My Letter to Atheists

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Personally i don't like it when either side points to other people and say "This guy was like us" As some form of argument. Firstly, No scientist i'm aware of does science as a way of disproving religion or for their lack of beleif in God and the same goes for most religious scientists. I think you'll find alot of the religious scientists throughout history were motivated more by curiosity then religious scripture or ideology.

mattisgod01

I was going to agree, but then I noticed it was just a cheap shot at downplaying religious scientists after further reading. I still stand by labeling this a poor man's argument however, regardless of motivation and achievement.

It wasn't a cheap shot, I was just saying that Science motivates scientists, Not religion or lack there of.

If i was going to have a go at religion i would have said something along the lines of, Almost all the people anyone can list would still have achieved what they did if they were Atheist. Religion on the other hand could have played a part in preventing them had they been more fundamentalist in their beliefs. Or i could have suggested that religion has prevented many more great scientists and thinkers from pursuing such fields and denied our civilization of people perhaps greater then Einstein or Newton.

You first declared discontent with the arguementation, then proceeded on talking about it to specifically exclude religious scientists' accomplishments and motives from, you guessed it, religion. If that's not downplaying then I don't know what is.

Isaac's revel in religion was clear beyond question, Einstein is attributed with the following quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Avicenna is a Muslim.

I'm not one to dispute conditional statements. I thought Atheists were all about objectivity anyway.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]I never said science was exclusive to Atheism only that Atheist doesn't impede and hold back science as religion has done and still does today.foxhound_fox

This is why i dislike the whole "This individual guy" arguments, It becomes too specific and the overall picture becomes distorted by it. I wasn't contradicting myself but refering to another post i made shortly after. And Kenneth Miller just proves my case, He may himself be religious but who is he wasting his time fighting against (I say wasting because i'm sure he would rather be spending his time doing more productive things) Creationism is religion and Creationism alone is Impeding not just Kenneth Miller but many other Evolutionary Biologists (Richard Dawkins himself has made many comments about having to defend such strong scientific evidence) And Young Earth Creationism doens't just reject the Science of Evolution but almost all branches of Science, Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology etc.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

(Gamespot doesn't let me link..)

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism. How many people in America alone will turn away from a career in science because from a young age (As is almost always the case) have been indoctrinated with such unscientific beliefs? This is in the 21st century mind you when our scientific understanding has never been greater and people in massive numbers still reject strong evidence, It would have been far worse in centuries past no doubt. How many possible Great scientists have been corrupted at a young age over thousands of years becuase of religion?

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism. How many people in America alone will turn away from a career in science because from a young age (As is almost always the case) have been indoctrinated with such unscientific beliefs? This is in the 21st century mind you when our scientific understanding has never been greater and people in massive numbers still reject strong evidence, It would have been far worse in centuries past no doubt. How many possible Great scientists have been corrupted at a young age over thousands of years becuase of religion?mattisgod01

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

I was going to agree, but then I noticed it was just a cheap shot at downplaying religious scientists after further reading. I still stand by labeling this a poor man's argument however, regardless of motivation and achievement.

Victorious_Fize

It wasn't a cheap shot, I was just saying that Science motivates scientists, Not religion or lack there of.

If i was going to have a go at religion i would have said something along the lines of, Almost all the people anyone can list would still have achieved what they did if they were Atheist. Religion on the other hand could have played a part in preventing them had they been more fundamentalist in their beliefs. Or i could have suggested that religion has prevented many more great scientists and thinkers from pursuing such fields and denied our civilization of people perhaps greater then Einstein or Newton.

You first declared discontent with the arguementation, then proceeded on talking about it to specifically exclude religious scientists' accomplishments and motives from, you guessed it, religion. If that's not downplaying then I don't know what is.

Isaac's revel in religion was clear beyond question, Einstein is attributed with the following quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Avicenna is a Muslim.

I'm not one to dispute conditional statements. I thought Atheists were all about objectivity anyway.

I disliked the "Specific person" Argument, I was arguing a greater case regarding Science and religion. Eintein was 76 years old, He said alot of things in his time, to simply hold on to a single quote as evidence or clarity of anyones true beliefs wouldn't be wise, I mean does he even elaborate as to why science without religion would be lame? or Why Religion without Science would be blind? Christians could argue that the Bible is all the direction and understanding people need.

That is another argument i dislike both sides using. Single Quotes.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

It wasn't a cheap shot, I was just saying that Science motivates scientists, Not religion or lack there of.

If i was going to have a go at religion i would have said something along the lines of, Almost all the people anyone can list would still have achieved what they did if they were Atheist. Religion on the other hand could have played a part in preventing them had they been more fundamentalist in their beliefs. Or i could have suggested that religion has prevented many more great scientists and thinkers from pursuing such fields and denied our civilization of people perhaps greater then Einstein or Newton.

mattisgod01

You first declared discontent with the arguementation, then proceeded on talking about it to specifically exclude religious scientists' accomplishments and motives from, you guessed it, religion. If that's not downplaying then I don't know what is.

Isaac's revel in religion was clear beyond question, Einstein is attributed with the following quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Avicenna is a Muslim.

I'm not one to dispute conditional statements. I thought Atheists were all about objectivity anyway.

I disliked the "Specific person" Argument, I was arguing a greater case regarding Science and religion. Eintein was 76 years old, He said alot of things in his time, to simply hold on to a single quote as evidence or clarity of anyones true beliefs wouldn't be wise, I mean does he even elaborate as to why science without religion would be lame? or Why Religion without Science would be blind? Christians could argue that the Bible is all the direction and understanding people need.

That is another argument i dislike both sides using. Single Quotes.

Without addressing these polymaths one by one, both you and I would be generalising. Your greater case require its greater evidence. I supplied you with my own for all three polymaths. Einstein may have said many things as a senile, but he knew enough to understand age is a state of mind and numbers, and the physical and chemical decay is what makes one "old", he was also very clear on his religious views, and there is a lot of books, letters, and articles, that prove that. The statements are yours to dispute, I merely used them to prove his advocate of religion and science intertwining. Christians... read the first sentence.

Single quotes? I apologize for inconvenience all the same.

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation. - Abdul Baha

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]40% of Americans Believe in Creationism. How many people in America alone will turn away from a career in science because from a young age (As is almost always the case) have been indoctrinated with such unscientific beliefs? This is in the 21st century mind you when our scientific understanding has never been greater and people in massive numbers still reject strong evidence, It would have been far worse in centuries past no doubt. How many possible Great scientists have been corrupted at a young age over thousands of years becuase of religion?foxhound_fox

Whether it can. Well i'd like to think that theoretically, yes. Does it? No.

I'll use world peace as an analogy for your point. Do you think the world can live in peace? I think it is theoretically possible, Do we live with world peace? No. Sure i could point to Switzerland and say, see they are not a war with someone and you are safe if you live there but that's not the problem. To get to world peace we need to adress the issues and not hide behind the exceptions and goals. Would you argue world peace while ignoring all the wars being fought? Would it be fallacious to emphasize Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan while ignoring most parts of Europe or the masses of people who want world peace? If we want world peace then we need to focus on adressing the issues and problem areas and not simply stop at the the exceptions that resemble the end goal.

That 38% who beleive in evolution i have no real issue with, It shows Religion moving with science which is good. But we are still talking about 40% of Americans believeing in Creationism, I'm not nit-picking here. Scientists all throughout history have had to defend their science agaisnt religion and the Catholic church, This is not co-existing, Science and scientists should not have to justify or defend their claims before Religious institutions and scripture.

I'm not entirely bothered by Religion or Atheism as I choose not to partake in any belief though believing in a God is more comforting. Only thing I do hate is when Ignorant or deluded, arrogant Atheists or religious fanatics choose to state their belief as superior and thinking that any other path is illogical. Fact is Science hasn't provided evidence that their is no God and many religions also hasn't provided significant amount of evidence that directly prove their is a God. So no one wins in knowledge and therefore I do not care.shadowkiller11

This is why I like irreligion, but lack a marginal respect for atheism. I agree.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

You first declared discontent with the arguementation, then proceeded on talking about it to specifically exclude religious scientists' accomplishments and motives from, you guessed it, religion. If that's not downplaying then I don't know what is.

Isaac's revel in religion was clear beyond question, Einstein is attributed with the following quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Avicenna is a Muslim.

I'm not one to dispute conditional statements. I thought Atheists were all about objectivity anyway.

Victorious_Fize

I disliked the "Specific person" Argument, I was arguing a greater case regarding Science and religion. Eintein was 76 years old, He said alot of things in his time, to simply hold on to a single quote as evidence or clarity of anyones true beliefs wouldn't be wise, I mean does he even elaborate as to why science without religion would be lame? or Why Religion without Science would be blind? Christians could argue that the Bible is all the direction and understanding people need.

That is another argument i dislike both sides using. Single Quotes.

Without addressing these polymaths one by one, both you and I would be generalising. Your greater case require its greater evidence. I supplied you with my own for all three polymaths. Einstein may have said many things as a senile, but he knew enough to understand age is a state of mind and numbers, and the physical and chemical decay is what makes one "old", he was also very clear on his religious views, and there is a lot of books, letters, and articles, that prove that. The statements are yours to dispute, I merely used them to prove his advocate of religion and science intertwining. Christians... read the first sentence.

Single quotes? I apologize for inconvenience all the same.

When i said he was 76 i was not so much adressing his old age but the many years he has been on earth and in that time he would have said millions of things and like all humans (me included) if you were to pick out quotes you could easily paint a picture of a very different peson. I've used single quotes in my arguments before so i am a hypocrite in that sense (But sometimes it's hard to resist the urge) But in religios debates it isn't enough evidence one way or antoehr for my liking.

I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments, No one person reprisents religion and no single group represents a religion as a whole. However, I think groups like The Westboro Babtist Church and Al Qaeda are fair game in religious debates as they are not individuals but a spreading of a toxic ideology which is a serious point to address. Single people are just single people and could be at heart very good human beings or violent psychopaths and it becomes very difficult to argue any case for it one way or another and that is another reason why i avoid single people as neither side can have a strong case in my view.

so your saying "we dont know, so it must be god"?

[QUOTE="ohgodohman"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"] Avicenna, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, all ring a bell to name a few.Victorious_Fize

Oh ok, skimming to recent Nobel Laureates then.

- Werner Heisenberg

- Arno Penzias

- Abdus Salam

- Rabindranath Tagore

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

- Albert Schweitzer

- Joseph Murray

Those and one of my favorite scientists of all time Carl Sagan was, if not religious, definitely a very spiritual man. He certainly viewed the universe with a very open mind like any serious scientist should.

You really do not have to believe in anything specific to be an anthiest. All you need to NOT believe in is a God. And I really don't feel the need to argue my point to people of faith. I find their ignorance more amusing.

Johnny_Rock

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="ohgodohman"]Do you have any idea what the present tense implies?kuraimen

Oh ok, skimming to recent Nobel Laureates then.

- Werner Heisenberg

- Arno Penzias

- Abdus Salam

- Rabindranath Tagore

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

- Albert Schweitzer

- Joseph Murray

Those and one of my favorite scientists of all time Carl Sagan was, if not religious, definitely a very spiritual man. He certainly viewed the universe with a very open mind like any serious scientist should.

In "Billions and Billions" he claims to be Agnostic. He says something along the lines of "An Agnostic is someone who doesn't beleive in something until there is evidence for it." And that there is as much evidence for God not existing as there is for him Existing (Which is none), That is why he doesn't call himself an Atheist.

Has to go down as one of the most logical things ever said.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

I disliked the "Specific person" Argument, I was arguing a greater case regarding Science and religion. Eintein was 76 years old, He said alot of things in his time, to simply hold on to a single quote as evidence or clarity of anyones true beliefs wouldn't be wise, I mean does he even elaborate as to why science without religion would be lame? or Why Religion without Science would be blind? Christians could argue that the Bible is all the direction and understanding people need.

That is another argument i dislike both sides using. Single Quotes.

mattisgod01

Without addressing these polymaths one by one, both you and I would be generalising. Your greater case require its greater evidence. I supplied you with my own for all three polymaths. Einstein may have said many things as a senile, but he knew enough to understand age is a state of mind and numbers, and the physical and chemical decay is what makes one "old", he was also very clear on his religious views, and there is a lot of books, letters, and articles, that prove that. The statements are yours to dispute, I merely used them to prove his advocate of religion and science intertwining. Christians... read the first sentence.

Single quotes? I apologize for inconvenience all the same.

When i said he was 76 i was not so much adressing his old age but the many years he has been on earth and in that time he would have said millions of things and like all humans (me included) if you were to pick out quotes you could easily paint a picture of a very different peson. I've used single quotes in my arguments before so i am a hypocrite in that sense (But sometimes it's hard to resist the urge) But in religios debates it isn't enough evidence one way or antoehr for my liking.

I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments, No one person reprisents religion and no single group represents a religion as a whole. However, I think groups like The Westboro Babtist Church and Al Qaeda are fair game in religious debates as they are not individuals but a spreading of a toxic ideology which is a serious point to address. Single people are just single people and could be at heart very good human beings or violent psychopaths and it becomes very difficult to argue any case for it one way or another and that is another reason why i avoid single people as neither side can have a strong case in my view.

No, you are not a hypocrite, however, we are not playing a game of political correctness where we drool over the smallest statement a politician make to shout in each other's throats. It's ok not to go by a single quote, but with multiple biographies, a consistent stance, and a collected mind, are surely evidence enough.

"I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments" I will stop you right there. There are well over 6000 million persons that believes in theism. If you, will keep on the association fallacy, and want, to treat religion, as a general subject, as a tangible matter, or a united collective entity. Then we should not continue this conversation any further. More so, WBC and Al Qaeda are specific problems.

@Kurai: I love Carl Sagan. :)

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

Oh ok, skimming to recent Nobel Laureates then.

- Werner Heisenberg

- Arno Penzias

- Abdus Salam

- Rabindranath Tagore

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

- Albert Schweitzer

- Joseph Murray

mattisgod01

Those and one of my favorite scientists of all time Carl Sagan was, if not religious, definitely a very spiritual man. He certainly viewed the universe with a very open mind like any serious scientist should.

In "Billions and Billions" he claims to be Agnostic. He says something along the lines of "An Agnostic is someone who doesn't beleive in something until there is evidence for it." And that there is as much evidence for God not existing as there is for him Existing (Which is none), That is why he doesn't call himself an Atheist.

Has to go down as one of the most logical things ever said.

Also why are you guys using a fallacious argument about how some scientist's affiliation to a religion somehow validates it.RyviusARC

Also why are you guys using a fallacious argument about how some scientist's affiliation to a religion somehow validates it.RyviusARC

Actually, we are talking about how some scientists have a religious affiliation.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Those and one of my favorite scientists of all time Carl Sagan was, if not religious, definitely a very spiritual man. He certainly viewed the universe with a very open mind like any serious scientist should.

RyviusARC

In "Billions and Billions" he claims to be Agnostic. He says something along the lines of "An Agnostic is someone who doesn't beleive in something until there is evidence for it." And that there is as much evidence for God not existing as there is for him Existing (Which is none), That is why he doesn't call himself an Atheist.

Has to go down as one of the most logical things ever said.

Carl Sagan's believes.

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others - for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein - considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.

In other words his believes were more in tune with a panteist conception of God but not a christian one. Although in a novel like Contact it is clear he is open to other ideas too.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Those and one of my favorite scientists of all time Carl Sagan was, if not religious, definitely a very spiritual man. He certainly viewed the universe with a very open mind like any serious scientist should.

RyviusARC

In "Billions and Billions" he claims to be Agnostic. He says something along the lines of "An Agnostic is someone who doesn't beleive in something until there is evidence for it." And that there is as much evidence for God not existing as there is for him Existing (Which is none), That is why he doesn't call himself an Atheist.

Has to go down as one of the most logical things ever said.

Pretty much all Atheists would agree that there is the possibility that God exists (regardless of how remote) and that we will likely never know for sure either way, so you could say all Atheists are Agnostic. I personally feel Agnosticism is a cop out. As for Carl Sagan, I don't think he really cared that much one way or the other. Being an Atheist or a Theist was too definitive for his liking and on the question of god's existence he simply said "I don't Know"

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] At least I'm not saying that. I started mentioning religious and spiritual scientists because the Op seemed to be implying that most scientists reject religion or the existence of a God which is not true. RyviusARC

From the start of it, I said and will always say, this is a poor man's arguement. Evolution for many in the West draws the straw it seems.

Being an Atheist or a Theist was too definitive for his liking and on the question of god's existence he simply said "I don't Know"mattisgod01

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

Without addressing these polymaths one by one, both you and I would be generalising. Your greater case require its greater evidence. I supplied you with my own for all three polymaths. Einstein may have said many things as a senile, but he knew enough to understand age is a state of mind and numbers, and the physical and chemical decay is what makes one "old", he was also very clear on his religious views, and there is a lot of books, letters, and articles, that prove that. The statements are yours to dispute, I merely used them to prove his advocate of religion and science intertwining. Christians... read the first sentence.

Single quotes? I apologize for inconvenience all the same.

Victorious_Fize

When i said he was 76 i was not so much adressing his old age but the many years he has been on earth and in that time he would have said millions of things and like all humans (me included) if you were to pick out quotes you could easily paint a picture of a very different peson. I've used single quotes in my arguments before so i am a hypocrite in that sense (But sometimes it's hard to resist the urge) But in religios debates it isn't enough evidence one way or antoehr for my liking.

I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments, No one person reprisents religion and no single group represents a religion as a whole. However, I think groups like The Westboro Babtist Church and Al Qaeda are fair game in religious debates as they are not individuals but a spreading of a toxic ideology which is a serious point to address. Single people are just single people and could be at heart very good human beings or violent psychopaths and it becomes very difficult to argue any case for it one way or another and that is another reason why i avoid single people as neither side can have a strong case in my view.

No, you are not a hypocrite, however, we are not playing a game of political correctness where we drool over the smallest statement a politician make to shout in each other's throats. It's ok not to go by a single quote, but with multiple biographies, a consistent stance, and a collected mind, are surely evidence enough.

"I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments" I will stop you right there. There are well over 6000 million persons that believes in theism. If you, will keep on the association fallacy, and want, to treat religion, as a general subject, as a tangible matter, or a united collective entity. Then we should not continue this conversation any further. More so, WBC and Al Qaeda are specific problems.

@Kurai: I love Carl Sagan. :)

If there is evidence to back up soemones views rather then a single quote then thats fine. I was never arguing Einstein's Views only that people are misquoted or misunderstood all the time, The only difference is the dead can't defend or clarify themselves. Some Theists tried to claim that Steven Hawking was Religious based on his use and reference to God in some of his work, I think he came out after and Clarified his position but had he died before doing so i have no doubt people would make claims about him all the time. My overall point is that if people are going to claim someone as being something i expect more then just a single quote or nit-picking.

When i said more general i meant less specific, Not necessarily group everyone. I think it is fare to group all of Christianity together at times and the same goes for all religions. And yes i know WBC and Al Qaeda are specific, i was pointing out the exceptions to my previous point about groups not representing the entire religion. Al Qaeda may not represent all Muslims but the Religion of Islam has to take some responsibility for their existence . The Same goes for WBC and Christianity.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]Being an Atheist or a Theist was too definitive for his liking and on the question of god's existence he simply said "I don't Know"RyviusARC

The are some statements, Some of which feature in Billions and Billions

Carl Edward Sagan (1934-1997) was an astronomer and science popularizer.

In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

Update from Tom Head, editor of Conversations with Carl Sagan (University Press of Mississippi, 2006):

Sagan resisted the atheism label and self-described as an agnostic.

In a 1981 interview with U.S. Catholic, Sagan said: "I have some discomfort with both believers and with nonbelievers when their opinions are not based on facts ... If we don't know the answer, why are we under so much pressure to make up our minds, to declare our allegiance to one hypothesis or the other?"

In a 1996 interview with NPR's Talk of the Nation, Sagan said (when asked about religious beliefs): "Where's the evidence? Now, the word God is used to cover a wide variety of very different ideas, ranging maybe from the idea of an outsized light-skinned male with a long white beard who sits in a throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow--for which there is no evidence, none at all--to the view of Einstein, of Spinoza, which is essentially that God is the sum total of the laws of nature. And since there are laws of nature ... if that's what you mean by God, then of course there's a God. So everything depends on the definition of God."

In a 1996 interview with NPR's Fresh Air, Sagan said: "I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no. You have to specify which of the countless kinds of God you have in mind."

In another 1996 interview, Sagan told Joel Achenbach: "An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God."

In an interview with The Humanist magazine conducted after Sagan's death, his wife, Ann Druyan, said that neither she nor Sagan believed in a traditional God or an afterlife.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

When i said he was 76 i was not so much adressing his old age but the many years he has been on earth and in that time he would have said millions of things and like all humans (me included) if you were to pick out quotes you could easily paint a picture of a very different peson. I've used single quotes in my arguments before so i am a hypocrite in that sense (But sometimes it's hard to resist the urge) But in religios debates it isn't enough evidence one way or antoehr for my liking.

I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments, No one person reprisents religion and no single group represents a religion as a whole. However, I think groups like The Westboro Babtist Church and Al Qaeda are fair game in religious debates as they are not individuals but a spreading of a toxic ideology which is a serious point to address. Single people are just single people and could be at heart very good human beings or violent psychopaths and it becomes very difficult to argue any case for it one way or another and that is another reason why i avoid single people as neither side can have a strong case in my view.

mattisgod01

No, you are not a hypocrite, however, we are not playing a game of political correctness where we drool over the smallest statement a politician make to shout in each other's throats. It's ok not to go by a single quote, but with multiple biographies, a consistent stance, and a collected mind, are surely evidence enough.

"I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments" I will stop you right there. There are well over 6000 million persons that believes in theism. If you, will keep on the association fallacy, and want, to treat religion, as a general subject, as a tangible matter, or a united collective entity. Then we should not continue this conversation any further. More so, WBC and Al Qaeda are specific problems.

@Kurai: I love Carl Sagan. :)

If there is evidence to back up soemones views rather then a single quote then thats fine. I was never arguing Einstein's Views only that people are misquoted or misunderstood all the time, The only difference is the dead can't defend or clarify themselves. Some Theists tried to claim that Steven Hawking was Religious based on his use and reference to God in some of his work, I think he came out after and Clarified his position but had he died before doing so i have no doubt people would make claims about him all the time. My overall point is that if people are going to claim someone as being something i expect more then just a single quote or nit-picking.

When i said more general i meant less specific, Not necessarily group everyone. I think it is fare to group all of Christianity together at times and the same goes for all religions. And yes i know WBC and Al Qaeda are specific, i was pointing out the exceptions to my previous point about groups not representing the entire religion. Al Qaeda may not represent all Muslims but the Religion of Islam has to take some responsibility for their existence . The Same goes for WBC and Christianity.

Third time linking in this thread.

If you feel what I am saying is wrong, and lack in trust, search at your own courtesy. I'm not one to make someone other than he is. At any rate, gonna go work then head to bed now. You should open your eyes, widen your horizon, I know it's easy to lump everything in a basket, but somethings aren't what they seem. WBC and Al Qaeda are not in it for the religion.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

No, you are not a hypocrite, however, we are not playing a game of political correctness where we drool over the smallest statement a politician make to shout in each other's throats. It's ok not to go by a single quote, but with multiple biographies, a consistent stance, and a collected mind, are surely evidence enough.

"I think in religion you need to be more general in your arguments" I will stop you right there. There are well over 6000 million persons that believes in theism. If you, will keep on the association fallacy, and want, to treat religion, as a general subject, as a tangible matter, or a united collective entity. Then we should not continue this conversation any further. More so, WBC and Al Qaeda are specific problems.

@Kurai: I love Carl Sagan. :)

Victorious_Fize

If there is evidence to back up soemones views rather then a single quote then thats fine. I was never arguing Einstein's Views only that people are misquoted or misunderstood all the time, The only difference is the dead can't defend or clarify themselves. Some Theists tried to claim that Steven Hawking was Religious based on his use and reference to God in some of his work, I think he came out after and Clarified his position but had he died before doing so i have no doubt people would make claims about him all the time. My overall point is that if people are going to claim someone as being something i expect more then just a single quote or nit-picking.

When i said more general i meant less specific, Not necessarily group everyone. I think it is fare to group all of Christianity together at times and the same goes for all religions. And yes i know WBC and Al Qaeda are specific, i was pointing out the exceptions to my previous point about groups not representing the entire religion. Al Qaeda may not represent all Muslims but the Religion of Islam has to take some responsibility for their existence . The Same goes for WBC and Christianity.

Third time linking in this thread.

If you feel what I am saying is wrong, and lack in trust, search at your own courtesy. I'm not one to make someone other than he is. At any rate, gonna go work then head to bed now. You should open your eyes, widen your horizon, I know it's easy to lump everything in a basket, but somethings aren't what they seem. WBC and Al Qaeda are not in it for the religion.

Linking all people from one religion to one religion is not an association fallacy, I'm not linking them by Association, They ARE linked by an Assocation, Their Religion. whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

WBC and Al Qaeda etc are like toxic waste leaking from a Nuclear Reactor. You could argue the plant creates power and provides warmth for a million people but thats not an excuse to ignore the leaking toxic waste or look past where it comes from.

Inb4blogthis. Only problem: Christianity isn't the first nor only religion. What makes you think it's right? What if the Norse faith is? th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]Inb4blogthis. Only problem: Christianity isn't the first nor only religion. What makes you think it's right? What if the Norse faith is? Santesyu

It's a religion.

Linking all people from one religion to one religion is not an association fallacy, I'm not linking them by Association, They ARE linked by an Assocation, Their Religion. whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc..mattisgod01

I don't believe in God but I believe in the tooth fairy.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]Linking all people from one religion to one religion is not an association fallacy, I'm not linking them by Association, They ARE linked by an Assocation, Their Religion. whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc..foxhound_fox

1. They did that under a Communism Banner (Likely coloured red)

2. Atheism is disbelief in God, No scripture, no rules, nothing.

On what basis do Christians or Muslims distance themselves for Al Qaeda or WBC, On what basis do they judge their actions wrong? From my point of view it seems these extremist groups take their religion far more seriously then anyone else so why are they wrong when the so called moderates are right? On what basis does anyone have for saying they are wrong? As an Atheist i have a clear reason.

What i said is that i see no issue with linking all Christians to Christianity, if people don't want to be linked to Christianity then don't refer to yourself as christian, the same applies to all religions and their followers. Most religions are an organisation which people subscribe to, if you subscribe to that religion you are associating yourself with them. I have a great intolerance not for peopels beleifs but the physical manifestation of them. There is a difference, one is harmless the other is planes flying into building, crusades, witch burnings, Inquisitions etc. Everything else that manifests itself from religion is irrelevant in the face of such acts. People can have their beleifs if they stayed at just that.

2. Atheism is disbelief in God, No scripture, no rules, nothing.mattisgod01

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]2. Atheism is disbelief in God, No scripture, no rules, nothing.foxhound_fox

What ideology? You make it sound like i have an Atheist Bible that i read from. I don't beleive God exists so anyone who claims to act in his name or though his word are wrong, That's Atheism. What other position could an Atheist take? I might be more outspoken then most but i'm honestly surprised more Atheists aren't. Do you not see all the bad religion has done throughout history and still today or do you just refuse to look?

What ideology? You make it sound like i have an Atheist Bible that i read from. I don't beleive God exists so anyone who claims to act in his name or though his word are wrong, That's Atheism. What other position could an Atheist take? I might be more outspoken then most but i'm honestly surprised more Atheists aren't. Do you not see all the bad religion has done throughout history and still today or do you just refuse to look?mattisgod01

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]2. Atheism is disbelief in God, No scripture, no rules, nothing.mattisgod01

What ideology? You make it sound like i have an Atheist Bible that i read from. I don't beleive God exists so anyone who claims to act in his name or though his word are wrong, That's Atheism. What other position could an Atheist take? I might be more outspoken then most but i'm honestly surprised more Atheists aren't. Do you not see all the bad religion has done throughout history and still today or do you just refuse to look?

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]What ideology? You make it sound like i have an Atheist Bible that i read from. I don't beleive God exists so anyone who claims to act in his name or though his word are wrong, That's Atheism. What other position could an Atheist take? I might be more outspoken then most but i'm honestly surprised more Atheists aren't. Do you not see all the bad religion has done throughout history and still today or do you just refuse to look?foxhound_fox

You are trying to make Atheism sound like a religion. Democrats have a set of beleifs and ideas they follow, Atheism is the lack of beleif in God. If simply not believing in something is an Ideology then it takes away all effective meaning from the word. I said "claims to act in his name or though his word" is wrong. This is the default position of an Atheist. God does not exist so he can not speak to you and anyone who acts in the name of a non-existent God is acting for the wrong reasons.

If you had 2 neighbours, one bakes you cookies and the other is planning to murder you who would you be more focused on? Fae more Atrocities have been commited in the name of Christianity then by the Nazis yet you don't expect people to focus on all the good they did at the detriment of the bad? There hasn't been a day gone by in the last 2000 years where someone hasn't been murdered in the name of religion. How can you honestly brush aside the major part religion played in all these events over the millennia? You just put it down to bad people doing bad things? really?