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

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You argued things he didn't say.:?

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.

Did i mention that those were things said In This Thread? Yes.

Did i ever say he said those things? No.

His arguement is basically "Whenever someone says things without proof in OT, they get ridaculed, but when people with proof say something, they get praised."
Obviously.

I disagree, because atheists have the most reasonable position which is that god, in the sense of the big three religions, does not exist.

In over 300 posts, without resorting to associating the acts committed by dicatators and the like to their particular beliefs instead of their goals, nobody has actual produced evidence of a MILITANT atheist. Barring that, I don't see how this thread is still alive, except that there is a cadre who like to mess about in such threads, and some people always think they can win them. Guess what? When you break open the pinata, it's filled with... more pinatas. Still, even by that lofty standard, we're arguing based on something that seems not to exist, vs. a fundamentally lesser version of something which DOES have militancy.

The only winners here are those who dwell under bridges.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] "ITT" = IN THIS THREAD

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.

Nibroc420

Did i mention that those were things said In This Thread? Yes.

Did i ever say he said those things? No.

His arguement is basically "Whenever someone says things without proof in OT, they get ridaculed, but when people with proof say something, they get praised."
Obviously.

In over 300 posts, without resorting to associating the acts committed by dicatators and the like to their particular beliefs instead of their goals, nobody has actual produced evidence of a MILITANT atheist. Barring that, I don't see how this thread is still alive, except that there is a cadre who like to mess about in such threads, and some people always think they can win them. Guess what? When you break open the pinata, it's filled with... more pinatas. Still, even by that lofty standard, we're arguing based on something that seems not to exist, vs. a fundamentally lesser version of something which DOES have militancy.

The only winners here are those who dwell under bridges.

Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

In over 300 posts, without resorting to associating the acts committed by dicatators and the like to their particular beliefs instead of their goals, nobody has actual produced evidence of a MILITANT atheist. Barring that, I don't see how this thread is still alive, except that there is a cadre who like to mess about in such threads, and some people always think they can win them. Guess what? When you break open the pinata, it's filled with... more pinatas. Still, even by that lofty standard, we're arguing based on something that seems not to exist, vs. a fundamentally lesser version of something which DOES have militancy.

The only winners here are those who dwell under bridges.

LJS9502_basic

I'd add, remember that "forceful" in the sense of being strident or extreme is not the same as "forceful", meaning that the use of force is actually employed.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If he didn't say them...you shouldn't have ascribed them to him vicariously by quoting him.

LJS9502_basic

Did i mention that those were things said In This Thread? Yes.

Did i ever say he said those things? No.

His arguement is basically "Whenever someone says things without proof in OT, they get ridaculed, but when people with proof say something, they get praised."
Obviously.

I'd add... this is one of the few forums in which such a naken misquoting of someone, or false quoting isn't actually an offense. It's actuallly worse than a false dillema or red herring, it's the very model of the true straw man. I thought you might be exagerrating, but... well... you aren't.

@Nibrox420: I read your posts thinking you must have made some kind of error; you clearly didn't, but did this purposefully. If you want some advice from someone who doesn't care to actually argue these point, it just makes your position appear weak to use those tactics, and have them exposed.

You guys are messing with a master of the T&C try not to fall for it as so many others have.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

In over 300 posts, without resorting to associating the acts committed by dicatators and the like to their particular beliefs instead of their goals, nobody has actual produced evidence of a MILITANT atheist. Barring that, I don't see how this thread is still alive, except that there is a cadre who like to mess about in such threads, and some people always think they can win them. Guess what? When you break open the pinata, it's filled with... more pinatas. Still, even by that lofty standard, we're arguing based on something that seems not to exist, vs. a fundamentally lesser version of something which DOES have militancy.

The only winners here are those who dwell under bridges.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

In over 300 posts, without resorting to associating the acts committed by dicatators and the like to their particular beliefs instead of their goals, nobody has actual produced evidence of a MILITANT atheist. Barring that, I don't see how this thread is still alive, except that there is a cadre who like to mess about in such threads, and some people always think they can win them. Guess what? When you break open the pinata, it's filled with... more pinatas. Still, even by that lofty standard, we're arguing based on something that seems not to exist, vs. a fundamentally lesser version of something which DOES have militancy.

The only winners here are those who dwell under bridges.

tocool340

Meanwhile others are going on about it in a completely diferent fashion, which means that you and those people are not even having the same discussion.

You guys are messing with a master of the T&C try not to fall for it as so many others have.

tenaka2

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You guys are messing with a master of the T&C try not to fall for it as so many others have.

Frame_Dragger

Yes, the terms and conditions.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] "ITT" = IN THIS THREAD

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.

Nibroc420

Did i mention that those were things said In This Thread? Yes.

Did i ever say he said those things? No.

His arguement is basically "Whenever someone says things without proof in OT, they get ridaculed, but when people with proof say something, they get praised."
Obviously.

I wasn't trying to praise religion or bring down atheism. I was just saying that OT is known for it's views on both. I already mentioned in the same post (which you didn't quote, you only quoted my first sentence) that I have no problem with atheists as long as they don't go all Seth McFarlane (love Family Guy when the episode I'm watching is actually funny and not just an anti-religion, anti-conservative rant like some of the more recent ones were) on believers and I strongly disagree on religious groups such as the WBC.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If he didn't say them...you shouldn't have ascribed them to him vicariously by quoting him.

ad1x2

Did i mention that those were things said In This Thread? Yes.

Did i ever say he said those things? No.

His arguement is basically "Whenever someone says things without proof in OT, they get ridaculed, but when people with proof say something, they get praised."
Obviously.

I wasn't trying to praise religion or bring down atheism. I was just saying that OT is known for it's views on both. I already mentioned in the same post (which you didn't quote, you only quoted my first sentence) that I have no problem with atheists as long as they don't go all Seth McFarlane (love Family Guy when the episode I'm watching is actually funny and not just an anti-religion, anti-conservative rant like some of the more recent ones were) on believers and I strongly disagree on religious groups such as the WBC.

Family guy is just satire and while I understand that it would sometimes offend or annoy, I'd say that just means you need a thicker skin The WBC... I think theists and atheists can agree that they're not a religious organization; they're a hate group hiding behind religion. Religious people should no more have to explain the existance of a hate group using religion as an excuse than atheists should have to explain that NK isn't about atheism, but totalitarianism.

Family guy is just satire and while I understand that it would sometimes offend or annoy, I'd say that just means you need a thicker skin The WBC... I think theists and atheists can agree that they're not a religious organization; they're a hate group hiding behind religion. Religious people should no more have to explain the existance of a hate group using religion as an excuse than atheists should have to explain that NK isn't about atheism, but totalitarianism.

Frame_Dragger

Family Guy doesn't offend me but sometimes it seems like they forget what makes them funny and they just take shots instead. Back in the episode when God accidentally killed the girl with lightning and set a bar on fire the following part had me rolling in laughter. On the other hand, when they had the episode where Brian and Stewie went to Nazi Germany and they showed a Nazi uniform with a McCain button on it I didn't find it funny only because it looked like it was in bad taste and was less of trying to make me laugh and more of a political statement timed right before the elections.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]AnnoyedDragon

"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.

Are you going to debunk it, or you just going to make useless comments?

"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.

Lack of honesty? You have no way of knowing that. That's an assumption on your part and not a fact. As I said before, no amount of excuses or complaints will change that fact. Simply disagreeing with you does not make him/her dishonest. It's not their problem that you keep posting in this thread. No one is point a gun to your head and forcing you to post in this thread, so don't shift the blame on them. You can simply ignore it. You got some major issues if you can't follow your desire to not post in this thread. You should see some help if that were the case, I feel concern about you. It's ridiculous to complain about theists on not agreeing over something, were are not some sci-fi one-mind unity, we are individuals with our own beliefs and opinions, I thought atheists should appreciate the fact the religious people think for themselves, form their own opinions and not letting other people making for them. Apparently not all of them like that.

You keep reinforcing my point that you never accept any blame on atheism, while at the same time accept any blame on religion. I can logically conclude that's confirmation bias in your part.

"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.

Straw-man I never said anything about Hitler Stalin, nor your sources. You haven't debunk me one bit on what I said about you. It's very dishonest to accuse me of not going to detail as to why, which I clearly did in my posts.

"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.

It's not difficult to abstract thinking. People do this in debates all the time, it's no different what were doing right now.

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.

Stop making comments and debunk them why don't you?

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.

I am clear on what I wrote, and all you do is twist on what I say, and make straw-mans.I was referring to the assumption considering the universe and explain why it made that assumption and why it isn't atheistic/theistic, but agnostic.It doesn't make any claims outside the universe it only assumes that there isn't anything exist outside the universe, because we couldn't make progress if we take evey possible thing outside the universe into consideration when testing. Is this how you debate? Do degraded your opponent by making false accusations about him or her to make him or her the "bad guy"?

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

AnnoyedDragon

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.

Yeah sure all the tens of thousands dead priests and abolishment of religion had nothing to do with atheism....

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.

Since science isn't arrogant enough to claim it knows everything there you can clearly believe in God and be a scientist. Science has no clue about the real origins of existence so clearly this is a field where we can only believe. Really your post is just full of cliches, a tooth fairy wouldn't fill a vacum in our knowledge about universe. There isn't a hole which the toot fairy would fill. But clearly our lack of knowledge in the "what are we doing here?" question leaves this to each mans opinion. Let's look at it this way; universe has either 1) existed for an eternity 2) been created out of nothing or 3) created from something, I'm talking about the universe as a whole and not just this post big bang. Now in what way can't a scientist believe in nr 3? Neither 1 or 2 is more proven or does make more sense. In fact both 1 or 2 are negatives really. Cause yes an atheist believes in 1 or 2. If you're talking about not believing at all in any of those 3 it's leaning more towards agnosticism.

snip

alexside1

"Are you going to debunk it, or you just going to make useless comments?"

Now that is ironic, don't you think? I've made plenty of criticisms on how you have handled this "debate". Sort out your own credibility problems before you question mine.

How can I debunk an argument you haven't even made? You've made no attempt to counter those sources I originally referenced, you just constantly put on an air of winning an argument; without actually making any counter points.

"Lack of honesty? You have no way of knowing that. That's an assumption on your part and not a fact. As I said before, no amount of excuses or complaints will change that fact. Simply disagreeing with you does not make him/her dishonest. It's not their problem that you keep posting in this thread. No one is point a gun to your head and forcing you to post in this thread, so don't shift the blame on them. You can simply ignore it. You got some major issues if you can't follow your desire to not post in this thread. You should see some help if that were the case, I feel concern about you. It's ridiculous to complain about theists on not agreeing over something, were are not some sci-fi one-mind unity, we are individuals with our own beliefs and opinions, I thought atheists should appreciate the fact the religious people think for themselves, form their own opinions and not letting other people making for them. Apparently not all of them like that.

You keep reinforcing my point that you never accept any blame on atheism, while at the same time accept any blame on religion. I can logically conclude that's confirmation bias in your part."

What on Earth is that? You write a large paragraph as a pointless personal attack, and then in the last sentance; you throw in something actually on topic. My issue is not "theists not agreeing with me", my issue is theists are incapable of allowing religion to accept the blame for anything, they will always try to redirect it at anything else. I know this, which is why I wanted to avoid the subject. But people refuse to drop it, and you blame me for their inability to drop it? If I hadn't responded, that would go against me. People like you would be making something of it.

I have to question what you're problem is. Paragraphs and paragraphs of material, none of which contains any counter arguments to the original references. Then you ask me to debunk your arguments? What argument? Where is your counter argument?

I don't know if you're trolling or what.

I'm done with you. Until you go back, watch those videos, and tell me how they are insufficient in debunking those claims; I have nothing else to say to you. As far as I've seen, you're declaring something debunked; without actually offering any arguments against it. You're like a theist demanding someone to prove there is no God, when they are the one claiming there is one in the first place. You said those arguments are debunked, well? Debunk them then.

Yeah sure all the tens of thousands dead priests and abolishment of religion had nothing to do with atheism....

SquirrelTamer

Let me guess, Stalin again?

Here, have a parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZr-JZYctvA

Stalin attacked any authority figure that drew faith away from the state. If you look at modern communinist countries like North Korea, they set the state up as the new religion, the leaders as gods.

To blame his barbarism on Atheism is to ignore every other group he attacked. Did Atheism inspire his murdering of people with any relation to other systems such as capitalism as well?

Since science isn't arrogant enough to claim it knows everything there you can clearly believe in God and be a scientist. Science has no clue about the real origins of existence so clearly this is a field where we can only believe. Really your post is just full of cliches, a tooth fairy wouldn't fill a vacum in our knowledge about universe. There isn't a hole which the toot fairy would fill. But clearly our lack of knowledge in the "what are we doing here?" question leaves this to each mans opinion. Let's look at it this way; universe has either 1) existed for an eternity 2) been created out of nothing or 3) created from something, I'm talking about the universe as a whole and not just this post big bang. Now in what way can't a scientist believe in nr 3? Neither 1 or 2 is more proven or does make more sense. In fact both 1 or 2 are negatives really. Cause yes an atheist believes in 1 or 2. If you're talking about not believing at all in any of those 3 it's leaning more towards agnosticism.

SquirrelTamer

I stated earlier that a scientist can be a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. So I'm not arguing against religious people being scientists. What I said was they have to temporally become Atheists when doing science, because a religious belief is incompatible with the scientific process. You cannot take a religious approach to science, without making rationals like "this is how God made the universe". Because if you follow the Bibles teachings, or any other religions teachings, science contradicts them.

A great deal of your post is God of the gap arguments. By your own admission, filling a hole in our knowledge.

The difference between the religious and the none religious, is the none religious aren't afraid to say "we don't know". Religion isn't allowed to not know something, because after all; an all powerful being invented it. To not know something is to bring that beings credibility into question, and they of course cannot have that.

I honestly don't see any difference between a toothy fairy and a deity. We used to come up with all sorts of wacky explanations for things we didn't understand, the universe is no different. But the unknown isn't something to be feared, it's an opportunity to learn something new. If you rubber stamp everything unknown with "God did it", and are happy with that, then we learn nothing new. In fact it becomes dangerous, because it becomes sacrilege to even question it. Because who are you to question god? That sort of thinking left humanity stunted for centuries.

"Are you going to debunk it, or you just going to make useless comments?"

Now that is ironic, don't you think? I've made plenty of criticisms on how you have handled this "debate". Sort out your own credibility problems before you question mine.

How can I debunk an argument you haven't even made? You've made no attempt to counter those sources I originally referenced, you just constantly put on an air of winning an argument; without actually making any counter points.

"Lack of honesty? You have no way of knowing that. That's an assumption on your part and not a fact. As I said before, no amount of excuses or complaints will change that fact. Simply disagreeing with you does not make him/her dishonest. It's not their problem that you keep posting in this thread. No one is point a gun to your head and forcing you to post in this thread, so don't shift the blame on them. You can simply ignore it. You got some major issues if you can't follow your desire to not post in this thread. You should see some help if that were the case, I feel concern about you. It's ridiculous to complain about theists on not agreeing over something, were are not some sci-fi one-mind unity, we are individuals with our own beliefs and opinions, I thought atheists should appreciate the fact the religious people think for themselves, form their own opinions and not letting other people making for them. Apparently not all of them like that.

You keep reinforcing my point that you never accept any blame on atheism, while at the same time accept any blame on religion. I can logically conclude that's confirmation bias in your part."

What on Earth is that? You write a large paragraph as a pointless personal attack, and then in the last sentance; you throw in something actually on topic. My issue is not "theists not agreeing with me", my issue is theists are incapable of allowing religion to accept the blame for anything, they will always try to redirect it at anything else. I know this, which is why I wanted to avoid the subject. But people refuse to drop it, and you blame me for their inability to drop it? If I hadn't responded, that would go against me. People like you would be making something of it.

I have to question what you're problem is. Paragraphs and paragraphs of material, none of which contains any counter arguments to the original references. Then you ask me to debunk your arguments? What argument? Where is your counter argument?

I don't know if you're trolling or what.

I'm done with you. Until you go back, watch those videos, and tell me how they are insufficient in debunking those claims; I have nothing else to say to you. As far as I've seen, you're declaring something debunked; without actually offering any arguments against it. You're like a theist demanding someone to prove there is no God, when they are the one claiming there is one in the first place. You said those arguments are debunked, well? Debunk them then.

AnnoyedDragon

I had spent two hours typing my previous response and guess what? You did it again. Twisting my post out of context and creating strawmans out of them. Then you blame your very own personal problems onto other people. You then expect me to debunk a youtube video containing someone elses argument. I'm not debunking an argument that you didn't make. Make your own. Then you being difficult with me by asking what is my argument. I do not need to answer that, because at this point at time your just grasping the straws and question for the sake of questioning.

You did nothing to disprove me, you didn't address what I said at all. All you did is just enforcing my point about you and wasting my time.

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

AnnoyedDragon

Let me guess, Stalin again?

Here, have a parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZr-JZYctvA

Stalin attacked any authority figure that drew faith away from the state. If you look at modern communinist countries like North Korea, they set the state up as the new religion, the leaders as gods.

To blame his barbarism on Atheism is to ignore every other group he attacked. Did Atheism inspire his murdering of people with any relation to other systems such as capitalism as well?

Well I think it's a mixture. Just like can be said with many times religious "barbarians" killed people. The 30 year looked like a religious war but really it was a power struggle.

Why did he kill those priests? Maybe in his own view it had nothing to do with his own atheism but did he officially say it was because they threatened his power? I don't think so and it's the same for religious killers.

Since science isn't arrogant enough to claim it knows everything there you can clearly believe in God and be a scientist. Science has no clue about the real origins of existence so clearly this is a field where we can only believe. Really your post is just full of cliches, a tooth fairy wouldn't fill a vacum in our knowledge about universe. There isn't a hole which the toot fairy would fill. But clearly our lack of knowledge in the "what are we doing here?" question leaves this to each mans opinion. Let's look at it this way; universe has either 1) existed for an eternity 2) been created out of nothing or 3) created from something, I'm talking about the universe as a whole and not just this post big bang. Now in what way can't a scientist believe in nr 3? Neither 1 or 2 is more proven or does make more sense. In fact both 1 or 2 are negatives really. Cause yes an atheist believes in 1 or 2. If you're talking about not believing at all in any of those 3 it's leaning more towards agnosticism.

SquirrelTamer

I stated earlier that a scientist can be a Christian, or any other religion for that matter. So I'm not arguing against religious people being scientists. What I said was they have to temporally become Atheists when doing science, because a religious belief is incompatible with the scientific process. You cannot take a religious approach to science, without making rationals like "this is how God made the universe". Because if you follow the Bibles teachings, or any other religions teachings, science contradicts them.

Science does not in any way contradicts any of my religious beliefs. At least I don't think so. Yes my view is a negative but it doesn't contradict science in any way as it is a field which science doesn't touch. So they don't temporarily become atheist as nothing in science contradicts their view (if they believe what I believe).

A great deal of your post is God of the gap arguments. By your own admission, filling a hole in our knowledge.

The difference between the religious and the none religious, is the none religious aren't afraid to say "we don't know". Religion isn't allowed to not know something, because after all; an all powerful being invented it. To not know something is to bring that beings credibility into question, and they of course cannot have that.

You weren't talking about non-religious, you were talking about atheists. There's a difference. "we don't know" is more agnostisicm. And really even though many religious say they know there is nothing that stops them from saying we don't know. Proof=me.

I honestly don't see any difference between a toothy fairy and a deity. We used to come up with all sorts of wacky explanations for things we didn't understand, the universe is no different. But the unknown isn't something to be feared, it's an opportunity to learn something new. If you rubber stamp everything unknown with "God did it", and are happy with that, then we learn nothing new. In fact it becomes dangerous, because it becomes sacrilege to even question it. Because who are you to question god? That sort of thinking left humanity stunted for centuries.

Well as I said the tooth fairy doesn't really fill any holes in our knowledge. The tooth fairy isn't an answer to a question, God is an answer to who/what/how created the universe, even if an incorrect one. Also in the same way you make your own assumption if you say God doesn't exist. You don't have an open scientific mind if you deny the existence of God just like that. The scientific mind is we don't know until we prove it. The origins of the universe are completely unexplored so any baseless assumption in either way is unscientific. And really what about dark energy then? It's the same thing. There's a whole in our knowledge let's fill it with unproven and invicible force.

It was the same for religious people during communism. Regardless of why it was still "sacrilege" to be religious.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Family guy is just satire and while I understand that it would sometimes offend or annoy, I'd say that just means you need a thicker skin The WBC... I think theists and atheists can agree that they're not a religious organization; they're a hate group hiding behind religion. Religious people should no more have to explain the existance of a hate group using religion as an excuse than atheists should have to explain that NK isn't about atheism, but totalitarianism.

Family Guy doesn't offend me but sometimes it seems like they forget what makes them funny and they just take shots instead. Back in the episode when God accidentally killed the girl with lightning and set a bar on fire the following part had me rolling in laughter. On the other hand, when they had the episode where Brian and Stewie went to Nazi Germany and they showed a Nazi uniform with a McCain button on it I didn't find it funny only because it looked like it was in bad taste and was less of trying to make me laugh and more of a political statement timed right before the elections.

Well I think it's a mixture. Just like can be said with many times religious "barbarians" killed people. The 30 year looked like a religious war but really it was a power struggle.

Why did he kill those priests? Maybe in his own view it had nothing to do with his own atheism but did he officially say it was because they threatened his power? I don't think so and it's the same for religious killers.

SquirrelTamer

He killed everyone who posed a threat to the authority of the state. Certain people in this thread have just chosen to specifically focus on his slaughter of religious authority, and said his Atheism inspired that, ignoring he attacked a broad range of groups; because of his political ideology.

Communism is inherently none religious, because the state itself effectively becomes the new religion. If you look up "cult of personality" on wiki, the example given is the Chinese communist party.

Science does not in any way contradicts any of my religious beliefs. At least I don't think so. Yes my view is a negative but it doesn't contradict science in any way as it is a field which science doesn't touch. So they don't temporarily become atheist as nothing in science contradicts their view (if they believe what I believe).

SquirrelTamer

There is no application of religion anywhere in science, religion simply cannot get involved, it has to be put aside; before the scientific method can be applied. The only reason you cannot perceive any incompatibility, is because you have personally decided that is the case. If your religion were, say, to describe the Adam and Eve story as the origin of humans. Then you have a problem when it comes to evolution.

The only way for there to be no incompatibilities is if you believe science is simply a study of how God does things. Which excludes all the abrahamic religions; and their texts. Secular people shouldn't have a problem, as secularism isn't a religion; it is a faith.

You weren't talking about non-religious, you were talking about atheists. There's a difference. "we don't know" is more agnostisicm. And really even though many religious say they know there is nothing that stops them from saying we don't know. Proof=me.

SquirrelTamer

It depends on what you are saying "we don't know" about. In regard to unknown knowledge, which is what I was referring to, then an Atheist is perfectly capable of saying that. What started the universe? We don't know, but we are trying to figure that out. If you say it in regard to God, you can still be an Atheist, as that is Agnostic Atheism. They don't believe in a God, because they haven't been presented with suitable evidence of one. Which is still Atheist, but different from one that simply says "there is no God". Agnosticism is when they simply don't know.

There is a wider spectrum of none belief than just Atheist or Agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Now I've run out of quotes, so red text time.

"Well as I said the tooth fairy doesn't really fill any holes in our knowledge. The tooth fairy isn't an answer to a question, God is an answer to who/what/how created the universe, even if an incorrect one. Also in the same way you make your own assumption if you say God doesn't exist."

The tooth fairy is only not comparable; because we know where teeth put under pillows disappear to. A thunder God creating lightening is laughable and primitive to us, because we know how lightening works. We have the benefit of looking at these things with prior knowledge of the reality, that's the only reason you can consider them incomparable.

It is called a God of the gaps for a reason. You are rejecting these examples, simply because we know better than the ancestors who thought them up. If we didn't know better, you'd be arguing we don't know where lightening comes from; so it may be Zeus. And I'd be close minded for not considering it.

God is the end all filler for the unknown.

"You don't have an open scientific mind if you deny the existence of God just like that. The scientific mind is we don't know until we prove it. The origins of the universe are completely unexplored so any baseless assumption in either way is unscientific. And really what about dark energy then? It's the same thing. There's a whole in our knowledge let's fill it with unproven and invicible force"

Science isn't about being open minded, it is 100% about the facts. When a new piece of information becomes available to a scientists peers, it isn't scientists job to approach it with an open mind, it is their job to try to disprove it. The scientific community is brutal in scrutinizing information, they do everything in their power to disprove it. Only when it survives this assault is it treated with any respect.

The idea of a God has been given a more than fair chance to prove itself. We started from a position of absolutely religious, with science being sacrilege. You couldn't ask for better conditions for the idea of a all powerful being. So the suggestion that science hasn't given the God idea a chance is ridiculous, the God idea has had millenia to make its case.

"It was the same for religious people during communism. Regardless of why it was still "sacrilege" to be religious."

You have to ask sacrilege in what regard? Sacrilege because Atheism was their "religion", or sacrilege because the state was the new God?

It's late my end, so I'll be logging in a bit. Thanks for the civil debate so far, which is more than I can say for some people.