My Letter to Atheists

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="greenskittles"]

You are a Christian because you are born in a country I assume, who on the majority are Christian themselves. That's fine, you were brought up with Christian parents, probably Christian school, your countries political system probably has traditional underlinings of Christianity built into it. Naturally you've come to the conclusion that God exist through the various influences of your life. That's fine, but you want some debate so I'll give it to you.

How is it fair that some kid was unlucky enough to be born in Thailand will burn in hell because he wasn't influenced the way you were because of his surrounding being primarily Buddist?

There are thousands of religions, would God honestly do that to the billions of other people who don't believe in your religion or someone elses religion for that matter?

I don't know what you mean by this

Anyhow as far as I'm concerned God only makes exceptions of infants and toddlers. That doesn't matter though it doesn't explain what happens to the rest of the worlds population, you are just theorising , everyone else could be going to hell still.

Please answer this question, is this what you think should happen to the rest of the world if you were in God's shoes, would you send every non-believer excluding toddlers and infants to hell? Just answer that question please.

I apologize. I didn't get much sleep last night so perhaps I'm a little slow this morning so that might be why I'm having trouble understanding you.

Let me state my thoughts a little differently.

Murder: A Catholic might be against murder because it goes against the Ten Commandments. A non-religous person might be against murder because it goes against an individual's rights (for lack of a better phrase). Regardless of why both sides agree that murder is wrong, they do in fact agree that it is wrong, and thats why we have laws against it.

Adultery (I'm thinking this is a better example that the complex issue that is abortion): A Catholic might be against it because it goes agains the Ten Commandments. A non-religous person might say it's nobody's business besides the people involved. So, at the end of the day, since religion isn't the end-all, be-all in the US, adultery is NOT illegal. However, if both the religious and non-religous found adultery to be horrible enough, there would be a consensus and it would likely be illegal.

So, basically I was saying that our laws are based ona consensus. At that point (I think) you said that my thoughts on the topic were "shaky." Yet when I asked you where laws come from, you said, "popular moral perception." How is that not pretty much the exact same thing?

Again, not exactly running on all cylinders this morning.

Planet_Pluto

Well, firstly- I was referring to "consensus" as meaning "with complete and full agreement by everyone" and not "a majority's agreement". In that regard popularity=/=consensus and that is a huge difference. I don't believe there's such a thing as a full consensus about anything- even regarding your, apparent foundation for a rule-system's legitimacy, a majority's rule.

The origin of the rule system is the basis for what it attempts at achieving. A christian system would try and enact the word of god as closely as possible, with or without a consensus supporting it. A utilitarian system would try and legislate the optimal outcome for the majority of it's citizens (what is the most optimal for each person and society as a whole is usually agreed upon through a vote in this example, per Jeremy Bentam's hypothesis that each person knows what's best for himself and the a vote by all of the people would result in the best outcome for society, but that's not neccessarily the case either).

If you disregard the origins and the "Why"s of the rule system- then how would you decide, per your examples, if adultery or abortion should be legal or illegal? how do you even decide if the popular opinion should be the opinion chosen? It could be: "I'm the monarch who reigns by divine authority and my opinion should be carried out for god wills it".

Tl;dr- if you disregard the "roots" you can only deal with "what is the law?" and not "what should be the law?"

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Like I said. The Egyptians were around over 1000 years longer than christianity has been around before they fell. What makes you think Christianity won't fall?

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="theone86"]

It was both, and there are plenty of religions that have fallen. They generally fall around the same time that the empire that was using them as a source of power fell. As Bertrand Russell said, "Religion may, in most of its forms, be defined as the belief that the gods are on the side of the Government."

Frame_Dragger

I think it will hold out more in countries which still have weak education systems, education is the death of religion. it is easy to verify this by looking at 1st world religious followers versus 3rd world.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] But Christianity hasnt fallen, despite the empires that have fallen.tenaka2

I think it will hold out more in countries which still have weak education systems, education is the death of religion. it is easy to verify this by looking at 1st world religious followers versus 3rd world.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gaming25"] But Christianity hasnt fallen, despite the empires that have fallen.tenaka2

I think it will hold out more in countries which still have weak education systems, education is the death of religion. it is easy to verify this by looking at 1st world religious followers versus 3rd world.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

I apologize. I didn't get much sleep last night so perhaps I'm a little slow this morning so that might be why I'm having trouble understanding you.

Let me state my thoughts a little differently.

Murder: A Catholic might be against murder because it goes against the Ten Commandments. A non-religous person might be against murder because it goes against an individual's rights (for lack of a better phrase). Regardless of why both sides agree that murder is wrong, they do in fact agree that it is wrong, and thats why we have laws against it.

Adultery (I'm thinking this is a better example that the complex issue that is abortion): A Catholic might be against it because it goes agains the Ten Commandments. A non-religous person might say it's nobody's business besides the people involved. So, at the end of the day, since religion isn't the end-all, be-all in the US, adultery is NOT illegal. However, if both the religious and non-religous found adultery to be horrible enough, there would be a consensus and it would likely be illegal.

So, basically I was saying that our laws are based ona consensus. At that point (I think) you said that my thoughts on the topic were "shaky." Yet when I asked you where laws come from, you said, "popular moral perception." How is that not pretty much the exact same thing?

Again, not exactly running on all cylinders this morning.

grape_of_wrath

Well, firstly- I was referring to "consensus" as meaning "with complete and full agreement by everyone" and not "a majority's agreement". In that regard popularity=/=consensus and that is a huge difference. I don't believe there's such a thing as a full consensus about anything- even regarding your, apparent foundation for a rule-system's legitimacy, a majority's rule.

The origin of the rule system is the basis for what it attempts at achieving. A christian system would try and enact the word of god as closely as possible, with or without a consensus supporting it. A utilitarian system would try and legislate the optimal outcome for the majority of it's citizens (what is the most optimal for each person and society as a whole is usually agreed upon through a vote in this example, per Jeremy Bentam's hypothesis that each person knows what's best for himself and the a vote by all of the people would result in the best outcome for society, but that's not neccessarily the case either).

If you disregard the origins and the "Why"s of the rule system- then how would you decide, per your examples, if adultery or abortion should be legal or illegal? how do you even decide if the popular opinion should be the opinion chosen? It could be: "I'm the monarch who reigns by divine authority and my opinion should be carried out for god wills it".

Tl;dr- if you disregard the "roots" you can only deal with "what is the law?" and not "what should be the law?"

Like you said though, if a Christian votes for what he thinks is best for him (even if he thinks following the scriptures is what is best for him), how is that any different than, say, a homosexual voting for gay marriage? They are both voting for what they think is best for them.

I think I agree with the last statement in your post.

@gaming25

Anything about anyones fate would be theorising as well since we dont know anyones fate in the afterlife. So I cant answer that question since I dont know anyone's fate.

That's not the point, I'm not asking if you know anybody's fate. I'm asking what would YOU do to non-believers once they died should they go to the heaven or hell?

It's a simple question mate.

The theory of the big bang explains why the big bang took place and therefore there is no space for 'god started the big bang' because its explained in the theory. From my limited understanding of Christianty, the bible says 'god created the earth in 7 days' well we know that it took billions of years, and on top of that humans have only come about very recently compared to that timescale. I'm sure things wouldn't go down well if you stood up in front of a church-going crowd and saying evolution and religion go hand in hand. Again, according to the big bang, elements were created in the big bang. And if this theory is right, than how can god have 'set the events in motion'?DeX2010

The theory of the big bang explains why the big bang took place and therefore there is no space for 'god started the big bang' because its explained in the theory. From my limited understanding of Christianty, the bible says 'god created the earth in 7 days' well we know that it took billions of years, and on top of that humans have only come about very recently compared to that timescale. I'm sure things wouldn't go down well if you stood up in front of a church-going crowd and saying evolution and religion go hand in hand. Again, according to the big bang, elements were created in the big bang. And if this theory is right, than how can god have 'set the events in motion'?DeX2010

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Character assasination?! I'm not attacking you personally, I'm saying that you're not representing your views well, and that you're not arguing from any common definition of "Indoctrination". I'm tired, my jaw hurts, and I'm not in the mood to get into some winding semantic argument. If you find that shallow, I can live with that for today.Frame_Dragger

@gaming25

Anything about anyones fate would be theorising as well since we dont know anyones fate in the afterlife. So I cant answer that question since I dont know anyone's fate.

That's not the point, I'm not asking if you know anybody's fate. I'm asking what would YOU to non-believers once they died should they go to the heaven or hell?

It's a simple question mate.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] It may never fall, until people themselves die out, but it could die out through absorbition into other religion, or by the destruction of major powers that are majority-christian. Personally I'd bet on Christianity lasting a VERY long time, much like Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. Those four religions really don't require anything like a friendly state to survive, so the fall of governments or empires seem to have a minimal effect. Still, this is an "IMO" thing... you never know what the future holds after all. gaming25

I think it will hold out more in countries which still have weak education systems, education is the death of religion. it is easy to verify this by looking at 1st world religious followers versus 3rd world.

perhaps but the good news is that the numbers are decreasing.

[QUOTE="greenskittles"]

@gaming25

Anything about anyones fate would be theorising as well since we dont know anyones fate in the afterlife. So I cant answer that question since I dont know anyone's fate.

That's not the point, I'm not asking if you know anybody's fate. I'm asking what would YOU to non-believers once they died should they go to the heaven or hell?

It's a simple question mate.

gaming25

Meaning what? You wouldn't take them to heaven or hell which is it?

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="greenskittles"]

@gaming25

Anything about anyones fate would be theorising as well since we dont know anyones fate in the afterlife. So I cant answer that question since I dont know anyone's fate.

That's not the point, I'm not asking if you know anybody's fate. I'm asking what would YOU to non-believers once they died should they go to the heaven or hell?

It's a simple question mate.

greenskittles

Meaning what? You wouldn't take them to heaven or hell which is it?

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think it will hold out more in countries which still have weak education systems, education is the death of religion. it is easy to verify this by looking at 1st world religious followers versus 3rd world.

perhaps but the good news is that the numbers are decreasing.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] in·doc·tri·nat·edin·doc·tri·nat·ing Definition of INDOCTRINATE transitive verb 1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach 2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="greenskittles"]

@gaming25

Anything about anyones fate would be theorising as well since we dont know anyones fate in the afterlife. So I cant answer that question since I dont know anyone's fate.

That's not the point, I'm not asking if you know anybody's fate. I'm asking what would YOU to non-believers once they died should they go to the heaven or hell?

It's a simple question mate.

Meaning what? You wouldn't take them to heaven or hell which is it?

I hear you Planet_Pluto but I do have a point I'm trying to make and he did already answer the question.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] And the majority still believe in a religion. gaming25

perhaps but the good news is that the numbers are decreasing.

Religion and world peace are linked.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] And the majority still believe in a religion. gaming25

perhaps but the good news is that the numbers are decreasing.

I hear you Planet_Pluto but I do have a point I'm trying to make and he did already answer the question.

greenskittles

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

perhaps but the good news is that the numbers are decreasing.

It's 2011. People seriously still believe in the sky wizard? :roll:

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

perhaps but the good news is that the numbers are decreasing.

Like you said though, if a Christian votes for what he thinks is best for him (even if he thinks following the scriptures is what is best for him), how is that any different than, say, a homosexual voting for gay marriage? They are both voting for what they think is best for them.

Planet_Pluto

Because in a Christian system there wouldn't be voting and the gay person would be stoned (presumably, don't jump on me ye rednecks [who are by chance reading this]. i'm not a theologist. also- don't be offended by the redneck comment- I think you are a lovely person[s]). See: Iran, Saudi-arabia etc.

Deciding that we decide things through a vote is, already, coming out of a, relatively, secular standpoint. I'm getting the vibe (and again, not from what you said directly) that you think certain rules are innate to human nature including, but not limited to, murder and the basic democratic system. If not feel free to correct me. In any case, I still think that the reason for the rule and it's "consensus" is very important- and if that's the case, we should criticize the biblical scripture if that's the reason why we have the "don't kill" rules.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] How about wanting there to be world peace, instead of saying there shouldnt be any more Christianity.gaming25

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] How about wanting there to be world peace, instead of saying there shouldnt be any more Christianity.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]We can have world peace and no religion.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] A law can enforce that... it does not teach. The people who make the laws or support it can, but the law itself simply states how life will be conducted for a period of time. On the other hand, telling kids that creationism is a theory like evolution, both based on a similar system is factually incorrect and intentionally confuses fath and the scientific method in order to muddy the overall issue. Following a long, such as being allowed to own a firearm doesn't cause you to believe that it's the thing to do, anymore than gun control as a LAW does the opposite. The lobbies for each, and the rhetoric surrounding them can be, but not simply the law itself. .Frame_Dragger

the government uses propaganda all the time in regards to legislation and policies be it the millions spent on advertising to support the drug war or as i saw 20 times per gym visit ads supporting obamas job bill. i dont know how you came to the conclusion that legislation and the precess of legislating is free of partisan propaganda. hell they even have smear campaigns for nongovernment alternatives.

@ Grape of Wrath (Glitchspot isn't letting me quote).

Hard to say. I think even if there was some sort of Christian system, there would (or maybe could) still be a voting system. In part because no two people interpret the Bible the same way. Just look at how many different denominations there are under the Christian Umbrella.

I'd say that if someone proposes something and cites the Bible as the reason for their proposal, then absolutely, the Bible itself is fair game.

As far as any rules being innate to human nature, can't really say that I think there are any. Everything "we" are today is a result of all of the events from the past.

[QUOTE="greenskittles"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] Probably not. But I cant judge because I am not God himself. It shouldnt matter on what I would do in that situation.gaming25

Meaning what? You wouldn't take them to heaven or hell which is it?

and yet you believe in blindly that the whole non-believer/heaven/hell issue will all makes sense because of God's devine knowledge, just like the hundreds of thousands out there who use that as an excuse for their deity. That's the excuse for every religion.

Imagine if he went against your current stance on the issue of not sending them to hell. He'll make everyone who doesn't believe burn slowly and painfully in hell and that would be that. Is devine knowledge going to be good enough for you then?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] a law that has no expiration is intended to become a social norm, be it prohibition or new social programs, when a principle is being forced on a population without their willing consent it is an attempt at indoctrination in effect even if that was not the intended purpose of the forcer. it does not matter what partisan group is forcing the principle. even i espousing the principle of not forcing principles on others is an attempt to persuade, and if i had and used a means without alternatives to make the population see my view it would be indoctrination. you seem to be stuck in the group A bad group B good dilemma where you feel compelled to defend one and slander the other for doing the same kind of actions

the government uses propaganda all the time in regards to legislation and policies be it the millions spent on advertising to support the drug war or as i saw 20 times per gym visit ads supporting obamas job bill. i dont know how you came to the conclusion that legislation and the precess of legislating is free of partisan propaganda. hell they even have smear campaigns for nongovernment alternatives.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're dancing around the issue: Laws are meant to lay out rules.. they tell you what you can and cannot do. Education on the other hand is meant to instruct you in how to think. If I pass a law saying that you can only drink a pint of milk a day because milk is in short supply, that doesn't teach you how to think about milk, or anything related to the law. All this does is tell you how much milk you can have in a day, and presumably enumerate penalties if you fail to obey the law. How you teach people is entirely different, and while teaching and propoganda may be a part of trying to get a law passed, it is not the same as a law. Law doesn't require that you share a view, it just requires obedience. Teaching requires that you learn a certain thing, and that it be taught a certain way to produce a particular result (i.e. "creationism" is a scientific theory, which it is not). You can continue to reiterate your point, but reality is unmoved, as am I.Frame_Dragger

the government uses propaganda all the time in regards to legislation and policies be it the millions spent on advertising to support the drug war or as i saw 20 times per gym visit ads supporting obamas job bill. i dont know how you came to the conclusion that legislation and the precess of legislating is free of partisan propaganda. hell they even have smear campaigns for nongovernment alternatives.

LOL @ surrealnumber. Let it go.

I think a lot of people in this thread have pretty much countered all of OP's points in one way or another. What I don't get is why so many people seem to want to pick apart your beliefs and substitute their own, or simply get ANGRY when you don't agree. I get this from christians all the time. That video by XileLord pretty much hit that nail on the head. The last thing anyone wants is someone shoving their beliefs down your throat when you don't want ANYTHING to do with them.

I suppose it works both ways, but since the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, I feel like atheists get swarmed more often.

LOL @ surrealnumber. Let it go.

I think a lot of people in this thread have pretty much countered all of OP's points in one way or another. What I don't get is why so many people seem to want to pick apart your beliefs and substitute their own, or simply get ANGRY when you don't agree. I get this from christians all the time. That video by XileLord pretty much hit that nail on the head. The last thing anyone wants is someone shoving their beliefs down your throat when you don't want ANYTHING to do with them.

I suppose it works both ways, but since the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, I feel like atheists get swarmed more often.

Optical_Order

I'd say the only thing that bugs me a little are the things that hit closer to home. I live on Long Island, NY and I admit I was a little saddened to learn that my old elementary school began banning the exchange of Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza cards (even during lunch time or before or after school. Basically anywhere on school property). To me, stuff like that only takes away enjoyment from the little kiddies.

[QUOTE="Optical_Order"]

LOL @ surrealnumber. Let it go.

I think a lot of people in this thread have pretty much countered all of OP's points in one way or another. What I don't get is why so many people seem to want to pick apart your beliefs and substitute their own, or simply get ANGRY when you don't agree. I get this from christians all the time. That video by XileLord pretty much hit that nail on the head. The last thing anyone wants is someone shoving their beliefs down your throat when you don't want ANYTHING to do with them.

I suppose it works both ways, but since the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, I feel like atheists get swarmed more often.

I'd say the only thing that bugs me a little are the things that hit closer to home. I live on Long Island, NY and I admit I was a little saddened to learn that my old elementary school began banning the exchange of Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza cards (even during lunch time or before or after school. Basically anywhere on school property). To me, stuff like that only takes away enjoyment from the little kiddies.

This was not made to offend in any way. Please read all of this before posting.

Hello atheists, agnostics, and theists of Gamespot. Tonight I have come to spread some divine wisdom that suddenly struck me right before I was about to fall asleep. I've known this for awhile, but there are many atheists on Gamespot and the internet in general. No, I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but some of your reasons why science can disprove religion are really bogus. I'm not trying to preach or anything, I just want to address these problems and explain why I think that they are wrong.

This outta be good.

Many people who choose not to follow any religion say that their reasoning is based on science, whether it be the big bang or evolution. I respect those who aren't religious just because nothing seems to fit with them. Claiming that something totally unrelated to religion can disprove religion just grinds my gears every time I have to read the same excuse.

You might ask me, "How do you know there is a God?" My answer is that I just take a look around myself. Objects can be broken down by what exactly they are made up, whether it be material, element, or even how many protons, electrons, and neutrons there are in it. You might now be asking "Well how does this prove in your belief of a God?" My answer for that is that we don't know how the elements were created, or how atoms came to be. In my own opionion, I would believe that a divine entity created everything in the universe, and that we are slowly understanding what anything is made of through science.

So you start off with an argument from ignorance. Cool beans.

Then there are those that "disprove" religion by pointing at the theory of evolution. To me, evolution and Christianity goes hand in hand. The first book, Genesis, can fit right into evolution. Genesis tells about the birth of our species while mixing in metaphors and mythology. Who knows if the first human male and female were ever named Adam and Eve, but if that's what God wants them to be called, then so be it. Everything before the creation of humans through evolution was never really spoken about in the Bible, because it doesn't have any relevancy towards God's interaction with Humans.

There's no good evidence for God's creation of Adam and Eve, there is massive amounts of evidence for evolution, and no, evolution isn't evidence to disprove god. At the same time, shoehorning evolution into your religion isn't proof for your god either, especially since there isn't even a hint about evolution in the bible.

Finally, the last way that atheists try to claim that a religion couldn't possibly be right is by claiming that the big bang created everything in the universe. In my mind, creationism and the big bang fit perfectly together. A God could have started the events that lead to the big bang occuring. After all the elements are done settling down in space, he forms the Earth for a few million or billions of years to make it hospitable for humans to live on.

Sure, he could have. But the time to actually believe that happened is when there is good evidence to support it.

Then there are those that don't follow a religion, because they say that religions are too restrictive. You don't have to have the Bible or a priest dictate how you must follow your life. Go ahead and live the way you want to live. Sin a little, nobody is perfect. Just don't sin to spite God. I have only read the first two books of the Bible, yet I can say that I believe in Christianity. When I read the Bible, I read it for divine inspiration, not to learn what I am and am not supposed to do.

I don't believe in sin, or god, so I won't be sinning to spite god anytime soon.

Well I'm sorry that this was really long, but I had to get this out of my brain and onto paper. Tell me what you think about my thoughts.

Pretty ordinary arguments you made, nothing new here.

NiKva

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="Optical_Order"]

LOL @ surrealnumber. Let it go.

I think a lot of people in this thread have pretty much countered all of OP's points in one way or another. What I don't get is why so many people seem to want to pick apart your beliefs and substitute their own, or simply get ANGRY when you don't agree. I get this from christians all the time. That video by XileLord pretty much hit that nail on the head. The last thing anyone wants is someone shoving their beliefs down your throat when you don't want ANYTHING to do with them.

I suppose it works both ways, but since the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, I feel like atheists get swarmed more often.

Frame_Dragger

I'd say the only thing that bugs me a little are the things that hit closer to home. I live on Long Island, NY and I admit I was a little saddened to learn that my old elementary school began banning the exchange of Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza cards (even during lunch time or before or after school. Basically anywhere on school property). To me, stuff like that only takes away enjoyment from the little kiddies.

Anyway, the Easter/Valentines day stuff is totally about the $$$. I do enjoy it though. I like putting together easter baskets for wifey (and for our new son next year). I like little dopey traditions like that, even though they have absolutely NOTHING to do with what the holidays are about.

Also, just to make sure, I didn't mean to imply that I think the vast majority of ahiests are trouble-makers or anything. I think that most people (religious and non-religious) are like me in that they get up, go to work, take care of their families, and don't bother anyone else. But in all groups there are always a few bad apples.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]You think so? I'm Catholic so of course I'm probably a little biased, but it seems like more often than not when there is a lawsuit or something, there is an atheist group behind it. Like the recent Ground Zero museum thing. To be honest, I don't even really care about all that stuff.

I'd say the only thing that bugs me a little are the things that hit closer to home. I live on Long Island, NY and I admit I was a little saddened to learn that my old elementary school began banning the exchange of Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza cards (even during lunch time or before or after school. Basically anywhere on school property). To me, stuff like that only takes away enjoyment from the little kiddies.

Anyway, the Easter/Valentines day stuff is totally about the $$$. I do enjoy it though. I like putting together easter baskets for wifey (and for our new son next year). I like little dopey traditions like that, even though they have absolutely NOTHING to do with what the holidays are about.

Also, just to make sure, I didn't mean to imply that I think the vast majority of ahiests are trouble-makers or anything. I think that most people (religious and non-religious) are like me in that they get up, go to work, take care of their families, and don't bother anyone else. But in all groups there are always a few bad apples.

Also as a side note, I hate that TC decided to incorporate scientific reasoning into his religious beliefs. It's almost like saying, "Well, maybe some of this science stuff like evolution is true.... But I bet it's because god put it there, even though there's no reference to it in the bible!" -Tish-

Atheist does not mean anti-religious.

I really don't care about disproving religion, to be honest. I just do not care if God or some divine being really exists or not.

This was not made to offend in any way. Please read all of this before posting.

Hello atheists, agnostics, and theists of Gamespot. Tonight I have come to spread some divine wisdom that suddenly struck me right before I was about to fall asleep. I've known this for awhile, but there are many atheists on Gamespot and the internet in general. No, I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but some of your reasons why science can disprove religion are really bogus. I'm not trying to preach or anything, I just want to address these problems and explain why I think that they are wrong. Sorry but i find more bogus the explanations of the religious people.

Many people who choose not to follow any religion say that their reasoning is based on science, whether it be the big bang or evolution. I respect those who aren't religious just because nothing seems to fit with them. Claiming that something totally unrelated to religion can disprove religion just grinds my gears every time I have to read the same excuse. And claiming that anything that exists proves religions grinds mine

You might ask me, "How do you know there is a God?" My answer is that I just take a look around myself. Objects can be broken down by what exactly they are made up, whether it be material, element, or even how many protons, electrons, and neutrons there are in it. You might now be asking "Well how does this prove in your belief of a God?" My answer for that is that we don't know how the elements were created, or how atoms came to be. In my own opionion, I would believe that a divine entity created everything in the universe, and that we are slowly understanding what anything is made of through science. You make me think of the romans and their gods, we dont understands something then we assign a magical being that did it. Th fact we don't understand it doesn't mean there is an unknown entity that made it. We just don't understand it as we did'nt understand blood cells and most illnesses 500 years ago.

Then there are those that "disprove" religion by pointing at the theory of evolution. To me, evolution and Christianity goes hand in hand. The first book, Genesis, can fit right into evolution. Genesis tells about the birth of our species while mixing in metaphors and mythology. Who knows if the first human male and female were ever named Adam and Eve, but if that's what God wants them to be called, then so be it. Everything before the creation of humans through evolution was never really spoken about in the Bible, because it doesn't have any relevancy towards God's interaction with Humans. In the bible explictly says the earth is 6k years old, i don't remember where exactly. ill update this post later, That automatically conflicts with dinosaurs and evolution.

Finally, the last way that atheists try to claim that a religion couldn't possibly be right is by claiming that the big bang created everything in the universe. In my mind, creationism and the big bang fit perfectly together. A God could have started the events that lead to the big bang occuring. After all the elements are done settling down in space, he forms the Earth for a few million or billions of years to make it hospitable for humans to live on. There are way to many "coulds" in your sentence and in your religion, "could" means is a theory, yet your religion says its the ultimate truth, and yes it could be a god that made the big bang, but is there anything that point out to that? other than a book and a great imagination of the one who wrote it.

Then there are those that don't follow a religion, because they say that religions are too restrictive. You don't have to have the Bible or a priest dictate how you must follow your life. Go ahead and live the way you want to live. Sin a little, nobody is perfect. Just don't sin to spite God. I have only read the first two books of the Bible, yet I can say that I believe in Christianity. When I read the Bible, I read it for divine inspiration, not to learn what I am and am not supposed to do. We dont need a bible to have a moral compass or live a decent life.

Well I'm sorry that this was really long, but I had to get this out of my brain and onto paper. Tell me what you think about my thoughts.

NiKva

I respect your opinions, but as far as im concerned, i follow facts rather than opinions.