[lostalex]

Originally Posted by LivT

Isn't it a rather contradiction in terms to be saying in one breath that you don't hold any blame for others not liking Atheism, then in the next breath quote how unfair it is to tell people what they shouldn't believe in?

You are also quite incorrect in your statement over the Catholics. Their church does not allow their followers to preach this Religion.

And by the way- Science DOES prove there is no God/s . If you are insulted by others opines and beliefs then do it quietly. We are as much within our right to voice and debate as any other 'faction'

Science has not proven that God doesn't exist, it would be impossible to do so because God doesn't have a definition. God means a million things to a million people. God means the sun to some religions, God means the Earth to some religions, God means extraterrestrial beings to some religions.

If you can't even define what God means, then how can you prove that it does or does not exist?

[LivT]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Science has not proven that God doesn't exist, it would be impossible to do so because God doesn't have a definition. God means a million things to a million people. God means the sun to some religions, God means the Earth to some religions, God means extraterrestrial beings to some religions.

If you can't even define what God means, then how can you prove that it does or does not exist?

I think you know exactly what I refer to. So, since we are getting down to picking bones...

I did not state that I can prove that God does not exist. I said science could.

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.

1. In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.
2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan.

This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.

Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.

Hope this doesn't baffle you with science...too much.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by LivT

Hope this doesn't baffle you with science...too much.

Wow, what a disgustingly patronizing thing to say. Shame on you.

You don't understand people. You don't take culture into account at all, and that is why atheists fail.

Atheists fail to realize that religion is not just about explaining the world and explaining the physical plane, it's also about communities and cultures. It's sociological and psychological as well.

[LivT]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Wow, what a disgustingly patronizing thing to say. Shame on you.

You don't understand people. You don't take culture into account at all, and that is why atheists fail.

Atheists fail to realize that religion is not just about explaining the world and explaining the physical plane, it's also about communities and cultures. It's sociological and psychological as well.

No shame. Lostlex. It isn't my problem when you fail to denote a light hearted comment, ending with a *wink*

As for you character assessment on me. I am entitled to say what I think...without that character assessment turning into an an assasination from you. I'm happy to debate, maturely, but on that score, your opines are of no consequence to me

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by LivT

No shame. Lostlex. It isn't my problem when you fail to denote a light hearted comment, ending with a *wink*

As for you character assessment on me. I am entitled to say what I think...without that character assessment turning into an an assasination from you. I'm happy to debate, maturely, but on that score, your opines are of no consequence to me

I wasn't judging your character, I was judging your words. Sorry if you misunderstood, i didn't mean to make it sound that way.

[LivT]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I wasn't judging your character, I was judging your words. Sorry if you misunderstood, i didn't mean to make it sound that way.

No apology necessary but thank you, regardless

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

So if i was a declared atheist american am i likely to become president anytime soon?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I'm not religious but it's a bit rich of some people here to call the US "backwards" for being more religious than most. Isn't the Queen supposed to be like the head of the UK's official state religion? From what I understand she is, in theory, supposed to get her power to govern the peasants by the will of god. Until you guys scrap this disgusting royal family (with all its wealth that it never earned) it's a bit hypocritical for you to bemoan the US for not being atheist enough or call us "backwards". At least we don't maintain and take pride in a system that belongs in medieval times.

I'm proud to say the United States was founded by deists, the 18th century equivalent of atheists. All the founding documents were written by and the first few presidents were secularists. Thomas Jefferson practically defines what America is supposed to believe and he was one of the most skeptical of religion and certainly was not a Christian.

Thank you! I wanted to go into the whole state religion and monarchy being heads of the anglican church stuff, but i'm always accused of being anti-english if i mention anything like that. But you are making a really good point. America does have more of a separation of church and state than the UK.

The idea that the US is anti-science, when America has provided innumerable contributions to science in the last century, is purely laughable.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Your Queen owns more land than any other human being on the planet. I'd venture to say she is merely "symbolic" is a bit of an understatement. If all that land was converted into money at market value, she'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper. It seems to me she has more influence and power than people in the UK would like to admit. I remember that during the last royal wedding people who planned to protest (peacefully) the royal family were preemptively arrested before even going there.

Well I'm no fan of the Monarchy, I'd rather we didn't have one personally, but regardless of her land she still plays very little active role in politics whereas Religion seems almost inseparable from it to many in the States, mostly on the Republican side. And yes I remember that as well, I thought it was a disgrace.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Atheists fail to realize that religion is not just about explaining the world and explaining the physical plane, it's also about communities and cultures. It's sociological and psychological as well.

Huh? I don't know of any atheist who is unaware of these things. Generalizing is pretty unbecoming and a quick way to lose credibility.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LivT

I think you know exactly what I refer to. So, since we are getting down to picking bones...

I did not state that I can prove that God does not exist. I said science could.

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.

1. In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.
2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan.

This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.

Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.

Hope this doesn't baffle you with science...too much.

It's a bit low cutting and pasting the words of more learned people and posting them as you own without credit, and then saying you hope it doesn't baffle someone [else] with science... too much. Your entire post is a direct, word for word cut and paste job from secularhumanism.org.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein. Who probably knew a little bit more about science than most of us.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by Livia

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein. Who probably knew a little bit more about science than most of us.

Without providing the context for this statement, this quotation sounds completely different than what it meant.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Photon

Without providing the context for this statement, this quotation sounds completely different than what it meant.

He also apparently described religious beliefs as "childish superstitions"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Photon

Without providing the context for this statement, this quotation sounds completely different than what it meant.

Einstein said a lot of things, many of which contradict each other. I was making a point... many scientists are religious. My cousin, for instance, is an astrophysicist and devout.... and he's not alone.

[LivT]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's a bit low cutting and pasting the words of more learned people and posting them as you own without credit, and then saying you hope it doesn't baffle someone [else] with science... too much. Your entire post is a direct, word for word cut and paste job from secularhumanism.org.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein. Who probably knew a little bit more about science than most of us.

There are no rules stating I cannot quote from learned people. Sorry for neglecting to state where I got this information. I merely decided to use it because it is something I am familiar with and would do more justice to anything I can explain myself. I knew many would recognise it.

Big deal.

Stick your nose in somewhere else Livia . What is Low, is you going around knit picking and finding fault, as ive seen you do so often,,,

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LivT

There are no rules stating I cannot quote from learned people. Sorry for neglecting to state where I got this information. I merely decided to use it because it is something I am familiar with and would do more justice to anything I can explain myself. I knew many would recognise it.

Big deal.

Stick your nose in somewhere else Livia . What is Low, is you going around knit picking and finding fault, as ive seen you do so often,,,

This is a forum, LivT. I can stick my nose in wherever I wish.

[LivT]

Originally Posted by Livia

This is a forum, LivT. I can stick my nose in wherever I wish.

Pray do. Think I will simply resort to muting you like numerous others have.

Your hard faced exterior and semantics will hardly be a great loss

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LivT

Pray do. Think I will simply resort to muting you like numerous others have.

Your hard faced exterior and semantics will hardly be a great loss

Numerous others? I guess with your massive three hundred post count you know all about who has me on ignore and who doesn't. My own ignore list has thirty people on it, so don't think for a minute that I care.

I only have a hard-faced exterior with you, because you have been brusque with me from day one. But anyway... put me on ignore and I won't have to deal with the tedium of conversing with you again, although of course, I'll still be able to read your desperately cobbled-together posts which you think make you look intelligent.

Goodbye.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by LivT

There are no rules stating I cannot quote from learned people. Sorry for neglecting to state where I got this information. I merely decided to use it because it is something I am familiar with and would do more justice to anything I can explain myself. I knew many would recognise it.

Big deal.

Stick your nose in somewhere else Livia . What is Low, is you going around knit picking and finding fault, as ive seen you do so often,,,

In general it is correct to attribute in forum posting.

I mean InOne got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that's what his dinner tasted like.

[InOne]

edit: double post

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

In general it is correct to attribute in forum posting.

I mean InOne got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that's what his dinner tasted like.

Ermmm, no I didn't?


It was a special recipe just for you