Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!
Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.
The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.
Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.
You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?
The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.
Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
No, there isn't. It is opinion and nothing more. What if God created the Big Bang, setting everything in motion, with a set of natural laws in place, and then went away? Merely checking in from time to time to check on his experiment, but otherwise not interacting in any way? Provide evidence that that could not be the way the universe was created.
Tell me why you dont believe. Otherwise I think I'm talking to a christian in agnostic clothing.
I don't "believe" because I am a scientist. I have seen neither evidence for, or against the existence of a God.
Pussy. Man up and pick a side. LOL.
Scientists don't pick sides (at least they shouldn't. It colors their work when they do). We seek knowledge and facts. That's it.
We probably agree more than we disagree so I don't know why you are being such a theist apologist.
Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.
The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.
Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.
You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?
The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.
Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd
How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".
Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar
remarkable for a work of total fiction
All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
The Gospels themselves contradict one-another New Testament Contradictions on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia up to a century after Gospel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
So what. All evidence of the Big bang is hearsay as well. Further, it's hearsay that is hundreds of thousands of years after the fact.
No billions honey.
Nope. Cosmologists have taken us back to within about 350-500 thousand years after the event.
Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.
You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?
The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.
Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.
You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?
The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.
Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".
Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar
remarkable for a work of total fiction
All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
The Gospels themselves contradict one-another New Testament Contradictions on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia up to a century after Gospel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
So what. All evidence of the Big bang is hearsay as well. Further, it's hearsay that is hundreds of thousands of years after the fact.
No billions honey.
Nope. Cosmologists have taken us back to within about 350-500 thousand years after the event.
Keep going!!!
Primordial gravitational waves give scientists a way to peer further back in time than they ever have before — to around just a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.
Major Big Bang Discovery Brings Theory of Everything a Bit Closer to Reality
Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Now I see why you don't like atheists and choose to be "agnostic" on this. Its political for you Got it.
\An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Now I see why you don't like atheists and choose to be "agnostic" on this. Its political for you Got it.
I don't like MILITANT atheists. They are every bit as bad as the religious nutters that are out there. A atheist, who keeps his beliefs to himself, I will treat with every bit of respect I do a religious person who likewise keeps his beliefs to himself.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
"Correlation does not equal causation". Ring a bell? Or, more to the point, the studies you reference were riddled with confirmation bias. In other words they were not done very well.
In another study it was found that sceptics of the theory of man caused global warming, who had a high number of religious believers, were more scientifically adept than the supporters of the theory.
And that study was by a Yale professor who was shocked by the result.
\Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Now I see why you don't like atheists and choose to be "agnostic" on this. Its political for you Got it.
I don't like MILITANT atheists. They are every bit as bad as the religious nutters that are out there. A atheist, who keeps his beliefs to himself, I will treat with every bit of respect I do a religious person who likewise keeps his beliefs to himself.
No, they’re not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.
Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression. Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend. A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death,incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they areflawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.
It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.
Militant’ atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
"Correlation does not equal causation". Ring a bell? Or, more to the point, the studies you reference were riddled with confirmation bias. In other words they were not done very well.
In another study it was found that sceptics of the theory of man caused global warming, who had a high number of religious believers, were more scientifically adept than the supporters of the theory.
And that study was by a Yale professor who was shocked by the result.
Actually, I read once how Christians who believe End Days are coming don't believe in Global Warming because it wasn't written in the bible. According to them, the bible is very clear about how the end of times will come and so in their minds, why bother worrying about global warming?
“The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” – Carl Sagan
Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Now I see why you don't like atheists and choose to be "agnostic" on this. Its political for you Got it.
I don't like MILITANT atheists. They are every bit as bad as the religious nutters that are out there. A atheist, who keeps his beliefs to himself, I will treat with every bit of respect I do a religious person who likewise keeps his beliefs to himself.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
"Correlation does not equal causation". Ring a bell? Or, more to the point, the studies you reference were riddled with confirmation bias. In other words they were not done very well.
In another study it was found that sceptics of the theory of man caused global warming, who had a high number of religious believers, were more scientifically adept than the supporters of the theory.
And that study was by a Yale professor who was shocked by the result.
Actually, I read once how Christians who believe End Days are coming don't believe in Global Warming because it wasn't written in the bible. According to them, the bible is very clear about how the end of times will come and so in their minds, why bother worrying about global warming?
“The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” – Carl Sagan
When AGW theory was first promulgated I was a firm supporter. As the facts have come in.....and the evidence of widespread fraud has mounted, I have become a firm sceptic.
An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.
Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?
Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
"Correlation does not equal causation". Ring a bell? Or, more to the point, the studies you reference were riddled with confirmation bias. In other words they were not done very well.
In another study it was found that sceptics of the theory of man caused global warming, who had a high number of religious believers, were more scientifically adept than the supporters of the theory.
And that study was by a Yale professor who was shocked by the result.
