Religion is a complete load of crap.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by The_question
I find it hilarious how athiests feel that they are "logical" beings that are able to reason, yet they fail to recognise that they were created. What kind of a "rational" thinker would dismiss the fact they came from a creator and that they have been put on this earth for a reason.
Seriously wake up. When your time is up, you'll realise it for sure, but for the time being stop with your " I am an intelligent person for not believing in GOD attitude" and fix up.
There is a GOD. There has always been a GOD and there will always be a GOD. Whether you accept it or not is to your own detriment.
Peace out.
Seriously wake up. When your time is up, you'll realise it for sure, but for the time being stop with your " I am an intelligent person for not believing in GOD attitude" and fix up.
There is a GOD. There has always been a GOD and there will always be a GOD. Whether you accept it or not is to your own detriment.
Peace out.
We see you trollin'. We hatin'.
Original post by lightburns
False.
Think of it in terms of unicorns.
I do not believe in unicorns. I have no evidence for the existence in unicorns, therefore, I do not believe that they exist.
I also have no evidence that unicorns do not exist. Therefore, I do not believe that unicorns do not exist.
Due to the lack of evidence, then, unicorns are very unlikely to exist, and I do not believe that they exist or that they do not exist.
Same with God. I do not believe that God(s) exist. It is very unlikely that God(s) exist. But I do not believe in God(s) non-existence either.
Think of it in terms of unicorns.
I do not believe in unicorns. I have no evidence for the existence in unicorns, therefore, I do not believe that they exist.
I also have no evidence that unicorns do not exist. Therefore, I do not believe that unicorns do not exist.
Due to the lack of evidence, then, unicorns are very unlikely to exist, and I do not believe that they exist or that they do not exist.
Same with God. I do not believe that God(s) exist. It is very unlikely that God(s) exist. But I do not believe in God(s) non-existence either.
Like I said, hiding behind semantics.
Also, if you're neither for nor against God, you're Agnostic, or the fence-sitters as they are known. Atheism is totally against the existence of God. Mostly aptly shown by their often touted catchphrase: "there is no God". Note that it's rather definitive in what it's saying, not the wishy washy stuff you tried to pass off as Atheism.
Hylean
There are many who aren't influenced by his extreme branch of Atheism
What do these ‘extreme’ atheists do? What makes them ‘extreme’?
Hylean
he is being treated almost like some form of Atheist Prophet.
In what way do atheists treat Dawkins like, for example, Muslims treat Muhammad?
Hylean
For all Atheists want to hide behind semantics, the act of disbelieving in the existence of something is the exact same as believing in its non-existence.
No, it is not. Having a lack of belief in something is not the same as not believing in something.
Hylean
No, Dawkins just goes around insulting religions
Firstly, I don’t think ‘insult’ is the right word to use.
And, secondly, bearing in the mind the horrible things the Christian and Muslim religions have to say about atheists, it is a bit rich for them to criticise Dawkins for his strong words.
Hylean
when he doesn't even know anything about religion
What is he ignorant about?
Hylean
They also support the removal of children from religious parents whose only fault is to be religious
Where is the evidence that Dawkins thinks children should be removed from religious parents?
Hylean
Atheists have also been known to commit atrocities in the name of Atheism.
Such as?
Hylean
What I would say is that Atheists really need to learn to separate Religion from Religious followers; the two are not the same thing.
In what way are they not the same thing?
Original post by HSG1992
Well I wouldn't say too many actually can. I mean, for example, any Christian who believes in evolution is contradicting their scientific beliefs with their religious ones. And you are correct to say that there is no definite evidence to disprove God's existence, but logic is good enough for me personally.
“This clash [between religion and evolution] is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
- Pope Benedict XVI
Surely it's more logical for an infinite creator to have made the Universe than a pair of random, infinite gases floating around in nothing?
Original post by GodspeedGehenna
We see you trollin'. We hatin'.
Just saying it how it is
Some athiests need to fix up.
Original post by Hylean
Atheism is totally against the existence of God.
No, not really.
Wiki: In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Original post by Hylean
Like I said, hiding behind semantics.
Also, if you're neither for nor against God, you're Agnostic, or the fence-sitters as they are known. Atheism is totally against the existence of God. Mostly aptly shown by their often touted catchphrase: "there is no God". Note that it's rather definitive in what it's saying, not the wishy washy stuff you tried to pass off as Atheism.
Also, if you're neither for nor against God, you're Agnostic, or the fence-sitters as they are known. Atheism is totally against the existence of God. Mostly aptly shown by their often touted catchphrase: "there is no God". Note that it's rather definitive in what it's saying, not the wishy washy stuff you tried to pass off as Atheism.
Most atheists actually believe "There almost definitely is no God". Even Dawkins says he isn't 100%.
Would you say that I am agnostic about unicorns? Believing in unicorns is ridiculous. However, there is a slim, slim chance they exist. Same with God.
I'm sorry OP, but you give Atheists a bad name. I'm an Atheist and I found your rant was pointless, rude and ignorant.
Original post by Hylean
Like I said, hiding behind semantics.
Also, if you're neither for nor against God, you're Agnostic, or the fence-sitters as they are known. Atheism is totally against the existence of God. Mostly aptly shown by their often touted catchphrase: "there is no God". Note that it's rather definitive in what it's saying, not the wishy washy stuff you tried to pass off as Atheism.
Also, if you're neither for nor against God, you're Agnostic, or the fence-sitters as they are known. Atheism is totally against the existence of God. Mostly aptly shown by their often touted catchphrase: "there is no God". Note that it's rather definitive in what it's saying, not the wishy washy stuff you tried to pass off as Atheism.
Wishy washy? It would be just as absurd to completely disbelieve in a God as to completely believe in it. Agnosticism is the only valid viewpoint when it comes to questioning the existance of a god(s), because it is the only one which does not permit a 100% certainity either way. Of course, there are varying degrees of agosticism, which is where you might have got confused with the example used by the previous poster. Atheism, for most people, generally means passive, not active, disbelief, despite the connotations the word has taken on.
And could you name just one example of an atrocity committed in the name of atheism?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by lightburns
Most atheists actually believe "There almost definitely is no God". Even Dawkins says he isn't 100%.
Would you say that I am agnostic about unicorns? Believing in unicorns is ridiculous. However, there is a slim, slim chance they exist. Same with God.
Would you say that I am agnostic about unicorns? Believing in unicorns is ridiculous. However, there is a slim, slim chance they exist. Same with God.
I agree.
But I think we have to be cautious when referring to 'god'. After all, the likelihood of a god existing depends on what we mean when we say 'god'.
Original post by Ghim
I agree.
But I think we have to be cautious when referring to 'god'. After all, the likelihood of a god existing depends on what we mean when we say 'god'.
But I think we have to be cautious when referring to 'god'. After all, the likelihood of a god existing depends on what we mean when we say 'god'.
True, true. I mean it in the sense of Hinduism and Christianity, for example.
If someone slaps a label of 'god' onto a non-supernatural entity, I'm most likely to argue with calling it god.
Original post by giga_grif
Original post by giga_grif
Creationism is rife in America more than it is in the UK that is true, however that does not mean it is not staggeringly ignorant, and I cannot come to terms with god being a rational explanation for the creation of the universe, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence at all for this, and therefore I cannot understand how believing in god can ever be rational. Science cannot answer how the universe was created, but that does not mean that god is the only logical explanation, it means we just don't know yet why the universe came into being.
Really? You seem intently keen on science and logic. Could you perhaps outline some science detailing how the universe came to be? Do not just give me the common "big bang, stuff blew up and stuff came out". I have come to see a lot of the time people who rant about the science of the universe barely know anything about it. And even further, people who rant about logic and rationalism, have barely if never studied philosophy nor logic for that matter. Could you present a logic argument against God and logically tell me why God cannot exist.
Not to say I support fundamentalists nor do I deny the evidence and weight of evolution and quantum physics, however I find it just as weak when people insult theists for being ignorant, when they are just as ill-informed.
There are many theists who study logic, philosophy, physics and quantum mechanics who will be much more informed than the general mass. Yet for some reason these are over looked, and instead we get generalisations and ad hominems riff with straw man arguments. Theism is not equal to idiocy. However I would be interested if you could back up your vehement positive atheism here with knowledge on physics/quantums and / or logic.
Edit: You do realise Richard Dawkins is a great evolutionary biologist however his philosophy and logic is terribly mundane. The God delusion is biology coupled with an inarticulate rant about religion.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Ghim
Original post by Ghim
I agree.
But I think we have to be cautious when referring to 'god'. After all, the likelihood of a god existing depends on what we mean when we say 'god'.
But I think we have to be cautious when referring to 'god'. After all, the likelihood of a god existing depends on what we mean when we say 'god'.
You do realise this makes no sense. The chance of God existing is near 0 and near infinite at the same time. There is no fixed chance or probability of God existing. Nor is there any basis to assume either side.
Original post by Facticity
You do realise this makes no sense. The chance of God existing is near 0 and near infinite at the same time. There is no fixed chance or probability of God existing. Nor is there any basis to assume either side.
Actyually, it does make sense.
Let's say A believes in the existence of the Muslim god and B believes in the existence of a god but doesn't assume anything about this god.
Now, who is more likely to be right? Obviously B. Perhaps there is a god, but that god is the Christian god. In that scenario, B is right but A losses. How one defines god impacts on the likelihood of that god existing.
Original post by JoeLatics
Surely it's more logical for an infinite creator to have made the Universe than a pair of random, infinite gases floating around in nothing?
Surely it's more logical for an infinite creator to have made the Universe than a pair of random, infinite gases floating around in nothing?
Original post by Hylean
Thus the Religion of Dawkinism sweeps through the forum once more, striking blasphemers and heretics from its path so that the righteous Atheists, the Chosen ones of their Prophet Dawkins, shall be saved and led to their Promised Land of No Religions Allowed.
Please, your post is pathetically written, OP. Get some decent arguments. Look at the other threads that have been posted on this topic and get your head out of Dawkins ass. Maybe then I'll deign to debate with you properly.
Thus the Religion of Dawkinism sweeps through the forum once more, striking blasphemers and heretics from its path so that the righteous Atheists, the Chosen ones of their Prophet Dawkins, shall be saved and led to their Promised Land of No Religions Allowed.Please, your post is pathetically written, OP. Get some decent arguments. Look at the other threads that have been posted on this topic and get your head out of Dawkins ass. Maybe then I'll deign to debate with you properly.
A belief system requires five things before it can be classified as a religion:
1) the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship
2) the expression of this in worship
3) a particular system of faith and worship
4) life under monastic vows
5) total devotion to the worship of this controlling power
(Oxford Reference Dictionary, revised 2nd edition (2006), Oxford University Press.)
Five things that atheism is devoid of. It should be clear that atheism, if you are in possession of even the most basic reasoning faculties, is not compatible with the definition of religion.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by DivinityofReason
Ignorance is a dish best served cold.
You should write this 'argument' against mine on a postcard and send it to Dawkins, he would be very pleased.
It would only be polite for you to stop licking your window for 5 minutes and type an actual response.(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by GodspeedGehenna
Are you intending on citing the source for that quote or are you just going to go ahead and pass it off as your own?
how can u beleive in the theory of evolution when its just a theory (a geuss)?
how can u beleive in the theory of evolution when its just a theory (a geuss)?
A hypothesis is a guess- A theory is where there is evidence to support it.
Original post by Ghim
What do these ‘extreme’ atheists do? What makes them ‘extreme’?
You mean, aside from the points mentioned previously?
Original post by Ghim
In what way do atheists treat Dawkins like, for example, Muslims treat Muhammad?
I don't know, maybe the constant using him as a source for evidence; his leading of all the main campaigns; the large support he has from atheists. Obviously it won't be the exact same, but there are similarities.
Original post by Ghim
No, it is not. Having a lack of belief in something is not the same as not believing in something.
Semantics. "There is no God" is not lacking a belief in something, that is a very strong belief in something not existing.
Original post by Ghim
Firstly, I don’t think ‘insult’ is the right word to use.
And, secondly, bearing in the mind the horrible things the Christian and Muslim religions have to say about atheists, it is a bit rich for them to criticise Dawkins for his strong words.
And, secondly, bearing in the mind the horrible things the Christian and Muslim religions have to say about atheists, it is a bit rich for them to criticise Dawkins for his strong words.
So, you claim that calling religious people ignorant, badly educated, stupid and all the rest is not "insulting"? Calling them a danger to children is not insulting? Please, get over yourself.
Most Christians and Muslims have nothing to say about Atheists, on the whole. You'll notice that the majority of threads that discuss this topic are started by Atheists proclaiming that God doesn't exist, or that religious people are stupid, etc. Anecdotal evidence, obviously, but it fits.
Yes, Christians and Muslims (which are not the only religions in the world) do insult Atheists, but more often than not they say they're going to hell, going to suffer eternal damnation, etc. Which, to be fair, is true if you're Christian or Muslim. However, that majority do not. Just like the majority of Atheists do not comment negatively on religious people.
Original post by Ghim
What is he ignorant about?
Hmm, you mean aside from the fact he equates Religion with Christianity and to a lesser extent, Islam and Judaism?
So, let's see, that means he equates Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, the legion of Pagan faiths (ranging from European Paganism to Native American, South American Native, Inuit, Lappi, Sami, and more, Paganism), LeVayan Satanism and Satanism, to give a broad overview, to the Religions of the Book.
Oh, and the fact he equates what the followers of those three religions do to the actual Religion themselves.
Original post by Ghim
Where is the evidence that Dawkins thinks children should be removed from religious parents?
Aside from the fact he's said it a number of times? I'm not going to trawl through youtube to find the specific video.
Original post by Ghim
Such as?
The USSR? Do some research.
Original post by Ghim
In what way are they not the same thing?
Religion A says "love all mankind", follower of Religion A hates gays. This does not mean that Religion A hates gays. An example of a common mistake religion critics make all the time.
Original post by Ghim
No, not really.
Wiki: In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Wiki: In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Semantics. I refer to my point above. I love how people like you all agree "there is no God" until someone equates that with a belief, then you're suddenly all "well, there's a small chance!" Make up your frigging minds. Either there's a chance or there's no God.
Original post by lightburns
Most atheists actually believe "There almost definitely is no God". Even Dawkins says he isn't 100%.
Would you say that I am agnostic about unicorns? Believing in unicorns is ridiculous. However, there is a slim, slim chance they exist. Same with God.
Would you say that I am agnostic about unicorns? Believing in unicorns is ridiculous. However, there is a slim, slim chance they exist. Same with God.
If you admit there is a chance that unicorns exist, then yes I'd call you Agnostic. Meanings of words may be arbitrary, but it does no favour in debates such as these to mislabel yourself and use words in the wrong context.
Atheism: The strict belief there is no God.
Agnosticism: Fence sitting, is waiting for proof of God so neither denies nor accepts the existence of one.
Original post by Beneb
Wishy washy? It would be just as absurd to completely disbelieve in a God as to completely believe in it. Agnosticism is the only valid viewpoint when it comes to questioning the existance of a god(s), because it is the only one which does not permit a 100% certainity either way. Of course, there are varying degrees of agosticism, which is where you might have got confused with the example used by the previous poster. Atheism, for most people, generally means passive, not active, disbelief, despite the connotations the word has taken on.
And could you name just one example of an atrocity committed in the name of atheism?
And could you name just one example of an atrocity committed in the name of atheism?
Yes, but we are talking about Atheism here, which is the opposite to Theism, both of which are 100% for their own viewpoint.
If you accept there is a chance, you're Agnostic. Don't espouse Atheism and then use **** semantic arguments to actually announce you're really Agnostic, but lean more towards disbelief.
Again: "There is no God" =/= "Whilst there might be a God, I believe it to be a slim possibility and therefore prefer to believe there are no higher powers."
USSR. Do some research.
Original post by Retrodiction
A belief system requires fivehings before it can be classified as a religion:
1) the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship
2) the expression of this in worship
3) a particular system of faith and worship
4) life under monastic vows
5) total devotion to the worship of this controlling power
(Oxford Reference Dictionary, revised 2nd edition (2006), Oxford University Press.
Five thing that atheism is devoid of. It should be clear that atheism, if you are in possession of even the most basic reasoning faculties, is not compatible with the definition of religion.
1) the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship
2) the expression of this in worship
3) a particular system of faith and worship
4) life under monastic vows
5) total devotion to the worship of this controlling power
(Oxford Reference Dictionary, revised 2nd edition (2006), Oxford University Press.
Five thing that atheism is devoid of. It should be clear that atheism, if you are in possession of even the most basic reasoning faculties, is not compatible with the definition of religion.
Someone has obviously never heard of hyperbole combined with sarcasm.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Ghim
Actyually, it does make sense.
Let's say A believes in the existence of the Muslim god and B believes in the existence of a god but doesn't assume anything about this god.
Now, who is more likely to be right? Obviously B. Perhaps there is a god, but that god is the Christian god. In that scenario, B is right but A losses. How one defines god impacts on the likelihood of that god existing.
Let's say A believes in the existence of the Muslim god and B believes in the existence of a god but doesn't assume anything about this god.
Now, who is more likely to be right? Obviously B. Perhaps there is a god, but that god is the Christian god. In that scenario, B is right but A losses. How one defines god impacts on the likelihood of that god existing.
No the probablilty is the same for both. Why do you think athiests use the stupid FSM example
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Clearing App
- English PGCE with Philosophy degree
- The Student Room
- Religious education teachers, your experiences?
- Introduction to Buddhism?
- What is the scope and future of RE in schools?
- Philosophy at university!!!
- UCL vs LSE - Anthropology
- Dissertation Survey
- I need help for a levels
- what's up with the mass psychosis on tiktok?
- careers with a philosophy/religion degree?
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- Liverpool
- Nursing placement hours
- PGCE Blues - Think I made a mistake applying?
- Looking to make muslim friends
- Theology and Religion degree
- Being overwhelmed by jargon when learning a new skill
- “It’s culture” but people from Islam are from all different cultures
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
