Do Atheists need a church of their own?

[Arlen Specter]

Originally Posted by Damnsammit

Science freed the slaves.

No it didn't.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by Cicero

No it didn't.

George Washington Carver was black and he liked science.... and peanuts.

[Arlen Specter]

Originally Posted by damnsammit

george washington carver was black and he liked science.... And peanuts.

so???

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by Cicero

so???

Psh.. you are no fun today. I'm going to sleep.

Hater.

[-m-]

Science deals with the physical world. Religion deals with the world in your head. Neither should be confused with the other. The world will become a better place when this fact becomes generally accepted.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Cicero

who cares? they're atheists.

lol




no longer a reason for me to read anymore of this thread.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

The rejection of faith doesn't require faith. Fucking ridiculous argument.

I disagree. Whether God exists or doesn't is not provable therefore one's belief of one or the other is a matter of faith not of fact.

That atheists need to "commune" is an admission of a need for faith. It would seem to be a recognition of the value of religion while rejecting God. Which seems to say they want all the benefits without all those pesky obligations.

Originally Posted by matias

atheism has everything to do with learning - without the scientific process we'd still be in the dark ages believing the world was not only flat but also the center of the universe

You're making a fairly facile argument. You start with the unstated presumption that God exists solely to explain the unexplainable... the "god of the gaps." That's a rather unsophisticated position but one extremely common, espcially amongst the undergrad community because their teachers in the academy, generally, cannot get beyond that point. Education challenges faith, and that's a good thing. The problem is that so many stop their thinking and education at that point.... it's not that simple.

God is not that which explains those things otherwise not explainable. That's a form of animism. God answers why questions. Science answers what/how questions. They address seperate spheres and there is little need to conflate them even if those in the academy try very hard to do so.... for example.... the USA Today poll which was embraced by academics suggested explcitly that belief in God as a creator precluded Christians from believing in evolution. Not so. But try to explain that to some college liberal arts professor.

Originally Posted by -m-

I get not believing in the sexually repressive invisible father figure in the sky.

Be fruitful and multiply is explicitly pro-sex Miles. It just comes with the rules that one be responsible for one's off spring. Read the Bible.... there's tons and tons of sex in that thing...sex, lust, incest, killing people to get their wives etc etc

Originally Posted by Keith P

I can tell you w/o a doubt the god of Abraham does not or ever did exist. The acts of such a god were fables and analogies. They have no historical or scientific basis.

you're asserting that because you can point to alternative explanations God does not exist? That's not proof Keith that's a competing theory with as much evidence to support it as the alternative has. Thus we are back tot he notion that either choice - belief or non-belief is a matter of faith.

Originally Posted by Damnsammit

I thought the whole premise of religion was to bring peace to the question, "What happens when I die?"

I always thought it was based on the question, "how should I live my life."

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

want a philosophy book on this shit... read this:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

recycled crap... I love Hitchens but that book is bitter and outdated in its arguments. He loves to rely on a reductio ad absurdum argumemt ie if god then who made God and then who made that god ad infinitum.... the problem is that it denies that God is God as a starting premise. So, the argument is in fact a conclusion rather than an argument. It is god is not god. Well, ok, that's well and good but its not really an effective demonstration of God's non existence.

Further, recylced garbage about wars of religion ignores the immense good done by religion and ignores the great horrors committed in states that attemtped to outlaw religion and rebuild society based on economic morality. Communism killed over 100,000,000 in about 75 years. That's more that killed in the name of Christianity since its inception.

Hitchen's is philosophically and factually wrong in his assertions.

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by xian

recycled crap... I love Hitchens but that book is bitter and outdated in its arguments. He loves to rely on a reductio ad absurdum argumemt ie if god then who made God and then who made that god ad infinitum.... the problem is that it denies that God is God as a starting premise. So, the argument is in fact a conclusion rather than an argument. It is god is not god. Well, ok, that's well and good but its not really an effective demonstration of God's non existence.

Further, recylced garbage about wars of religion ignores the immense good done by religion and ignores the great horrors committed in states that attemtped to outlaw religion and rebuild society based on economic morality. Communism killed over 100,000,000 in about 75 years. That's more that killed in the name of Christianity since its inception.

Hitchen's is philosophically and factually wrong in his assertions.

i think maybe his other books followed that guide (or guise), but this one was just the basic "religion is man-made and here's why." obviously there are bad elements on both sides of the fence, but this one pretty much stuck to history and that one premise. but yes, there are some wtf moments in it. no matter what side of the fence you are on, it was a good read. imo.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

i think maybe his other books followed that guide (or guise), but this one was just the basic "religion is man-made and here's why." obviously there are bad elements on both sides of the fence, but this one pretty much stuck to history and that one premise. but yes, there are some wtf moments in it. no matter what side of the fence you are on, it was a good read. imo.

there's no debate to be had about the quality of Hitchens' writing - he's brilliant

[charlie brown]

can god create an object so big even he can't move it? kek

[PETA]

Originally Posted by matias

can god create an object so big even he can't move it? kek

like.... whoa dude... here, hold onto the bong that's putting the 2x4 to my brain

[charlie brown]

why must you take that as a stoner statement? you must be able to see the paradox (which is one similar to the one you were speaking about from Hitchen) in that question..

[PETA]

Originally Posted by matias

why must you take that as a stoner statement? you must be able to see the paradox (which is one similar to the one you were speaking about from Hitchen) in that question..

Sure I do. But it is sophistry. Sophistry impresses stoners a lot more than people who think.