Cool skill,
Do you think failth is a proof based exercise? Can you answer this simply and straightforwardly?
Do you think failth is a proof based exercise? Can you answer this simply and straightforwardly?
War in Heaven (No Atheists)
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Serious people? Atheists don't have "beliefs" regarding objective claims you cumbubble. We have the available facts and draw conclusions using reason. Atheists may get pissed off at the stupidity of theists, but we don't resort to outright lying when the chips are in the dip. How can you trust or relate to someone who lies not only to the world but to themselves? "god" - the fucking bubonic plague of the mind.illuminatingtherapy said:They tend to do just that, and since sciforums has a subforum called religion, why not leave the theists in peace? And opposite, of course... Why fuck up serious peoples posts by calling them "religious nutters" and such?
Your beliefs are that there is no God. No-one can prove it either way. You could be in denial, theists could be in denial, but the fact is that it's your and other atheists attitude that's causing this to be a problem in here. I haven't resorted to call you any names, or call anyone's dogma a fucking bubonic plague. What's the use, why the need?
we don't claim to have evidence that contradicts the existence of a god. speaking for myself, I do not believe in any theology (a-theists). atheism is disbelief in existence, not belief in non-existence (for me anyway).
It is logical for the existence of something to need to be proved, rather than the non-existence. therefore, we start from a position of non-existence, and look for existence, not the other way around. that is logic 101. if you want to call logic the "dogma" of atheism, go ahead.
It is logical for the existence of something to need to be proved, rather than the non-existence. therefore, we start from a position of non-existence, and look for existence, not the other way around. that is logic 101. if you want to call logic the "dogma" of atheism, go ahead.
illuminatingtherapy said:
1) The common usage of the word "belief" is to accept something without any support for it. I believe that my family loves me, but it is unprovable. It's subjective. If I say I believe it's going to rain and you ask me to prove it, I'll tell you right off that it's just a feeling and I have nothing but a guess to go on. If I insisted that it was going to rain with this alone as support, I'd be the equivalent of a theist. I cannot prove that there is no god, just as you cannot prove that there is not an invisible, undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster living in my tool shed. But I have many lines of evidence that deny the claims made for the traditional gods of any religion. If god really exists and has an objective effect on the universe, then, by definition, god would be a measurable phenomenon. If not, then there are exactly zero reasons to invoke a "god" to explain anything, since what good is an explanation based on zero evidence and zero effect?
2)
You lied and it pissed me off.
I never said I was a believer, and my personal opinion on religion wasn't the point either. I started this discussion merely to see if any of you could justify your acts and words in this subforum. Some of you aren't very nice at all. And so far none of you have. All this atheist/theist shit-throwing all boils down to respect. About people being able to accept that some people has a different perspective, angle and/or understanding than yourself. I'm no more of a fan of religious nutters than you are, but I don't try to cut their heads off whenever I get the chance.
The goods of theism could be that of remorse, repent, respect, compassion, love and understanding. Some theists has understood those basics, some haven't; accordingly with atheists whose 'knowledge' is the 'only right understanding and interpretation of the world'.
Was it a lie? No.
The goods of theism could be that of remorse, repent, respect, compassion, love and understanding. Some theists has understood those basics, some haven't; accordingly with atheists whose 'knowledge' is the 'only right understanding and interpretation of the world'.
Was it a lie? No.
illuminatingtherapy said:
Then let me. This is a tired sentiment that comes up frequently in the religion subforum of sciforums, nearly always by whiny believers, so you can see why you are thought of as yet another believer. I posted this in another thread and similar posts in many other threads:
SkinWalker said:
I also started this thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55108
... as a way of putting my money where my mouth is. To date, the thread has been hijacked by both sides of the religious argument -most recently by a religious nutter trying to justify a single mythical being of a single cult of religion. I'm more interested in discussing the phenomenon of religion itself -a phenomenon that has very physical and measurable characteristics.
But, then again, it might be relevant that one of the characteristics is the offensive response that believers demonstrate whenever someone looks to closely at their business.
Where are the data?
So make a thread about it instead of attacking anyone saying they believe in God or something.
I really don't care what I'm being thought of, and, again, it's certainly not the issue either. Why are you bringing that up? It still doesn't justify that some of you people aren't exactly being nice to those attending this subforum with serious inquires.
Where are the data? Here:
It just seems to me like your picking on people for being theists, and you should consider yourselves to good for that. Of course one should be critical about beliefs, we're living the 21. century, and yes, I know, this is a science forum, that's why I'm attending this forum, I'm no whiny believer or religious nutter at all, I just think the behaviour of some of you is lousy, that's all.
superluminal said:
I don't recall saying anything like that, but if we follow that analogy I take it you don't believe in giving a child a "time out?" For that is separating the child from the family until the child has time to calm down, realize they did something wrong and when ready to apologize can rejoin the family. But then again it depends on the transgression. Say this two-year-old child is all grown up and named Ted Bundy. It would be best for society to have him locked up until that magical day when people like this can see the harm they do to themselves and society.
But in terms of Jesus' attitude, don't recall he tried to harm Satan. They conversed and He didn't go along with any of the grand schemes offered. And He told him to follow. That's it. Perhaps you're talking about the final judgement. As far as that goes, we're leaving out that these words can be taken figuratively. In yoga, there is a "lock" you put on your lower regions when breathing. The words could refer to this also since Satan is most often deemed the ruler over these lower regions.
Ok. What was "not nice" about my statement?illuminatingtherapy said:
Is there anything in it that is inherently offensive? I thought it was quite subdued (for me). Debates are seldom nice and polite. We provide logical analyses, references to studies and other data to support our statements all the time. What exactly do you want Illum?
NEMESIS said:I don't recall saying anything like that, but if we follow that analogy I take it you don't believe in giving a child a "time out?" For that is separating the child from the family until the child has time to calm down, realize they did something wrong and when ready to apologize can rejoin the family. But then again it depends on the transgression. Say this two-year-old child is all grown up and named Ted Bundy. It would be best for society to have him locked up until that magical day when people like this can see the harm they do to themselves and society.
But in terms of Jesus' attitude, don't recall he tried to harm Satan. They conversed and He didn't go along with any of the grand schemes offered. And He told him to follow. That's it. Perhaps you're talking about the final judgement. As far as that goes, we're leaving out that these words can be taken figuratively. In yoga, there is a "lock" you put on your lower regions when breathing. The words could refer to this also since Satan is most often deemed the ruler over these lower regions.
Yes, well. I have a particular dislike for analogies between religious "happenings" and human situations and tend to pounce on them. This is another example of the illogic of contrasting a supposedly omnipotent cosmos-creating entity that "we could hardly expect to comprehend as humans" with human behaviors.
Interesting. I read cool's statement regarding atheism being in decline, followed by SW's response with some factual data refuting it. Now, I can't seem to find cool's original statement. I wonder what happened to it???cool skill said:
Ah. I suppose that was Muslims statement...
Last edited:
I skimmed through Job. I always had figured Job was nothing more than some guy that got screwed left and right, and continued to follolw Jesus. But there's more. According to Job, Satan was thrown out of heaven for attempting to turn Job away from Jesus.
As for the many fanatical atheists, nice try. While you continue your fanatical behavior all over this thread, real scientists will continue to discuss religion, theology, and creation with logic and intelligent communication.
Through the rampant fanatacism exhibited and to continue to be exhibited by the atheists in this thread, Cool Skill has yet again proven his assertion:
ATHEISTS ARE INDEED FAR MORE PSYCHOTICALLY FANATICAL THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION.
I'd like to thank all you fanatical atheists for continuing to support and soldify my assertion more and more with each fanatical post that you make.
As for the many fanatical atheists, nice try. While you continue your fanatical behavior all over this thread, real scientists will continue to discuss religion, theology, and creation with logic and intelligent communication.
Through the rampant fanatacism exhibited and to continue to be exhibited by the atheists in this thread, Cool Skill has yet again proven his assertion:
ATHEISTS ARE INDEED FAR MORE PSYCHOTICALLY FANATICAL THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION.
I'd like to thank all you fanatical atheists for continuing to support and soldify my assertion more and more with each fanatical post that you make.
You are quite welcome. Please, could you suggest a topic we could discuss rationally and scientifically, Mr. skill?cool skill said:
You must have been reading your imaginary friend as I have never once asserted that atheism was in decline. Although it is interesting how the numb minded tend to see things to be completely different from what they are.superluminal said:Interesting. I read cool's statement regarding atheism being in decline, followed by SW's response with some factual data refuting it. Now, I can't seem to find cool's original statement. I wonder what happened to it???
The only statement I made about this forum was this:
"It's good to know there are those in this forum that are able to provide the theological information I requested."
Only those with delusional headgear would interpret that as me stating that atheism is in decline. I never once made that assertion nor would I ever care to make such an assertion.
I do however remember a poster mentioning something. And then mentioning that the something is the reason atheism is in decline at varying precentages. I don't remeber where I read that or who that poster was. But I'm guessing that is the post you are refering to, and crediting me with the authorship of.
superluminal said:
Oli said:
Is this all there is?
More fanatical examples would do well t support my point.
EDIt: What happened to Skin Wacko the Wackjob?
EDIT: Yes. Skin Wacko. The one who hath claimed that the only reason he is in this thread is to troll. He has confessed to his fellows that he is only here to hijack the thread as only a truly devoted fanatic would do.
Last edited: