actually believes in or considers their deity is remotely close to a good analogy is just stupid. And yes, children believe in the tooth fairy because parents tell them the tooth fairy exists (even though they know it's not true), and then parents also tell them that God exists. I get it. And I know that in your head you probably think that somewhere up the line, we all believe in God because someone else told us to, and that at some point someone who told us that really doesn't believe in God. This is feeble thinking. It presupposes that none of us have the ability to outgrow that message and think critically about it. This is actually disproven by every atheist who says they grew up believing in God. To somehow think none of us are capable of the same critical thought while arriving at a different conclusion, and simply being unable to see past the fantastic equivalent to the tooth fairy is what is so stupid about the argument.

But the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn is even more stupid, because at least with the tooth fairy you can compare it to something that kids actually believe in because they were told of its existence. I don't know any parents that actually try to sell the fact that these other fictional beings exist. So trying to equivocate something that silly to a religion that has historically existed for centuries, that people have been rounded up and killed for believing, and that countless people have dedicated their entire lives to in study or in practice.... stupid.

What i don't think you realize is that the only ones who think it's even a remotely reasonable analogy or comparison are those already all-in on the atheism. It holds no weight at all in any argument with others, and if anything it tends to lower the desire to even engage someone who continues to make those comparisons.

[Agadefe]

I'm not even really talking about this. I entirely agree that individual anecdotes from random individuals can be the most suspect "evidence". On the other hand, there are some very powerful individual anecdotes. The story about an atheist with a near-death experience immediately converting and becoming a Pastor or something carries a lot more significance than a woman who claims God told her to go shopping at this particular place and - lo and behold - the item she wanted was 50% off! The fact that I believe in God and believe that God can even be part of my life doesn't mean I just accept everything I hear with the same level of confidence. It doesn't mean I'm never skeptical of some things I hear. That's kind of what evidence is. Some things are more important than other things, and some things that may not be at all relevant to the case do not undermine the case, unless it's contradictory evidence. And then, some seemingly contradictory evidence, upon further evaluation, may actually not be contradictory at all. And so on.


I was talking about the Pastor version also.

Don't you think it's strange that 'atheists' that experience religious visions seem to always do so into the religion which they were brought up in. Isn't it more likely that any vision they did have of God (and I'm not saying it's untrue, even if it's all in their minds, God can also be in their minds) was then given form by the religion they know.

To be more concise, it seems to me much more likely that God is something we can't understand so these vision, miracles, and spiritual revelations are impossible for the human brain to comprehend - so we comprehend it via religion. However, this does not make the religion correct. I don't think anybody has a spiritual revelation not knowing that Christianity exists and their spiritual revelation tells them Christianity is the way to go.

[TheGillotine]

Cue Pascal's Wager.

Why don't you worship Allah? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Same with the other thousands of gods worshipped over time.

[Agadefe]

You're referring to the "vague notion of a god". Many people "believe" in that, but most believe in a specific god with specific attributes, and the claims of the religion can be proven or disproven explicitly.

Doesn't have to be a vague notion. I can have a clearly defined (to me) notion of God, but if I don't practice religion, it won't bother anyone.

You can believe in things like karma, ghosts, love, warp-holes, etc. and nobody will bat an eye because sure "maybe" it's possible. Same with God. However, religion is what makes this belief stifling. So talking about how religion negatively affects society and how contradictory it is, is really the only pertinent argument imho. The existence or non-existence of God is sort of secondary and only relevant because the existence of Him is an axiom in religion.

[gomer_tree]

A court of law starts with an assumption (null hypothesis) that someone is innocent until there is proof that they are probably not innocent.

The atheist assumption or null hypothesis is that nothing exists unless there is evidence for it, but out of the other side of the mouth comes the statement that there is a lot we don't know. This is why I used the term "lazy", but in fact the term "passive" is more appropriate.

This is exactly the issue. When two people start with different null hypotheses on an unprovable assertion, neither side will budge. It is possible for a person to decide change their null hypothesis, but not because the assertion has been proven. And there can be multiple null hypotheses, depending on the exact question being asked.

But one side really seems to have an issue with the idea that those adamantly and unbendingly adhering to the one hypothesis is, for all practical purposes, exhibiting exactly the same rationale and behavior as the people who adamantly and unbendingly adhere to the other hypothesis. The actions are most definitely religious and fundamentalist in nature. They will argue that this cannot be, and they will refuse to see it. But that's exactly what it is.

[ditkaworshipper]

what if you're gay

Even gay dudes find boobs aesthetically pleasing. If not, they need to die.

[Agadefe]

It's at least remotely reasonable to think bringing up an old Greek god or goddess makes some point. But I did explain that one.

To somehow think that the example of other fictional characters that nobody actually believes in or considers their deity is remotely close to a good analogy is just stupid. And yes, children believe in the tooth fairy because parents tell them the tooth fairy exists (even though they know it's not true), and then parents also tell them that God exists. I get it. And I know that in your head you probably think that somewhere up the line, we all believe in God because someone else told us to, and that at some point someone who told us that really doesn't believe in God. This is feeble thinking. It presupposes that none of us have the ability to outgrow that message and think critically about it. This is actually disproven by every atheist who says they grew up believing in God. To somehow think none of us are capable of the same critical thought while arriving at a different conclusion, and simply being unable to see past the fantastic equivalent to the tooth fairy is what is so stupid about the argument.

But the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn is even more stupid, because at least with the tooth fairy you can compare it to something that kids actually believe in because they were told of its existence. I don't know any parents that actually try to sell the fact that these other fictional beings exist. So trying to equivocate something that silly to a religion that has historically existed for centuries, that people have been rounded up and killed for believing, and that countless people have dedicated their entire lives to in study or in practice.... stupid.

What i don't think you realize is that the only ones who think it's even a remotely reasonable analogy or comparison are those already all-in on the atheism. It holds no weight at all in any argument with others, and if anything it tends to lower the desire to even engage someone who continues to make those comparisons.

Do you think people have the capability to randomly believe in religion without somebody telling them to?

It's interesting, for me personally, to hear these arguments. I grew up in a completely non-religious household. The concept of 'God' didn't even enter my mind until probably middle school and even then I didn't really understand what it meant. Then later throughout life I found that people all believed a book was The Truth.

Finding God isn't so hard, but I have difficulty understanding how people can truly believe in a Single Truth when they know that if they grew up differently they would believe a different Single Truth is the answer. I think it's much more logical to look at the Bible as a guidebook and define your own relationship with God how you see fit, personally.

[ditkaworshipper]

Agadafe, faith and logic are two different issues. :co:

[gomer_tree]

Don't you think it's strange that 'atheists' that experience religious visions seem to always do so into the religion which they were brought up in. Isn't it more likely that any vision they did have of God (and I'm not saying it's untrue, even if it's all in their minds, God can also be in their minds) was then given form by the religion they know.

Firstly, I'm not sure that is the case. Second, as a Catholic we do have a sense that "God meets you where you are" and that people other than Catholics - and even non-Christians - can be saved if they continue to live according to what they know about God and continue to try to seek the truth about Him. I'm probably saying it clumsily, but that's basically the idea. That being the case, it may actually be the case that even in a situation like that, not all the answers are given to a person about everything that he/she should do or believe. It's revelation enough to have provided certaintly of life after death and the existence of God. So, the person knows they have to turn their life around, but they still have a lot of work to do on their own. So, it's probably natural to start the process with what they know. Even if not "perfect," there is a lot of turth there to get them on the right path. The rest of their lives are available for growth, prayer and study.

[Agadefe]

Agadafe, faith and logic are two different issues. :co:

:lol: while true, I think most faith is based in some logic.

I have some faith reincarnation is real (more or less really believe it without knowing) just because it seems more logical to me than anything else.

I assume most religious people on here (people I assume to be intelligent) used some logic in coming to their faith.

[Agadefe]

Firstly, I'm not sure that is the case. Second, as a Catholic we do have a sense that "God meets you where you are" and that people other than Catholics - and even non-Christians - can be saved if they continue to live according to what they know about God and continue to try to seek the truth about Him. I'm probably saying it clumsily, but that's basically the idea. That being the case, it may actually be the case that even in a situation like that, not all the answers are given to a person about everything that he/she should do or believe. It's revelation enough to have provided certaintly of life after death and the existence of God. So, the person knows they have to turn their life around, but they still have a lot of work to do on their own. So, it's probably natural to start the process with what they know. Even if not "perfect," there is a lot of turth there to get them on the right path. The rest of their lives are available for growth, prayer and study.

The jump from 'life after death' and 'existence of God' to Christianity is the one I have trouble with.

Life after death can come in many different forms. Reincarnation, everyone goes to heaven, everyone goes to limbo, everyone is in a time-loop within their own lives, zombies, etc.

Even if people get 'proof' of this via spiritual revelation, the only way they draw the conclusion that they need to stop sinning and accept Jesus is if they were told that previously. A person who never heard of Jesus, or only has a vague idea of who he is (many many many people in Asia for instance, or me if I didn't come to America) would never come to the conclusion that their revelation means Christianity is the answer.

[Atheist Man]

Right. I'm not 100% certain that there is no God. I'm only 100% certain that if there is a God, it's not Jesus.

[gomer_tree]

Do you think people have the capability to randomly believe in religion without somebody telling them to?

It's interesting, for me personally, to hear these arguments. I grew up in a completely non-religious household. The concept of 'God' didn't even enter my mind until probably middle school and even then I didn't really understand what it meant. Then later throughout life I found that people all believed a book was The Truth.

Finding God isn't so hard, but I have difficulty understanding how people can truly believe in a Single Truth when they know that if they grew up differently they would believe a different Single Truth is the answer. I think it's much more logical to look at the Bible as a guidebook and define your own relationship with God how you see fit, personally.

We do live in interesting times.

When Christianity was established, it was under a common system of belief and a single, common authority. Since then, different people and sects broke away. It has caused a lot of confusion. Christ recognized this, I believe, in His prayer at Gethsemane when He committed that time to praying that we would all be one. I think that demonstrates that one of the major hurdles to people coming to faith is exactly that - if there are 50,000 different belief systems all saying their the right one, how can we know any of them are right? I guess that is one of the reasons why I stayed Catholic when other people I know did not, since it's rooted in the belief that Christ commissioned the apostles and Peter to carry on with His teachings, and we believe in apostolic succession. I'm not giving this answer to create a new debate between Christians - we've been through our differences many times. However, I think all of us do need to recognize that the current state of affairs is a real problem for a lot of people, and that more unity would go a long way towards helping others get their arms around what faith means.

As for individualization of what the Bile means, that's all well and good to a point. I do the same. But when there are fundamental differences in beliefs, at some level relatavism cannot be sensible. God is either Trinitarian in nature or He isn't. Christ is either divine or He isn't. He was either born of a virgin or He wasn't. To say it doesn't matter is wrong, because the Truth of it matters. And yes, discerning the truth is the tricky part, which is another reason why I'm Catholic. 2000 years of smarter people than me have studied these things and filled libararies with led to the councils that ultimately decided these issues. To believe this, you have to trust taht the Holy Spirit has guided these decisions. If you don't believe that, you're left questioning if the teachings of the Catholic Church are the truth. One can only assume that all those who broke from the Church did not trust that the Holy Spirit was in charge.

[Agadefe]

We do live in interesting times.

When Christianity was established, it was under a common system of belief and a single, common authority. Since then, different people and sects broke away. It has caused a lot of confusion. Christ recognized this, I believe, in His prayer at Gethsemane when He committed that time to praying that we would all be one. I think that demonstrates that one of the major hurdles to people coming to faith is exactly that - if there are 50,000 different belief systems all saying their the right one, how can we know any of them are right? I guess that is one of the reasons why I stayed Catholic when other people I know did not, since it's rooted in the belief that Christ commissioned the apostles and Peter to carry on with His teachings, and we believe in apostolic succession. I'm not giving this answer to create a new debate between Christians - we've been through our differences many times. However, I think all of us do need to recognize that the current state of affairs is a real problem for a lot of people, and that more unity would go a long way towards helping others get their arms around what faith means.

As for individualization of what the Bile means, that's all well and good to a point. I do the same. But when there are fundamental differences in beliefs, at some level relatavism cannot be sensible. God is either Trinitarian in nature or He isn't. Christ is either divine or He isn't. He was either born of a virgin or He wasn't. To say it doesn't matter is wrong, because the Truth of it matters. And yes, discerning the truth is the tricky part, which is another reason why I'm Catholic. 2000 years of smarter people than me have studied these things and filled libararies with led to the councils that ultimately decided these issues. To believe this, you have to trust taht the Holy Spirit has guided these decisions. If you don't believe that, you're left questioning if the teachings of the Catholic Church are the truth. One can only assume that all those who broke from the Church did not trust that the Holy Spirit was in charge.

I wasn't talking about the difference between Christians.

I was talking about the difference between Christians and people that have not been exposed to Christianity.

Additionally, in regard to the bolded, you say 'the truth of it matters' but it only matters if you believe it to be true. It matters much more whether you are feeling spiritually in tune with God or not - to your own personal life. Those other things are beliefs you hold that help you feel in tune. People that do not hold those beliefs would consider those aspects of God and Jesus to be completely irrelevant (all non-Abrahamic religions for instance).

[crabber]

I approve of Agadefe's posts.

[yankeetripper]

It's at least remotely reasonable to think bringing up an old Greek god or goddess makes some point. But I did explain that one.

To somehow think that the example of other fictional characters that nobody actually believes in or considers their deity is remotely close to a good analogy is just stupid. And yes, children believe in the tooth fairy because parents tell them the tooth fairy exists (even though they know it's not true), and then parents also tell them that God exists. I get it. And I know that in your head you probably think that somewhere up the line, we all believe in God because someone else told us to, and that at some point someone who told us that really doesn't believe in God. This is feeble thinking. It presupposes that none of us have the ability to outgrow that message and think critically about it. This is actually disproven by every atheist who says they grew up believing in God. To somehow think none of us are capable of the same critical thought while arriving at a different conclusion, and simply being unable to see past the fantastic equivalent to the tooth fairy is what is so stupid about the argument.

But the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn is even more stupid, because at least with the tooth fairy you can compare it to something that kids actually believe in because they were told of its existence. I don't know any parents that actually try to sell the fact that these other fictional beings exist. So trying to equivocate something that silly to a religion that has historically existed for centuries, that people have been rounded up and killed for believing, and that countless people have dedicated their entire lives to in study or in practice.... stupid.

What i don't think you realize is that the only ones who think it's even a remotely reasonable analogy or comparison are those already all-in on the atheism. It holds no weight at all in any argument with others, and if anything it tends to lower the desire to even engage someone who continues to make those comparisons.

Well I disagree with much of what you say here gomer. The greek gods were worshiped for many hundreds of years, sacrafices were made, temples were built. Just becuase we no longer worship them or think people who do are silly doesn't make it any less a valid analogy.

As for the made up stuff unicorns, tooth fairies, santa claus, ect. - well if you think God is made up by man than it is perfectly reasonable to compare him/her to other made up entities. They just have different purported fictional powers.

And yes it is true that many people have been killed for religeous beliefs. It is also true that relgious people have killed many people for NOT holding this same religious beliefs. It's also true that people who are different, the wrong race, the wrong color, the wrong sexual orentation have been killed just for being different. I'm not sure how it in any way proves the existance of god just t hat people have died for or been killed for religeon.

[crabber]

Why don't you worship Allah? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Same with the other thousands of gods worshipped over time.

.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it is ridiculous to try to count god, and my analogy does it well. I'm not defending Jesus or Christianity or a specific religion, just saying that I find disagreements about how many gods exist to be a complete waste of time, and an ineffective method of criticizing (a) religion.

[the acting drunktuary]

Even gay dudes find boobs aesthetically pleasing. If not, they need to die.

I think Loner said he's grossed out by them. Or at the very least, finds them unappealing.

[ditkaworshipper]

:lol: while true, I think most faith is based in some logic.

I have some faith reincarnation is real (more or less really believe it without knowing) just because it seems more logical to me than anything else.

I assume most religious people on here (people I assume to be intelligent) used some logic in coming to their faith.
I would love to do a Myers Briggs religious test (looking it up here but net nanny just got intense lately). I'm curious whether there is some kind of correlation on what personality types flock to religion/atheism. I personally believe its less of an issue of intelligence than perception.
I think Loner said he's grossed out by them. Or at the very least, finds them unappealing.

If I find out Loner is dissing boobs, he's got a new enemy.

[Mel-o-rama]

Serious question to Christians - if you believe that personal anecdoates of experiences are God are enough to convince you of God's existence, what do you say about people of other religions having experienced God? If their God didn't exist, they should not be experiencing similar feelings/emotions/miracles, right?

My personal belief: there is truth in every religion. One person may have a particular experience when they perform a certain action. If it's consistent with the "one true" religion (whatever that may be), then the "one true God" would reinforce that good action with a positive experience. This can even happen to athiests. "If I do this, it feels good. I don't know why, but I think I'll do it some more."

Said in other words, if a person happens to believe in a "false" religion, and performs the action, they get the positive reinforcement. No one is left out just because they believe wrongly. (An unfortunate side effect is that the person may further conclude from the experience that their religion is "true" and all others are "false.")

[Noddy]

false, we can infer they exist based on things we can actually detect

I think you meant to say something like 'stuff' (instead of 'matter and energy') in your post that precipitated this recent exchange b/w you and abt5.

It's the existence of dark matter and dark energy that we can not see and measure by inference.

One clue to the existence of dark matter is gravitational lensing.

[Anitha Desai]

My personal belief: there is truth in every religion. One person may have a particular experience when they perform a certain action. If it's consistent with the "one true" religion (whatever that may be), then the "one true God" would reinforce that good action with a positive experience. This can even happen to athiests. "If I do this, it feels good. I don't know why, but I think I'll do it some more."

Said in other words, if a person happens to believe in a "false" religion, and performs the action, they get the positive reinforcement. No one is left out just because they believe wrongly. (An unfortunate side effect is that the person may further conclude from the experience that their religion is "true" and all others are "false.")

Thanks. If the "one true God" would reinforce good action with positive feedback, no matter the religion the recipient of the feedback, isn't that then an indication that there is no "one true religion"?

[abt5]

thats the whole reason we call it dark matter and dark energy. it's simply a fake term we use to fill in the blank. and the reason we're inferring they're there is because of the need for their mass/gravity. does god have these physical attributes? (not the metaphysical need of "there needs to be a first cause", plus even if we grant that reasoning, it only justifies a deistic god)

[abt5]

pewpew

[crabber]

Alright, let's take an informal poll:

Who here was converted to Atheism with this thread? Show of hands?
OK
Who here was converted to Theism with this thread? ?

OK, that's what I thought. Let's go grab some beers, it's Friday.

[gomer_tree]

I would love to do a Myers Briggs religious test (looking it up here but net nanny just got intense lately). I'm curious whether there is some kind of correlation on what personality types flock to religion/atheism.

I'm an ENTJ. My J is close to the either/or area, though.

[limabeanactuary]

Pseud and gomer are generally SFW. Watch out for that Mary Pat, though, she's a scamp!

woo woo

[limabeanactuary]

pewpew

:iatpewpew:

[abt5]

woo woo

run for y0r lives!

[Quasi]

I'm an ENTJ. My J is close to the either/or area, though.

I'm an INFP and my wife is an INFJ....both non-believers.

[limabeanactuary]

EUUUURAAAGHHH

PEW! PEW!

:iatpewpew: even more

[limabeanactuary]

I'm an INFP and my wife is an INFJ....both non-believers.

But what's your astrological signs?

I hear that Virgos are more skeptical sorts.

[Quasi]

I think Loner said he's grossed out by them. Or at the very least, finds them unappealing.

This has to be proof being gay isn't a choice. Who could choose to find boobs unappealing? (talking about the majority of youngish boobs, I'm guessing all 90 year old boobs are nasty....I might change my mind when I'm 90 though)

[Quasi]

But what's your astrological signs?

I hear that Virgos are more skeptical sorts.

That a pickup line? ;)

[limabeanactuary]

That a pickup line? ;)

Oh, and I need you to fill out this Cosmo quiz to see if we're compatible.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

But what's your astrological signs?

I hear that Virgos are more skeptical sorts.
I used to believe in astrology, but then they changed my sign, and now I'm under one of the skeptical ones, so I don't believe any more.

[Quasi]

Oh, and I need you to fill out this Cosmo quiz to see if we're compatible.

The fact that I like boobs and I'm open to liking 90 year old boobs when I'm 90 was enough for my wife. You must be picky.

[Mel-o-rama]

Thanks. If the "one true God" would reinforce good action with positive feedback, no matter the religion the recipient of the feedback, isn't that then an indication that there is no "one true religion"?

That is good question. I suppose some religions do not recognize other religions to have elements of truth. That is, if you believe in that other religion, you're going to hell.

My particular religion states:
There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--

And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

This implies that you receive your rewards based on the laws you follow (regardless of what you actually believe). To me, this makes the most sense, as it's the only way that everyone can be judged fairly.

That way, anyone can benefit for behaving correctly. And the "one true religion" serves as the best way for one to learn how to receive those blessings and which laws need to be followed. Other "not so true" religions have some of the laws correct, so people who follow those religions religiously may do okay (after a little paperwork in heaven :)).

[Anitha Desai]

That is good question. I suppose some religions do not recognize other religions to have elements of truth. That is, if you believe in that other religion, you're going to hell.

My particular religion states:


This implies that you receive your rewards based on the laws you follow (regardless of what you actually believe). To me, this makes the most sense, as it's the only way that everyone can be judged fairly.

That way, anyone can benefit for behaving correctly. And the "one true religion" serves as the best way for one to learn how to receive those blessings and which laws need to be followed. Other "not so true" religions have some of the laws correct, so people who follow those religions religiously may do okay (after a little paperwork in heaven :)).

Therein lies the problem - which would be the one true religion, when adherants to several religions all claim to have the true word of God and the correct laws to be followed?

I realize there is no good answer to this, just wanted to point out that accepting many paths to God might exist is, IMHO, a way to find common ground amongst people of the world, which will hopefully, ateast, lead to less wars being fought in the name of God.

[limabeanactuary]

The fact that I like boobs and I'm open to liking 90 year old boobs when I'm 90 was enough for my wife. You must be picky.

I like to call it "having high standards".

[gosuruss]

It's at least remotely reasonable to think bringing up an old Greek god or goddess makes some point. But I did explain that one.

To somehow think that the example of other fictional characters that nobody actually believes in or considers their deity is remotely close to a good analogy is just stupid. And yes, children believe in the tooth fairy because parents tell them the tooth fairy exists (even though they know it's not true), and then parents also tell them that God exists. I get it. And I know that in your head you probably think that somewhere up the line, we all believe in God because someone else told us to, and that at some point someone who told us that really doesn't believe in God. This is feeble thinking. It presupposes that none of us have the ability to outgrow that message and think critically about it. This is actually disproven by every atheist who says they grew up believing in God. To somehow think none of us are capable of the same critical thought while arriving at a different conclusion, and simply being unable to see past the fantastic equivalent to the tooth fairy is what is so stupid about the argument.

But the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn is even more stupid, because at least with the tooth fairy you can compare it to something that kids actually believe in because they were told of its existence. I don't know any parents that actually try to sell the fact that these other fictional beings exist. So trying to equivocate something that silly to a religion that has historically existed for centuries, that people have been rounded up and killed for believing, and that countless people have dedicated their entire lives to in study or in practice.... stupid.

What i don't think you realize is that the only ones who think it's even a remotely reasonable analogy or comparison are those already all-in on the atheism. It holds no weight at all in any argument with others, and if anything it tends to lower the desire to even engage someone who continues to make those comparisons.

Greek gods were around for a very long time. Many men sacrificed their lives in study to those gods. You do those people a great disservice by not even considering what they spent their life doing. Just because not many people believe in those gods anymore doesn't really their claims wrong. For example, there are thousands of religions, and christianity and islam have done a good job conquering nations and converting them over the years. It's quite possible, in fact quite probable, in my view, that if there were a real religion, the real religion with real divine origins with a real book that did not authorize all sorts of hatred was killed off by a more imperialistic religion. Still doesn't change the fact of whether it is true or not.

[TheGillotine]

.

What if a god exists that punishes credulity and rewards skepticism and rational thought?

This is a pretty decent article on why Pascal's wager is useless.

http://thechaoscosmos.com/?p=136

[Quasi]

I like to call it "having high standards".

Sorry, sounds like we're not compatible then. I need a woman with low standards and even lower expectations.

[Quasi]

I don't think this one has been posted yet.

[crabber]

What if a god exists that punishes credulity and rewards skepticism and rational thought?

This is a pretty decent article on why Pascal's wager is useless.

http://thechaoscosmos.com/?p=136

If such a god does exist, then skepticism and rational thought should lead to him, since rational thought is supposed to lead to the truth. If not, it's like, a paradox or something.

[Agadefe]

Rationality is a human construct.

[TheGillotine]

If such a god does exist, then skepticism and rational thought should lead to him, since rational thought is supposed to lead to the truth. If not, it's like, a paradox or something.

Only if he wanted to be believed in. If a god does exist, it's obvious it doesn't care to show itself.

[Patience]

Has anything new or original been posted to this thread over the last 30 pages?

[crabber]

Has anything new or original been posted to this thread over the last 30 pages?

No. Not in the first 60 either.

[abt5]

You guys care to post new posters. gosh. im doing all the work, and they just get drowned out by drama

[Mog]

yeah TTWA when it was just images.

someday, some advanced civilization will be sifting through the ruins of ours and find images like that, and put them in a text book, sort of like how we read about greek/roman gods.

i like to think about that when i am looking at the images. makes them funnier imo.

[Swan]

Therein lies the problem - which would be the one true religion, when adherants to several religions all claim to have the true word of God and the correct laws to be followed?

I realize there is no good answer to this, just wanted to point out that accepting many paths to God might exist is, IMHO, a way to find common ground amongst people of the world, which will hopefully, ateast, lead to less wars being fought in the name of God.
Fewer wars.

[Swan]

Has anything new or original been posted to this thread over the last 30 pages?
I don't follow religion threads very closely, so I don't know if gomer's posts represent some sort of rehashing on his part, but this is the first time I've read them and I must say I enjoyed them immensely.

Gentle Giant's post -- the one that was made to resemble a computer program -- was also great.

[Mel-o-rama]

Therein lies the problem - which would be the one true religion, when adherants to several religions all claim to have the true word of God and the correct laws to be followed?

I realize there is no good answer to this, just wanted to point out that accepting many paths to God might exist is, IMHO, a way to find common ground amongst people of the world, which will hopefully, ateast, lead to less wars being fought in the name of God.

I agree. If my theory is correct, then the one true religion exists, but we would have no way of knowing which one it is (using logic alone). But fortunately it wouldn't be as vital for any individual to find that true religion as long as you get close enough. Thus, no need to go to war to prove the veracity of your religion. :)

[limabeanactuary]

Well, let me know when somebody posts something funny.

[Swan]

Well, let me know when somebody posts something funny.
I should mention -- the word "great," used to describe Gentle Giant's post, was an all-encompassing adjective intended to cover funny as well.

Now go back and take a look-see.

[Hydraskull]

How I win every religious argument:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081106212857/uncyclopedia/images/8/8c/Windmill_beard.jpg

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

I agree. If my theory is correct, then the one true religion exists, but we would have no way of knowing which one it is (using logic alone). But fortunately it wouldn't be as vital for any individual to find that true religion as long as you get close enough. Thus, no need to go to war to prove the veracity of your religion. :)

I sort of think the same way you do, but here's one problem I have with it. I can buy that a lot of religions might have been inspired by the same "true God", but the one that really bothers me is Islam..or at least the militant forms of it. My impression is it's pretty clear about killing non-believers and all that, and I have a hard time seeing how that's compatible with the one true God idea.

I'm just curious what you think about this, since it's something I think about myself.

[gosuruss]

I sort of think the same way you do, but here's one problem I have with it. I can buy that a lot of religions might have been inspired by the same "true God", but the one that really bothers me is Islam..or at least the militant forms of it. My impression is it's pretty clear about killing non-believers and all that, and I have a hard time seeing how that's compatible with the one true God idea.

I'm just curious what you think about this, since it's something I think about myself.

Interesting purchase. How do you buy that? Is it in "God has revealed himself to all of these cultures despite instilling different doctrines"? or "the god they theorize is same god i believe has revealed himself through jesus of nazerath"? Like what do you practically mean by that statement?

Futher, while islam is more militant towards unbelievers, christianity has a long history of being militant and being justified through scripture.

[limabeanactuary]

How I win every religious argument:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081106212857/uncyclopedia/images/8/8c/Windmill_beard.jpg

Ah, now you're talking my language.

Or oppressing me.

I have decided which, yet.

[abt5]

im more impressed by his glases than his beard

[Listeria]

Shame on all of you except Hydraskull.

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

Interesting purchase. How do you buy that? Is it in "God has revealed himself to all of these cultures despite instilling different doctrines"? or "the god they theorize is same god i believe has revealed himself through jesus of nazerath"? Like what do you practically mean by that statement?

Futher, while islam is more militant towards unbelievers, christianity has a long history of being militant and being justified through scripture.

I'd say the first quote, and it makes sense to me precisely because different cultures and time periods are so different. I don't think that just because religions have different doctrines it necessarily means they came from a different source. It's entirely possible that the way to "the Truth" isn't the same for every person..I'd almost say it has to be different for everyone. I definitely find it believable that a one true God could inspire different religions for whatever purpose. So all this stuff with the Greek gods and whatnot..I don't see that as a problem.

I didn't mean to imply Christianity > Islam..and I admittedly don't know much about it anyway. I know there are passages about getting 42 virgins in heaven for killing infidels and that some sects teach that stuff literally.

Maybe that's the answer to my question actually..maybe that's the same as the Bible passages that are disturbing when interpreted literally and the crazies who act on them. I should probably do some research about these Islam sects I keep talking about..maybe it's a small minority and it's overblown in my mind from high-profile terrorist attacks.

[Mel-o-rama]

I sort of think the same way you do, but here's one problem I have with it. I can buy that a lot of religions might have been inspired by the same "true God", but the one that really bothers me is Islam..or at least the militant forms of it. My impression is it's pretty clear about killing non-believers and all that, and I have a hard time seeing how that's compatible with the one true God idea.

I'm just curious what you think about this, since it's something I think about myself.

That may be a case of: "There are bad things in some religions as well as good things." Islam is a pretty good religion if you take out all that killing stuff.

And as gosuross says, Christianity has it's own similar history, though there is nothing in the New Testament that supports jihad. I take gosuross's Christian example to be a case of bad people taking advantage of the power that they obtained, and behaving contrary to the doctrines of their own religion.

[gosuruss]

I'd say the first quote, and it makes sense to me precisely because different cultures and time periods are so different. I don't think that just because religions have different doctrines it necessarily means they came from a different source. It's entirely possible that the way to "the Truth" isn't the same for every person..I'd almost say it has to be different for everyone. I definitely find it believable that a one true God could inspire different religions for whatever purpose. So all this stuff with the Greek gods and whatnot..I don't see that as a problem.

I didn't mean to imply Christianity > Islam..and I admittedly don't know much about it anyway. I know there are passages about getting 42 virgins in heaven for killing infidels and that some sects teach that stuff literally.

Maybe that's the answer to my question actually..maybe that's the same as the Bible passages that are disturbing when interpreted literally and the crazies who act on them. I should probably do some research about these Islam sects I keep talking about..maybe it's a small minority and it's overblown in my mind from high-profile terrorist attacks.

why can't these religions exist without there being a god? For example, if we humans got here without a god, would you expect us to create myth stories about gods, etc?

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

why can't these religions exist without there being a god? For example, if we humans got here without a god, would you expect us to create myth stories about gods, etc?

Sure, I'd expect humans to come up with something to give their lives more purpose. Assuming that's true, why do you think it's in human nature to be that way? Maybe it evolved, that'd be a funny twist.

[Durai]

is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

[abt5]

Sure, I'd expect humans to come up with something to give their lives more purpose. Assuming that's true, why do you think it's in human nature to be that way? Maybe it evolved, that'd be a funny twist.

it is completely natural for it to be a evolutionary bi-product. there are numerous theories on this. obviously none could be tested, but we can certainly come up with naturalistic explanations.

one that like i more: children are programmed to listen to their elders, taking things on faith rather than on evidence. this is certainly beneficial ,since the elderly are usually more experienced and knows the dangers of nature. The evolutionary bi-product is that sometimes false information gets passed down as well but taking to be true based on faith, and these information are usually the ones that cannot be disproved through observation such as "why it rains" "why is there earthquake" blah blah blah

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

because it is pious

But yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking about. Is it human nature to feel the need for a higher power because there actually is one that put that desire in us?

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

it is completely natural for it to be a evolutionary bi-product. there are numerous theories on this. obviously none could be tested, but we can certainly come up with naturalistic explanations.

one that like i more: children are programmed to listen to their elders, taking things on faith rather than on evidence. this is certainly beneficial ,since the elderly are usually more experienced and knows the dangers of nature. The evolutionary bi-product is that sometimes false information gets passed down as well but taking to be true based on faith, and these information are usually the ones that cannot be disproved through observation such as "why it rains" "why is there earthquake" blah blah blah

I agree it's plausible that it's evolutionary. But you're really doing the same thing as me, just a different thing makes more sense to you.

[abt5]

I agree it's plausible that it's evolutionary. But you're really doing the same thing as me, just a different thing makes more sense to you.

the the whole point of it is to assume it to be a natural phenomenon - as is most/all things we have observed and proved thus far. Even if there is a supernatural reason, without any extraordinary reason, that shouldn't be our first hypothesis.

[Evol ded]

the the whole point of it is to assume it to be a natural phenomenon - as is most/all things we have observed and proved thus far. Even if there is a supernatural reason, without any extraordinary reason, that shouldn't be our first hypothesis.

little bug, you need the bullfrog blues

[abt5]

http://www.uniquedecoronline.com/ProductImages/buggy/seats/bullfrog_blues.jpglittle bug, you need the bullfrog blues

[Evol ded]

did you ever wake up with the bullfrog on your mind?

[Noddy]

I used to believe in astrology, but then they changed my sign, and now I'm under one of the skeptical ones, so I don't believe any more.

A woman at work was a little shook up about it - i think she refused to believe it in the end. I did mention to her what I think about it. She's a very nice lady.

[abt5]

did you ever wake up with the bullfrog on your mind?

no, but i do waking thinking I'm superman. sometimes i come as close as hanging on the edge of my balcony before i realize i'm not

[limabeanactuary]

NOT ENUFF POSTERS!

All these words are hurting my puzzler.

[Anitha Desai]

Fewer wars.
Wow, all you got from my post was a grammatical booboo?

[abt5]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/wp-content/media/atheism.jpg

[abt5]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lntbs3qHMu1qjvxfho1_500.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID8928/images/atheist_cartoon1.jpg

[abt5]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/27/us/27atheist_graphic.gif

[abt5]

http://mcbrolloks.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/calvin_hobbes_math_atheist.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2008/atheist-riots.jpg

[abt5]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PgjdK-mzze4/TQyR-JgnL6I/AAAAAAAABaQ/h2jCnSaA7OM/s400/card2.jpg

[abt5]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eAA-P_TxpwE/Taa6eNzGMdI/AAAAAAAAA5E/KEviHOfG8PQ/s400/atheism101.gif

[abt5]

http://madmikesamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/atheist-heaven.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dro1138l.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.paulhobson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2006-05-07-Atheist.gif

[abt5]

http://www.mentallyjumbled.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Christians-vs-Atheists.png

[abt5]

http://www.everfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/God-Prefers-Atheists.jpg

[abt5]

http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/05/Atheists-Gave-Bigger-Hearts.jpg

[abt5]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxoFy_Gr3TJXkB-ystab2UWfMpYo7K5kKlgeITT8yshe5u3gzKqiU86ggh

[abt5]

http://rockbeyondbelief.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/only-atheists-in-foxholes.png

[abt5]

http://unfollowingjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Atheism-arrogant.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0902/atheists-atheists-religion-god-demotivational-poster-1234043092.jpg

[abt5]

http://img.anongallery.org/img/9/1/atheists-dont-believe-in-hell.jpg

[abt5]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/wvs-atheists/wave5.png

[abt5]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V4w18ZWaPas/SSJfw9S5vHI/AAAAAAAACwg/YL3HHEITRRM/s400/Atheist-Humour-12.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/B1726175B261715P24CGF23.jpg

[snikelfritz]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/wvs-atheists/wave5.png

I would question the South Korea / Vietnam figures, there's a Budhist ancestoral worship element that's quite common in both that is essentially a religion, but wouldn't manifest in a lot of surveys.

[abt5]

I would question the South Korea / Vietnam figures, there's a Budhist ancestoral worship element that's quite common in both that is essentially a religion, but wouldn't manifest in a lot of surveys.

I think a lot of it comes out as superstition. If someone buys a house in China, they'd want good feng-shui just for "there's nothing to lose to believe in it", but if you ask them if they really believed in feng-shui, they'd probably say no, based on my experience anyway. same for ancestral worship, haunting ghosts, and various superstitious acts.

[Mel-o-rama]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lntbs3qHMu1qjvxfho1_500.jpg

Carl Sagan an atheist? Hah! The cartoonist never watched "Cosmos" or read "Contact." Carl may have been agnostic, but he was definitely NOT an atheist.

[TheGillotine]

Carl Sagan an atheist? Hah! The cartoonist never watched "Cosmos" or read "Contact." Carl may have been agnostic, but he was definitely NOT an atheist.

Depends on your definition of an atheist. Most Christians would consider him an atheist.

[ditkaworshipper]

http://mcbrolloks.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/calvin_hobbes_math_atheist.jpg
Sadly true
http://www.mentallyjumbled.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Christians-vs-Atheists.png
Christians are delicious.

[Mel-o-rama]

Depends on your definition of an atheist. Most Christians would consider him an atheist.

Then Christians are stoopid. :) True, he was a master skeptic, but he labeled himself as an agnostic, rather than as an atheist. He claimed not to have enough information to be a true atheist.

His works strongly hint at the possibility of some greater power (not necessarily a being) responsible for all the order in the universe.

[abt5]

Then Christians are stoopid. :) True, he was a master skeptic, but he labeled himself as an agnostic, rather than as an atheist. He claimed not to have enough information to be a true atheist.


he simply defined atheist differently. but his stance is the same as most of the atheists


His works strongly hint at the possibility of some greater power (not necessarily a being) responsible for all the order in the universe.

I don't think atheists deny some greater power out there either

[gosuruss]

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/religiousness-breakdown.png

[ditkaworshipper]

gosuruss, a person looking for religion as the indicator of lower IQ would find it in that data. However, latitude seems to be the stronger indicator

[gosuruss]

gosuruss, a person looking for religion as the indicator of lower IQ would find it in that data. However, latitude seems to be the stronger indicator

okay....?

[Sentinel]

http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/05/Atheists-Gave-Bigger-Hearts.jpg

You look at anomalies, but don't look at the overall trend? How selective. You also need to look at ratio of salary, not just the raw number. Furthermore, Robertson is hardly representative of Christians.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

[Sentinel]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/27/us/27atheist_graphic.gif

Since you're a fan of correlation = causation:

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/PHY-270221/Obesity-rates-rising-worldwide-half-of-US-could-be-obese-by-2030

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-07-04-national-debt_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/09/rising-unemployment-rate-undermines-obamas-goal-create-m-jobs/

[abt5]

Since you're a fan of correlation = causation:

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/PHY-270221/Obesity-rates-rising-worldwide-half-of-US-could-be-obese-by-2030

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-07-04-national-debt_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/09/rising-unemployment-rate-undermines-obamas-goal-create-m-jobs/

what did correlation or causation have to do with that poster.

[Sentinel]

The rise in atheists must be causing rise in obesity, since your other posts have tried to correlate atheism with pleasant attributes.

[TheGillotine]

The rise in atheists must be causing rise in obesity, since your other posts have tried to correlate atheism with pleasant attributes.

A religious person blindly asserts without evidence. A nonbeliever looks for research on the correlation between obesity and religiousity.

http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/194.pdf

OBJECTIVES: Relationships between religion and body weight were examined in a US national sample.
METHODS: Data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS), collected through telephone
and postal questionnaires, were analyzed for 3032 adults aged 25–74.
RESULTS: Religious denomination was significantly related to higher body weight in men after accounting for sociodemographic
controls. Conservative Protestant men had a 1.170.45 higher body mass index (BMI) than those reporting no
religious affiliation. Other religion variables that initially had significant relationships with greater body weight before adjusting
for control variables became nonsignificant after smoking was controlled. No significant relationships between religion and body
weight were present in women.
CONCLUSIONS: Religious denomination was related to body weight in men. Other dimensions of religiosity showing a
relationship with higher BMI appeared to be because of the lower rates of smoking among more religious individuals.


But of course don't let facts get in the way, we already know they haven't stopped you from falling for religion.

[Sentinel]

You're missing the overlying point...the lack of caution of trying to correlate religiosity of different states to pleasant attribute rankings and inferring the religiosity is the cause of them. That's no different than my research that rise in atheism and rise in obesity is going hand in hand, which I doubt there is a direct link between the two.

[abt5]

The rise in atheists must be causing rise in obesity, since your other posts have tried to correlate atheism with pleasant attributes.

what? wrong post? the post you quoted has nothing on pleasant attributes

[TheGillotine]

Furthermore, Robertson is hardly representative of Christians.


But Pat Robertson talks to God like every day.

[limabeanactuary]

http://www.mentallyjumbled.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Christians-vs-Atheists.png

well, it's true that i spent my first 11 years in Georgia....

[limabeanactuary]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/wvs-atheists/wave5.png

Less than 30% max? I thought y'all could do better than that by now.

Man, step up your PR campaign.

[abt5]

Less than 30% max? I thought y'all could do better than that by now.

Man, step up your PR campaign.

we need you to be in charge. time to switch sides!

[limabeanactuary]

Christians are delicious.

....yes....and I would say more, but Stu would get really pissed off

[limabeanactuary]

we need you to be in charge. time to switch sides!

sorry, dude, i'm concentrating on public pensions.

I'm about as successful as the atheists, alas.

[Mel-o-rama]

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/religiousness-breakdown.png

Hee hee - it looks like Utah gets the best of both worlds. Go Mormons!

[Mel-o-rama]

he simply defined atheist differently. but his stance is the same as most of the atheists

I guess you're right. According to Sagan's definition, none of us can be true atheists.

FTR, as a Christian, I have a lot of respect for that man, and if he were still alive, I would have loved the opportunity to talk religion/philosophy with him. Not that I'd convince him, it would be fun.

[TheGillotine]

I guess you're right. According to Sagan's definition, none of us can be true atheists.

FTR, as a Christian, I have a lot of respect for that man, and if he were still alive, I would have loved the opportunity to talk religion/philosophy with him. Not that I'd convince him, it would be fun.

Well take comfort in the idea that he's writhing in agony in Hell right now. Right?

[Gentle Giant]

Well take comfort in the idea that he's writhing in agony in Hell right now. Right?
Mel is a Mormon (IIRC), and therefore does not believe that. Simplifying, but I think Mormons believe that that kind of hell is reserved only for certain lapsed Mormons. (Someone please correct me.)

[gosuruss]

Hee hee - it looks like Utah gets the best of both worlds. Go Mormons!

indeed. i'm impressed.

[soyleche]

Mel is a Mormon (IIRC), and therefore does not believe that. Simplifying, but I think Mormons believe that that kind of hell is reserved only for certain lapsed Mormons. (Someone please correct me.)

Kinda, but not really. It's complicated.

Short answer (as I understand it) - that sort of hell is reserved for those who decide it's what they would rather have.

Which isn't to say that there won't be some pain, difficulty, etc for a lot more (most?) at some time prior to that. I'm of the opinion that it is all self-inflicted though.

[Mel-o-rama]

Mel is a Mormon (IIRC), and therefore does not believe that. Simplifying, but I think Mormons believe that that kind of hell is reserved only for certain lapsed Mormons. (Someone please correct me.)

Yeah - that's pretty much correct. The lowest level of heaven is better than, yet similar to this world (think of the typical Jehovah's Witness pamphlet depiction of life on Earth after the Millenium).

"Outer Darkness" is being consigned to no level of heaven at all, and this is reserved for people who really, really, really know what they're doing, and they do it anyway. Though it's unclear who exactly this covers. (That is: I'm not sure you have to be a Mormon.)

If Mormonism is correct, then after Sagan died, he would say: "It appears that I am still existing." He would reconsider things with new information (scientific method). I'm sure he would continue to view everything through his skeptical eyes. "Perhaps I am living out a dream in the last moments of my death, experiencing billions and billions of years in the blink of an eye."

He could still reject Jesus/God/religion/etc., but he'd end up in at least the lowest level of heaven.

That whole idea of punishing someone with fire and brimstone just for believing poorly is silly to me. Rather, the "fire and brimstone" is more like the metaphorical burning of realizing you could have received a greater reward - kind of like a big "I could have had a V8" moment.

[soyleche]

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/religiousness-breakdown.png

I'd be interested to see this broken down a bit more.

For example, in Utah the area of SLC is less religious than the rest of the state. How does it look broken down into urban/rural?

Southwest Idaho is basically North Utah, and is quite different from Northeast Idaho. I wonder how they compare.

Southwest Virginia is a different world entirely than Northern Virginia.

I know the data probably doesn't exist. I'm just curious.

[soyleche]

"Outer Darkness" is being consigned to no level of heaven at all, and this is reserved for people who really, really, really know what they're doing, and they do it anyway. Though it's unclear who exactly this covers. (That is: I'm not sure you have to be a Mormon.)


I would think that very few (if any) have the opportunity to make that choice in this life. Most will probably have a chance to at some point after this life though - and at that point the distincion between "Mormon" and "Non-Mormon" is pretty irrelevant.

[abt5]

http://lolfunny.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/loljesus.jpg

[abt5]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvx0f42s2G1qzxzwwo1_500.jpg

[abt5]

http://dudelol.com/img/happy-jesus-lol-jk-im-not-actually-dead.jpg

[abt5]

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/data/roadbike/500/jesus_lol.jpg

[abt5]

http://dombeno.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/jesus-lol.jpg

[abt5]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EcYLui_6qNs/SXXcaOLCalI/AAAAAAAAAts/2mzWmTy_wtI/s400/giveusafishlol8hd.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.gratuitousscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jesus-lol-3.jpg

[llcooljabe]

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/funny-graphs-were-on-the-internet-there-aint-no-bias.jpg

[Jasper07734]

:lolup:

[Noddy]

can someone do me a favour and post ( or, if already in here, give me a hint as to where ) the picture of the squinty eyed character that has the caption

"can't tell if troll or just very christian"

please

[abt5]

can someone do me a favour and post ( or, if already in here, give me a hint as to where ) the picture of the squinty eyed character that has the caption

"can't tell if troll or just very christian"

please

why don't you do it yourself...do you not have internet

[V1per41]

can someone do me a favour and post ( or, if already in here, give me a hint as to where ) the picture of the squinty eyed character that has the caption

"can't tell if troll or just very christian"

please

http://goo.gl/CwtTp

[Noddy]

why don't you do it yourself...do you not have internet

first attemp was frustrated by pages with variations on a theme that took longer than average to load and I thought someone here would have it close to hand.

is that a good enough reason for you?



Thanks V1p3r, the specific one I was looking for is here
http://memebase.com/2011/08/27/memes-y-u-no-sense-of-humor/

[gosuruss]

http://i.imgur.com/FPiBm.jpg

[Durai]

seems kinda arrogant to assume your religion is the "right" one

[gosuruss]

http://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/005-nowyouknow.jpg

[Swan]

seems kinda arrogant to assume your religion is the "right" one
Seems kinda arrogant to assume that one is smarter than most other people.
Seems kinda arrogant to assume that white people are superior to Blacks.
Seems kinda arrogant to assume that men are superior to women in ever way.
Seems kinda arrogant to assume {insert whatever belief or pre-conceived notion you want}.

Yes, there's a lot of arrogance in this world. There's a lot of everything in this world. Including religion.

But in their study of human behaviour, many atheist religion-haters will convince themselves that they've stumbled upon some enlightening fact when, after mapping out their fancy Venn diagrams in the sand, they pull themselves away for a broader perspective and discover that -- horror of horrors! -- religious people do bad things. :ohnoes:

[Mr. B]

Seems kinda arrogant to assume that one is smarter than most other people.Not when one most assuredly is.

[Mel-o-rama]

seems kinda arrogant to assume your religion is the "right" one

I'd hate to subscribe to a religion that didn't claim to be the "right" one. :)

Also, note that your statement applies to atheists as well. Double-:)

[Buck]

I'd hate to subscribe to a religion that didn't claim to be the "right" one. :)

Also, note that your statement applies to atheists as well. Double-:)

If you are being logical, rational then you don't have to assume anything; and you don't need to subscribe to any religion.

That has nothing to do with science BTW; that's what human common sense calls for.

OTH, if you are into permanent religious myth, then you will be battling with "correct religion" all the time. That's why there are terrorism, wars, bigotry -- all originated from religious difference.

[crabber]

That has nothing to do with science BTW; that's what human common sense calls for.


Human common sense is neither logical nor rational; what's your point?

[Durai]

I'd hate to subscribe to a religion that didn't claim to be the "right" one. :)

Also, note that your statement applies to atheists as well. Double-:)

Sure, but why reject the possibility that all religions are just plain wrong? The most religious people I've met always come back to the God question with, "if there is no God, what is the point of life?" or "if you don't worship the Lord, who do you worship? what is sacred?"

It has always appeared to me that people cling to their particular brand of explanation because they cannot accept that they are all wrong. I'm somewhat saddened that so many people believe a life without God is devoid of meaning. Is it really so bad?