The most strange suggestion I can ever hear or see is the one which states you should allow a child to grow up without any sort of bias to one system of belief or the other. I guess Amoebas don't believe anything, so why not let them raise the kid(s)?!?!?!?!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
From God's inexistence it follows God's existence
- Thread starter irichc
- Start date
I guess Amoebas don't believe anything, so why not let them raise the kid(s)?!?!?!?!
That just plain stupidity!.
A child does not understand the concept of god, existence, or religious dogma.
As a child I was the one kid who asked in Suday school.
Who created god? then!.
As a child I had doubt, that I was created and that I was great, and that god is great but not created. That did not make any sense at all at the tender age of 8. Though when I questioned religious dogma I was suppose to just believe what the elders tought me. However they couldn't answer plain questions from a child. I.E. the genesis BS. If we all came from Adam and Eve, why are there black people, chinese, and they all look different?.
I was more confused by religious dogma through my whole life that latters I just became a drug addict. Becuase I wanted to find my self? Idiotic I know that know, however it led me to searh for truth through drugs, so I can be enlighten. Considring that most families in the US are religious and there seems to be a problem with teen drug addicts, I wonder if they are not going through the same kind of psychological problems?.
Religion has done nothing but confuse the hell out of kids.
Godless.
Last edited:
marc said:The most strange suggestion I can ever hear or see is the one which states you should allow a child to grow up without any sort of bias to one system of belief or the other.
the child is born without bias, if it starts that way, why should it not stay that way.
only a moron, would want to make something so pure, so dirty.
all amoebas are religious.
MarcAC said:Interesting. I like BMWs. You don't like BMWs. I want 1 = 2. You want 1 = 1. What's the difference between these "rule systems" that it's o.k. for me to like BMWs but not o.k. for me to want 1 = 2 and define 1 = 2?
"1" and "2" are just labels, you are not obstructed to define them in any way you want whether it is sensible or not. Nonetheless, we both were educated with a specific one in mind and it makes sense to use that one to prevent ourselves for being misunderstood.
All rule systems that we know of have had a creator(s)... except one... reality itself. I think the rules of reality are governed by a Source. Why do you disagree?
We can point at a moment in time where a model didn't exist. We can point at a moment in time where a model did exist. I'm not sure I can do the same with reality.
Glad you agree.Godless said:That just plain stupidity!.
Heh. That's a classic question from Sunday school kids (at least when I taught). I've taught a few. The best questions they can ask me are those. The difficult ones - cause those are the ones which will dtermine if the abandon the faith or stick with it.As a child I was the one kid who asked in Suday school.
Who created god? then!.
The answer to that question has no religious implications.If we all came from Adam and Eve, why are there black people, chinese, and they all look different?.
I wouldn't say Religion alone. All the conflicting views of science, religion, and anti-realism confuse the hell out of kids and adults alike... atheism and agnosticism included.Religion has done nothing but confuse the hell out of kids.
I don't think so. Are you telling me that if I saw one elephant and then looked behind me and saw two elephants I could regard the numbers as equal? I'm not referring words*. I'm talking reality here.mouse said:"1" and "2" are just labels, you are not obstructed to define them in any way you want whether it is sensible or not. Nonetheless, we both were educated with a specific one in mind and it makes sense to use that one to prevent ourselves for being misunderstood.
hence why atheist dont indoctrinate there children.
I have two little boys living next to me, thay have no toys, and no tv to watch.
they never have friends around to play, as it frowned upon they are jehovah witnesses
and have to sit and study the bible, this is child abuse, not christianity.
let them be children first, they can be bible punchers later if there wish.
there parents are most definitely amoebas.
I have two little boys living next to me, thay have no toys, and no tv to watch.
they never have friends around to play, as it frowned upon they are jehovah witnesses
and have to sit and study the bible, this is child abuse, not christianity.
let them be children first, they can be bible punchers later if there wish.
there parents are most definitely amoebas.
In other words you don't allow them to believe any religious nonesense am I right? Because you don't believe any 'religious nonesense'. What if an atheist's child wanted to go to church? Would they allow them that freedom of choice? Think about that. Anyway, this thread is dead. I'm out.mis-t-highs said:hence why atheist dont indoctrinate there children.
I don't know if anyone here has taken formal logic, but in it truth is defined as "the way things actually are." Whether a "statement" is true or not depends on whether or not it describes the way things actually are. Any given "truth" is then simply an affirmation of a part of reality. If there is an ultimate truth, then it would be an affirmation of all of reality, and all possible realities. If that truth is to be independant, and needing no explanation (cause), as is claimed by the theist, then that truth must simply "be." Being is reality, and simply to be, is the quintessential of reality. Truth is what actually is.
Consider this, if I am a truth, then I am composed of truths. The truth that I am is the person writing the post. The composition of that truth is several more necessary truths (atoms, and energy, etc..). It can be seen that the truths that compose me, are also part of the composition of other truths (the people who wrote the other messages on this thread). It may also be shown, perhaps, that these truth that compose me, and others, may also be composed of several other truths, and so on. An ultimate truth would be composed entirely of that which could be made into anything. If this were true, then that ultimate truth would have to be infinite, and contain within itself the possibility for any constructed thing. I am a truth because I am part of what is real. The utterance of my name, therefore, in conjunction with the intent that it is me that is being spoken of, therefore is a true utterance, since it describes (perhaps in an incomplete way) what is real. If God is real, then God is a truth. To simply say "God" with the intent of referring to that existing thing which we call God, is therefore to affirm a truth , and the utterance "God" would be a true utterance. Truth needs no affirmation to be true, truth simply is what is. The truth of a statement is simply an affirmation of what is already true.
Consider this, if I am a truth, then I am composed of truths. The truth that I am is the person writing the post. The composition of that truth is several more necessary truths (atoms, and energy, etc..). It can be seen that the truths that compose me, are also part of the composition of other truths (the people who wrote the other messages on this thread). It may also be shown, perhaps, that these truth that compose me, and others, may also be composed of several other truths, and so on. An ultimate truth would be composed entirely of that which could be made into anything. If this were true, then that ultimate truth would have to be infinite, and contain within itself the possibility for any constructed thing. I am a truth because I am part of what is real. The utterance of my name, therefore, in conjunction with the intent that it is me that is being spoken of, therefore is a true utterance, since it describes (perhaps in an incomplete way) what is real. If God is real, then God is a truth. To simply say "God" with the intent of referring to that existing thing which we call God, is therefore to affirm a truth , and the utterance "God" would be a true utterance. Truth needs no affirmation to be true, truth simply is what is. The truth of a statement is simply an affirmation of what is already true.
freedom of choice, and freedom of mind, freedom from fear, and pure love for our fellow man regardless of his beliefs.
humanity first and formost.
humanity first and formost.