Why I care about religion

[Yknurd]

Hmmmmmm....somewhere there is a joke about Darwinism and AWMac's posts as they start from bold, brash statements, turn into rebuttals and lies, morph into personal attacks and obfuscations and finally evolve into denials and non-sequitars.

[Viking]

lol

[indy007]

Originally posted by Tachus
Prove to me, that life (what you call Human) didn't start somewhere else. I don't believe it did, I'm guessing you don't' believe it did, and it seems unreasonable to me for someone to believe it did, but you can't "Prove" it, one way of the other. Thus, my point you can't prove, I'm human. (At least not in the sense that you assume that I am.)

As far as I know, we're bacteria that got dropped off by a comet. I've seen what some could recognize as a god. This giant star called Myrah. It's trucking along through the universe leaving the bits that make up solar systems in its 30,000 year long tail. It's definately something's creator.

That said, until somebody comes along with a repeatable experiment that proves any of the religions are correct... I'll accept it. Until then, I'm an Atheist.

It's not hard to realise we're created by something. It's another thing entirely to claim that that something is a supernatural, omnipotent being as given to us by the various holy books.

a·the·ist      /ˈeɪčiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.  

—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by moot
Tachus:  If reason is not worth trusting, then what are you doing arguing?
Are you arguing that it's in vain to argue?

No, not at all. I'm arguing, that "Reason" is sufficient. That we often draw conclusion based solely on our reasoning skills, and that is not an irrational thing to do.  "Reason" is sufficient to believe in a great many things, that have not, or can not be proven, including God.

Again, many people think they only believe in what is "Real", what can be "Proven", without giving any thought to the amount of things they "Believe" based purely on their "Reasoning Skills" I point it out, because these same people often imply a person that believes in God practices some sort of exercise in blind faith, while they only believe what is "Real" and can be "Proven" which simply isn't true. We all believe and act on a great many things, without "Proof", based solely on our ability to "Reason"
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying, people that believe in God are not the only ones doing it.

Best regards,
--Tachus

[RATTFINK]

Originally posted by Yknurd
[Prince]This is what it sounds like when 'tards fight.[/Prince]

[SIZE=12]L M F A O!!! [/SIZE]


For you Mac,

Oklahoma

Where was the toothbrush invented? Oklahoma.

If it was invented anywhere else it would have been called a teethbrush.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- You know the difference between the city of Durant and the city of Doo-rant.

- You have used the phrase "fixin' to" during the last 12 months.

- Someone you know has used a football schedule to plan their wedding date.

- You save all your life for your dream vacation, and use it to go to the OU/Texas game.

- A tornado warning siren is your signal to go out in the yard and look for a funnel.

- It doesn't seem peculiar if your spouse says "I'm going in to town for something" even though you live in town.

- You can properly pronounce Eufaula, Gotebo, and Okemah.

- You can remember the last 12 times a state legislator seriously introduced a bill involving castration, and he didn't mean farm animals.

- You don't turn on the news until 20 minutes past the hour, because that's the only thing you care about anyway.

- You know exactly what calf fries are, and eat them anyway.

- When someone refers to the current season, you have no idea if they mean spring, summer, fall, winter or football.

- "Howdy" seems to be a normal way of greeting another adult, with no irony intended.

- You think that people who complain about the wind in other states are sissies.

- It bothers you not one iota to use an airport named for a man who died in an airplane crash.

- A bad traffic jam involves two cars staring each other down at a four-way stop, each determined to be the most polite and let the other go first.

- You know in which state Miam-uh is and in which state Miam-ee is.

- You have no sense of humor.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by indy007
As far as I know, we're bacteria that got dropped off by a comet. I've seen what some could recognize as a god. This giant star called Myrah. It's trucking along through the universe leaving the bits that make up solar systems in its 30,000 year long tail. It's definately something's creator.

That said, until somebody comes along with a repeatable experiment that proves any of the religions are correct... I'll accept it. Until then, I'm an Atheist.

It's not hard to realise we're created by something. It's another thing entirely to claim that that something is a supernatural, omnipotent being as given to us by the various holy books.

I wasn't trying to convert you or even convince you that there is a God for that matter. (That would be off topic for this thread. I'd need to start a "Let's convert indy007" thread for that. Hijacking is against the rules.)

I just wanted demonstrate the fact that we use observations, experiences, and knowledge to make decisions all the time, and many of these "times" are concerning things that cannot be proven. (Though they may indeed be reasonable.)

Often people, say I only believe in what's "Real and what can be Proven", but that's really not the case. We often believe things, based on our observations.

Best regards,
--Tachus

[Tachus]

Ok, my final post to this thread. (Unless someone specifically asks me to address something)

I have really enjoyed this thread. (For the most part, there has been no shortage of, hmm... what's a nice way to put it.... well I think you know what I'm trying to say, on both sides, but there has been plenty of intelligent discussion from both sides as well, which I do throughly enjoy.)

But alas, I have spent a HUGE amount of time in this thread, and as much as I've liked it, I've gotta have some down time. (I've good work to do)

I had a mentor once that told me, "If you can not articulate it, then you do not fully understand it." So I've always believed, "intelligent" discussion about what we believe is a good thing, and an intelligent discussion about what we believe with those that disagree is the best thing. It causes us (well most of us) to continually evaluate our position, refine it, define it, and sometimes adjust it. All in all a great exercise, I see why the Greeks loved to do it.


Thanks to all that contributed, and shame on those of you that were "small, and petty"

Best regards,
--Tachus

[Viking]

Nice talking to you Tachus. Have a good day at work.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Tachus
And of course, there in lies the problem. Who decides, what is the proper evaluation? Who decides the standards?

The issue is never "Facts" or "Evidence" it's always in the interpretation of those facts. Even if we agree, that we will not deal is matters of faith, and we agree on how we define what "matters of faith" are. Let's assume I believe a society should be based on the "Respect of Persons" perspective (which I do), but you believe the foundation of society should be based on the Utilitarian perspective (which you may or may not). The two are diametrically opposed. (Yes both operate in our society, but they always class, and decisions must be made as to which point of view will take president over the other.) It's not an issue of faith, at this point it's an issue of authority. Which of us, has the authority to enforce our views on the other? If the answer is neither, then what is to be done? We allow a majority consensus to decide what the "Flavor of the Month is" as far as the basis for our government, and what moral code we will follow.
The point being, it will always change, because there is no standard, other than "This seems right to me" So whether it's across religious lines, cultural lines, racial lines, or philosophical lines, there is never really agreement on what is "Right" And if this is the case, then why would my "This seems right to me" be discounted, because someone believed it was rooted in my belief in God? If it is acceptable to the majority, then it has been given the validity as any thing else accepted by the majority. If the defining authority is a majority consensus?; and if that is not the defining authority than what is?


Best regards,
--Tachus

I think you are trying to argue a point in faith which is very different from, basically, a world-wide accepted form of fact gathering.  Only extremists look at the worlds system as an opinionated one(although you will find instances of biased fact representing).  Take for instance, medicine.  Most religions rely and believe in the facts upon which modern medicine is based, yet you have thousands of children worldwide that die each year because the parents do not believe in the intervention of modern medicine over their faith in their God.   It doesn't mean that medicine is not factual or that there is a conspiracy to convert extremist to trust the facts of medicine, it is simply an example of how a few will never trust the system.  
The fact that penicillin was, in fact, a product of the efforts of man to determine truths in chemistry(albeit by accident),  is proof that our system is not bound by faith, but by standards that have been proven to be successful and ultimately factual.   Fact gathering and the acceptance of said facts has always been in a struggle with the "church".  Yet the difference is that the majority of fact gatherers are not gathering facts to disprove a faith, but to ultimately find the truth.  On the other hand, efforts by many in religion, do not neccessarily seek the ultimate truth, but seek data that avoids proving their faith unfactual.

[TalonX]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Another atheist put together a short video that succinctly represents my views as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

It's called "Why a care about religion".  The folks I'm really hoping will see this are ones like Lukster and his friends that suggest that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion on a subject that has such a large impact on my life despite my decision not enroll in the 'club'.

I think the best part of the video is to remind us all of how much the founding fathers delighted in the belief in God and never intended the kind of separation we find today.    (requirements in the avowed belief in God to hold office, etc).    The founding fathers expected us to pray in school (any way we chose) or to not, at our discretion.   We have allowed the atheists to twist the constitution enough.

All that said, I could care less if someone believes or not.  It's their business.....another hallmark of the country whose roots the atheists and radicals desire to kill.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Chairboy

There are what, two billion christians in the world? Out of how many people total? The Pac-man thread was more informative.

[Chairboy]

AKIron: That's a US specific graph.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Chairboy
AKIron: That's a US specific graph.

I know, cheap jab.

[ghi]

i care because religion gives more logic answers than science for Qs about mistery of life;where we came from, our mission here,where are we heading,

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by ghi
i care because religion gives more logic answers than science for Qs about mistery of life;where we came from, our mission here,where are we heading,

answers?   Faith based answers hold little value in the quest for factual truths just by definition alone.