Does God Exist?

[SunWuKong]

does God exist? or, are there "higher powers" out there?


debate.

[rice cracker]

Oh Jesus.

[TB4000]

^You two have a spat about the Lord or something earlier? :o

[yoMAMA]

I was a hardcore atheist...

but now i'm not sure.

also, it depends on which kind of "god" you are talking about:

the tough love single god of the judeo-christian-islam tradition, or the multi-gods of the eastern tradition like hinduism or taoism....or the other gods of the beliefs of indigenous peoples.

I think one of the problems for me is that the "god" market has so many players.

the industry needs to consolidate. :biggrin:

[SunWuKong]

funny story - so a friend of mine has started going to church recently. at first it was for the free food that this place offered, but i think now he's actually interested in it. one time they were in bible study talking about Jesus washing his disciples' feet, and the lessons behind that. and my friend decided to mention a Buddhist poem about how it's not necessary to clean a mirror when it's dusty because the mirror and the dust are two different things (or something like that). and everybody at the bible study got pissed at him. to put it into context, this is a Taiwanese church and all of the members are from Taiwan, the service and discussions are held in Mandarin.

[VV o n g B a]

i know this is a joke post, but whatever.

i think that a way to prove that there's a god or some higher power out there is to witness a miracle. not only must we witness it, we must be able to test and probe it till our hearts' content.

if there was a christian that could conjure miracles on demand, we could ask to test his ability to say, walk on water or turn water into wine. we would need similar requests for all other religions.

afaik, the only scientific testing of religious subjects that has yielded some success is the study of monks/nuns (buddhists and christian) deep in meditation/prayer. the region of the brain that govern's self identity shuts down and they perceive that they are part of a much greater whole.

the other study is a of distant prayers for the terminally ill. they had ppl from diverse group of religions pray for ppl who had no hope. i don't remember the precise outcome, but i have the impression that there were mixed results according to how the data was interpreted. a group that received anonymous prayer actually did live longer, but that result only came out after they reinterpreted the original data after finding nothing.

both of these efforts are "nice tries," and the 2nd effort comes closer to what i'm wanting. but what we need are indisputable miracles. apparently those are hard to come by. if there are no verifiable miracles, there's no reason to believe in any specific deity. who gives a goddamn about a deity that can't conjure up some miracles? wtf use is he/she/it?

unfortunately a study of miracles would say nothing about an afterlife or soul. that would also need to be proven.

i remember a study of ppl dying and it measured their weight just before and after death. apparently dying causes u to lose weight. could it be that ur soul has mass? of course i might be remembering this incorrectly. might it be possible to eliminate the possibility of exhaled gas? if they put a dying guy in an airtight chamber, and it weighted less after he died it seems like that would indicate something. surely this has been done somewhere... if it hasn't, we need volunteers.

[snailpoo]

Wongba, the point of this exercise, I think, is to promote tollerance... on BOTH sides. Until there is scientific proof either way, atheists are just as wrong as the evangelicals, and the evangelicals are just as wrong as the atheists, when they ridicule anyone who does not share their beliefs (or non-beliefs).


i'll start a new one for you:

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=31872

The only thing is that this is really a side issue.

The point of the past debates wasn't about whether God exists or not. It was about didu's bigotry in claiming that religous people were "inferior." It was about the constant negative stereotyping.

The reason why a discussion about bigotry and intollerance degenerated down to whether God exists or not is that this is Didu last remaining defense of his bigotry: this the last defense he has to defend that his claim that religious people were "inferior" is not bigotted. Because no one is saying that atheism is wrong, and because that Didu is obviously making the claim that religion is, Didu has the burden of proof, something that he claims repeatedly to be able to meet, yet repeatedly fails to do so.

Didu, short of extending you an engraved invitation to debate, I don't know how to make it any more clear. Yet again, for the umpteenth time, I'm asking you to prove that you're views on religion don't make you the very same intollerant hypocrite you accuse religious people of being. Are you not calling people inferior for not sharing the same BELIEF as you, and isn't that the very same cause of harm for which you decry religion?


For the rest of you, I don't know how to make this any more clear. Regardless about your feelings about religion, there's just something fundamentally wrong about saying, that x group of people are inferior and that such a belief in the inferiority isn't bigotted because "I can prove it" (even though I will categorically refuse to prove it each time I'm asked to).

Each time, Asians are brought up to be whatever stereotype, nerdy, geeky, asexual, whatever, there's always some idiot who will make that same claim, that such a stereotype is defendable because it is true. How many times have we objected to such idiotic stereotyping? Why is it when such idiocy is used against Asians is it horrible and deplorable, but when it is used against religion, it's oh, suddenly justifiable?

Now, there are two ways that Didu has attempted to justify this hypocrisy.

First he says that Asian is an innate characteristic, and that religion is not. Forgetting about the the whole "prove religion argument for a second here," for those of you who agree with him, how do you then address the bigots who ridicule Asians for their culture? How do you then address the xenophobes who rant about Asian immigrants not assimulating, and not throwing away their cultural identity?

And second, Didu attempts to justify his bigotry by saying that he is right. Science proves him right. Before we go into his claims, how many times have you seen shoddy "facts" used to justify that blacks were this and that Jews were that? So, how would you feel, how would you react to a bigot who says that science proves that Asians are ...<insert whatever stereotype here>? ...which brings us back to, where's the proof?

[yoMAMA]

this is a Taiwanese church and all of the members are from Taiwan, the service and discussions are held in Mandarin.

I heard taiwanese churches are hardcore fundamentalist....

[Emperor_Mike]

As far as I'm concerned, yes, God does exist.

There's simply no other explanation as to why I've managed to make it to my 25th year of life (soon to be 26th) with my nasty habit of putting myself in harms way for the sake of fun.

Hah!

[VV o n g B a]

For the rest of you, I don't know how to make this any more clear. Regardless about your feelings about religion, there's just something fundamentally wrong about saying, that x group of people are inferior and that such a belief in the inferiority isn't bigotted because "I can prove it" (even though I will categorically refuse to prove it each time I'm asked to).there's are limits to ur statement. if someone believed the earth was flat and made a religion out of it, he is in fact inferior to others (in this particular respect) b/c all available evidence says that he's wrong. if there are ppl that believe the literal interpretation of what the bible says of creation, they are in fact inferior (again only in this particular aspect) b/c all available evidence says they are wrong. i don't mind intelligent design advocates so much b/c at least they are willing to study the evidence and adapt their explanation for life. literal creationists willfully ignore all evidence contrary to what they believe.

it's not a stereotype and it's not unfair to say that they have inferior beliefs if they define themselves as believing ideas that have been busted for over a hundred years.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

God forgives even Yankee fans, telemarketers, and originators of chain letters.

[snailpoo]

there's are limits to ur statement. if someone believed the earth was flat and made a religion out of it, he is in fact inferior to others (in this particular respect) b/c all available evidence says that he's wrong. if there are ppl that believe the literal interpretation of what the bible says of creation, they are in fact inferior (again only in this particular aspect) b/c all available evidence says they are wrong. i don't mind intelligent design advocates so much b/c at least they are willing to study the evidence and adapt their explanation for life. literal creationists willfully ignore all evidence contrary to what they believe.

it's not a stereotype and it's not unfair to say that they have inferior beliefs if they define themselves as believing ideas that have been busted for over a hundred years.


Two problems:

1. Do the people who make these type of generalizations here limit themselves to specifically these provable issues?

And when they don't, as Didu hasn't,

2. Do the people who make thes unqualified generalizations actually prove their claims of inferiority?

[VV o n g B a]

Two problems:

1. Do the people who make these type of generalizations here limit themselves to specifically these provable issues?

And when they don't, as Didu hasn't,

2. Do the people who make thes unqualified generalizations actually prove their claims of inferiority?1. no, i'm sure they don't.
2. i haven't read much of what didu has posted, so i'm not qualified to comment, but i'm sure u wouldn't pose the question if u couldn't back it up w/ evidence for a "no" answer. i got the gist of ur argument and i don't really disagree except to say that there are instances of ppl that believe in bunk and i don't feel it's bigoted to say so.

[deez nuts]

only when i'm about to blow my load.

[DragonKnight]

only when i'm about to blow my load.
Lolz! :biggrin:

[didu]

I really really hate it when the mods just delete my posts which I put efforts into writing, the least the mods can do is moving them into the new thread. Now I have to respond all of snailpoo's attack again.

There are two main themes of snailpoo's arguements against me so far:

(1) I'm intolerant against religion and religious people. This intolerance is as evil as racist hate against Asian (or any other race of) people.

(2) In order for me to convince him that god does not exist, I have to prove that god does not exist.

Now, regarding my alleged intolerance and hatred against religion and religious people -- well I totally deny it. To me religion is just a belief or theory which I disagree with. I believe religious people are mislead and I would like a debate with them to convince them of my views. My views on religion is no different from my views on an erroneous mathematical theory. I hate religion less than I hate a mathematical theory -- what kind of sane person would have personal hate against a mathematica l theory? How can people have personal hatred against a mathematical formula? There is no hate there, just a desire to debate and correct a theory that I think is wrong.

The second part of snailpoo's argument is essentially about the burden of proof. The concept of a personal god is that there is a supernatural being out there who not only created the universe but also actively participates in the affairs of human society. To an atheist, this is not self-evident, therefore the burden of proof is on the religious people to prove the existence of god. To make an analogy, if I walked up to you and told you that there was a celestial teapot revolving around the sun between Saturn and Jupiter, you would be asking me to produce some irrefutable evidence before you were to believe me.

However, if snailpoo and other religious people on this forum agree to a debate, I'd be more than happy to present the arguments and evidience from my side of the view to show that why there is almost certainly no god.

So, snailpoo, what do you say?

[didu]

only when i'm about to blow my load.

You got a soft spot for kittens of something?

http://web2.airmail.net/pirate/god-kills-kitten2.jpg

[Arex]

Holy shit, how does SWK have over 21,000 posts??

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I believe religious people are mislead and I would like a debate with them to convince them of my views.

Doesn't the fact that you have this drive to convince the religious to abandon their religious views indicate intolerance? This is in addition to the fact that you and many others already have an unconscious knee-jerk tendency to speak of the religious and religions as something of farfetched ridicule that your overall tone when discussing religion naturally sounds condescending. It's almost like the white people that don't get it when they patronize and talk down to minorities and then wonder why people get angry or turned off when they think they're doing something completely fine or innocent (a la white man's burden).

Before you argue that debating against religion does not equal hoping or wishing for the other side to abandon their religious views, what would be the point of convincing them otherwise in terms of your stake? It's funny, at least on here, you see many more anti-religious views being pushed and virtually zero religious views promoted with the exception of (maybe) when certain religions are attacked and members of faith come to protect or defend their own views.

The problem is that many people who believe that religious people are mislead and desire debate are the very ones that complain when the religious try to push their views onto others. Aren't they doing the exact same thing?

[didu]

Doesn't the fact that you have this drive to convince the religious to abandon their religious views indicate intolerance?

This is starting to get ridiculous. Does the word "intolerance" have only a negative meaning? I've stated many many times that I regard religion as a belief or theory. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of religion is equivalent to the errorenous equation of 1+1 = 3. If I were to say to you that 1+1=3 does not make sense, would you say that I'm intolerant to that particular equation, or my objection to that equation is unjustified? Am I not allowed to point out what I think is wrong and ask for a debate?


This is in addition to the fact that you and many others already have an unconscious knee-jerk tendency to speak of the religious and religions as something of farfetched ridicule that your overall tone when discussing religion naturally sounds condescending.

Alright, I cannot read your mind, so why don't you tell me how you want my overall tone should be? You guys keep labelling me with terms such as "knee-jerk tendency", "intolerance", and "hypocrisy", but at the same time you have neither accepted my invitation to a debate, nor responded with any actual arguments that support your belief. I'm starting to think that you are afraid to a debate.


It's almost like the white people that don't get it when they patronize and talk down to minorities and then wonder why people get angry or turned off when they think they're doing something completely fine or innocent (a la white man's burden).

Ok, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just tell me what I don't get? How have I patronized you? Have I called you with any provocative terms? I've repeatedly ask you to set the ground rules for the debate and given you every opportunity to convince me of your views, yet you still haven't agreed to a debate.


Before you argue that debating against religion does not equal hoping or wishing for the other side to abandon their religious views, what would be the point of convincing them otherwise in terms of your stake?

I have never ever ever said that I do not wish to change your mind through this debate. The whole point of having a debate is to convince other people of your views. All I want to do is debate the existence of a personal god and the influence of religion on human society, and I hope that by the end of the debate, religous people like you would agree with me that there almost certainly isn't a personal god and human society would be better off without religions. I can only hope that at the end of the debate, you will agree with the logic and the facts and aceept my views, and if you don't, I will give up trying to convince you.

You may also argue that it is pointless for me to debate with you since you are not going to change your mind no matter what I say, then I will happily stop trying to have a debate with you. You would not be the first religious person to do, much smarter and learnt people before you have chosen faith over science despite of overwhelming scientific facts against religion, take Kurt Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise) for example.

Remember, I'm asking you to set the ground rules of the debate with me so that the debate would seem fair to you.


It's funny, at least on here, you see many more anti-religious views being pushed and virtually zero religious views promoted with the exception of (maybe) when certain religions are attacked and members of faith come to protect or defend their own views.

Really? Is this comment of yours only restricted to this forum or the whole world? I will agree with you if you only meant on this forum, but in the whole wide world it is the exact opposite -- I don't really need to provide evidence for this, do I?


The problem is that many people who believe that religious people are mislead and desire debate are the very ones that complain when the religious try to push their views onto others. Aren't they doing the exact same thing?

Actually, it's absolutely NOT the same thing. Religon is not based on scientific facts, it's based on faith which can be both illogical and unscientific. Atheism is based on logic, rational thoughts and scientific facts, and that's why atheism is worth promoting. Even in America, the vast majority of primary and secondary schools only teach science and logic to their students, are you saying this is wrong?

Finally, if you do not wish to have a debate with me, then please just say so. I don't actually want to keep inviting you to do something that you really don't wanna do.

[Yeahman]

This is starting to get ridiculous. Does the word "intolerance" have only a negative meaning?
You're starting to sound like Randall Terry. I don't think you realize how close your attitudes are to the fundamentalist evangelicals.


The typical secular humanist view of religion is that merely an extension of culture. You don't have to practice it, you can disagree with it, you can promote your own alternative, but why would you take pleasure in destroying it? Why would you want public policy to suppress it? It is intolerance to want to prevent people from living according to their culture.

Of course the exception is that it should not be tolerated if it causes social harm but then only that portion which causes the social harm should be condemned. Of course social harm is subjective. Our only recourse is to accept the social mores of the times and work towards change if we disagree. We can pick a side but we should recognize that we do so because of our own beliefs and not because it is an absolute truth that all people should be forced to accept. We should recognize that we can make no better objective moral argument than the other side. When we realize this, we can have great respect for one another while still standing on opposite sides of an issue.

[Golden Monkey]

Holy shit, how does SWK have over 21,000 posts??

More evidence that there is no God!

Would a caring God allow for that? I think not.

[yoMAMA]

You got a soft spot for kittens of something?

http://web2.airmail.net/pirate/god-kills-kitten2.jpg

LOL

god bless this thread.

[yoMAMA]

ever wonder what god gets in his/her inbox?


mystery no more.:biggrin:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/pdf/20061211_essay.pdf

[Napoleon Chynamite]

This is starting to get ridiculous. Does the word "intolerance" have only a negative meaning? I've stated many many times that I regard religion as a belief or theory. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of religion is equivalent to the errorenous equation of 1+1 = 3. If I were to say to you that 1+1=3 does not make sense, would you say that I'm intolerant to that particular equation, or my objection to that equation is unjustified? Am I not allowed to point out what I think is wrong and ask for a debate?

Except that religion is more than just a "theory" or "belief" for many. It's not like a fucking law of gravity or physics that people like to sit around and talk about. You don't seem to understand the idea that people of faith don't like to hear it from people who like to constantly tell them why their entire belief system which has great impact on their spiritual, emotional, and perhaps physical lives by which they live is wrong.

I'll give you this. I believe that out of all the religions out there, only one can be right, how about that? Therefore all the others (to me) must be wrong. But I don't go around telling people that they're living a lie, nor do I make an effort to convince them and tell them they are "sheep" (as you referenced in another thread) or tell them that they are mislead because I understand what their faith means to them. So how about, again, just leaving them (and us) the fuck alone?

Alright, I cannot read your mind, so why don't you tell me how you want my overall tone should be? You guys keep labelling me with terms such as "knee-jerk tendency", "intolerance", and "hypocrisy", but at the same time you have neither accepted my invitation to a debate, nor responded with any actual arguments that support your belief. I'm starting to think that you are afraid to a debate.

Actually, it's quite the contrary, although you can keeping thinking that way if it pleases you and makes you feel smug. I've been through so many damn arguments re: religion on this forum and elsewhere that I am sick of it and it gets nowhere. I have also read through many debates regarding religion by people who are much much much much much more informed on the issue and topic than we are, and it never gets anywhere either and no conclusions are ever made. Let's be clear. I have no desire to PROVE or CONVINCE anyone else to follow what I believe when it comes to religion. Frankly, at this point, I just wish people would, again, leave it the fuck alone because the discussions almost always begin as an attack on religion and religious people.

It's akin to people who like to discuss whether or not black people are actually scientifically dumber than other ethnicities or races based on "scientific evidence." There is no scientific evidence that proves or suggests this, just like there is no scientific evidence that tells us whether or not God or god(s) exist or do not exist, and the purposes of those who start such discussions reek of ulterior motives. Many who believe that science can prove that black people are mentally inferior are racist, as are many who believe that science can prove that religion is false are already biased against the religious.

Ok, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just tell me what I don't get? How have I patronized you? Have I called you with any provocative terms? I've repeatedly ask you to set the ground rules for the debate and given you every opportunity to convince me of your views, yet you still haven't agreed to a debate.

I do recall you referring to religion as the sum of the "figment of human imagination" of some sort. The manner and way in which you speak of Christianity and religion in general is condescending and patronizing, as if you're trying to explain to little kids why Santa Clause doesn't exist. I'm not unaware that quite a few of you on here view God as merely another version of Santa Clause on a larger scale.


I have never ever ever said that I do not wish to change your mind through this debate. The whole point of having a debate is to convince other people of your views. All I want to do is debate the existence of a personal god and the influence of religion on human society, and I hope that by the end of the debate, religous people like you would agree with me that there almost certainly isn't a personal god and human society would be better off without religions. I can only hope that at the end of the debate, you will agree with the logic and the facts and aceept my views, and if you don't, I will give up trying to convince you.

Again, it's the approach. Much like many whites who already see themselves as above other minorities, they come in here with the attitude that they are the more 'educated', 'logical', and 'rational' ones. Perhaps you don't see it because it's been so engrained in the way you see religion.

Really? Is this comment of yours only restricted to this forum or the whole world? I will agree with you if you only meant on this forum, but in the whole wide world it is the exact opposite -- I don't really need to provide evidence for this, do I?

It doesn't really matter does it. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Racism is racism. Intolerance is intolerance. Just because there are Christian fundamentalists or evangelists out there with condescending attitudes that push their views onto others doesn't mean it should be okay here or anywhere else. That's like saying we should be allowed to be racist against white people here because overall whites are in power everywhere else and have had the chance to wield their racism elsewhere. Sadly enough, there are those that actually believe this. And not that this matters once again, but yes, since I hang out with fairly liberal people, from my experiences I have heard more anti-religious or anti-Christian comments than otherwise; before you get up all on my case, I'm sure if I hung out with right-wing conservatives or hillbillies it'd be a different case.



Actually, it's absolutely NOT the same thing. Religion is not based on scientific facts, it's based on faith which can be both illogical and unscientific. Atheism is based on logic, rational thoughts and scientific facts, and that's why atheism is worth promoting. Even in America, the vast majority of primary and secondary schools only teach science and logic to their students, are you saying this is wrong?

What condescension you ask? What knee-jerk tendencies you ask? What shitty manner of speaking you ask? I rest my case. Tolerance my ass.

Finally, if you do not wish to have a debate with me, then please just say so. I don't actually want to keep inviting you to do something that you really don't wanna do.

See above responses. How long have you been here on YW? It's amazing how sometimes it seems as if there are more threads talking about the woes of religion than there are about the woes of racism toward AA's on an AA political empowerment site. That's why I'm just going to respond with smart remarks from now on because you people really always just say the same thing over and over again. Just leave us the fuck alone. Thank you much.

[snailpoo]

However, if snailpoo and other religious people on this forum agree to a debate, I'd be more than happy to present the arguments and evidience from my side of the view to show that why there is almost certainly no god.

So, snailpoo, what do you say?

What do I say? Actually, it's what did I say, what have I been repeating, over and over, and over again as you endless babble about having this "proof" of yours that you somehow can never even start posting.

What do I say?

Well, we started off with:

Let's ignore the hypocrisy inherent in being intolerant of religion for the religious intollerance of a few, that is, of course, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist. No? Then let us move on.

Then there's
Sigh. Debate is like chess. When you casually dismissed my earlier question that atheism is unproven by stating that religion is unproven, guess what you did?

You don't get the benefit of this argument until you prove otherwise. Sadly, atheism has a reason for atheists to kill non-atheists. Should we ban atheism too?

And then there's
Isn't that exactly what I have done? The last time around, you simply asserted that there was no God. No proof. No argument. One sentence.

And what I'm beginning to suspect is that if you could actually prove your point, you would have done it three or four weeks ago, the first time I asked you to prove it.

Or there's

I have spelled it out for you. I've asked you repeatedly to prove that God doesn't exist. Every single time, you simply come back with a one sentence assertion. For the eight or ninth time, PROVE IT.

You've wasted more ink on saying how you're willing to prove it in just this last post than you've actually spent trying to prove it in every single post you've responded with thus far.

Or there's

And there's your problem. You can't distinguish between your belief and actual facts. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but as I keep saying, over and over and over, PROVE IT.

Or there's

After failing to actually provide any proof, after being asked for countless numbers of times, you then build upon your ASSERTION that God doesn't exist in your horrible attempt to differentiate one protected class from another. You hinge your argument upon your ASSERTION that Religion is a belief or a theory made up by people. Guess what, you STILL, after three? four? weeks, HAVE NOT PROVED IT. You CANNOT BUILD UPON YOUR ASSERTION until you PROVE IT.

And those are just the ones I could find on short notice, all the way down to:

Didu, short of extending you an engraved invitation to debate, I don't know how to make it any more clear. Yet again, for the umpteenth time, I'm asking you to prove that you're views on religion don't make you the very same intollerant hypocrite you accuse religious people of being. Are you not calling people inferior for not sharing the same BELIEF as you, and isn't that the very same cause of harm for which you decry religion?


:rolleyes:

[didu]

You're starting to sound like Randall Terry. I don't think you realize how close your attitudes are to the fundamentalist evangelicals.

I sound like Randell Terry? How so? Did I ask you to hate atheist people? Did I ask atheist to hate religions people? I'm asking you to have a debate, you just keep insulting me.


The typical secular humanist view of religion is that merely an extension of culture. You don't have to practice it, you can disagree with it, you can promote your own alternative, but why would you take pleasure in destroying it?

Taking pleasure in destroying your religion and culture? Where the hell does that come from? Have I forced you to abandon religion? Have I forced you to accept my views? Have I not been calling for a debate in which you can actually convince me of your views? It looks like that you guys are taking pleasure in insulting me.


Why would you want public policy to suppress it? It is intolerance to want to prevent people from living according to their culture.

What the hell are you talking about? Have I said I wanted to legislate laws to ban religion and persecute religious people? Have I said that I want to force religious people to stop practising there religion? All I want is for you guys to have a debate with me about the existence of god, how is that preventing people from living according to their culture?



Our only recourse is to accept the social mores of the times and work towards change if we disagree. We can pick a side but we should recognize that we do so because of our own beliefs and not because it is an absolute truth that all people should be forced to accept. We should recognize that we can make no better objective moral argument than the other side. When we realize this, we can have great respect for one another while still standing on opposite sides of an issue.

Does that fact that we disagree about something mean that we cannot talk about why we disagree and try to find a way to learn how each other think? If your central argument is that atheists cannot understand religion unless they become religious, then I will truly give up.

[didu]

Except that religion is more than just a "theory" or "belief" for many. It's not like a fucking law of gravity or physics that people like to sit around and talk about.

Please take a minute and read what you wrote. You just claimed that to religious people, the concept of a personal god is not a theory or belief, but a fact. Now, facts are supported by evidence and logic, if the existence of God was a fact, then there should be no problem for religious people to prove it to me.

Gravity and other physics laws are indeed just theory, but there are an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence to support them. And if somebody managed to uncover further evidence against the theory of gravity, atheists such as myself would feel perfectly happy to abandon the theory of gravity, or any other physics theory. Now, can religious people such as yourself do the same about religion?


You don't seem to understand the idea that people of faith don't like to hear it from people who like to constantly tell them why their entire belief system which has great impact on their spiritual, emotional, and perhaps physical lives by which they live is wrong.

First of all, get your facts straight. In the real world, atheists don't go door preaching their beliefs, religious people do that. I've been on this forum for around a year now and this is the first/second time that I actually actively tried to start a debate about religion. So, don't use the word like "constantly" to describe me.

I actually understand why some religious people absolutely refuse to question their faith, and if you were one of these people, I'd stop trying to have a debate with you. Are you one of these people?

In fact, you just highlighted one of the biggest differences between atheists and religious people -- there are topics that religious people absolutely refuse to question, but there are no topic that an atheist would refuse to debate.


I'll give you this. I believe that out of all the religions out there, only one can be right, how about that? Therefore all the others (to me) must be wrong. But I don't go around telling people that they're living a lie, nor do I make an effort to convince them and tell them they are "sheep" (as you referenced in another thread) or tell them that they are mislead because I understand what their faith means to them. So how about, again, just leaving them (and us) the fuck alone?

Are you serious? Do you actually have any faith or confidence in your religion? If you truly believed that your god was the true god, then wouldn't that imply that anyone who does not believe in your god is going to offend your god and ending up spending their after lives in hell for eternity, or be erased from the universe? Isn't this fate far worse than death? How could you possibly stand by and let other people meet this terrible fate without at least doing everything you can to save them? If you really believed in god, your attitude of not making an effort to convince non-believers would be worse than not lending a helping hand to someone committing suicide.



Actually, it's quite the contrary, although you can keeping thinking that way if it pleases you and makes you feel smug.

The contrary of what? You labelled me with terms such as "knee-jerk tendency", "intolerance", and "hypocrisy", not the other way around. So what contray are you talking about here?


I've been through so many damn arguments re: religion on this forum and elsewhere that I am sick of it and it gets nowhere. I have also read through many debates regarding religion by people who are much much much much much more informed on the issue and topic than we are, and it never gets anywhere either and no conclusions are ever made.

Really? Since you've been through so many debates by people who are much much much much more informed on this issue and topic than you are, maybe you can point me to some of these debates and maybe I can learn something from them.


Let's be clear. I have no desire to PROVE or CONVINCE anyone else to follow what I believe when it comes to religion. Frankly, at this point, I just wish people would, again, leave it the fuck alone because the discussions almost always begin as an attack on religion and religious people.

Does this mean that you refuse to have this debate with me? If so, why the fuck did you not say so in the first fucking place? Why the fuck did you have to call me "intolerant" and other offensive terms if you never intend to debate with me? Why the fuck did you even bother replying to this thread at all?


It's akin to people who like to discuss whether or not black people are actually scientifically dumber than other ethnicities or races based on "scientific evidence." There is no scientific evidence that proves or suggests this, just like there is no scientific evidence that tells us whether or not God or god(s) exist or do not exist, and the purposes of those who start such discussions reek of ulterior motives.

I'm not saying black people are dumber than other ethnicities at all. But I would not be against an unbiased objective scientific research to investigate it -- in the same way that I would not be against an unbiased objective scientific research to investigate whether Asian people are in general shorter than white people, or more likely to have a certain type of disease. Does this mean I'm a racist? I don't think so. There is no scientific conclusion about the intelligience of black people, because there has not been an unbiased objective scientific research to invesigate it. You are saying that a research on the intelligience of black people can have ulterior motives, I agree with that. But that does not mean a debate/research about the existence of god also must have an ulterior motive. What could this ulterior motive be? You cannot possibly think that the atheists want to have a war on religion and religious people.


Many who believe that science can prove that black people are mentally inferior are racist, as are many who believe that science can prove that religion is false are already biased against the religious.

Now, the most important strengths of scientfic research are verifiability and reproducibility. If a racist carried out a biased investigation which concluded that black people are dumber, then someone who's not racist would be able prove the weakness and idiocy of this racist research. This is exactly the point of a debate: I give you my side of the evidence and you can either accept it or rejected with your own evidence, and eventually we will reach the bottom of the truth.



I do recall you referring to religion as the sum of the "figment of human imagination" of some sort.

Did I really say that? What was the term that I actually used?


The manner and way in which you speak of Christianity and religion in general is condescending and patronizing, as if you're trying to explain to little kids why Santa Clause doesn't exist.

So let me get this straight: are you trying to say that you are refusing to debate with me because you think I have bad manners? If so, then can you please tell me how I can politely say that I do not believe there exists a personal god and the belief of the existence of a personal god is false?

Oh, btw, do you believe in Santa Clause? If you do, why? If you don't, why not?


I'm not unaware that quite a few of you on here view God as merely another version of Santa Clause on a larger scale.

A larger scale? Well, let's put it this way: polytheist believe in many gods, theists believe in 1 god, atheists believe in 0 god. On the scale of the number of gods we believe in, atheists are just one fewer god than the theists.


Again, it's the approach. Much like many whites who already see themselves as above other minorities, they come in here with the attitude that they are the more 'educated', 'logical', and 'rational' ones. Perhaps you don't see it because it's been so engrained in the way you see religion.


Ok, I'm going to ask this one more time: how would you like me to debate with you? What kind of manners would you find acceptable?


It doesn't really matter does it.


Actually it matters a lot. Saying there is an elephant in the room when there isn't one is a lie -- it doesn't matter there are actually many many elephants outside the room. You said the following:


at least on here, you see many more anti-religious views being pushed and virtually zero religious views promoted with the exception of (maybe) when certain religions are attacked and members of faith come to protect or defend their own views


My response was that in the real world, religous views are being pushed far more aggressively than atheist views, and the views expressed in this forum do not truely reflect the situation in the real world. Does this not matter?


Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Racism is racism. Intolerance is intolerance.


Water is wet, what's your point?


Just because there are Christian fundamentalists or evangelists out there with condescending attitudes that push their views onto others doesn't mean it should be okay here or anywhere else.

For the last time, how did I push my views onto you? Have I threatened that you must believe my views or I will do something bad to you? I've been asking you to a debate, a debate is a discussion in which you are free to express your views on a certain topic for the purpose of covincing other people (me for example) of your views. How is this forcing my views on you?


That's like saying we should be allowed to be racist against white people here because overall whites are in power everywhere else and have had the chance to wield their racism elsewhere.

Wanting to overthrow a major power is rather different from wanting to have a debate, isn't it? How does being racist to white people have anything to do with wanting to have a discussion about religion? Would you equal being racist to white people with wanting to have a discussion about why there cannot be an infinite number of prime numbers?


Sadly enough, there are those that actually believe this.


Honestly, given the discussion we have had so far, I don't know what you believe in.


And not that this matters once again, but yes, since I hang out with fairly liberal people, from my experiences I have heard more anti-religious or anti-Christian comments than otherwise; before you get up all on my case, I'm sure if I hung out with right-wing conservatives or hillbillies it'd be a different case.

Well, I actually hang out with both fairly atheist people and very very religious people, I actually studied Christianty with Jehovah's witnesses for about 3 months, and I really like those people. So don't accuse for hanging with the wrong crowds.


What condescension you ask? What knee-jerk tendencies you ask? What shitty manner of speaking you ask? I rest my case. Tolerance my ass.


It seems that everything that you disagree with is condensension to you. If you don't like my views, please attack me views, don't attack me.


See above responses. How long have you been here on YW? It's amazing how sometimes it seems as if there are more threads talking about the woes of religion than there are about the woes of racism toward AA's on an AA political empowerment site. That's why I'm just going to respond with smart remarks from now on because you people really always just say the same thing over and over again. Just leave us the fuck alone. Thank you much.

If you read my previous post, I believe I said that I've been here on YW for about a year. If you could be bothered to look through my posts, you'd realise that my comments on the "Elton John" thread was the first time that I actually got a bit serious about religion. I decided to ask you religous people to have a debate with me because you posted the following comments on the "Which topic you refuse to debate" thread:

I'm just going to write out short replies to those who are anti-religion just for fun from now on to see what they say since they've already made up their minds about how evil and oppressive we are. Might as well enjoy the power that they think we have over society~~

Your remarks are not smart, there is no intelligence in it, you are probably just pulling shit out of your arse to waste my time. So, I'm going to ask you one last time:

Are you going to have a debate about the existence of a personal god with me?

It's a simple question. You can answer "yes" and we will have a debate, or you can answer "no". If you answer "no", I will leave you the fuck alone.

[didu]

What do I say? Actually, it's what did I say, what have I been repeating, over and over, and over again as you endless babble about having this "proof" of yours that you somehow can never even start posting.


You have really managed to say nothing with a lot of words. Good efforts.

I'm not sure whether you actually understood my question. The question that I was asking with "what do you say?" is the following one:

Are you willing to have a debate with me about the existence of a personal god?

This is a yes/no question. You can answer "yes" which means that you want to have a debate with me about the existence of a peronal god, or you can also "no" which means that you do not want to have a debate with me about the existence of a personal god. So what is your answer?

Now, don't go around accusing me of having bad manners again. I explained my question in the most unambiguous way I can think of because I just want a definite answer from you.

[didu]

Would a caring God allow for that? I think not.

Who said God had be caring?

[didu]

ever wonder what god gets in his/her inbox?


mystery no more.:biggrin:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/pdf/20061211_essay.pdf

Very funny, I especially liked that Richard Dawkins reference. :biggrin:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Please take a minute and read what you wrote. You just claimed that to religious people, the concept of a personal god is not a theory or belief, but a fact. Now, facts are supported by evidence and logic, if the existence of God was a fact, then there should be no problem for religious people to prove it to me.

I'm pretty sure people are unable to prove the existence of God, which is kinda why they call it "faith".

Just like how you can't prove that God doesn't exist. What's the point here?

Gravity and other physics laws are indeed just theory, but there are an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence to support them. And if somebody managed to uncover further evidence against the theory of gravity, atheists such as myself would feel perfectly happy to abandon the theory of gravity, or any other physics theory. Now, can religious people such as yourself do the same about religion?

Please. Is this part of your response to me or just trying to sneak in one or two initial jabs to score a few points for the atheists since you're probably not going to get (at least with me) the debate that you were salivating for?

First of all, get your facts straight. In the real world, atheists don't go door preaching their beliefs, religious people do that. I've been on this forum for around a year now and this is the first/second time that I actually actively tried to start a debate about religion. So, don't use the word like "constantly" to describe me.

Excuse me, and people with anti-religious agendas are the ones preaching here. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand when I say that just because there are annoying religious people that like to push their views onto others doesn't justify you doing the same thing. As for my use of the word "constantly", you're still responding to me and refusing to budge, aren't you?

I actually understand why some religious people absolutely refuse to question their faith, and if you were one of these people, I'd stop trying to have a debate with you. Are you one of these people?

I've questioned my faith several times. I've read debates between intellectuals that have addressed all of my doubts. I still have plenty of questions. Perhaps it's the fact that my faith has survived constant barrages of questioning that makes it all the more amazing to me. In the end often no conclusion is ever reached from these exchanges and I eventually decide to stick with my faith for my own reasons. There's nothing new so far that you've offered to this discussion beyond the typical condescending attitude that you have toward religion. If the words "leave us the fuck alone" had any meaning, that should answer your question about whether or not I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say.

In fact, you just highlighted one of the biggest differences between atheists and religious people -- there are topics that religious people absolutely refuse to question, but there are no topic that an atheist would refuse to debate.

See above. This is a pointless statement that serves nothing but your desire to make atheist people look good and religious people look bad.

Are you serious? Do you actually have any faith or confidence in your religion? If you truly believed that your god was the true god, then wouldn't that imply that anyone who does not believe in your god is going to offend your god and ending up spending their after lives in hell for eternity, or be erased from the universe? Isn't this fate far worse than death? How could you possibly stand by and let other people meet this terrible fate without at least doing everything you can to save them? If you really believed in god, your attitude of not making an effort to convince non-believers would be worse than not lending a helping hand to someone committing suicide.

Wow, how awesome that you know EXACTLY what I believe about my God. How awesome that you assume that I feel that going door to door and proselytizing and preaching is the best way for me to spread the word and honor the creator. How awesome you are for basically taking jabs and insinuating that I don't truly believe. Any more assumptions and judgments on your part? And you wonder why people here have problems with how your going about things.

And here is the best part. If I did go around telling people then you'd accuse me of being another annoying religious person pushing my views on others. :rolleyes: You people are all the same. We do one thing and you call us annoying and patronizing evangelists. We do another and you call us hypocritical and our faith fake.

The contrary of what? You labelled me with terms such as "knee-jerk tendency", "intolerance", and "hypocrisy", not the other way around. So what contray are you talking about here?

Contrary in that you think that I am "afraid" of having a debate with you. During my 4-5 years here on YW, I've both read (here and elsewhere) and engaged myself in shitloads of debates regarding religion, all of which ended in either flaming or stalemates. In the end, it has all left a bad taste in my mouth because nobody's mind is ever going to change anyway. From my experiences, people here tend to debate to push and convince, not to learn.

Really? Since you've been through so many debates by people who are much much much much more informed on this issue and topic than you are, maybe you can point me to some of these debates and maybe I can learn something from them.

Why don't you do a search on Google? They are everywhere.

Does this mean that you refuse to have this debate with me? If so, why the fuck did you not say so in the first fucking place? Why the fuck did you have to call me "intolerant" and other offensive terms if you never intend to debate with me? Why the fuck did you even bother replying to this thread at all?

Because you're annoying and I'm pretty sure it's not just me that thinks you're being just as intolerant and condescending as those condemning right-wing religious fundamentalists.

You cannot possibly think that the atheists want to have a war on religion and religious people.

hahahahahahahahaha

Are you shitting me? You're going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that there are no (or few) atheists out there with ulterior motives or political agendas? Give me a fucking break. I'm not saying that they're all out to commit genocide or annihilate people of faith, but seriously man. In your eyes it's almost like atheists are just these innocent people who like to follow "logic" and "rational" thinking. :rolleyes:

Did I really say that? What was the term that I actually used?

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you did. If you'd like I can go back and search your posts.

Edit: Here is your post -

You don't need to prove atheism because the concept of god, supernatuarl powers, heavens and hell are just human imaginations. Atheism is self evident, it's just like I don't need to prove I'm not a god.

If that's not an example of self-righteous circular arguing I don't know what is.

So let me get this straight: are you trying to say that you are refusing to debate with me because you think I have bad manners? If so, then can you please tell me how I can politely say that I do not believe there exists a personal god and the belief of the existence of a personal god is false?

I think your attitude re: religion is such that debating with you would be pointless, not to mention all you've said so far to support your atheist ideology is nothing I haven't heard before.

Oh, btw, do you believe in Santa Clause? If you do, why? If you don't, why not?

Because I stayed up all night and Santa Clause never came. =)


Ok, I'm going to ask this one more time: how would you like me to debate with you? What kind of manners would you find acceptable?

I would find it acceptable if you would just stfu, because I think I've made it quite clear that you've proven to be more offensive than anything.

Actually it matters a lot. Saying there is an elephant in the room when there isn't one is a lie -- it doesn't matter there are actually many many elephants outside the room. You said the following:

My response was that in the real world, religous views are being pushed far more aggressively than atheist views, and the views expressed in this forum do not truely reflect the situation in the real world. Does this not matter?

These two portions deserve the same response. Manifestation of racism and discrimination against minorities is much more prevalent in America than manifestation of racism and discrimination against whites. This matters when addressing social issues and reform. But it does not justify racism and discrimination against whites. I'm not sure why this is so mind-boggling to you and you keep bringing up how there are so many religious views out there being pushed. No shit. Irrelevant. Please do not bring this up again.


Water is wet, what's your point?

Another difficult thing to understand? Intolerant liberals are just as bad as intolerant conservatives even if there are more conservatives around to fuck things up. I really don't give a shit if there's more of one over the other. Please do not bring up the "but religion is pushed a lot more in society" card again.

For the last time, how did I push my views onto you? Have I threatened that you must believe my views or I will do something bad to you? I've been asking you to a debate, a debate is a discussion in which you are free to express your views on a certain topic for the purpose of covincing other people (me for example) of your views. How is this forcing my views on you?

You push your views onto me the same way the media pushes its views onto the public. But I can't really blame the media since nobody FORCES me to buy magazines or watch movies right? And even if the media or magazines push for certain values or ideals, nobody is FORCING me to believe what they have to say right? :rolleyes: Give me a break. Isn't seeking to convince (a term you used) others a form of pushing one's views toward others?

Well, I actually hang out with both fairly atheist people and very very religious people, I actually studied Christianty with Jehovah's witnesses for about 3 months, and I really like those people. So don't accuse for hanging with the wrong crowds.

Um....I didn't accuse you of hanging with the wrong crowds....I get this feeling you have trouble following what I'm trying to say. I was pretty much telling you of my experiences with anti-religious talk and how I've experienced much more of that than pro-religious talk. Maybe it's just b/c I've never been to the red states, I don't hear much of the right-wing condemning variety; yet again, this is moot.

It seems that everything that you disagree with is condensension to you. If you don't like my views, please attack me views, don't attack me.

I attack your attitude because it's what fuels your views.

Your views go hand in hand with your attitude. I seriously can't see myself debating with someone that already believes that atheism should be promoted whereas religion should not. As someone who calls himself "tolerant", shouldn't he be okay with the promotion of all views as long as they don't support say, murder or decidely harmful elements toward society? And please do not respond with a bunch of links about how religion has been responsible for the deaths of millions over history. Yes, and so has basically every single other point of view or ideology ever made famous.

If you read my previous post, I believe I said that I've been here on YW for about a year. If you could be bothered to look through my posts, you'd realise that my comments on the "Elton John" thread was the first time that I actually got a bit serious about religion. I decided to ask you religous people to have a debate with me because you posted the following comments on the "Which topic you refuse to debate" thread:

A year huh. Okay, my point was that if you've been here for about a year then you may have noticed how often religion is attacked.

Your remarks are not smart, there is no intelligence in it, you are probably just pulling shit out of your arse to waste my time. So, I'm going to ask you one last time:

I'm not sure what the point of this was other than just to somehow make me feel bad because I'm supposedly not smart.........or intelligent......or something.

Are you going to have a debate about the existence of a personal god with me?

Leave us the fuck alone. I think I said that a few times already.

It's a simple question. You can answer "yes" and we will have a debate, or you can answer "no". If you answer "no", I will leave you the fuck alone.

Leave us the fuck alone. Lol

You come onto here, ask people to debate with you because you're ready to spill the beans on how great you think atheism is and how shitty religion is, complete with incorrect assumptions and the preconceived notion that we are less rational or logical. And you wonder again, why people are upset.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Have I not been calling for a debate in which you can actually convince me of your views? It looks like that you guys are taking pleasure in insulting me.

*sigh* Seriously, don't kid yourself. Your purpose of debate is not to see if you can be convinced. It's to convince. So stop playing that innocent game of saying that 'I'm not trying to push anything here, in fact, I'm letting you preach to me' crap.

What the hell are you talking about? Have I said I wanted to legislate laws to ban religion and persecute religious people? Have I said that I want to force religious people to stop practising there religion? All I want is for you guys to have a debate with me about the existence of god, how is that preventing people from living according to their culture?

Why do you so desire to convince others that there is no God or that religion is misleading, especially when you take into account how much it means to people? Why are you so self-righteous as to think that your atheist views are worth promoting because religion is merely the sum of "human imagination"? Your attitude is exactly the same as the whites who believed that they need to civilize the "savages" and "heathens" and couldn't understand why people rebelled or got angry. The difference is, you proclaim yourself to be tolerant. It's this very attitude that fuels the actions of those who seek to erase the ideas and beliefs of other people.

[nameless]

I'm pretty sure people are unable to prove the existence of God, which is kinda why they call it "faith".

Just like how you can't prove that God doesn't exist. What's the point here?

Well, since Christianity bases the existence of God from what is written in the Bible, isn't it enough to point out the fallacies and unreasonable assertions provided by the Bible?

[didu]

I'm pretty sure people are unable to prove the existence of God, which is kinda why they call it "faith".

Some people? Do they include you? Thanks for proving my point.


Just like how you can't prove that God doesn't exist. What's the point here?


Do you understand the concept of burden of the motherfucking proof? Do I have to use the fucking celestial teapot analogy again?


Please. Is this part of your response to me or just trying to sneak in one or two initial jabs to score a few points for the atheists since you're probably not going to get (at least with me) the debate that you were salivating for?


Instead of dodging my question by attacking me personally, can you just be a man and actually answer my fucking question directly? Of course I'm going to attack your views -- that's what a debate is for. I'm supposed to agree with whatever you say without questioning it?


Excuse me, and people with anti-religious agendas are the ones preaching here. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand when I say that just because there are annoying religious people that like to push their views onto others doesn't justify you doing the same thing. As for my use of the word "constantly", you're still responding to me and refusing to budge, aren't you?

How the fuck have I pushed my views on you? Have I told you to tell god to fuck off and burn your bible? All I've done is asking you to explain to me why any one should believe in god, and you call this pushing my views on you?



I've questioned my faith several times. I've read debates between intellectuals that have addressed all of my doubts. I still have plenty of questions.

Oh really? So you not only just accept something that you don't even completely believe yourself, but also don't want other people to question it. I guess that's faith at work here.


Perhaps it's the fact that my faith has survived constant barrages of questioning that makes it all the more amazing to me.

Crimes and corruptions have also survivied constant efforts to rid of them, do they seem amazing in a good way to you too? What about diseases that's lasted as long as human history?


In the end often no conclusion is ever reached from these exchanges and I eventually decide to stick with my faith for my own reasons.

You are welcome to share your reasons with us here, that's the whole point of the debate, if your reasons are rational and logical, maybe you can convince me too.


There's nothing new so far that you've offered to this discussion beyond the typical condescending attitude that you have toward religion.

What the fuck? How can you accuse me of offereing nothing new, when you haven't given me a chance to start this discussion? I've spent the last 3 days defending my reason for starting a debate from your constant accusations of intolerance.


If the words "leave us the fuck alone" had any meaning, that should answer your question about whether or not I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say.

Why the fuck did you even bother posting to this thread in the first place, if all you want is to be left the fuck alone? How the fuck would I have replied to you if you had just stayed the fuck out of this thread? I didn't even invite you to debate with me here in the first place, my initial invitation to a debate was to snailpoo.



See above. This is a pointless statement that serves nothing but your desire to make atheist people look good and religious people look bad.


How can you possibly know my statements will be pointless when you refuse to let me make it in the first place?


Wow, how awesome that you know EXACTLY what I believe about my God. How awesome that you assume that I feel that going door to door and proselytizing and preaching is the best way for me to spread the word and honor the creator. How awesome you are for basically taking jabs and insinuating that I don't truly believe. Any more assumptions and judgments on your part? And you wonder why people here have problems with how your going about things.

It's fucking awesome since you gave the fucking confession here yourself. You claimed to believe in a god, but you cannot be bothered to tell other people why you believe in your god or why they should also believe in your god. What kind of weak shit is this? Don't tell me it's because you respect other people's views -- do you respect other people's wills to commit suicide too?


And here is the best part. If I did go around telling people then you'd accuse me of being another annoying religious person pushing my views on others. :rolleyes: You people are all the same. We do one thing and you call us annoying and patronizing evangelists. We do another and you call us hypocritical and our faith fake.

You are fucking wrong again. If you indeed went door to door preaching your religion, we'd be having the actual debate about god already. Instead, you don't even have enough faith in your own belief to have a debate with me. If you indeed went preaching door to door, I'd call you an honest religious person and I'd respect you for your honesty -- even though I'd disagree with your views; if you had not participated in this thread at all, I'd call you a private person and leave you the fuck alone; but the fact is that since you don't have faith in your religion, you just decided to come here and put me under a barrage of personal insults so that I'd be to busy too actually question your religion in which you have little confidence.



Contrary in that you think that I am "afraid" of having a debate with you.


Why don't you just fucking come straight out and have a debate with me then? Oh wait, you wanna be fucking left alone, well then I guess you better get the fuck out of this thread then.


During my 4-5 years here on YW, I've both read (here and elsewhere) and engaged myself in shitloads of debates regarding religion, all of which ended in either flaming or stalemates. In the end, it has all left a bad taste in my mouth because nobody's mind is ever going to change anyway. From my experiences, people here tend to debate to push and convince, not to learn.

If what you said was true, then I have to ask you again why you even bothered to reply to this thread in the first fucking place? I was only talking to snailpoo here before you fucking jumped in. If you really hated having debate about religion, why the hell didn't you just keep your fingers away from the keyboard? The fact is that you've posted almost as much as I did in this thread and you still claim not wanting to have any part of this? I think the "h" word would be rather accurate in describing you here.



Why don't you do a search on Google? They are everywhere.


WTF?! First you said you'd seen too many of these debates both on this forum and else where, then when I asked you to show me just one of the debates that you saw, you turned around to tell me to search on google. Is it too much to ask you to just back up your own fucking argument for once?


Because you're annoying and I'm pretty sure it's not just me that thinks you're being just as intolerant and condescending as those condemning right-wing religious fundamentalists.

Was I fucking annoying you in this thread? Did I ask you for a debate at the beginning? My first post in this thread was to defend myself from snailpoo for wanting to have a debate. You just kept calling me intolerant and condencending -- I wasn't even fucking talking to you in the first place. Who the hell is the annoying one here?


Are you shitting me?

If I wanted to shit you, you'd know by being covered in shit.


You're going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that there are no (or few) atheists out there with ulterior motives or political agendas? Give me a fucking break. I'm not saying that they're all out to commit genocide or annihilate people of faith, but seriously man. In your eyes it's almost like atheists are just these innocent people who like to follow "logic" and "rational" thinking. :rolleyes:

What are you? A fucking internet mind reader? Did your god come into your fucking dreams and warned you about the coming war between atheists and christians? What fucking atheists agenda can you possibly know? You are the one who refuses to even hear what atheists have to say! I'd really recommend a reality check for yourself if you really think atheists are gonna wage a war on religious people. Atheists have never waged a war on religious people and never will. Do you know why? Atheists disapprove of religion because religions make people hurt each only because of what they believe. Therefore, it would be totally against the principle of atheism to wage a war against religion purely on the grounds of a disagreement of views.


Honestly, I'm pretty sure you did. If you'd like I can go back and search your posts.

Edit: Here is your post -

Bravo, you got me there! Congrats! You've taken the first step towards being a rational person and basing your views on evidence. I didn't use the term "figment of human imagination", but I did say that religion was just human imagination -- and that's my view. Logically speaking, anything that humans can think of, but cannot prove to exist is just human imagination. God is something that humans can think of, but cannot prove to exist, therefore, god is just human imagination. Do you see a flaw in my logic?



If that's not an example of self-righteous circular arguing I don't know what is.

Again, the burden of the motherfucking proof of god is on you, not us atheists.


I think your attitude re: religion is such that debating with you would be pointless, not to mention all you've said so far to support your atheist ideology is nothing I haven't heard before.

My attitude? You guys kept labelling me of intolerance and hypocrisy when I kept inviting you a debate to convince me, and you are saying I have bad attitude? I haven't even been able to say anything about views because you guys just wouldn't let me. How can you possibly know what I have to say when you haven''t allowed me to say it?



Because I stayed up all night and Santa Clause never came. =)


Did you pray all your life and see if God would perform a miracle? If you did, did he come? If you didn't, why do you still believe he exists?



I would find it acceptable if you would just stfu, because I think I've made it quite clear that you've proven to be more offensive than anything.


Fact: this thread is started because I asked it to be started, so that I can debate about the existence of god with people who want to debate with me.

Fact: you've said more once in this thread that you don't wanna be part of this debate.

Conclusion: you are the one who should STFU.


These two portions deserve the same response. Manifestation of racism and discrimination against minorities is much more prevalent in America than manifestation of racism and discrimination against whites. This matters when addressing social issues and reform. But it does not justify racism and discrimination against whites. I'm not sure why this is so mind-boggling to you and you keep bringing up how there are so many religious views out there being pushed. No shit. Irrelevant. Please do not bring this up again.

Racism is about hating people purely on the basis of their races. Having doubts about religion is about questioning a belief that's held only by certain people.

People are born to races, race is something that a person cannot change and has no choice of. Therefore, hating a person because of something that he has no control of is unjustified.

People are not born to religions. Religion is not yet part of human beings' DNA. At moment of birth, a person is neither religious nor atheist. A religious person becomes religious due to direct outside/external influences. At some point in a religous person's life, he/she made a decision to become religious for one or more reason. Therefore, questioning religion is the same as questioning why someone made a particular decision.


Another difficult thing to understand? Intolerant liberals are just as bad as intolerant conservatives even if there are more conservatives around to fuck things up. I really don't give a shit if there's more of one over the other. Please do not bring up the "but religion is pushed a lot more in society" card again.

The word "intolerant" has different implications in different contexts. Being "intolerant" of different races or cultures is totally unacceptable. Being "intolerant" of crimes, suffering and lies is totally acceptable. "Exterminate" a race is the most terrible crimes in the world, "extermiante" a disease is one of the most wonderful things in the world.


You push your views onto me the same way the media pushes its views onto the public. But I can't really blame the media since nobody FORCES me to buy magazines or watch movies right? And even if the media or magazines push for certain values or ideals, nobody is FORCING me to believe what they have to say right? :rolleyes: Give me a break. Isn't seeking to convince (a term you used) others a form of pushing one's views toward others?

Again, I posted my views in a public forum. I did not send you PMs or scream my views in your face. I've only been asking religious people to give me an opportunity to explain my view to you, and so far the religious people on this forum have denied my request. So, don't fucking accuse me of pushing my views onto you.

The media pushs their views because they are much much much bigger than I am, you cannot get away from media unless you can live without TV or any form of pop culture, but you can certainly get away from me. The title of this thread is "Does God Exist", nobody forced you to post in this thread. I didn't address any post to you to begin with, so you didn't have to reply to my first post. If you wanted to totally ignore me, you could've put me on yoru ignore list. So why the fuck haven't you done any of these if you so fucking wanted to not get involved?



Um....I didn't accuse you of hanging with the wrong crowds....I get this feeling you have trouble following what I'm trying to say. I was pretty much telling you of my experiences with anti-religious talk and how I've experienced much more of that than pro-religious talk. Maybe it's just b/c I've never been to the red states, I don't hear much of the right-wing condemning variety; yet again, this is moot.

Actually I did have trouble following what you had to say -- because it just didn't make any sense to me. But since you thought you could boast more credibility to your posts by telling me what kind of people you hang around, I thought it'd be unfair if I didn't do the same.


I attack your attitude because it's what fuels your views.

Your views go hand in hand with your attitude. I seriously can't see myself debating with someone that already believes that atheism should be promoted whereas religion should not.


So tell me, did I get my attitude because of my views, or did I get my views because of my attitude? Let me give you a hint here, if I didn't have my views about atheism and religion, do you think we would be having this discussion right now? Think about it carefully. By attacking my attitude, you are basically calling me an asshole, and this would be totally unjustified because you don't know me at all. By attacking my views, you could actually educate me about your views, and if you could convince me, I'd change my views to yours. So, which should you attack: my views or my attitude?


As someone who calls himself "tolerant", shouldn't he be okay with the promotion of all views as long as they don't support say, murder or decidely harmful elements toward society?

Wait a minute. So you think being "tolerant" means that one should be okay with the promotion of any views except for "murder or decidely harmful elements toward society"? I think this is a very very good point, and you know what, I believe religion could be decidely harmful towards society -- because wars had been started because of religion, people were killed, persecuted, deceived and had their human rights violated because of religion. Now, please tell me, according to your standard, is it OK to be intolerant towards religion?



And please do not respond with a bunch of links about how religion has been responsible for the deaths of millions over history. Yes, and so has basically every single other point of view or ideology ever made famous.


So are you denying that religion has been responsible for the deathes of millions over history? What other evidence against religion would you like me not to use? Should I make it easier for you by acknowledging there actually is a personal god?


A year huh. Okay, my point was that if you've been here for about a year then you may have noticed how often religion is attacked.

You are wrong again here. It doesn't not matter how many times religion is attacked. What matters is whether each attack on religion is justified. If even religion was blamed for something that it was not responsible for only once, I'd be putting my hand up to defend it.


I'm not sure what the point of this was other than just to somehow make me feel bad because I'm supposedly not smart.........or intelligent......or something.

I was not attacking you, I was attacking the views expressed in your posts. Smart people can sometimes say stupid things -- that's why I don't judge other people's intelligience on just a few of their comments.


Leave us the fuck alone. I think I said that a few times already.


Well then get the fuck out of this thread then.


Leave us the fuck alone. Lol


Get the fuck out of this thread.


You come onto here, ask people to debate with you because you're ready to spill the beans on how great you think atheism is and how shitty religion is, complete with incorrect assumptions and the preconceived notion that we are less rational or logical. And you wonder again, why people are upset.

Why "people" are upset? Who's the "people"? As far as I can tell, only a few religious people here are upset -- because I'm asking them to explain their reasons to believe in their religions. I desperately wanted to avoid being perceived as biased -- that's why I repeatedly invited you religous people to first establish the ground rules with me so that you would feel comfortable and equal in the debate. Instead of ground rules, I just get constant personal attacks.

[didu]

*sigh* Seriously, don't kid yourself. Your purpose of debate is not to see if you can be convinced. It's to convince. So stop playing that innocent game of saying that 'I'm not trying to push anything here, in fact, I'm letting you preach to me' crap.


You see, this comment of yours has contained everything you've said in this thread. You keep accusing me of intolerant and hypocrite, but I am the one who has gone on record repeatedly that I'd accept your views if they are logical and factual. You are the one who keeps saying that you will not be convinced by whatever I have to say. So, who exactly is the intolerant and hypocritic one?


Why do you so desire to convince others that there is no God or that religion is misleading, especially when you take into account how much it means to people?

I'm not going to force people to debate with me -- I cannot and I won't. I respect people's rights to be left alone. This is why I generally don't initiate religious/atheist discussions with other people -- check the history of my posts if you want. However, the following post of yours from the "Topics you refuse to debate" thread really gave me the impression that you felt very strongly about your religious views, I thought it may be a good idea to actually have a constructive discussion about religions. Of course, snailpoo pretty much took over from you in that thread, that's why I invited him to have a discussion, instead of you.

I'm just going to write out short replies to those who are anti-religion just for fun from now on to see what they say since they've already made up their minds about how evil and oppressive we are. Might as well enjoy the power that they think we have over society~~

I want to have a good discussion about religion for two reaons:

(1) If there was a personal god, I'd like to be convinced and become religious so the people I care about and myself won't have to suffer eternal torment after we die. I admit this is a bit selfish.

(2) If there was no personal god, then religions are just lies. I hate lies and I hate seeing powerful people benefitting from the lies at the expense of the weak.


Why are you so self-righteous as to think that your atheist views are worth promoting because religion is merely the sum of "human imagination"? Your attitude is exactly the same as the whites who believed that they need to civilize the "savages" and "heathens" and couldn't understand why people rebelled or got angry. The difference is, you proclaim yourself to be tolerant. It's this very attitude that fuels the actions of those who seek to erase the ideas and beliefs of other people.

I'm self-righteous? I've repeatedly stated that I'm open to views that I disagree with, and this makes me self-righteous?

White people colonize less devloped lands and people mostly to benefit for themselves. What can I possible benefit from converting you to an atheist? I don't know you, I will probably never see you or have any real world contact with you in the rest of my life and you think I'm trying to get you?

When white people colonize a land, the native people have no choices but to be conquered, I gave you plenty of choices not to have a debate with me. I did not invite you to this thread, and before you responded to my posts in this thread, I did not address anything to you at all. After you posted in this thread, I even asked you multiple times whether you actually wanted to have a debate. If these were not choices, I wouldn't know what choices I could've possibly given you.

About your analogy of white people "civilizing" savages, again, white people did not give the savages any say in what civilizing means or how it could be done. They just went ahead of forced their views of "civilized" on the savages. On the other hand, I repeatedly asked you to come up with a set of ground rules with me, so that you would feel comfortable and fair in the debate. How could you compare my efforts to have a debate to white people's colonization?

[didu]

Well, since Christianity bases the existence of God from what is written in the Bible, isn't it enough to point out the fallacies and unreasonable assertions provided by the Bible?

But that'd only prove the Christian god was false, it doesn't say much about a personal god in general.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Didu, I almost made the mistake of wasting 15 minutes typing out a response to you for every single one of your points (if you can call them that) but I realized that even I don't have time for this, especially since the great bulk of your response was just the F-word mixed with "You don't really believe, You're not a true person of faith, religion is so bad, religion sucks",.not to mention a shitload of circular arguing i.e. religion cannot be proven with science therefore science and what CAN be proven with science is better; so I think I'll just leave it at this:

1) You call yourself tolerant and say I'm intolerant, yet I'm not the one who feels the need to convince others that what they believe is wrong.

2) You have told me shit like "don't have enough faith", and you assume things about me and never take into account the possibility that perhaps I "have" gone around and tried to spread my faith but realized that it was the wrong way to go about things or perhaps not the best. Hey here's a question for ya. If my faith is so weak, why am I even bothering to go to great lengths to protest people who are out to silence it? Why have I spoken out EVERY SINGLE TIME this happens, or every single time I perceive that it happens? You think it's just to stroke my intellectual ego online? Please, as if I have nothing better to do but to engage in flamewars about things I don't care about or have "little faith" in. :rolleyes: Never mind, of course, that in Christianity there is no such thing as "not enough faith", or the idea that nobody can ever have "perfect faith", but I'm sure you didn't bother reading up on anything before pouring out the pretentious insults. Try not being such an asshole in the first place if you plan on people taking you seriously.

3) I had no desire to DEBATE with you re: religion in the first place. The only reason why I initially responded was to call you out on your shitty anti-religious attitude.

4) You ask me to be a man and prove my existence of God and address your comparision between science and religion. Hey smart guy, not even the intellectuals and hot-shot philosopher types can do that, so I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for from me, even though I do consider myself to be quite the genius.

hey hey, you win Didu. Lol There is no God!

Prick.

[nameless]

But that'd only prove the Christian god was false, it doesn't say much about a personal god in general.

Well, the only time discussion of a personal god comes up now a days is when we're talking about Western religion.

But the approach is the same for proving anything false (or at least unreasonable) - you'll just be pointing out the holes in their faith, instead of a book. "I'll get the job, because my boss is a fair man." "My husband hits me, because he loves me." "If you aren't good, Santa will put a lump of coal in your stocking." They're all "unprovable" statements just like a personal god, and they eventually break down under the weight of their own assumptions. No need to go off on tangents of racism and what not. :wink:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

But the approach is the same for proving anything false (or at least unreasonable)

Thank you for proving my point. It just makes me feel better every time we're accused of being intolerant because I don't feel as guilty anymore when the other side can be just as assuming.

Thank God (pun intended) we have the power in society, otherwise, man, things would suck~~ ^^

[nameless]

Thank you for proving my point. It just makes me feel better every time we're accused of being intolerant because I don't feel as guilty anymore when the other side can be just as assuming.

Thank God (pun intended) we have the power in society, otherwise, man, things would suck~~ ^^

You are absolutely right that some (probably most) athiest are just as intolerant as some religious people. And probably worse in the end, because they don't have the "pearls before swine" saying to eventually make them back off.

But while athiest make assumptions, they are assumptions with more reasonable evidence according to our scientific society. And that makes them feel more justified (and Chrisitians unreasonable) in their respective beligerent approaches.

I'm an athiest, but I'm also a believer in Chinese medicine. I understand that in the Western world, if you can't prove it through the 5 senses, it doesn't exist, even with good evidence to the contrary. Of course, even Chinese medicine's evidence had to be seen to be believed.

[didu]

Didu, I almost made the mistake of wasting 15 minutes typing out a response to you for every single one of your points

You need 15 minutes to reply to each of my points? Gee, I guess you really need that much time to twist my words and think of new personal attacks against me. Ha! :wink:


(if you can call them that) but I realized that even I don't have time for this, especially since the great bulk of your response was just the F-word mixed with "You don't really believe, You're not a true person of faith, religion is so bad, religion sucks",

The F-word was used to emphasis, not insult. "Fuck you" would be insulting, but I didn't say that, did I? In terms what I actually said, I don't remember ever use the term "religion sucks", it's obvious that I believe that religions are lies and God doesn't exist, so whatever logical implication you can draw from my belief would be ok.

Oh, you forgot to mention that I also called out the inconsistencies in your posts -- first you participated in this thread on your own initiative; then you said you didn't want to be any part of this thread; then despite what you said, you kept participating in this thread. That's so fucking (emphasis usage) inconsistent of you.


.not to mention a shitload of circular arguing i.e. religion cannot be proven with science therefore science and what CAN be proven with science is better; so I think I'll just leave it at this:

Wait, according to you, it's not ok for me to say "fuck", but it's ok for you to say "fuck" (remeber the "live us the fuck alone" comment of yours)? Honestly, I don't care what kind of language you use, I only care about the logic and facts in your words. Your accusation of "religion cannot be proven with science therefore what CAN be proven with science is better" is a gross and partially incorrect simplification of the debate on religion. However, this argument (that you accuse me of) is not even circular arguing to begin with. Science is the displine of finding logical, verifiable, and reproducible solutions/explainations to natural phenomenons. Atheists believe that religion has the problem of being unverifiable, and unreproducible, and I've asked you to prove me other wise.



1) You call yourself tolerant and say I'm intolerant, yet I'm not the one who feels the need to convince others that what they believe is wrong.

Being tolerant is not equal to being dumb, I would be dumb if I just agreed with whatever you had to say. Being tolerant is not equal to not giving a fuck to other people when you saw them making a grave mistake, I'd be a heartless person if I just stood by respecting someone's will to commit suicide.

I feel the need to convince others of my view, but I also feel the need to listen to other people's views and give them a chance to convince myself. You, on the other hand, are not open to any views other than yours. If this is not intolerance, I don't know what is.


2) You have told me shit like "don't have enough faith", and you assume things about me and never take into account the possibility that perhaps I "have" gone around and tried to spread my faith but realized that it was the wrong way to go about things or perhaps not the best.

I don't know you've gone around and tried to spread your faith before. But here I am, openly offering you a chance to preach to me, and how come you haven't taken it? You are now telling me that you used to go around acively spreading your faith, but then when I've given you a chance, you've turned it down repeatedly. This feels really illogical to me.


Hey here's a question for ya. If my faith is so weak, why am I even bothering to go to great lengths to protest people who are out to silence it? Why have I spoken out EVERY SINGLE TIME this happens, or every single time I perceive that it happens? You think it's just to stroke my intellectual ego online?

Let me tell you why you've protested when people question your faith -- instead of trying to argue and convince them: you want to bury your head in the sand! You don't have sufficient faith in your religion to answer its challenges, but you are mentally too weak to live without the delusion of a god and an eternal and perfect after life. So instead of being honest and brave, you choose the path of silencing others who want to question your faith. This called "out of sight, out of mind".

Like I said, if you actually had enough faith in your religion, you'd be writing to convince me about it, instead of attacking my requests to have a debate.


Please, as if I have nothing better to do but to engage in flamewars about things I don't care about or have "little faith" in. :rolleyes:

I don't know what the fuck you do in your own time. But let me just check the history of this thread ... oh wait, I didn't invite you to this debate in the first place, and I didn't address anything to you at the beginning of this thread. So you decided to start a flamewar in this thread on your own initiative. Well, stop being a hypocrite and just put up or shut up.


Never mind, of course, that in Christianity there is no such thing as "not enough faith", or the idea that nobody can ever have "perfect faith", but I'm sure you didn't bother reading up on anything before pouring out the pretentious insults.

There is no such thing as "not enough faith" in Christianity? Jesus fucking Christ, can you say anything dumber than this? Oh never mind, I'm sure you can. You've never heard of Christians who have lost faith in their religion at least at some point in their lives? You've never heard of Chrisitians who questioned their faith when the cruelty of the reality affects them? How much faith is enough faith?

You don't know me, you don't what I have read, so don't go around making assumptions and an ass out of yourself.


Try not being such an asshole in the first place if you plan on people taking you seriously.

Maybe you should try to have an asshole yourself -- since your head seems to already be full of shit and it may be a good idea to stop using your mouth as its outlet.


3) I had no desire to DEBATE with you re: religion in the first place. The only reason why I initially responded was to call you out on your shitty anti-religious attitude.

Any views that question religion will seem shitty to you. Now you've admitted again that you have no desire to debate with me about religion, so what the fuck are you doing in this thread? This thread was created for the sole purpose of having a debate of religion -- not a debate abouth whether such a debate is justified. You've admitted that you just came here to insult me and shut me up, I guess that means you admit you are an intolerant hypocrite.


4) You ask me to be a man and prove my existence of God and address your comparision between science and religion. Hey smart guy, not even the intellectuals and hot-shot philosopher types can do that,

Do you live in a cave? Do you read anything other than religious publications? You've never heard of Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), or his 1986 Oxford Union Huxley Memorial Debate in which he defeated his creationists counterparts?

Richard Dawkins even wrote a book called The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) in which he puts very forward very convincing arguments against the existence of God. Have a read, maybe you will learn something new.


so I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for from me, even though I do consider myself to be quite the genius.

I thought you had a strong faith in your religion ... I guess I was wrong. Oh wait, I didn't even invite you to this debate in the first place -- so I guess I wasn't really looking for anything from you in the beginning, oh well, get over yourself then.


hey hey, you win Didu. Lol There is no God!

Now say that out and loud to your church group.


Prick.

Cunt.

[didu]

Well, the only time discussion of a personal god comes up now a days is when we're talking about Western religion.


Did you forgot Islam?


But the approach is the same for proving anything false (or at least unreasonable) - you'll just be pointing out the holes in their faith, instead of a book. "I'll get the job, because my boss is a fair man." "My husband hits me, because he loves me." "If you aren't good, Santa will put a lump of coal in your stocking." They're all "unprovable" statements just like a personal god, and they eventually break down under the weight of their own assumptions. No need to go off on tangents of racism and what not. :wink:

That's a gross simplification. Religion is basically one type of explanation for the origin of the world. If you simply point out one hole in it, it is not enough to defeat the whole theory. More importantly, in order to refute religion, you have to offer an alternative explanation for the origin of the world -- and that's physics and evolution.

[didu]

You are absolutely right that some (probably most) athiest are just as intolerant as some religious people. And probably worse in the end, because they don't have the "pearls before swine" saying to eventually make them back off.

No, he's absolutely wrong about atheists being intolerant. Have you seen any atheists wage a war in the name of atheism? Have you seen any atheists preaching door to door about atheism? Have you seen any atheists shoot people dead in the name of atheism? How can atheists be worse in the end? It's really really easy to make atheists back off -- you just have to tell them that you are not gonna change your mind no matter what they have to say.



I'm an athiest, but I'm also a believer in Chinese medicine. I understand that in the Western world, if you can't prove it through the 5 senses, it doesn't exist, even with good evidence to the contrary. Of course, even Chinese medicine's evidence had to be seen to be believed.

I also believe in Chinese medicine -- having benefitted from it as a child. I don't believe in Qi Gong, but I believe in physical exercise. I even believe that the Chinese universities should bring back FengShui as part of their architecture course, because a very large part of FengShui is about how to make people live very comfortably. Of course I oppose the superstition part of FengShui, but I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[nameless]

Did you forgot Islam?

I don't seperate Islam from Western religion. I define Western as any of the Abrahamic religions.

That's a gross simplification. Religion is basically one type of explanation for the origin of the world. If you simply point out one hole in it, it is not enough to defeat the whole theory. More importantly, in order to refute religion, you have to offer an alternative explanation for the origin of the world -- and that's physics and evolution.

Well, from debating with Christian friends who are bio majors, I find that science as a counter argument to religion doesn't work, because they ultimately say that evolution and physics is still the work of God (while dismissing the literal tone of Genesis, of course). So all I focus on is pointing out the holes in the assumptions about the nature of their God (i.e. all good, yet willing to damn us to eternity).

No, he's absolutely wrong about atheists being intolerant. Have you seen any atheists wage a war in the name of atheism? Have you seen any atheists preaching door to door about atheism? Have you seen any atheists shoot people dead in the name of atheism? How can atheists be worse in the end? It's really really easy to make atheists back off -- you just have to tell them that you are not gonna change your mind no matter what they have to say.

Well, there's war and killings in the pursuit of money, land, and power. Not a god, but still arguably believed in just the same. And yeah, we don't go door to door, but that's just the nature of athiest belief (no need to save anybody from hell). However, there were times where I wouldn't have backed off even though I knew the person I debating with wasn't going to change their faith. It was before I realized people just don't think the same way I do.

But I'm sure there are athiest out there who are intolerant. That's the extreme nature of having opinions and an ego. [/QUOTE]

[didu]

I don't seperate Islam from Western religion. I define Western as any of the Abrahamic religions.

Fair enough, but that does not include eastern religions which also have a supernatural nature, or cults, take Aum Shinrikyo for example. The problem I have with religion is associated with pretty much every religion that has a supernatural nature.


Well, from debating with Christian friends who are bio majors, I find that science as a counter argument to religion doesn't work, because they ultimately say that evolution and physics is still the work of God (while dismissing the literal tone of Genesis, of course). So all I focus on is pointing out the holes in the assumptions about the nature of their God (i.e. all good, yet willing to damn us to eternity).

I sort of understand the arguments you have had with your bio major friends, since one of my best friends' father is a PhD in genetics and he's one of the most religious person I've ever seen. There are two problems here. The first one is "God put evolution in motion", and the second one is not interpreting the bible literally.

Since I don't know the details of the arguments you had with your bio major friends, nor am I any expert in bio, so I can only quote stuff written by other scholar. Peter Atkins is professor of chemistry at Lincoln College in the University of Oxford, England, he published a book in 1992 called "Creation Revised". In this book, he argues that with evolution and natural selection, God wouldn't have had to do any work at all. So, from this perspective, the world would have been what it is today with or without a supernatural being. Therefore, there is no evidence of God from the natural selection/evolution's point of view.

The problem with not interpreting the bible literally is that people can just pick and choose anything that suits their views from the bible. As far as I know, there is nothing like evolution or natural selection mentioned in the bible -- please correct me if I'm wrong. It is well known that some parts of the bible that involves genocide, rape, wars, human sacrifice and even family values are in conflict with common sense. The fundamentalists are the ones who insist interpreting the bible literally, and that's why some of them would kill abortion doctors and bash gays and wage wars on people they perceived as infidels.

However, a large number of Chrisitians choose not to interpret the bible literally, and they just pick certain parts of the bible and try to live by it. The thing is, in order to pick certain parts of the bible, a person must base his decision on a different set of values which are independent of the bible -- otherwise he'd be interpreting the bible literally. This means that Chrisitians who choose only to follow certain sections of the bible already have a set of values which are independent of the bible, so my question is that why wouldn't they just cut out the middle man and follow their own values directly?



Well, there's war and killings in the pursuit of money, land, and power. Not a god, but still arguably believed in just the same. And yeah, we don't go door to door, but that's just the nature of athiest belief (no need to save anybody from hell). However, there were times where I wouldn't have backed off even though I knew the person I debating with wasn't going to change their faith. It was before I realized people just don't think the same way I do.

Atheists don't believe in the existence of a personl god or gods, but that does not mean that we are all heartless bastards who have no morale values. In fact, I believe atheists are perfeclty capable of having all the good qualities preached by religions. One important aspect of the atheist belief is rational thinking and equality. I will always respect other people's freedom of belief and privacy, therefore I will not force people into debates about their own beliefs. If someone flat out told me that he would not change his mind no matter what I said, I'd be more than happy to leave him along. If someone refuses to accept my views even after a lengthy discussion, I will also be more than happy to leave him along.


But I'm sure there are athiest out there who are intolerant. That's the extreme nature of having opinions and an ego.

Atheists are far from perfect. There are many evil people who are also atheist, but this is human nature, isn't it? As long as human beings exist, there will be evil people. The problem with religion is that it can be used by evil people as a tool to oppress and deceive good people -- as the history has repeatedly demonstrated. So, the question we need to ask is that, would human society be better off without religion?

[snailpoo]

Wait, so for four pages, in a thread called "Does God Exist?" all that you have done thus far is to...?

You have really managed to say nothing with a lot of words. Good efforts.
...
Now, don't go around accusing me of having bad manners again. I explained my question in the most unambiguous way I can think of because I just want a definite answer from you.
:rolleyes:

I need a judgment call.

Anyone? Anyone want to take the excerpts of the last 4 weeks of posts by me HERE (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?p=498724) and explain it slowly to didu?

Is it just me, or can this guy not read?



No, he's absolutely wrong about atheists being intolerant. Have you seen any atheists wage a war in the name of atheism?

Wrong? The EASIEST PROOF of intolerance by atheists is YOU.

You've been categorically unable to prove (though you've mindless claimed it repeatedly) atheists superior and religious people inferior, yet you mindless babble your bigotry as if you had proved it.

Have you seen any atheists preaching door to door about atheism?
Proof? What are you doing, RIGHT NOW?

There are NO religious people trying to convert you. There is ONLY YOU trying to convince us that we're inferior and that your bigotry is justified.

Have you seen any atheists shoot people dead in the name of atheism? How can atheists be worse in the end? It's really really easy to make atheists back off -- you just have to tell them that you are not gonna change your mind no matter what they have to say.
Look at what you've done. You've taken your BELIEF in atheism, and championed that all should agree with your beliefs. Gee, isn't that exactly what you're trying to do? When you break down your argument, all you're saying is that the world would be better if everyone shared your belief.

The only difference between you and the religious extremists you whine about is the fact that you don't have power. Unfortunately, through the centures, there have been many atheists like you. Stalin, for one, shot people for believeing. Mao was another. Of course, bigots always ignore counter examples when they make their blanket stereotypes.




An now the irony:

For someone who keeps telling us about the requirements of having every belief proven:
I also believe in Chinese medicine -- having benefitted from it as a child. I don't believe in Qi Gong, but I believe in physical exercise. I even believe that the Chinese universities should bring back FengShui as part of their architecture course, because a very large part of FengShui is about how to make people live very comfortably. Of course I oppose the superstition part of FengShui, but I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
But oh, wait:
The problem with not interpreting the bible literally is that people can just pick and choose anything that suits their views from the bible.It's somehow inherently bad if people pick and choose from the Bible, but apparently you can pick and choose your beliefs without any hypocrisy.


Since you seem to have a problem comprehending the concept, and since apparently everyone else has caught onto your bigotry, I'll say this one last time for your benefit:

You've whined for four weeks about being able to prove that God doesn't exist, but when the mods created a thread for you to do so, all you've done is whine about the burden of proof.

What you consistently fail to understand, is that this IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT RELIGION. THIS IS A CRITIQUE OF INTOLLERANCE. YOURS. We're only debating whether or not God exists becuase this is the only justification you have left to justify your bigotry. There are no religious people saying that atheists are wrong or inferior. There are no religious people trying to convert others. Rather, YOU in YOUR BIGOTRY are trying to convince us that religious people are inferior and that atheists are superior. YOU in YOUR BIGOTRY, ironically, are trying to convince us of the harms of being intollerant to others who do not believe exactly the way you do.

Since this is about YOUR INTOLLERANCE AND YOUR BIGOTRY and since you're the one trying to convince the rest of us that we're somehow inferior, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

[Bhodi_Li]

Does God exist? Yep.

Hey, that one wasn't that hard!

[didu]

Wait, so for four pages, in a thread called "Does God Exist?" all that you have done thus far is to...?

I haven't had any constructive discussion from you religious people because you lot have been throwing personal attacks at me instead of having an actual debate.


I need a judgment call.

I don't know what you need, but you need a lot more than that.


Anyone? Anyone want to take the excerpts of the last 4 weeks of posts by me HERE (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?p=498724) and explain it slowly to didu?

Last four weeks of post? You are pointing to a post that was made 4 days ago and how's that 4 weeks? Look, I've asked you straightout whether you wanted to have a debate and so far you've dodged every single one of my requests by throwing more personal attacks at me. I'm starting to think that you really have nothing to say.


Is it just me, or can this guy not read?


I'm sure you can read, but I'm not sure you can comprehend.


Wrong? The EASIEST PROOF of intolerance by atheists is YOU.


Shit!! Now, take a minute and think about what you just said. You just accused the entire atheist population as intolerant because you think I am intolerant.

I've already spent too much time defending myself about your intolerance accusations and so far, you have not responded to any single one of my counter arguments.

However, you have also accused me many many times of over generalisation and stereotyping religion and religous people -- and that's even with the facts that religious people waged wars against each other and actively oppressed people who were percieved as infidels. Now, all I did was asking for a debate about religion, and because of this you accuse the entire atheists population of intolerance? Keep in mind that I have never ever claimed to be a representative of the atheists people at any given point, I'm essentially a nobody who just wants some questions answered, so how did you generalise me to the entire atheists population?


You've been categorically unable to prove (though you've mindless claimed it repeatedly) atheists superior and religious people inferior, yet you mindless babble your bigotry as if you had proved it.

I haven't been able to prove much because you religious lot on this forum have been hurling personal attacks against me day in and day out. The only constructive discussion I've had so far was with nameless who's actually an atheist. You accuse me of being unable to prove anything, but at the same time you haven't proved anything to me either, so why are you accusing me of the same thing that you've done?


Proof? What are you doing, RIGHT NOW?

Asking for a debate is the proof of my intolerance? Gee, according to you, the entire academic community would be the most intolerant bunch of people on earth because most of what they do is debating about different topics with scientific methods.


There are NO religious people trying to conve