20% of americans are athiests

[Stigmata]

Isnt that basically what I said? Well, I said 100% sure whereas I should have said 95% sure. But still, I was trying to make the same point as you, only with a lot fewer words. I guess I should have stated that I understand Agnostics are technically Atheists also, but I was trying to say that they're still quite different in what they believe when compared to someone who is a true Atheist.

From what I understand, Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism, and the Agnostics-with-different-beliefs that you're talking about are actually Deists who don't know what Agnosticism means.

 

[Cheomesh]

Wait, how can a true scientist only be atheist? In my particular choice of faith we're encouraged to learn and discover anything we can.

And for the guy who said that since you cannot conduct an experiment to prove or disprove god, it's automatically proven it cannot exist is wrong. The correct term is null.

 

[Stigmata]

Wait, how can a true scientist only be atheist? In my particular choice of faith we're encouraged to learn and discover anything we can.

A scientist knows that he should not believe in something without a great deal of empirical evidence to back up such a belief. A scientist who then proceeds to believe in God and adhere to a religion is a hypocrite, and such hypocrisy does not fit in with the scientific method.

 

[theotherguy]

Wait, how can a true scientist only be atheist? In my particular choice of faith we're encouraged to learn and discover anything we can.

And for the guy who said that since you cannot conduct an experiment to prove or disprove god, it's automatically proven it cannot exist is wrong. The correct term is null.

That's not what he was saying.

What he was saying was that if something cannot be proven to exist, there is no compelling reason to believe that it exists.

 

[Krynn72]

From what I understand, Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism, and the Agnostics-with-different-beliefs that you're talking about are actually Deists who don't know what Agnosticism means.

Well, if they dont believe there is a god, but also dont believe there isnt a god, then how are they Deists at all?

 

[Uriel]

A scientist knows that he should not believe in something without a great deal of empirical evidence to back up such a belief. A scientist who then proceeds to believe in God and adhere to a religion is a hypocrite, and such hypocrisy does not fit in with the scientific method.

Bullplop.

http://famousmormons.net/sci.html
http://famousmormons.net/computers.html
http://famousmormons.net/inventors.html
http://famousmormons.net/health.html
http://famousmormons.net/military.html

That's not what he was saying.

What he was saying was that if something cannot be proven to exist, there is no compelling reason to believe that it exists.

Good point, also. Consider these brilliant minds. Most are obviously more intelligent than us agreed? Now, don't you think there is reason behind why they believe in what they do? Quit acting like every Christian is a moron. Quit acting like you are so above everyone else and that these people have little reason to believe. People have reasons to believe. Just like I do. What I have experienced in my life, I cannot deny what I believe in. I would be lying to myself because of what I have experienced. I bear you my testimony that there is a God. Keep an open mind. You can't deny something unless you can honestly say to yourself that you have honest to heart searched for the truth.

 

[Krynn72]

Bullplop.

http://famousmormons.net/sci.html
http://famousmormons.net/computers.html
http://famousmormons.net/inventors.html
http://famousmormons.net/health.html
http://famousmormons.net/military.html

Imagine how much more they could have accomplished!

 

[mindless_moder]

he didn't say they didn't exist he just said that they're hypocrites for believing in something that can not stand up to science.

 

[<RJMC>]

A scientist knows that he should not believe in something without a great deal of empirical evidence to back up such a belief. A scientist who then proceeds to believe in God and adhere to a religion is a hypocrite, and such hypocrisy does not fit in with the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person (Pais 1982, p. 319).[41] He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[42] In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605?607)

 

[jverne]

You people should stop being so harsh on those with a religion.

how about you go f*** yourself?

ok sorry for the insult, but you got no legitimate reason to ask for that.


let me explain again about intolerance...

two persons are walking down the street, one is religious (Christian), one is atheist...
they come to a ad where for example two guys are kissing or two girls, or a naked girl is on, or maybe some soft sex scene is shown...

religious person: OMG...what blasphemy, i can't look i'm too offended.
atheist person: meh..."nice boobs" or "that guys thing is photoshoped"???

the religious person would go ****ing bananas for something his religion told him to go. and religion told him to do so based on no real argument. so naturally the religious person would be against such scenes and vote for a religious party.

basically religious persons ban humanistic rights based on nothing...so yeah...if you are Christian (muslim,...) i can telly you without guilt to go **** yourself.

oh and if you are not offended by such things than you are not a true Christian.


what the **** is it with einstein....he might have been smart but back than people knew way less than now, so basically he made a guess on the data available. stop quoting him!

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

What is the term for truly and completely not giving a shit, at all?

Spoiler

but praying when the shit hits the fan

 

[Uriel]

how about you go f*** yourself?

ok sorry for the insult, but you got no legitimate reason to ask for that.


let me explain again about intolerance...

two persons are walking down the street, one is religious (Christian), one is atheist...
they come to a ad where for example two guys are kissing or two girls, or a naked girl is on, or maybe some soft sex scene is shown...

religious person: OMG...what blasphemy, i can't look i'm too offended.
atheist person: meh..."nice boobs" or "that guys thing is photoshoped"???

the religious person would go ****ing bananas for something his religion told him to go. and religion told him to do so based on no real argument. so naturally the religious person would be against such scenes and vote for a religious party.

basically religious persons ban humanistic rights based on nothing...so yeah...if you are Christian (muslim,...) i can telly you without guilt to go **** yourself.

oh and if you are not offended by such things than you are not a true Christian.

Now, what happens when people lose tolerance for another religion, race, nation, etc?

 

[Absinthe]

Well, we kill them. Obviously.

 

[Uriel]

Well, we kill them. Obviously.

Exactly. What's taking place on the forums right now?

What takes place on the opposite end of the spectrum?

What took place during the Crusades?

Intolerances on both sides.

Take religion out of everything and I'm positive intolerance would still occur (see example below).

 

[Dan]

what is it where you believe in god, but not in organized religion?

 

[kirovman]

What is the term for truly and completely not giving a shit, at all?

Spoiler

but praying when the shit hits the fan

Apathy?

Also, I respect individuals. It does not follow that I have to respect their beliefs.

For example, I know some Christians who I respect a lot. That doesn't mean to say that I respect their belief that Jesus came back from the dead as zombie-Jeebus.

 

[jverne]

Now, what happens when people lose tolerance for another religion, race, nation, etc?

see Uriel, you are missing the point!

i (we) are not intolerant of people, races, nations

why would you hate a black guy? he did nothing wrong technically.

why would you hate a nation? it's just a word


religion tells, or restricts something for no scientific reason.

it's like i would order you, not to scratch your balls because it's offensive to me, just because...no apparent reason, i just don't like the idea of you scratching your balls.

normally you would tell me to go **** myself.

but lets say that if you scratch your sack you release a virus that kills 10 million people each time you do that. technically you should stop doing that because you are hurting people. see that is a technically practical reason for you to stop doing that.

of course i exaggerated, but you get the point.

i (we) don't like believes that restricts your actions for no reason.

another example...

lets presume that somebody is f*cking in the park on a public bench.

a religious person would go..."stop doing that...it's a sin!"

an atheist would probably go "stop doing that because i don't want to sit on your jizz and get herpes!"

the atheist has a practical reason to be against that, the religious person does not.

but of course religion borrowed and integrated these practical ideasa and added hell just to keep people afraid of doing that.

so here you have the recipe of what is moral and what is not and it shows that practicality far precedes religion.

but you would argue...what is it practical that religion believes that the earth is the center of the universe...religion wants to keep knowledge to herself is one thing and the other is just that people like to make things up.

 

[Absinthe]

Exactly. What's taking place on the forums right now?

We're... killing you?

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Basically the same. I prefer the term "weak athiest" to agnostic. An agnostic isn't sure, so he doesn't believe. Making him an athiest, albeit a "weak" athiest.

I thought an agnostic was sure there was a supreme being that exists, just doesn't care that he may exist.

 

[Lh'owon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
<snip>

AAAAAAAARRRRRRGH

Stigmata wrote:

A scientist knows that he should not believe in something without a great deal of empirical evidence to back up such a belief. A scientist who then proceeds to believe in God and adhere to a religion is a hypocrite, and such hypocrisy does not fit in with the scientific method.

Einstein DID NOT believe in a personal God, and DID NOT adhere to a religion. He frequently referred to a "God", but only to illustrate the majesty and wonder of the natural world.

He wrote in a letter:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

So your quote is both misleading and entirely irrelevant.

Of course you can be a brilliant scientist and be religious, but your religious belief will always be incompatible with the scientific method - if you take your religion literally that is.

 

[Cheomesh]

what is it where you believe in god, but not in organized religion?

I'm assuming Diest, or perhaps even pagan. I might be misusing words, however. My own isn't "organized" in a sense that we don't have a central "hierarchy" of who leads what in the faith.

 

[Muffin Man]

how about you go f*** yourself?

ok sorry for the insult, but you got no legitimate reason to ask for that.


let me explain again about intolerance...

two persons are walking down the street, one is religious (Christian), one is atheist...
they come to a ad where for example two guys are kissing or two girls, or a naked girl is on, or maybe some soft sex scene is shown...

religious person: OMG...what blasphemy, i can't look i'm too offended.
atheist person: meh..."nice boobs" or "that guys thing is photoshoped"???

the religious person would go ****ing bananas for something his religion told him to go. and religion told him to do so based on no real argument. so naturally the religious person would be against such scenes and vote for a religious party.

basically religious persons ban humanistic rights based on nothing...so yeah...if you are Christian (muslim,...) i can telly you without guilt to go **** yourself.

oh and if you are not offended by such things than you are not a true Christian.


what the **** is it with einstein....he might have been smart but back than people knew way less than now, so basically he made a guess on the data available. stop quoting him!

I know plenty of atheists who would freak out at the homosexual poster, and plenty of Christians who wouldn't care.

 

[kirovman]

I know plenty of atheists who would freak out at the homosexual poster, and plenty of Christians who wouldn't care.

Well then, they aren't Christians if they don't care.

The bible tells true Christians to stone homosexuals to death.

Well, at least the Islamic Republic of Iran follows Christianity to the letter.

 

[Muffin Man]

Yep, they're just atheists who go to church every week and have the nerve to think it's none of their business what other people choose to do with themselves!

 

[Stigmata]

what is it where you believe in god, but not in organized religion?

Either Deism or Theism. Deism is the belief that God created the universe and all its laws and then left it to its own devices, while Theism is the belief that God created everything and actively influences events.

Uriel: You have yet to give me a single reason why I should respect anyone's religious beliefs. I realize that there have in fact been religious people who were also scientists - this does NOT mean that their beliefs are somehow justified. A scientist could also be a racist; does this mean that his racist views are justified because he's good at math and chemistry?

 

[Seagull]

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx

Oh man. I lol'd so hard reading most of those quotes. Thanks for posting that

 

[Beerdude26]

"[Replying to 'as for not seeing evolution it takes several million years... incase you missed that memo...']

several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years."

Neverending genius

 

[Top Secret]

No, I think a REAL scientist would analyse the information he has got and say "well, there is no evidence, and no experiment can prove it, so it proboaly doesn't exist." Because thats what science is about.

You are a moron. A good scientist will not just assume. Take a ****ing science class.

Athiests are stupid? Agnostics have to be uncertain about whether unicorns exist. I'm 99% certain they don't, an agnostic has to be 50% certain.
How can you say agnostics are smarter when they attribute a 50% proboality to every myth and legend?

Once again, you're a moron. I also am 99% certain unicorns do not exist. Anyone who thinks an agnostic person MUST be 50% - 50% needs to murder themselves.

I'm really shocked people are still this clueless when it comes to atheism and agnosticism.

Atheist - "Someone who denies the existence of god." - Princeton

Agnostic - "A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)" - Princeton

They are nothing but simple definitions. Nowhere does it describe that a person who is Agnostic must be in the middle of the fence.

Anyone who does not see this point is simply stupid - A true scientist would be Agnostic, as God cannot be proven true, nor false. Until such a test can be conceived to determine the truth, that is how they should remain. If a test could be devised that would either prove or disapprove the existence of "god" that were repeatable, then that is what a true scientist should claim.

Myself, I'm 99% sure there is no God. But that is my GUESS. I can acknowledge to myself that it is my GUESS. I have NO scientific backing for it. Therefor, I am AGNOSTIC.

If you are religious. I think you a fool.
If you are atheist, I think you a fool.

DEAL with it.

For Christ's ****ing sake people, go study some logical fallacies for arguing before you come up with such stupid statements.

 

[Kadayi]

only 20% are sane, well it should improve then

Albeit that I'm not religious or tied to the notion of a Godhead, I don't see the belief in such a thing (or things) necessarily as a precursor for insanity. Plenty dangerous people out there who don't give a hoot about religion.

The bible tells true Christians to stone homosexuals to death.

I'm sorry to contradict you but the Bible doesn't tell the "Christians" to do any such thing, and your propagating sensationalist falsehoods by claiming it does. In all seriousness if you intend to rally against something at least have the decency to know what it is you are rallying against in detail.

 

[Stigmata]

To be fair, a true scientist would assume the existence of God is false until proven otherwise. The "maybe" factor is a given, and is taken care of with the assumption that almost all measurements, experiment results, and so forth have margins of error.

 

[Uriel]

Either Deism or Theism. Deism is the belief that God created the universe and all its laws and then left it to its own devices, while Theism is the belief that God created everything and actively influences events.

Uriel: You have yet to give me a single reason why I should respect anyone's religious beliefs. I realize that there have in fact been religious people who were also scientists - this does NOT mean that their beliefs are somehow justified. A scientist could also be a racist; does this mean that his racist views are justified because he's good at math and chemistry?

Up to you whether you respect them or not. But realize, when you call me an idiot for being a Christian or religious, you have not been in my shoes. You don't know the reasons why I believe or my experiences. I am a smart individual, I question things and am observant. My faith is based on my experiences, that's why I have a testimony. Don't assume I'm a regular Christian either. I don't agree with other Christian religions on most subjects. I can see why you look at the Christian faith and say it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't to me either. I am a Mormon. We hold very different beliefs and they are not beliefs we just pulled out of a hat either.

You can't assume every Christian is a moron for believing in what they do. You can't assume every Christian holds the same beliefs.

 

[Stigmata]

Up to you whether you respect them or not. But realize, when you call me an idiot for being a Christian or religious, you have not been in my shoes. You don't know the reasons why I believe or my experiences. I am a smart individual, I question things and am observant. My faith is based on my experiences, that's why I have a testimony. Don't assume I'm a regular Christian either. I don't agree with other Christian religions on most subjects. I can see why you look at the Christian faith and say it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't to me either. I am a Mormon. We hold very different beliefs and they are not beliefs we just pulled out of a hat either.

You can't assume every Christian is a moron for believing in what they do. You can't assume every Christian holds the same beliefs.

I don't care what your or anyone else's "experiences" are, because frankly they don't add up to anything other than useless anecdotal evidence. And the fact that you disagree with other Christian sects makes you no different than every other religious group that has ever existed, let alone just those of the Christian faith.

 

[Lh'owon]

You are a moron. A good scientist will not just assume. Take a ****ing science class.

Way to entirely misunderstand what Atomic_Piggy said. Of course no good scientist would just "assume", but you'll notice Atomic didn't use that word. Assume means to think something is true (the non-existence of god for example) even though you have no evidence for it.

Atomic quite clearly said that a "scientist would analyse the information he has got and say "well, there is no evidence, and no experiment can prove it, so it proboaly doesn't exist." Does that sound like assuming to you? He even said "probably doesn't exist". That is NOT assuming anything; it is drawing a rational conclusion from available evidence, without admitting 100% certainty.

Once again, you're a moron. I also am 99% certain unicorns do not exist. Anyone who thinks an agnostic person MUST be 50% - 50% needs to murder themselves.

I agree with you here - there is no reason an agnostic has to be 50-50, although I'd argue that from an agnostic's perspective percentages are a bit meaningless. An agnostic believes a satisfying conclusion cannot be drawn from the evidence, and so wouldn't invoke percentages.

Anyone who does not see this point is simply stupid - A true scientist would be Agnostic, as God cannot be proven true, nor false. Until such a test can be conceived to determine the truth, that is how they should remain. If a test could be devised that would either prove or disapprove the existence of "god" that were repeatable, then that is what a true scientist should claim.

Technically, yes. While you can?t technically be an atheist, as you cannot actually disprove the existence of God, you can be as much an atheist about God as you are about Thor, Poseidon, and fairies. Let that sink in. An atheist, by your definition, is someone who denies the existence of god. How is that an irrational position to take, especially for a scientist? We can all deny the existence of unicorns without calling ourselves agnostics towards their existence.

Myself, I'm 99% sure there is no God. But that is my GUESS. I can acknowledge to myself that it is my GUESS. I have NO scientific backing for it. Therefor, I am AGNOSTIC.

You completely lost it here. I mean, what? You think that atheists are merely guessing? There is NO evidence for the existence of God! How is that "no scientific backing"? Sheesh. You'd have to be a fool to be an atheist as a guess .

If you are religious. I think you a fool.
If you are atheist, I think you a fool.

DEAL with it.

For Christ's ****ing sake people, go study some logical fallacies for arguing before you come up with such stupid statements.

Deal with that twisted attempt at logic? No thanks. And as for your last piece of advice, I think my hypocricy-meter just exploded.

 

[Nemesis6]

Fellow agnostic joining in here: If God exists, he really hasn't given us any scientific proof, but neither has his existence been absolutely disputed, very much like most tales of the past.

Uriel, I would like to ask you something: Mormons believe in the past presence of a giant Jewish empire in America. You most likely know about that, so I'm wondering - Where do you stand on that?

 

[Kadayi]

I don't care what your or anyone else's "experiences" are, because frankly they don't add up to anything other than useless anecdotal evidence. And the fact that you disagree with other Christian sects makes you no different than every other religious group that has ever existed, let alone just those of the Christian faith.

Then why should he care what you have to say? Plain truth of the matter is you've proven by your own words here that you're as close minded as the people you purportedly rallying against. :dozey:

 

[Stigmata]

Then why should he care what you have to say? Plain truth of the matter is you've proven by your own words here that you're as close minded as the people you purportedly rallying against. :dozey:

Except I have a logical reason why I shouldn't care about his experiences. Same reason why I don't care about the reasons behind someone being racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

I think you're getting hung up on the word "care" and misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. Or maybe "care" is the wrong word altogether. What I'm trying to say is, anecdotal evidence is worthless, and any belief that is upheld based on nothing but anecdotal evidence should be immediately re-evaluated based on actual logic.

 

[Dog--]

Compare that to 80% of the entire population in Sweden, and you still have a bit to go, it seems

I want to visit Sweden, it seems like the most on-the-level country ever.

 

[<RJMC>]

why you allways go whit the "if god exist we should have scientific evidence"
what if he just exist in a way where we cant found him

c'mon is god so duh

 

[Kadayi]

What I'm trying to say is, anecdotal evidence is worthless, and any belief that is upheld based on nothing but anecdotal evidence should be immediately re-evaluated based on actual logic.

So on that basis anything outside the realm of your personal experience neither exists or has any value then? There was no Roman Empire, man never landed on the moon, the big bang never happened?

 

[Stigmata]

So historical records of the Roman Empire and the lunar landings are anecdotal evidence now?

**** off, Polokov.

I wish there was a way to block threads so I wouldn't be tempted to rejoin this shitfest tomorrow.