Faith is delusion.
faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof; : complete trust; something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Yes.
atheists don't have the right to be atheists.
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
Faith is delusion.
faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof; : complete trust; something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Yes.
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
Scifes
"all of them together?
highly unlikely. statistically impossible."
You believe in something that has never been proven... We haven't even the smallest evidence that a God exists. Statistically speaking, nearly all the children believe in Santa Claus. So?
"all of them together?
highly unlikely. statistically impossible."
You believe in something that has never been proven... We haven't even the smallest evidence that a God exists. Statistically speaking, nearly all the children believe in Santa Claus. So?
evidence exists. it's been proven a hundred times, my voice is getting hoarse without actually speaking.
if a kid steps into a group of kids and says, santa claus doesn't exist, then he is wrong. because fantasy is part of childhood.
an adult nearby would say he's correct, because adults use "logic"(whatever that might be.)
simply, the disproof of santa claus amongst children is not accepted in their midst. so it fails.
it's the same if a child proves god exists using his imagination and all children believe him, does that extend to us adults?(actually to YOU adults i'm still an innocent child)
i used the same argumant with Q in this thread and he simply said :"strawman" because he couldn't think of all this.
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
Children are unwilling to accept the truth because they want to believe in Santa Claus. The bad thing is here... You can prove something only with some evidence and your mind, not with your dreams and your imagination. The majority of human beings need to be reassured about a future that unfortunately seems to have a limit, then a very intelligent man (prophet) arrives with a bright promise of a beautiful eternal future in a fantastic world that exists after our own world (obviously only for those that will follow certain rules established by a supernatural entity that is willing to talk only with him)... The prophet gains more and more power and eventually becomes the leader because he is the chosen one and nobody wants to annoy a God... Every sane prophet is atheist. Religion is control.
Is unreasonableness and obviously screwed-up explanation "evidence"?SAM said:
I think that Ents don't exist. It's a judgment I make, unprovable. I have little evidence to support this judgment. Would you regard a sincere belief in the presence of actual, physical Ents in the world, supported by description clearly similar to Tolkien's and anecdotal incidents resembling the encounters in Lord of the Rings, a delusion?
His population was already largely atheistic, by long tradition, according to the Albanians I have spoken with (both of them). Or he was acting to exclude foreign influences - at least, that's how he sold it. More of an "Albania for Albanians" attitude than "There is no God", which isn't much of a slogan when most people already agree.ardena said:
Apparently in all sorts of places - it's difficult for the unbelievers to keep track, but the consequences are hard to miss.ardena said:
-=-
What 10 commandments???
What 10 commandments???
Jan Ardena;2312729 I cannot put theism and the crusades together.[/QUOTE said:
Phlogistician's #149;
Well Jan, if that's true, you are rather ignorant of history. What do you think inspired men to travel all the way to the HOLY LAND and fight a war?
History recognises eight crusades to the holy land and two others; The Albigensian Crusade and the Children's Crusade, making ten in all.
First Crusade[1095-1099] Created at the instigation of Pope Urban ll who aroused European christians to relieve their christian bretheren under attack from the muslim Turks. As well, he called for this crusade to take back Jerusalem from muslims [it had been in their hands for 400 years.]
Second Crusade [1145-1148] Instigated by Pope Eugenius lll with assistance from Bernard of Clairvaux, the greatest churchman of his era.
Third Crusade [1187-1192] Pope Gregory Vlll and the archbishop of Tyre instigated this crusade when Saladin defeated the Knights Templar in the battle of Hattin. Richard the Lionheart of England, Phillip ll of France and Frederick Barbarossa of Germany led the armies.
Fourth Crusade [1202-1204] Instigated by Pope Innocent lll. The most sameful of all crusades in that it initiated the first crusade against fellow christians. These crusaders attacked and looted Byzantium [the eastern christan church] twice.
Albigensian Crusade [1209-1229] A disgusting era in the christian church unparalleled in cruelty, ferocity and slaughter that took place mostly in western Europe. Instigated by Pope Gregory lX. This awful period lead this pope to instigate the Papal Inquisitions.
The Children's Crusade [1212-1213] Some 30,000 children ended their lives in the journey or were sold as slaves. The Pied Piper of Hamelin legend may have begun with this event. Pope Innocent lll hailed it as a positive example of piety.
Fifth Crusade[1217-1221] Instigated by Pope Innocent lll but carried out by Pope Honorius. It succeeded in taking the Egyptian port of Damietta and lost it back to the muslim armies shortly after.
Sixth Crusade [1228-1229] Perhaps the most successful crusade of all. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick ll missed the 5th crusade through illness, was excommunicated by Pope Gregory lX, and began his own crusade. He gained Jerusalem, Jaffa, Bethlehem and Nazareth by treaty from the Sultan of Egypt. But the Khwarazmian Turks captured Jerusalem in 1244 and it remained in muslim control until Dec,1917.
Seventh Crusade [1248-1250] Instigated by Pope Innocent lV and led by Louis lX of France, later Saint Louis. Damietta was captured and lost again. Louis was captured, ransomed and later returned to France.
Eighth Crusade [1267-1272] Louis lX began a new crusade to oust the latest Turkish threat, that of the Mamelukes. Baibars, their leader was known for wholesale slaughter etc, etc, capturing Antioch and Jaffa. Unfortunately he was diverted to Tunis, became trapped by lethargy in Carthage [as well as by dysentery, typhus and plagues of all sorts. Louis and most of his army died there and achieved nothing.
As may be seen, the Crusades were a christian thing and nothing but. They were religion based and religion driven.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
"Giving every man the vote has made them no more wise and happy than christianity has made them good." H.L.Mencken
Jan Ardena;2312729 [I said:
Well Jan, if that's true, you are rather ignorant of history. What do you think inspired men to travel all the way to the HOLY LAND and fight a war?
History recognises eight crusades to the holy land and two others; The Albigensian Crusade and the Children's Crusade, making ten in all.
First Crusade[1095-1099] Created at the instigation of Pope Urban ll who aroused European christians to relieve their christian bretheren under attack from the muslim Turks. As well, he called for this crusade to take back Jerusalem from muslims [it had been in their hands for 400 years.]
Second Crusade [1145-1148] Instigated by Pope Eugenius lll with assistance from Bernard of Clairvaux, the greatest churchman of his era.
Third Crusade [1187-1192] Pope Gregory Vlll and the archbishop of Tyre instigated this crusade when Saladin defeated the Knights Templar in the battle of Hattin. Richard the Lionheart of England, Phillip ll of France and Frederick Barbarossa of Germany led the armies.
Fourth Crusade [1202-1204] Instigated by Pope Innocent lll. The most sameful of all crusades in that it initiated the first crusade against fellow christians. These crusaders attacked and looted Byzantium [the eastern christan church] twice.
Albigensian Crusade [1209-1229] A disgusting era in the christian church unparalleled in cruelty, ferocity and slaughter that took place mostly in western Europe. Instigated by Pope Gregory lX. This awful period lead this pope to instigate the Papal Inquisitions.
The Children's Crusade [1212-1213] Some 30,000 children ended their lives in the journey or were sold as slaves. The Pied Piper of Hamelin legend may have begun with this event. Pope Innocent lll hailed it as a positive example of piety.
Fifth Crusade[1217-1221] Instigated by Pope Innocent lll but carried out by Pope Honorius. It succeeded in taking the Egyptian port of Damietta and lost it back to the muslim armies shortly after.
Sixth Crusade [1228-1229] Perhaps the most successful crusade of all. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick ll missed the 5th crusade through illness, was excommunicated by Pope Gregory lX, and began his own crusade. He gained Jerusalem, Jaffa, Bethlehem and Nazareth by treaty from the Sultan of Egypt. But the Khwarazmian Turks captured Jerusalem in 1244 and it remained in muslim control until Dec,1917.
Seventh Crusade [1248-1250] Instigated by Pope Innocent lV and led by Louis lX of France, later Saint Louis. Damietta was captured and lost again. Louis was captured, ransomed and later returned to France.
Eighth Crusade [1267-1272] Louis lX began a new crusade to oust the latest Turkish threat, that of the Mamelukes. Baibars, their leader was known for wholesale slaughter etc, etc, capturing Antioch and Jaffa. Unfortunately he was diverted to Tunis, became trapped by lethargy in Carthage [as well as by dysentery, typhus and plagues of all sorts. Louis and most of his army died there and achieved nothing.
As may be seen, the Crusades were a christian thing and nothing but. They were religion based and religion driven.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
"Giving every man the vote has made them no more wise and happy than christianity has made them good." H.L.Mencken
This statement in the post is incorrect. Anyone has the right to be anything, anytime regardless of consequences or seeming conflicts of interest. Chaos can exist too.
I'm going over this misuse of terms AGAIN, but people do the research on the word. It is a direct translation, not a derivative. It is tricky because it coincidentally has the same form as a derivation, using the prefix "a".
The actual definition is the position that there is no god. Agnostic is the neutral position. Theist is the position that there is a god.
So atheists believe there is no god, so what? It does tick me off though when atheists feel they have to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of the word "Atheist" It is common practice for an atheist to say, "I don't have any inkling that there is a God. It can't be proven, so I don't have a position. Oh, and by the way, there is no God."
Smoke and mirrors, deflecting the burden of proof.
Why are most atheists afraid to say, "I believe there is no God, and that the evidence (or lack of) says so."
Stand up and be counted with a position on the matter. The reason why atheists need to stand up is to counter balance poor theists' reasoning and let people know there is a solid position to stand on.
I'm going over this misuse of terms AGAIN, but people do the research on the word. It is a direct translation, not a derivative. It is tricky because it coincidentally has the same form as a derivation, using the prefix "a".
The actual definition is the position that there is no god. Agnostic is the neutral position. Theist is the position that there is a god.
So atheists believe there is no god, so what? It does tick me off though when atheists feel they have to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of the word "Atheist" It is common practice for an atheist to say, "I don't have any inkling that there is a God. It can't be proven, so I don't have a position. Oh, and by the way, there is no God."
Smoke and mirrors, deflecting the burden of proof.
Why are most atheists afraid to say, "I believe there is no God, and that the evidence (or lack of) says so."
Stand up and be counted with a position on the matter. The reason why atheists need to stand up is to counter balance poor theists' reasoning and let people know there is a solid position to stand on.
For many of us it's a judgment, not a "belief" in the normal theist's sense. That is especially so if it's based on evidence and argument, as you specify.jay said:
We do not wish to mislead, see. It seems strange that so many believers - relying (as they claim) on a faith they regard as a virtue rather than the "reason and evidence" they regard as frail and error-prone - put so much effort into attempting to attribute such belief to those who claim otherwise for themselves.
Its an embarrassment to admit that there is no evidence that can prove a negative.
I can prove no elephants live in my closet.
I can also show beyond any reasonable doubt that the popular notion of God cannot exist, is inherently self-contradictory, and is above all, obsolete and unnecessary to explain reality.
I can also show beyond any reasonable doubt that the popular notion of God cannot exist, is inherently self-contradictory, and is above all, obsolete and unnecessary to explain reality.
You probably missed the very small six-legged ones, that change color to match your shoe polish and live by eating your socks one at a time.spidergoat said:
Depends on the negative involved. The proposed existence of a simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God is disproved by the existence of pontine tumors in children, for example.SAM said:
You're wrong. I'm an atheist, and I know God does not exist. Sure, some atheists may really be agnostic atheists, but you can still firmly believe God does not exist and be atheist.
It must be hard to admit you can't prove there is a god, isn't it.
Knowledge and proof are not the same thing.
In this case, since we don't know how exactly it all started or what started it all, then you can't claim to know how, we may one day have that knowledge and with it the proof. But until then it's just an educated guess.
Until then, on such a subject, you can only believe. If you claim to know that which is and has been a complete unknown, I can ask for proof of the claim.
There is a huge difference between having a strong belief based upon all of the available evidence and claiming to know. I would argue that the best answer since there is no proof of god(s) is the absence of them, no god, but I have no proof that one does not exist.
I am an atheist/agnostic, I don't believe in gods but can't prove one does not exist.
Good luck proving something doesn't exist.