To all atheists

[Xeox]

It depends on how you were brought up. There are plenty of people who believe that religion is "right". I mean technically no, I cannot write up a lab experiment explaining why God exits, but can you truly disprove him either?

In response to the original thread starting post, I just want to be left alone. John Mill once wrote about the freedom of speech, and the freedom of ideals; only when an individual causes harm to another should action be taken against that same individual's beliefs. He actually goes into the states right to control liberal (meaning radical, not having to do with today's liberals) ideals of extreme individuals. My basic point was to side with the original post which said essentially each side (Religious / Atheist) should leave each other alone in terms of forming their own opinions and beliefs. If I were to change that sig, I would make it "Religion is a leap of faith."

Again, all I'm asking is that you respect my beliefs, and I will respect yours. Is that bad? If you look at the bible as a work of fiction, it still contains good morals such as be nice to others, do not kill, do not steal, etc etc... This goes back to what I said before about generalization; people can interpret the bible however they please, but usually the people who make the most noise in society get the most attention. That is why people focus on radicals rather than the average worshiper.

In conclusion I believe it is not right to essentially force religion out of society, because we all have our right to think for ourselves.

 

It depends on how you were brought up. There are plenty of people who believe that religion is "right". I mean technically no, I cannot write up a lab experiment explaining why God exits, but can you truly disprove him either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In response to the original thread starting post, I just want to be left alone. John Mill once wrote about the freedom of speech, and the freedom of ideals; only when an individual causes harm to another should action be taken against that same individual's beliefs.

If you want to be left alone intellectually then don't debate.

 

[gtdarkpunisher]

What Sythe said. I chose not to include an explanation for a reason.

It depends on how you were brought up. There are plenty of people who believe that religion is "right". I mean technically no, I cannot write up a lab experiment explaining why God exits, but can you truly disprove him either?

In response to the original thread starting post, I just want to be left alone. John Mill once wrote about the freedom of speech, and the freedom of ideals; only when an individual causes harm to another should action be taken against that same individual's beliefs. He actually goes into the states right to control liberal (meaning radical, not having to do with today's liberals) ideals of extreme individuals. My basic point was to side with the original post which said essentially each side (Religious / Atheist) should leave each other alone in terms of forming their own opinions and beliefs. If I were to change that sig, I would make it "Religion is a leap of faith."

Again, all I'm asking is that you respect my beliefs, and I will respect yours. Is that bad? If you look at the bible as a work of fiction, it still contains good morals such as be nice to others, do not kill, do not steal, etc etc... This goes back to what I said before about generalization; people can interpret the bible however they please, but usually the people who make the most noise in society get the most attention. That is why people focus on radicals rather than the average worshiper.

In conclusion I believe it is not right to essentially force religion out of society, because we all have our right to think for ourselves.

You're taking it in wrong; you positioned yourself in a debate, stating your pure beliefs with attempts to back it up with things you can't provide solid arguments. I agree with you with freedom of belief; but it doesn't mix in to your weak arguments. I'll drop this; lets go back to the OP.


"Is it really necessary to try and convince everyone else of atheism? If people believe in religion, then they believe (in most cases) that there is something better after death. Why ruin (in your opinion) their ignorance, and in turn, bliss and make life much more depressing for them? It is comforting to people to believe that this life isn't it, why try to take that away from them?

If your an atheist who minds your own business and doesn't argue against religion, you have earned my respect.

Also, what do you have to lose in believing in a higher power (example: God)? This is supposed to be a serious question, and answers like "because religion is stupid" or "science proves otherwise" are not welcome. "
First he thinks its pure opinion that religion is ignorance. Which is incorrect. (Read previous post on others...better research and analyze)

Secondly, Atheist simply provide evidence against it because its brought up in this section; I honestly doubt many atheist come up to you babbling against your religion in comparison to various religions. If you don't want your beliefs to be brought into debate, then simply don't bring it in here.

Lastly, he expressing his opinion as why he wonders what we have to lose. That will obvious provoke more debates and upset religious people.

 

[Xeox]

Did you not read my post about a former teacher at my school calling me an idiot for believing in God?

Lastly, he expressing his opinion as why he wonders what we have to lose. That will obvious provoke more debates and upset religious people.

He is asking why you do not believe in God. He thinks if there is a higher being, shouldn't you follow him during your lifetime instead of one day dieing, then realizing, oh damn I guess there was a God and I spoke out against him and his teachings all my life.

It is not ment to provoke debates from religious people, its supposed to spark debate from atheists because he is speaking against atheists. Don't say "we" because he is not on your side. He is telling you to leave him alone, as am I.

 

[gtdarkpunisher]

Did you not read my post about a former teacher at my school calling me an idiot for believing in God?



He is asking why you do not believe in God. He thinks if there is a higher being, shouldn't you follow him during your lifetime instead of one day dieing, then realizing, oh damn I guess there was a God and I spoke out against him and his teachings all my life.

It is not ment to provoke debates from religious people, its supposed to spark debate from atheists because he is speaking against atheists. Don't say "we" because he is not on your side. He is telling you to leave him alone, as am I.

That just it. His question is automatically answered. Hes questioning WHY NOT to believe. Its pure what ifs. I'm sorry, I'm done discussing anything with you. You can't understand the most simple flaws.

 

[Xeox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Yea I get that I don't really have much sway when it comes to proving things true from the bible; its like compairing apples to oranges, you really can't effectively do it lol. I had to give it a shot though =P

If you want to be left alone intellectually then don't debate.

I can debate for a freedom of opinion though right? I like debating, I just like to be able to formulate my own thoughts and to compare/contrast my religion with others when I question something I find.

To conclude my posts on this thread, I have learned my lesson haha.

 

[salvatii0n]

We're fighting in a war that cannot be won, This is no war of attrition, this is a full blown war of words to which neither side shall be mortally wounded.

Religiously-founded people believe what they believe with all their hearts, just calling them retarded for their beliefs is no help and calling "logic" will not work as faith is without "logic"
Atheists assert a strong belief that there is no God and will continue to intellectually attack those who do believe with arguments based on logic and evidence, taking nothing short of God himself coming down as evidence.

Neither side will give in, and they can't both be right, not only that but no proof is possible to prove one side wrong.

This is Stalemate.

 

[raziaex]

We're fighting in a war that cannot be won, This is no war of attrition, this is a full blown war of words to which neither side shall be mortally wounded.

Religiously-founded people believe what they believe with all their hearts, just calling them retarded for their beliefs is no help and calling "logic" will not work as faith is without "logic"
Atheists assert a strong belief that there is no God and will continue to intellectually attack those who do believe with arguments based on logic and evidence, taking nothing short of God himself coming down as evidence.

Neither side will give in, and they can't both be right, not only that but no proof is possible to prove one side wrong.

This is Stalemate.

Seriously, if this is the sort of rationale you possess, you might as well fuck of this part of the forums...
Go and do a bit of research on 'burden of proof' and then make these retarded assumptions... There IS no war between atheism and religion. Atheism does not seek to convert - it only retaliates the ignorance of religion when it is BROUGHT to them. However, religion attempts to brainwash people through advertising, campaigns, and even fucking political lobbying. Secularism much?

 

[salvatii0n]

Seriously, if this is the sort of rationale you possess, you might as well fuck of this part of the forums...
Go and do a bit of research on 'burden of proof' and then make these retarded assumptions... There IS no war between atheism and religion. Atheism does not seek to convert - it only retaliates the ignorance of religion when it is BROUGHT to them. However, religion attempts to brainwash people through advertising, campaigns, and even fucking political lobbying. Secularism much?

I Don't see why you're so mad? I was merely voicing my opinion, pointing out that neither side will be swayed. also I wasn't implying a physical war and retaliation is as much a sign of "warfare" as firing the first shot.
Also you tell me not to make retarded assumptions, whilst you assume that I haven't heard of 'burden of proof' when I have done, That's just being hypercritical.
All this is a dictionary definition of Brainwashing; to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty.
It is foolish and stereotypical to assume that 'religion' in general uses these methods as described above or even brainwashing in the mildest forms.Take into account the difference between persuasion and brainwashing.

 

[raziaex]

I Don't see why you're so mad? I was merely voicing my opinion, pointing out that neither side will be swayed. also I wasn't implying a physical war and retaliation is as much a sign of "warfare" as firing the first shot.
Also you tell me not to make retarded assumptions, whilst you assume that I haven't heard of 'burden of proof' when I have done, That's just being hypercritical.
All this is a dictionary definition of Brainwashing; to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty.
It is foolish and stereotypical to assume that 'religion' in general uses these methods as described above or even brainwashing in the mildest forms.Take into account the difference between persuasion and brainwashing.

Seriously...
If you HAVE understood the concept of the 'burden of proof', you would realize it lies with the religious.
Hypocritical - not hypercritical. Also, you used it incorrectly. How is it hypocritical to wrongly assume that you do not understand something??? Ask anyone who understands the correct definition. Also, I was NOT wrong. You probably DON'T understand; in depth, what the implications of the burden of proof are.
You provided a dictionary definition of 'Brainwashing', but failed to use it in context.
How is it foolish and stereotypical? Religion DOES use discomfort and pain as a few of its tools. Do a bit of analysis on your own religion if you have on please... Oh, and; alternation between kindness and cruelty? Heaven and Hell? God and Satan? etc etc etc on and on and on................
Persuasion? Religion has gone far beyond the boundaries of mere persuasion...

 

[Jimmy]

pointing out that neither side will be swayed.

Plenty of people lose their religion everyday, so individuals can in fact be swayed from (or to) religious belief.

All this is a dictionary definition of Brainwashing; to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty.
It is foolish and stereotypical to assume that 'religion' in general uses these methods as described above or even brainwashing in the mildest forms.Take into account the difference between persuasion and brainwashing.

Parents (respected authority figures) tell their very impressionable children that they must believe that a man was divinely conceived and suffered ~2,000 years ago, or they will burn forever in hell away from all their family and friends. That's not cruel, and doesn't cause extreme fear?

faith is without "logic"

Then anybody who professes such "faith" has no part in the SFA, as it is a forum for reasoned debates, not the voicing of intellectual prejudices.

Atheists assert a strong belief that there is no God

No. Modern atheists merely claim to disbelieve the existence of god(s).