I'm tired of giving religionists a pass

[Naraoia]

Phred: Strange, I didn't get the impression that people get a free pass for bringing a god into the discussion. Not in the way you describe, anyway. If your problem is that they get a free pass for believing in gods... we'll just have to agree to disagree whether it's a problem. I for one am here to defend science, not to attack people's faith.

Astrid: gaara seconded. Smearing a large group of people without backing it up is, shall we say, bad practice. And instead of going off on wild rants about science, you might want to understand it first. Just a friendly tip from a trainee scientist.

Religious people are not given a 'free pass' in the UK, we treat all religious people exactly the same...

I very highly doubt that, to be honest.

We often pay lip service to religion by using churches for weddings and funerals because they are nice things to do and there's more often than not a party later.

Um, you know, some people marry in a church because they actually believe in that stuff. "Some" might actually be "many" or even "most", though apparently the survey/census data are a bit hard to interpret.

Religions are nothing more than businesses out to control people and make money, even more so in the US.

I think you mean organised religions, and even then, not necessarily all of them.

If you are prepared to make sweeping accusations, be equally prepared to defend them.

So you thing lemmings are for real.

Why, yes they are

 

[Belk]

I've always suspected that atheists deliberately join religious forums just to complain about religion.

I can't imagine a theist joining an atheist forum and writing "I'm so sick of these heathens poisoning our children's minds!" and not getting banned.

A fair point, though I would submit you have not been to many atheist forums. The ones that I have been on do not exclude people of religion. In fact, several that I have been on have lively debates with religous people. Creationists are still mocked of course.

 

[IndieVisible]

Where is the proof there are any atheists? Talk is cheap right? I suspect there really are NO atheists, no such thing, it's a myth. Either they are lying or are delusional.

 

[TomZzyzx]

For far too long religionists have been given a pass. I don't know if it's out of respect or fear or what but... why in the world do most people just give up when a religionist says something about their god? The gods in this world have not been shown to exist, they have not left evidence behind to give us any proof of their being... there is no reason to suggest that we take them seriously at all. Yet, time after time a religonist will inject god into an argument and it is tacitly acknowledged as a being that exists and has properties that we all agree upon.

I do not agree. Nobody can state one true fact about God or any god. Not one. So when discussing the Big Bang you cannot say that "perhaps God created it." You cannot just say that "God is self-existing" when asked where God came from. There is no proof or evidence other than you THINK so. I wouldn't accept this kind of logic from a six-year old.

If, for example, you want to claim that life cannot come from non-life thus a deity is required then you need to show:


[*]which deity did the deed
[*]how the deity came to be
[*]if you claim the deity is eternal then you need to show evidence of same
[*]and then you need to show HOW the deity did the deed


All these things are provided with science. If you want to play in the ballpark it's time you were held to the same standard.

I'm tired of Atheist always getting a pass when Christians can't answer their questions. I guess you haven't heard of the bible, you know that evidence that God exist and that He has left behind. I know, I know, it's not the kind of evidence you want. I agree the Big Bang doesn't point to God, but it does point to a creator of the universe. This creator has to be outside of time and space, and it sure would be nice if He told us who He was and how He did it. You say "all these things are provided with science", ok then, where's you scientific proof that life did come from non-life. While your at it can I have your scientific proof that the universe (physical stuff) came from nothing (non-physical stuff), and how one species evolved into a completely different species.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Here's the interesting thing about it all. Any one of us non-believers can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists on any and all the same grounds you claim your God exists. We find ourselves at an even draw (sometimes even winning in some cases) when debating whether your God, or one made up for the sole purpose of illustrating the irrationality of making such an incredible and baseless claim.

Really? Can you tell me the name of your 2000+ year old book that claims your Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? I didn't think so. Same grounds huh.

 

[AV1611VET]

For far too long religionists have been given a pass.

As we should.

Who says we should have to jettison God from our beliefs, then replace Him with Mother Nature, who subjects us to "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" without mercy?

No, thanks.

We love God because God first loved us and gave Himself for us, that we might be conformed to the image of His Son.

We're not going to just set Him aside because atheists demand evidence that we can't provide.

And the fact is, when the Rapture occurs, some think that that shout that is going to be heard will be the words, "Stand aside!" as first the graves open up and the dead in Christ arise, then we which are alive and remain will be caught up to meet Him in the air -- and so shall we ever be with our Lord.

In short, atheists will stand aside as we who are given a pass will be going upward.

Good word choice in your OP --

 

[Delphiki]

Evos are the religionists. They believe without proof.
First you show life can come from non life....then we can talk.


Not in the real world!
If I grab a fairy tale book, we have the same standard.

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube

 

[Jazer]

Atheists believe what they can be shown.

I do not think so. If people went with the evidence, scientific or otherwise, they would not be an Atheist. If there is no evidence for a God, then there is no evidence that there is not a God.

 

[Jazer]

We're not going to just set Him aside because atheists demand evidence that we can't provide.

There is plenty of evidence that there is a benefit to a belief in God.

 

[Freodin]

There is plenty of evidence that there is a benefit to a belief in God.

Fine!

Then I have to wonder why people seem so surprised when atheists bow to their god of the scientific method and mother nature.

 

[Kazenoryu]

There is plenty of evidence that there is a benefit to a belief in God.

There is also plenty of evidence that there is a detriment to a belief in God or a god.

I do not think so. If people went with the evidence, scientific or otherwise, they would not be an Atheist. If there is no evidence for a God, then there is no evidence that there is not a God.

No, however lack of evidence against, does nothing to affirm the existence of the unproven. It simply provides a standstill in an argument. However, the more we learn and understand about the universe pushes the room or even the need for God or a god further and further by the wayside.

I think that following the scientific evidence, no one would be religious. Upon understanding scientific method and how attributing the existence of the universe or anything for that matter is devoid of scientific merit and does nothing to further our understanding of the universe.

 

[No Time]

Where is the proof there are any atheists? Talk is cheap right? I suspect there really are NO atheists, no such thing, it's a myth. Either they are lying or are delusional.

That could be true about some people because there are also no astamp collectors, no aSanta believers, no afootball fans, no aghost believers and lots of other non a**** believers.

There are however [and I suspect you are one of them] lots of people who do not believe in religions OTHER than their own [or should I say their parents religion] should they be considered to be partial Atheists?

Why would anyone believe one religion over another when there is no more reason to believe in one than there is in any of them? [Indoctrination is the reason why] either they are all right or they are all wrong. [Who is the Atheist now?]

 

[AV1611VET]

There are however [and I suspect you are one of them] lots of people who do not believe in religions OTHER than their own [or should I say their parents religion] should they be considered to be partial Atheists?

What religion was Mohammad's parents?

What religion was Joseph Smith's parents?

What religion is your parents?

 

[No Time]

There is plenty of evidence that there is a benefit to a belief in God.

Please give one benefit. [other than it makes you feel good because fried bacon and eggs can do that for me]

 

[No Time]

There are however [and I suspect you are one of them] lots of people who do not believe in religions OTHER than their own [or should I say their parents religion] should they be considered to be partial Atheists?

What religion was Mohammad's parents?

What religion was Joseph Smith's parents?

What religion is your parents?

They were some of the lots of people who perhaps did not believe in religions.

Still answering questions by asking questions I see, like the well trained creationist you are.

 

[Freodin]

What religion was Mohammad's parents?

What religion was Joseph Smith's parents?

What religion is your parents?

Beware the myopic literalist!

 

[No Time]

Beware the myopic literalist!

AV1611VET is not a complete literalist he is a partial literalist, he only takes the parts that suit him literally, all of the others can take a hike, another name for him would be a cherry picker, although in fairness he's no different from all the rest, they all believe what they want to believe and they disregard the rest, they live with whatever falls into their trained comfort zone.

 

[Greg1234]

There is also plenty of evidence that there is a detriment to a belief in God or a god.



No, however lack of evidence against, does nothing to affirm the existence of the unproven. It simply provides a standstill in an argument. However, the more we learn and understand about the universe pushes the room or even the need for God or a god further and further by the wayside.

I think that following the scientific evidence, no one would be religious. Upon understanding scientific method and how attributing the existence of the universe or anything for that matter is devoid of scientific merit and does nothing to further our understanding of the universe.

What we have is the fact that we are heading towards a non-mechanistic universe. Further evidence for the superiority of the ancients.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET is not a complete literalist he is a partial literalist, he only takes the parts that suit him literally, all of the others can take a hike, another name for him would be a cherry picker, although in fairness he's no different from all the rest, they all believe what they want to believe and they disregard the rest, they live with whatever falls into their trained comfort zone.

Unlike scientists, who will take anything they can be convinced is evidence, form six theories out of these conflicting bits of data, say they can't arrive at a conclusion, and then go back to bed.

The moon is an excellent example.

I say the moon was created ex nihilo by God, and that's that -- case closed.

Scientists say six different things about the moon, and that's that -- case closed.

So while I'm "cherry picking", scientists are accepting rotten cherries as viable evidence.

 

[Ration]

Well... if you are looking for a laugh, you have to go to the comedy shows.

<3 Ricky Gervais.