Militant Athiests are just as radical as religious extreamists....

[QUOTE="lancea34"]

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"] ehm prove THAT thenSquirrelTamer

Öhm proof? Einstein wasn't atheist for example.SquirrelTamer

Öhm proof? Einstein wasn't atheist for example.

SquirrelTamer

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

Einstein was at most a Pantheist. So attempts by Christian's to refer to any beliefs he may have had; in an effort to add credibility to their own religion, are misguided at best.

There are of course going to be religious scientists far back in history, it's hard not to be religious when that is predominantly how society thought at the time. There are also of course going to be Christians that made scientific discoveries as well. What matters and how they got into the history books was what they did scientifically, in which; God played no involvement. So it is rather moot to refer to the religions of these people, as if they somehow contributed to their discoveries, when any beliefs they may have held is of no relevance to what they are famous for.

Theists are embarrassed by the bloody history of religion. So they try to paint Atheism as being just as bad, by trying to blame people's horendous behaviour on Atheism; such as StalinBlaming Atheism for Hilter: On Stalin and such: It's no different from trying to call a lack of a belief; a belief. Nothing more than a petty attempt to say "well you're just as bad"when they are just demonstrating their own ignorance on the subject.AnnoyedDragon

Einstein was at most a Pantheist. So attempts by Christian's to refer to any beliefs he may have had; in an effort to add credibility to their own religion, are misguided at best.AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

[QUOTE="lancea34"] Most of the world's scientists are atheists. Scientists research into things that will mankind.

MrGrimFandango

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"] He was a vague deist. He did not believe in a personal god.

TransFishers

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

Öhm proof? Einstein wasn't atheist for example.

AnnoyedDragon

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

Einstein was at most a Pantheist. So attempts by Christian's to refer to any beliefs he may have had; in an effort to add credibility to their own religion, are misguided at best.

There are of course going to be religious scientists far back in history, it's hard not to be religious when that is predominantly how society thought at the time. There are also of course going to be Christians that made scientific discoveries as well. What matters and how they got into the history books was what they did scientifically, in which; God played no involvement. So it is rather moot to refer to the religions of these people, as if they somehow contributed to their discoveries, when any beliefs they may have held is of no relevance to what they are famous for.

There are two types of atheists I think.

The ones who are minding their own business with their own beliefs, trying to be better people and letting others hold their own personal beliefs (as all should do, and many of religious persuasions can do as well).

Then there are the atheists that aren't atheists for the sake of believing there is no God. Not, these are the guys that create entire organizations claiming they own science and organize entire protests and make a big deal out of it and insult religion and religious people are every chance they get, just doing what is the opposite of what religion does whether or not it really is right or wrong.

Like I said, anything can be taken too far. Don't speak for all atheists, and I'd like to think they won't speak for all religious people in any negative sentiments they hold (though obviously the militant hateful ones will, for both sides).

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]Einstein was at most a Pantheist. So attempts by Christian's to refer to any beliefs he may have had; in an effort to add credibility to their own religion, are misguided at best.LJS9502_basic

Actually people can be evil no matter the beliefs. It's as wrong to blame it on atheism as it is to blame it on religion. And most wars/fights/conflicts were done for very secular reasons.

LJS9502_basic

Religion is responsible for many terrible things, 9/11 being the most recent example. Of course, from my experience, getting theists to allow religion to take blame for 'anything' is near impossible. They will blame everyone and everything but religion, making it beyond even the slightest criticism, even if someone is screaming "god is great" as a suicide bomber runs into a crowd. And if there is nothing else to blame, well, they weren't a "real" religion X anyway.

You assume the person you are talking to is a Christian...I don't believe he is.LJS9502_basic

I'm not assuming anything about him. Perhaps it would be better if I said "people like Christians"? Because there are Theists who refer to great scientists throughout history, attempting to essentially leach off their success by religious association.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Actually people can be evil no matter the beliefs. It's as wrong to blame it on atheism as it is to blame it on religion. And most wars/fights/conflicts were done for very secular reasons.

AnnoyedDragon

Religion is responsible for many terrible things, 9/11 being the most recent example. Of course, from my experience, getting theists to allow religion to take blame for 'anything' is near impossible. They will blame everyone and everything but religion, making it beyond even the slightest criticism, even if someone is screaming "god is great" as a suicide bomber runs into a crowd. And if there is nothing else to blame, well, they weren't a "real" religion X anyway.

You could argue that has nothing to do with religion just in the same way Lenin killing thousand priests had nothing to do with atheism. 9/11 was a response to US interference in Middle East. Now personally I think US interference in Middle East is good but that's the reason 9/11 was performed.

You assume the person you are talking to is a Christian...I don't believe he is.LJS9502_basic

I'm not assuming anything about him. Perhaps it would be better if I said "people like Christians"? Because there are Theists who refer to great scientists throughout history, attempting to essentially leach off their success by religious association.

And doesn't atheists do the same when they say 70% of all scientists are atheists? And I'm not really "like Christians" either. I'd say I'm agnostic.

You could argue that has nothing to do with religion just in the same way Lenin killing thousand priests had nothing to do with atheism. 9/11 was a response to US interference in Middle East. Now personally I think US interference in Middle East is good but that's the reason 9/11 was performed.

SquirrelTamer

I've already stated that I am not interested in having a conversation which, from my experience, never leads to anything valuable. Religion is incapable of accepting blame for anything whatsoever, ever.

And doesn't atheists do the same when they say 70% of all scientists are atheists?

SquirrelTamer

It really depends on how you look at it.

In his beliefs, was he an Atheist? No. But he wasn't famous for his beliefs, he was famous for his scientific advances; and in that he had to adopt an atheistic attitude.

Even if someone is a theist, they cannot work in science; unless they put their faith aside and become an atheist for a while. In that regard, all scientists are atheists, because science doesn't work when you let any amount of religion in.

And I'm not really "like Christians" either. I'd say I'm agnostic

SquirrelTamer

I'm talking generally, not everything specifically refers to you.

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

I've already stated that I am not interested in having a conversation which, from my experience, never leads to anything valuable. Religion is incapable of accepting blame for anything whatsoever, ever.

And so is atheism.

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

And doesn't atheists do the same when they say 70% of all scientists are atheists?

AnnoyedDragon

It really depends on how you look at it.

In his beliefs, was he an Atheist? No. But he wasn't famous for his beliefs, he was famous for his scientific advances; and in that he had to adopt an atheistic attitude.

Even if someone is a theist, they cannot work in science; unless they put their faith aside and become an atheist for a while. In that regard, all scientists are atheists, because science doesn't work when you let any amount of religion in.

You really has to explain that a little further cause right now it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And I'm not really "like Christians" either. I'd say I'm agnostic

SquirrelTamer

I'm talking generally, not everything specifically refers to you.

I just got the impression that you think that everyone who believes in God automatically believes everything the bible says and the earth is 6000 years old etc etc

Religion is responsible for many terrible things, 9/11 being the most recent example. Of course, from my experience, getting theists to allow religion to take blame for 'anything' is near impossible. They will blame everyone and everything but religion, making it beyond even the slightest criticism, even if someone is screaming "god is great" as a suicide bomber runs into a crowd. And if there is nothing else to blame, well, they weren't a "real" religion X anyway.

I'm not assuming anything about him. Perhaps it would be better if I said "people like Christians"? Because there are Theists who refer to great scientists throughout history, attempting to essentially leach off their success by religious association.

AnnoyedDragon

Perhaps you shouldn't assume everyone is arguing from a Christian persepctive?

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

You could argue that has nothing to do with religion just in the same way Lenin killing thousand priests had nothing to do with atheism. 9/11 was a response to US interference in Middle East. Now personally I think US interference in Middle East is good but that's the reason 9/11 was performed.

AnnoyedDragon

I've already stated that I am not interested in having a conversation which, from my experience, never leads to anything valuable. Religion is incapable of accepting blame for anything whatsoever, ever.

I nearly laugh my head off from hearing this, due to incredible irony, because I think of that when it comes to atheism.

I don't beleive in any god but I don't go around forcing my beliefs on others, like religous and athiests extreamists both do. Some athiests are always hating on religous people that they force their religion on people, then they go around telling people there is no god.

Glitchspot is crapping out on me, have to use alternative quotes.

SquirrelTamer: "And so is atheism."

You're going to have to elaborate on that. Atheism typically prides itself in arguing using science and facts, with the YouTube atheist community being an example of that. I am unaware of any Atheist equivalents for what I just criticised theists for.

SquirrelTamer: You really has to explain that a little further cause right now it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Science is about the facts, reality, peer reviewed research. Religion has the same limitations as your typical children's story, involving magic and monsters. When doing science, the typical religious beliefs have to be left at the door, regardless of the faith of the individual doing the science.

There is a right and wrong way to do science, there is no in between. When it comes to science, everyone has to be an Atheist, religious beliefs cannot get involved.

SquirrelTamer: I just got the impression that you think that everyone who believes in God automatically believes everything the bible says and the earth is 6000 years old etc etc

You have to take my comments for what they are, referring to the people who hold those beliefs and do those things. If someone is a Christian, but does not demonstrate the traits I am referring to, then I am not referring to them.

When someone talks about Atheists doing X bad thing, I know they are not referring to me. In the same way when I refer to theists doing X, I am not referring to all theists.

LJS9502_basic: "911 was NOT about religion but about the ME not liking the US involvement in their part of the world. Nothing more. Actually the reasons for war show only about 6% of due to religion. Which is a very very small percentage so to continue to use the logic that religion causes the problems is wrong. It's not.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume everyone is arguing from a Christian persepctive?"

I'm sure the belief that they would be rewarded for their actions in heaven played no role in their decision to commit the act.

alexside1: I nearly laugh my head off from hearing this, due to incredible irony, because I think of that when it comes to atheism.

And what may that be?

LJS9502_basic: "911 was NOT about religion but about the ME not liking the US involvement in their part of the world. Nothing more. Actually the reasons for war show only about 6% of due to religion. Which is a very very small percentage so to continue to use the logic that religion causes the problems is wrong. It's not.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume everyone is arguing from a Christian persepctive?"

I'm sure the belief that they would be rewarded for their actions in heaven played no role in their decision to commit the act.

AnnoyedDragon

You can make all the assumptions you want....but 911 was not about religion. Because someone is religious does not make their actions motivated by religion. A distinction you don't seem to want to consider.

LJS9502_basic

No 9/11 was not about religion, but their actions were motivated/enabled by religion. The usual voice of a Muslim suicide bomber right before detonation is "Allahu akbar", which translations into "God is great". They kill themselves for a cause, because they believe it is one supported by their God; and that their God will reward them in the afterlife. Would 9/11 have even been possible, if there was not a unit of individuals who were convinced of a heavenly reward after their death?

To say religion is not a factor is to ignore the obvious, but I have come to expect that.

And what may that be?

AnnoyedDragon

Did you not notice? Don't tell me that you didn't notice the deflection from atheist when people blame atheism for things as if atheism is incapable of any blame whatsoever. How is it not irony?

Did you not notice? Don't tell me that you didn't notice the deflection from atheist when people blame atheism for things as if atheism is incapable of any blame whatsoever. How is it not irony?

alexside1

It's not irony when you realize that the arguments in which Atheism is blamed are wrong, have been debunked countless times, and have the intellectual legitimacy of a creationist using a banana to prove God. It's beyond disproving them at this point, it's embarrassing that they continue to be used to this day; when it has reached the point of satire now.

These arguments were disproved many, many years ago now.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

You can make all the assumptions you want....but 911 was not about religion. Because someone is religious does not make their actions motivated by religion. A distinction you don't seem to want to consider.

AnnoyedDragon

The usual voice of a Muslim suicide bomber right before detonation is "Allahu akbar", which translations into "God is great". They kill themselves for a cause, because they believe it is one supported by their God; and that their God will reward them in the afterlife.

How did you form that conclusion from that quote of yours? Did you read his mind of the person who said the quote or did you just make an assumption?

Would 9/11 have even been possible, if there was not a unit of individuals who were convinced of a heavenly reward after their death?

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

Did you not notice? Don't tell me that you didn't notice the deflection from atheist when people blame atheism for things as if atheism is incapable of any blame whatsoever. How is it not irony?

AnnoyedDragon

It's not irony when you realize that the arguments in which Atheism is blamed are wrong, have been debunked countless times, and have the intellectual legitimacy of a creationist using a banana to prove God. It's beyond disproving them at this point, it's embarrassing that they continue to be used to this day; when it has reached the point of satire now.

These arguments were disproved many, many years ago now.

Same thing that could be said about religon. Of course, your balantly bias prevent from you thinking that. And I want you apolgize for indirectly insulting their intelligents.

How did you form that conclusion from that quote of yours? Did you read his mind of the person who said the quote or did you just make an assumption?

alexside1

You're just demonstrating why this particular subject is a pointless debate. Never mind they belong to a fanatical religious organisations that state they believe death by suicide guarantees you a place in heaven, not only do they reportedly yell "God is great" right before detonating their suicide vests. You have to defend religion at all costs.

Even if being psychic was real, and psychics did in fact report that they honestly believed they were going to heaven; and that their God wants this. You would instead be arguing that some other factor was at work here.

This is why this subject is fruitless, religion will never accept the blame for anything it can try to rationalize its way out of.

Are you implying that it's impossible?

alexside1

If they believed in a cause enough to think that their sacrifice was worth it, of course not. We have seen numerous examples during wars of self sacrifice for what is perceived as the greater good. But I get the impression that the mere possibility of it being something else, despite the strong religious elements in this case, is enough for you to completely disregard association.

I'm going to stop responding to posts on this subject. I have already stated I think it is a waste of time; because of a lack of honesty on the other side.

Same thing that could be said about religon. Of course, your balantly bias prevent from you thinking that. And I want you apolgize for indirectly insulting their intelligents.

alexside1

Again, elabourate on how this equally applies to religion.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

You can make all the assumptions you want....but 911 was not about religion. Because someone is religious does not make their actions motivated by religion. A distinction you don't seem to want to consider.

AnnoyedDragon

No 9/11 was not about religion, but their actions were motivated/enabled by religion. The usual voice of a Muslim suicide bomber right before detonation is "Allahu akbar", which translations into "God is great". They kill themselves for a cause, because they believe it is one supported by their God; and that their God will reward them in the afterlife. Would 9/11 have even been possible, if there was not a unit of individuals who were convinced of a heavenly reward after their death?

To say religion is not a factor is to ignore the obvious, but I have come to expect that.

Comparing Militant atheists to Militant theists really?

You lack perspective here, the worst a militant atheist will do is whine, the worst a militant theist will do is kill people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk

Ignore the obvious? There is nothing obvious about it. What is obvious that religion is demonized and credited with things that are not religious in any way. And I'd like to know exactly how you came to the assumption of what a Muslim suicide bomber is thinking and saying. Assumption indeed.:|LJS9502_basic

I've already answered your question in previous posts. It's hard not to know their beliefs when they come right out and say it.

Now, I'd like to move past this subject, because it will go nowhere.

Glitchspot is crapping out on me, have to use alternative quotes.

You're going to have to elaborate on that. Atheism typically prides itself in arguing using science and facts, with the YouTube atheist community being an example of that. I am unaware of any Atheist equivalents for what I just criticised theists for.

What has that got to do with anything? Atheism still is incapable of accepting blame for anything whatsoever, ever.

Science is about the facts, reality, peer reviewed research. Religion has the same limitations as your typical children's story, involving magic and monsters. When doing science, the typical religious beliefs have to be left at the door, regardless of the faith of the individual doing the science.

There is a right and wrong way to do science, there is no in between. When it comes to science, everyone has to be an Atheist, religious beliefs cannot get involved.

Ohboy... First of all if science is about facts, reality and peer reviewed research that means atheism has to be left at the door as well since really this subject isn't touched by science. Has science proven there is no God? Has science proven anything whatsoever regarding this subject? Does science know what happened before Bang for example? No, no and no. Atheism is a belief as well and cannot get involved with science. So when it comes to science, no one can be an atheist. Thaks for proving there are 0% atheists scientists. Really in science it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist since we know nothing about this subject.

And you're acting like science is that much better, "oh our calculations doesn't add up, too much gravity, theremust be some invisible force trolling with us. You can't prove it or see it or touch it but it's there cause we say so=dark energy"

AnnoyedDragon

You're just demonstrating why this particular subject is a pointless debate. Never mind they belong to a fanatical religious organisations that state they believe death by suicide guarantees you a place in heaven, not only do they reportedly yell "God is great" right before detonating their suicide vests. You have to defend religion at all costs.

Even if being psychic was real, and psychics did in fact report that they honestly believed they were going to heaven; and that their God wants this. You would instead be arguing that some other factor was at work here.

This is why this subject is fruitless, religion will never accept the blame for anything it can try to rationalize its way out of. AnnoyedDragon

You can't honesty think that people will flock to your position like bunch of birds without any opposition. If you think it's a waste of time than why do you bother posting in the first place and/or responding to me to the first place? It could be argued that posting in this fourm is a waste of time.

That's irrelevant, the person is dead, we can't make any scientific experiments during the time that he said that. Therefore the only thing you have is your assumption. You can make the excuses all day, but the fact remains is still assumption.

See? This is what I mean by irony. You never accept any blame on atheism, because you think it's debunked. While at the same time have no promblem accept any blame on religion, because you think it's hasn't been debunked. When people try to blame atheism and try to shift that blame from religon you'll complain at them.

AnnoyedDragon Said:

"If they believed in a cause enough to think that their sacrifice was worth it, of course not. We have seen numerous examples during wars of self sacrifice for what is perceived as the greater good. But I get the impression that the mere possibility of it being something else, despite the strong religious elements in this case, is enough for you to completely disregard association.

I'm going to stop responding to posts on this subject. I have already stated I think it is a waste of time; because of a lack of honesty on the other side."

Do you think that "there is no god, and religon is the root of all evil" is not a strong cause to die for? Why?

AnnoyedDragon Said:

"Again, elabourate on how this equally applies to religion."

See above in the third statement from top to bottom or replace the words "religon" to "atheism" in your post when I quoted it saying "same thing could be said about religon"

Also I like to point out that accusing others of lack of honesty, is nothing more than a baseless personal attack.

What has that got to do with anything? Atheism still is incapable of accepting blame for anything whatsoever, ever.

SquirrelTamer

There is a little problem with Atheism accepting blame for things some theists are accusing Atheism as being the cause of, and that problem is something called facts.

Arguments blaming Atheism for Stalin and Hitler aren't being rejected because Atheists refuse to take blame for them, they are rejected because they are wrong. They have been proved wrong on countless occasions, and a simple look into history is all the evidence you need to show that.

The difference being, there are theists who refuse to let religion take responsibility for things; in which religion plays a dominant role in. When a religion says to kill witches, and its followers kill witches, it doesn't take a leap of faith to look at the religion. Theists perform mental gymnastics to rationalize blame away from religion, where as in the case of Atheist criticisms; they are simply inaccurate for what the facts say.

Ohboy... First of all if science is about facts, reality and peer reviewed research that means atheism has to be left at the door as well since really this subject isn't touched by science. Has science proven there is no God? Has science proven anything whatsoever regarding this subject? Does science know what happened before Bang for example? No, no and no. Atheism is a belief as well and cannot get involved with science. So when it comes to science, no one can be an atheist. Thaks for proving there are 0% atheists scientists. Really in science it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist since we know nothing about this subject.

And you're acting like science is that much better, "oh our calculations doesn't add up, too much gravity, theremust be some invisible force trolling with us. You can't prove it or see it or touch it but it's there cause we say so=dark energy"

SquirrelTamer

That is a cluster **** of logical fallacies and age old redundant theist arguments.

Atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of a belief. It requires about as much faith as not believing in any other mythological figures humanity has thought up. Is not belieiving in the Easter Bunny a belief system of itself? Santa Claus? Does it take a leap of faith to not believe in the tooth fairy? You are just giving preferential treatment to the mythological figure called "god", without any justifiable reason.

You cannot prove a negative. Science can disprove God about as well as disproving the invisible, intangible, pink unicorn on Mars. But just because you cannot disprove a negative, doesn't make its existence a positive.

Science isn't arrogant enough to claim it knows everything, unlike religion. You're making a God of the gaps falacy argument, by using sciences lack of Omniscience to argue for the possible existence of a being like a God.

Did I miss anything? Because there is a lot of poor logic in there. Posts like this suggest to me anger and furious typing without much thought put into it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ignore the obvious? There is nothing obvious about it. What is obvious that religion is demonized and credited with things that are not religious in any way. And I'd like to know exactly how you came to the assumption of what a Muslim suicide bomber is thinking and saying. Assumption indeed.:|AnnoyedDragon

I've already answered your question in previous posts. It's hard not to know their beliefs when they come right out and say it.

Now, I'd like to move past this subject, because it will go nowhere.

You cannot prove a negative. Science can disprove God about as well as disproving the invisible, intangible, pink unicorn on Mars.

AnnoyedDragon

Contraction much? The scientific method was a method created by us, and we can used it to prove and disprove ideas held at the time. It doesn't opperate by itself you know.

Science can't disprove/prove God, because science carry the assumption that the universe is all that there is and there is nothing operated out side of it. The reason for this assumption is that if we were take possible things that were to exist outside the universe, we could make no progress, because of the infinite possible explanations of observable events, and we have no means of narrowing it down.

It inaccurate to say that science is atheistic or theistic, because science didn't claim anything, only to make assumptions. Science at best is agnostic untill we have means to find out what exist outside the universe.

OT has to be the worst place to start an argument that is pro-religion and/or anti-atheism. Always ends with the religious points ridiculed and the atheist points praised.

I just look at militant atheists as real-life trolls. Kind of like when you read the comments section of a story about a child that died, where when one person mentions the child went to heaven they get thumbed down and told that heaven doesn't exist. While it's one thing to disagree with a belief, it's another to go out of your way to insult somebody who is in morning.

Normal atheists are fine with me. One of my coworkers was an atheist and had no problem letting people know. But at the same time he didn't go out of his way to insult our other coworker who was heavily religious and went to church every Sunday. As long as they're like that I have no problem with them. The ones who blandly insult religious people are just as annoying as those nutcases from the WBC.

OT has to be the worst place to start an argument that is pro-religion and/or anti-atheism. Always ends with the religious points ridiculed and the atheist points praised.

ad1x2

Logic has always prevailed.

ITT:

"My religious book is as factual as your science book because they're both books" - Such a fail attempt at trolling.

"Science requires more faith than religion" - Things that are scientifically "true" can be proven by experiments that can be done again and again resulting in the same conclustion, religion is based off a book/heresay that something unproven exists.

If looking through religion, you can find proof that is as solid as the proof science uses, and this proof points towards the existance of an invisible being, let me know.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

OT has to be the worst place to start an argument that is pro-religion and/or anti-atheism. Always ends with the religious points ridiculed and the atheist points praised.

Nibroc420

Logic has always prevailed.

ITT:

"My religious book is as factual as your science book because they're both books" - Such a fail attempt at trolling.

"Science requires more faith than religion" - Things that are scientifically "true" can be proven by experiments that can be done again and again resulting in the same conclustion, religion is based off a book/heresay that something unproven exists.

If looking through religion, you can find proof that is as solid as the proof science uses, and this proof points towards the existance of an invisible being, let me know.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

OT has to be the worst place to start an argument that is pro-religion and/or anti-atheism. Always ends with the religious points ridiculed and the atheist points praised.

alexside1

Logic has always prevailed.

ITT:

"My religious book is as factual as your science book because they're both books" - Such a fail attempt at trolling.

"Science requires more faith than religion" - Things that are scientifically "true" can be proven by experiments that can be done again and again resulting in the same conclustion, religion is based off a book/heresay that something unproven exists.

If looking through religion, you can find proof that is as solid as the proof science uses, and this proof points towards the existance of an invisible being, let me know.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Logic has always prevailed.

ITT:

"My religious book is as factual as your science book because they're both books" - Such a fail attempt at trolling.

"Science requires more faith than religion" - Things that are scientifically "true" can be proven by experiments that can be done again and again resulting in the same conclustion, religion is based off a book/heresay that something unproven exists.

If looking through religion, you can find proof that is as solid as the proof science uses, and this proof points towards the existance of an invisible being, let me know.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="alexside1"] Your not proving him wrong, by making straw-mans.LJS9502_basic

I quoted him, and responded.
Then provided a few of the trollish things people are saying to try to put religion in the same esteem as science.

alexside1

"You can't honesty think that people will flock to your position like bunch of birds without any opposition"

You haven't offered much in terms of opposition though.

"If you think it's a waste of time than why do you bother posting in the first place and/or responding to me to the first place? It could be argued that posting in this fourm is a waste of time. That's irrelevant, the person is dead, we can't make any scientific experiments during the time that he said that. Therefore the only thing you have is your assumption. You can make the excuses all day, but the fact remains is still assumption."

There are numerous subjects being debated within this thread, only one of them have I deemed not worth debating; because of a lack of honesty on the theists side. Despite repeatedly expressing my desire not to go into it. In other words, they won't let it go. I have to respond; because they keep directing questions at me. But they just keep demonstrating why debating the subject is pointless, because you cannot even get them to agree a terrorist organisation that announces itself as being religiously motivated, and yells "God is great" when going to war or suicide bombing, is in fact religiously motivated.

As I keep saying, religion refuses to accept responsibility for anything. And you are just further demonstrating that by repeatedly saying it's an "assumption". Maybe if you say it enough, all the evidence of the religious elements in these terrorist groups will just conveniently disappear.

"See? This is what I mean by irony. You never accept any blame on atheism, because you think it's debunked. While at the same time have no promblem accept any blame on religion, because you think it's hasn't been debunked. When people try to blame atheism and try to shift that blame from religon you'll complain at them."

Again, the facts don't lie. Hilter was not an Atheist, and Stalin was not motivated by Atheism. I've demonstrated that in this thread, by linking to material on the subjects. And I can link to a lot more material, a simple search away. What exactly have you done to debunk those sources, outside of just saying they are wrong, on the basis that they are wrong, because you say so?

You talk alot about irony and these things not being debunked, without going into any detail as to why. If you continue to act like this, you can simply be disregarded as trolling, wasting people's time.

"Do you think that "there is no god, and religon is the root of all evil" is not a strong cause to die for? Why?

AnnoyedDragon Said:

"Again, elabourate on how this equally applies to religion."

See above in the third statement from top to bottom or replace the words "religon" to "atheism" in your post when I quoted it saying "same thing could be said about religon"

Also I like to point out that accusing others of lack of honesty, is nothing more than a baseless personal attack."

I'm not interested in what you think is a strong argument for Atheist motivated violence. I'm only interested in reality, actual examples that demonstrate Atheism is responsible for things that make it as bad as religion. You actually need to demonstrate this.

I'm sensing a trend here. Your usual "counter arguments" is to simply take my arguments; and reverse them. But that doesn't make any sense most of the time.

Contraction much? The scientific method was a method created by us, and we can used it to prove and disprove ideas held at the time. It doesn't operate by itself you know.

Science can't disprove/prove God, because science carry the assumption that the universe is all that there is and there is nothing operated out side of it. The reason for this assumption is that if we were take possible things that were to exist outside the universe, we could make no progress, because of the infinite possible explanations of observable events, and we have no means of narrowing it down.

It inaccurate to say that science is atheistic or theistic, because science didn't claim anything, only to make assumptions. Science at best is agnostic until we have means to find out what exist outside the universe.

alexside1

Science can only make assumptions? And here I was typing on an electronic marvel that is a symphony of various technologies, all of which are only possible if you get very specific, micro/nano level scientific information correct. While sat in my centrally heated home, thanks to science. Lit with electricity, thanks to science. Sipping clean water, thanks to... well you get the idea.

What you've essentially done is made a long winded God of the gaps argument. Science doesn't know everything, therefore it cannot know if there is a god or not. Which of course, to theists, is proof there is one. How they can justifiably arrive to that is anyone's guess.

Regardless, to say science goes around making assumptions; is an insult to everything it has brought society. There is pretty much nothing you can do in a first world country that hasn't directly benefited from the scientific method. To me, this is just another example of theists trying to drag everything down to their level to feel good about themselves. You make up stuff about Atheists to make them look just as violent as religious people, and now you say science makes "assumptions".

Science isn't neutral about anything, it is only interested in the truth; and that truth is what has given us our comfortable life. If yesterday's truth is proved wrong, science corrects itself. It is not interested in assumptions, faith or guess work. Everything is scrutinized to the highest degree.

This cannot be achieved with a theistic view of there world, where magic fills the gaps in our knowledge. Trying to fill those gaps becomes sacrilege, and science is always trying to fill those gaps.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Haha i'm not even making straw-mans. Do you know what a straw man is? Perhaps you should read through the thread before making such claims.Nibroc420

I quoted him, and responded.
Then provided a few of the trollish things people are saying to try to put religion in the same esteem as science.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Logic has always prevailed.

ITT:

"My religious book is as factual as your science book because they're both books" - Such a fail attempt at trolling.

"Science requires more faith than religion" - Things that are scientifically "true" can be proven by experiments that can be done again and again resulting in the same conclustion, religion is based off a book/heresay that something unproven exists.

If looking through religion, you can find proof that is as solid as the proof science uses, and this proof points towards the existance of an invisible being, let me know.

Nibroc420