Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[arrowhead]

Saying Christianity (religion) is a form of brainwash is purposely implying that they can't make up their minds. You act as if we believe because we were told to, that claims were pounded into us until we relented and became Xtian zombies or something. Check out the book, The Case for Christ.

no it's not. you already made your mind. you believe god exists. you believe because you were told to at such a young age. some break out, but most stay because they have already integrated religion into their lives for so long that it's difficult to see the world differently without god.

 

[DeadtoSin]

Yeah, I suppose all Christians were brainwashed from a young age. Oh yeah, I wasn't. I guess what your saying is completely wrong Arrowhead. Sorry.

A great deal of kids in Christian houses become Christians. So what? A lot of kids who grow up in atheist houses become atheists. Just like a family that puts a large emphasis on close family time, a larger group of those kids will grow up and put a big emphasis on their family.

Thats the worst argument I've ever heard against Christianity. Seriously.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

no it's not. you already made your mind. you believe god exists. you believe because you were told to at such a young age. some break out, but most stay because they have already integrated religion into their lives for so long that it's difficult to see the world differently without god.

What the heck are you talking about. You know nothing about my experiences in relation to God and to presume you know the majority of others' as well is folly. For your information my experience started when I was about 16 and perfectly capable of making my own decisions.

 

[AltF4]

the fact that we're having this discussion?

So the ability to have a conversation is what makes us human? That means if I made a computer program that could converse it would be human? Or what if I trained a chimp to?

 

[antimatter]

the ability to question, is what he's trying to point out. no one likes a smart aleck.

 

[AltF4]

How does that change anything? Don't try to define humanity in terms of an ability, because it is always possible something else can have that ability.

Cognitively, there is nothing a human can do that a machine can't. It's only a matter of engineering.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

So the ability to have a conversation is what makes us human? That means if I made a computer program that could converse it would be human? Or what if I trained a chimp to?

Obviously I didn't mean language. Lots of animals converse but none question their own existence, try to explain it, or create art to reflect it.

 

[AltF4]

So an infant who dies upon birth was never human because he never questioned his own existence or made artwork? I can think of a number of fully grown adults who haven't either.


What I'm getting at is this:

Are you familiar with Decidability Theory? The great Alan Turing proved that any problem capable of being solved can be done using a "Turing Machine". (It was named for him after he died) It is impossible to build a machine that can do more than a Turing Machine.

Why is this important? Because your everyday computer is a Turing Machine! Thus the human brain is capable of at best a subset of what a computer can do.

In short: Anything you can do, a computer can too.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

So an infant who dies upon birth was never human because he never questioned his own existence or made artwork? I can think of a number of fully grown adults who haven't either.

When did I say this was the definitive proof of the existence of God and our immortal souls? I was just trying to bring up what I think is some indicators that we're not just meat. Also, straw man argument...

What I'm getting at is this:

Are you familiar with Decidability Theory? The great Alan Turing proved that any problem capable of being solved can be done using a "Turing Machine". (It was named for him after he died) It is impossible to build a machine that can do more than a Turing Machine.

Why is this important? Because your everyday computer is a Turing Machine! Thus the human brain is capable of at best a subset of what a computer can do.

In short: Anything you can do, a computer can too.

I'm not sure what this has to do with God, but I guess you're saying that human beings are nothing special and as stated above, just 'meat'. But I would say while that sounds fine and just dandy, it's only in theory. When we're talking mathematical equations or processes a computer is capable of much more than a human but that's about where it ends. We will never reach true A.I.

 

[AltF4]

I'm not sure what this has to do with God, but I guess you're saying that human beings are nothing special and as stated above, just 'meat'.

This has to do with god because humans are not special. Christianity maintains that humans have free will and can thus do things that other beings cannot. But this is false, provably so. Free will by itself is impossible. (See the Debate Hall topic "Free Will")

So if humans are not special physically, what else is there? Christianity also maintains that humans possess a non-physical soul. But this of course leaves us with the mind-body problem. And no matter how you try to explain it, you break the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, along with the principles of locality and causality.

But I would say while that sounds fine and just dandy, it's only in theory. When we're talking mathematical equations or processes a computer is capable of much more than a human but that's about where it ends.

Only in theory? Please, Cog. Don't fall into that. The word "theory" here isn't in the colloquial usage meaning "an opinion or speculation" but rather the scientific usage meaning "a mathematical or logical explanation"*.

*definitions loosely taken from wikipedia

We will never reach true A.I.

True AI? Oh, now what exactly is that? How would you try to define 'Intelligence' at all?

 

[Cubemario]

Here's the bottom line guys. I am a christian as well, I have confessed jesus christ as my lord and saviour, I have been baptized with water, I believe that the bible is the word of god, and that includes the old testament and the new testament. I believe in the trinity. I believe there is only one way to get to heaven, through the blood of Jesus. So that's where I stand as a christian.

To the other christians that are in this dispute. I have done all this before, for months I was doing the same thing you are doing now, trying to win a soul to christ. I was doing this on IM for a while to this guy. I gave far more convincing 'arguments' and proof then what i've seen here. It did absolutely nothing. The bottom line is, he didn't want to change, he was happy with his life, and he just simply didn't care, he was only in it for the intellectual debate.

The people you see here in this topic, are not going to be convinced through intellectual stuff. Jesus never said to go out into the world and convince others through debates and intellectual discussions. Jesus said to go out into the world and preach the gospel, and he also said in other scripture with signs following. People don't get saved through your own power, they get saved through the power of Jesus. Some ways people get saved, is they hear the gospel preached, and then they see what was just preached in action, this could be laying hands on the sick and them recovering, casting out demons, or several other things.

Other people could be saved through another's testimony, and several other ways. However none being intellectual. If you want to show there is a god, if you want to impact the world and change it, then show the world through your own actions, show the world the power of God.

As for the atheists and what have you. Everyone has a belief, for some it's evolution, for some it's some religion, and for some it's yourself. Atheist has always been a silly word, everybody has to believe in something.

I am not going to attempt to convert you over, I am not going to give you the speech of eternal ****ation. You already know about that. I cannot do anything to convince you there is a god. If everyone could be convinced through intellectual discussion, we would all be saved. The only one who can convince you there is a god is, is God himself. We christians are what Jesus refers to us as the 'light of the world' 'a bright light on top of a hill'. Christians are different and were meant to stand out from other people. You have your own free will, you can choose to be an atheist, buddhist, or whatever you want. I will continue to be a light to the world and let god work through me, influencing the world in a positive way and preaching his gospel with signs following. It's entirely up to you if you want this or not.

 

[Aesir]

Faith is the belief without evidence...just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Cubemario]

Yes, a lot of faith is involved with being a christian, but everyone knows that. That's not to say there isn't a lot of evidence, there in fact is, though it still won't be enough to convince anyone to convert. The fact still remains a lot of stuff in christianity is the supernatural, and the supernatural is that which cannot be explained through normal understanding.

 

[Aesir]

Yes, a lot of faith is involved with being a christian, but everyone knows that. That's not to say there isn't a lot of evidence, there in fact is, though it still won't be enough to convince anyone to convert. The fact still remains a lot of stuff in christianity is the supernatural, and the supernatural is that which cannot be explained through normal understanding.

Then how can there be evidence? Do tell.

 

[espio87]

That's not to say there isn't a lot of evidence, there in fact is, though it still won't be enough to convince anyone to convert. The fact still remains a lot of stuff in christianity is the supernatural, and the supernatural is that which cannot be explained through normal understanding.

you see, the basic requirement for a religion to exist is that there mustn't be evidence. testimonials don't count as evidence and that's why it's full of them.

 

[Cubemario]

The website I would normally link is down for maintenance. In the mean time you can look at this.

http://net-burst.net/hot/index.htm#smart

 

[Aesir]

Wow the amount of failure the first few articles is just wow.

They make no attempt to give any evidence that theres a god, hell it's just like trying to give Christians a sense of easiness like; "don't worry you're right just read this!"

Please try again.

edit: I'm advising everyone to read the link though, it's rather funny how theres no evidence being used.

 

[Cubemario]

That's not what that webpage is about, I should have been more specific when I linked the web page. It is not a page about "here's all the evidence the world has found that links back to the bible", that's not (sorry, grammar mistake) what that webpage talks a bit about. It is more about understanding christianity and what it is, and some of what it has to offer. It also talks about a lot of issues that people commonly bring up when it comes to christianity, and explains it from a rational perspective. The other website that is temporarily down explains things from a more scientific perspective, which you clearly would get more out of.

EDIT: I also am not going to get into a debate about this, it leads nowhere, so it's not happening.

 

[Aesir]

^ I already know what its about, I asked you to explain yourself when you said there is evidence, you haven't as of yet.

So I'll wait for that website to get over it's technical issues.

 

[Cubemario]

Well I can't really give many websites out that talk about it, I haven't really explored the net much about it. There are plenty of books out there that talk about it though. One I highly recommend is God's Plan for Man. The book is massive to say the least. Most of it is for christians, but there's some very good sections in the book that specifically talk about evidence. Though I highly doubt it's going to convert you over, it will most certainly make you think however. I would type these sections out myself, but it's too much text.

You can buy the book here http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Plan-Man...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203017840&sr=8-1

Or you could probably find it at a library somewhere, maybe not a public library (though it's certainly worth looking for there), but a christian one I would think so.

The reason i'm linking other sources, is because I think that these people explain it better then I could. I may type out some summarizations of some of this stuff however. Not right now though.

 

[Aesir]

You said you had a website that was down at the moment that could provide me with evidence...(I've probably seen it...>_>)

Ya know being a Christian prior to being an atheist you kinda research this stuff fully before make the jump ya know?

 

[Quests]

no it's not. you already made your mind. you believe god exists. you believe because you were told to at such a young age. some break out, but most stay because they have already integrated religion into their lives for so long that it's difficult to see the world differently without god.

You say "you already made your mind"

then state that the only reason a person could believe in religion is because:
1) they believe god exists
2) they believe this because they were told to do so at a young age
3) it is difficult to break free because anything else is contrary to their beliefs

To answer:

It is hardly possible for the religion to have been created by children therefore I highly doubt there's any truth to your second point. There obviously have to be adults before the children now that supposedly (and without any proof provided on your part) believe in the God to have received revelation or to have simply created the teachings. These adults, and the adults shown the texts to begin with would have had to believe in it for the religion to live on. Besides that, the entire thought that your idea is based around ("subjectivity") I find to be weak.

You say that it's "difficult to see the world without god" once it's been seen that way, and I agree. But that is also true of Atheism. To make a problem of it being difficult to see the world without god I have to assume that you're assuming it better for a person to do so. But if all you're against is the dogmatic way of thinking, Atheism is, just as often, exactly the same. Unless Atheism has been proven true with anything other than scientific explanation (which seems like trying to prove monotheism true with an etch-a-sketch)

And I can say the same for your first point. He "believes" God exists. Some "believe" god doesn't exist. How is one way any more dogmatic than the other with exception to our popular belief that scientific proof rules over all? How isn't that belief dogmatic? Do you at least know the origins of that belief? It's all the same blind faith; theism or atheism has little to do with it.

maybe you're right. i see it as brainwash because there's nothing to support it. other than blind faith. but even then, how do you know you don't feel that faith because you were already "brainwashed"?

i never said christians can't make up their minds. nor did i ever purposely imply it. you may be interpreting my posts incorrectly

love can be scientifically explained

Your idea in an earlier post that religion is blind faith is another dogma. I apologize but I'm really going to have to start nitpicking here, because it is clear you haven't read the Bible yet you deem it fair to comment on its proof. (Funny that: who is brainwashed? who adheres to 'blind faith'?)

Hebrews 11:1 on Faith --
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You simply cannot say that religion and therefore Christianity is blind faith, because only blind faith would lead you to believe such a thing. You have had faith that there was only one universal (scientific) definition of it when that is clearly not true!

Did you even know that the entire modern concept of faith (faith being "blind faith", contrary to religion) was created by an Atheist? Read the book entitled: Atheism.

prop·a·gan·da /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
4. Roman Catholic Church.
a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
5. Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

Wow, propaganda in Atheism! How is that even possible, amirite

For those of you genuinely and honestly interested in learning of religion, READ BOOKS! Don't expect people on a Super Smash Bros. internet forum to spoon-feed you any proof like you're some kind of baby. Why would you, if you were TRULY interested in learning about it, debate on an internet forum when there are HUNDREDS of books or courses you could undertake instead? Well, there's absolutely no reason other than apathy. But whatever.

Just for the record: I don't really have any beliefs in this subject, theist or atheist. I'm done!

 

[Cubemario]

Though like I said, the scientific evidence only goes so far. Christianity requires faith period. Not all of that faith can be based upon the scientific evidence. Like I said, a good portion of the faith is the faith in the supernatural. Healing is supernatural, God is supernatural, jesus raising from the dead is supernatural. That doesn't mean those things cannot be explained, they can be explained, but only from a biblical and supernatural point of view. Which wouldn't be of any value to you unless you put faith into believing in the first place. That is were the line is drawn.

 

[Quests]

Christianity requires faith period.

Precisely...

it's depressing that so many people think religion is "proven wrong" by modern science. Christianity has never proven itself through science. Modern popular thought simply cannot comprehend that before our times there existed proof using methods other than scientific.

 

[AltF4]

Here's a good lul.

 

[Cubemario]

I don't understand the fascination of seeing something in toast. I should make a grid with many lines on it, and make an image out of those lines and saying you can see a monkey on it. I'll sell it on ebay and make millions.

 

[DeadtoSin]

Cubemario, I agree with you that the arguments a lot of people are posing here are pretty amateur..

However, I have to disagree with you on one of your points. You claimed that the Bible doesn't command us to win people through intellectual discussions. It does not DIRECTLY command this, but let us take Paul as an example.

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?0You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) Acts 17:16-21

Paul REASONED with the jews, and he even spoke at the Aeropagus with the intellectuals of the day!

 

[Aesir]

Precisely...

it's depressing that so many people think religion is "proven wrong" by modern science. Christianity has never proven itself through science. Modern popular thought simply cannot comprehend that before our times there existed proof using methods other than scientific.

Other then scientific? Oh man this is gonna be good, explain lol.

 

[Cubemario]

What version is that your quoting from?

Paul did indeed reason with the jews, but as that scripture clearly states, he was reasoning to them with the gospel and they listened.

"They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection."

This is a recurring theme in the new testament.

 

[DeadtoSin]

By saying that you cannot reason with people intellectually in a long conversation, you are invalidating a main reason why I became a Christian. You are also invalidating all of Christian apologetics which seeks rational intellectual explanations for Christianity.

Ravi Zacharias does this, and he does it with the gospel and his own rational thought.

 

[Cubemario]

I'm not saying that intellectual discussions don't have any power, they do to a point. I however believe more in the power of God then the power of my own mind. If you can find scriptures that talk about putting more power in your mind (NEW TESTAMENT), i'd be glad to hear them, if not, i'll stick to what the bible says.

You can believe what you want to believe. I'll do the same.

 

[DeadtoSin]

Wow, its too bad you seem to want to completely misunderstand what I said. You were acting like it wasn't good to try to reason with people.

Other people could be saved through another's testimony, and several other ways. However none being intellectual.
Jesus never said to go out into the world and convince others through debates and intellectual discussions. Jesus said to go out into the world and preach the gospel, and he also said in other scripture with signs following. People don't get saved through your own power, they get saved through the power of Jesus.

Of course nobody saves but Jesus, but as an ambassador of Christ you appeal to people in the way they understand. If people do not believe because of science and evolution, then why would you not appeal to them intellectually and logically? Its kind of like becoming all things to all men. If a person is seeking answers in a certain way, how can you say it is not a valid viewpoint to answer? Even if most of the people in here are just wanting to vent against Christianity, what if there is one person in here that is reading both sides without bias and trying to make a decision? I'd say that it is worth it just to be a witness to all those who are sneering, much less someone reading who is seeking answers.


That being said, I read the rest of your post and I am happy that you are so theologically sound on your beliefs about Biblical salvation.

 

[arrowhead]

You say "you already made your mind"

then state that the only reason a person could believe in religion is because:
1) they believe god exists
2) they believe this because they were told to do so at a young age
3) it is difficult to break free because anything else is contrary to their beliefs

To answer:

It is hardly possible for the religion to have been created by children therefore I highly doubt there's any truth to your second point. There obviously have to be adults before the children now that supposedly (and without any proof provided on your part) believe in the God to have received revelation or to have simply created the teachings. These adults, and the adults shown the texts to begin with would have had to believe in it for the religion to live on. Besides that, the entire thought that your idea is based around ("subjectivity") I find to be weak.

what i said applies only generally. anyways, how do you know religions don't start from beliefs created in childhood and developed as the person ages? religion didn't have to start from adults. but even if it did, as i said, it only applies to the majority of people, not everyone.

You say that it's "difficult to see the world without god" once it's been seen that way, and I agree. But that is also true of Atheism. To make a problem of it being difficult to see the world without god I have to assume that you're assuming it better for a person to do so. But if all you're against is the dogmatic way of thinking, Atheism is, just as often, exactly the same. Unless Atheism has been proven true with anything other than scientific explanation (which seems like trying to prove monotheism true with an etch-a-sketch)

And I can say the same for your first point. He "believes" God exists. Some "believe" god doesn't exist. How is one way any more dogmatic than the other with exception to our popular belief that scientific proof rules over all? How isn't that belief dogmatic? Do you at least know the origins of that belief? It's all the same blind faith; theism or atheism has little to do with it.

atheism isn't exactly the same. we assume that since there's no credible evidence for the existence of a god, it's only logical to assume one doesn't exist. or else, why not believe in EVERYTHING since there is an infinite number of things you can't prove that it doesn't exist.

Your idea in an earlier post that religion is blind faith is another dogma. I apologize but I'm really going to have to start nitpicking here, because it is clear you haven't read the Bible yet you deem it fair to comment on its proof. (Funny that: who is brainwashed? who adheres to 'blind faith'?)

Hebrews 11:1 on Faith --
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You simply cannot say that religion and therefore Christianity is blind faith, because only blind faith would lead you to believe such a thing. You have had faith that there was only one universal (scientific) definition of it when that is clearly not true!

i said that? i don't think religion is blind faith. there are situations that can't currently be explained by science and there are theories that aren't appealing to some of the public. so people turn toward religion to explain the phenomenons. they think god is a good enough explanation because nothing proves it wrong and it easily explains things our science currently can't. i see it as... i dunno... just wanting an explanation for everything? now i have no problem with them believing that, but i just don't understand the logic in it. why not believe in a random saving people spirit, or a god from another religion, or the scientific explanations scientists provide. why believe in THE christian god? it just seems so arbitrary to me.

i said this before, but i have no problem with people following religions until they use their beliefs from that religion to justify their discrimination (black people in the past, homosexuals now, etc)

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

I'd like to point out that Mr Eko was a Christian. QED?

 

[Crom]

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are
'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists." There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

"But isn't it impossible to prove the nonexistence of something?"

There are many counterexamples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counterarguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.

"But what if God is essentially nondetectable?"

If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable.

If God is essentially nondetectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist.

Of course, it could be that God is detectable in principle, and that we merely cannot detect him in practice. However, if the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today? Why has the situation changed?

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely be possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence; otherwise, how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist?

"God is unique. He is the supreme being, the creator of the universe. He must by definition exist."

Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean that Santa exists.


That's only a few questions from this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
It's a good read if anyone's interested

 

[RazeveX]

@ crom: you just said everything that needs to be said about atheism. Thankyou.

I wonder why we keep posting in this thread...we have all of the information we need, and know that others will not change their mind about religion.

Basically; whats the point?

 

[Linkubus]

my only question is........


Where's the proof?

 

[Brav3r]

Thanks crom, so thats how atheism works
i hear about it few times but bever really
knew much about the concept.

 

[antimatter]

you guys realize you just threadjacked this place. do you even remember the topic?

 

[espio87]

you guys realize you just threadjacked this place. do you even remember the topic?

I do. as a matter of fact my first post in this topic answered the question in the OP:

the real meaning of religion was to create a code of conduct and ethics. things like the ten commandments were done so people could know what was right and what was wrong. but then the countries needed to reinforce those codes and thus they created the "human" laws. the difference between them is that "human" laws aren't given a divine origin.
that is why I am an atheist, religious laws don't have any meaning to me, but men's laws do. they come from rationality (well...most of them) and thus I choose to obey them and not the divine ones. but also I have a code of conduct and ethics of my own, one which was formed from the education my family and school gave me.