They rocked. He had such a neat way of looking at the world. absolutely hilarious.
Philosophically speaking, religion is a hoax
- Thread starter lieexpsr
- Start date
- Status
They rocked. He had such a neat way of looking at the world. absolutely hilarious.
They were great, I remember it being easier to understand than the bible.But just as funny.:wave:
We have the movie that came out a couple years ago. But I wouldn't know if there's been a tv series.
Atheism is in the low minority. Like 7-10% of Americans are atheist. A hoax is a trick, or a lie to benifit someone. If you said religion is untrue, fine.. but calling it a hoax does not make sense.
I would be interested to know if Atheists, who are damned hardened and sure their is no God, if they have different brain variations then the rest of us.
I am serious. I am not talking semi-no god, people. I mean people 100% positive to themselves that God and a creator is non-existent. I honestly think they have too have some different effect in there brain.
Human nature, and I would say instinct, makes us compelled to look to a greater force and power, to guide our lives, promise us an after-life, answer the un-answerable (origin of everything).
I can't, and never will be able to comprehend, people who take a big bang theory for the universe, and we are just devoloped intelectual species, who live our course, and die, and serve nothing after.
It stuns me.. I don't think the number of atheists will grow. People will disagree with me, but in the past atheists were shunned by society, but now that society is open and more free, they can come out and make their beliefs known. So I don't think there are any more atheists now then their were 2 centuries ago. Its now, that society will accept them, as in before, it was a big thing to denounce God.
So I would like to know, if 100% atheists. Not wishy-washy people. Are they different in the brain?
Edit: Read post directly 1 up. Tallola (hope thats right), to me, I don't doubt a God, I don't know how I know for sure, I just have this strong-stable faith, and to me, I refuse to accept nothing created the universe.
Logically speaking, only a creator can make sense for the origin of all. Ok so the biggest anti-God theory, on origin of all, is the Big-bang. Its the idea their was a massive explosion of matter, and bla, bla, bla. Now what cause that explosion of matter? Doesn't matter never die, and never grow or decline. All matter has always bin, and always stays. I am pretty sure thats the science of matter. Now, what caused the matter? I mean.. Science is nowhere near answering origin, and I believe they will never have a concite reason to answer origin of all.
And its IMPOSSIBLE, scientifically, to prove or disclaim religion. Scientifically we can never diclaim, or prove a religious belief.
And science, can't tell us what the fate is after death.. noone can. And, scientifically, none of us know, if their is a Heaven, Hell, or nothing. Scientifically.
Religion gives me purpose, guidance, hope, support, and keeps me in moral balance, and keeps me from going to an immoral path. (sex, alcohol, drugs, etc.)
I like discussing this.. keep it up. One word though: RESPECT!
I would be interested to know if Atheists, who are damned hardened and sure their is no God, if they have different brain variations then the rest of us.
I am serious. I am not talking semi-no god, people. I mean people 100% positive to themselves that God and a creator is non-existent. I honestly think they have too have some different effect in there brain.
Human nature, and I would say instinct, makes us compelled to look to a greater force and power, to guide our lives, promise us an after-life, answer the un-answerable (origin of everything).
I can't, and never will be able to comprehend, people who take a big bang theory for the universe, and we are just devoloped intelectual species, who live our course, and die, and serve nothing after.
It stuns me.. I don't think the number of atheists will grow. People will disagree with me, but in the past atheists were shunned by society, but now that society is open and more free, they can come out and make their beliefs known. So I don't think there are any more atheists now then their were 2 centuries ago. Its now, that society will accept them, as in before, it was a big thing to denounce God.
So I would like to know, if 100% atheists. Not wishy-washy people. Are they different in the brain?
Edit: Read post directly 1 up. Tallola (hope thats right), to me, I don't doubt a God, I don't know how I know for sure, I just have this strong-stable faith, and to me, I refuse to accept nothing created the universe.
Logically speaking, only a creator can make sense for the origin of all. Ok so the biggest anti-God theory, on origin of all, is the Big-bang. Its the idea their was a massive explosion of matter, and bla, bla, bla. Now what cause that explosion of matter? Doesn't matter never die, and never grow or decline. All matter has always bin, and always stays. I am pretty sure thats the science of matter. Now, what caused the matter? I mean.. Science is nowhere near answering origin, and I believe they will never have a concite reason to answer origin of all.
And its IMPOSSIBLE, scientifically, to prove or disclaim religion. Scientifically we can never diclaim, or prove a religious belief.
And science, can't tell us what the fate is after death.. noone can. And, scientifically, none of us know, if their is a Heaven, Hell, or nothing. Scientifically.
Religion gives me purpose, guidance, hope, support, and keeps me in moral balance, and keeps me from going to an immoral path. (sex, alcohol, drugs, etc.)
I like discussing this.. keep it up. One word though: RESPECT!
Last edited:
Ok, that is in America. We are in Canada. Why do you always use the USA as your point of reference if you live in Canada?
That is an erroneous statement. One might suggest that the fact that you jump into Christian threads is because unconciously you are seeking Christ. (There is no such an entity as the subconcious)
Can we put some music to this waltze, I keep getting my big feet stepped on. lmao.It's not a belief, it's a conclusion.
Which way would that be, insults or the silent treatment, lmao. My children don't even play the silent treatment game. Just because you ignore posts that punch holes in your theory, dosn't make the holes any less real.
I'ld like to see some proof of this claim???!!!
1) I would be one of those people, that does blame Christian religion for the down fall of my people, but in some cases it was the savior.
2) Romatic? Horror of it all? How terrible it was? Please ellaborate?
Ya, when sanctus pissed me off one time I started this thread, the notion of Catholic Genocide in Africa was soundly proven wrong and I was trumped...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i.../54034-genocide-commited-catholic-church.html
With that definition LG, I get the sound feeling that my ancestral beliefs were not a religion, but more a foundation of existance within the constraints of our enviromnment, which included the the ablity to observe power and life forces, but interpreted them as spirits, perhaps.
hmmm, self control? Very interesting, do go on?
See my previous post on this, lol.
sanctus, remember when I tried that one? It didn't work then, it didn't work now. But now that I see what it looks like when some travels the low road, it looks mucky and rather childish. My humblest apologies Padre.
If we look at the OP, many faiths, some of their leaders and preachers(haggardy and so on), it would appear we have a comedy of errors on our hands!!! lmao.
Last edited:
Give us some evidence for religious beliefs then sanctus. Just have 'faith' that we may accept it. Seems to me it would be fair to say that you either want to discuss it or you don't. Only you can make up your mind.
The object is not to have the religious believer being asked to supply the proof change his mind. The object is to hear two sides to an argument and have the audience choose which is more plausible. They can then discard the one that isn't. But if the loser in the debate still refuses to change his/her mind after hearing all the evidence, assuming a strong and valid case is made against the loser's position, then that person can be wrote off by the audience as being unreasonable, stubborn, deluded, and wrong.
Take your best shot sanctus or run away because there are no other choices.
marygaspe.... oh mary... I personally know the USA stats, and use them because polls in Canada and the USA are usually similar in comparison.
But since your going to make something of this (typical..):
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm
2001
Here is one link from Census Canada.. says 70% of Canadians identify themselves as Protestant or Roman Catholic.
2001 - 16% of Canadians say they have no religion. This doesn't mean atheism though. Some of this percentage may be people who think their is a God, but associate with no organized religion.
So we take a look at 16% of Canadains. Now, how much of these people who are associated with no religion are atheist. Cause, as I said before, some of that 16%, may just refuse to associate with any religion, but still believes in some type of supreme deity.
So my 7-10% was relatively close.
MINORITY. Religion will always rein strong.
But since your going to make something of this (typical..):
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm
2001
Here is one link from Census Canada.. says 70% of Canadians identify themselves as Protestant or Roman Catholic.
2001 - 16% of Canadians say they have no religion. This doesn't mean atheism though. Some of this percentage may be people who think their is a God, but associate with no organized religion.
So we take a look at 16% of Canadains. Now, how much of these people who are associated with no religion are atheist. Cause, as I said before, some of that 16%, may just refuse to associate with any religion, but still believes in some type of supreme deity.
So my 7-10% was relatively close.
MINORITY. Religion will always rein strong.
Bringing up the fact that many catholic priests are pedophiles is not being insulting, it is really only talking about the uncomfortable truth. If I was informed you were a catholic then I must have missed it. I have no reason to pretend that I didn't know. If we are going to discuss the catholic religion then everything about it has a place in this thread. You have no right to exclude the issues which make you uncomfortable, as I would have no reason to exclude the issues which may make an atheist uncomfortable. Of course there are none.
In fact I believe that there are many more child molesters and homosexuals amongst catholic priests than we could ever imagine. And that's not to say that the two necessarily have a connection to one another but it is saying that there is a higher likelihood amongst homosexuals toward pedophilia being practiced on little boys. If atheists had a propensity for being murderers or child molesters or being evil in any other way then it would certainly be legitimate of you to bring up the subject. Of course the very opposite is true as atheists can be shown to be above religious people in moral values.
I don't want to dwell on this aspect of the discussion but I would like to clear the air of it. I'll leave it up to you on whether or not you want to pursue it further.
karrie- Sorry but I must have missed it. If sanctus is a catholic then it makes a lot of difference. If he was a southern Baptist who are strictly literal believers then that would also make a difference to my argument posed against his religious beliefs. But why are you trying to protect him karrie? Do you feel some kind of pity for him when he is challenged by an atheist? What is it? Don't avoid the questions karrie. I'm sure sanctus doesn't feel he needs to be protected. I'm sure he doesn't feel he needs to hide his demoninational faith in any way. Perhaps you think it is wrong to challenge religious people? If that's the problem then you should get over it or leave now. It's entirely your choice.
Why do you persist in quoting an atheist? Not that I don't enjoy it because I am a fan of Douglas Adams too.
Now that is an excellent post which deserves some straight answers!
Only in the U.S. are atheists a minority down around 7-10%. I think that 10% is correct and you would have to add the agnostics on to that. In the rest of the world the % is somewhat higher and there are actually charts which list all countries and their %'s of each. Although I will say categorically that the % has nothing to do with whether or not atheists are right. We can also say that among the most highly educated and brightest scientists in the world, there are only about 15% who are believers in a personal god.
Now, are there differenes in the brains of atheists and Christians or other religious believers? Absolutely, and here is the difference which is provable and which I will prove. It is not a question of what we atheists have in our brains, it is a matter of what believers have in their brains. You, I will guess are a Christian. You are a Christian because you were born to Christian parents and I can safely say that is true in the very large % of cases. Just as I can say that it you were born in the M.E. to Muslim parents you would be a Muslim. Or in fact any other faith would dictate the same in an overwhelming majority of the instances. You reject other faiths or beliefs in all the other religions because you are convinced that Christianity is the true and correct religion. Had you been born to native indian parents 200 years ago before Christianity got to the people you would surely not be a Christian and we could safely assume that you would reject Christianity. Therefore, I think we must accept the fact that what has been instilled in your brain when you were in your childhood, along with your parents influence, and a few other factors, has made you a Christian. Therein lies the difference between you a Christian and me an atheist, and the proof you seek.
ANd once again, it really is of no importance how many people don't believe in God. But your statistics are slanted towar religion and here's why. To admit to oneself that one is an atheist carries some uncomfortable implications to a lot of people. A person who hasn't been to churce, hasn't read the bible, and has no connection in any way with religion for years may still claim that he is a Christian and he believes in God. This is the large majority and if on could only call himself a Christian if he was a practicing Christian, then the %'s would probably be completely reversed. In fact of the people who either pray to god or attend church was measured I don't know if they would even represent 10% of the population in Canada. I think the U.S. is somewhat higher. However, I don't think there is much importance to the statistics in the least in Canada. In the U.S. the % of Christians is alarmingly high. Alarming for several reasons but one in particular I will mention. The believers would see a nuclear weapon being detonated in New York city as prophecy being fulfilled. What a dangerous proposition that is and what a horrible way to live one's life, waiting for the destruction of the earth. Armageddon, where only those who believe in those people's brand of Christianity will saved and lifted up by god and the other 6 billion people living on this planet will die in the inferno, whatever, blah, blah, blah.
Let's put it another way then. There's no evidence in support of any particular religious belief that points inevitably, logically, and consistently at its being accurate. No evidence or argument you can advance in support of your particular view of the creator, for instance, doesn't apply equally well to any of the other gods humanity has invented, and it's clear from history that every god has had believers just as fervent as any contemporary believers in Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or whatever anyone chooses to call him. There's no evidence that points specifically at the correctness of the Catholic view, the Islamic view, the Jewish view, or anything else, and any evidence you *can* point to always has more prosaic explanations than the supernatural one offered.
Science has but one "article of faith," if you wish to call it that, which is that nature is consistent and comprehensible. That's the essential axiom, because if it's not true, there's no point in doing science. And it *is* certainly just an axiom, an unprovable assumption. Induction, however, strongly suggests it's true, in that we've found no case in over 400 years of trying where nature on investigation has not proven to be consistent and comprehensible. There is much we don't know or understand fully, of course, but there's no reason to think we'll never understand. That's the real knock against religion, from my perspective. It is demonstrably not consistent or comprehensible; you'll always come to a point where you'll be told something is an unknowable mystery, and that's simply not a useful answer. It's an avoidance of an answer. .
- Status