Why faith?

They were idiots to the extent that they often fell away from their religion even when faced with miracles.

drgrady

[QUOTE="drgrady"]

I could be wrong, but every theory I've heard (besides creationism, anyway) does rely on "chance" for the development of living cells... or even cells that could sustain life but are not necessarily alive. No experiment or observation has documented spontaneous generation. The closest that experiments have come to spontaneous generation has been the creation of amino acids (and maybe proteins) under conditions that were not likely to have occurred during the earth's formation (as we currently believe it occurred).

Atrus

The naturalistic explaination does not call on true randomness. Think of the universe as one super-system which contains several smaller systems, which contains smaller systems etc. Every system works in tangent to one another and depending on the system in question, can only achieve a set amount of results. 

In this way, life does not exist out of pure randomness, but a systhesis of all these systems having made a system for which life can occour. The best way to couch the anthropic principle is to look at it like a lottery. From the available probabilties that the universe can achieve is a probability for life, we know this because we are here. So however unlikely this probability of life may be there is always a probability for life.

In any lottery, there is always a winner no matter how big the odds are. If you have a 1/X chance of winning, there will always be a winner no matter how large the x may be. 100, 1000, 1x10^1000000000000000 etc. In this case, 'we' are the winners.

The mistake that most people make is that they assume that the probabilities are so small, that it is impossible. However, any mention of impossibility cannot be made until you understand the still ongoing research of the universe itself. A universe which may have 2 dimensions of time, exists in more than 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, and where time occours after the universe began and before it ends.

It may seem improbable, but as far as we know life could be common to stable universes. 

Yes, so long as we do not fully understand the universe, there is a slight possibility that spontaneous generation or whatever else you believe could have happened.  However, that still relies on randomness.  All the systems working together to create and sustain life is still randomness.  I'll admit that we don't have a full understanding of how the universe came to be or how life created, but regardless of how everything worked together in the galactic scale (which would be largely chaotic after an event like the big bang), the molecular scale would still be extremely chaotic and rely on chance.

thats long, and about religion by the looks of it.  I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.ag1002

Why not?  How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to?  How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to?  I don't see any room for moderation in faith.  Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

[QUOTE="ag1002"]thats long, and about religion by the looks of it.  I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.Rekunta

Why not?  How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to?  How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to?  I don't see any room for moderation in faith.  Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

No...it's quite easy.  What is important is the message....not the imagery.  They are symbolic. 

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Pencils are wood and iron. . . . .the universe and all that is in it is organized, and so perfect that there is no way it can be coincidentally designed. . . . . stop mocking my beliefs.

Atrus

The above is not a sound argument. You assume that the organization of the universe requires a supernatural divine agent. The anthropic principle is a natural and explanatory means of showing how such a universe can be conceptualized without having to assume the existence of some baseless supernatural entity to be responsible for it. 

The idea that the universe without God was designed by "chance" is false. A naturalist worldview does not mean that things occured from chance, and as humans it is the basis for any effective means of knowledge. A supernaturalist worldview ascribes to intuition and revelation, two methods which are not only imprecise but have been consistently wrong. 

Then anthropic principle does not remove randomness from creation (unless you define randomness in a way I've never before heard).  It is merely observation of what it takes to sustain life, and it can either work with a Creationist view or without.  Some see the complexity of the universe as proof of divine creation while others see it as proof of science over religion, but it is ultimately inconclusive.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="ag1002"]thats long, and about religion by the looks of it. I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.LJS9502_basic

Why not? How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to? How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to? I don't see any room for moderation in faith. Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

No...it's quite easy. What is important is the message....not the imagery. They are symbolic.

[QUOTE="Atrus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Pencils are wood and iron. . . . .the universe and all that is in it is organized, and so perfect that there is no way it can be coincidentally designed. . . . . stop mocking my beliefs.

drgrady

The above is not a sound argument. You assume that the organization of the universe requires a supernatural divine agent. The anthropic principle is a natural and explanatory means of showing how such a universe can be conceptualized without having to assume the existence of some baseless supernatural entity to be responsible for it.

The idea that the universe without God was designed by "chance" is false. A naturalist worldview does not mean that things occured from chance, and as humans it is the basis for any effective means of knowledge. A supernaturalist worldview ascribes to intuition and revelation, two methods which are not only imprecise but have been consistently wrong.

Then anthropic principle does not remove randomness from creation (unless you define randomness in a way I've never before heard). It is merely observation of what it takes to sustain life, and it can either work with a Creationist view or without. Some see the complexity of the universe as proof of divine creation while others see it as proof of science over religion, but it is ultimately inconclusive.

I still don't think they're supposed to be symbolic, but say they are...then the Bible is entirely open to interpretation and Jesus is a fictional character invented for the sake of creating a compelling allegory.
quiglythegreat

There is historical evidence of His existence...so no that would be foolish to think.  Symbolic is things like apples, two of each animal etc.  Not an individual. 

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="ag1002"]thats long, and about religion by the looks of it.  I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.LJS9502_basic

Why not?  How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to?  How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to?  I don't see any room for moderation in faith.  Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

No...it's quite easy.  What is important is the message....not the imagery.  They are symbolic. 

Which message should I believe?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Or:

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Now I don't know about you, but in my eyes those are contradictionswith differeing messages.

Yes, so long as we do not fully understand the universe, there is a slight possibility that spontaneous generation or whatever else you believe could have happened. However, that still relies on randomness. All the systems working together to create and sustain life is still randomness. I'll admit that we don't have a full understanding of how the universe came to be or how life created, but regardless of how everything worked together in the galactic scale (which would be largely chaotic after an event like the big bang), the molecular scale would still be extremely chaotic and rely on chance.

drgrady

No, it isn't randomness. Randomness means things happen without a relationship to the overall systems. The creation of life however would be a systematic synthesis of all the probabilities. If the smallest system was capable of producing life, and the system above it produced the smaller system, then that larger system contains the lifebearing probability. Taken all the way up, it means the Universe has the probability to produce life, which of course it did in our scenario. Thus the universe is attuned to the possibility of life. Why? We don't know yet and there literally are dozens of naturalistic scenarios which rely on evidence that are more likely than a supernatural one that has none. 

What if the universe was one in a series of stable universes each holding the same constants for life because they are static for all stable universes? So after n universes of like ours without life, one managed to get one and we are that one. Of course we have to be that one because there is no other way to reflect on it. Or perhaps every universe like ours has produced life and this is the only way universes are structured. Or perhaps Universes themselves spawn universes and only a subsection of universes contain the properties for life and that our 'lineage' is prone to life.

In addition, I would like to address the idea that chaos cannot produce order. Chaos and order enjoy a net relationship, and less chaos produce more order and vice versa. Out of chaos comes order and nothing happens by chance. If life occured on this planet it wouldn't be because it just appeared. It will appear as an effect of the systems that surround it's instantiation. Unless things start popping out of nowhere without being caused by the interaction of systems, this naturalistic view is the only sensible one.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I still don't think they're supposed to be symbolic, but say they are...then the Bible is entirely open to interpretation and Jesus is a fictional character invented for the sake of creating a compelling allegory.
LJS9502_basic

There is historical evidence of His existence...so no that would be foolish to think. Symbolic is things like apples, two of each animal etc. Not an individual.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="ag1002"]thats long, and about religion by the looks of it.  I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.Rekunta

Why not?  How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to?  How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to?  I don't see any room for moderation in faith.  Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

No...it's quite easy.  What is important is the message....not the imagery.  They are symbolic. 

Which message should I believe?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Or:

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Now I don't know about you, but in my eyes those are contradictionswith differeing messages.

You can't compare the OT interpretation with the NT interpretation. The other two are not contradictions.

 Well, right, there is, but all the same, if it's meant to be a metaphor, any of it, then all of it could indeed be a metaphor.
quiglythegreat

Are you deliberately misunderstanding....or just misunderstanding?  Jesus spoke in parables.  The Kingdom of God is not actually a mustard seed.  It's a symbol.....a way to get a message across in a way that was easily understood by His audience.  The OT had it's own symbols that if one took scripture courses would be explained more fully. 

"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

dainjah1010

[QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="ag1002"]thats long, and about religion by the looks of it.  I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.LJS9502_basic

Why not?  How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to?  How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to?  I don't see any room for moderation in faith.  Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

No...it's quite easy.  What is important is the message....not the imagery.  They are symbolic. 

Which message should I believe?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Or:

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Now I don't know about you, but in my eyes those are contradictionswith differeing messages.

You can't compare the OT interpretation with the NT interpretation. The other two are not contradictions.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Well, right, there is, but all the same, if it's meant to be a metaphor, any of it, then all of it could indeed be a metaphor.
LJS9502_basic

Are you deliberately misunderstanding....or just misunderstanding? Jesus spoke in parables. The Kingdom of God is not actually a mustard seed. It's a symbol.....a way to get a message across in a way that was easily understood by His audience. The OT had it's own symbols that if one took scripture courses would be explained more fully.

[QUOTE="dainjah1010"]

"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

pyroistheone

Why can't they be compared?Rekunta

Different motivations in the choice of words used to describe God.  Fear is the driving force in the OT...but love is the driving force in the NT.   The time and place of people that were the audience were different as well. 

Right, there are things in the Bible that are just candidly said to be metaphors within the text itself. But aren't you proposing that more of the Bible than that is meant to be an analogy or am I really misunderstanding that badly...?
quiglythegreat

The story of creation for instance is metaphorical.  It simply means God was the guiding force in the creation of the world...not  how things were created or that it occured in six days.  The flood was not over the entire world...though a flood did occur in history.  You have to remember things were not written down....it was oral tradition to pass the message down...so they made it in such a way as to be easily recalled.

It's easy to get hung up on discrepancies...but somethings have been proven to have occured...ie a flood.  Some historical kings are real as well.

There is no excuse in the 21st century to be religious any longer.cory4513

That is your opinion.....remember everyone is entitled to the same consideration.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="ag1002"]thats long, and about religion by the looks of it. I'm not going to take the time to see what you're talking about, but here's a hint, some things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.LJS9502_basic

Why not? How can anyone have faith in a creed so wholeheartedly, dicatate the way they live their life by it, yet at the same time select what to accept and what not to? How do you distinguish what to take literally and what not to? I don't see any room for moderation in faith. Either you believe in it's entirety, or you don't.

No...it's quite easy. What is important is the message....not the imagery. They are symbolic.

Which message should I believe?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Or:

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Now I don't know about you, but in my eyes those are contradictionswith differeing messages.

You can't compare the OT interpretation with the NT interpretation. The other two are not contradictions.

4 Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won't need to compare yourself to anyone else. 5 For we are each responsible for our own conduct."

Also, here in western culture, we struggle with paradoxes. I'm not saying this is one or not but whenever there are some in the Bible people freak out. How can God be loving and merciful but also filled with justice? Doesn't mercy and grace contradict justice and consequences?

[QUOTE="cory4513"]There is no excuse in the 21st century to be religious any longer.LJS9502_basic

That is your opinion.....remember everyone is entitled to the same consideration.

k i was stating my opinion 

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The other two are not contradictions.

Kalel559

4 Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won't need to compare yourself to anyone else. 5 For we are each responsible for our own conduct."

Also, here in western culture, we struggle with paradoxes. I'm not saying this is one or not but whenever there are some in the Bible people freak out. How can God be loving and merciful but also filled with justice? Doesn't mercy and grace contradict justice and consequences?

Actually dude...I said those two verses weren't contradictory...not that they can't be compared.;)

[QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The other two are not contradictions.

LJS9502_basic

4 Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won't need to compare yourself to anyone else. 5 For we are each responsible for our own conduct."

Also, here in western culture, we struggle with paradoxes. I'm not saying this is one or not but whenever there are some in the Bible people freak out. How can God be loving and merciful but also filled with justice? Doesn't mercy and grace contradict justice and consequences?

Actually dude...I said those two verses weren't contradictory...not that they can't be compared.;)

[QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

Kalel559

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter 

[QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

cory4513

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it: 

[QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

cory4513

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter 

I'm back. . . and after reading through, all I have to say is that disrespect and immaturity are the laughing matters.

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

Kalel559

15

Not as bad as alot of people but could be better

Been to church twice, i was a muslim been to mosqu couple of thousand times

Sunni

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it:

15

Not Bad

Been to church twice, was muslim been to mosque countless times

Sunni 

[QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

cory4513

15

Not as bad as alot of people but could be better

Been to church twice, i was a muslim been to mosqu couple of thousand times

Sunni

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it:

So why did you end up going to a Christian school? 

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

Kalel559

15

Not as bad as alot of people but could be better

Been to church twice, i was a muslim been to mosqu couple of thousand times

Sunni

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it:

So why did you end up going to a Christian school?

cause it was the only safe sensible private school around here 

[QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

cory4513

15

Not as bad as alot of people but could be better

Been to church twice, i was a muslim been to mosqu couple of thousand times

Sunni

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it:

So why did you end up going to a Christian school?

cause it was the only safe sensible private school around here

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

Silver_Dragon17

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

I'm back. . . and after reading through, all I have to say is that disrespect and immaturity are the laughing matters.

Fairytales dont deserve respect 

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

Kalel559

15

Not as bad as alot of people but could be better

Been to church twice, i was a muslim been to mosqu couple of thousand times

Sunni

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it:

So why did you end up going to a Christian school?

cause it was the only safe sensible private school around here

Yes they are practising ISLAM and they asked the private school to excuse me from the religious studies 

Fairytales dont deserve respect 

cory4513

First provide the proof...

[QUOTE="cory4513"]

Fairytales dont deserve respect

LJS9502_basic

First provide the proof...

Prove Cinderella and Snow white arent real 

Prove Cinderella and Snow white arent real 

cory4513

They are...they were created by Disney to make money.  Would be foolish of me to prove they aren't real.;)

I take it all you can do is put down the beliefs of others but can provide no substantive argument as to why.  

[QUOTE="cory4513"]Prove Cinderella and Snow white arent real

LJS9502_basic

They are...they were created by Disney to make money. Would be foolish of me to prove they aren't real.;)

I take it all you can do is put down the beliefs of others but can provide no substantive argument as to why.

Because they blindly believe with out proof 

Because they blindly believe with out proof 

cory4513

To the believer...the Bible is the proof.  And there has been nothing that can discredit religion. So let those who wish to believe....believe and those that don't wish...don't have to do so.  Perfect balance.

[QUOTE="cory4513"]

Because they blindly believe with out proof

LJS9502_basic

To the believer...the Bible is the proof. And there has been nothing that can discredit religion. So let those who wish to believe....believe and those that don't wish...don't have to do so. Perfect balance.

That would be fine except where ever you turn faith heads are trying to push their bronze age myths down everyone else's throat and they act as if they have the ultimate moral authority or truth. You can't criticize religion with out being called a bigot or intolerant but it is ok when religious people preach intolerance toward gays or atheists etc.  And there is plenty to discredit religion, it is called logic and reason.

 

That would be fine except where ever you turn faith heads are trying to push their bronze age myths down everyone else's throat and they act as if they have the ultimate moral authority or truth. You can't criticize religion with out being called a bigot or intolerant but it is ok when religious people preach intolerance toward gays or atheists etc.  And there is plenty to discredit religion, it is called logic and reason.

dainjah1010

Logic and reason do not discredit religion.  Both are biased by the one using it.  And for the record....more athieists shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat and act as if they have the ultimate moral authority on truth.  I suggest you read some threads in OT...you'll see I'm right.

Intolerance works both ways....;)

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Kalel559"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

Come out in daylight, with everyone there without any electricity and Say i am god perform some miracles explain everything he did and apoligise for being a mean jerk

Kalel559

What's the sense in posting about a serious subject like your religious upbringing when you're not even willing to take it seriously?

Are you really young and/or immature?

Religion is a laughing matter

What's your age:

Relationship with your father and mother:

What, if any, church experience do you have:

And, if known, what denomination is it: 

I thought Freud died in 1939? :P

Logic and reason do not discredit religion. Both are biased by the one using it. And for the record....more athieists shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat and act as if they have the ultimate moral authority on truth. I suggest you read some threads in OT...you'll see I'm right.

Intolerance works both ways....;)

LJS9502_basic

Actually, logic and reason does discredit religion and that someone who holds both tends to know more of said religion than the believers themselves. The methodology itself is not biased although the people can be, however the methadology itself is all one needs to dispute the validity of a religion.

Most believers have a very poor understanding of what their own beliefs are, and have absolutely no historiographical context to their supposedly 'holy' books.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for instance did not write the Gospels. Judaism is very likely a henotheistic offshoot of Canaanite polytheism, restructured after the Babylonian exile into monotheism and synthesized into Christianity and Islam based on differing ideas. 

Non-theism is not a belief system, it's the elimination of the 'special pleading' of religions to the point where it enjoys no favorable status than any other ideology. Like any ideology it should be prone to criticisms, especially given it's impact on worldwide developments throughout history and the modern era. You may call it "atheistic" but thats because the role knowledge plays tends to sway in that direction and that the more somone knows, the more likely they are to be a non-theist.

It is interesting however that you consider the amount of anti-theistic arguments as intolerant. Usually an non-theistic argument stems from a focus to eliminate anti-human ideologies in favour of furthering progress. In that sense you could call it intolerant but only in the same vein that I am intolerant of racial supremacists, homophobics, and other malcontents.

[QUOTE="pyroistheone"][QUOTE="dainjah1010"]

"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

quiglythegreat

Nietzsche rules.

That may be, but the man was a genius, and that has to count for something. 

Actually, logic and reason does discredit religion and that someone who holds both tends to know more of said religion than the believers themselves. The methodology itself is not biased although the people can be, however the methadology itself is all one needs to dispute the validity of a religion.

Most believers have a very poor understanding of what their own beliefs are, and have absolutely no historiographical context to their supposedly 'holy' books.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for instance did not write the Gospels. Judaism is very likely a henotheistic offshoot of Canaanite polytheism, restructured after the Babylonian exile into monotheism and synthesized into Christianity and Islam based on differing ideas. 

Non-theism is not a belief system, it's the elimination of the 'special pleading' of religions to the point where it enjoys no favorable status than any other ideology. Like any ideology it should be prone to criticisms, especially given it's impact on worldwide developments throughout history and the modern era. You may call it "atheistic" but thats because the role knowledge plays tends to sway in that direction and that the more somone knows, the more likely they are to be a non-theist.

It is interesting however that you consider the amount of anti-theistic arguments as intolerant. Usually an non-theistic argument stems from a focus to eliminate anti-human ideologies in favour of furthering progress. In that sense you could call it intolerant but only in the same vein that I am intolerant of racial supremacists, homophobics, and other malcontents.

Atrus

Hmm....I'm here all night and you wait until I go to bed to respond.  Interesting.  Logic and reason do NOT discredit religion.  There is absolutely not proof the religion is false.  So using TRUE logic and reason why must assume that anything is possible and they DON'T have the answers.

Methodology does not exist in the matter of faith.  Methodology can not reach a factual conclusion in this case...so it's called opinion....not scientific research.

Generalizations do not make your case stronger...they weaken it.  There are Biblical scholars...and people that believe DO read more than the Bible to get an understanding.  Not all....but many.  Generalizations FTL.

Gospel teachings do not mean the actual person sat down and wrote out the gospel....it was taught by word of mouth.  So while they didn't put pen to paper....it was the way they taught and the way their followers taught.  Names aren't important.

Originally atheism wasn't a belief system....it IS developing more and more into one.  You can play with semantics all you want....but when belief criteria become accepted as a philosophy....it's a belief system now dude.  It's just a young one having been invented in the 1500's more or less.

What I call intolerant is the fact that instead of stating one doesn't believe...they bash religion and insult those who believe.  That sir is the definition of intolerance.