Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I totally get that some people think religion is bogus and some don't, but why make a point to prove or disprove the existence of God?

Because both sides are so terrified that they're wrong that they'll do anything to get validation.

Because you'd like to know for sure. And a real proof, for either side, would certainly help further their own agenda.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because both sides are so terrified that they're wrong that they'll do anything to get validation. Originally posted by Bardock42
Because you'd like to know for sure. And a real proof, for either side, would certainly help further their own agenda.

I don't think I agree with you guys. 'Faith' allows people to believe or disbelieve what they want. I can see what both of you are saying, but what is so important about being right, being right in an argument about the validity of God's existence?

I know of too many people who have been left hopeless because of the loss of a loved one, a sexual assault, natural disasters, and the only thing that helped them to get back on their feet was because they have, or they believe they have God with them. So why disprove religion and/or God if it is so important to so many people who simply need to have God in their life in order to cope?

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I don't think I agree with you guys. 'Faith' allows people to believe or disbelieve what they want. I can see what both of you are saying, but what is so important about being right, being right in an argument about the validity of God's existence?

I know of too many people who have been left hopeless because of the loss of a loved one, a sexual assault, natural disasters, and the only thing that helped them to get back on their feet was because they have, or they believe they have God with them. So why disprove religion and/or God if it is so important to so many people who simply need to have God in their life in order to cope? Well, I don't know if it's an agree thing. I am pretty sure that that's the reason why people want it. Whether it's a good reason, I don't know.

I think there are good things about Religion, but since they, imo, are mostly for those that belief, I personally mostly see and feel for the bad. I am biased being basically an atheist, still.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I don't think I agree with you guys. 'Faith' allows people to believe or disbelieve what they want. I can see what both of you are saying, but what is so important about being right, being right in an argument about the validity of God's existence?

People like to be right. Especially, atheists.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I know of too many people who have been left hopeless because of the loss of a loved one, a sexual assault, natural disasters, and the only thing that helped them to get back on their feet was because they have, or they believe they have God with them. So why disprove religion and/or God if it is so important to so many people who simply need to have God in their life in order to cope?

Because a lot of atheists focus on just one aspect of religion and/or can't understand that people feel a need for God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People like to be right. Especially, atheists.

I think people like to be right, whether they are an atheist or not.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I totally get that some people think religion is bogus and some don't, but why make a point to prove or disprove the existence of God? There are strong emotions involved, there are belief systems at stake, as well as plain ol' egotism. But I think, mostly, that people make the effort, one way or the other, because we are drawn to mystery, and this is the granddaddy of them all.

wow, this topic is meta

I'd question questioning what people want to spend their time debating, but for the obvious hypocrisy

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I don't think I agree with you guys. 'Faith' allows people to believe or disbelieve what they want. I can see what both of you are saying, but what is so important about being right, being right in an argument about the validity of God's existence?

I know of too many people who have been left hopeless because of the loss of a loved one, a sexual assault, natural disasters, and the only thing that helped them to get back on their feet was because they have, or they believe they have God with them. So why disprove religion and/or God if it is so important to so many people who simply need to have God in their life in order to cope? Who the hell has faith that God doesn't exist?

Atheism and skepticism has nothing to do with faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because both sides are so terrified that they're wrong that they'll do anything to get validation. Yep.

Not the fact that I believe religion is poison, it's because I'm scared I devoted my life to...nothing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who the hell has faith that God doesn't exist?

Atheism and skepticism has nothing to do with faith.

Yep.

Not the fact that I believe religion is poison, it's because I'm scared I devoted my life to...nothing.

It does unless you know for a fact God didn't exist.

Also, we have to remember that for a long time no one had to put faith in God's existence because they knew he was real- they could see him...the sun. They could hear his anger...thunder and lightning. ETC.

So religion and faith are not codependent. Each can survive and be productive without the other.

Why do people debate it?

Because:
Theists need to prove to themselves their faith is not misplaced.
Atheists need to prove to themselves that their faith is not misplaced.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It does unless you know for a fact God didn't exist. I've said this too many times.

In order for something to be true, it has to follow the three rules.

1. credible evidence
2. follows logic
3. doesn't contradict other truths

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Also, we have to remember that for a long time no one had to put faith in God's existence because they knew he was real- they could see him...the sun. They could hear his anger...thunder and lightning. ETC.

They're called lies.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So religion and faith are not codependent. Each can survive and be productive without the other.

Why do people debate it?

Because:
Theists need to prove to themselves their faith is not misplaced.
Atheists need to prove to themselves that their faith is not misplaced.

No. Atheists debate to rid the world of believers of the faith.

It's frustrating people don't realise this.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I totally get that some people think religion is bogus and some don't, but why make a point to prove or disprove the existence of God?

Enlarge egos and pride in themselves. There is also a supremacy issues...notice they refer to others as "stupid" or "lacking reasoning"

They don't care...they just want to have the last word.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I've said this too many times.

In order for something to be true, it has to follow the three rules.

1. credible evidence
2. follows logic
3. doesn't contradict other truths

OK...there goes gravity.



Originally posted by lord xyz
They're called lies.
Doesn't matter in anyway if the belief was right or not...they held God's existence as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith.



Originally posted by lord xyz
No. Atheists debate to rid the world of believers of the faith.

It's frustrating people don't realise this.

Do they? I can think of one or two atheists on these forums to dont have some childish agenda like the one you put forward- again I am correct.

Debunking a misconception:

A transcendent God isn't falsifiable. So no one, atheists included, try to "disprove" him/her/it. Statements and predictions made by earthly religions, as well as supposed paranormal phenomenon, however, are falsifiable. Gotta stick to what remains logical.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Debunking a misconception:

A transcendent God isn't falsifiable. So no one, atheists included, try to "disprove" him/her/it. Statements and predictions made by earthly religions, as well as supposed paranormal phenomenon, however, are falsifiable. Gotta stick to what remains logical.

I think your wrong...

XYZ is an atheist and his stated aim is to disprove God.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think your wrong...

XYZ is an atheist and his stated aim is to disprove God.

"you're" ... and xyz is not representative of atheists.


Well, at least not intellectual, informed atheists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"you're" ... and xyz is not representative of atheists.


Well, at least not intellectual, informed atheists.

Oops,

Thanks...anyway he is still an atheist- so to say atheists do not try and disprove isnt taking into account that some of them do...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Oops,

Thanks...anyway he is still an atheist- so to say atheists do not try and disprove isnt taking into account that some of them do... True.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who the hell has faith that God doesn't exist?

Atheism and skepticism has nothing to do with faith.

Yep.

Not the fact that I believe religion is poison, it's because I'm scared I devoted my life to...nothing.

How can Atheism and skepticism have NOTHING to do with faith?

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
How can Atheism and skepticism have NOTHING to do with faith? It may have to do with "faith" but it is not the same definition of "faith" that applies to religious people.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I totally get that some people think religion is bogus and some don't, but why make a point to prove or disprove the existence of God? Mostly because people think they have the right answer and will have spent countless hours thinking to themselves, trying to prove why they feel God does or doesn't exist.

Therefore when such time is put into something people often don't like to have their "well-informed" opinions talked about in any kind of contradicting light.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
OK...there goes gravity. Well, gravity hasn't been proven, it's just a theory, but even so...

1. Things fall down to the earth
2. There must be some sort of force to pull these down
3. No other explanation of why things fall to the earth

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Doesn't matter in anyway if the belief was right or not...they held God's existence as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith. Yes it does matter, as that shatters the theory.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Do they? I can think of one or two atheists on these forums to dont have some childish agenda like the one you put forward- again I am correct. You are far from correct.

How can you honestly believe atheists are desperate to prove their..."faith" in no god? There is no faith in no God. It's absence of faith in a God, and trying to make tards like you see that there is no need or logical reason to believe in God.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, gravity hasn't been proven, it's just a theory, but even so...

1. Things fall down to the earth
2. There must be some sort of force to pull these down
3. No other explanation of why things fall to the earth

1. Not Helium.
2. Why?
3. Very busy Angels.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How can you honestly believe atheists are desperate to prove their..."faith" in no god? There is no faith in no God. It's absence of faith in a God, and trying to make tards like you see that there is no need or logical reason to believe in God.

Or "tards" like Einstein? And I'm not exactly sure how you could even begin to prove that some people don't "need" to believe in God.

Originally posted by lord xyz

1. Things fall down to the earth
2. There must be some sort of force to pull these down
3. No other explanation of why things fall to the earth


Dude, again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1. Not Helium.
2. Why?
3. Very busy Angels.



Or "tards" like Einstein? And I'm not exactly sure how you could even begin to prove that some people don't "need" to believe in God. 1. I didn't say everything.
2. Forces are what causes things to move.
3. That's not true.

Just because Einstein thought up the theory of relativity (possibly stole it from Smith), doesn't mean everything he believes is right. I'm sorry, but believing in God is retarded.

This would belong in another thread.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm sorry, but believing in God is retarded.

why, in your opinion, do people believe in God?

Originally posted by lord xyz
3. That's not true.

How do you know?

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. I didn't say everything.
2. Forces are what causes things to move.
3. That's not true.

1. Things implies everything.
2. According to science, not in the case of gravity.
3. You have no way of knowing that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Just because Einstein thought up the theory of relativity (possibly stole it from Smith), doesn't mean everything he believes is right. I'm sorry, but believing in God is retarded.

This would belong in another thread.

You miss the point. Perfectly intelligence rational people, even geniuses, can believe that God exists.

What about the gravity of the blackhole?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What about the gravity of the blackhole?

I was going to do a post nit picking what XYZ said about gravity (the "pull" part especially)

I didn't want to just do the pile on thing though, thats kinda mean...

Originally posted by inimalist
I was going to do a post nit picking what XYZ said about gravity (the "pull" part especially)

I didn't want to just do the pile on thing though, thats kinda mean...

Well he is a Professor of Science Logic and all things Correct at the University of XYZ.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who the hell has faith that God doesn't exist?


"I wouldn't call myself an 'atheist', because that's still technically a belief."

-Bill Maher to Larry King

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think your wrong...

XYZ is an atheist and his stated aim is to disprove God.

Well then his toil is futile, because he endeavors at a logically impossible task.

Atheism is a belief, not a dogmatic statement, nor a condescending platform from which to preach.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"I wouldn't call myself an 'atheist', because that's still technically a belief."

-Bill Maher to Larry King

Partially true. Agnosticism is the only completely defensible belief from a true/false perspective. Though reasonable conclusions can be gleaned from evidence or lack thereof, making some "beliefs" far more logical than others.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or "tards" like Einstein?

Einstein's God was a straight metaphor for the physical forces of the universe and his awe at their majesty.

Pantheism, if anything. But even that's a stretch.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Atheism is a belief, not a dogmatic statement, nor a condescending platform from which to preach.

It's used as one more often than not. I'm sure you don't see the obvious comparisons to how many militant atheists treat Christianity but that's okay because I'm willing to hope that most people do.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Einstein's God was a straight metaphor for the physical forces of the universe and his awe at their majesty.

Pantheism, if anything. But even that's a stretch.

You're avoiding/missing the entire point. Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Planck all happened to believe in God despite their brilliance. Being religious does not an idiot make.

Atheism as a faith:

linguistically, it is impossible. Not having faith cannot be having faith, or else the term "to have faith" is meaningless (it can mean both its definition, and the opposite).

However, GMG made an interesting point earlier in the thread. given that our culture assumes God to be true, there is a type of idea formation that would be required to deny the truth of God. I think it becomes more complicated when you try to distinguish between losing a belief and believing other things which are mutually exclusive to prior beliefs, and I don't have the foggiest about the brain with regards to that.

Also, people by their nature are social animals, that want group approval, want to be part of a meaningful movement, and thus, will act in the same "brainwashed" and "conformist" ways with regard to atheism as they would toward religion. Look at how people reference Dawkins, it is almost a mirror of how people refer to the bible, especially in the way that it shows people have no understanding of the arguments they are making, they just believe what it is that is written in the book they happen to believe (and to be frank, I know of more religious people who understand their theology than atheists who understand the science they use in debates).

This also ignores a few other things. There are "beliefs" that atheists and skeptics do have. Materialism, mechanism, normally reductionism. No, these do not have organizational rules for behaviour or other religious allusions, however, they do propose completely unverifiable (universally unverifiable) ideas.

imho, atheists that refer to themselves as such in any meaningful way, really have just put on a different team's jersey.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you know? 1. No evidence to support this
2. Doesn't follow logic
3. Gravity

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1. Things implies everything.
2. According to science, not in the case of gravity.
3. You have no way of knowing that. 1. So?
2. What, weight isn't a force now?
3. See above.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You miss the point. Perfectly intelligence rational people, even geniuses, can believe that God exists. Yes, but believing in God is still retarded.

I don't get what your point is, smart people can believe in God, therefore the god theory is intelligent? Or it's wrong for me to say believing in God is retarded because Einstein believed in God? If einstein believed in God, he's retarded in that field, and I don't expect anyone to take him seriously in that field either.

Originally posted by lord xyz
2. What, weight isn't a force now?

zoy?

did you never have to do the bowling ball vs apple race in science class?

Originally posted by inimalist
zoy?

did you never have to do the bowling ball vs apple race in science class? No.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Einstein's God was a straight metaphor for the physical forces of the universe and his awe at their majesty.

Pantheism, if anything. But even that's a stretch.

A letter of Einstein's surfaced recently in which he attacked religious faith and so on...can't find it though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No evidence to support this
2. Doesn't follow logic
3. Gravity

1. So?
2. What, weight isn't a force now?
3. See above.

Yes, but believing in God is still retarded.

I don't get what your point is, smart people can believe in God, therefore the god theory is intelligent? Or it's wrong for me to say believing in God is retarded because Einstein believed in God? If einstein believed in God, he's retarded in that field, and I don't expect anyone to take him seriously in that field either.

hmmm

Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

gravity affects all objects at a constant strength, meaning the weight of an object is not related to how quickly it falls under gravitational force.

iirc, it is something's aerodynamics that determine its speed of fall due to gravity

apples and bowling balls fall to earth at the same speed

Originally posted by inimalist
gravity affects all objects at a constant strength, meaning the weight of an object is not related to how quickly it falls under gravitational force.

iirc, it is something's aerodynamics that determine its speed of fall due to gravity

apples and bowling balls fall to earth at the same speed Well, not necessarily.

There is that, but...due to more weight, the speed increases slightly -- it wouldn't be noticeable in aclassroom though, more off of a cliff.

I don't know the basics of it, but I'm sure that's what happens.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, not necessarily.

There is that, but...due to more weight, the speed increases slightly -- it wouldn't be noticeable in aclassroom though, more off of a cliff.

I don't know the basics of it, but I'm sure that's what happens.

if gravity affects all items at the same force, how could that work?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, not necessarily.

There is that, but...due to more weight, the speed increases slightly -- it wouldn't be noticeable in aclassroom though, more off of a cliff.

I don't know the basics of it, but I'm sure that's what happens. No. It actually doesn't. In a vacuum anyways.

Originally posted by inimalist
if gravity affects all items at the same force, how could that work? Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It actually doesn't. In a vacuum anyways. I was probably lied to then.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I was probably lied to then.

physics isn't my strong suit, so no idea, I was pretty sure about that one though...

Originally posted by inimalist
physics isn't my strong suit, so no idea, I was pretty sure about that one though... It's quite famous. With Galileo throwing down shit from the magnificent display of lack of architectual knowledge in Pisa.

But I think another thing, more important to xyz's blind faith in gravity, is the fact that many if not most scientists don't see gravity as a force at all, which kinda puts a damper on that fact theory. And, really, how would it look different if it was billions of invisible angels dragging stuff down (down being an idiotic term cause we are fixated on Earth like the little stupid lemmings we are)



http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/physnews1.htm

Originally posted by inimalist
physics isn't my strong suit, so no idea, I was pretty sure about that one though... Maybe if I ask my physics teacher, I'd get an answer.

I understand that gravity doesn't change, so everything accelerates at the same rate, but something about the weight would make it accelerate faster, or give it a higher terminal velocity.

I'm not sure though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's quite famous. With Galileo throwing down shit from the magnificent display of lack of architectual knowledge in Pisa.

But I think another thing, more important to xyz's blind faith in gravity, is the fact that many if not most scientists don't see gravity as a force at all, which kinda puts a damper on that fact theory. And, really, how would it look different if it was billions of invisible angels dragging stuff down (down being an idiotic term cause we are fixated on Earth like the little stupid lemmings we are)



http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/physnews1.htm Well, if you remember I never proposed gravity to be true...nor did I call it a force...technically weight is the force.

The problem with angels is that there is no way to know if it's angels or anything else. Having this supernatural force (weight) is the only thing feasible. As we know forces exist.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, if you remember I never proposed gravity to be true...nor did I call it a force...technically weight is the force.

The problem with angels is that there is no way to know if it's angels or anything else. Having this supernatural force (weight) is the only thing feasible. As we know forces exist.

...wow...

Just wow.

isn't weight the measure of gravity's effect on mass?

and thanks for the link Mr. Bardock

Originally posted by lord xyz
2. What, weight isn't a force now?

No, it's a measure of mass under the effects of acceleration. Pressure is a force, however.

Gravity isn't either. It's a compression of the fabric of space that objects and energy follow.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, but believing in God is still retarded.

1. I never said it wasn't.
2. You're no less retarded for not believing in God.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't get what your point is, smart people can believe in God, therefore the god theory is intelligent? Or it's wrong for me to say believing in God is retarded because Einstein believed in God? If einstein believed in God, he's retarded in that field, and I don't expect anyone to take him seriously in that field either.

I never made anything remotely approaching that claim. You are the one who made the claim that believing in God is something only stupid people do. I refuted that claim with multiple examples. Belief in God and intelligence have nothing to do with one another.

Pressure not actually a force. Except for that all quite true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I was probably lied to then.



OH DEAR GOD!

That was just sooo brilliant, wow. I am stunned.

Bardock mentioned your "blind faith" in gravity but I'm saddened he didn't go on to explore your blind faith in what your teachers (or whoever it was who told you that thing which you purpoted to be fact).

I mean really, it would be OK if you were a religious person or whatever who admitted his faith was blind, but the fact that you denied having faith before hand......oh dear!
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, if you remember I never proposed gravity to be true...nor did I call it a force...technically weight is the force.

The problem with angels is that there is no way to know if it's angels or anything else. Having this supernatural force (weight) is the only thing feasible. As we know forces exist.

Do you honestly not see how that is the biggest contradiction you have made yet?

It can't be angels because we can't know if they exist, therefore it must be a supernatural force involving weight which we don't know exists....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's used as one more often than not. I'm sure you don't see the obvious comparisons to how many militant atheists treat Christianity but that's okay because I'm willing to hope that most people do.

Militant atheists are almost as bad as the fundamentalists. They may be right, but it doesn't make them less stupid for their horribly overt tactics, which likely do as much harm as good.

It's like screaming at your kid to do homework. Decent goal, awful execution.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're avoiding/missing the entire point. Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Planck all happened to believe in God despite their brilliance. Being religious does not an idiot make.

No argument. I agree completely. Aside from possibly xyz, I don't see that argument being made here.

I also dislike the nigh-constant implication that atheism is synonymous with militant @sshole-ism. I know plenty of atheists. None are militant d*cks. Yet I realize that mine is just a case study among a larger whole. But so are the negatively-tinged ones. Now, given that the pricks will always garner far more attention than the rational, behaved atheists, which side do you think can claim more? I don't know for sure, but I'd venture to say that filtering the majority into some preconceived stereotype is both needlessly negative and likely false. Just as fundamentalist Christians are in the minority, but receive disproportional amounts of attention via criticism. The same is true in reverse.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No argument. I agree completely. Aside from possibly xyz, I don't see that argument being made here.

You have to remember Digi, other than you he is the only one who is throwing his hat into the atheist corner here...and he makes more noise, so gets more attention.

(Hell there might be really quiet people around who none of us have noticed!)

Bardock is too, iirc. He's a d*ck too, but self-admittedly so ( ), and not directly about religion. More in general.



Also, see my edit above for commentary on your point, which points out the disproportionate opinion caused by some receiving more attention than others.

And by your own admission, I'm 1/2 of the atheists here. If we use xyz as the norm (false by any standard of evidence-gathering, btw) it would be equally as valid to use me as the "norm." Though just as false, from a statistical perspective. None of our experiences, unless backed by research, amounts to much more than a meaningless case study, not a trend.

I did a thread years ago that actually suggests atheists are more "moral" than religious groups. Though it wasn't a logical argument, but a statistical one from extensive studies (plural) which corroborated the hypothesis. Not proof, certainly, but enough to cast considerable doubt on the rampant needless negativity toward atheism.

Don't be too sharp in your criticism, as they say "a house divided upon itself cannot stand".

Then again, I can tell you don't want to live with these "militant-@ssholes" as you term them.

Your last point depends on the definition of moral, which are right which are wrong, absolute or relative etc etc. Though you could say more atheists follow what they consider to be moral I guess...(if thats your hypothesis)

Doesn't trying to prove that there is a god negate someone's act of faith thereby making them pretty much an agnostic?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Doesn't trying to prove that there is a god negate someone's act of faith thereby making them pretty much an agnostic?

As stated people can be religious without the faith aspect.

Remember back in the days when noone (or very few) would actually doubt the existence of a God or gods. They didn't have faith he/they was/were real any more than they had faith that the ground, sea and fire was real...

In many cases teh ground sea and fire where also gods!

So, Religion/Theism can exist without faith.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Don't be too sharp in your criticism, as they say "a house divided upon itself cannot stand".

Then again, I can tell you don't want to live with these "militant-@ssholes" as you term them.

Your last point depends on the definition of moral, which are right which are wrong, absolute or relative etc etc. Though you could say more atheists follow what they consider to be moral I guess...(if thats your hypothesis)

It wasn't my hypothesis. I'll try to dig up the thread. Here we go:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017&highlight=title%3A%28moral%29+forumid%3A80

Also, it should be noted that the "militant a-holes" isn't my term. I like a lot of them, and agree with most. I just think they approach the subject of religion incorrectly. So I'm not criticizing atheism. I'm criticizing atheists who turn it into their version of a holy war, and consider themselves at all superior. I can, for example, agree with nearly everyting Richard Dawkins says....yet give a hearty facepalm when he attempts to coin the term "bright" to describe an atheist, with a clear negative connotation towards others.

Anyway, here's the relevant part of the thread I linked you to:

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Perhaps the biggest myth concerning atheism is that morality becomes an "anything goes" attitude without a god-figure to keep a person in check. For example, a July 1995 poll of 1,007 adults published in George Barna's 1996 Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators found that 60% of Americans believe atheism has a generally negative influence on society. But as it turns out, this hypothesis is testable, and has been tested by numerous credible sources.

- a 1934 study by Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty.
- In 1950 a survey of thousands was conducted by Murray Ross, and found that those who considered themselves agnostics or atheists were more likely to express willingness to aid the poor than those who considred themselves deeply religious.
- A 1969 report (Hirschi and Stark) that analyzed a multitude of crime and cultural data found no significant different in the likelihood of committing crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.
- A 1975 report (Smith, Wheeler, & Diener) reported no difference in religious/non-religious college-age students when measuring how likely they were to cheat on tests.
- A similar report from 1962 (Middleton & Putney) reports a noticeable increase in cheating among religious students.
- David Wulff's 1991 novel Psychology of Religion compiles dozens of studies to this affect and finds a positive correlation between "religious affiliation, church attendance, doctrinal orthodoxy, rated importance of religion, and so on" with "ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, social distance, intolerance of ambiguity, and specific forms of prejudice, especially against Jews and blacks" (219-220).

To my knowledge, none of the researchers cited are atheists. All are researchable for those who wish to see the exact methods and results. It does not prove that atheism or spirituality makes one more moral than the other, but it shows irrefutable evidence that not only that atheism can be moral, but most atheists are moral. But the data is clear: not only does religion not ensure a heightened morality over non-religion, but it is statistically correlated with higher occurrences of immorality.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
As stated people can be religious without the faith aspect.

Remember back in the days when noone (or very few) would actually doubt the existence of a God or gods. They didn't have faith he/they was/were real any more than they had faith that the ground, sea and fire was real...

In many cases teh ground sea and fire where also gods!

So, Religion/Theism can exist without faith.

So you are talking more about spirtuality?

As for faith, I was under the understanding that "faith" was one of the defining characteristics of christianity.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So you are talking more about spirtuality?

As for faith, I was under the understanding that "faith" was one of the defining characteristics of christianity.

Well, not really no- Vikings who believed in Odin and Thor withought question were religious...funnily enough.

People who took Jesus of a matter of fact- still religious, just without that leap of faith.

Of course, there was always a faith aspect around- you had to have faith that the God you knew existed wouldn't be a complete dick to you haha.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, not really no- Vikings who believed in Odin and Thor withought question were religious...funnily enough.



Just to add some vikings didnt believe in the gods. Obvoulsy I don't know demographics but there is one story of one man who didnt believe in Odin and Thor. Obvoulsy there would have been others and as the author put it some just did it because everybody else did it. Yeah going off on a tangent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...wow...

Just wow. Dude, you try not to gaffe at 1 in the morning.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Dude, you try not to gaffe at 1 in the morning. I do, on a regular basis. And it usually achieve it, too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do, on a regular basis. And it usually achieve it, too. This coming from the guy who is against arrogance.

Originally posted by lord xyz
This coming from the guy who is against arrogance.

I am what? Since when?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am what? Since when? You criticise others for being arrogant.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You criticise others for being arrogant. That's, at best, a half truth.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Just to add some vikings didnt believe in the gods. Obvoulsy I don't know demographics but there is one story of one man who didnt believe in Odin and Thor. Obvoulsy there would have been others and as the author put it some just did it because everybody else did it. Yeah going off on a tangent.

I've heard similar things about the Greeks/Romans

there was lots of spirituality, but large portions of the society didn't necessarily take animal sacrifice too seriously

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's, at best, a half truth. Even so, it's hypocritical.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Even so, it's hypocritical. Not really. Because the truth is that I find arrogance that is unjustified and not based in actual superior evidence or reasoning despicable (the sort of arrogance you like to portray), the lie is that I criticise everyone for being arrogant. AC, for example, may very well be arrogant in most cases, seeing as he is usually to some degree right.

It's not necessarily the most flattering of character traits, but that's besides the point. Also, you know what you are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Because the truth is that I find arrogance that is unjustified and not based in actual superior evidence or reasoning despicable (the sort of arrogance you like to portray), the lie is that I criticise everyone for being arrogant. AC, for example, may very well be arrogant in most cases, seeing as he is usually to some degree right.

It's not necessarily the most flattering of character traits, but that's besides the point. Also, you know what you are. I only act arrogant because that's the tone of the GDF.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I only act arrogant because that's the tone of the GDF. Sure. Why would I want to discuss your juvenile reasons to behave like a turd? The fact is you behave arrogantly and have no sort of knowledge, even of the most basic stuff to back it up with. You clown.

I'm a very humble person. God told me so! I'm special, I'm humble and damn I'm gonna tell everyone too!!

I'm only arrogant when I talk down to people who aren't as good as me.

Walmart people?

Sorry, I used to work there.

Btw, no wandering eye.

Don't look at me...

I used to be a 'millitant @sshole'. I like to think that I moved past that though. Being a militant anything seems to cause more problems than it solves.

Except for Grammar Nazis. We will solve the world's '1337 speak' problem.




(The only people I'm deliberately rude to are Young Earth creationists, and lets face it, they get what they deserve.)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
As stated people can be religious without the faith aspect.

Remember back in the days when noone (or very few) would actually doubt the existence of a God or gods. They didn't have faith he/they was/were real any more than they had faith that the ground, sea and fire was real...

In many cases teh ground sea and fire where also gods!

So, Religion/Theism can exist without faith.

organised relegion{and abrahamic relegions in particular} is based mostly on dogma and very little on faith. faith and dogma are neare to being opposites then anything else. the former relies on trust/love/connection and the later relies on fear/forced obedience/inevitable gap of relation between the object of worship/beleif and the human in question.

thats one reason why i think its misrepresentative and wrong to call organised relegion as FAITH to begin with. empty dogma and true spirituality{which is "faith"} are very VERY different things. people quite often need faith in their lives, and it is healthy to have faith. relegion on the other hand doesnt provide this at all, and usually provides the opposite.

I don't think I'm militant or afraid of being proved wrong and most other Atheist that I know wouldn't care either. Most of use (the ones I know) would rather know for sure then not.

I often feel the urge to pick a side and dispel all doubt at all costs. It's a foolish impulse, and it apparently exists on both sides of most theocratic arguments.
But as for the existence of God...well, it is rather a pointless argument. Christianity is filled with principles, promises and threats scattered all throughout the Bible, but nowhere in the Bible does God directly offer any reward or punishment for anybody's belief in how earth got there.

Spamming

Spamming

Wow! JIA you just keep pasting the same thing over and over in different threads. The problem is that you believe that energy was created. You should not believe in the first law of thermodynamics because it proves that energy cannot be created.

There's plenty of posters who are militant Christians, and are probably close to a lot of JIA's beliefs....but who don't get their posts edited by globals and aren't continually ignored. You'd think that after all this time, JIA might realize that it's his posting/debating methods that are abhorrent, not the messages themselves, since at least some of his beliefs are held by numerous KMC members.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow! JIA you just keep pasting the same thing over and over in different threads. The problem is that you believe that energy was created. You should not believe in the first law of thermodynamics because it proves that energy cannot be created. About damn time he got tagged for spamming.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I totally get that some people think religion is bogus and some don't, but why make a point to prove or disprove the existence of God?
It's the meaning of life

Originally posted by Da Pittman
About damn time he got tagged for spamming.

What Digi said.^