Hmm so they destroyed churches and killed priests and nuns because they were religious.
Right.
If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
Hmm so they destroyed churches and killed priests and nuns because they were religious.
Right.
read the full post,
communism is a religion. it's all written in acts, check out the link.
and dont be so foolish, muslims are religious and they would think nothing of killing nuns a destroying churches, christians are religious, a would think nothing of destroy mosques and killing clerics, talk sense.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Not a shred of evidence for God? What about the faith of billions? What about miracles? What about the existence of the universe? What about traditional beliefs? Surely this is evidence. Is it convincing evidence? That's debatable.
i dont know if your being serious or not but i think people should be open minded about there being no god and heaven
what miracles? dr's and surgeons perform miracles every day does that make them God's?
Another reason why atheism is unsuccessful as a credo is that it is based on how bad theists are (ALL atheists are presentists and focus on the bad things of the past in the context of the here and now). It does not offer any alternative code of living, or standards of acceptability, so being an atheist means starting from scratch where morality is concerned, or borrowing from other belief systems that match your outlook. Too much work for the average person.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Miracles? How about raising people from the dead? Of course, you didn't see that happen - which is a very good point. Neverthess, it still is evidence.
belief is the antithesis of evidence
what is evidence?the fact that some people believe that someone was raised from the dead?
and the evidence for these miracles is. Lol
there is no evidence for a god or a jesus, or an allah, etc.....
and there most certainly isn't any evidence for miracles, are you actually awake.
None whatsoever. But, let's see if your reasoning holds water.
Faith in a wide variety of gods?
Are you referring to an amazing occurrence or a supernatural act of god? The latter has never been shown to have occurred.
It came into existence all on it's own - so what?
Myths and superstitions.
It's as compelling an evidence as is the existence of unicorns and leprechauns.
Is that debatable, too?
No, it is a lie.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Belief is not the antithesis of evidence. Evidence is anything that makes something more or less probable - however slight. The belief of billions certainly makes something more probable - however slight. The fact that Apostles saw persons raised from the dead - and went to their deaths because of it is certainly evidence of those miracles. There is a distinction between "evidence" and "proof". "Proof" involves a certain level of evidence, such as beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, or preponderance of the evidence. There is also mathematic proof. Scientific proof usually involves a consensus of the scientific community. The consensus of the human community is that God exists. You could argue that this is enough proof. I won't make that argument, but you could.
I would argue that the various religions have dictated a variety of moral and ethical codes and values which have come from people in society.
You think the morals came from the god and then went into the religion and to the people. I think the various religion's morals came from the people and the culture who started the religion.
This is evident by the fact that even today people still pick and choose from their thousands of sects, and which morals, rulings, commandments, they want to abide by. There are plenty of stereotypes of believers who take some aspects of their religion seriously and totally ignore others.
Religious people love to picture atheism as a belief system that includes either a set of depraved moral values or different values to their own.
Atheism doesn't suggest morality, the term and definition of atheism doesn't cover that. One can be a liberal/conservative atheist, a socialist/capitalist atheist, a greedy selfish atheist or a generous charitable altruistic atheist.
It is too much work for the average person isn't it! To decide for yourself not to steal, kill, rape, instead of just being afraid of some "god's" punishment or trying to get into the afterlife.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - for all the masses who really don't care enough to consider right from wrong. "Here! you should have THIS belief system." - "Oh, ok then. I'll just let you tell me how to live my life."
To really consider matters of morality without religious guidance, requires, geeee... considering how your actions might affect others?!?
24/06/2007:
I'm hereby coining a new phrase thats been on my mind for a while:
"Morality for the sake of others."
You think the morals came from the god and then went into the religion and to the people. I think the various religion's morals came from the people and the culture who started the religion.
This is evident by the fact that even today people still pick and choose from their thousands of sects, and which morals, rulings, commandments, they want to abide by. There are plenty of stereotypes of believers who take some aspects of their religion seriously and totally ignore others.
Religious people love to picture atheism as a belief system that includes either a set of depraved moral values or different values to their own.
Atheism doesn't suggest morality, the term and definition of atheism doesn't cover that. One can be a liberal/conservative atheist, a socialist/capitalist atheist, a greedy selfish atheist or a generous charitable altruistic atheist.
It is too much work for the average person isn't it! To decide for yourself not to steal, kill, rape, instead of just being afraid of some "god's" punishment or trying to get into the afterlife.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - for all the masses who really don't care enough to consider right from wrong. "Here! you should have THIS belief system." - "Oh, ok then. I'll just let you tell me how to live my life."
To really consider matters of morality without religious guidance, requires, geeee... considering how your actions might affect others?!?
24/06/2007:
I'm hereby coining a new phrase thats been on my mind for a while:
"Morality for the sake of others."
See how conditioned you are by religion? Animals do not consider rape or murder as a sin, nor stealing. Why should you?
And I would love for you to show me a site on atheism that says nothing about the morality of theists.
I wonder how many Hindus rioted, threatened terrorist attacks and burnt embassy's because of this commercial about permanent (red) markers? Did you guess none? I have a lot of positive things to say about Hinduism, and Buddhism for that matter, comparatively, but that's another topic.