Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.
I was of the understanding that the only rule of being Atheist was their lack of belief in God. It doesn't say any rules about believing in the afterlife or not. The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.
Scientfic proof of what? |
|
|
|
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter? Yeah we can speculate, that's all we can do. I guess everyone has done that, maybe even animals do? And my take on this is that these states are actually the same state of just being unconscious. You could argue that being unconscious for a few hours is not quite the same as being unconscious for eternity, but then I will argue back that there is no such thing as subjectively experienced (or, strictly speaking, non-experienced) eternity at all. My argument is that whenever you insist on future eternal unconsciousness (for example), you should deal with the past "eternal" unconsciousness as well... Yeah makes sense to think about before we was born as well. Is it the same state as after our death? No idea. |
|
|
|
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter? Yeah we can speculate, that's all we can do. I guess everyone has done that, maybe even animals do? |
|
|
|
Do you believe every child has a basic human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Nailed it. It is abuse, and I do agree with this. As children we are very naive and have not developed the right thinking skills, anyone could sell you a story about magical beings that are going to save you in the end. Just because this doesn't leave visible evidence as physical abuse does, it doesn't mean that there is no abuse. Most of the believers do not even realize this. If a christian (example) was born in a different region and had different guardians he would most likely have a different faith. It can only be considered abuse if you're lying. The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact. It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact. Nobody knows what happens when we die. Nobody. Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored. |
|
|
|
I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat
Does this include the extremely impressionable minds of young children (formative years / age 2-12) by parents? Or do all parents have a natural right to "mold" their children as they see fit? Do you believe every child has a human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world? Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse? How about atheist indoctrination which is happening to children today? Is it? Really? Or are you just confusing it with children being correctly taught to question and make up their own minds. That's what I will teach mine anyway. Nowadays (in civilized countries anyway) the church no longer has the power to drag people in the street and beat them to death for not joining it's cult. The church has lost power. The power has been returned to the people to make up their own mind, which is why Atheism is more popular than it once was. |
|
|
|
You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.
Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.  There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.  Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence? All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind. To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are. Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future? That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet. Why not just use your own words as you was asked? I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves? Because they might be different to those. Plus if you write them down now you cannot change them at a later date to win a losing argument. Very disappointed. |
|
|
|
You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.
Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole. There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you. Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence? All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind. To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are. Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future? That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet. Why not just use your own words as you was asked? |
|
|
|
BADecker, when Jesus was a teen walking around his tribal camp and saw some cute girls do you think he got a hard-on? I expect since his dad was God he was probably packin some meat. You know, would you give your son a baby dick if you were God? Based on the pictures I've seen of Jesus, I can picture him being like a young bitch magnet.
Jesus probably was, as you stated, "a young bitch magnet." Yet because of the times in Israel when Jesus walked the earth, and because we don't understand everything about how the Jesus Psyche operated, the best we can say is that: 1. the gals were conservative in words and actions, no matter what they felt; 2. Jesus didn't think or act in a wrong way, no matter how much He lacked natural bodily function controls. Personally, though I don't know it, I think that there is a great possibility that Jesus was married at some time before He began His ministry at age 30. If He was married, she either died or left Him through no wrong-doing of His. We don't know this, however, even though there is a tendril of such suggestion in the Bible. Yeah, that's probably right. It would be kind of rude for him to get married though. His wife would have urges and he couldn't do anything for her because his dad told him that thing was only to pee out of. Those religious freakazoids believed sex was only for making babies. Jesus couldn't allow himself to have a kid so he couldn't have sex. How hard would a kids life be if he was known as, the son of the son of God. If he did get married, I hope he had a long tongue and could breathe through his ears. Who's to say Jesus wasn't homosexual? Perhaps people found out and that's why he got pinned up on that cross. We can only speculate. |
|
|
|
To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.
Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?
Sure. Evidence:- Possible proof of something. Science:- Human pursuit of knowledge. Scientific method:- Observe a phenomenon. Ask questions about it. Create an hypothesis. Conduct experiments on the hypothesis. Draw conclusion from results. Proof:- Evidence(s) that cannot be refuted. No doubt this post will be dug out in the future to shoot me down over something.  |
|
|
|
You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.
Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole. There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you. Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence? |
|
|
|
You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.
Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole. |
|
|
|
Based on the pictures I've seen of Jesus, I can picture him being like a young bitch magnet.
I agree. Those miracles, or as we call them today, magic party tricks or illusions, he performed must of really pulled in the pussy. |
|
|
|
What do you think? Please share your opinion about this article. 101 Proofs For God A growing list of common sense Proofs for God. Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer. In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution. The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. ..... Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.htmlGod is just a human creation. I remember a joke that goes around at my place: If God and Human were to come face to face they'd both say 'Look, my creator' It's true Isn't just? We've created a greater power to blame things upon when the path twists in an unwanted way. God doesn't exist! Here we go. Another joker setting himself up as god by suggesting that God doesn't exist in the face of strong evidence that He does: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395fallacies and other stories =/= truth or proof, we already told you this plenty of times badecker, someone has yet to accept your ''proofs'' The churches are full of people who do. EDIT: Most of them don't have time to waste trying to convince a bunch of atheistic idiots in the Bitcointalk forum. This is funny. You've just admitted that some people goto church because they believe in fallacy proof, then amusingly in the same post, claim the atheists are the idiots. *rolls eyes* |
|
|
|
But God lays down a lot of laws in the bible,
Man lays down the laws in the bible. Since proof God exists is impossible, any of this "what God wants" must also be impossible. If we knew what God wanted, we would have the impossible proof. Which of course is impossible. These laws are only man just guessing. If you read anything I've written in this thread, you'll see I say everyone is a sinner. Moving goal posts of what counts as good or bad, is useless and idiotic, lol. Believing in God and following His guidelines will help you out more than you can possibly believe.
My point was that those who become Christians will try to be better, and follow those guidelines. Otherwise, people pick and choose as you said, and I agree people will pick and choose to better suit themselves, so those not believing will never pick the guideline they don't want to follow.
Using the forgiveness example above: A person gets molested by someone, and then years later becomes a Christian. They're reading they should forgive them, but they don't want to. It messed up their life, they are pissed. They still have nightmares, they believe the person does not deserve forgiveness. But they read that if they are to be forgiven, they must forgive anyone who wronged them. So they do. It takes a while, it's difficult, but they end up feeling free-er, like a weight was lifted, and can go about, as time goes on, thinking about it less and less. (Note: forgiving doesn't mean forgetting, so if they're still in contact with this person, they can be extremely cautious and avoid them too)
Same example, but the person never becomes Christian. They hear that Christians believe you should forgive others, no matter what. They choose not to, because they don't believe the person should ever be forgiven for that. They end up hanging onto that hate, and spend time talking to their therapist or friends, etc. Their friends may feel guilty, because what can they say to make it better? But they can't shake the anger. They focus on all the bad in their life that's the person's fault, and can't really move on and enjoy life like they could have.
What I don't like here is your trying to paint a ugly picture that a person can be forgiving, or try to be forgiving, only if they choose to be Christian. This just simply isn't true in any way, shape or form. Also, this forgivness thing needs to be dished out carefully. If a person just went through life forgiving everything and everyone, they would just be taken advantage of by others, walked all over and get screwed left, right and centre, again and again and again. No good would become of that. Don't get me wrong though, there's a time and a place for forgiveness, you just need to be careful with it as it could bite you back. |
|
|
|
And I still think it's sad when people don't believe, so I would hope people would convert even if only to live their lives doing unto others as they would have done to themselves (versus not caring what they do to others because they don't believe in consequences). Yes because believers never do anything bad. They wouldn't dream of moving the goal posts of what counts as good or bad to suit themselves. Don't think I've read such utter slop in all my born days. |
|
|
|
God doesn't exist!
It's impossible for you to know this. Your just wildly guessing. |
|
|
|
|
He had such an amazing deep powerful voice, with such huge stage presense.
RIP.
|
|
|
|
I am trying to understand what is going on? can anyone understand his point?
BADecker is an attention seeking troll. Nothing to see here. |
|
|
|
18 nodes are running XT's latest version.
Well I've changed the user agent of my node so my one won't show up in your 18. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
