(June 19, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: What use is your bible then?

What use is any rule book? It helps you get there quicker and more efficiently than having to work all of that out yourself every time.

Human ingenuity huh

(June 19, 2014 at 3:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 19, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: What use is your bible then?

What use is any rule book? It helps you get there quicker and more efficiently than having to work all of that out yourself every time.

Well if you're saying it's just like any other book of philosophy, then you're half way there already.

It is. But it has better answers than the rest

(June 19, 2014 at 3:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It is. But it has better answers than the rest

So...there's nothing divine or supernatural about it at all? Just another book?

(June 19, 2014 at 7:00 am)fr0d0 Wrote: We don't need to prove the non existence of god/s for sure. We don't need to prove existence either.

If you're telling children that the moon is made of cheese, that they had better believe it is made of cheese or else they'll be condemned to the ovens for eternity, or if you're promoting the general idea that it may be made of cheese but we just can't know and shouldn't trust any observations made by scientists, then the justification is on you to provide sound reasoning for why anyone should not hold you morally accountable for spreading such nonsense. We have every right to marginalize your type in the sphere of public discourse and diminish any effects you may have at misleading more people. That being said, I can wait for you to provide justification, which you never will because you can't, and just ignore the perpetual lies your fellow conspirators tell naive saps, or I can actively argue the case that science leaves no room for any relevant definition of God. The problem with the deist god is not merely that there's no reason to believe it exists and actually reasons to the contrary, the problem is that it is irrelevant to us.

Quote:Science always works on proof though, and if shonuff claims that science claims something, anything, then he better be prepared to support that claim with evidence.

Virtually all major fields of science have chipped away at the characteristics of god we were told counted. All that's left standing is an ineffable force, you might as well call it "quantum spiritual energy vibration." I can confidently state there is no such thing because that phrase literally has no meaning in relation to anything actually observed in the real world. Those words all mean something in a specific context. Stringing them together does not illuminate a new concept previously unknown to man. It means next to nothing. Same with "the Godfather." He (the definition that matters, the one generally perceived as an omniscient, omnipotent, omniscient Mind's Eye, the one embraced by BILLIONS around the globe in many different faiths) is antithetical to the universe that we have found ourselves in.

Quote:Just trying to help

I hope I could clarify.

(June 19, 2014 at 7:15 am)Ben Davis Wrote: I like to be pedantic about this because of the implication of your statement here. What you're defining isn't 'atheism', it's 'antitheism': you're not disbelieving a positive claim in favour of theism, you're making a positive claim in opposition to theism. Antitheism is a subset of atheism but they're not the same thing. Your implication of dishonesty (that atheists are dodging a burden of proof by defining atheism in a particular way) is demonstrably wrong, unjustified and feeds some of the mischaracterisations of atheists which are used by aggressive theists to cause harm to non-believers.

Regarding the Abrahamic gods, I share your antitheism: they're demonstrable nonsense and sharing & popularising that information is a laudable goal. I'd simply ask you, please can you rethink the way you phrase your point so that you avoid giving ammo to theists who would do you harm?

I wholeheartedly embrace the label "anti-theist." I wish more atheists would as I see it to be the only moral and logical response to religious thinking, all things considered. But I reject the claim that I'm portraying atheists as somehow dishonest when they shift the burden of proof back to whom it belongs (the believers). I've stated that much clearly--the burden is not on us, but we also shouldn't simply sit around and wait for theists to try to make their case...they never have and never will, yet so many continue to be deceived. We should, in my opinion, be actively making the case against God, because science gives us a pretty good one.

(June 19, 2014 at 7:19 am)archangle Wrote: well, this is bullshit.
You are making a claim that past the knowledge of science.

hey, but maybe your the smartest stupid fucker in the world.

Or maybe you just completely missed the point of science, which is thinking critically and questioning authority, gathering facts and testing theories...none of which leave room for religion other than a thing to study objectively, or the Abrahamic Gods, or pretty much all monotheistic or supreme deities traditionally granted that title.

Quote:for axample.
"I believe he is an asshole" (no one in particular just an example)

evidence;
based on thes post, he has no more insight about science than your average butt fucked alter boy.

If that was meant to be some indiscreet shot at me, you can kindly go fuck yourself.

(June 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(June 19, 2014 at 3:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It is. But it has better answers than the rest

So...there's nothing divine or supernatural about it at all? Just another book?

It's an ordinary book, or set of books made by humans. It just happens to be the best there is/ as perfect as we have, and as such the ultimate guide.

(June 19, 2014 at 3:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's an ordinary book, or set of books made by humans. It just happens to be the best there is/ as perfect as we have, and as such the ultimate guide.

Judged by whom? What? The warm feelings it evokes in you that cause a flood of vivid daydreams about Paradise Garden and mother pouring lemonade by the swing set? Sorry, we need a more objective standard than "Frodo thinks it's the best; therefore, it's the best."

(June 19, 2014 at 2:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 19, 2014 at 11:52 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Another sloppy conflation. Turning the corner accomplishes both verifying the money is real and you obtaining the money.

Just like believing in God then

That's odd, I believed and found nothing. Go figure.

I'm telling children that the moon is what astronomers say it is. Fools down through history have introduced stories of cheese, and other fools have changed the story to that.

Science is a great subject with nothing whatsoever to do with God. Some fools think it is and think that science is squeezing out God.

Proving that God doesn't exist with science is forcing science to do something that it cannot do.

I fully accept everything in science and also fully believe in God, without compromise. That's because they are two different subjects.

Hey, wall, I'm talking to you!

---

(June 19, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: That's odd, I believed and found nothing. Go figure.

Sucks to be you

(June 19, 2014 at 3:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm telling children that the moon is what astronomers say it is. Fools down through history have introduced stories of cheese, and other fools have changed the story to that.

Science is a great subject with nothing whatsoever to do with God. Some fools think it is and think that science is squeezing out God.

Proving that God doesn't exist with science is forcing science to do something that it cannot do.

I fully accept everything in science and also fully believe in God, without compromise. That's because they are two different subjects.

Hey, wall, I'm talking to you!

So you believe the first half dozen chapters of the Bible, at least, are completely mythical. You believe God created a (observable) Universe 93 billion light years in diameter, seeded with stars and planets, so that 9-10 billion years into the process, carbon atoms could evolve into replicators, and after many years of unnecessary animal savagery, a species of ape could come onto the scene and recognize this supreme leader and worry over what it might think about how we use our penises? How much gullibility we possess, the greater amount the greater the promise? Shit, we haven't even touched on the incongruities of the Jesus Christ Superstar story yet.

Are UFO abductions a completely "different subject" from science as well? It's funny that God is completely outside the bounds of science, yet he can be so involved in the world's day to day affairs. You either haven't thought hard enough about the inconsistencies of your beliefs, or you simply don't care to.