Is there a god?

[Symmetry]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.

And I hope that atheists should be able to call out dogma that gets associated with atheism.

[thegreekdog]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.

And I hope that atheists should be able to call out dogma that gets associated with atheism.

Is there atheist dogma? I'm admittedly not familiar with the "tenets" of atheism (assuming those exist).

[Symmetry]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.

And I hope that atheists should be able to call out dogma that gets associated with atheism.

Is there atheist dogma? I'm admittedly not familiar with the "tenets" of atheism (assuming those exist).

Not to my mind, but there are dogmatic beliefs that get associated with atheism- typically science or belief in evolution. For me, atheism is not a religion precisely because it does not demand a set of beliefs. It's a faith in one single belief- no supernatural power, or at at least, none that we can possibly know about.

[Haggis_McMutton]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.

And I hope that atheists should be able to call out dogma that gets associated with atheism.

Is there atheist dogma? I'm admittedly not familiar with the "tenets" of atheism (assuming those exist).

There's a lot of technical details regarding the proper way to execute orgies. The logistics can be quite tricky at times.

[thegreekdog]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.

And I hope that atheists should be able to call out dogma that gets associated with atheism.

Is there atheist dogma? I'm admittedly not familiar with the "tenets" of atheism (assuming those exist).

There's a lot of technical details regarding the proper way to execute orgies. The logistics can be quite tricky at times.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the December 25th day of orgies.

[oss spy]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.

And I hope that atheists should be able to call out dogma that gets associated with atheism.

Is there atheist dogma? I'm admittedly not familiar with the "tenets" of atheism (assuming those exist).

Not to my mind, but there are dogmatic beliefs that get associated with atheism- typically science or belief in evolution. For me, atheism is not a religion precisely because it does not demand a set of beliefs. It's a faith in one single belief- no supernatural power, or at at least, none that we can possibly know about.

I hate to interrupt the flow of your discussion, but the belief in science and evolution aren't associated with atheism. The Pope himself accepts Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. In fact, only the radicals (or people unaware) are against these achievements of modern science. The Catholic Church recognizes science to be true and there is no reason anyone, atheist or religious, should deny science based on the personal beliefs of a pastor, preacher, or priest.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, Catholics accept evolution, the Big Bang, and various other scientific theories. I'm not sure why people think otherwise. That's always kind of bothered me.

[pimpdave]

Of course there's a God and he's called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone who doesn't believe in his noodly goodness is an idiot.

[thegreekdog]

Of course there's a God and he's called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone who doesn't believe in his noodly goodness is an idiot.

I thought it was The Cube. It's all very confusing.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Where does the invisible pink unicorn fit into all of these?




Edit: Wait, holy shit, I JUST REALIZED WHY JOHN ISN'T AN ATHEIST. Clearly he was touched by her hoof.

[pimpdave]

Of course there's a God and he's called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone who doesn't believe in his noodly goodness is an idiot.

I thought it was The Cube. It's all very confusing.

http://www.timecube.com/

[john9blue]

Edit: Wait, holy shit, I JUST REALIZED WHY JOHN ISN'T AN ATHEIST. Clearly he was touched by her hoof.

i am just a lowly messenger of the holy truth.






...nah, just kidding. as a pegasupremacist, i would not accept a unicorn as the creator of the universe, because "unicorn" implies a wingless unicorn (as opposed to an alicorn)

[AAFitz]

An atheist arrives at the pearly gates....

God: Sorry bud, you didn't believe in me so I can't let you in here.

Atheist: Well, in my defense, you're the one that made me intelligent.

[Baron Von PWN]

How does Moses make his tea?
































Hebrews it.

[the carpet man]

[pmchugh]

An odd post. I've offended Christians pretty often, if that qualifies as some kind of qualification for me to be right on your part- I'm not sure why it should, but that's up to you. I've apparently offended you somehow, just by suggesting you read some stuff by Christians.

Sorry if I cam across offended, I ain't at all. I am actually quite laid back and was mostly taking the piss with that post, I guess I should have used more similes... stupid internet.

[Symmetry]

An odd post. I've offended Christians pretty often, if that qualifies as some kind of qualification for me to be right on your part- I'm not sure why it should, but that's up to you. I've apparently offended you somehow, just by suggesting you read some stuff by Christians.

Sorry if I cam across offended, I ain't at all. I am actually quite laid back and was mostly taking the piss with that post, I guess I should have used more similes... stupid internet.

No problem, and thanks for the response.

[PLAYER57832]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct.

True. I have not confused the two.

Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

I would agree that there is less chance of Christianity being true than that there simply is a God of any kind. That IS logic. Since Christianity subscribes to a narrower vision of God than ALL possible Gods.. sure, then of course there are more chances that any God at all is true. ( just like there is more chance of either a, b or c being true than just a or just b or just c). HOWEVER, that does not mean Christianity is not true. I believe it is, based on logic, evidence and belief together.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

To answer that requires looking at which Christian church you mean. Churches are congregations of humans. Christianity holds that humans are fully fallible, in fact some Christians say we are tended toward evil (though that is NOT a universal belief by any means). If you will equate God, the Bible and people's interpretations of that.. well, do the same for ANY belief and you will find similar problems.

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

Any Christian who says they have the whole truth themselves is decieving themselves.
Christ has said he had all knowledge.. and that we have only a small portion of it. You confuse humanity and human failings with the greater possibilities.

The adaptations you claim to see are just humanity gaining greater knowledge.. be it growth in science or religion or both.

[PLAYER57832]

Player's argument reminds me of something I read literally from my argumentation textbook. It is the "Appeal to ignorance". It is, and I quote, "...ask[ing] the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny it's validity."

Not quite. but.. nice try. I am not, have never asked people to accept my beliefs. I acknowledge I cannot hand you the proof necessary. No, my argument is that you cannot dismiss my beliefs (or those of anyone else) without proof, and certainly claims that atheism are somehow based on more evidence, mroe logic, etc are just plain wrong. Quite a different thing, indeed!

[PLAYER57832]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

That last sentence could equally apply to science. It's worth, and I say this an atheist, listening to what religious folks actually say and accepting that there are areas where it comes down to faith.

No scientist says they hold the absolute truth. That's contradictory to science.

But having access to it via scientific method is at the heart of science. Contrariwise, most religious folk accept doubt as part of their religious belief.

No. Scientists pretty much accept the limits to their proofs. It is why so many scientists have faith of varying types.

BUT, there is also this. What else, but belief would spur someone to spend decades pursuing something with very little frution, against great opposition? Faith and science are very much tied.

[PLAYER57832]

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

No, to be polar opposites, religion would have to prevent ALL things from being questioned, not just a few things. (and that is an important point, not mere semantics).

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, Catholics accept evolution, the Big Bang, and various other scientific theories. I'm not sure why people think otherwise. That's always kind of bothered me.

Most Christians do. But, well.. those that do not do not necessarily consider Roman Catholics to be "true Christians" (something for another thread, but I point it out for clarity here). I would say the "confusion" is intentional.. but that gets into other topics.

[pmchugh]

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

To answer that requires looking at which Christian church you mean. Churches are congregations of humans. Christianity holds that humans are fully fallible, in fact some Christians say we are tended toward evil (though that is NOT a universal belief by any means). If you will equate God, the Bible and people's interpretations of that.. well, do the same for ANY belief and you will find similar problems.

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

Any Christian who says they have the whole truth themselves is decieving themselves.
Christ has said he had all knowledge.. and that we have only a small portion of it. You confuse humanity and human failings with the greater possibilities.

The adaptations you claim to see are just humanity gaining greater knowledge.. be it growth in science or religion or both.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that Christianity is worse than the rest of society for the number of falsities it holds to be true and the ferocity to which it defends them. Do you agree that organised religion is heavily associated with dogma and is often slower than the rest of society to evolve (excuse the pun).

IMO we don't make advances because someone learns to interpret the Bible in a new and improved way, we make the advances and then someone re-interprets the Bible to fit these changes in the majority of cases.

[Symmetry]

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

To answer that requires looking at which Christian church you mean. Churches are congregations of humans. Christianity holds that humans are fully fallible, in fact some Christians say we are tended toward evil (though that is NOT a universal belief by any means). If you will equate God, the Bible and people's interpretations of that.. well, do the same for ANY belief and you will find similar problems.

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

Any Christian who says they have the whole truth themselves is decieving themselves.
Christ has said he had all knowledge.. and that we have only a small portion of it. You confuse humanity and human failings with the greater possibilities.

The adaptations you claim to see are just humanity gaining greater knowledge.. be it growth in science or religion or both.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that Christianity is worse than the rest of society for the number of falsities it holds to be true and the ferocity to which it defends them. Do you agree that organised religion is heavily associated with dogma and is often slower than the rest of society to evolve (excuse the pun).

IMO we don't make advances because someone learns to interpret the Bible in a new and improved way, we make the advances and then someone re-interprets the Bible to fit these changes in the majority of cases.

Worse? Than Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Mormonism, Scientology...? What is the "rest of society" that Christianity is worse than?

Maybe listen rather than put together an argument and demand a "yes or no...do you agree?" kind of argument.

[pmchugh]

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

To answer that requires looking at which Christian church you mean. Churches are congregations of humans. Christianity holds that humans are fully fallible, in fact some Christians say we are tended toward evil (though that is NOT a universal belief by any means). If you will equate God, the Bible and people's interpretations of that.. well, do the same for ANY belief and you will find similar problems.

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

Any Christian who says they have the whole truth themselves is decieving themselves.
Christ has said he had all knowledge.. and that we have only a small portion of it. You confuse humanity and human failings with the greater possibilities.

The adaptations you claim to see are just humanity gaining greater knowledge.. be it growth in science or religion or both.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that Christianity is worse than the rest of society for the number of falsities it holds to be true and the ferocity to which it defends them. Do you agree that organised religion is heavily associated with dogma and is often slower than the rest of society to evolve (excuse the pun).

IMO we don't make advances because someone learns to interpret the Bible in a new and improved way, we make the advances and then someone re-interprets the Bible to fit these changes in the majority of cases.

Worse? Than Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Mormonism, Scientology...? What is the "rest of society" that Christianity is worse than?

Maybe listen rather than put together an argument and demand a "yes or no...do you agree?" kind of argument.

I obviously didn't mean other religions, it is pretty hard to define this exactly as it varies from case to case. However take homophobia or sexism, religions (or more specifically churches and their leaders) have been very slow to recognise the rights of gay people and women. They are slow to recognise scientific discoveries as well, such as evolution. In a lot of cases, acceptance in society and in law happens before it does in religion.

p.s. I never said he had to answer yes or no, partial agreement is fine by me. I was more asking his opinion on how well Christianity as a whole questions things.