If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?

If you know that the universe came into existence all on its own, then explain to me how exactly that happened. Of course, this is a rhetorical question - because you can't do it. But, please try . . .
 
Huwy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In case you hadn't realised it, vermilion is a color.:confused:

And there you go again, moralising. Bad, bad theists.
 
John J. Bannan said:
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.
Click to expand...

why does how many people believe something make it more true?
about millions of germans believed that jews were inferior creatures that should be eradicated,does this make it more true?

for hundreds of years people believed that the earth was the centre of the universe,did that make it more true?
 
Each person has the ability to analyze evidence and draw a conclusion. The more people who analyze evidence and draw the same conclusion - the greater the likelihood that something is true. This is why we have juries. The more people on the jury, the greater the likelihood of the jury's verdict being correct. This is a fundamental principle of the U.S. legal system. Obviously, juries can be wrong. Obviously, the predominent German belief system during WWII was wrong. However, these are exceptions - not the general rule. Otherwise, we should just get rid of juries, Congresses, Supreme Courts et cetera.
 
S.A.M. said:
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.
Click to expand...


Since when do animals murder? Killing for food is not murder. They kill according to their need and it is the natural order of life.

I dont really see how animals rape or steal either, but even if they did, how do you know they don't consider it sinful? Did you ask them? Just becasue it happens doesnt mean that they dont consider it sinful. When people rape kill and steal they know it isnt right but they do it anyway.
 
John J. Bannan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again with your "popularity means its correct" fallacy.
You know the difference between a "cult" and a "religion" is popularity right?
You even mentioned yourself people take notice when the popular opinion turns out to be wrong - the earth being flat for example, another - the sun being the centre of the solar system - the Vatican didn't apologise and admit they were wrong to persecute Galileo until 1992!

There was a time when people were afraid of the Volcano god's. Even a time when people thought thunder meant "god was angry". Or that an eclipse meant "god was happy" and it was they had sacrificed enough people on the altar!! (ancient mayan/aztec tribes).

People today of course in shock, and also have a chuckle at their stupidity.
I hope one day the children of the 22nd century look back in shock at all the killing carried out in the name of this opiate of the masses, this variety of popular cults, this "my god has a bigger dick than your god" delusion.

I don't mind if it gives you comfort and reminds you to think of the plight of others, I don't mind at all,
but when people continue to label children, mutilate their genitals, indoctrinate them with lies, start wars, oppress people, and kill in the name of their beliefs we are going to continue to object with increasing defiance!
 
Jeff 152 said:
Since when do animals murder? Killing for food is not murder. They kill according to their need and it is the natural order of life.

I dont really see how animals rape or steal either, but even if they did, how do you know they don't consider it sinful? Did you ask them? Just becasue it happens doesnt mean that they dont consider it sinful. When people rape kill and steal they know it isnt right but they do it anyway.
Click to expand...

We've had these discussions before; animals rape, commit infanticide, kill other animals for fun.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Each person has the ability to analyze evidence and draw a conclusion. The more people who analyze evidence and draw the same conclusion - the greater the likelihood that something is true. This is why we have juries. The more people on the jury, the greater the likelihood of the jury's verdict being correct. This is a fundamental principle of the U.S. legal system. Obviously, juries can be wrong. Obviously, the predominent German belief system during WWII was wrong. However, these are exceptions - not the general rule. Otherwise, we should just get rid of juries, Congresses, Supreme Courts et cetera.
Click to expand...

Therin lies the problem. If everyone that believed in God came to that conclusion on their own through their own analysis, then yes, it would gain credibility. But that is not how the belief is spread...it is forced on children who are too young to know reason and they are told what to do and they obey since children are impressionable and once the idea is firmly rooted in their mind and they are afraid of the punishment for doubting then they are beyond convincing.

I decided not to believe when I was about 16 years old, but I had been doubting for the previous 4 years or so but I was AFRAID to say anything about my doubts because it made me feel guilty and evil. Im just lucky that my parents understood because they aren't very religious either. Both of my parents have been Catholic their whole lives but I don't think they really believe, tehy just do it becasue it seems like the right thing to do. They go to church on christmas and easter only, dont pray, dont say grace at dinner. I strongly believe that there are many such people.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Each person has the ability to analyze evidence and draw a conclusion. The more people who analyze evidence and draw the same conclusion - the greater the likelihood that something is true. This is why we have juries. The more people on the jury, the greater the likelihood of the jury's verdict being correct. This is a fundamental principle of the U.S. legal system. QUOTE]

i thought that in the US,in important cases the jury's verdict had to be unanimous..(maybe films have been lying to me)
Click to expand...
 
There is nothing suprising about doubting Christian faith. Jesus himself doubted on the cross, when he said "Father, why have you abandoned me?" Let's not forget Doubting Thomas. I think many if not most adults doubt their faith. That's not the point. The point is to believe despite your well founded doubts.
 
John J. Bannan said:
There is nothing suprising about doubting Christian faith. Jesus himself doubted on the cross, when he said "Father, why have you abandoned me?" Let's not forget Doubting Thomas. I think many if not most adults doubt their faith. That's not the point. The point is to believe despite your well founded doubts.
Click to expand...

LOL, that seems like a backward mindset to follow. Just keep on believing, regardless of what logic, evidence, and your gut tell you.
 
S.A.M. said:
In case you hadn't realised it, vermilion is a color.:confused:

And there you go again, moralising. Bad, bad theists.
Click to expand...

Apparently, despite complimenting Hinduism on certain issues, I've made a serious error by assuming the dot was "red" instead of it actually being "vermilion" which admittedly I had to look up. Thank you for enlightening another male on the different words for the many finer shades of colours, I'll file it away along with teal, fuchsia, mauve.

And apparently, by denouncing the small dick hypersensitivity of a number of fanatics who can't cope with a few cartoons so go bashing people and burning embassies, (its no surprise these religions need to oppress their women - so insecure!) I'm being bad by moralising. Yeah I am moralising! I'm not just an atheist, I'm a humanist too and I don't believe in violence for the sake of beliefs in the tooth fairy, the boogey-man, or any other characters from popular fiction.

"Oooh you insulted my warlord paedophile hero! I'm going to set you alight!"
"Oooh she questioned the actions of god! She's a witch! Burn her at the stake! Show them the love of Jesus with bombs and depleted uranium!"
"Ooh those goyims don't understand our superior way of life! Lets enslave them and exploit them like cattle, send them to war for us, or fly over them with our aircraft and bomb their civilians!"
"Ooh that woman's husband has died, she is now a widow, and her life is useless. Lets burn her on the funeral pyre!"
 
Last edited:
Huwy said:
Apparently, despite complimenting Hinduism on certain issues, I've made a serious error by assuming the dot was "red" instead of it actually being "vermilion" which admittedly I had to look up. Thank you for enlightening another male on the different words for the many finer shades of colours, I'll file it away along with teal, fuchsia, mauve.

And apparently, by denouncing the small dick hypersensitivity of a number of fanatics who can't cope with a few cartoons so go bashing people and burning embassies, (its no surprise these religions need to oppress their women - so insecure!) I'm being bad by moralising. Yeah I am moralising! I'm not just an atheist, I'm a humanist too and I don't believe in violence for the sake of beliefs in the tooth fairy, the boogey-man, or any other characters from popular fiction.

"Oooh you insulted my warlord paedophile hero! I'm going to set you alight!"
"Oooh she questioned the actions of god! She's a witch! Burn her at the stake! Show them the love of Jesus with bombs and depleted uranium!"
"Ooh those goyims don't understand our superior way of life! Lets enslave them and exploit them like cattle, send them to war for us, or fly over them with our aircraft and bomb their civilians!"
"Ooh that woman's husband has died, she is now a widow, and her life is useless. Lets burn her on the funeral pyre!"
Click to expand...

Wow, you proved my point!:p

Thanks, militant athiest
 
(Q) said:
There is no such thing as a militant atheist.
Click to expand...

Yes there is; aggressive promotion of anti-theism is a militant action.

mil·i·tant (mĭl'ĭ-tənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top