Can you explain why you don't have faith? (1 Viewer)

[johnjohn]

Can someone give me a real quick backstory on the two guys everyone seems to dislike?

I'm taking it that Eminence threatened to sue people and kill himself. But why?

Also, who is this johnjohn dude? Is he always a troll or does he occasionally offer something to the board?

Thanks

Em is just a young guy who thinks the internet revolves around him, kind of like most young people these days.

Johnjohn is an alias for someone who got banned.

well, looks like tim killed his own thread by singling out Em and I for no reason.... anyways, this is the only name I have on this forum, I was never banned before.

 

[tri-man 47]

I think for me I started drifting from Christianity because I hated all of the rules.

But the thing that really made me start doubting the truth behind the religion was the notion that God has given everyone free will, yet his will is also always done, and he also knows everything that will happen. I just can't reconcile these "facts".

If my boss decided to empower me by saying "hey, you can do anything you want to do on this project", but I later find out that 100% of what my boss wanted to do was what was actually done and that he had planned the result several years in advance, I would consider my boss a liar. But God doesn't lie, because he's without sin.

I have a lot of other reasons why I don't believe as well, but that is the one that got it going.

Free Will is a tough one. Morgan Freeman and Jim Carey get theological in Bruce Almighty...

J

An analogy I like: Across the doorway of heaven is a sign: "All who will may enter." Upon entering and looking back is another sign: "I have chosen you." The idea is that, yes, we must act. We must use our free will to believe in a higher power and commit ourselves to a life of faith. But in hindsight, we discover that in fact, we have been chosen by God. His hand was guiding us all along. And that is very comforting ..to know that we are not left to our own, flawed abilities.

Expected retort: What about those who are not chosen? Two things: First, that's not for me to determine, it's for God. So I make no presumptions regarding someone's heart (which is why I hate hearing of the "you're a sinner and condemned!" sermons). Second, this is the idea behind mission work - to let people hear of the Good News so they, too, can exercise their free will.

 

[matuski]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

 

[johnjohn]

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

 

[matuski]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

 

[johnjohn]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

what we are now witnessing is someone repeating himself because in his mind the person that gets the last word is the person that won the argument, quite childish.

 

[hxperson]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

I don't understand why you keep talking to this guy. Not worth it, imo, as the link you provided so appropriately asserts.

 

[urbanhack]

Can someone give me a real quick backstory on the two guys everyone seems to dislike?

I'm taking it that Eminence threatened to sue people and kill himself. But why?

Also, who is this johnjohn dude? Is he always a troll or does he occasionally offer something to the board?

Thanks

Em is just a young guy who thinks the internet revolves around him, kind of like most young people these days.

Johnjohn is an alias for someone who got banned.

well, looks like tim killed his own thread by singling out Em and I for no reason

No...there is a reason, especially for you.

 

[JuniorNB]

Lol. Well, I certainly got half of my question answered.

 

[matuski]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

I don't understand why you keep talking to this guy. Not worth it, imo, as the link you provided so appropriately asserts.

He an a few others give me the satisfaction every time. Plus I'm pretty sure he is Ray Comfort and has a banana in his hand right this moment.

 

[johnjohn]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

I don't understand why you keep talking to this guy. Not worth it, imo, as the link you provided so appropriately asserts.

He an a few others give me the satisfaction every time. Plus I'm pretty sure he is Ray Comfort and has a banana in his hand right this moment.

so you admit you are trying to troll me?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

what we are now witnessing is someone repeating himself because in his mind the person that gets the last word is the person that won the argument, quite childish.

Well, there's my recommended daily allowance of irony for today.

 

[matuski]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

I don't understand why you keep talking to this guy. Not worth it, imo, as the link you provided so appropriately asserts.

He an a few others give me the satisfaction every time. Plus I'm pretty sure he is Ray Comfort and has a banana in his hand right this moment.

so you admit you are trying to troll me?

What else are you good for?

 

[johnjohn]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

I don't understand why you keep talking to this guy. Not worth it, imo, as the link you provided so appropriately asserts.

He an a few others give me the satisfaction every time. Plus I'm pretty sure he is Ray Comfort and has a banana in his hand right this moment.

so you admit you are trying to troll me?

What else are you good for?

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

 

[McGarnicle]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

 

[johnjohn]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

 

[JuniorNB]

This thread derailed quickly...

Anyways, going back to the topic, some of the responses about religion being an easy way to cope with the finality of death had me thinking. If we were to somehow develop a way to prolong the human life substantially, or at least the human spirit/brain, via some scientific discovery, do you think this discovery would be welcomed by the dedicated religious or condemned?

My first thought would be the latter, given how religion implies traditionalism, which is generally against progress, but I find it hard to fathom that people would be opposed to something so universally good for the human race.

it was going good until timschochet/McGarnicle decided to trash Em and I for no reason, so lets remember that, but I agree, lets get back on track.

You know whats kind of weird ? People that don't believe in god treat science as a religion and sometimes I feel like thats one reason why so many atheists are so quick to insult people until they don't believe in god.

Science is great but when it comes to stuff like the evolution theory people need to admit to themselves they are displaying faith, just like us "silly religious folks" and maybe if they did they would treat us with a little more respect and not insult us

Pigeon chess
Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

And the pigeon flies off to declare victory.

I don't understand why you keep talking to this guy. Not worth it, imo, as the link you provided so appropriately asserts.

He an a few others give me the satisfaction every time. Plus I'm pretty sure he is Ray Comfort and has a banana in his hand right this moment.

so you admit you are trying to troll me?

What else are you good for?

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

There are tons of conservatives on this board. Too many, actually. I highly doubt your conservativism is the reason. Are you an obnoxious conservative? Is anyone who disagrees with you 'uninformed'? Are you basically a parrot of fox news? Are you 100% close-minded and all liberals are the enemy? I think we could be getting somewhere now.

 

[NCCommish]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

 

[timschochet]

I really don't like attacking other people here, because I get attacked so often myself. So long as I sense you are honest, and really trying to contribute thoughtfully to a conversation or debate, you're good with me no matter how much i might disagree with you. And I don't care how many times you post or how controversial your views are or how much you may come to dominate a discussion. I've been criticized for all of those things and I think it's unjust to do so- so long as one is honest and thoughtful.

But if your purpose is to make inflammatory comments solely to piss people off or derail a discussion, if your comments are dishonest or not well thought out, if you spend the bulk of your time whining when people justifiably rip you for making absurd or simplistic commentary, then even one post is too many.

 

[johnjohn]

I really don't like attacking other people here, because I get attacked so often myself. So long as I sense you are honest, and really trying to contribute thoughtfully to a conversation or debate, you're good with me no matter how much i might disagree with you. And I don't care how many times you post or how controversial your views are or how much you may come to dominate a discussion. I've been criticized for all of those things and I think it's unjust to do so- so long as one is honest and thoughtful.

But if your purpose is to make inflammatory comments solely to piss people off or derail a discussion, if your comments are dishonest or not well thought out, if you spend the bulk of your time whining when people justifiably rip you for making absurd or simplistic commentary, then even one post is too many.

let me translate this for you

"guys I promise I am not a hypocrite because of this.... but really I am"

 

[johnjohn]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

 

[hxperson]

I think for me I started drifting from Christianity because I hated all of the rules.

But the thing that really made me start doubting the truth behind the religion was the notion that God has given everyone free will, yet his will is also always done, and he also knows everything that will happen. I just can't reconcile these "facts".

If my boss decided to empower me by saying "hey, you can do anything you want to do on this project", but I later find out that 100% of what my boss wanted to do was what was actually done and that he had planned the result several years in advance, I would consider my boss a liar. But God doesn't lie, because he's without sin.

I have a lot of other reasons why I don't believe as well, but that is the one that got it going.

Free Will is a tough one. Morgan Freeman and Jim Carey get theological in Bruce Almighty...

J

An analogy I like: Across the doorway of heaven is a sign: "All who will may enter." Upon entering and looking back is another sign: "I have chosen you." The idea is that, yes, we must act. We must use our free will to believe in a higher power and commit ourselves to a life of faith. But in hindsight, we discover that in fact, we have been chosen by God. His hand was guiding us all along. And that is very comforting ..to know that we are not left to our own, flawed abilities.

Expected retort: What about those who are not chosen? Two things: First, that's not for me to determine, it's for God. So I make no presumptions regarding someone's heart (which is why I hate hearing of the "you're a sinner and condemned!" sermons). Second, this is the idea behind mission work - to let people hear of the Good News so they, too, can exercise their free will.

I've heard this perspective and personally have found it unsatisfactory. I appreciate the Christian notion that it is considered virtuous to submit yourself to God and accept that what he is doing is best for those who follow him.

But it doesn't change the fact that God leads us to believe that we have free will, but in actuality everything that we do was decided a long time ago, by him, according to Christian teachings. Whether we act or not- that was decided a long time ago too. Our "will" was decided a long time ago. So is it really free? To me, it isn't. So the idea of "free" will is, in my eyes, deception, and deception is wrong, regardless of whether or not it was for our own good or not. So to me, one can make one of the three following conclusions:

1. Deception isn't really a lie or a sin when the objective is virtuous. This is the stance that I believe most Christians take.

2. Deception is a lie, and therefore a sin, but the Christian teachings have misunderstood God's nature and his intentions on this matter. This I can buy, but it doesn't give me any reason to have any confidence in the religion of Christianity.

3. Deception is a lie, and therefore a sin, and therefore everything we know about the Christian God should be in doubt. Occam's Razor has been referred to a few times in this thread already but I do fell that this is the answer that it points to here.

 

[NCCommish]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

Science is categorically nothing like religion. Science requires proof. Faith by definition requires belief without proof.

 

[Gr00vus]

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

No it really isn't. Quite the opposite in fact. That you can't/won't understand that is one of the main sources of dismissal of much of what you say in these conversations for many people.

 

[johnjohn]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

Science is categorically nothing like religion. Science requires proof. Faith by definition requires belief without proof.

Science Thinks Humans are Special

It is understandable that religion might place man in the center of the universe – but for science to do so is inexcusable. However, a great number of astrophysicists and cosmologists are eager to talk about how the universe conforms to the “anthropic principle”.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why human understanding – above that of slugs, dolphins and monkeys – should be wide enough to encompass the universe. Anthropocentrism – the assumption that humans take center-stage in the universe – is rife in the sciences, as it is in religion.

9

It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions

Heretics

Science, like God in the Old Testament, behaves jealously against any other religion. So science will say to its followers: “You shall have no other gods before me”.

If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you’ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination. Just look up how Kurt Gödel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God.

8

Science Reveres Its Own Saints

1

The ranks of science martyrdom may be thin, yet its members are revered as far greater scientists they actually were. Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious orders. He actually contributed very little to science: most of his achievements were technical, such as tampering with telescopes. Heliocentricity was known since the 4th century BC.

7

Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins

The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of them had creation myths, probably invented around a fire. All of them took their creation myths seriously. Now, of course, we have science to explain our origins.

You know what its latest version of this story is? In the beginning, there were giant membranes. These membranes touched each other, triggering something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.

6

Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics

Testan

There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are “laws of scientific conduct”. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of science – take a doctor, for example, who has to give placebo pills to a number of his patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will suffer or die much sooner than if they had received proper treatment.

But scientific advancement almost always claims precedence over personal morality. And – unless you’re a zealot yourself – its ethics will clash with your personal code of conduct.

5

Science Has Its Own Priesthood

Newton, Darwin and Einstein serve as the holy trinity of western science. And below these are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Chomsky, Penrose and Sagan. And then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize winners, the popular writers and the media celebrities.

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts. Ordinary people are ridiculed, if they doubt the interpretations of this priesthood. Even for scientists, questioning a member of a higher tier is done only at your own risk. After all, all scientific work (from papers to grant applications) is peer reviewed, remember?

4

Science is Based on Established Dogmas

Bloodlettingphoto-1

Ever wonder how for centuries, the best doctors could insist on blood-letting as a cure – without ever noticing that their patients did worse? The answer: belief in blood-letting was part of the scientific dogma at the time.

Anything contradicting this dogma is simply rejected and ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Science thus has the trappings of a full blown religion.

3

Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends

If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion – think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.

Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality. It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986. Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.

2

Most of Science is Unfounded

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings and Ego – all of them sound like plausible stories. But can anyone point out the Ego locus in a dissected brain? Or use the concept of Dark Energy for anything besides helping to explain the expanding universe – another scientific theory? There is no actual proof for any of these theories.

That’s right – we have no proof for the existence of 96% of what science thinks the universe is made of – and yet the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) we hold to be true. Why? you ask. Because we have faith – which brings me to my final point.

1

Science Requires Faith

Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.

Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.

When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.

 

[Insein]

For me I became agnostic for a couple reasons. One is 12 years of Catholic school and blindly following the teachings left me with only questions that they couldnt answer. The level of disdain and disrespect some supposedly pius people had as well turned me off.

I however do believe in the idea of a god. It doesn't mean that this being is benevolent or cruel based on the circumstances. I see him as a scientist on a much more grand scale. We are all in a Petri dish set off by the big bang. He's just recording the results and finding out what happens. He doesn't care what we do or how we do it. Theres no payoff with eternal salvation waiting. Its just life. We're here in this universe for a little bit. Make our own little impact and move on.

 

[hxperson]

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

No it really isn't. Quite the opposite in fact. That you can't/won't understand that is one of the main sources of dismissal of much of what you say in these conversations for many people.

This is the same guy who calls black colleges racist. How can one expect any better.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Man, I'm sure glad I took the time to post a reply in this

 

[NCCommish]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

Science is categorically nothing like religion. Science requires proof. Faith by definition requires belief without proof.

Science Thinks Humans are Special

What an utter and complete load of crap.

 

[johnjohn]

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

No it really isn't. Quite the opposite in fact. That you can't/won't understand that is one of the main sources of dismissal of much of what you say in these conversations for many people.

This is the same guy who calls black colleges racist. How can one expect any better.

Don't quote me out of context

 

[Gr00vus]

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

No it really isn't. Quite the opposite in fact. That you can't/won't understand that is one of the main sources of dismissal of much of what you say in these conversations for many people.

This is the same guy who calls black colleges racist. How can one expect any better.

I'm not directly familiar with his work in other threads, so I'm limiting my comments for him to what I've seen in these two.

But the attempt to equate accepting the findings of science with holding faith is disingenuous at best. It serves johnjohn no benefit in trying to make winning arguments.

 

[johnjohn]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

Science is categorically nothing like religion. Science requires proof. Faith by definition requires belief without proof.

Science Thinks Humans are Special

It is understandable that religion might place man in the center of the universe – but for science to do so is inexcusable. However, a great number of astrophysicists and cosmologists are eager to talk about how the universe conforms to the “anthropic principle”.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why human understanding – above that of slugs, dolphins and monkeys – should be wide enough to encompass the universe. Anthropocentrism – the assumption that humans take center-stage in the universe – is rife in the sciences, as it is in religion.

9

It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions

Heretics

Science, like God in the Old Testament, behaves jealously against any other religion. So science will say to its followers: “You shall have no other gods before me”.

If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you’ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination. Just look up how Kurt Gödel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God.

8

Science Reveres Its Own Saints

1

The ranks of science martyrdom may be thin, yet its members are revered as far greater scientists they actually were. Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious orders. He actually contributed very little to science: most of his achievements were technical, such as tampering with telescopes. Heliocentricity was known since the 4th century BC.

7

Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins

The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of them had creation myths, probably invented around a fire. All of them took their creation myths seriously. Now, of course, we have science to explain our origins.

You know what its latest version of this story is? In the beginning, there were giant membranes. These membranes touched each other, triggering something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.

6

Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics

Testan

There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are “laws of scientific conduct”. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of science – take a doctor, for example, who has to give placebo pills to a number of his patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will suffer or die much sooner than if they had received proper treatment.

But scientific advancement almost always claims precedence over personal morality. And – unless you’re a zealot yourself – its ethics will clash with your personal code of conduct.

5

Science Has Its Own Priesthood

Newton, Darwin and Einstein serve as the holy trinity of western science. And below these are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Chomsky, Penrose and Sagan. And then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize winners, the popular writers and the media celebrities.

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts. Ordinary people are ridiculed, if they doubt the interpretations of this priesthood. Even for scientists, questioning a member of a higher tier is done only at your own risk. After all, all scientific work (from papers to grant applications) is peer reviewed, remember?

4

Science is Based on Established Dogmas

Bloodlettingphoto-1

Ever wonder how for centuries, the best doctors could insist on blood-letting as a cure – without ever noticing that their patients did worse? The answer: belief in blood-letting was part of the scientific dogma at the time.

Anything contradicting this dogma is simply rejected and ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Science thus has the trappings of a full blown religion.

3

Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends

If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion – think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.

Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality. It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986. Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.

2

Most of Science is Unfounded

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings and Ego – all of them sound like plausible stories. But can anyone point out the Ego locus in a dissected brain? Or use the concept of Dark Energy for anything besides helping to explain the expanding universe – another scientific theory? There is no actual proof for any of these theories.

That’s right – we have no proof for the existence of 96% of what science thinks the universe is made of – and yet the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) we hold to be true. Why? you ask. Because we have faith – which brings me to my final point.

1

Science Requires Faith

Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.

Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.

When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.

What an utter and complete load of crap.

great counter

 

[NCCommish]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.

I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

Science is categorically nothing like religion. Science requires proof. Faith by definition requires belief without proof.

Science Thinks Humans are Special

It is understandable that religion might place man in the center of the universe – but for science to do so is inexcusable. However, a great number of astrophysicists and cosmologists are eager to talk about how the universe conforms to the “anthropic principle”.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why human understanding – above that of slugs, dolphins and monkeys – should be wide enough to encompass the universe. Anthropocentrism – the assumption that humans take center-stage in the universe – is rife in the sciences, as it is in religion.

9

It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions

Heretics

Science, like God in the Old Testament, behaves jealously against any other religion. So science will say to its followers: “You shall have no other gods before me”.

If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you’ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination. Just look up how Kurt Gödel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God.

8

Science Reveres Its Own Saints

1

The ranks of science martyrdom may be thin, yet its members are revered as far greater scientists they actually were. Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious orders. He actually contributed very little to science: most of his achievements were technical, such as tampering with telescopes. Heliocentricity was known since the 4th century BC.

7

Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins

The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of them had creation myths, probably invented around a fire. All of them took their creation myths seriously. Now, of course, we have science to explain our origins.

You know what its latest version of this story is? In the beginning, there were giant membranes. These membranes touched each other, triggering something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.

6

Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics

Testan

There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are “laws of scientific conduct”. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of science – take a doctor, for example, who has to give placebo pills to a number of his patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will suffer or die much sooner than if they had received proper treatment.

But scientific advancement almost always claims precedence over personal morality. And – unless you’re a zealot yourself – its ethics will clash with your personal code of conduct.

5

Science Has Its Own Priesthood

Newton, Darwin and Einstein serve as the holy trinity of western science. And below these are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Chomsky, Penrose and Sagan. And then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize winners, the popular writers and the media celebrities.

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts. Ordinary people are ridiculed, if they doubt the interpretations of this priesthood. Even for scientists, questioning a member of a higher tier is done only at your own risk. After all, all scientific work (from papers to grant applications) is peer reviewed, remember?

4

Science is Based on Established Dogmas

Bloodlettingphoto-1

Ever wonder how for centuries, the best doctors could insist on blood-letting as a cure – without ever noticing that their patients did worse? The answer: belief in blood-letting was part of the scientific dogma at the time.

Anything contradicting this dogma is simply rejected and ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Science thus has the trappings of a full blown religion.

3

Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends

If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion – think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.

Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality. It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986. Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.

2

Most of Science is Unfounded

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings and Ego – all of them sound like plausible stories. But can anyone point out the Ego locus in a dissected brain? Or use the concept of Dark Energy for anything besides helping to explain the expanding universe – another scientific theory? There is no actual proof for any of these theories.

That’s right – we have no proof for the existence of 96% of what science thinks the universe is made of – and yet the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) we hold to be true. Why? you ask. Because we have faith – which brings me to my final point.

1

Science Requires Faith

Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.

Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.

When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.

What an utter and complete load of crap.

great counter

More than it deserved

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

So people are picking on me for being intellectually inferior ? Do you think I am coming off as intellectually inferior to you and others because I have view points that are different? Maybe by thinking I am dumb you are able to feel better about your position instead of admitting that maybe you are wrong.I don't hate black people, i love everyone, even you.

No we think people who think science is religion aren't very informed. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Now if they are also stupid is usually revealed in time. Remember ignorant means doesn't know, stupid means never learns.

Quite a lot of time has passed since JJ showed up on this board. Just sayin'.

 

[matuski]

The thread is off the rails, sorry for my part in that.

But you have to admit, the laughs have increased ten fold.

 

[Jayrok]

masterofgolddigger?

 

[johnjohn]

The thread is off the rails, sorry for my part in that.

But you have to admit, the laughs have increased ten fold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85b5iY5b-E

 

[matuski]

masterofgolddigger?

I wish... johnjohn does not have golddiggers panache.

 

[hxperson]

Science is like a religion to people, are you kidding me?

No it really isn't. Quite the opposite in fact. That you can't/won't understand that is one of the main sources of dismissal of much of what you say in these conversations for many people.

This is the same guy who calls black colleges racist. How can one expect any better.

I'm not directly familiar with his work in other threads, so I'm limiting my comments for him to what I've seen in these two.

But the attempt to equate accepting the findings of science with holding faith is disingenuous at best. It serves johnjohn no benefit in trying to make winning arguments.

For your reference:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=705778&p=16730427

 

[Joe Bryant]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

Please stop.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

The thread is off the rails, sorry for my part in that.

But you have to admit, the laughs have increased ten fold.

Not really. Good thread flushed. It was good for a while.

J

 

[NCCommish]

The thread is off the rails, sorry for my part in that.

But you have to admit, the laughs have increased ten fold.

Not really. Good thread flushed. It was good for a while.

J

Don't be so pessimistic. Threads derail and rerail on a regular basis. Still a chance it can get back where it was. But to be honest when people come in and start touting the silly science being a religion meme they are going to get push back. Is science or are scientists perfect? Nope. Do people including scientists have biases? Of course. The thing is at the end of the day the guy with the best proof wins. Regardless of whether or not their idea fits with accepted thought or not. The disruptors win if they prove to be right.

 

[timschochet]

johnjohn, here is an offer for you: if you are willing to start a new thread, and exit out of this one, I will engage you in a debate about this subject or any other subject you are interested in discussing. I will respond to each of your points. I promise no personal attacks, no insults. I will ask questions and answer them, and be respectful at all times. If an honest discussion is what you're looking for, I will give it to you. But let's move it to another thread so that this one isn't derailed.

This is a one-time offer.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

Please stop.

J

So the standard is going to be that johnjohn gets to come in and troll people, and you go after the folks who bite instead the guy throwing out bait? This is the exact same mistake you made by letting LHUCKS hang around for so long.

These sorts of posters make entire threads borderline-unreadable. That's way worse than the occasional sharp word.

 

[trogg78]

I have faith in people. I have none in god.

 

[JuniorNB]

I was a believer as a child, agnostic as a young adult, and as close to atheist as I can possibly be at this point. There's just way too many things that go on that "God" would never let happen to good people.

But, I have no problem with believers. In fact, if an atheist is ragging on a believer and being a real; tool about it, I generally leave the conversation liking the believer more than the atheist. I think that's revolting behavior.

Also, although I'm an atheist, I will always bow my head to pray at a wedding or funeral. I'll even recite the Lords Prayer if the group I'm in is saying it. I also say "bless you' when someone sneezes, and offer a thank you when someone says 'God bless you' to me. These gestures cost me nothing at all and I have no problem respecting other peoples' beliefs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Okay, just want the record straight because people are accusing me of trolling when in actuality i am the one getting trolled because of my conservative view points.

No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel.So are you going to tell us why you hate black people? Did Jesus teach you that?

Please stop.

J

So the standard is going to be that johnjohn gets to come in and troll people, and you go after the folks who bite instead the guy throwing out bait? This is the exact same mistake you made by letting LHUCKS hang around for so long.

These sorts of posters make entire threads borderline-unreadable. That's way worse than the occasional sharp word.

Not sure why you'd assume that is the standard. Both have to stop. And both are gone for a little bit. Whether they stop when they come back or or not is going to be up to them. But absolutely, someone who takes bait and posts "No, it's because you have the IQ of a squirrel." isn't going to work here.

If you see stuff like that, please report it. Thanks.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

johnjohn, here is an offer for you: if you are willing to start a new thread, and exit out of this one, I will engage you in a debate about this subject or any other subject you are interested in discussing. I will respond to each of your points. I promise no personal attacks, no insults. I will ask questions and answer them, and be respectful at all times. If an honest discussion is what you're looking for, I will give it to you. But let's move it to another thread so that this one isn't derailed.

This is a one-time offer.

Just drop it. He's gone for a little while. Stop engaging him.

J

 

[timschochet]

johnjohn, here is an offer for you: if you are willing to start a new thread, and exit out of this one, I will engage you in a debate about this subject or any other subject you are interested in discussing. I will respond to each of your points. I promise no personal attacks, no insults. I will ask questions and answer them, and be respectful at all times. If an honest discussion is what you're looking for, I will give it to you. But let's move it to another thread so that this one isn't derailed.

This is a one-time offer.

Just drop it. He's gone for a little while. Stop engaging him.

J

OK.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I was a believer as a child, agnostic as a young adult, and as close to atheist as I can possibly be at this point. There's just way too many things that go on that "God" would never let happen to good people.

But, I have no problem with believers. In fact, if an atheist is ragging on a believer and being a real; tool about it, I generally leave the conversation liking the believer more than the atheist. I think that's revolting behavior.

Also, although I'm an atheist, I will always bow my head to pray at a wedding or funeral. I'll even recite the Lords Prayer if the group I'm in is saying it. I also say "bless you' when someone sneezes, and offer a thank you when someone says 'God bless you' to me. These gestures cost me nothing at all and I have no problem respecting other peoples' beliefs.

Yeah, a lot of atheists go out of their way to conform, be unobtrusive as possible, and generally try to prove that they aren't secretly Satan worshippers. After all, aren't atheists-according to some polls at least-the most distrusted minority in the country (I think I recall reading that someplace).

I personally don't do most of those things. Why would one bow their head in acknowledgement of something they don't believe in? I would never recite the Lord's Prayer as a non believer-why?

I do say"bless you" when someone sneezes-I don't want ANYONE with the devil in 'em.

I also personally have a hard time "respecting" something I view as nonsense. I "get along" because most religious people are good people and I don't want to offend them. I may respect them as people but I certainly don't respect the belief.