Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
Now you speak for all Science? Didn't think so, some scientists are exploring such things.
Exploring, perhaps. But they have not yet found any such evidence. And much depends upon what kind of scientists. I don't know, myself. I have seen many "scientists" claim many things which seem to support a religious viewpoint, only to discover that: a) they are not really scientists, their degrees coming from diploma mills or theological colleges; b) they are scientists, but their fields of expertise are in areas different from that which they are claiming; or c) they are simply lying. An interesting example is the reported "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The same "scientists" who discount use of carbon dating to show that the world is older than their 6000 year Creationist dogma, now claim that carbon dating puts the remains found at the proper age for the Biblical Ark. You can't have it both ways, though. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't. It cannot work only when you agree with the results.

The evidence is right there in front of your face everytime you open your eyes.
Sorry, I don't see it. I see the natural world, nothing supernatural about it. I certainly don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

Actually science can't by your definition claim anything about god one way or the other becuase it lacks the ability at present to make a proper experiement.
Not true, actually. There have been many experiments done to try and show that there is, in fact, some form of a god. ALL of them have failed. That is why I say that there is no evidence for a god, and therefore no rational reason to believe in one.

They actually know where the unicorn myths were drawn from, and we even have some today though they are not horses with horns.
They also know where the god myths were drawn from, but believers don't like to be told that their religion is a myth.

It also doesnt make them just a fantasy or made up story or any other derogative associative adjetive you want to use.
Calling a story a story is not derogatory. It's telling the truth. The Judeo/Christian?islamic belief systems are based upon stories, originally told through word or mouth around the campfires of desert nomads. They were made up in an effort to explain things these nomads did not understand. It's no different than someone making up stories about Harry Potter. They're descriptive, they're fun and they might even have a moral. That still doesn't make them real.

Or he or she is saying that they know there is and you simply refuse to accept their conviction.
Oh, I can accept their conviction. But that's not evidence! It's not proof. It's a personal feeling.

And yet they allways seem to resort to being unreasonable and unrational themselves when debating it and again as for evidence, no amount will suffice to convience them otherwise.
Is it irrational for us to demand tangible evidence? Is it unreasonable to want verifiable proof? And who are we hurting by not accepting your "feelings" as proof? I'm not saying you must not believe something without proof. I'm only saying it is wrong of theists to force their beliefs upon others.

Then why is it, that religions promote learning and wisdom?
Again, sticking to the J/C/I religions, since those are the ones I am most familiar with: What is the original sin, the one which condemned all of mankind to misery and death for eternity? When I was growing up they tried to tell me it was the sin of disobedience, but what kind of god punishes all of mankind because one or two creatures disobeyed? No, it was the sin of gaining KNOWLEDGE which condemned Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants, to torment and death. And the Christian religions, in particular, have a long reputation for suppressing and destroying any knowledge which contradicts their own preconceived dogma.

Why is it all that lost knowledge about math and science and such from the classical era was preserved by the theologians (both muslim and christian) when it would have otherwise been lost to us?
Most of that knowledge was only lost to Western Europe because the Catholic Church ordered it destroyed. Yes, Muslims saved some, but other areas of the world had also developed their own sciences and maths, such as the Chinese, the Indians, the Mayans and the Incas. It was the suppression of science and learning in general which plunged the Christian world into the Dark Ages.

Religion also flourishes in bringing people from the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. Even/ especially in some cases: if it contradicts current dogma's be they religious, scientific or philosophical in origins.
I would love to see where religious leaders have embraced evidence which contradicts dogma without having to be forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.

And to others hell and heavan both exisist within the duality of human kinds existence and the afterlife is an illussion of time displacment that occurs from our perspective for an eternity. And then there are those guys running around the history channel proving ghosts exist, go figure.
So which heaven, and which hell exist? Yours? Islam's? Mayan, perhaps? Which one is right? Or is it a matter of numbers? The religion with the most believers gets its version of paradise and hell for eternity?
And I have yet to see any proof of ghosts, either. I see a lot of people running around TRYING to prove ghosts. I don't see any proof, yet.

No its quite obvious that ancient discriptions and explanations for some things were metaphorical.
But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference?

And please respectfully but wtf is up with the fixation on jews and christianity, they are not the only religion or philosophy in the world
As I've explained, I tend to focus on the J/C/I versions because that is my background. I am more familiar with Christian, particularly Catholic, faiths than others.

And perpetuating a dogma of belief (which is exactly what atheism is) without expounding upon its morality in fact divorcing the two, is perhaps the only fairy tale here.
So you want to claim that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person? That if I refuse to believe in a god I am a threat to society? And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to? Yours? Someone else's? Is it immoral to eat bacon? Some religions say so. Is it wrong to kill my enemies? Some religions say it's not. How about enslaving my enemies? Some religions go along with that, too. Which set of morals must I abide by? Please, I want to know!

I find nothing whatsoever comfortable about it in the slightest. And again, you, like the other atheists sem to allways insist on being derogatory...why is that I wonder?
Probably because you theists always claim we have no morals.

In some peoples opinions maby but not all. After atheism kills religion it will go to work on Love itself perhaps?
Sorry, but religion is already doing that. After all, it's only love between a man and a woman (and only one of each) that is valid in the sight of the Lord!

Which ussually involves many many simularities, such as a feeling of timelessness, being outside of one's self, floating, being in a tunnel of some kind, experiencing euphoria, or anguish and despair etc etc.
These same feelings have been documented in drug users, people suffering from hypoxia and many other disorders. There have even been studies done showing which parts of the brain are responsible for these visions and sensations. In fact, it's quite possible (though I know of no way to prove it) that the earliest forays into religion were by shamans experimenting with mind-altering drugs.

Or "explaining". And the human being is a creature of emotions, not a machine. Exclude part and the whole will suffer.
There can be many "explanations". Not all of them, or even any of them, are necessarily right. And it is precisely because we are creatures of emotion that we must guard against letting our emotions determine what is true and what is not.

He may be, but his argument didn't sound as if it came from anyone so well versed in such topics, in fact it wasn't any better than your own, imho it sounded about the same in every regard except you strike me as being more honest.
I don't know about honest, but his knowledge of religion is far superior to mine. His presentation tends to be more strident than mine, though. But part of that comes from years of dealing with strident theists who condemn him for his statements without providing any valid evidence that he's wrong.

Fairy tales have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please do stop trying to be so derogative its certiantly not helpful in any way shape or form to your argument.
Would you consider the story of Santa Claus, as recounted in the US, (again, a personal bias based upon my own limited knowledge) to be a fairy tale or a belief system? I think most theists would agree that it is a fairy tale, at least the adults will. And how does that story differ from the J/C God? Santa is a bearded old gnome who lives at the North Pole, though we can't see his home, with elves to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything about us: who's been good, who's been bad. God (again, as depicted in the Western Christian faiths) is a bearded old man who lives in heaven, which we cannot see, with angels to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything we are doing, bad or good. So which is the fairy tale?

Funny, I don't see religious leaders running hilly nilly around the nieghbor hoods with funnels and jars of religious bile.
Look at the Texas School Board, attempting to force the teaching of Creationism, an unproven belief system, while denying evolution, a proven scientific theory. Look at the Christian (primarily) leaders who want us to believe that women cannot have control of their own bodies, or that two men cannot love one another. Look at the bilious crap that the Vatican promotes regarding condom use in Africa, denying the effectiveness of condoms in combating the spread of Aids despite the savage death toll of that disease. Look at the women in Islamic countries who suffer inhumane punishments simply for being women! You don't call that bile?

See above. Religious people have allmost all of the same self declared purposes you just expoused.
So you admit that religion is not necessary for someone to have a purpose?

Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Shrugs Logic 101 is my guess.

If A is in opposition to B

And A represents belief in god.

then B (regardless of how it is worded in its expression of the opposite) still expressess the opposite which is a lack of or a dis-belief or refutation of A.
Exactly! A LACK of belief (or disbelief) in God, NOT a belief in NO God.

Its not ussually the fall or the gravity itself that kills, so much as the sudden impact with the ground.
True. It's not the drop, it's the sudden stop. The laws of momentum. Science rules.

But many a person who has fallen and survived when such scientifcally sound contraptions have failed them can recount having said a prayer on the way down, and who knows, that may have helped them all the same. You certianly don't know for certian that it didn't.
You're right, I don't know. But are you saying that ONLY those who somehow survive are the ones who prayed? I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who jumped from the WTC prayed before the jumped. Why didn't their prayers do any good? Why is the prayer of a mother for her malformed child not answered, while the child of a drug-addicted prostitute is born normally? Which prayers are necessary to ensure an outcome that is good for me? On the other hand, aren't such prayers an attempt to deflect God's will? How does that jibe with faith that God's will is for the best?

Or he or she, or it had Everything to do with it!
Evidence, my friend! Evidence! Looking at the universe and "feeling" it must have a creator is not evidence!

I have all the evidence I need allready. But if you can come up with any actual evidence that I am wrong, I will be more than happy to conceed the point. And saying you cant prove a negative is no argument btw. its just an admission of inability to deliver the goods.
I have already admitted that I cannot provide evidence to prove that something does not exist. I can only provide evidence that shows that something PROBABLY does not exist. It would only take one piece of evidence, one verifiable data point, to prove me wrong.

If you have all the evidence you need, then your faith is strong. That's great, for you. It's not enough for me, however. Yet throughout history, people like me have been forced to toe the religious line or suffer the consequences. Now that we have decided to fight back and renounce those beliefs, we are accused of trying to destroy faith, to destroy religion. Yes, it's my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I could, or would want to, destroy Faith. I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.

Then why call all these non-atheists liars?
I only claim that those who deny the truth are the liars. Like Catholic leaders who blame children for the pedophilia their priest commit. Or misogynistic religions leaders all over the globe who preach that women are morally inferior to men. Or smarmy televangelists who claim to know the mind of their god, and that god wants YOUR money, right now!

Then why do the aethists do it too?
And once more I must insist. Atheists do NOT promote a belief system! They promote the idea of critically examining belief systems and testing those systems against reality.

It may not be proof, but it sure seems strange that the vast majoritry of the world population seems to think its real to them.
The vast majority of the world's population once believed that the gods lived in caves on mountains, or that magical incantations could protect them from wild animals, or that sailing out of sight of land would cause one to sail off the edge of the world. It was real to them. It's laughable to us now.

The burden of proof isnt on my shoulders anyway, Im not the one promoting some relatively new conceptual hypothisis (which is what aethism is a theologial hypothisis just like every other religion) . I believe what I believe becuase it feels right to do so, just like everyone else who believes in somthing, or a lack thereof believes.
Sorry, but atheism is far from a "new" hypothesis. Once again, it is not a belief system, but a LACK of belief. And it is not atheists who are making extraordinary claims of supernatural beings arranging for a supernatural paradise in an unprovable afterlife. If you want to make the claims as if they were truth you have to provide evidence. Otherwise it is only a belief, a matter of faith, and your faith, which may feel right to you, is no better or worse than any other person's faith, which feels right to them.

and btw here is a nice link about the topic if anyone is interested in knowing what it is and is not by definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
And from that link:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Which is what I've been saying all along!