10 things Atheists and Christians agree on

[john9blue]

For some reason I just can't stop giggling.

lol, because we've been through this a million times already?

I'm pretty sure that last time you claimed everything was a belief. Like, thinking that gravity is real is also a belief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/scien ... terstitial

pwn

I sense that you have failed to comprehend the article.

Maybe you should look up "emergent" in both a dictionary of philosophy and in one of theoretical physics.

...what? it was an article i read recently that, funnily enough, was relevant to snorri's claim. and how does the word "emergent" apply here? and what makes you think i don't understand it? man, so many unfounded claims in such a simple post! how do you do it?

[Army of GOD]

1. See religion thread
2. Read opening article
3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.
4. Laugh at Jay
5. See the phrase "you're wrong" and mentally facepalm
6. Avoid posting because while every single thing in religion threads is opinion, people manage assume they're always right anyway.

[MeDeFe]

lol, because we've been through this a million times already?

I'm pretty sure that last time you claimed everything was a belief. Like, thinking that gravity is real is also a belief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/scien ... terstitial

pwn

I sense that you have failed to comprehend the article.

Maybe you should look up "emergent" in both a dictionary of philosophy and in one of theoretical physics.

...what? it was an article i read recently that, funnily enough, was relevant to snorri's claim. and how does the word "emergent" apply here? and what makes you think i don't understand it? man, so many unfounded claims in such a simple post! how do you do it?

Well, Snorri says that you made some outlandish claims about the theory of gravity, the article you linked to mentions the theory of gravity, other than that I see no relevance. How your providing a link to the article constitutes an "pwn" is not immediately apparent. Incidentally, this is also what makes me believe you have failed to comprehend the article, especially the term "emergent", which appears to be rather central.

[Woodruff]

Well #1 is full of misleading statements.

It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.

Oh PLEAASE.

It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.

and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.

YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.

Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!

It's your life's mission to do everything you can to prove to us that Christians just suck, isn't it?

Sorry if I take offense at people misrepresenting my faith.

In which case, you really should be beating yourself about the head and shoulders with a stick. At least.

[Haggis_McMutton]

This is just more proof that modern atheism is a cult. The true freethinkers have already realized that.

Aren't you the guy who said you believe in god because "that many people can't be wrong and besides, pascal's wager, best to hedge my bet" ? Hearing you talk about "true freethinkers" really is a hilarious. Did you perhaps read an article about such people once?

Anyway, moving on.

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617

1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

I'm assuming you're going for definition five. Well, if the respective idea is reason and the scientific method, then yes we might just be devoted to that.

We're a cult of reason and science, guys, high five.

Or were you just going for: cult sounds bad, cult is associated with strong belief, some atheists have strong beliefs, therefore I'm making atheism sound bad?

Also, "absolute agnostics", at least in the popular meaning, are hypocrites if they don't apply the same level of uncertainty in their real lives. Should i walk to work today? But what if a brick falls of a building and hits me in the head, maybe i should wear a helmet. Ok then i'll take the car, but what if someone hits me? Hmm, now that i think about it, tomorrow might be the apocalypse, maybe i should go and buy supplies instead. etc etc
If you can reject all of those possibilities off hand everyday because they are improbable and there's no new evidence to make you reconsider that decision in said morning, then you have no reason to not also reject the possibility of the existence of god, until new evidence appears.
Actually, if you go by the notion that actions, not words define your beliefs, what exactly does an agnostic do that's different from an atheist?(a regular one, not a "militant"). Atheists ignore religion and such and just live their lives, agnostics do the same ...

One last thing, about that article:

So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist

Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

[Baron Von PWN]

1. See religion thread
2. Read opening article
3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.
4. Laugh at Jay
5. See the phrase "you're wrong" and mentally facepalm
6. Avoid posting because while every single thing in religion threads is opinion, people manage assume they're always right anyway.

Well he was.

[Barramundi Dan]

I think I should point out that there are hundreds of millions of people on this planet who are not Christians and are not athiests either. You dont have to be a Christian to believe in God.

Christians dont have a monopoly on God.

[jay_a2j]

I think I should point out that there are hundreds of millions of people on this planet who are not Christians and are not athiests either. You dont have to be a Christian to believe in God.

Christians dont have a monopoly on God.

Oh but God has a monopoly on us!

[PLAYER57832]

I think I should point out that there are hundreds of millions of people on this planet who are not Christians and are not athiests either. You dont have to be a Christian to believe in God.

Christians dont have a monopoly on God.

Oh but God has a monopoly on us!

When you actually listen to him. Here is a clue, Jay, when you begin thinking its OK to violate God's tenants in your attempts to justify them.. you are wrong. I certainly don't claim to be a perfect Christian by any stretch, but your attacks are most definitely NOT from God.. and pretending your bigoted hatred and blindness is somehow "following God" is blasphemy. Here is a hint.. Christ ALWAYS chose tolerance over condemnation, the exception was ONLY when he spoke to those who considered themselves to be more pure, more Godly, more "correct" than others...namely the Sadducees and Pharisees.

[AAFitz]

and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.

always the excuse of the self-righteous to shed blood.

You should read what Jesus wrote. You might learn something.

[AAFitz]

3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.

I agree, they are more for the advanced reader.

The issues concerning atheism and the possibility of a creator of the universe are very shallow, and short one liners are all that's necessary to fully explain the possibilities.....to five year olds

[Army of GOD]

3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.

I agree, they are more for the advanced reader.

The issues concerning atheism and the possibility of a creator of the universe are very shallow, and short one liners are all that's necessary to fully explain the possibilities.....to five year olds

No.

You can argue a point in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

Like what everyone else in this thread has done.

[PLAYER57832]

I think I should point out that there are hundreds of millions of people on this planet who are not Christians and are not athiests either. You dont have to be a Christian to believe in God.

Christians dont have a monopoly on God.

Several people, including myself, have made that point.

I debated from the point of religions versus atheism (though technically some religions, such as scientology might be considered atheistic because they don't believe in god or gods).

[Snorri1234]

I sense that you have failed to comprehend the article.

Maybe you should look up "emergent" in both a dictionary of philosophy and in one of theoretical physics.

...what? it was an article i read recently that, funnily enough, was relevant to snorri's claim. and how does the word "emergent" apply here? and what makes you think i don't understand it? man, so many unfounded claims in such a simple post! how do you do it?

Well, Snorri says that you made some outlandish claims about the theory of gravity, the article you linked to mentions the theory of gravity, other than that I see no relevance. How your providing a link to the article constitutes an "pwn" is not immediately apparent. Incidentally, this is also what makes me believe you have failed to comprehend the article, especially the term "emergent", which appears to be rather central.

It's irrelevant anyway because I was using "real" in the sense that when you jump from a building you fall down. That "belief" is not on par with belief in god/gods.

John's definition of belief is so vague as to be meaningless.

[PLAYER57832]

One point made in the NPR interview bears repeating.

Moderates within Islam have an obligation to combat the extremists. This center is to promote that moderate Islamic vision.

[nietzsche]

We are entering the Age of Science !!

Accept it, we are trying to convince them in order that nobody makes fun of them in the future for their imaginary friends.

Those 10 points were correct in a 90%, and I'm sure we could find more.

Now in the Age of Science, we'll need something to keep us together, a common goal, and although I disagree in the thesis that the moral corollary of atheism is humanism, it's as good as any moral basis we can think of (as saxi said).

But nevertheless, we will accept worshipers in our Age Science, we will have places for them, the whole Jerusalem will be an Insane Asylum.

[InkL0sed]

We are entering the Age of Science !!

That's what they said during The Enlightenment, in the 18th century.

God, I'm afraid, is alive and well and not going anywhere.

[PLAYER57832]

We are entering the Age of Science !!

That's what they said during The Enlightenment, in the 18th century.

God, I'm afraid, is alive and well and not going anywhere.

The two are by no means mutually exclusive, except to extremists and idiots on both sides.

[tzor]

You can argue a point in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

But can you do it well? That's the key.

Anyone can give you a once ounce shot of coffee, but that's not the same as a shot of expresso.

You may think you can do it, but as the old physics joke goes, "when someone states that something is 'intutively obvious to even a casual observer,' you can be guartenteed that it's really so complex that it's impossible to explain within the confines of the textbook."

[Maugena]

How did Christianity spread?
Was it through a compelling argument? Or maybe it was the love of Christ?
More like a lot of bloodshed and force.
While there are a few, if not many, cases where Christianity was imposed upon a population for the sake of unity, I believe there were very few that were actually willing to hop onto the Christian band wagon with just the thought of some random person dying for you to save your soul.

[InkL0sed]

We are entering the Age of Science !!

That's what they said during The Enlightenment, in the 18th century.

God, I'm afraid, is alive and well and not going anywhere.

The two are by no means mutually exclusive, except to extremists and idiots on both sides.

Intellectually, sure, but it hasn't been that way historically.

[Army of GOD]

We are entering the Age of Science !!

I'm sorry, but we've been in the Age of Science since classical times...

[AAFitz]

3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.

I agree, they are more for the advanced reader.

The issues concerning atheism and the possibility of a creator of the universe are very shallow, and short one liners are all that's necessary to fully explain the possibilities.....to five year olds

No.

You can argue a point in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

Like what everyone else in this thread has done.

You can argue in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

That doesn't mean you have to however, or that it makes the full argument.

In any case, Im sorry if you disapprove of my writing style. I assure you however, yours is of no concern to me.

And if you think the difference in ideology between Atheists and Christians is answerable in one paragraph....well, lets just say Im not surprised...and refer you to my comment about the ability of a five year old.

[Army of GOD]

3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.

I agree, they are more for the advanced reader.

The issues concerning atheism and the possibility of a creator of the universe are very shallow, and short one liners are all that's necessary to fully explain the possibilities.....to five year olds

No.

You can argue a point in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

Like what everyone else in this thread has done.

You can argue in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

That doesn't mean you have to however, or that it makes the full argument.

In any case, Im sorry if you disapprove of my writing style. I assure you however, yours is of no concern to me.

And if you think the difference in ideology between Atheists and Christians is answerable in one paragraph....well, lets just say Im not surprised...and refer you to my comment about the ability of a five year old.

Quality, not quantity, my friend.

[AAFitz]

3. Read all posts minus AAFitzs', because they are so God damned long.

I agree, they are more for the advanced reader.

The issues concerning atheism and the possibility of a creator of the universe are very shallow, and short one liners are all that's necessary to fully explain the possibilities.....to five year olds

No.

You can argue a point in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

Like what everyone else in this thread has done.

You can argue in a short, few-sentenced paragraph.

That doesn't mean you have to however, or that it makes the full argument.

In any case, Im sorry if you disapprove of my writing style. I assure you however, yours is of no concern to me.

And if you think the difference in ideology between Atheists and Christians is answerable in one paragraph....well, lets just say Im not surprised...and refer you to my comment about the ability of a five year old.

Quality, not quantity, my friend.

Well since the majority of your posts seem to be whining that you dont like what I have to say...right back at you stalker.