Your first statement is a statement would I hear from everone from every religion existing. This is also the point where I really start to wonder. With no enduring evidence that a God exists, there is simply no reason to believe in a deity, even if it's not possible to irrefutably disprove his existence. Where is the sense to believe in something? Why even bother? I'd say it is a rather dumb idea to say there is a god. And I will keep saying that you don't need religion to have morals. If one can't determine right from wrong, he lacks empathy, not religion. But since you've said that you set your standards alone, ok, kudos for doing so. Still, it's always a bit amusing that one believes in a god but denies the existence of other gods. But quite as simple as that: I strongly believe that you are living a morally good life, but you lead no religious life. As an example: if you want to follow Jesus, you need to "sell your possessions and give to the poor." It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it? I doubt it. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus' time. Why don't you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? If Jesus were real, you would do what he says. Why don't you? Why are you religious when you don't believe in its rules and you are unwilling to follow them? Another example: (and here you are wrong, because god directly orders you) why haven't you murdered a tenth of your country's population yet? You know: 'For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.' - And now, hearing all these demands of the Holy Bible - and there is much more of this questionable stuff -, why does anyone want to be religious at all? In conclusion, I refuse to say religion is good when it orders me to commit bad deeds. If you choose to follow a vengeful god, who has killed thousands of first-born, all innocent lifes, yes, that makes you wrong in my eyes. But since I disbelieve in a deity, it has simply no effect on anyone of us. I apply no feelings, just logic. And as a general rule: believers are the ones who have to bring the proof, because they are the ones who are making a claim.
Finally some time to answer at length... Tackling this in my own order. My apologies for the long text, but I did not want to leave qdiddy's post unrefuted. I suggest we move this discussion into a separate thread. We moved far past the original intention, and I don't want to hijack it any further. First of all, I am honestly curious how you arrive at that conclusion, that only your specific interpretation of the Christian god-entity is correct, and the only one of its kind. Especially with over 2000 (and counting) gods alone on written record, and e.g. about a billion Hindus completely disagreeing with you. and No, believing in a god does not make you evil/wrong per se; as long as you do not harm others with - or as consequence of - your beliefs. You are mixing an individual's belief and religion in general / as an organised entity. The good things you get from (organised) religion on a larger scale do not outweigh the bad, and I have a few thousand years of history to back up this claim. ----- No. I don't have to keep an open mind for every kind of unproven claim. I don't have an open mind for the existence of Reptiloids, buttprobing aliens, a flat earth, etc. And for very good reasons, as above: all claims with zero evidence. When I apply the same rigorous standards to any religious claim, they all fall through as well. ----- No. These "theories and ideas" are not too big for us to understand. We're working on it If you make such a grand claim, please back it up with good arguments. and No, not "unanswerable". If something has any impact on the real physicial world, it can be answered. Maybe not today, but in the light of scientific progress I'm very confident that we'll work it out eventually. ----- No. It's perfectly reasonable to rule out something for which I have zero evidence. For example: I cannot entirely rule out that somewhere out there a planet exists that's made entirely of green cheese. But, and here it comes: based on our current knowledge of the universe I can either flat-out declare that's impossible (because it's not in concordance with the laws of Physics etc.) ; or, at least assign it such a low probability that I can de facto stop considering the possibility. Next, you are moving the goalposts *very far* out from the specific Christian beliefs about god - which are presented as fact by that religion - to "there could be some intelligent creator that created the universe". I won't even go into the assumptions within such a seemingly simple statement. Instead, I leave that as an exercise to the reader. Also, as Vovin already wrote: You make a claim, you need to support it. It's not our job to disprove every nonsense that people throw out there: "Prove to me that astrology doesn't work! Prove to me that there are no aliens secretely flying around, creating corn circles and butt-probing earthlings. Prove that <insert crank concept of choice> isn't true". I'm not making those up, those are real quotes from believers from real conversations I had. That's not the way it works. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to follow the standards set by science ("Because it works, b..!" - see here for the full Dawkins quote: http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/dawkins-bitchslaps-anti-science-cynic/story-fn5fsgyc-1226611489475). And that means bring resilient evidence. And the more outlandish your claim, the better your evidence has to be. ----- No. The correct sentence is "we have no evidence." You are turning the whole things on its head. Not to forget: Where's your evidence then? Huh, you'd have to be dead to know that? Where do all the grandiose ideas about Heaven & Hell, Purgatory, etc. come from then? Please apply the standards you hold me to to your own line of reasoning. That's just common courtesy. The questions "is there any kind of higher power" and "is there any kind of afterlife" indeed cannot ultimately be disproven in the foreseeable future. But that's not the point. Every religion claims the existence of their god(s) and afterlife (if such) as fact. Not to mention that again you are moving the goalposts from the specific Christian claims you subscribe to, to a very general and broad "afterlife" and "god". Now, all these specific claims can be put to the test. And guess what? Zero evidence. Not such a great track record after a few thousand years, I dare say. Note though that I would have much less of a problem with a religion saying "We don't know, but we believe/imagine it's like this. It's just an idea, not facts." See above: you make a claim, you have to back it up. Not the other way around. ------ You do know that - according to your own book - your god specifically tells you to do so, and also under which circumstances? Religion takes that responsibility away from you. Because it makes some very specific claims about how you should behave, which customs (like killing the people who do not honor the Sabbath, as Vovin pointed out) you need to follow etc.
@Vovin: Actually have to step up in defense of most Christians for a moment: With the exception of the lunatic fringe most Christians do not subscribe to the less pleasant tenets of the Old Testament, as in all the "kill the unbelievers and offenders" stuff. From experience I can say that Christians I talked to - either do not know at all about those parts of their book (which raises a whole other bunch of questions, by the way) - wilfully ignore them - or try to rationalise them away in various ways (which also raises more questions than it answers): why they no longer apply today, why they shouldn't be taken literally, etc.
To start off, forgive me for whatever I'm about to write. It's early and I've had a lot of shit going on lately. Both of you missed the point I was trying to make with speech. I dunno where you get the idea that this is an argument because it's really not. An argument has two sides that are able to prove what they say, which neither of us can. It's unanswerable. You can't prove there isn't a God, I can't prove there is a God. In the stalemate, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and say, "believe what you want, it's not like this will go anywhere". And that's exactly what it is, a stalemate, so then why do atheists always like to declare it's an argument and then provide their reasons when it just sounds like they're stroking their own dicks while they try to disprove the existence of God. It was over before it began, there is no argument. We can't prove anything. What I wanted was for atheists to stop going around calling religion barbaric and foolish and all sorts of other buzzwords. In the first world, religion has done a lot more good than ever before. We may have our stumbles here and there, such as an abortion clinic being shut down by angry Christians, but for every abortion clinic, there are 100 or so buildings built by missionaries in Africa and other ailing countries. Schools, houses, farms, and it's not just in other countries. Religion in America has provided food, shelter, and monetary help to the homeless and those in severe need. Yes, shitty stuff has happened in the past two to three thousand years in the name of religion, but today, religion is probably at its most peaceful. Then we have people like those atheists that tried to remove a nativity set because it bugged them, or that politician in Detroit, who is keeping a chic-fil-a from being built in Denver because of the ceo's views on gay marriage. I may just sound like one of those dumb recruiting people from the Jehova's witness commune by now, but my point is that these are good people with good intentions most of the time. Sometime their methods are a bit lousy, but the message is the same, kindness. Regardless of what the bible says, it's more of a case of, "you don't need to read it, you just need to live it". Ps, where did all this salt come from? Jesus, it's like you two are totally getting off on your moral superiority over others. Try to act professional, we have people watching.
I'm just going to interject here and point out that the passage has to be taken in context. If you go and read the rest of the sentence you'll quickly realize Jesus is asking us to recognize how pointless material wealth is and live accordingly, i.e., "Follow me, not your love of having stuff". If you're going to quote the Bible, don't whip a passage out of your rear that you just googled.
My apologies, I should have put down the complete quote, which goes: "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”" Matthew 19:21
This is a good read about the creator of FNAF: http://www.geeksundergrace.com/gaming/developer-spotlight-scott-cawthon/
Always amazes me how people know exactly what their god wants/intends. Hindsight (not so) surprisingly is always 20/20...
@qdiddy I commend you for sticking up for your beliefs!! I tried to get some points across as well but it seems like we're outnumbered and it turned into a debate rather then just stating your beliefs like it should have been.
That's a nice double-standard you have there, regarding sticking up for your beliefs. After putting quite some thought into it, I didn't want to reply to qdiddy's rather rude last post. You just made me change my mind. And I found the debate rather pleasant and civilised until qdiddy went down insult lane. Anyways. You got your points across pretty well, actually (I just re-read your posts). My personal favorites (because in my experience it's not exactly a common attitude among believers, kudos for that): and And of course you are correct, that there are also positive things coming from religion; I'm pretty sure I didn't deny that. However, the point I was trying to get across is: do the good things outweigh the bad (we had some examples in this thread) ? My tally says no. To make the question more pointed: How many homeless sheltered make up for a murder?
Lots of snarkiness, sarcasm and such ahead. Don't say I didn't warn you. No. You claim, you prove. Simple as that. How generous of you. Is that a double standard there in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? No. See above. Bring evidence, then we talk again. Bollocks. Jump out of the window, that proves gravity right there. Well, here's your chance to convince one of those obnoxious atheists otherwise. Overall maybe, because - thankfully - we have a few billion more or less civilised people. But due to sheer numbers, we also have more violent nutcases, religious terrorists and whatnot. Charlie Hebdo, Bangladesh, IS, middle East in general. Want me to go on? (Sidenote: Learn to source your statements, instead of just throwing stuff out there) Which one? This for example? http://www.northescambia.com/2014/12/nativity-scene-removed-from-jay-town-hall-after-lawyer-claims-its-illegal "The Supreme Court has ruled it is impermissible to place a nativity scene as the sole focus of a display on government property" Perfectly ok. In a secular state, no religious symbol of any kind should have a place on or in public property. Put it on your own lawn, and you can tell me to sod off to your heart's content. And guess what? I'm actually okay with that. Even me, the evil atheist, has one at home, because my (non-religious) partner likes the look of it. Chic-a-fil is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy Quote from here http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/03/19/chick-fil-a-ceo-cathy-gay-marriage-still-wrong-but-ill-shut-up-about-it-and-sell-chicken/ : We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles, Cathy said. Most likely referring to Leviticus 20:13 . You know, the same book that tells you that shrimp is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10-12) . Not to mention that D.T.Cathy looks a bit too clean-shaven for Leviticus 19:27 ("Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard") . But I'm sure glad to see that some people still take the biblical commands so seriously. I don't know where you got the Denver/Detroit thing from. Source? But you know, I actually agree with the folks from here http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Conservatives-AND-Liberals-Defending-Chick-fil-A-163880526.html if that's really violating your First Amendment. Doesn't matter that you are a hate-spouting bigot, you still have your freedom of speech (unless you call outright for murder or other violence, that's where I draw the line); and no matter how much I disagree with you, I'll always try to uphold that. No worries, way to go for that I'm not denying that. Actively encourage them to close down like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller, you mean? Sure, I don't have a problem with people spreading their faith in such a peaceful and respectful manner. So you think a) that it's ok to force your beliefs on other people like this, even with violence? b) it's ok to deny people in need - who most likely don't even share your convictions - medical help, based on your interpretation of the will of a non-existing god? c) that good deeds redeem and outweigh the bad? Regarding c): Well then, let's get specific: How many buildings in Africa make up for a murder? But ok, that was way back when in 2009, basically still in the Dark Age. I'm sure people are more enlightened in our modern day and age. Let's check: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/30/3443128/dr-tiller-five-year-anniversary/ Some progress, as in "no murders in 5 years", I'll give you that. Let's see what happens when/if the buffer zones get declared illegal: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/13/3151581/supreme-courts-probably-create-constitutional-harass-women-abortion-clinics/ Also, personally I find those protesters' behaviour pretty disgusting. Freedom of speech? Sure. But apply some common sense and decency. Yeah, doing the good work, and spreading the good word. Like preaching against condoms in one of the most HIV-ridden areas of the world (source e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514979/) ; or against witchcraft, resulting in brutal murders (source e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver) Ah well, let's be generous and call it a draw, shall we? Do you really want me to elaborate further? I'm sure you can provide a quote of mine from this thread to back up that statement. Stay classy, we have people watching.
Nulltone - come with reason and see them get angry. That's anger born out of helplessness. After reading your posts I started to wonder if religious people have the most double standards.
This thread has turned into a great example of how differing beliefs cause animosity amongst people, which leads to lines being drawn and people taking sides against others over their beliefs, religious or not. I'm pretty sure that wasn't its intent, but it has been successful in showing both sides of the same coin for what it is.
Same rules for everyone. You can back up that statement exactly how? Personally, I prefer to not make any unsubstantiated factual claims about my esteemed debate opponents' mental state or motivations. Also, in my opinion this really touts the line of personal attacks, something I prefer not to see in a civilised debate.
Reminds me I forgot something: @qdiddy: you seem to approve of certain denominations publicly stating their convictions and forcing them onto others, as per your comment about the abortion clinics getting shut down. While on the other hand, you disapprove of atheists doing the same, when they try to get a nativity display removed. How is that not a double standard? That it is okay for one group to do so, but not the other? And almost forgot that one, too: For one, you make it sound as if it's religions' own merit that they are more peaceful today. I beg to differ. Most of the peaceful tenets were forced by external pressure, not caused by internal change of mind or whatever you want to call it. I recommend to read up on especially European history. The Age of Reason is a good start in my opinion. Furthermore, do you care to rephrase the whole statement to be more clear? In combination with the first about "peaceful religion", the second about "those atheists" can easily be interpreted as not considering "those atheists" peaceful, painting them as the "bad guys" as opposed to religions' "goods guys". Which I find a bit far-fetched, to say the least.
@september: Why should subjects like this not be discussed in public? Controversial topics frequently attract debate, and often heated ones. And I see nothing wrong with it, as long as things stay civilised. Not pulling your punches against the other's ideas is okay, but don't attack the other personally (see "ad hominem"). UPDATE: I'm redacting the above statement: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=3666123&postcount=83 Definitely made a mistake there by reading things into his post that aren't there on second read. Again, my apologies for that.
"Vinegar Into Honey: Seven Steps To Understanding And Transforming Anger, Aggression, And Violence" by Ron Leifer, p. 87/88. I also suggest watching a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. They have good explanations about religious people getting angry when questioned.
