I believe that whoever wrote the bible and other expressions of religious literature gave us morals, because they are the ones who recorded the logically impossible events that caused humanity to embrace morals in the form of religion. however, morality has evolved to become more than religion. an atheist can be moral, but still not have a religion.

Facts:
God backwards is dog, so for those who worship him, God is a dog.
Devil backwards is lived, so for those who worship him, you will live longer than most.

By the way, Satanism has much better morals than Christianism.
All hail EpiQC, the only true God. And the fact that you are currently reading this message proves my existence.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 8 2007, 12:26 am by EpiQC.

As a side topic..

If you DO believe in a religion, which religion is right? Think about it. If one religion is right, then all the rest must be wrong, and everybody else is screwed.

I, personally, believe there is one God, and that although people worship different ways, they are all, in essence, worshipping him. All of the religions are thus, right, and these people will be rewarded with Heaven.

OH MY GOD, IS THAT Jamals2Fat?!?!?!?

heaven is not a reward, heaven is a false hope to trick people in to being moral so that it is easier for governments to do their job.

Wow, you truly sicken me if you believe that Satanism has better morals.

It is, R.I.S.K

Do I know you from somewhere?

Anyway..

Falkoner, I also hope EpiQC was not trying to state his opinion, but a joke, because his opinion is horrible.

If you don't believe in Heaven, then what happens to you when you die? Are you gone forever from this world?

do you TheSwarm9? or mS-TheSwarm9? or Soviet_EatMe?

DrunkenWrester's comment on that:

First of all devilesk and drunken wrestler... wolves and dogs can create fertile offspring and scientists are starting to consider them as the same species, so not the best example. (I don't know why they weren't already). But, that's beside the point. Because we didn't evolve from monkeys, as has been pointed out before in this thread (right after Falkoner said that). Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Nobody informed ever said humans evolved from monkeys.

I left out a line, not that it matters:


IT SLICES, IT DICES, IT REMOVES SUPERFLUOUS SUPERNATURAL ENTITIES

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN PUTS SUGAR IN HIS PORRIDGE!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots

Devilisk, you are either quoting DrunkenWrestler, who gets half of his information from chats with you, or you are making completely spammy statements, please stop.

It's not spam, and my statements are correct.

I don't think hes lying at all. The satanic bible disproves God and satan. You worship yourself pretty much. I also understand where hes coming from with "better morales" they are a little bit more understandable. Btw thats really wierd how Devil = Lived. Satanic morales aren't as bad as you probably believe.

Uh, there are about 20 different scientific definitions of the word species, each is useful in some cases, and irrelevant in others. When I use the word, it is at the population/gene flow level.

Assume 2 populations of your favorite animal: foo, and f00, they are separated by a mountain range that is capable of being crossed, and they occasionally breed with each other, but most of the time they stay in their respective valleys. If the valley of f00 starts getting some chronic drought, because a glacier dried up, we can assume that the population will have to favor some more efficient kidney genes. Now, this whole time foo has been lush and green, so there is not the same pressure on the population to favor super efficient kidneys. So, we have established there is some amount of gene flow between the two populations, but are they the same species? If the super efficient kidney genes became dominant in the lush valley, I would be inclined to say that there is too much gene flow to consider them 2 different species. If, however the super efficient kidney genes did not significantly change in frequency in valley foo, I would be inclined to call them 2 separate species.

This is probably the stupidest statement I have ever heard, seeing as you are focusing on one language, the only language where that statement is true.

Yes, I agree, we created the concept of species. It's our attempt to categorize all life.

Seriously final post for me. Devilesk can do everything else after. This post will review every single post in this thread and counter every single argument from an agnostic point of view. So obviously, my view is agnostic. Failure to read this post will grant you the ignorant-status and any opinion you put forth will no longer be considered for future discussion. Light blue color is a quote since quote tags seem to be broken.

Armony:
I don't believe in a god. (Note my refusal to capitalize.) Nothing in the bible makes any sense to me unless I read it from the viewpoint that the author was an ancient attention seeker who thought it would be great to get a bunch of people to believe in something fictional.
Why would you assume a Christian god? God is defined as an entity who is "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" and usually associated with being the creator of the universe. Unfortunately, this definition doesn't actually tell you which religion it comes from. So, by automatically assuming the bible is wrong, you are only blocking out one god and not the other, literally infinite, possible gods that may or may not exist.

Of course, the more you try to order things, the more you actually create disorder. I believe that's something close to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy rules, and I have to agree that religion is an attempt to stop the natural entropy of the world.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. How can religion stop entropy? Just so you know, order does not automatically refer to entropy! When was this a discussion about religion anyway? Just because you aren't religious doesn't mean you can't believe in a "Higher Power", as said by the title of the thread. For example, deism.

Honestly, Evolution makes more sense than Creationism does in my mind, but I see flaws in both theories. The major flaw in Evolution being that scientists just can't find anything from too far back in history. Creationism has the flaw of having no proof at all other than what's written in the bible. I just don't believe books with no sources. I therefore believe that there is not a god.
You should be more specific when you say "scientist". I really hope you mean archaeologist or maybe even biologist? In either case, they have found things from millions of years ago. Also, just because something makes more sense than something else doesn't mean the other thing is automatically false. Even if there is no evidence and plenty of evidence for the other side (creation and evolution, respectively), it is entirely possible that humans missed one key detail so that we got the entire thing wrong. However unlikely that is, you cannot rule out all possibilities, at least not philosophically. Keep in mind that I am, in no way, advocating the addition of "alternate views" to public schools. As for creationism, once again, you are assuming a Christian god so really, you're saying "I therefore believe that there is not a CHRISTIAN god". Refer to my first rebuttal.

My two ideas as to why there isn't a god:

1. The world couldn't possibly be this fucked up if we were created in the image of someone who's perfect.

2. I personally would have killed myself if one of my creations went this horribly wrong.
As I stated already, that is an opinion. This world's status quo could be someone's dream world. Likewise, no one cares if you think god failed. Your definition of god has been sketchy since the beginning.

Just what I was about to post. I usually don't trust people I barely know who tell me I should go to hell, and have no evidence to back what they're saying other than a first century AD fiction book.
I've replied to this without a real reply so I'll reply again. When did I say you're going to hell? When did I ever say I believed in a god? When did I say I believed in a christian god?! Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically make them religious. Stop being stereotypical regarding religious and non-religious people.

In conclusion, Armony, don't generalize about people. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're Christian nor religious. Also, you seem to not understand about many of the facts about evolution nor what entropy is. I highly suggest you read up on that before using any of those arguments so that you can successfully defend your position.


Crystal Fire Dragon
I always kind of envisioned it as someone attempting to make the world a better, more orderly place (from their standpoint) the only way they could, by trying to play on people's superstitions.
Well, what if they really do make it more orderly? What humans simply need a religion to be better? You can't rule out the possibility. For example, China could do much better if they were religious. Why? Because most of the people there have no morals, are corrupt and simply can't see anything from someone else's perspective. Now what if religion enters this kind of society? I can guarantee that at least 50% will be better; this is similarly reflected in the United States where most of the people are not fundamentalists.

Hey, why do you believe in a God? I can turn your question against you.
I don't believe in God because I am a very empirical person. I don't listen to some ramblings of a preacher or someone else and follow their word without question or evidence.
Correct. I would like to see your proof that god does not exist. Anyone who calls me out saying I should show proof because I have the "burden of proof" is wrong as well. In this case, it is the person who does not believe in god who has the burden of proof. I did not say god exists nor did I say god does not exist. I am completely neutral regarding the existence of god whereas a theist or non-theist have made a decision. Which means that person must now prove their stance to me. I would like to see this proof.

Toa
I believe in god, i dont see any other reason how we got here, the science doesn't make sense to me.
Simple enough. If I or someone explained it so it does make sense, what would your beliefs be?

Science doesn't explain everything guys, seriously, people there's a scientific explanation for everything, But there isnt, so the only explanation for somethings has to be god.
This quote contradicts itself. But let's take out the "there's a scientific explanation for everything". If something cannot be explained, which is the more likely path for the knowledge hungry humans: continue searching or saying god did it? I dare say continue searching!

Infested-jerk
If god exists, I don't need organized religion telling me what morals to have.

The object of religion (from a top-down perspective) is to scare (or tempt) the living daylights out of the sheep (people too stupid to think for themselves) into living a certain, morally structured life (Ten Commandments are practically moral guidelines).
That is assuming a certain type of god. If you seriously think about your arguments, you would see that you're only attacking a religion and not the concept of god itself.

Frankly, I'm not a sheep. I can decide what morals are morally right. I don't need the Catholic Church telling me I'll go to hell for using a condom. That's an overly harsh reaction that hasn't kept up with the times. The majority off @$$holes these days don't want strict lives. If it will redeem them, they'll settle for half-@$$ed morals to slide into hell.

It boils down to giving rewards (heaven) verses punishment (hell, which god didn't create somehow), to the people, tricking them into morality.
You can't decide what is morally right. Otherwise, laws would not exist. Of course, then I can compare any theocracy to the democracy we have because they're deciding my moral standards. Are they breaking the fundamental rights of humans? No. They're creating order, like Crystal Fire Dragon said, except this is for the government. There is no real difference.

ShizTheresABear
Religion is somebody who was creative enough to create a "higher power" and people believed it to be true. Just look at Christianity. Somebody wrote a novel and somehow magically everybody can go to a "heaven".
If you're implying that people shouldn't believe this, then you're only contradicting yourself because you would coercing them to not believe something they want to. If anything, you are the one trying to shove your opinion down their throats while they have not done the same for you. If they have, you can play the good guy and politely decline. Even with all of this, so what? Are you telling me they don't have a right to believe what they want?

Falkoner

I believe in a single god. I don't see how people cannot at least believe in a god, as the whole world is proof of it.

Oh, and the bible is not a 'novel' it was translated from plates, so unless all of the prophets were lying, I'm pretty sure it isn't just a fake.

The bible does not require all of the prophets to be lying to be false. Quite the opposite; if anyone of them is lying, it would invalidate the entire thing. So really, you're living off of faith alone. But then again, that's what religion is, isn't it? The whole world as proof? Maybe to someone who has been brainwashed as a child and grown to accept everything that is told by the church regardless of logic.


Are you trying to say that earth just popped out of no where, along with all the planets, and that earth just happened to be the perfect setup for life?

Yes and no. Earth is one of the possible configurations for life. If you've read about the news recently, then you would have known there have been many findings of possible planets with life or the ability to sustain life (not as advanced as humans but more like a cell). Of course, I am, in no way, saying earth, the sun and everything just "popped out of no where" as I have no beginning of the universe theory I can trust. What does this mean? It means I'm not bound to only two possibilities like theists (and sometimes atheists).


Lol, and somehow we evolved from monkeys, yet while other animals that supposedly evolved from other animals do not still have their unevolved form, while we still do?

You need to stop playing Pokemon and read about biology.


And what is this common ancestor, oh blasphemer?

Homo habilis. But that's only in the homo genus.


Duh, it's called faith.

( user posted image )

1st Corinthinans 15:40-42, Telestial, the stars, Terrestial, the moon, Celestial, the Sun

Do you really think God is going to help us along every way? We are sent here to be judged, it's your choice, if everyone believed in God then there wouldn't be destruction and murder.

No, if everyone believed in the same god (thus, same religion), there wouldn't be destruction and murder, and that also assuming no one is corrupt. Your religion is no better than any other religion because you and everyone else claim to be the one true religion. Which one is it? No one knows, because it's based on faith, as you said. Point being, stop advertising your religion and prove that religion in general is good. I would like to point out that I don't think religion is bad so I am not arguing that at all.


A god makes much more sense than the earth suddenly forming in the big bang, and if I didn't know that god existed, I would still assume higher powers did all that is on earth, ever thought that evolution was part of god's plan? they say he created the earth in six days, okay, now later in Genesis it tells us that a day to God is 1000 years to us, whether this is literal or not, this could show you people that believe in evolution that it is possible that it was part of God's plan.

Yes, it's possible. But just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. I won't say it's impossible because I don't believe that's true, I will say that we have very different ideas of what makes more sense. I believe in Occam's Razor; the less material, the more likely the event. Your explanation requires god, mine does not; thus, mine makes more sense to be more likely as the chances of mine happening is much greater (due to requiring less conditions). Take statistics.


You named about all the religions that have millions of so-called 'members' but most of them aren't active in their church at all, you can't exactly call them christians at that point, can you?

I don't know which person would be better: a functionally active member of society, or a dysfunctional member of a church? What I do know is the active member is agnostic and the lazy member is super religious. Can you call this person a Christian? Maybe you say no, but I do believe his or her church would say yes. Who has the greater authority overall in this case? Maybe you'll skip the obvious choice and say god; well in that case, you are in no position to call yourself a Christian.

Believing in a higher power causes people to do good, whereas many people who don't just want to have a good time and end up hurting themselves or those around you, people with religion tend to live better lives.
You're thinking of United States. Try looking at the middle east.


Do you really think they were truly devout if they molest children?

Are you telling me you have never sinned in your life? Because, according to your religion, all sins are dealt with evenly then any sin you've committed is essentially equal to any other sin. So really, the question is, are you devout? Clearly not by your own logic. If, by some weird reason, I am wrong about the sin being equal, then I'll need some clarification regarding your religion: how is a person punished in your religion? How are they rewarded? Are there certain things that are better than others; for example, "better" sin or "better" deeds? How can you define what is good and what is bad?


And billions agree.

Which means nothing.


That's exactly what God is.

Because the Bible is written by men of God, men who honor God, we do not put faith in the Bible, we put our faith in God, and the Bible gives us his will.

Eighth article of faith in the LDS religion: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly"

Yes, some parts have been lost, or translated incorrectly, probably the closest version to the actual Bible is the King James version because it was simply translated, not changed by the translators to what they thought was right.
I grouped this quote because it's a continuation. This is completely circular logic. Follow closely: "God is defined as A". "I believe in the Bible." "The Bible defines God as A." "The Bible is written by man." "Man is inspired by God." "Therefore, God is defined as A." Easy to follow I hope.


Oh, so you chatted with a bot and suddenly felt enlightenment?

Is that impossible? I've chatted with people on the internet, which is pretty much the same thing, and have felt enlightened. If you've never felt enlightened, you should sometimes try to embrace someone else's belief. It may show that their belief is just as possible as yours; this may require you to remove your bias.


Well, suddenly changing your mind because of what a automated chat bot tells you seems strange to me.
I admit that the argument is interesting, but people do not like being watched, people are just trying to come up with a way that their life could have come about.

Yes. They are "just" trying to do this. However, they've stopped. Why not continue coming up with ways of how life could have come about? Why limit our hunger for knowledge? Or are you afraid it could shatter your religion?


I really think that even if there was no god, the lifestyle of most religious people is better than ones not strong in religion.

While I can agree with this in general, there are many other factors in deciding a person's "lifestyle". I won't say religion is a deciding factor, because it certainly is not. Your parents is by far the most important thing here.


Talking about present-day, and atheists do other things.

Such as? Question your faith? So? I question atheists' faith and your faith and every faith in the world. Am I worse than an atheist?


My thing about the crusades, is that they had nothing to do with my religion.


Okay, I am done arguing about this, this time for good.
That's irrelevant. The fact is religion caused it and that is the problem because if religion can cause a war as this, then it could cause bigger things, or worse, it could cause smaller things more frequently. Of course, I'm not saying it will, I am saying your logic is flawed when saying this problem does not apply to you when it clearly does.


Wow, you truly sicken me if you believe that Satanism has better morals.

Can you actually tell me what Satanism is without researching? I don't think so. Note: Unless your answer is longer than three paragraphs, you're probably wrong. For example, the parts I do know is that they believe reward only for good works and not blind faith, similar to the Catholic Church. I am, in no way, saying the Catholic Church is like the Church of Satan. But I am saying that that doctrine is much more moral based than what many Protestants believe. And you are a Protestant so don't try to pull some lame "fact" saying you're not.

WoAHorde
The whole world is proof of evolution and natural selection. Not proof of a deity.
No, the whole world is full of evidence of evolution and natural selection but certainly does not rule out the possibility of a deity.

No, the Earth has gone through 4.5 billion years of stellar evolution, along with Sol and the rest of Sol System. They formed in the collapse of a gas cloud 4.5~4.7 billion years ago. The conditions for Earth are ideal for life because it formed in the habitable zone for this system. Was this the work of an all powerful god? No, it's just the universe and chance.
Does this mean you must rule out the possibility of a god? No.

Yet look at the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. You all call your selves Christians, yet kill each other over the smallest things.
There's something very similar to this in non-religious fields. It's called corruption. I don't know about you but I think the government of the United State is neutral regarding religion but the people in there have still done things wrong. For a moment, let's put aside the "intensity levels of wrong-doing". They are people and they have broken morals that many people hold true. Or let's look at a strictly atheist government, the Chinese. They have done so much stuff to prevent people from overpowering their control. That sounds a lot like what the religions are doing, as you implied it. So you see, it is not religion corrupting people but people and power corrupting people.

I strongly disagree. Atheists don't go off witch burning and starting wars.
No, they crush people with tanks and restrict free speech. Once again, check out atheistic countries instead of just United States. China, obviously, has many problems regarding this because of their atheistic approach to the government and nation.

Joeman12
Don't believe in god/gods/ultimate hierarchy of beings or anything else. The idea of one being of ultimate power and total uberness created us, then just sat back and watched all of its creations destroy and murder each other seems far fetched... Evolution seems a much more realistic concept then *Poof!* "I have made people yay!"
So we're talking about creationism and evolution now? Let's assume for a moment that god intended evolution to exist. Now we have a problem according to your belief. God supports evolution but you say evolution is proof that god does not exist. How can you respond now? Well, you can't. Know that if something isn't true doesn't automatically make the other true. Know that there are more than one possibilities for any given event and even if it seems likely that something happened one way doesn't mean another way is impossible.

I would tend to disagree with that. Devoting what little of our lives we already have, to sit and worship an entity that no one can prove that it exists? I think that to be a waist. And believing in a higher power does not always mean doing good. What about that/those priests who turned into bad touch children... They were devout yet they still went on a child molestation rampage. I wonder if those children that got molested have better lives now beacuse priests (of a higher power of only good) molested them, beacuse religion can only bring forth good and honesty...
You know what's a bigger waste? Spending the time to debate about it. So why are you doing that? The only reason I'm doing this is to hopefully help both sides end this ridiculous topic. See, this actually works both ways.

Doktor Shotgun
I don't buy ANY reason to believe in God. It seems to me that God is just an inability to cope with the starkness of life.
No, that's religion. God is something else that has nothing to do with "coping". Once again, god and religion are not the same.

Sure, science doesn't have all the answers, but the scientific method is designed to slowly compile and increase the accuracy of human knowledge. Unlike faith, which based on immovable dogma.
Sure, but that doesn't explain your assertion of disbelief in god. God does not equal faith (religion).

"The whole world" is proof of nothing. Try this. Assume first God does not exist. Then try to argue the existence of an unseeable, omnipotent, omniscient, ageless entity. Logically, there is NO reason to believe in God. Even if you couldn't explain the world any other way, an imperfect explanation is better than one that presupposes additional entities that are not disprovable. You could, by the same logic, argue that the entire state of human affairs proves that we are being controlled mentally by invisible Martians. There's no argument against the fact these invisible Martians exist other than the fact that it's absurd to believe in entities that cannot be detected.

What if you don't assume anything? Who will have the burden of proof now? Who is the ignorant one now? Who is the one who is denying the possibility of something now? I'll give you a hint, it's not me.

Yes. Renounce the ways of the sinner and give me cash. God wants you to.
This is just a Christian assumption. What about other faiths?

Excalibur
I dont believe in a god of any sort. I, as others have said, believe religion is there due to peoples inability to cope with the horrible hopless things life has to offer. They need to grow some balls.
Once again, religion is not equal to god.

In any case even if their was a god or multiple ones, i dont need a set standard of rules to tell me how to act and/or worship that god in order to please them. This is my life, its ending one day at a time and id sooner end it than spend my time worrying about what a big man in the sky is going to with me after ive lived my life.
You should really think about changing your beliefs to deism as that is exactly what they think.

If there is (a) god/gods he/she is a bitch
I vote no.
Reasons for "no" besides that? Like, any evidence at all? Exactly how do you know god is a bitch, if one exists?

Science > Religion. I don't believe in God.
God is not religion. Religion is not science. They're all different things. Where are you guys getting these connections?

it can't be called fact because the majority of people don't accept it
You're right, earth was flat a long time ago. Now it's a sphere.

Ayra
Religion stems from people attempting to understand the world without any quantifiable knowledge. As civilization progresses, defenders of religion search for proof of their beliefs. Science is the opposite, once people had a decent enough understanding of how the world works they could start devising explanations and predictions based on that knowledge. Science revises itself whenever new information is discovered that contradicts what was believed to be fact, religion stays relatively static and suggests that a higher being has made things the way they are intentionally. From a psychological stand point it's easy to appreciate how both sides would have a healthy number of advocates as both provide explanation for the world's and our existence. From a logician's stand point, religion is an obsolete attempt at explaining the universe now that science has advanced enough to supersede mythology and faith.

I voted "no god" as there has yet to be found quantifiable proof of a higher deity orchestrating the world, life, or any aspect of the universe.

~Ayra
This is almost a good post. However, you made the mistake of connecting faith with god. Your information is mostly true; however, I cannot say that science can make faith obsolete. Even if it can, it does not rule out the possibility of a god.

What...? Religion is centuries old mythology which attempts to describe events in the world using the knowledge of ancient to medieval times as its primary basis. Science is an understanding of the world looking at it with a modern viewpoint and the most update information ascertained with which to best describe how things work. Religion and science are polar opposites, one claims to understand the world and explains how new findings may fit into its philosophy whilst science attempts to understand the world based on information had, new evidences and discoveries force scientific principles and beliefs to be revised so as to best understand what is currently known.

Theory is one step below fact. Something is a theory when it has withstood the test of time and has yet to be disproved while at the same time accurately explains any relevant events or discoveries to which it may pertain. With our current understanding of the universe, the idea of the Big Bang is currently the most prominent theory that provides a satisfactory explanation for mathematical models which describe how matter in the universe is traveling away from each other. It fits in with the redshift of most moving objects which we can observe from Earth and current measurements of light and distance as best as we can determine, it fits in with the hypothesis of virtual particles, it fits in with the current molecular structure of planets orbitting second and third generation stars as best as we can determine. It is not fact but it is currently the best explanation to be ascertained by observing the universe. The idea of a god (or gods as most earlier religions were polytheistic) was a rudimentary explanation for the origins of the universe based on what was known at the time, which was that rubbing sticks makes fire and humans were the only animals able to develop their own methods of language and mathematics which allowed for civilized progression. That was thousands of years ago, the hypothesis is outdated and the idea of a magical deity which cannot be observed any way, shape, or form and orchestrates life on this planet doesn't fit in with any other observable phenomena humans have yet discovered. Your magical deity has as much of a realistic credible basis as the magical ten foot tall invisible phantom hamadryad unicorn, which interferes with the outside world in no detectable way at all, that lives in my garage.

~Ayra
Same mistake as above. God (or any impossible to prove creature) is not the same thing as faith. For example, even if we assume religion is obsolete or mythology (as you have stated), then the existence of god is still unprovable.

That doesn't evidence a higher being in any respect. The Sun was considered a deity or a symbol of a deity some ancient cultures because they could not comprehend it, it just brought a lot of light during the day, allowed for crops to grow, and moved around in the sky. That doesn't prove that the Sun is a god, it just means that people relished its seemingly amazing power of sustaining life. In this case, you're using yourself as an example suggesting that you could only have been created by a higher power because your powers of reasoning exist but you cannot explain the concept. Except scientists are slowly beginning to understand how the brain works and why despite our seemingly intelligent faculties we are still governed by uncivil emotions such as anger and rage which provoke violent behavior without improving a situation and the sex drive which is fundamental to the survival of most multicellular organisms. When all of this is understood it won't seem as inconceivable just as we understand now have a decent grasp on the mechanics of the Sun. Your using humanity's current ignorance of a subject to suggest that it must be the result of a higher power when such explanations will become obsolete as these currently unexplained phenomena become explainable. Religion developed from people attempting to understand the world and concluding that there must be a higher being at work to explain the Sun, rain, humans, etc. Now that science can explain some of these things it is no longer necessary to subscribe to ancient mythologies as they become more and more inaccurate in their explanations.

~Ayra
You're really smart. It's still the same mistake though. It's not religion that creates these "dillusions". It's humans themselves. To you, religion is nothing but a cover over the world; however, even if we remove this cover and show the people the world, it does not rule out a possibility of a greater being.

AntiSleep
I see no reason to live my life as though i have a supernatural nanny. Whether a deity exists or not is irrelevant, because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of one, nor to specify, if one exists, which one it is. The word atheist means without god, but the natural state when faced with any assertion is skepticism; If I told you there was a china teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes in orbit around mars, would it be reasonable to believe it? Would it be reasonable to reserve judgment in the interest of not hurting the believer's feelings? NO. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on the unconvinced. To respect beliefs held in the absence of, or in contradiction to evidence is absurd and harmful. I do not respect your beliefs and I implore you not to respect mine. To ask others to respect our beliefs is to deny ourselves the ability to think critically and learn from our errors.

The word supernatural is nonsense too, if a spirit realm is shown to exist, for example, it will cease to be supernatural, and will simply be called natural.

If I had to choose a god, it would be this one:
This was so close to being a good post. If your answer to your question had been something like "Probably not but you cannot rule out the possibility of a teapot orbiting Mars", then I would love you. Hopefully that sheds some light for you. If it doesn't, someone else can probably explain it for you (just ask!).

Nec5
If the Internet has taught us anything about debates over religion, it's that neither side will convince the other that God does or does not exist. I'm Christian, and I say he exists. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why an atheist or agnostic does not embrace nihilism.
Because they're not the same. At all. I'm agnostic and I do believe the past matters and I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who feel the same. I do agree with your first statement.

thefatkid
I don't believe in a god. Using the argument that God created the universe doesn't really mean anything, because then where did god come from? A response I expect is this; God has always existed and always will exist. I ask why god had to exist at all, it could just be matter/energy has always existed, and always will exist.

I hope that made sense, I'm a wee bit sleepy and having trouble putting my thoughts into words.

Also, apparently there are more galaxies that we know of than there are grains of sand on the entire planet, and generally there are hundreds of millions of solar systems in each galaxy, so to think that life existed like our purely by chance isn't that hard to believe for me.

You're assuming a god who did create or you're assuming a religious god. Regardless, your reasoning for non-belief is not logical because they do not follow. They assume a certain type of god. Basically, only this type of god, from your reasoning, would not exist (to you) but there are possibilities of a different type of god. A non-religious god for example.

R.I.S.K
There are many more problems like these, all proving that god cannot be all the things he is said to be without countering his own existence.
You mean countering his own existence as defined by those who worship him? What about a god that really has no definition? A deist god for example.

Judgement? That is what drives man's intellectual development over the ages? I think not. That's like saying religion is responsible for humans creating governments and making scientific discoveries. Personally, i think that judgement is a hinderance to man: If nobody cared how they were seen by others, then more creative and out-of-the-box ideas would be brought forth, rather than kept inside of one's head for fear of being judged as "sinful." Religion... is the veil of hope for an afterlife that covers the harsh truth of death: There is nothing after it.
I hope you realize that religion did help the creation/evolution of governments. Although I can't think of any example right now, I am 99% sure that religion helped with the discoveries of numerous scientific findings just because the chances of that happening is relatively high. Even if this isn't the case, it has sped up many governments into a more organized, though sometimes corrupt, government.

time wasted? i think anything spoken about the topic of religion is time wasted, but due to my human need to defend my beliefs (or unbeliefs), i must speak.
You do realize this contradicts:
oh, i believe something is learned from every single word used by another man that you read, hear, or in other way come in contact with. even if it is something simple such as "now i know that he knows how to grammatically use apostraphes correctly", you still learn something.
So you think religious talk is useless but you say every single word is useful. Interesting.

hmm... what about the anti-christ? if the anti-christ can be proved or disproved, then that might lead to support for whether god exists or not.
No, it won't. It's the exact same topic. Trying to prove something in a certain religion to counter another portion of the same religion is pointless because you may as well stay with the original topic.

therapy is medicine for your mind... religion is a virus for your mind.
And yet, I know plenty of people who are happy with religion. Nor are they blind. Religion is not bad in many cases; only sometimes, it can bring out the worst in people. Of course, it can certainly bring out the best in people.

I believe that whoever wrote the bible and other expressions of religious literature gave us morals, because they are the ones who recorded the logically impossible events that caused humanity to embrace morals in the form of religion. however, morality has evolved to become more than religion. an atheist can be moral, but still not have a religion.
Actually, morals are an instinct developed through evolution, as evidence points out. Animals have been observed being "nice" (by human definition) to each other and help the weak. But I won't say that this observation is 100% correct because knowing that is impossible.

Zell.
Whats your point. People desire judgement.. that is obvious because people worship god in the first place. I didn't write the statements but this is the only logical idea answering who, what, where, when, why, and how. By process of elimination... This is the only reasonable answer. If there is another answer, post it.
No, by process of elimination, we've eliminated some possibilities. I don't think this is the "only reasonable answer" because I can think of other reasons that are perfectly justified that cannot be proven wrong (nor right). For example, in a Christian god, people want immortality, and thus, they worship god, as RISK said.

Rogue-Rebel
Look at yourself. Why do you all think we were the only creatures given reason. I believe that there was a guiding hand in how humans developed. How do you explain billions and billions of species developing without reason and just 1, humans, developing with reason. God. A higher being.
Define reason. The ability to choice right and wrong? Define right and wrong. Well, you can't actually because your view of what is right could be my view of what is wrong. For example, you getting five dollars I believe is horrible and you would believe it's good. So your argument doesn't make sense, it is too opinionated. Not only that, it does not follow that god must exist, if humans were the only ones with reason.

A god without definition? How is that so? please explain.

I am sure that religion DID help those things in some way, but i think that religion was a hinderence in more cases than not.

"Learning" and "useful" are 2 different things. To someone that is about to day in 5 seconds, suddenly having the knowledge of how to construct a can opener using the bones in his left foot is useless, but the dying man still learned something.

I was simply trying to carry on the conversation because nobody had posted in a while and i would like to learn more about the story behind the anti-christ... i am always looking for good ideas for campaigns.

That is simply an opinion of mine, obviously it is impossible for either of us to argue our sides without the knowledge of every single positive and negative affect of religion.

Animals being humanly nice to each other is their primal urge to carry on their species, not morality. Unless you define morality as "acting in such a way that carries on oneself's species". Of course, i cannot be 100% sure of my "Fact" either, so this is similar to the previous argument.

The point I was trying to make is that withholding judgment until you can prove a negative is a waste of time and effort. It is far more pragmatic to ignore anything you cannot test.

I am a strong agnostic as well as an atheist. The reason is that cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) while the best i have seen, is yet a pretty flimsy proof of my own existence, and I can not be as sure of anything as I am of my own existence. You can not know anything for certain, there is always the possibility of misinterpretation and deception. This does not mean you should not pursue the truth, and the best use of your time to this end is to ignore or discard any claim or idea that does not have implications(testable predictions), until such time as it does.

Solipsism ftw.