This is so true.
Should christians love money so much ?!
- Thread starter bornfree
- Start date
This is so true.
Hi Y33
empirical proof and then the existence of and charge of the electron
by Robert Milikan in a series of oil drop experiments,
a particle's existence can be established by its effect
It sucked having to repeat those experiments, its damned boring when you have already read the results
but the apparatus to repeat them is simple to construct
the existence of the electron is somewhat confirmed, electron microscopes work
protons and nuetrons
the netron bomb, sort of depends on the interaction of subatomic particles to blow large holes in muroa atoll, no particle, no kaboom,
before any response, from the other half of the crowd,
those effects (real effects) can be replicated by anyone anytime, half the world (rational half? nah scared half), spends a its time trying to stop the religious from making 'kaboom'
empirical proof and then the existence of and charge of the electron
by Robert Milikan in a series of oil drop experiments,
a particle's existence can be established by its effect
It sucked having to repeat those experiments, its damned boring when you have already read the results
but the apparatus to repeat them is simple to construct
the existence of the electron is somewhat confirmed, electron microscopes work
protons and nuetrons
the netron bomb, sort of depends on the interaction of subatomic particles to blow large holes in muroa atoll, no particle, no kaboom,
before any response, from the other half of the crowd,
those effects (real effects) can be replicated by anyone anytime, half the world (rational half? nah scared half), spends a its time trying to stop the religious from making 'kaboom'
Hoffy - I think you should read your last post. Change a few words and you sound like any preacher. "cure the world of it ills etc etc'. You are religious and you dont even know it!.
TF - Feel free to explain your irony. Or maybe you cant?
My point in all this is that anyone dogmatic about the non existance of god is tarnished wityh the same blood as the religious fundamentalists.
TF - Feel free to explain your irony. Or maybe you cant?
My point in all this is that anyone dogmatic about the non existance of god is tarnished wityh the same blood as the religious fundamentalists.
Sim
Administrator
I think some people need to be a little careful how they use the term atheist or atheism.
Most common definition I come across in dictionaries is along the line:
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God"
The key word here being "belief".
Atheism is a chosen belief system, just as Christianity is.
If you declare yourself to be an atheist, you are declaring your belief in exactly the same way that a Christian declares theirs.
Indeed, we should really be referring to "atheists" and "theists", where a theist believes there is a God (or there are gods), while an atheist believes there is no God (or there are no gods).
I think what most people who use the term atheist actually mean to say is that they are agnostic, although even that is not the ideal description.
Agnosticism deals with omniscience ("all knowing") ... and specifically that there is no ultimate knowledge or knowledge holder - often taken to mean that faith without proof is meaningless. Agnosticism is sometimes used to refer to a scientific method - a denial that we can know something absolutely ... in extreme cases, even in the presence of so called "proof".
Agnosticism is often used to describe a state of being uncertain about whether there is or is not a God. It is a position held by many where they acknowledge they do not (can not) know, while choosing not to "believe" either way.
So I suggest we generally have a triumverate of positions:
1. theists who believe there is a God (or there are gods)
2. atheists who believe there is no God (or there are no gods)
3. agnostics who don't think we can know either way and choose not to be theists or atheists
If one was to get semantic, one might suggest that both atheists and theists are "believers" (they both hold beliefs), while the agnostics are the only true non-believers (they don't have a belief).
It's all just words, but then, the whole argument is all about words anyway. Just be careful to think about the words you use to describe your position!
Most common definition I come across in dictionaries is along the line:
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God"
The key word here being "belief".
Atheism is a chosen belief system, just as Christianity is.
If you declare yourself to be an atheist, you are declaring your belief in exactly the same way that a Christian declares theirs.
Indeed, we should really be referring to "atheists" and "theists", where a theist believes there is a God (or there are gods), while an atheist believes there is no God (or there are no gods).
I think what most people who use the term atheist actually mean to say is that they are agnostic, although even that is not the ideal description.
Agnosticism deals with omniscience ("all knowing") ... and specifically that there is no ultimate knowledge or knowledge holder - often taken to mean that faith without proof is meaningless. Agnosticism is sometimes used to refer to a scientific method - a denial that we can know something absolutely ... in extreme cases, even in the presence of so called "proof".
Agnosticism is often used to describe a state of being uncertain about whether there is or is not a God. It is a position held by many where they acknowledge they do not (can not) know, while choosing not to "believe" either way.
So I suggest we generally have a triumverate of positions:
1. theists who believe there is a God (or there are gods)
2. atheists who believe there is no God (or there are no gods)
3. agnostics who don't think we can know either way and choose not to be theists or atheists
If one was to get semantic, one might suggest that both atheists and theists are "believers" (they both hold beliefs), while the agnostics are the only true non-believers (they don't have a belief).
It's all just words, but then, the whole argument is all about words anyway. Just be careful to think about the words you use to describe your position!
Perhaps, as an atheist, you start from the view that Christianity is a series of myths, and you need logical reasons to convince you otherwise.
Whilst for a Christian, they may start their thought process from the opposing view; that there is truth in the bible and their faith is valid, and would need to be shown hard evidence to the contrary in order to consider changing their minds.
IMO, having an open mind is important to understand the other party's views. Understanding how another person might think and view the world, opens up an amazing amount of opportunity to refine one's own thoughts and views on the world. Being narrow-minded, as either a Christian or an Atheist, does not.
atheism is faith as much as religion is.
one is one, one is the other.
one is one, one is the other.
While the first paragraph of my last post was sincere, my second was an attempt at irony.
It seems a few of us didnt get your irony incvlduing Katherine D! Nice backdown though.
Your first paragraph is about religion and not god. Your beef is with organised religion. I agree with you on that front - its just that I think the two are different.
Your first paragraph is about religion and not god. Your beef is with organised religion. I agree with you on that front - its just that I think the two are different.
I think even most of the Christians here would agree with Hoffy on that front too!! I posted somewhere a few pages back about being protected from Jesus' followers. The "religion" in the world today is what is stopping a lot of the true message getting through. I hate religion! And so did Jesus, remember He frequently had shots at the Pharisees and Sadducees. I don't beleive in religion at all, I believe in True Christianity..you know, the one that is selfless and giving.
Makes absolutley perfect ense to me. 1 person, admitting that they dont udnerstand everything.
Quite humble I thought, she did not pretend she knew everything and understooed everything, particualrly as she accepted how large what she chose to beleive in was.
Which actually goes with all I have heard about this lady & her character.
I think from memory though that she was doubting all that she had believed in, her faith. I don't think it was just "not understanding everything".
I thought it interesting for someone who had devoted her life to a particular path, to have doubts about that path. I don't recall exactly how it was worded, but it had an impact on me.
It would be good to know the wording used, but then again, who knows if that wording was changed by the person writing the article.
For me personally, I suppose I am one who just doesn't know, and am quite happy for those to believe... to believe and for those who don't believe to be allowed to do that.
It is when people try to force either stance on others that the trouble starts, and it has been going on for thousands of years.
I'm sorry it was lost on you, I thought it was pretty obvious though.
And no, my first paragraph was on the impact religion and the belief in god has on all our lives, after all, that's what I said. You needn't apply your own interpretation on that. I said precisely what I meant.
I think it interesting too, but as an interesting fact to do wtih human nautre, not anything strange / unique to do with religion, or christianity,
I belive that you & I could experience the very same type of thing in areas of our lives should we they be important to us etc
Mother T's issues can be review here.
She lost me when she cosied up to the Duvaliers in Haiti - a more rapacious and evil family is hard to find, as are excuses for her engagement with them. And her reluctance to provide medicinal paliative care was, frankly, creepy.
Christopher Hitchens has some interesting views.
Religious belief is a crutch for the weak and a cudgel for the dominant.
In particular I find Sim's observation that a non-faith is indeed a faith too esoteric. I have no "faith" ie a vacuum. Not even a "non-faith" can exist in a vacuum.
I do not want Christian missionaries telling me how to live my life any more than Charles Manson.
You all take yourselves just toooo seriously.
In particular I find Sim's observation that a non-faith is indeed a faith too esoteric. I have no "faith" ie a vacuum. Not even a "non-faith" can exist in a vacuum.
I do not want Christian missionaries telling me how to live my life any more than Charles Manson.
You all take yourselves just toooo seriously.
Sim
Administrator
I think you missed my point a little. It's not so much a faith vs non-faith argument, but rather, if you assert that there is no God, then this is a faith position just as much as if you assert that there is a God.
Instead, if you indeed do not know if there is a God or not, and especially if you don't really care either way, then I would label you "agnostic" more than I would "atheist".
It's just a choice of words that's all - it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it does help if we are going to debate things to make sure we are all speaking the same language.
That statement has been used in one form or another so many times in this thread it's not funny...
at no time have I used my faith as a cudgel - it defeats the purpose!! and at 6'4" and 110kg I am hardly a shy and retiring type...my faith is what it is, my faith. It is no reflection on my personality and certainly no reflection on my intelligence as some others have suggested. I am well educated, well read, well spoken and well versed...but I am also a logical individual who makes my own determinations based on the evidence before me. As much as some people like to ridicule the notion that there is a God who created all - there is no evidence to the contrary...there is a lot of pieces to a puzzle that some people "beleive" indicates there is no God. That is your choice to reach that conclusion. But labelling people as weak or feeble minded because of a chosen belief is just plain lame...
You all take yourselves just toooo seriously.
My friend, anyone of the number of people on this thread who know me well would tell you this is the last thing anyone has ever accused me of!!
You all take yourselves just toooo seriously.
really? i would have thought a sincerely skeptical mind would be the most humble of all.
Similar threads
