White Doors

This thread (all all the posts within it) are not "targetting" christianity but the concept of an invisible entity -- doesn't matter what you call it (god, allah, buddah, jesus, vishnu). There is no religion "better" than another. Woukd you also include love, loyalty, friendship, joy, happiness, relief etc? They are invisible me thinks. Still waiting for your 'proof' that the 20th century was peaceful and harmonious.. I think that's how you put it?

"Noooo! You're an idiot! The point is they don't NEED proof!" Don't forget that they're passing on the virtues of irrationality to their children and threatening them with all sorts of misery and torment if they don't comply. cite?

I thought you said you were going to provide proof of your mad ravings this weekend? Enquiring minds are waiting.

So to believe in intelligent life living somewhere else in the universe is a belief system or is not?

Believing in things without evidence ISN'T smug and arrogant? How about killing and torturing for things that you believe without evidence? Is that not smug and arrogant? How about having no respect for anyone who doesn't believe what you believe without evidence? Is that not smug and arrogant? How would that be smug and arrogant? You believe. Faith is a deply spiritual and personal thing. As long as the person/religion doesn't force the conversion of others what is the harm? If they did force conversions or wanted to kill the non-believers I would be right there shouting from the rooftops that it is ridiculous. If torturing and killing were the exclusive domain of religion then you would have an argument. Obviously they are not. Ergo, the problem is not with the religion or god, but in peoples contempt of others that do not think like they do. Christianity used to do this and it was terrible. Islam still does to an extent and it is terrible. Communism did this and it was terrible. Fascists did this and it was terrible. The common theme is intolerance. Ironically the crusade against religion is very intolerant. I hope it does not go to the extreme like the other ideologies did in the past. You should be looking yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you find it necessary to denegrate people who do not think as you do. Certainly, if you were so sure in your position, you would have no need or interest in portraying your beliefe as the 'correct one' as you would know it to be true. I think you are confused that there are others that do not think as you and in order to validate yuour belief system you need to tear theirs down. That is a common human theme in history. It is unfortunate and it the ultimate commonality to all atrocities. You should think that over the next time you denigrate others that are causing you no harm at all.

This post is ridiculous. thank you Atheism requires no faith. It is not about faith, it is about reaching a conclusion. Atheism is not at all an ANSWER to any question, it is a rejection of the answer 'God'. Wrong. Since no one knows if there is a God or not, Atheism DOES indeed require faith. We don't know if there is intelligent life in the universe, but it does seem likely. If you believe for sure that there is, then you are relying on faith to believe that. We don't say to people who don't believe in ghosts, "wow, it takes an incredible amount of faith not to believe in ghosts." That's clearly nonsense, the onus is on the person who believes in ghosts to justify their belief and show proof of its existence. People who believe do not need 'proof'. That is the essence of any faith, religious or not. Clearly you are having a difficult time with the meaning of the word. I find it odd, as Richard Dawkins points out, that we don't label our children as Liberal, Conservative, Communist, etc; however, it's perfectly acceptable to paint them with beliefs such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. I find it odd that people cannot expose someone to faith of any kind but let them make up their own minds as they go through life. By that argument we should not be sending people to school to gain an education as that would expose them to bias. Bias is everywhere. A properly raised child will be able to make up their own mind. The fact that children adopt the religion of their parents goes to show the power of these superstitions and how unquestioned faith is the norm for all religion. It affects all by slowing understanding and scientific advancement. I mentioned Galileo earlier because that's the best example I can think of from the top of my head. A century from now the treatment of Darwin's findings in today's age will be a similar example. Having an open or closed mind to things is not the exclusive domain of religion. Some of the best and brightest astromoners were in the employ of the papacy in the middle ages. Look at David Suzuki. He has a closed mind about global warming. I don't think that is because of his religion. There are any number of other examples of this, including Richard Dawkins. Also, if all children adopted the faith of their parents, we wouldn;t be having this argument as we would all be religious wouldn't we?

Well this is the 21st century, but whatever floats your boat. Why do you think that? Communism killed many millions of people that didn't 'believe'. Don't you think that if religion were to go away that it would just be replaced with something else? Oh, personal insults. thank you. I have never professed any faith in 'gods'. I admire your presumptions. To you perhaps. Unfortunately you are not very educated in history, philosophy or debate skills as you have shown here. Your opinion is fortunately, not the last voice in the debate.

Thanks Sharkman. Nice to know you can have reasoned debate around here still.

I did put forth any notion of God. Clearly if you think the 20th Century was the most peaceful century in our existence then 'truth' in anything is not your strong point. You can't even understand what it is I am saying. Your post is not even responding to my points other than your laughable assertion about the 20th Century being one of peace and harmony.

Interesting you choose the word 'creed'. Interesting because it's obviously part and parcel of the rightwing talking-point that argues secular views are somehow religious. (Which itself is an oxymoron the likes of which it usually takes a religious mindset to accomodate.) Now I'm not interested in debating that point, which is too ludicrous to be bothered acknowledging argumentatively, but I wonder what the strategy is there. How does it help their(/your) position? You are presuming to know what my position is. You have no interest to debate because my points are not debateable by a rational person that has at least a slim grip on logic and debate. If creed is putting your panties in a twist you can feel free to change it to 'belief' if you are so inclined. Regardless, it is the fevered pitch to which any belief, logical or not, that can lead to atrocity. The 20th century is, without a doubt, our bloddiest century of human existence. It is also the century that marked the greatest loosening of religion on individual lives. Kind of hard to make the argument that God is, indeed, poison in that context is it not?

I find it equally ridiculous that you would reduce the stem cell argument to 'making God cry'. The stem cell argument is a ethical nightmare, nothing to do with Religion necessarily. I am also quite surprised that you blame religions for these actions, yet leave all other creeds out of it? Do you also hold secular humanism in equal, or worse, contempt? What about politics? Do you hold politics in contempt? You see, it is not the belief in God that is the problem, it is the actions of MAN that use violence to promote one ideology over another. This ALWAYS starts out as promoting one ideology over the other and showing contempt for the believers on the other side. Do you see the irony yet? I hope so.

In your lifetime I am confident you will look back upon yourself and your actions and marvel at how smug and arrogant you were acting.

prove it Prove that Zeus is not real. Prove that Apollo is not real. Prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real. Atheists aren't the ones making wild assertion about invisible creatures. Those who believe in mysticism, superstition, fairies, goblins and Gods are the ones who logically need to show evidence of their belief's existence. Atheism by definition is finding that there is not enough evidence TO BELIEVE. Prove that there isn't enough evidence is that what you want? The best attempt at doing that is to get those who do believe to show proof of existence. The closest we got to that was someone saying the complexity of the universe is too much to have been just a coincidence; however, that person is completely missing the fact that it's not coincidence that anything is here. There was a series of events that built upon each other and just because we don't have the answers to EVERYTHING yet, does not mean God is the answer. God is too complex to understand, according to theists, yet that doesn't mean there was a superior being that created God. Complexity and chance are not proof of a deity. No they are not. But neither are they proof that there is not one. By demanding 'proof' you are missing the point. Having 'faith' is not a coincidence. In the absence of proof you have to have faith to believe anything, not just in a higher power. In other words the absence of proof of a higher power is just as much of a logical fallacy argument as an Atheist asking for proof of a higher power. People much smarter than you or I have struggled with these proplems and questions for alot longer than you or I. It is the very height of smugness and arrogance to come onto an internet forum and declare one side or another idiots for their beliefs all the while presenting very juvenile arguments. Some people are clearly deeper thinkers than others and it seems to me that the insults all come from the atheist side and coincidentally or not come from the shallowest thinkers of them all.

Maybe you should set them down and give them a good wash. LOL Good one! The onus is on the worshipper to prove the existence of an invisiblity entity (good luck with that). In today's world we no longer NEED religion (or gods) to explain that the sun comes up every day...that clouds produce rain. People used to believe that the sun would not rise if they didn't prostrate themselves in a certain way, or sacrifice a person, or burn incense... We now know better -- I am CONFIDENT that the human race is capable of growing up and realizing no one is going to "make everything better." Cheers! Yes, the human race is growing up, it's good to see. However, being an Atheist takes just as much faith as believing in a higher power. Regardless of which is correct, I don't know myself, it has been a life-long journey of questions and philosophical problems.. However to declare that Atheism is THE ONLY ANSWER and laugh at people who believe otherwise is remarkably similar to the practices of religious fanatics, do you not think? In other words, if you were as grown up as the world is, you would not judge people for what they may or may not believe if it does not affect you. Clearly you have not thought through your position for any length of time. You are a 'lazy believer'. shame.

Polynewbie? Is that you? Are Dominionists members of a bank in the Dominican Republic? Do you think people realise it when they go insane? As Al Gore said - I think we have reached our 'tipping point'

prove it

Maybe you should set them down and give them a good wash.

Charles Could not the vigialntes argue self defence? The drug dealers were exposing their children to harm.... Also, police INVESTIGATE crime. They do not have a mandate to prevent crime.

That will depend on the Global warming cult. They are already protesting it.

New refinery on the books fo Saint John NB. Should help.

Good Post Argus. Painfully true.

I am no fan of the current global warming religious cult, but I like this legislation. Will go a long way to reducing smog and the real pollutants. Slick Harper is. He has always wanted to cut down on air POLLUTION and he packages it up as a GHG reduction when it is really anti-pollution legislation. I like it overall. When critics on both sides are complaining it is surely the sign they got it right.

LOL Drea? Poly? Wendy? hahaha

I'm not a conspiracy whacko and I'm interested and knowledgeable about pot. I don't smoke the stuff anymore, but I do like learning new things, no matter what those things are. Pot is an interesting subject. I used to smoke it too. I wouldn't really call it an interesting subject however.

What a surprise. The conspiracy whackos are the same one's most interested and knowledgeable about POT. LOL