Atheism Explained

2013 ,    »  -   261 Comments
467
8.08
12345678910
Ratings: 8.08/10 from 176 users.
Storyline
Atheism Explained

Where do you get your morality from? Don't assume that atheists don't have morals. We all have morals, we all have ethics. Atheists just don't derive them from a holy book. And probably your Bible isn't the only reason you're not out there killing everybody in sights.

You do not believe in anything, your life must be so empty? Atheists don't believe in God but they believe in plenty of other things that give their lives meaning... like friends, family, teaching, talking, etc. So no, their lives are not empty.

Why are you mad at God? Atheists don't hate God, atheists don't believe in God... they also don't hate unicorns. But, you can't prove God doesn't exist. Why Christians have no problem disbelieving in Hindu Gods... disbelieving in other religions' Gods? It is the same way that atheists don't believe in their God.

What if you're wrong? Nothing's going to happen if atheists are wrong. You're assuming that God is going to punish them for asking honest questions? Why would God be mad for actually doing some research instead of just sitting around and going to church couple of times a week and acting like you really care? But what if Christians are praying to the wrong God and making the real one madder and madder every time they do it?

You just have to have faith. God's given us this mind to use it but theists are asking atheists to close it when it comes to religion. Being able to think critically is not a bad thing. You have to open your heart to God. There's nothing wrong with atheists' hearts. They're not actively shielding themselves from God; they're not wearing aluminum tin foil hats. They're open to possibilities... just explain them why should they believe in God.

The Atheist Voice provides a platform for discussion for atheist leaders, authors, bloggers, activists, and everybody else who is passionate about atheism, and secularism.

More great documentaries

261 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Janeen Clark

    i find the psychology behind this topic very interesting because i'm curious why people have arrived at the particular viewpoints they have which is basically a few choices that some other people created then later on other people take it on to fit into culture somewhere. do you think the religions, spiritually and atheism are the only options explanations or choices to choose from? or do you think it is more of a cultural phenomenon more about picking a multiple choice answer on a test instead of developing an original view based on all the current knowledge in the world?

  2. sheigray

    I think your explanation is perfect, and I totally agree with you. I like the way that you explain your lack of faith. People that believe in magic have a difficult time understanding why we don't. Good for you!

  3. Janeen Clark

    you are an atheist? hi, i am a non-murderer. and bob over here is a non-sociopath

  4. Paul Gloor

    Atheism definitely isn't original, its been around forever. In ancient Rome, Egypt and the Middle East, there were references to 'doubters'. In modern times, Its just been given a name and banner to rally under.

  5. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    Yes yes... well said.

    I would however like to add (as constructive criticism) that in saying "you *should* speak to an atheist" or "you *should* consider our concerted scientific findings". That It is projecting an almost paternally (condescending) connotation/suggestion to the ideal of Atheism.

    The idea is to open the opportunity* of believing in refined sciences, philosophies and psychologies, so as to intrinsically explain their own self worth, in being ones primary beliefs. *Without forcing or disdainfully imposing* Atheistic values.

    +1

  6. Thinker

    It seems like a huge percentage of people think that Atheism is a belief, the "belief" that "there is no god(s)".
    That's what I use to think as well, until I looked it up.
    Every dictionary I can find defines it the same way, as simply:
    Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
    Disbelief: "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real."

    So Atheism by definition is not a belief, which means that we have no term that I'm aware of for someone who specifically "believes" that "there is no god(s)", which to me is a position that is just as unscientific as Theism is, as long as there is no conclusive evidence to support either beliefs.

    We've got to start being more specific and definitive with our use of words, it's so important.

  7. Russ G

    it seems like a huge percentage of muslims,jews and Christians can't or don't have the abilty to prove there is any supreme being what so ever , infact you will probably find that athiests or a percentage of athiests have more of a factual perception of reality compared to the doctrinated , secondly belief is usually a conciously inspiring form of thought where what our hearts would like to perceive as the truth becomes the basis of our conclusion . I'd prefer to go with science .

  8. 1concept1

    This is a silly doc? The word "atheist" should be deleted from the dictionary?

    The fact that i am not a christen or a witch doctor or a desert dwelling nomad does not mean I DON'T LOVE YOU

  9. Neil Mcginnis

    nonsense. lol

  10. Neil Mcginnis

    it's just a term used to identify a segment of the population so stop arguing semantics. : )

  11. dmxi

    god's dead & they missed his/hers/it's funeral.....which leaves a remnant bad taste that has to be directed at anybody with the audacity of denying his/hers/it's former being!just wipe out the current generation & the next will conjure up a new divine 'know-it-all' with the same bossy attitude that prefers siblings with a weak knee,prefably made for bowing & spineless humbleness.

  12. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Whoever wrote the introduction sure loves to make a lot of assumptions about "Christians" for someone who is critisizing assumptions by "Christians" Maybe their is just too much assuming all around. A lot of the pointless arguments could be avoided if all people could recognize faith, religion or hope for what it is: belief in something that empirical thinking and/or science can neither prove nor disprove. Then the only thing left to discuss is how we all get along with each other. Scientific analysis should always be be the basis of how we organize society and make public policy decisions. Everything else is "our own business". If someone chooses to believe in the Easter Bunny so be it.

  13. raghu

    God is an excuse people came up with to gain power and control territory, groups of people and wealth. Evolutionary and civilizational fact.

  14. Toni Gandel

    Atheism is a term which simply separates us from the religious majority. Once we are in the majority, and especially when religions of planet earth are done and gone with the wind, this term as well shall pass. As long as there are believer's in religious dogma, this term provides us non-believers a way of asserting that we don't subscribe to any religion. I find it very empowering and useful. I AM a proud atheist.

  15. 1concept1

    Oliver in ref. to your last last sentance, "Without forcing or disdainfully imposing Atheistic values."

    What are "Atheistic Values"?

  16. 1concept1

    I agree with you but that's not even close to the way the world works; (At least you make an attempt to open minds)

  17. Arlo9

    Imagine there's no Heaven...its easy if you try.
    No Hell below us. Above us only sky.

  18. 1concept1

    Arguing with semantics is viable- words are not things but descriptions of things and of course subject to connotation.

    There can be a wrong choice of words true! but the right words are also true!

  19. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    Athiestic:

    1. Relating to or characteristic of atheism or atheists.
    2. Inclined to atheism.

    I use Athiestic Values in the sense of; ideals heeded in subscription of atheism.

  20. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    I believe the inability to "prove" the existence of god, is more or less "programmed out" of religious people. In the same way we all are conditioned to accept Santa.

    Ie: Once one hits a certain age, they realize Santa is fictional. However they continue to believe simply due to the influence/momentum he has. Its a group think defense mechanism... more or less... ?

    Or in other words they do not "need" to prove god is real. As in the delusion of communal group think, he is real. It doesn't matter if your Christian or Jewish... its just a hard-headed and stubborn (lack-of-a-better-term) defense mechanism, to side step the question, and continue believing. Without having to expend the energy of learning a more "universally agreed upon set of ideals"

  21. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    athiest have one god ( themselve or there belly botton)

  22. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    There is a heaven ( the 3rd heaven) and hell well just drill all the way to earths core thats where hell is !! Mr brainwashed!!

  23. Fabien L'Amour

    Video is not really necessary, it's more an interview or maybe self-interview of an atheist. Start the video then listen to the audio if you wish so, nothing really to watch there except a guy sitting in front of a camera talking. Would be an interesting radio broadcast, video not really.

  24. RickRayFSM

    I've been a staunch atheist since I was about 12. That's when I stopped believing 1600 plus year old lies from a mythical book. Hypocrisy and Christianity seem to go hand in hand !

  25. Fabien L'Amour

    Ok for non-murderer but is being a sociopath a conscious choice?

  26. terrasodium

    well said senator!

  27. Jef Damien

    you wil not be able to prove love scientificly. but I KNOW it exists (more certain than any scientific thing cus i know my senses lie to me and everything is relative) same for god you cant proof or disprove it but you will know it when you feel it!. i was raised as an atheist tho.

    and you think you are really smart wich i think is really dumb. I know we are all s*upid.

    :)

  28. over the edge

    the difference is love is not claimed to be a physical thing, It is a chemical reaction (and can be measured,tested and duplicated), just like god it has not been shown outside of the organism experiencing the release of chemicals.As for "you cant proof or disprove it but you will know it when you feel it" those of us who do not believe the god claims of others have no burden of proof, unlike those who made a claim of existence. Your statement basically means if you believe already then you believe (aka nonsense)

  29. Janeen Clark

    out of all the ways to clearly describe yourself why would a human choose "atheist" above non-murderer anti-rapist and others dealing with much more important topics. is it more important to NOT be a theist or more important to NOT be a murderer? this proves that atheism is merely a cultural phenomenon geared toward antagonism of religion which is fine. but don't then sit there and talk about crital thinking because if you were a critical thinker you would have walk into a room and say "hello my name is bob, i am a NON-murderer how do you do?"

  30. Janeen Clark

    things have nothing to do with proof even thouigh people say it does, for example for 100 years we have known about quantum mechanics and yet most of scientific community are "materialists" there is no such thing as physical matter only the probability of particles made of mostly empty space. this makes materialists no different than followers of god regarding the following of a cultural belief even when it is not logical or in this case proven false by the most accurate prediction in the history of mankind.

  31. Janeen Clark

    are you a materialist then? read my comment above this to sow that yes in fact you believe what other people say and do instead of thinking critically.

  32. Keith

    People seem to have a need to explain things, why do we exist, how did we get here and religion or beliefs usually fit the bill. Religions can also be a club, you have to be in that club to gain any power or status. Overall people usually just want to believe in something.

  33. Janeen Clark

    no it makes you part of the religious community in fact a antagonist of it, other wise you would be a non-murderer or anti-in-fantasist.

  34. Janeen Clark

    yes, then it evolved by taking the core structure of all religion punishment and reward and creating all social systems and domination structures of it to not necessarily have to use god as the reason anymore.

  35. Toni Gandel

    I couldn't disagree with you more Janeen. Atheist is a simple word with a definition of it's own, like any other word in any language. I imagine you are capable of looking it up. A = against theist=deity

    a·the·ist
    ˈāTHēˌist/
    noun
    noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
    1.
    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist

  36. Toni Gandel

    When something is discovered as fact it will be accepted as true by atheists. Proof is in the claim, not in not accepting it. Your argument is silly. Your argument is old and has been intelligently refuted time and time again but intelligent people, of which sadly, you are not.

  37. Toni Gandel

    I'm leaving this discussion. Not interested debating with people who are clueless.

  38. Imightberiding

    Many things go without saying. Your argument is absurd & quite frankly a little surprising after reading some of your earlier comments on other doc threads.

    Edit: I can just see everyone in a circle at "Murderers Anonymous" responding collectively; "Hello Bob!"

  39. over the edge

    um yeah okay. this doc concerns atheism that is why some here are identifying as atheist. when i am discussing medicine my atheism does not come into play. if the subject of the doc was pro or anti murder then i an sure some would identify that way. do you actually have an argument for or against atheism?

  40. Imightberiding

    You say that you KNOW it exists ( love & god) then you say you know your senses lie to you & everything is relative but you will know it when you feel it. How do you "know" your senses aren't lying to you right now?

  41. Imightberiding

    Thanks for the heads up. I often like to listen on my wireless headphones when possible while I do a few chores around the house.

  42. docoman

    To answer your question Janeen, "why would a human choose 'atheist' above non-murderer anti-rapist and others", that's pretty easy to answer if you think about it. (your point is why someone would claim to be a NON anything)

    How many murderers and rapists are there in the world, how many organise themselves into social and political groups, and how many of them actively preach and assert they are correct, beyond question, and exhort you to 'save yourself' and join with them?

    We assume with most people we meet that they are not murderers or rapists, but can't do the same regarding 'magical belief systems' i.e religions. Therefore, it makes sense there is usually no need to proclaim oneself as a 'non-murderer' or 'non-rapist', based purely on the numbers and likelihood of meeting one or more.

    If I found myself in a group of KKK members, I would feel compelled to call myself a non-white supremacist. That has never happened to me, and I've never had a KKK member knock on my door to preach at me. Otherwise I'd tell them I'm not 'with' them, I disagree. I can't say the same with religions.

    Have you ever heard of a Westboro Non-Murderers Club? Or any 'non-believers' organisation state you are born evil and must follow their dogma or suffer for eternity if you don't?
    Don't kid yourself, the Westboro Church preaches the same basic message as do most religions, they just don't try to hide their meanings as most others do, they're pretty blunt about it. As abhorrent as they are, they are at least more honest about it then most churches.

    In essence, calling oneself an Atheist is a REACTION to religion and their actions and beliefs. As another poster already stated, when the current 'religions' are nothing more then a distant memory in our history, so too the term Atheist will likely become redundant.

    Until then, there are multiple reasons why someone would want to openly distinguish themselves from the preachings, excuses for bad behaviour and power grab that religion is and always has been, and the many fools that follow their absurd teachings and beliefs.
    Similar to a German not currently feeling the need to proclaim they're a 'non-Nazi'.

    There is the psychology behind it you asked for. The likelihood of meeting one or more, and one's need to say they're not a part of that. When a billion plus murderers organise themselves into a group and come preaching at me, I'll call myself a non-murderer, anti-killer or whatever term suits me. As a REACTION to a group mentality telling me what I must think, say and do.

  43. docoman

    Hmm, try thinking that "there is no such thing as physical matter" when you're standing on a highway in front of an oncoming truck.... aim for all that ' empty space'
    Good luck with that line of reasoning.

    Edit- Don't try it, it's a rhetorical question. :)

  44. Imightberiding

    I pretty much like & agree with your argument/comment. I gave you a thumbs up but only on the assumption that said person's belief in the Easter Bunny or any other belief does not infringe on another person's rights or freedoms & certainly is not the foundation for harm to others.

  45. docoman

    It still astounds me when usually intelligent people start talking about their 'God delusions'. It is at those times I find it very easy to accept that we humans are indeed 'glorified Apes'.

  46. Quebeconnect

    Why is he not allowed to be an Atheist and a "non-murderer" at the same time? Why do you find it so difficult to see that people can label themselves as a plethora of different things and relate to them individually? Not believing in a supreme being has absolutely nothing to do with not believing in murder so why would one lump the two together?

  47. Imightberiding

    Hey 1concept1,

    How goes it? I have read your comments over the past months & I finally have to ask: Why do you use a question mark at the end of a sentence when it is not appropriate to do so? It seems as though this symbol (?) is ubiquitous in all your comments.

    I am not passing judgement nor am I criticizing. I am merely curious. Is it because you are either a Canadian or an Australian & every sentence you speak has an inflection at the end that makes it sound like a question? Does that just carry over into typing as well? Cheers?

  48. Imightberiding

    I am afraid that young Janeen finds it impossible to accept the fact that not believing in god does not a murderer make.

  49. docoman

    Ever consider the "every sentence you speak has an inflection at the end that makes it sound like a question" is an opening for either self reflection for the questionee, or an offering for further discourse on the topic by the questioner?
    Instead of the over-used statement of fact that often prevails.
    ?????
    Why is it that Canadians and Australians seem to be over-represented in logical discourse compared to more populous countries? TDF is a good example of that if you take notice.
    Why do both those countries you mention always 'punch above their weight' in sport, education and warfare compared to 'similar cultured' countries like the UK and USA?
    Could it be, that the 'questioning' you refer to has something to do with it, instead of claiming outright to have the answers? ;)

  50. Imightberiding

    I do indeed understand the idea of inviting your companion to further discourse by inflection. My entire question was rather meant as light hearted with a friendly jab at Canucks & Auzzies. I am from Canada myself after all & have met some dear friends over the years from Australia.

    As to us "fighting/punching in higher weight classes" in most subject matter, I believe I may have at least a partial answer.

    I do not recall where but I recently read an article that placed Canada at the top of all nations in the world for most educated per capita. Australia was either second or not far behind. I honestly don't recall the other countries at the moment but this may be part of the reason behind your observation.

    I must say I quite liked your analogy of "punching above their weight". Cheers!

  51. avd420

    The same reason I identify myself as "not gay" when I go to gay clubs with my gay brother.

  52. avd420

    You're right. I like to take my life in my own hands and claim responsibility for my faults and successes. Therefore, I am a supernatural, supervisoral creator of all existence,.

  53. docoman

    I felt there was a reason I liked you for more then just your logical posts, many of which I've had the enjoyment of reading. :) Off topic I know, but I wonder if our smaller populations have something to do with it. Or just a different attitude from younger, smaller nations.

  54. docoman

    Taking your bat and ball and going home Toni. Pick up your dummy (pacifier), and have a go mate. You may be talking to a 'brick wall' one on one, but others that are still learning may get something from what you have to say mate. Your posts on this thread are interesting and worthy of being read, in my opinion.

  55. docoman

    Hello Bob, I'm John, it's been 2 years since my last murder.... thanks to MA. lols.

  56. Fabien L'Amour

    Great well thought reply, saying I am an atheist is just another way of saying I don't believe in God when a Jehovah witness come knocking at your door at 8 AM on Sunday morning. It's probably more effective though given the prejudice many believers have toward atheists.

  57. DarkSpirit

    Declaring yourself as a non-murderer is just very plain. I don't know about others, but I think just being a non-murderer is very easy to achieve. It is like saying I am a member of most of the human race who are non-murderers.

  58. docoman

    I agree mate. That is why the religious claims of a patent on 'morals' is obviously false. Hence, the non-need to specify oneself as a non-murderer, as opposed to non-religious. It's basically a numbers game.

  59. Jack1952

    Being an atheist does not mean that I believe God doesn't exist. It means that I have seen no evidence of his existence. It is like any other claim that a person can make. It is all well and good to make a claim but that claim has no merit unless you have the facts to back it up. If someone says God exists, fine, he may well exist but prove it to me. Until you can, it is only your opinion. Why should I accept anyone's opinion?

  60. docoman

    Hmm, that's wrong Janeen. If one was to just 'believe what other people say and do instead of thinking critically', they'd be more likely to believe in a certain religion. People such as myself, that were told 'you need to believe' would be religious. The particular 'flavor' would depend on where, when and who we are born to. It is though critical thinking, and honest evaluation of religious claims, that people come to their own conclusion. That is NOT how religions work. That is NOT how FAITH works.

  61. Janeen Clark

    atheists do the same thing that religions do that is fail to critical think in a particular area due to culture established beliefs. it is evident within the name atheist. it is a direct antagonist to believers in religions. im saying don't be a phony by pretending to critically think, unless you have critically thought about every aspect of society not just picking apart religion.

  62. Janeen Clark

    then make sure not to have an argument with yourself for "god's" sake.

  63. avd420

    Critical thought doesn't imply original conclusions, Janeen.

  64. avd420

    Love is a word we used to describe how certain chemical changes in our brains make us feel. This has been replicated and documented, it has been proven.

  65. Guest

    Let me just say that I agree with what the guy in the video says, even though I am a Christian. Many Christians have really lost sight of Biblical teachings. The Bible never ever advocates that Christians should hound every non-Christians that they meet until they give up and accept Christ, yet that seems to be the case with many Christian groups today and that is just so wrong!

    When Jesus was on Earth, he preached in the market place. He raised his voice so that you would know what topic he is talking about but if someone decided to walk away, did Jesus try to stop them and insists that they listen? Of course not! Similarly, this was also how Jesus's disciples preached.

    Even the Bible said that not everyone would choose to accept the message in the end, so not everyone is destined to be a Christian. It is God's prerogative to decide who finally becomes a Christian, not any Christians themselves. To use marketing techniques, or psychology to gain converts is just WRONG because they would be relying on human trickery rather than to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit.

    In summary, Christians should make themselves available to evangelize and be prepared to help those who are truly interested to seek God. But they should never ever try to sell Christianity like a salesperson. That is just not Jesus's way. You can remind Christians of that, the next time anyone of them bothers you.

  66. docoman

    You only take it as antagonist, because of your position.
    Hmmm, phoney? How did you 'critically think' and come up with your assertions about Quantum Physics then Janeen? Come up with that all by yourself as you claim 'critically thinking people must', or are you taking other peoples word for it? Not to mention whatever 'flavor' of religion you subscribe to.
    I'll say the same to you as I have to many religious 'pushers', try some self honesty before you want to preach your beliefs at me.

  67. docoman

    I was waiting for the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy to rear it's head as it usually does with you guys.
    It's very convenient that you skip past the threats of 'eternal suffering' that you Christians preach and condemn the 'non-believers', or 'non-listeners' to....

    Or the definition and application of 'evangelize'. Kid yourself all you like mate, I'm not buying your BS.

  68. Janeen Clark

    i'm going to do a thought exercise that will take me a whole 1 % of effort and brain power. i am going to examine the psychology of religions of the world the last 3k years to see what stopped those people from seeing beyond the scope of those beliefs to see the larger picture of reality. next i am going to apply the same method and principles to atheists to see if the same thing exists. now for you at home to follow along and participate in this exercise yourself i will take an area of society and make the comparisons to show you. we can start with number 1 authority structures like government police and the monetary system. if we take these and compare to the core psychological strategy that all religions share in order to effect people on a large scale we see that yes there are some fundamental core attributes that cross correlate between them. they are called punishment and reward. that is controlling the behavior of society by giving something to get them do want you want or inflict punishment to prevent what you do want thiis allows for domination by the ones setting the rules. this strategy stems from religion in fact any systems with reward and punishment are a religion that is a mass following blindly with faith. now lats time i checked atheists blindly follow money system , government

  69. avd420

    OK, but I still don't believe in Gods.

  70. Guest

    And you should not need to. I am not a salesperson who is concerned about meeting my quota of converts because that has never been my responsibility.

    My responsibility is to make sure that if anyone is interested, I am ready to tell the message. That's all.

    The ONLY way you can be a Christian is that God allows it. Otherwise, I can dance for days around you and you would still not be a true Christian. God has given everyone a free choice, so what gives me the right to take that away? I always remind myself of that it is beyond my powers to make TRUE Christians, only God can do that. If God wills it, even if I can't speak the language and can only use hand signs, the person would still accept Christ due to the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Yes Christians believe that non-believers would suffer, but still Christians should be reminded that it is beyond their human powers to save any of them. Only God can do that. We can only avail ourselves to preach to those who are truly interested to hear the message.

  71. docoman

    Look up the definition of evangelize, and look at how it is applied. You may not feel the need to preach, but don't BS me and claim that is not a requirement of your Churches.

  72. Janeen Clark

    its not the god that makes religions false its the blind faith preventing critical thinking. atheists act higher than religion but they blind faith with money government media etc etc scientifically making them the same as what they bash in religion.

  73. docoman

    Then please explain your 10% tithing requirements, and contrast that to the supposed teaching of 'give to Caesar what is Caesars'.

    Why don't you happily pay taxes? Could it be greed? Why does the Vatican ask for more money to help others, while they happily sit on their own fortune?
    Again, try some self honesty, see through your 'religious blinkers' for a change.

  74. avd420

    Do you not see the irony of you bashing atheists for bashing religion?

  75. Guest

    If that is a requirement of my Church, I would leave that Church right away. I kid you not.

    Any Church that goes against the teachings of Jesus, is only interested to build up its power base by increasing membership. That is not something that I am interested to be a part of.

    I would rather convert just 1 true Christian through the power of the Holy Spirit than to convert 1000 false Christians through the power of my marketing and persuasion skills.

  76. over the edge

    money, science, governments and so on have nothing to do with atheism. atheism is a lack of belief in the god claims of others. what a person believes on other subjects is irrelevant. do you believe in one or more gods? do you have any proof if you do believe? instead of red herrings why not use critical thinking skills to back up your stance

  77. docoman

    If you are a part of an organised Christian Church, then you're kidding yourself mate.
    I'm not bashing all Christians, I know many that are good people. But it is a requirement of Christian Doctrine to 'preach the word', as I already said, look up the definition of 'evangelize'. It's self explanatory mate. Given money to your offerings have you? If your answer is yes, then you've helped be a part of evangelizing.

  78. Guest

    What is most important for Christian is to look at the life of Jesus and follow his examples. If 'evangelize' is not the right word, then feel free to change it for me, as I am not sure what would be a better word to convey my message.

    I have not departed with my stance, and I have even openly challenged leaders of Churches and Christian organizations in front of their congregations, when I hear them teaching psychology to help bring in converts. I have openly rebuked them before and walked out of their meetings.

  79. Tom Hill

    The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic? The Agnostic ain't quite sure!

  80. Janeen Clark

    atheists are saying that don't have blind faith i say they do i have shown the areas that they do, second atheists say they use critical thinking, i say they don't and i have shown where they don't.

  81. docoman

    You and I would have no problem getting along with each other. We basically agree on moral behaviour, we just have some differences of opinion, but are closer then we are apart.

    How were your questions received? And what do you think they all thought and probably said after you left those meetings?

  82. Janeen Clark

    i have shown an area where atheist use the same blind faith thinking as religious people read it again if you missed that part .

  83. Janeen Clark

    it take little brain power to question religion, however it tales little brain power to question other false systems that use the same strategies as religions to control people this is what i just went over.

  84. avd420

    I'll take that as a "No."

  85. Guest

    I have probably offended many Christians there but it is important as a Christian to have the courage and conviction to rebuke them when you see wrong teachings like that being preached to their congregations. That is also my responsibility according to the Bible.

    Again I have done my part, and I will let the Holy Spirit do its part as well. Unfortunately a lot of the bad reputation that Christianity gained throughout the centuries is not because Christianity is evil, but there have been people who were abusing Christianity for their own selfish purpose.

    Which is why Christians need to read and understand the Bible themselves and look at Jesus as the ultimate example to follow in life, rather than any human Christian celebrity.

  86. docoman

    Except you applied no 'brain power'.

  87. docoman

    I suggest to you, that you have a closer look at how your Bible came to be what it is today.

    It has been shown, not only are there mutually exclusive contradictions, but also additions and changes many times, to the point we don't know what was first written, let alone what was or wasn't done 2000 years ago.

    I don't dispute there are some decent morals and ideas, I do dispute they come from what it claims is 'God'.

  88. over the edge

    i never claimed that atheists never demonstrate blind faith. but atheism itself requires no faith at all. there is only the disbelief in the claims of others, why muddy the waters? why not answer any of my questions? explain what you claim to be true where god is concerned. at least explain why atheism is the incorrect position to hold until proof is given to change that stance

  89. docoman

    No mate, wrong. I call myself Agnostic. I believe anyone claiming knowledge of 'supernatural Gods' is full of sh1t, they can't know.
    I can say however, the Bible and Qu'ran are largely BS with complete confidence. Just read their 'scriptures' properly, learn their history and evolution, and you can see for yourself.

    Any off-shoot version of those are also man made.
    IF there is some 'god' for lack of a better term, it surely isn't one of those lies.

  90. Tom Hill

    After reading comments for a while and from past experience, I come to this conclusion: Go to any church in the US and loudly pronounce that they worship the same god as Muslims- the god of Abraham, also, tell them the last supper, euchrist, or communion is a rite of cannibalism and you will have a fist fight unless one of them shoots you first.

  91. Janeen Clark

    yes, even a child can make a list in the proper order of the details and its effects then see if the system is different form a religion this is why it is ridiculous people don't question these things and follow blindly to every aspect of society which are the same type of systems as religions when you break them completely down to examine them on their own merit not because someone told you to think a certain way or everybody you know does it so you do it. if you choose not to do that just reconizea nd accept you are a part of that particular religion that goes on blind faith and say hey im doing what other religion followers do too.

  92. docoman

    Unlike your claims, there are more then one kind of Atheist. Google 'positive and negative atheists' to get a better idea of what you're on about Janeen. Your blanket statements about what others profess to believe are incorrect.

  93. docoman

    And again, learn what you're on about regarding what Atheists do or don't claim. Google 'positive and negative Atheism', you'll learn something if you try.
    You are only partially correct, but you're not aware of it.

  94. Guest

    In the end, it is a matter of faith since I do not know how to prove to you the existence of God and neither can you disprove the existence of God. If you have watched the show "Contact" starring Jodie Foster, it is kind of like that feeling at the end of the show.

  95. docoman

    Well that's obvious... try my suggestion, do some reading...
    I've argued similar to what you're saying, and have done what I'm suggesting. You are correct about only SOME Atheists, not all.

    I'm agnostic if I have to label myself.
    If someone claims 'there is no God or Gods, period', that's a claim based not on evidence, I agree. If someone says' I don't believe your assertions about God', that's not a claim.

  96. Janeen Clark

    i see what your saying though yes

  97. 1concept1

    Good question Imightberiding - I have answered that same question before -

    I do that to throw an anomaly or a glitch into the small pea brains of those who want to get into a hissy fit battle over nonsense or they just had a fight with their spouse or who ever and want to get on the airways and take it out on me. They focus on the ? and it throws them off and they don't know what to do so they let it go and look for a more favorable comment to attack.

    The individuals that have realistic comments or questions bypass that ? and figure i placed it there questioning my own logic or comments or simply don't care? :-)

    In ref. to your avatar, Is that I-might-be-riding? and if so is that a horse or a motorcycle?

  98. Janeen Clark

    as far as god, it would be impossible for a super intelligent being of that type of caliber to have the psychology of a 5 year old child in terms of punishment and reward inflicted on mankind this means all the people of the world have projecting human values form times past and experiences onto the concept of god. as far as my own ideas imagine in 30 years the way video games will be now lets say there is enough processing power for an emergent consciousness to form for a played character even though your controlling through joystick. now imagine 2 charators having a conversation. char 1 "what if there is a creator?" char 2 "are you crazy? look arounbf you reality is governed by rules it makes sense all by itself." char 1. "but what if we are connected to some type of higher self that guides us , a soul ,a long with a creator of this reality?" char 2 " you are ridiculous! what mechanism does this soul you say connect to our brains? that's poppy cock?" end scene. this should give you idea where i come form now.

  99. docoman

    I agree mate, that's why I call myself Agnostic if I must find a label.

  100. 1concept1

    Right on.

  101. Janeen Clark

    in order for me to explain my view of "god". i have to give an analogy.imagine around 25 years in the future when we have the tech to put into a realistic video that is a replica of this reality regarding the emergence of consciousness in the character of the game, so you have a man controlling through the keyboard and mouse but the character evolves based on experience and has awareness. now lets say at some point in the game the character your controlling has a conversation with another character in the game like this character a " do you think it is possible that there is a creator to this reality?" character b spits out coffee through his nose "that is ridiculous! look around you we live in a world governed by laws that function so that this all can exist!" character a "yes but what is there is a higher self that we get our identity from, a soul." character b "where is this creator at who created him? and as far as this soul concept , by what mechanism does the soul connect to your brain in reality?"character b "only a fool could think that was true" in this exercise everything char a says is true.

  102. 1concept1

    Because a person is an atheists doesn't mean they have blind faith in "money govt. etc and so on.

    It just means they don't believe in a "God" In fact, if my hunch is correct, and atheists has equal amounts of faith in govt. as they do a "God",

    It takes a brave person to be an atheists.

    Look up the name Jesus, It means "THE SON OF MAN" (is that some tihs or what)?

  103. 1concept1

    One can see touch smell and spend money no faith is needed.

    I feel like we are ganging up on you Janeen - that's not my intention. I am just responding to comments.

    Where have you shown, "proof", that atheist have blind faith in anything. That part where you posted the atheist has blind faith in money govt etc. NO! That's not so! I know a poor redneck factory worker who is an atheist, (there usually "Christians") He has no faith in money at all, he has none.

    I am just trying to figure out where this "proof" comes in that atheist have blind faith or just faith in anything? I mean there is no collective mindset here like there is in an organized religion?

  104. 1concept1

    In essence you are point on - however it might just be human nature to "cross correlate; It really doesn't matter if its "religion, govt or a business those are just words, the same body of people with leaders and followers are the focal point.

    Everyone can't be "GOD" but we can all be Jesus -

  105. 1concept1

    If one actually believes in "God" how more critical can ones thinking be. You can't tell anyone who worship with blind faith in "THEIR GOD" That there is something more to think about?

  106. Bea Harpy

    As a child I was taught that the greatest gift "God" ever gave mankind.. was free will. Then I was given a list of rules... told I had to live a certain way if I wanted to go to heaven. I gave up on religion quite early

  107. Bea Harpy

    "What is most important for Christian is to look at the life of Jesus and follow his examples."

    So we should beat the crap out of anyone who partakes in financial transactions in the "house of God"? Hold on to your collection plate.. things is gonna get ugly up in here!

  108. 1concept1

    Janeen its not that they follow blindly; There afraid of the void nothingness. A preacher of all things told me 95%, of the people attending church don't believe they just want acceptance of the community and a safety net.

  109. 1concept1

    Toni I am looking for your posted comment or comment's What discussion have you had here?

    Oh well I guess you told us? Good night Toni things will be better in the morning :-) lol

  110. 1concept1

    I think we might have scared him?

  111. 1concept1

    funny! (true)

  112. 1concept1

    In the end "faith" based on what?

  113. 1concept1

    No their math is conclusive just like the finding of certain planets that have been found via math. And if there is nothing material they add a string to it and call it string theory. If they didn't add the string they couldn't call it theoretical physics it would be called metaphysics at best or philosophy at worst.

    There is no faith in the world of Science without some critical (math) thinking somewhere; concerning things Science can see or touch.

    (i gave you and up vote for effort)

  114. jon jenkins

    im not religous, nor athieist, nor agnostic

  115. Jef Damien

    so if you put these chemicals in my brain. who or what do i love then? aren't the chemicals a reaction to the feeling? so if I love a person ore an idea it's just cus for some reason these chemicals want to get released in my brain?

  116. Jef Damien

    for love i know for sure. for god it depends on how you take the concept :)
    I do not blindly believe religions but that doesn't mean you can't learn something from them.

    And what i ment is that emotions are 100% thru.
    you can think back and think "the things i saw yesterday, were they real?" was it a dream or is my mind making things up. for example.
    but you can get a feeling which you know is real. but your radical mind doesn't understand why you are feeling this. (like falling in love whit someone impossible to be with. like romeo & julia)

    just do not like how its always black or white on this subject. i think religions can learn from scientist but also in opposite direction

  117. Janeen Clark

    me either nice to meet you sir.

  118. DarkSpirit

    What is faith? "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."(Hebrews 11:1)

    As for me, my faith is weak and I can only base it on the miracles that I have witnessed in my personal life. Like Ellie Arroway in the movie "Contact", I can't show you the wonders that I have seen and heard in order to prove him to you. God doesn't want to reveal himself to the world through such means, at least not at this time.

    Being the Supreme being, by its very definition, no scientist can ever force him in to a test tube to prove his existence without him allowing it in the first place. He can only be revealed to man, if he so chooses, in the manner and time that he chooses to be revealed. Therefore, man would never ever prove the existence of God through man's science, or through any of his own means without God allowing it.

    "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen me but still have believed."" (John 20:29)

  119. Russ G

    HA HA hahaha (crack me up dude ;-), bloody typical communal profiteers , side step - believe - confess - repent , when are these global communal groups going to drink some concrete and "sapien-up " take some responserbilty for the mess , I doubt lotz are actually man enough to man-up so we need a solution to religion's waste of opportunity they seem to be unable to utilise , our progression as a unified species prosperously making actual progress depends on it

  120. Fabien L'Amour

    Nihilist?

  121. 1concept1

    Based on your perception of the Deity you are right on.

    That "God particle" thing bothers me too! Trying to find "God" with a hammer, is that not some tihs.

    Later i was told that was some news media thing that sounded good so they went with it, the news that is not the "Scientist"?

    DarkSpirit is a strange avatar for a "Christian"?

    DarkSpirit i too have witnessed much Divine intervention over a seventy year life span.

    That being said I don't find it necessary to give "God" a "life form", (for lack of better words), with a fuzzy white beard

    Understand this my Dark Spirit - "God", can not exist without you! "God" exist through You and the Black Bird you see in the park.

    "Gods" manifestation IS through You. A king without a nation does not exist.

    I dislike the word "God" I prefer "Deity" its more of a partnership.

  122. 1concept1

    Very good - I had to look that one up :-)

  123. 1concept1

    You should have said it like that in the first place. That make sense.

    But again it may be just 'human nature' that causes "cross correlation"

    I don't know that a "system" can be "false" a wrong system yes. A system is a system? (no big thing just words out of context)

  124. 1concept1

    Janeen you need to defrag and get some sleep :-)

    A friend of mine says when he defrags the computer its him that's actually being defraged.

  125. ZeissIkon

    I usually put myself down as a sumtheist when filling out official forms :-)

  126. 1concept1

    Toni nothing is carved in stone here. This is open dialog. If you think we are "clueless" then clue us in.

    Do we scare you?

  127. Jack1952

    I am an atheist and am not an antagonist of the religious community. People can do and believe as they like as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you could demonstrate the existence of God, so there is no way that I could refute your evidence, I would have to accept it and acknowledge that he exists. I have no problem with that. However, then you have to show that only the Bible defines the truth of God's existence and how we should relate to him. Is it the Bible or the Koran or the Hindu holy books or the myriad of other metaphysical philosophies that are floating about the world? For those who are religious it is not enough that God exists. What is more important is how and what we believe about his existence. So, after proving his existence, you have to prove which religious ideas are the correct ones. That is a tall order.

  128. 1concept1

    DarkSpirit If Christians would remove the part about Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead maybe the rest of us would listen to what Christians have to say?

    Mahatma Gandhi said, (paraphrasing), I beleave Jesus was the greatest teacher of all time, its his followers that i have a problem with.

    Just recently The Roman Catholic Church made two comments; (paraphrasing), they believe in Darwins' theory and most recently, "Hell is not a physical place but a state of conscious being" That coming from the founding Christian church, as my first cousins across the pond would say:

    That Deserves A Standing

  129. IndustryOfBlame

    In real life I've never felt the need to proclaim my atheism, simply because it would raise no eyebrows whatsoever if I did. Why? Because my position is not an antagonistic one, and in a secular society people don't feel the need to pretend it is. It's only here on the internet where I have to defend my position of being completely unimpressed by any claim of supernatural authority.

  130. 1concept1

    I think it was this doc where someone said Love was a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction is the result of Love? Sex, (mm), is a chemical reaction and perhaps as Janeen Clark would say a cross correlation.

  131. NX2

    ...,nor human :)

  132. 1concept1

    There is no defense need unless you anti up a concept and throw it in the pot? No post no defense needed?

    This is real life with real people and real concepts in fact this is probably the realest you've been in a long time. LOL!

  133. Guest

    First, I am not a Roman Catholic. Second, like I have said before, I rather follow the examples of Jesus than any human celebrity, including even the Pope. Third, lots of Churches are trying to "soften" the Christian message by making it more appealing to modern society. I totally disagree with what they are doing.

    The bible, by design, is not suppose to be easily believed by the modern man, which is why, not everyone would be a true Christian and that gives value to the word "Faith".

    Also what you mentioned about "Deity" is totally different from God as mentioned in the Bible. Maybe if the Bible conforms more to New Age beliefs it would be easier for modern people to accept. But that is how it is, you either believe the Bible as it is, or not.

  134. IndustryOfBlame

    Are you asking me to elaborate? I've not once had to defend my position of never having seen evidence of dragons being real, yet taking that exact same position on the subject of religion somehow makes me an antagonist. I think Janeen, much like seemingly everyone else these days, has created her own definition of atheism, that of the humanist educationalist footsoldier. There are plenty of angry and antagonistic atheists out there, probably for good reasons. I can't imagine what it's like to be an atheist in places like Utah or Oklahoma. However, I grew up in Stockholm, which is one of the least religious places in the world. No one bothers me or calls me names for not believing, and not once have I denounced anyone's deity as nonexistent. Jack1952's definition of atheism; praise be to his eloquence, is the one I adhere to.

    I suspect you misunderstood my expression "in real life". This simply refers to face-face conversation, and has no wider philosophical implication. I thought you were just being fecetious but then i remembered you making subtly authoritative remarks about your age everywhere.

  135. Michael Jay Burns

    I think that most people who call themselves “agnostic” are actually atheist, but don't want to take the heat you get wearing that label.
    If you ask them the question as simply "do you believe that there is a god" most would simply reply "no" .

    The trick of it is to require, for social reasons rather than rationale ones, total proof of a negative -which in this case is impossible. But that level of proof is not applied in any other context.
    The "I can't be sure" position of the existence of a deity is really a cop-out, since they are as sure that "god" does NOT exist as they are that the sun and the stars DO exist. In both cases there is some possibility of error, but - in everything
    other than discussions of a deity- a probably of 1 in infinity is treated as zero (which by the way, mathematically it is)

    I am an atheist - like all of us I was born that way - and I'll stay that way until sufficient proof is presented to me to change that opinion. I will not be intimidated into making some false declaration.
    Those who do empower the intimidators and weaken their own position in society.

  136. Michael Jay Burns

    check again. There are atheists of every possible non-supernatural ideology.

    You can use your personal definitions if you want to but the price you pay is that you are only talking to yourself. It is simple: if your standard of proof is based of evidence and reason alone you are functionally an atheist. If it depends on magic and myth in any way, you are not.

  137. Michael Jay Burns

    I see that you now make a distinction between religion and "other false systems" I note that it takes courage to challenge any system that is ingrained into your society and I applaud you for yours. I think that you are an atheist but just don't know it.

  138. Michael Jay Burns

    more than most accept some form of Pascal's Wager horribly flawed logic though it may be.

  139. Michael Jay Burns

    If there was no religion in human society there would be no reason for anyone to declare his or her membership in any of the cohorts of believers. But that is not the case. The dominant culture in the United States incorporates much of its fabric from the Judeo-Christian religions. At one time the institutions of those religions totally dominated western culture. But evidence and reason have chipped away at that dominance, The US is virtually the last bastion of that power.
    Supernaturalism and naturalism have been at odds for centuries and I think it fair to say Supernaturalism is on the losing side of that struggle
    When an atheist says "Hi my name is Bob and I am an atheist"
    he numbers himself with all those who oppose evidence and reason and allies against those who are the enemies of thought.
    Those enemies are very real. For example their minions actively seek to undermine science in our schools and would replace science with dogma if left unchecked.
    In a democracy there is power in numbers and atheist need to identify themselves and stand with their cohorts lest our ideological freedom be crushed by the children of the Inquisition.
    Which tent are you in Janeen?

  140. Michael Jay Burns

    Ah yes I see it now - you live in an Old Testament themed Matrix.
    I feel like such a fool trying to educate an avatar.

  141. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    really? so you poop all wrap up without odor also ? And that why we all live in a huge garbage dump called earth ( superman) ? D.U.D.!!==?? OOOOO Supreme b.s. euh... beeing wath do those 4 letters mean?? supernatural mortal creature!!

  142. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    Lots of brainwashed comments ! atheist why do you have faith if there is no God? you need faith to eat , get up, f.... ect.... like i said D.U.D.

  143. over the edge

    atheism does not mean no god. it means not proof of a god. faith plays no part in my atheism

  144. Michael Jay Burns

    "faith" is belief without proof. You don't need it to perform the basic functions of life any more than your cat does.

  145. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    instead of denying and wasting your energy why dont you call on Him ! He will make it clear D.U.D.!! FAITH = PUT YOUR KEYS IN YOUR CAR( LIghting speed beleiving)=vroum vroum: proof of God is all around you ! D.U.D !!! havent figure it out yet?

  146. docoman

    I'm not being smart-@ssed, this is a sincere question mate, I've asked a number of people who say they believe in the Bible the same questions, but usually get some silly reply, or nothing at all.

    How do you reconcile the contradictions the Bible contains? How do you believe it is true and accurate, when it contains mutually exclusive contradictions?
    A few of the examples that can be found in the 4 Gospels;
    - was it 1 or both others on the crosses who mocked Jesus?
    - what day, and what time did Jesus die?
    - what were his last words?
    - did Jesus get help carrying his cross?
    - did Jesus say anything when carrying his cross?
    - how many denials of Jesus were there, when, and to whom?
    - when did the temple curtain rip?
    - who exactly went to the tomb later?
    -was the stone rolled away before or after she/they arrived?
    -who was at the tomb, 1 or 2 men, or an angel?
    -what was she/they told to tell the disciples?

    Compare the Gospels to each other, you'll find all these contradictions within them.

    How do you know what it's 'design' is (you said it was not suppose{d} to be easily believed by the modern man), when we don't know who, when or what was originally written, and where has it been modified since.
    Two examples;
    - the older manuscripts have the gospel of Mark ending at Mark 16:8. Later on, 12 more verses were added on. Eventually, the extra 12 verses became 'part' of the gospel, as you will find in your English version today.

    - the story of the Adulterous Woman, in Mark Chaper 7 and 8. That was not in the earlier versions of Mark, it didn't show up until the 10th century. The Greek written commentaries on the NT don't mention it till the 10th Century either. Apparently, when read in the original Greek (which I can't read, hence 'apparently'), that story is clearly written in a different style to the earlier authored parts of Mark. It was added on, about 1000 years after Jesus lived.

    How can you really believe the Bible is true and accurate, when it clearly has many problems? Problems that can't be written off as 'translation issues'. Apparently 'God' can do 'divine inspiration', but not 'divine conservation'. That makes no sense to me, can you help me understand how you reconcile or ignore these problems, (of which there are many, many more then the ones I mentioned) in order to keep it 'the word of God', and not the words of men?

  147. Achems_Razor

    "Call on him"? whats his phone number?

    Funny religee's.

  148. socratesuk

    With respect this seems a silly statement. So do you believe in god/gods or not?

  149. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn !! dont need to watch your garbage I KNOW! (last comment ) i sleep in peace no mather wath !!! oooops proof? you blind ? YEP! JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD DO SOME SERIOUS SOUL SEARCHING CAUSE ITS A FACT!! i saught. i found !

  150. over the edge

    with all those caps you must be right. i do not want soul searching i want proof. as you claim it is a fact you must have some actual proof. you can't be basing all those caps on a book by unknown authors written long after the claimed events that has been edited, translated and added to multiple times. all while contradicting itself, logic and history. can you?

  151. docoman

    On the point of 'conforming more to New Age beliefs', I think if you look at the evolution of the Bible you'll find it attempts to from version to version.
    An example, look at Isaiah 13:21, in the KJV and then the NIV.
    The KJV says "...and satyrs shall dance there."
    The NIV says, "...and there the wild goats will leap about"

    Satyrs are half goat/half man Deities from Greek Mythology. (Greek deities in the Bible... hmmm)
    Very different to 'wild goats' as it says in the 'newer version'.

    You'll find the same change made in Isaiah 34:14 as well.

  152. socratesuk

    How do we know that god hasn't got very depressed with constant prayers and people asking for stuff, and called it a day? What does god get out of this? Apart from a massive headache?

    Part of the problem with the god debate is that no one ever defines what god is? what he or she looks like? does it have a gender? an age? a memory? feelings? emotions? a body? a brain? an accent? a height? a weight? a voice? the list goes on.

  153. docoman

    And the majority of those prayers are on his day of rest too! ;)

    I think 'Father and Son' are pretty gender specific.

    Fair point though mate.. yet apparently some are able to tell us what He thinks/wants, just ask the Pope.

  154. Imightberiding

    Firstly, my apologies to TDF as this conversation is completely off topic & so will keep my answer brief.

    Thanks for your response to my inquiry. You answered my question I think?

    As to my avatar, it is at present a close-up of one of my motorcycle engines (Honda XR650L). My choice of name is indeed I-might-be-riding. (motorcycles)

    It came about because several friends, family & doctor complained that I rarely answered my cell phone in a timely manner if ever & they always found themselves leaving a voice mail for me. My response was that: I might be riding, so I either won't here the ring, feel the vibration, can't answer or just don't want to at that time because I was on one of my bikes at the time. Cheers.

  155. socratesuk

    Ha Ha, good point about most of the prayers being on his day off.

  156. docoman

    There is nothing wrong with an honest reply of 'I don't know'. In fact, its the most honest answer I've seen on the subject.
    As I've said elsewhere, I don't know if there is or isn't some form of a 'god'. I can say with complete confidence, that the 'God' of the Bible and Qu'ran are BS. The contradictions within their 'scriptures' and logic make that possible.
    If you think that my position was arrived at via intimidation, you only show you don't know me.

    If you think being honest weakens my 'position in society', so be it. I feel the opposite is true, that being honest SHOULD strengthen my position. If it doesn't in your society, I feel sorry for those of you living there.

  157. Imightberiding

    I have been trying with no small amount of difficulty to follow your train of thought & arguments on this subject. Admittedly I am not terribly clever & I am most certainly convinced that I do not possess as formal an education as you Janeen.

    I have come to the realization from your comments that you yourself are guilty of thinking & passing judgement in the vein of the religious institutions & atheist organizations you are disparaging. What you are essentially saying to any of us atheists or agnostics here is parallel in the thinking of countless denominations throughout Christianity & other faiths.

    This argument gained popularity during the Protestant Reformation through the teachings of men the likes of Martin Luther. You are just flipping it upside down & it baffles the mind. Are you really saying: the way that we don't worship or believe in God is not the right way to not worship or believe in God?

  158. docoman

    Your post above about 'agnostics' really being weak atheists... isn't that you using "your personal definitions"?

    Kettle/pot there mate.
    What evidence do you supply showing the Singularity preceding the BB cannot be something or caused by something we'd call a deity?
    I don't know, you seem to.
    You have to apply the same standard of evidence to yourself mate, or you risk becoming a hypocrite too.

  159. Imightberiding

    Are you familiar with the author J.B. Phillips? I suspect you might be but maybe aren't quite aware just how. He is the man responsible for the Phillips translation of the New Testament. Quite popular in the 60's & 70's. I'm sure it still has a significant readership.

    Phillips also authored other volumes. One that came to mind as I read your futuristic computer analogy of all creation & a creator is a little book he wrote titled: "Your god Is Too Small". It's ironic when I think back to the first time I pulled that book from my ordained minister father's library shelves that I thought I was going to broaden & deepen my conviction in God. This worthwhile little book actually started my journey to de-conversion. I had already attended Bible College, studied theology & was about to be ordained. At the time I was convinced "God" had called me as a missionary to the troubled streets of North America's large urban centres. Of course I now realise it was not "God" at all who had "called" me, but just my bleeding heart & enthusiastic, naive, idealistic outlook on life. Without doubt, people need help on the streets of large cities. Just not the kind of help I believed back then.

    Rather that pursue my ordination papers as everyone else in my family (cousins, aunts, uncles, both parents, grand parents, great grandparents all of them ordained ministers, missionaries or professors at Bible Colleges) I started to realise how absurdly small the entire concept of God was. Not just certain gods or certain interpretations of God, but the entire idea. Perhaps I went beyond Mr. Phillips intention of awakening one's desire in a greater god.

    I couldn't help but be reminded of this through your comment & just how entirely & completely small & insignificant you have demonstrated the whole thought process behind grasping & believing in any god really is. Find yourself a copy. It's a little book, won't take long to read & I am certain you will find it beneficial. It will either deepen your faith in God or it will spark the fire of truth to discovery of reality that "He" did not create us, we created "Him". To your continued search Janeen.

  160. 1concept1

    I didn't miss understand you. One does not need body's arms and legs present for it to be a "real conversation" Its one mind talking to another. On the street people don't talk about the subject in question so know you don't have to defend yourself. When you expose yourself on the airways to a doc that address the topic at hand and you chose to participate with a post on your point of view your bound to get a reply from someone who disagrees with you.

    Look no one on here cares what you are or are not! If you don't want to be put into an arena where you have to defend your position the answer is simple, GO!

    I don't classify myself as an atheist - I am a spiritualist by nature.

    I have a lot more faith in an atheist then i do a "christian"! generically speaking. Atheist are strong people self contained. Christians in my opinion are the exact opposite. (or any organized religion for that Fact)!

    Of course there is good and bad on both sides if one is addressing a persons moral behavior?

    I'll be 71, tomorrow industryoftheblame and i am so excited about that you can't imagine!

    You are right, i do throw age in their on occasion but its in no way subtle!

  161. Michael Jay Burns

    it is true that you cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a god. but it is also true that you cannot say ANYTHING with absolute certainty and if you were asked, for example "is there a sun?" you probably would not equivocate.
    I don't know you, but you have taken the path of least resistance here for whatever reason.

  162. 1concept1

    Who said you were a "Roman Catholic"?

    (there "Christians" and read the same Bible as you)

    You and I are on the same page; Jesus' wisdom is correct and without flaw in my opinion! and Gandhi wrote "I believe Jesus was the greatest teacher or words to that effect, (I absolutely love that man! He confirmed Jesus' teaching as a solid foundation on the way life should be lived!

    How many times did he turn the other cheek, I've lost count?

    The Roman Catholic church edited the Bible they deleted 39, gospels, (they have them now) The pope took out one that stated that all soles will be brought up from Hell the pope took that one out because there would no longer be a fear of Hell and thus less control etc and so on. And what puzzles me is the "protestant" worships the Catholics Bible but hate the Catholics? (this is just a side note conversation, you keep on with the Bible the Bible etc).

    There is a doc right here on TDF, The Hidden Story Of Jesus by Dr. Robert Beckford, Theologian, (a Christian minister) You must go to the top and type it in to pull it up! I would like your input on it if that's possible?

    He travels to Israel and interviews "The Jews For Jesus" Then to Iraq and talks to them about Jesus and gets there info. etc and travels to many country's interviewing other religions and asking their view on Jesus. All of them had profound things to say.

  163. 1concept1

    I am sorry I know who Pascal is but i haven't read his work.

  164. 1concept1

    You should have stopped with that first sentence!!

  165. Michael Jay Burns

    The gist of Pascal's wager is that the choice to believe in God is a better bet than the choice not to believe since if you are wrong there is no penalty while being wrong with the alternate wager damns you to eternal torment.

    Note that this is not an argument for the actual existence of God.

  166. Michael Jay Burns

    pray for a spell checker

  167. Michael Jay Burns

    You can keep your pot in a kettle if you like.
    (1) I stated my opinion and my reasoning re: those who hold themselves out as agnostics. It was a statement of opinion, not fact and is clearly thus labeled. I did not assert any idiosyncratic personal definition of anything.

    (2) To my knowledge astrophysicists do not opine on any occurrence that predates the "event horizon" . Neither they nor I have any burden of proof to disprove your mythologies.

    I think that it is a common tyranny of the majority to misplace the burden of proof on those who disagree with their core (and generally unsupportable) beliefs when clearly the rule of discourse is that the burden of proof is upon the proponent.

  168. Tom Hill

    A most pertinent comment Michael Jay. I spent the first fifty years of my life calling myself an agnostic. I did it to "avoid the heat" and to save hard feelings within my family. They are southern baptist for the most part. I abide in the bobble belt.(No typo) For the last 10 years I have come out of the closet. I am a flaming ATHEIST and I am much more comfortable wearing that skin. As such I am ostracized, verbally abused and frequently on the verge of being assaulted. That is usually because my reply to their religious quips is "do you know that you pray to the same god as the muslims, the god of Abraham?" Further proselytizing and I might mention that the euchirist, communion, or last supper is a rite of cannibalism. In short, theism is not just a matter of faith, it requires blind faith to believe.

  169. 1concept1

    Thank you!

    Of course the first question that comes to mind, at least mine anyway, is how does one make oneself believe something they don't believe.

    I remember when i was a child and my grandmother made me watch bishop Fulton J Sheen, he was the first televangelist, and I can remember him saying this like it was yesterday;

    "An atheist is someone who doesn't have an invisible god to pray to"

    He also said "There are plenty of people who would gladly take the vows of poverty if they lived where i live and were given the food i eat.

  170. 1concept1

    If you don't mind since you brought it up, why is one treated as a zero? Are you speaking in terms of probability or something that is round off?

    0 has always intrigued me

    I think nothing or the word nothing coupled with 0 is a misnomer, (if i am using the proper word).

    Its the same in visual Art, (painting/drawing) The 0 or the sphere. In Art if one doesn't know what to do next a 0 will always work no matter what and in a way its a cheap shot.

  171. Michael Jay Burns

    One can only speculate, but humans have a tremendous ability to compartmentalize mutually exclusive ideas. It seems to me that the extreme defensiveness of those whose religious views are challenged is a product of cognitive dissonance. Some part of their reasoning mind is screaming at the absurdity of things that other parts of their mind have some sort of duty to believe. They fear that inner voice of reason and anything that would strengthen it because in it lies a threat of their exclusion from their respective herd.
    This of course makes them dangerous.

  172. Michael Jay Burns

    The inverse of the probability of "one in infinity " can be expressed as .999… (nines repeating forever)

    so, if x = .999…
    10x = 9.999
    Applying the principle of an equivalency,
    10x – x = 9 X is the same as
    9.999… - .999… = 9
    and
    9x/9 = x is the same as 9/9 = 1
    So .999… = 1
    The inverse of 1 is ZERO.

    So the probability of 1 in infinity is 0.

    I think this is related to "the limit" in calculus but would defer to one more learned on that subject for a definitive explanation.

  173. 1concept1

    Why does it make them dangerous -

  174. Michael Jay Burns

    ask Salman Rushdie

  175. 1concept1

    Of course why didn't i think of that :-)

  176. 1concept1

    I have my own ideas on that but i agree they are dangerous

    I have said this many times; Organized religion is more lethal and deadly then all the nuks in the world.

    I'll google Salman Rushdie tomorrow

    thank you

  177. Peter

    The difference between agnostic and atheist is pretty f*cking simple. Agnostics believe that theists can't prove there is a god and atheists can't prove there isn't a god. Atheists believe there is no god, fullstop. Agnostics aren't atheists in denial or not wanting to "own the heat". They actually don't really care about the whole debate. The facts are theists can't prove there is a god and atheists can't prove there isn't a god. THAT'S THE AGNOSTIC VIEWPOINT!

    Atheists also "believe in Science". Let's get one thing straight, science is only a tool of inquiry. A working hypothesis. It constantly changes and evolves as our knowledge grows with it. Nature constantly surprises us with new discoveries. There is a conduct of inquiry that must be adhered to which goes into every theory or hypothesis explored in science. It is not, and never will be, a world-view or belief system. To think of science as such removes and perverts the core discipline of the scientific method in of itself

  178. Janeen Clark

    supposing there was some type of god, and that god had some type of intelligence higher than us it will be impossible for that god to use reward and punishment , meaning heaven and hell are very primitive man made constructs, for example if you were in heaven how could you sleep easy knowing billions are suffering in hell because they picked the wrong multiple choice? next the idea of heaven would be so boring many would angels would commit suicide just out of boredom. these ideas are not well thought out and they are a psychological attempt at dealing with physical death. this means re-incarnation would be the logical option, however this suggests god could only be a type of holistic awareness a quantum entanglement so to speak

  179. Janeen Clark

    next time you get an urge to read a bible remember this, the smartest man on earth 2k years ago with the best intentions had less information available to him then a 5 year child with google app on his 20$ trakphone today. the implications are that you are able to get just as much accurate information about reality out of song lyrics as any bible form 2 to 3k years ago. food for thought.

  180. Guest

    Just do a google search and you will find your answer to that one.

    As prophecized, there will be many false prophets and false teachings to lead many astray during the last days.

  181. over the edge

    sorry but i disagree. theism/atheism concerns itself with BELIEF or the lack of in a god or gods. while gnostic/agnostic claims KNOWLEDGE or lack of where god is concerned.

  182. IndustryOfBlame

    It still seems to me like you did misunderstand, and now you're adressing me as if I was a ten year-old being introduced to internet commentary for the first time. My example of not having to defend my position in "real life" because it's so ubiquitous in my society, was a counter to Janeens claim that atheism is necessarily a cultural phenomenom geared towards antagonism of religion. Do you argue that point or are you simply ranting?

  183. 1concept1

    define "ranting" I'll take a hard look and get back to you.

  184. docoman

    Being agnostic is not always the 'path of least resistance' despite your assertion it is. In my life offline it makes no difference, that problem for me ended along with my mothers life years ago. And actually it's not the path of least resistance here on TDF, as you have demonstrated, as well as others before you. I get the religious disagreeing, and also positive atheists as well.
    Your analogy of 'is there a sun' compared to the question of is it possible there is some form of deity we are unaware of is a poor one. I have good evidence the sun is there, it's an accepted fact.
    Acknowledging the fact that I don't know that there cannot possibly be some form of deity humans are unaware of has no evidence, granted, but as you are already probably aware, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    You mention probability. Probability is not evidence either way, of anything, regardless of how it's treated mathematically. It's a calculation of what is the expected likelihood of something occurring. EXPECTED, not guaranteed. A very important distinction it seems you've missed. What is the probability that you will be hit and killed by a large meteor during your lifetime? Close enough to 0, mathematically? Which goes against you saying "in everything other than discussions of a deity- a probably of 1 in infinity is treated as zero"

    If I must choose a label, agnostic fits me best at this point in time. I can also say I'm an antithiest. IF there is some deity that 'runs the show', I don't want to have anything to do with such a sadistic mongrel. But as you also should know, no label fully encompasess the complexity of most humans, myself included. You saying I chose the label agnostic via intimidation, or because it's somehow the 'easy way out' or path of least resistance is incorrect. I feel it's the most accurate position to take with our current knowledge. It would be easier to just say I'm atheist. But that wouldn't be the most honest position for me.
    You say it yourself, "The trick of it is to require, for social reasons rather than rationale
    ones, total proof of a negative -which in this case is impossible."
    Agnostic definition - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
    You are agnostic if you believe what you wrote, you just don't admit it. For 'social reasons' it also seems from your posts.

  185. socratesuk

    Well this was an interesting post. Thank you for your input. So your possibly open to the concept of some sort of reincarnation maybe?

  186. IndustryOfBlame

    I think you can manage that yourself. As for my use of the word, I was refering to your extravagant use of exclamation marks following sentences not adressing any particular point of discussion.

  187. socratesuk

    For once a post I can partially agree with.

  188. socratesuk

    Thanks for that.

  189. socratesuk

    Now this is a good reply!.

  190. docoman

    Its not my kettle and pot Michael, it's yours. Own your own words mate.

    About your (1), whether you state it or say it's your opinion, you did go on to use your own definition of what agnostics are, which you admonished Janeen for doing to atheists. Your following posts take you from risking being a hypocrite, to being one.

    About your (2), I used an example of the Singularity preceding the BB and our current lack of information regarding it, not the Event Horizon. I said nothing about black holes.
    It was an example of our not knowing (see agnostic definition), not my mythology as you claim. What myths did I say exactly? You agreed we don't know. The fact you called it my mythology reveals your position you don't think its possible, even though you agreed it is.

    I agree, it is commonly done by many to misplace the burden of proof. But you claimed you think agnostics are taking the 'easy way out' though fear, and haven't arrived at their position though rational thought, but because of convenience. It is up to you to show evidence to back your opinion, as you stated it. Not mine. So don't try that hypocritical BS. You said it's what you think, show how it's true. Don't try to shift that onto me.

  191. socratesuk

    Maybe god enjoys watching us suffer?

  192. 1concept1

    guilty as charged! (I kcuph and paint pictures the same way)

  193. 1concept1

    Michael how is Janeen an atheist but just doesn't know it?

  194. docoman

    As I didn't ask a question in that particular post, I wasn't after an answer. I was pointing out something to you about what you said. They're all called the 'Holy Bible', so saying you believe in the Bible has problems straight away with what version you read.

    Changing the 'scriptures' is not all 'false prophets or false teachings', some of it is as I said, an attempt to stay current with newer thinking. Some are an attempt to fix obvious problems. And not just in 'modern times', it has been going on since before the Council of Nicea, since different Christian scriptures were written, since before there was a 'Bible'. So really your 'last days' have been going on since Christianity first started.

    Are you doing the same as every other Christian I've asked these questions? Silly answer, or non-answer. I am interested in how you reconcile, ignore, by-pass (whatever term suits you) the glaring problems that are in your Bible. If you weren't aware of them before, some research of your own regarding my other questions will show you they're there. Don't take my word for it, compare them yourself. A good way to do it is read the Gospels one by one, noting for each one what happened, where and when. Then compare your lists afterwards.

  195. 1concept1

    Michael spelling on the internet is not a factor in any case. We all know what he said, not only that it sounds like English might not be his primary language and if it is that's okay too

  196. docoman

    Some of us agnostics do care about the debate mate, because of the impact it has on our species.

  197. 1concept1

    I rant during full moons and when my THC level is dropping.

  198. Janeen Clark

    that could be a possibility, but it would mean god has nothing to do with intelligence, because the more intelligent a being is, the less violent it will be which any type of domination would fall under.

  199. docoman

    Actually Janeen, many serial killers have well above average IQ's. Intelligence and empathy are different things mate.

  200. 1concept1

    The TIHS we have to put up with in this world because of the boogy man is beyond all comprehension and reason

    Truth be known everyone on the globe is an agnostic at core level concerning loving and judgmental gods in the form of an individual.

  201. docoman

    I agree with your first part mate.
    I'm not sure everyone is truly agnostic at heart though, I've seen some people, believers mainly, that seem to me to be sincere in their beliefs. It often accompanies a 'glazed' look in their eyes, similar to some mentally impaired conditions.

    For a giggle, (if you can handle some bad language) go to youtube, search 'Jim Jefferies God is for idiots' :)

  202. Guest

    The problem is not the Bible. The Bible has been written in Greek and Hebrew. Just because usage of the English language changed and different translators translated it differently throughout the centuries doesn't imply that the original scripture is the problem.

    Scripture is the word of God. It is sacred. If you don't agree with God's words then you are a non-believer. If you don't believe in God then why should you care what the Bible says?

  203. 1concept1

    I'll check that doc out later this eve. Thank you

  204. Janeen Clark

    iq has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with a test by society to see how you are in very specific areas that deal with the work place or college, intelligence especially relating to my comment would be applicable to all situations, in any situation a choice contributing to violence leads to poorer outcome. this is directly related to intelligence, that is taking into account all variables. people and societies in the word today have cultural related beliefs that make violence enjoyable (reward and punishment, along with idea perpetuated in society of enemy image.)that prevents them from taking into account all variables and being intelligent. you see this in religion also it is a way of thinking that allows for the dismissal of more information. now regarding empathy, that is relating to feeling something. i am saying in terms of intelligence only, violence leads to poorer results than non-violent resolutions even if the decision maker feels nothing regarding it.

  205. Michael Jay Burns

    "the more intelligent a being is, the less violent it will be" ????? Your matrix is so very different from the reality of planet Earth. I know you have magic creatures that you call gods but do you have H-Bombs in your fantasy alternate universe? We do here on Earth. The intelligent creatures here are called homo sapiens and they engage in a perpetual slaughter of one another that they call "war".

  206. Michael Jay Burns

    oh how your mind spins and twirls in its incomprehensible jumble

  207. Janeen Clark

    science is a methodology , however people have created a worldview out of materialism which is puzzling because there is no material! particles are probable waves of possibility. test after test has confirmed even objects large enough to see with the naked eye behave probabilistically, so why are any scientists materialists if they change there worldview to match the knowledge? because they are human , because they are conditioned to believe whatever their professors at school tell them like all humans it is called indoctrination. the method of science it the best thing humans have to work with.

  208. Michael Jay Burns

    most of what you say here is coherent but you are still buying into a theist frame of reference that is false. When you say "atheist cannot prove that there is no god' you impose a burden of proof on them that is not theirs. If I say to you "leprechauns exist" it is not your job to prove me wrong it is my job to support my assertion. People generally understand that basic rule of discourse about most things but religion/theism is based on an a priori assumption that we are taught to accept without challenge by the dominant culture. It is intellectual cheating and religion could not exist without it.

  209. Michael Jay Burns

    quite right. So since magic books are not your basis of accepting this "god" thing what is?

  210. Janeen Clark

    you are creating an enemy image of me then using language to punish me because your misunderstanding something i said. you had a thought in your mind that got you angry not what i said or meant. THIS is why we have h-bombs and slaughtering of people it is a way of thinking that prevent examination of ALL details in a situation. intelligence is the opposite that is taking into account all variables in a situation.

  211. Michael Jay Burns

    I got his voice mail. It said he was busy creating a new form of small pox.

  212. Michael Jay Burns

    point taken. I understood his gibberish well enough.

  213. Michael Jay Burns

    semantics tend to dominate these conversations. The "real' meaning of a word becomes the focus rather than the basic differences in the concepts. You label yourself as "atheist" (as do I) and base that on your requirement of proof (as do I) I go a step further to conclude from my examination of the topic that the probability of the existence of the God that believers hold out is so slim as to be functionally zero and so take the position that "there is no god" which I will maintain until evidence convinces me otherwise. Many would call you an agnostic based on the way you lay out your position - but that is just semantics.
    I think the critical issue is super-natural vs. natural with Occam's razor making the final cut.

  214. Michael Jay Burns

    We agree on most of the basic issues. Where we part company is on the burden of proof. You hang your agnosticism on the impossibility of categorically rejecting all possibilities of any sort of deity. But as I have tried to point out - that is NOT YOUR BURDEN. The burden of proof is on the proponent - you have NO DUTY to disprove the theist proposition, it is THEIR DUTY to proof what they say is true. Further, as my example with the sun illustrates, you apply this impossible standard ONLY to assertions of a deity. You have to acknowledge the "possibility" that there is no sun (you might be dreaming the whole thing e.g.) just as you acknowledge the "possibility" of a deity.
    But you are selective in the application of that "loop hole" Thin as it is it is the cop-out that lets you duck the atheist stigma.
    That is the path of least resistance for those who have concluded that the religious things they have been taught are false but want to minimize the impact of that conclusion.
    You have chosen that path

  215. Michael Jay Burns

    (1) “you did go on to use your own definition of what agnostics are”

    I closely re-read the post that you are referring to and see nowhere in it any
    definitions at all. The closest quote on
    point is [emphasis added] : “ I THINK that most people who CALL themselves
    'agnostic' are actually atheist . . “

    While I thought it obvious, what I was saying was that IN MY OPINION most people who
    call themselves agnostics have rejected the notion of a deity as that concept has been presented to them and are therefore atheist but choose to be called “agnostic” because it is a softer word and they hang their hat on it by application of a false burden of proof.

    (2 ) god before the Big Bang

    An event horizon is a boundary in spacetime
    beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. The term is used to describe the “point of no return” of a black hole and it is also used to describe the point in time just after the Bang in the Big Bang theory.

    Cosmologist and astrophysics have data starting a few nanoseconds after
    that time but claim no data whatsoever of anything before it.

    The “Myth” I refer to is the concept of a deity that you bandy about. It is possible that some mythical entities actually exist, or that myths grew from some factual basis. But no-one has the burden of proving that any particular one of them does NOT actually exist.

    The burden falls on the person who asserts such an existence – in this case YOU – to present his case that their favorite myth has some basis in reality. You just cannot seem to grasp the concept of “burden of proof”

    I close with the observation that metaphysical explanations, including all the "gods" of history have steadily lost ground. Starting as the explanation for everything they are now pushed over the event horizon to where nothing is known. Ignorance is their only refuge.

  216. Michael Jay Burns

    Honestly in the posts she subsequently made I lost any idea at all as to what she is other than incoherent. She is so inconsistent.

  217. Michael Jay Burns

    Janeen, I cut and pasted the phrase from your post - it is your language not mine. We have H-Bombs for the same reason that a cave man hit another cave man on the head with a rock and took his mate and belongings. What was once a survival trait of our species is quickly becoming the avenue of its extinction.

  218. bringmeredwine

    It has been my observation that too many horrible things happen to people in the name of religion. It can be a very nasty and powerful weapon when put in the wrong hands. It is something that is best avoided. I don't want to associate myself with any of them.
    Christians and Muslims, for example, can point out the good things they're doing to help the poor, but to me the evil these organizations have done (in the name of their god) far out weighs the "good".
    Have you noticed if you accept help from these religions, you're expected to join them? And if you don't agree with their beliefs then you must be against them? They feel compelled to convince you that their way is the only way?
    I always feel they have an ulterior motive for their good deeds.
    Just my opinion. Not trying to change any one else's beliefs. I have never felt the need to try and convert anybody because its none of my business.

  219. Janeen Clark

    yes , it def leading to extinction, but it is simply a way of thinking, that is enemy image but it UN-intelligent. science has proven all humans are made of stardust, and that all men and women alive today can be traced back to one single male and female in Africa . we are literally family. people are conditioned to be pinned against each other and to use a enemy image, we can over come this by educating children that co-operation leads to better outcome in any situation and shown examples how it is a fact. next they can be taught the strategies of domination and authority to recognize when domination tactics like reward and punishment are being used so they will not be susceptible to such non-sense. we either do this or go extinct like you put it. i believe the % percent of our brainpower to comprehend this and have it universally accepted is a small price to pay to not only survive but allow for a better world where equality can exist and humans live in harmony.

  220. IndustryOfBlame

    Me too! We seem to share something in common here.

  221. Janeen Clark

    which cavemen would survive to pass genes, ones with 50 cavemen hunting them to get revenge for their actions, or the ones that cooperated with everyone?

  222. Michael Jay Burns

    Human behavior is predominantly a matter of emotion rather than reason, and the ancient patterns are not simply learned. I hope that some day your optimistic view will be supported by evidence, and that as a species we learn survival strategies that are less destructive than the ones that got us this far.
    I leave it at that. Let's hope for the best together.

  223. Michael Jay Burns

    I'd say the killers did better than the killed.

  224. bringmeredwine

    Please be patient, I couldn't find the edit button.
    If everybody is right about who their god is and what he wants, and everyone else who believes differently is wrong; who are we to believe? It's craziness. How can any one believe in a being that no one can agree on?
    Now the edit button appears. Go figure!

  225. 1concept1

    Good observation Janeen - A tad idealistic but I'm good with that -

    The problem with the internet its totally literal - no metaphor, allegory or body language to help get your point across - people take what one says in the way they wish to interpret it.

    So what happens - we go to our inbox on email and OH! goody a reply on TDF! We open it up and this is what we see, (in essence), "you just said this about me how dare you and you obviously don't know anything and your an i*iot! Your mouth drops open, (mentally), "WHAT"!! etc. and so on. And then of course the person who sent you the reply is livid and your response will only add fuel to the fire - And then the egos begin to spar - then at times the gloves come off -

    I don't believe we can do anything about this - but we can temper it with a little empathy for each other - Hey I am posting this comment as a reminder to me as well as anyone else on here - In any case people who have been doing this for a good while understands and relate, I would think?

    We get on here and were talking to people we might never speak to in the street - We have a PHD here and a 10th grade drop out - a person from a distant part of the globe etc.

    I don't know where i am going with this so I'll stop now.

  226. 1concept1

    The ones with the hairiest chest and the biggest r ock :-)

  227. 1concept1

    Michael I don't like doing this but I gave that comment a up vote. Not because i don't like you but your statement rings true and I don't like the feeling of that.

  228. 1concept1

    Janeen i wasn't aware that stardust could love hate and procreate - could you elaborate on that please I'm all ears!

    I am reading your post and these are logical request!

    The education system in this country is turning out animated dumb people, (not ignorant dumb) - by the truck load minute by minute.

    I'd like to delve into this more but I tell you what Janeen lets cut to the chase, You write the new manifesto and I'll be Che - I have the resume' i received my PHD at the university of Ho Che Minn All we need is some strong money, deep and wide - HELLO -

    Janeen don't ever let any one distract your thinking in these matters.

  229. docoman

    Fair enough, you're obviously doing the same as your fellow brethren, and going with a silly non-answer, 'translation problems', and ignoring the other harder questions altogether. No response about my other post and questions.

    I had hoped, as you seem to have more personal courage and a sense of justice then most religious people I've read here, for a more honest answer. :(

    Here is one reason why your answer is a silly excuse that is just sidestepping the problems.

    In 1701, John Mill decided to print a Greek NT. Note, it's in Greek, the original language they were authored in, so your translation excuse doesn't apply. He had about 100 earlier Greek manuscripts to compile his printed one from. When he compared them, he had a problem, because of the differences he found in them. In his final printed version, he listed where he found significant differences. He didn't mention obvious copy errors, etc, only what he considered significant differences between the texts. He had over 30,000 errors listed in his final compilation.

    30,000 significant errors from only 100 earlier manuscripts. Considering we have about 5,700 earlier Greek manuscripts, or partial manuscripts, it is a fact we cannot know exactly what was originally written, as there are hundreds of thousands of changes and errors, in the original authored language, let alone the translations. Apparently, there are more changes and errors, then there are words in the NT. That is how much it has been altered.

    These errors, in the original language, renders your 'translation excuse', and your claims about the 'scripture' currently being the ' sacred word of God' nonsense.

    I care because of the ongoing effect it has on people, because believers claim it is the inerrant 'word of God', and quote it as reason and worthy of consideration in current issues for e.g. abortion, justification for war, education etc. I care because it is still used as an excuse for wrong actions, like the paedophile and cover-ups to protect those leaders that broke the law, who I'll add also claim your Bible is the sacred word of God, and use that as their justification. I care, because throughout it's history, religion has stymied research that doesn't agree with your absurd claims of knowledge, that have been shown time and again to be incorrect as we gather more knowledge.

    These actions and errors are quite obvious if you study the history and the Bible for what it is, a piece of literature, how it came to be what it is now, and how it is still used to make claims that cannot be backed by logic or evidence.

  230. docoman

    I can see that you've never been in a position where the choice for violence was the correct and intelligent choice. I have been, unfortunately. I agree that it usually is not the best option, but sometimes it is. Most often when it is, it's in defense and forced by others actions.

  231. 1concept1

    I didn't mean to get into your business I'm not the best speller and that is what prompted that. Spelling to me is a talent - and kcuf Webster anyway!

  232. 1concept1

    I am afraid i am guilty of that myself sometimes - The devils advocate is a part someone has to play

    I know this might sound waked but have you noticed the full moon this month it seems like it got full and stayed that way!!! It's driving the coyotes crazy they have been yapping all night usually the pups get worked up toward morning when their mother brings dinner home and there glad to see her.

    I get incoherent when i start crashing form being on the computer for ever. Just different personality traits that's all it is. I am a different person all the time. I just chalk it up to the human condition

    Hell I've been telling everybody I am 70, and I'm a 12 year old girl here in Formosa - how about you?

  233. Janeen Clark

    i feel you homes.

  234. Janeen Clark

    your not taking all details into account that is violence creates retaliation every time cavemen that killed probably had the family of the the victim sowing up to his cave in the middle of the night to set an example. so yes he may have killed someone but it is unlikely he lasted long after that. why to you think we even have a frontal cortex to begin with?

  235. docoman

    If being agnostic was the path of least resistance, I wouldn't be talking to you about it, would I? There'd be no need.
    You are still defining agnostic as weak atheists, which is your personal definition/opinion. Not what the dictionaries say, or most agnostics I know, including myself. You still are doing what you told Janeen not to do. Using your own opinion of the definition of peoples beliefs, not the accepted definition.

    You can save your statements about the burden of proof, I understand it very well.

    The fact that you admit there is no data, yet maintain there cannot be some form of deity, means you are making a statement not based on evidence or logic, but on your beliefs, based on probability you said, which is itself not evidence. Irrational numbers come into what is supposed to be a rational thought process how?

    Even if you wish to continue to deny it, at that point when you say there are no Gods, you are the one making a statement, and thus take on the burden of proof that accompanies any statement. Right there, you become what some call a Positive Atheist. Agnostics say we don't know. No statements made, no burden of proof. Save your preaching about it, it's redundant in this case. You made the statement, not I. I understand it already.

    Once again you say "you apply this impossible standard ONLY to assertions of a deity." I've already shown how you apply the same to yourself being hit by a meteor as one example, your point is debunked. Deal with it, the fact is you are trying to tell me what I believe, and why, when you don't know sh1t about my reasons really. Your statements on the issue are based on your opinion and personal beliefs, not the definition of the term, or knowledge of other's reasons for calling themselves agnostic. No doubt, for some, like Tom Hill, you are correct. There are weak people in every sector or division of society, even the army.

    If you go through both our post histories here on TDF, you'll find I've disputed religious assertions more times then you have posted here, but yet you still claim I'm trying some attempt at a cop-out, taking the easy way out, and are looking to minimise the impact of my conclusions.
    Wrong, in fact I've often let religious people assume I'm atheist, to let them carry on and make the wrong assumptions and following statements, before correcting them.

    Micheal, stop trying to tell me what I believe and why, you don't have any idea. Look at yourself and your own cop-out in trying to duck your responsibility to defend your statement of your opinion and provide proof of your assertions about what agnostics really believe and why, and find some self honesty to admit you did the same thing you told Janeen not to do when you re-defined what agnostics really are.

    You also mentioned stigma. What you are doing is trying to stigmatise
    Agnostics because of your own feelings, not facts or evidence. An attempt to intimidate
    them into 'converting' to your kind of Atheism. Screw you Burns, just as much as the religious fools that try to tell me what I think and why, as you have done.

  236. Tom Hill

    The difference, ahhh. Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) the great something grandfather of Aldous Huxley who wrote "A Brave New World" is thought to have coined the word AGNOSTIC. He said it means "I don't know"

  237. docoman

    I missed what you last posted to me, sorry mate, I wasn't ignoring you. Same last time I had a post deleted, I missed what you posted to me, it wasn't hard to work that one out though. I've got email turned off, so don't get a copy sent to me.

  238. docoman

    Jim Jefferies is an Australian comedian mate, its not a documentary, it's a short clip from one of his shows, around 8 minutes, about Christians. He's pretty rough with his language, but I find him very funny and mostly accurate. I like your sense of humor, thought you might enjoy it too. :)

  239. docoman

    I think I know what she means by stardust mate. The BB produced mostly Hydrogen and some Helium. These gasses condensed to form the 1st generation stars. The other elements besides those 2 gasses that make up our solar system, including ourselves, were produced by now extinct stars. So, most of us (in terms of the elements that we're made of) at one time were star fuel, then after the star went super nova, eventually our solar system and ourselves came to be. Hence we're all star dust. (mostly)
    I find that very interesting and more awe inspiring that we were once a part of a super nova, than any religious doctrine.

  240. Janeen Clark

    good points there.

  241. Janeen Clark

    you got it.

  242. Janeen Clark

    evidence is the best way to go.

  243. docoman

    I agree, IQ is more a test of education then it is intelligence. I know a couple people that are almost illiterate and would score poorly in an IQ test. But they are by no means not intelligent, quite the opposite. I used that term IQ to point out not all violence is committed by people that are not intelligent. I recall reading many serial killers are very intelligent. I agree with most of what you're saying, although I've had a few times in my life where responding with violence was the intelligent and only correct option available. When you can't talk or reason with someone that is intent on hurting you or your family, violence can sometimes be the most appropriate response.

  244. over the edge

    no problem doco. i was just explaining the deletion, i deleted the post you were replying to so i removed your post as well.

  245. docoman

    Fair call mate. Thanks for the explanation.

  246. Janeen Clark

    self defense is not violence , violence can be broken down in details in a few separate areas. first as a way of thinking one must be imagining themselves as the "good" guy and the other "evil" now their actions can support punishing the "evil" do-er .(enemy image) they can "give them what they deserve) this way of thinking prevents one from being intelligent and accounting for all details it is a compartmentalization to think of the other person as "evil" now it is okay to inflict punishment either through language by further compartmentalizing by DE-humanizing for example "your an idiot" no the person is millions of details but by creating the mental image of the person being an idiot your playing the role of the "good" guy their the "bad" guy and punshing the bad guy can now be enjoyable without any guilt. these details present themselves in any case of violence again the one being violent perceives themselves as good the other is the enemy now they can make violent enjoyable (however incorrect) and not have to see the other as a human being like themselves instead they are images of "wrong" evil . there has never been a case of violence where the person inflicting violence sees themselves as evil and the other good. it is by thinking in a way that stops critical thinking that allows for these psychological distortions that violence may occur, and why being violent is 100 percent the least intelligent option in any situation.

  247. 1concept1

    It's that word (mostly) - I mean Steven Hawkins stardust and the expansion of the Universe has merit form my point of view - I just figure something is moving around up there and now and then some gas explodes but that's me - (no right or wrong here just personal values) - I am more interested in knowing is the Moon actually a screen saver

  248. 1concept1

    I watched it last night - He is dead on funny! I'll be following him Thank You -

    Bad language is no problem with me its bad actions i sometimes take issue with.

    on YouTube check out Louis CK Chewed Up full show. He is way over the top i believe there were 25,000. people in attendance - If you haven't watch this before he'll blow out of the box - a satirist from Hell -

  249. Janeen Clark

    i predict we will all be gods in the next couple decades when computing allows us to create a exact replica of the universe in a video game and humans with consciousness and even though we will control them with a joystick the emergence of awareness will make possible for them to ask questions like "is there a creator?" "do i have a higher self, a soul that connects to me where i get my identity?" the answer will be YES for both of these questions, now i present this to you to offer another perspective on the concept of god how it will exist how it already may exist and yet be much different than any religion or spirituality has thought and yet be completely logical and scientific. in that video game environment with a character asking questions like "where do i go when i die? do i disappear?" but also imagine a atheist in the game may say things like "reality follows laws(structure of the game) so we do need god, and asking questions like "how does the soul connect to the brain? its impossible!" (the brain is ones and zeros the soul is the awareness of the player and the information travels through the joystick cable."

  250. Michael Jay Burns

    There is a tool of reason called "Occam's razor". In brief it holds that explanations that rely on the fewest unproven hypotheticals are best. You might consider incorporating that tool into your thinking and expositions.
    But, in your hypothetical situation, the group
    that was the better armed and better skilled at killing would be the stone-age survivors
    and are both your and my likely ancestors.

    I'm sorry but I miss your point on the evolution of the frontal cortex..

  251. Michael Jay Burns

    I stumbled over that word to but I'm pretty sure that by "mostly" he is saying that the majority of mass that comprises a human body is "star dust" which is a accurate.

  252. Michael Jay Burns

    here-here! Now let's all practice what we preach.

  253. Michael Jay Burns

    Perhaps the root of our disagreements lies in the different meanings that we attach words. "god" e,g,. For me the term applies to a hypothetical entity that is super-natural and not subject to any of the laws of the physical universe that I inhabit. You seem to apply a different meaning.
    That seems to be the pattern. I simply cannot follow your Jannenspeak..

  254. 1concept1

    Teleaconetics and the Fact that a Woman picked up an automobile with her arms to free a trapped person undernieth is Sciencetific Hardcore Proof that the conscious state of being, (the Life Force) is directly conected to matter, (in real time they are one in the same the form I manifest is composed of the same basic elements as the rock (i am analog the rock is digital?)

    (If anyone knows how to get in touch with Steven Hawkins i would like you to forward this next concept - WE ARE NOT STAR DUST WE UTILIZE STAR DUST TO MANIFEST THIS FORM WHICH IS A REQUERMINT THAT ENABLES US TO TRAVERS THIS FREQUINCY - "WE" ARE NOT FINGER NAILS HAIR OR BONES - THAT'S THE STAR DUST - *WE* ARE CONSCIOUSNESS) - now back to the car -

    the woman who picked up that car was infused underwritten or supplamented with extra life force at time of necesity - The question that comes to mind is, why was the person trapped under the car worthy of the extra life force -

    Perhaps that persons contribution towards the some total (the holograph?) was incomplete and if that person left us or this dimension/frequency before the completion the holograph would unravel like a knitted sweeter?

    Just a thought

  255. 1concept1

    define evidence - There is circumstantial evidence and there is hard core put it on the scale evidence - philosophy utilizes circumstantial evidence.

    Just a thought

  256. 1concept1

    Yes I agree; but we all know that star dust can't think and that's the part that cognates "mostly"

    The automobile is the body the fire in the engine is the life force - Science spends all of its time on the automobile because that's there job!

    Science needs to understand the life force the fire in - the engine is outside their field of understanding and we designed them that way so as to maintain structural integrity of the manifest world -

    The Conscious state of being is primary the "Real World". The manifest state of being is a result of and secondary.

  257. 1concept1

    My daughter said to me - (she is in med school), "the brain sends messages to all parts of the body except for the heart it sends messages to the brain" - my question is where does the heart get it info from -

  258. bluetortilla

    Wow. I think the kind of atheism presented is ever bit as eager and zealous to proselytize than any religious group I've seen. They're every bit as organized and seem very troubled about your 'religious' belief in God. Pretty obnoxious and silly stuff. Furthermore, I think the bitter cynics like Dawkins and the rest of them are far more insufferable than the existentialist thinkers ever were. Anyway, these guys are just another New Age feel good group that smacks of...hmmm...self-righteous religious fanatics? You know, if you're an atheist you would not have enemies and you would not be motivated to create division. You would not have any need to defend your beliefs. Not unless you wanted to persuade others to join your cause.

    At least he didn't ask for a contribution.

  259. bluetortilla

    We speak of 'out of the box' creativity and good science is firmly 'in the box' and cannot by definition understand subjective phenomena. It doesn't mean that scientists don't dream; the greatest scientists are our greatest artists and affect human life more than any other group of people, for better or worse. Everyone knows the old saw about the contradiction of the subject describing itself as an object. Every atheist has a sense of mystery and is confronted daily by the fact that reality is inexplicable. Spiritual matters are private and whatever your beliefs you're rude and obnoxious to be telling people what to think and what to believe.

  260. Mol

    I agree 100%. Individuals are free to believe what they wish, but not free to coerce others to their belief. If a man lived 2000 or so years ago and believed he was the son of a fatherly God, that is his delusion: it isn't mine. A life force exists ... that is not a fatherly God.

  261. Laura

    All of the questions above are condescending. Christians ask them to feel superior. It's a smugness. Most people who are proselytizing or trying to inflict their belief on you are doing it to try to validate their belief because they are not as sure about their beliefs as they say they are. The more people they can get to believe in imaginary figures the more they feel that their belief is real. Fine if you want to believe in anything that is not hurting someone else, go for it. That's what this country is all about. Freedom of choice, rights for everybody, not just people that believe in what you believe in. If everybody would mind their own business, live their own lives and quit hating this would be such a better world to live in.

Leave a comment / review: