religion
- Started 20 years ago
- Last post 3 days ago
- 3,346 Responses
- yurimon0
- You're really coming off as pathetic, yuri. Get outside a bit, talk to people face to face.hereswhatidid
- Lighten up lol
Its a hard to act to follow. bears with lazers.yurimon - true lolZOOP
- hahamoldero
- yurimon0
I found the militant atheists by the way...
- poppin' fresh and the Michelin manZOOP
- Your argument is invalid here, not to mention overused.monospaced
- Then tell me what religion are these two guys? who happen to kill 100's of millions people. Logic fallacy guy.yurimon
- They didn't do it in the name of atheism you rtardmonospaced
- What are you nuts? The prosecuted religious people.anyone who didnt go with the states ideas. aka atheism.yurimon
- Mao invaded tibet for that exact reason stating religion is poison. then invaded tibet derp.yurimon
- the book of revelations says when the governments turn against religion the system will end. didnt happenmoldero
- ApeRobot0
^
- yurimon0
The Rapist
A theist
Bam!
Ballsmackitydoo
You know atheism is an imbalance philosophy by the way. To left brain extreme. When you are able to balance the both then hola back.
- ZOOP0
^
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/3…Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
- Where is your god now?ZOOP
- http://www.memefuns.…hereswhatidid
- 2006?GeorgesIV
- Geez, "Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer."yurimon
- were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer." read peopleyurimon
- it is so far, and we know organized religion kills countless millionsZOOP
- Ianbolton0
Haven't we sorted this religion thing out yet? We started this post in 2005.
- 2000 year old timeline, bromonospaced
- if you can sort out religion on a world scale in just 8.5 years... then YOU are my God now, lanbolton :)PonyBoy
- yurimon0
I'm not exactly a fan of religion but. let me get this straight.
Atheism. We are logical, scientific and think with reason. and dont believe in god because there is no proof and illogical to believe in god for that reason.
However the creation myths of science are theories. Not law that can't prove an existence of god or disprove, but theories...
So tell me how an atheist's ideas or concepts are not built around a scientific faith, myth or belief again? because what is purportedly believed can't be proven or dis proven?
To me it kinda puts atheism in the same boat as religious people for the same fact religious people and atheists can't prove or disprove the argument for or against.
- a scientific theory is much more different than a religious one, and you know it.monospaced
- a scientific theory is based on observation, facts and understanding, and it's testedmonospaced
- a faith belief isn't based on anything except superstition, and is never to be questioned, or else!monospaced
- faith is defined as belief without proof.yurimon
- scientists don't believe anything without proof. that's where you're hung up, dude.scarabin
- scarabin0
atheism doesn't propose to have an answer to the creation question, it simply denies the existence of a god for which there is no evidence.
that said, there is plenty of evidence to show that we as humans evolved from much more primitive lifeforms and zero evidence to suggest otherwise. i'm not sure where your idea of "scientific faith" comes in here...
- < exactlymonospaced
- faith in this case. firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no proof for or against.yurimon
- faith in this case. firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no proof for or against.yurimon
- Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's true.monospaced
- this puts atheism on faith along with every other religion.yurimon
- ther'es no proof for or against the tooth fairy either, but nobody tries to claim it's realmonospaced
- Doesnt mean yout not acting on faith mono, Your in the same boat as religious people dawg.yurimon
- Atheism isn't a belief, dude. It's non-belief. Why do you keep trying to say we "believe" in something.monospaced
- I am NOT in the same boat as the religous. If god was "proven" i would believe, but I won't just follow blindlymonospaced
- How would you know? do you have a pretext or expectation of proof?yurimon
- scarabin0
science is a method, not a dogma.
we've observed a damn lot about the universe and nothing about god.
- How do you know you haven't observed god? even though its a method it cant prove consciousness technicallyyurimon
- Yet we are conscious to some extent or another.yurimon
- are you joking?scarabin
- there's plenty of research about consciousness and the brain going on right now http://www.scientifi…scarabin
- monospaced0
I saw this long ago, and I've posted it here before, but I'll do it again.
"Atheism is a faith like 'off' is a television channel."- It becomes a faith when you cant prove your belief dawg.yurimon
- You cant prove the existence or non existence of god thus your ideas default to faith. yo co peash?yurimon
- again, you're basing your whole argument on the mistaken idea that scientists have sets of dogma they "believe". this isn't true.scarabin
- true. when there's no "belief" involved there's no need for faith. your whole point is mootscarabin
- There are scientists who have careers set in certain ideas the do fight because of that.yurimon
- science is as much political as it is an industry.yurimon
- like whom?scarabin
- you mean like christian "scientists"?scarabin
- scarabin0
yurimon, you seem to be under the idea that scientists "believe" everything absolutely proven and that there are no mysteries remaining to us. if this were true, there'd be no need for science. the fact is, we're busy observing, continually unwrapping the universe. if there were a god and we found him/it that data would be factored into our working model of the universe. i bet every one of them wishes it were that simple. but since we have found no evidence for god, he's not part of the model.
- there's no belief, only observation.scarabin
- until then its any bodies guess. considering we can only see .000018 of the universe we discovered so faryurimon
- yeah, well that's why we need science. so we don't have to guess. intelligence ends when you just guess and accept your imagination's answer.scarabin
- It means that its still one faith or another for that reason.yurimon
- imagination's answer. instead we continually observe and test.scarabin
- no, because faith assumes you have an answer you want to believe. science doesn't work like that.scarabin
- thats exactly what i'm saying.yurimon
- however if someone was to take a scientific theory. not proven. and believe it in the same manor a religious person does. how is it not faith?yurimon
- not faith? which by default definition simply means belief without proof.yurimon
- That's what you fail to understand, science is always based on proofukit2
- Even speculative theories are based on real world observations and extrapolating from them. That's how science has always worked.ukit2
- has always worked.ukit2
- AGAIN, scientists are not operating on unfounded "beliefs". there is no scientific dogma, only observation.scarabin
- < what ukit saidscarabin
- you're stuck on this idea that scientists believe something without evidence, which is counter to the definition of science.scarabin
- science.scarabin
- How can prove something that you dont even know what your looking for any expectation of what it is?yurimon
- reword that so it makes some sort of sense and i will address it properly. that's just gibberish matescarabin
- ukit20
Actually if you're going by the evidence, there's plenty of evidence that supports the scientific theories of how life began and almost none that supports the religious view. The age of the Earth, the millions of life forms that existed before humans which we have physical evidence of...all directly contradicts the Biblical story of creation.
So pretty silly to say they are the same thing. Even when you have a speculative theory about how life began, it's based on the latest information about biology, evolution, etc. Religion on the other hand...is how people believed the universe worked thousands of years ago. When we still thought the Earth was flat and you could fall off the edge if you sailed far enough...
- Its still theory mind you. big difference between law and theory in science.yurimon
- that being said the theories only go so far thus it still hasnt proven or disproven the argument if god exists.yurimon
- Also there is a difference between telling the masses a story for the sake of control and keeping truth to yourselfyurimon
- You can't prove a negative, but you can look at the evidence and see that the Bible is wrongukit2
- for the sake of power which is what religion the masses accomplishes.yurimon
- er for the massesyurimon
- I mean claiming the world is a few thousand years old and it turns out to be billions of years old...I'd say that's a pretty big problem wouldn't you? :)ukit2
- problem with your theory wouldn't you? :)ukit2
- did you hear what monospaced said? just because it cant be proven doesnt mean its not true.yurimon
- I'm not arguing the bible. its an allegory.yurimon
- So the Bible is made up but God is real?ukit2
- ZOOP0
Can we just go back to the good old days when the church killed you for using observation and deductive reasoning? God wants all those magical powers back he's lost to scientific discovery.
- Virgin birth... right. Walks on water, kills or heals with mere touch, yet no powers to stop being arrested. lolzZOOP
- That story was made by the romans that is a remake of an older story that is an allegoryyurimon
- it's all a story ;-)ZOOP
- It was actually the church that helped science in the sense that it claimed dominion of the mind and allowed the materialist view of science.yurimon
- the holy trinity was stolen from Asia, the origins are thereZOOP
- of science by the way. They killed those who basically the natives of europe. people with holistic view points of the world.yurimon
- wrongZOOP
- still wrongZOOP
- saying the church helped science is like saying Hitler helped the jewsZOOP
- Look at who the church killed and let live and you will see the chain of materialism that is todays science.yurimon
- yurimon, you couldn't be further from the truth. the church demonized and systematically destroyed anyone suspected of doing science, claiming it was witchcraft. one reason why alchemy was so villifiedscarabin
- doing science, claiming it was witchcraft. one reason why alchemy was so villifiedscarabin
- yawnZOOP
- yawn @ yuri* :DZOOP
- it helped unknowingly. It didnt let anyone merge or allow a holistic scientific view which interfered with their turf.
yurimon - materialism? are you fucking serious? have you seen the Vatican? FUCK MEZOOP
- eventually it lost power. thats what ive found for myself you dont have to believe it.yurimon
- dude, the church claimed dominion of the mind at one point. its power wasnt consistent. it eventually declined and it allowed what it felt wasnt a threat to its dominion that became a materialist view.yurimon
- ZOOP0
Laura Bush killed a guy.
