Good, glad you didn't run away. But as I warned you better have a thick skin dealing with many of us here. Others may give you more library type responses. But I do pull out my fangs and am quite blunt with my assessments of your claims. That is just me, others will approach you differently. Just treat us all as individuals and you should do fine, and at a minimum at least if you never switch your position, you will at least be able to see us as individuals.

I myself don't like wading through the bible, although I can and have no fear of it. I like to cut to the chase and attack the fantastic claims and the core omnimax attributes of claimed deity. Others here are much more patient in slow deconstruction than I am.

You will get a variety here.

It's very difficult to have dialogue with people who can't even articulate their thoughts accurately. There's no way to distunguish if it's simply the 'lingo' of their indoctrination, or if they have a learning disability, or arrested development.

Technically, anyone, or any 'organization' that claims they know the 'truth' about exactly when and how biological life began on earth, is a liar, and a fraud.

Anyone, or any organization, that claims they know the 'truth' about exactly what occurred prior to our scientific theories of the Big Bang, is a liar, and a fraud.

Period.

End.

Stop.

As far as 'morals' are concerned, they're subjective. There is no debate about this. It is a fact.

Christians (in particular) and others of Abrahamic based religions claim they want to 'debate' about morals, when really they want to 'lecture' and 'preach'.

There is only their opinions towards behaviours of women, children, other races, cultures, homosexuals, that they can express.

There is only their opinions towards topics like sex, sexuality, sensuality, homosexuality, bi sexuality, monogamy, pornography, abortion, that they can express.

I've never met 1 religious person, I even come close to aligning with on these topics and behaviours.

IME, it's atheists who seem to be the most balanced, and accepting that there can be great diversity, within a society, with minimum need to preoccupy itself, with itself, and it's diversity.

Is not what?

What?

STFU.

Nothing is preventing you from doing something, about anything you feel needs attention. So, fuck off.

The only 'gospel', is the reality of the world that surrounds you.

Perfect.

You could spend your entire lifetime trying to correct all the problems with religious peoples' ideologies and actions, and never have to concern yourself with atheists.

I don't care about what you hope.

You're insignificant, to us.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

It's only the claims, and the dogmas that you people keep alive, that are of concern.

As long as you are Jeffersonian in your approach, I don't mind blasphemy aimed at me.

Here is the short version of my position.

Human have always had a history of making up false beliefs and believing them to be fact. I simply reject one more god claim than you do. Understand why you reject all others besides your own, and it should be obvious to you why we reject yours as well.

There is no evidence of a thought occurring outside a material process, thus even the generic claim of a diety/god, much less the biblical claim of a magic super hero with magic super powers, makes any sense to me, not yours, not any, polytheist or monotheist, past or present.

Morally speaking, The claimed head character of the bible reads like a dictator. It gives you no choice, no way out, even for the mere crime (which is not a crime) of not wanting to hang out with him, or not believing in him. He will follow you and stalk you like an abusive spouse or dictator for trying to leave him.

And this cosmic dictator claims he loves you, but gives us a home full of things trying to kill us from the day we are born to the day we die. Birth defects, childhood cancer, flesh eating bacteria, natural disasters, crime and war. Then blames us for the home he didn't have to put us in.

If parents in reality put their kids in a home full of such horrors and CPS found out the kid would be taken away and the parents arrested.

MIND YOU, I am strictly talking about the bible as a book only. I do not believe in any fictional being. To me hating god would be like hating Micky Mouse. But I do hate the fact that people sell such fiction as fact. Same with the Koran and Hebrew texts. Just as I would hate it if you went around trying to sell the earth being flat. Just as if you were claiming Thor makes lighting.

Thats me, I don't waste time. Others here may go into more detail with you. Like I said, I focus on the fantastic claims and the morality issues.

You have a tough road here. Not just with me. We have historians and science geeks that will not back down, even if they are more tame with their interchanges with you.

Welcome to the boxing ring. I am the bad cop, others here may take the good cop approach.

And others will just break your fucking knees with a baseball bat, mob style. hemhemredneFhemhum.   Sorry had something in my throat.  

STFU, with your rhetoric, and metaphors.

You're ignorant. You can't 'deal' with what you aren't aware of. You can only learn.

You talk too fucking much. That's your problem, and why you're as ignorant as you are about reality.

Are you stupid?

I clearly outlined that religions' attempts to be scientific, are a complete fraud.

Religions attempts at being a philosophical template for 'morality', are inferior than without it's philosophy.

Ancient scriptures are literature that are composites of forgeries. The majority of the aristocrats of the times were immoral and unethical control freak repressive political tyrants who were blood thirsty murderers, bigots, racists, sexually dysfunctional misogynists, and homophobes.

A con artists day is never done.

Good.

Because that would just make the perspective of everything you state, qualify as even more ignorant than an innocent child.

It wouldn't be a fair fight, so I'll just provide you with the facts.

Your perspective is boxed in to a regressive Bronze Age philosophy. Your manners notwithstanding, you are barbaric in your mentality.

You are not my equal, on these topics. Not even close.

Then you contradict your earlier enthusiam about 'I love the fire!' and  'I can deal with all the different kinds'.

Now you've clearly exposed yourself as a liar, and one who does not have a character that is consistent with his claims.

Atheists are born, not 'transformed' as you people are.

You people are a subset, and atheists are a superset.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

You are all atheists to some degree, as there are thousands of god myths and folklores and religious systems.

You're in denial.

Religions are a problem. The 'positive' philosophies of religions, are not the unique purview of religion, thus making religions entirely superfluous.

To make you reflect on your stupidity and ignorance, with the hope that you become more moderate in your delusions.

And to use you as an illustration for others. Both for atheists, and moderates, to become more educated.

There's nothing distinct about you, at all.

You're 'garden variety' as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a politician. I don't concern myself with being popular. Nor is your respect something I desire, personally.

My concerns are about gathering the most accurate data I can, about reality, and sharing it.

And FYI, I don't respect people just because they breathe. They have to earn my respect with their thoughts and actions.

So far, you are very low on the scale of people I have respect for.

What I believe, is not important to you.

What I can teach you, is; important for you and others like you to understand, acknowledge, and evolve to a higher level of awareness and behaviour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA&feature=related

And stop with the logical fallacy that being pious is a virtue.

It's simply not, nor has ever been the case.

Or the genetic fallacy that the superset of atheism is some kind of 'religion' or homogenous 'philosophy'.

Get educated, already...

don't mind rednef, he's just being an ass as usual.

Then become an atheist.

Sure.

Become an atheist, and stop being delusional about reality.

Because you sympathize with theists, duhh...

You really are clueless, aren't you?

I'm not obligated to justify my conclusions.

I set the bar.

You're an idiot, compared to me.

Period.

It is.

You have no currency with me.

Then piss off.

No shit, Sherlock.

You're an idiot.

There is no macro/micro evolution, other than in your mind. Evolution is change.

Except that you are 'regressing'.

If you are changing, you are evolving. Not all changes are progressive or beneficial in outcomes. Evolution doesn't exclude regressive or detrimental changes.

There has never been evidence of gods. Just myths and folklores.

You're insignificant.

I already explained that to you.

Do you have selective hearing and memory?

Then what are you complaining about?

I said I can share with you.

Not that I would share with you.

If you want to learn, there's a thing called the internet, and there's a neutral state of mind, called 'atheism'.

Stop looking for excuses for why you're so ignorant, and delusional, and not neutral and skeptical of fraudulent scientific claims, and intellectually bankrupt philosophies and fraudulent 'Intellectual Property' claims.

You have no logical excuses for those.

Redmeption,

There have been many times when Christians felt compelled to spread the "word".  Take a look at the Crusades and the Inquisition.  Christians and Muslims have taken more lives in the name of their God than any disease, famine, or political war.  We are not apathetic or indifferent to the struggles of the world.  Atheists are capable of feelings and empathy.

Feel free to share and post.  But, keep this in mind, if you are not here to be converted, or convert others, then it isn't neccessary to preach the gospel.  That shows an apparent lack of logic.

I live my life without fear.  I do not need the threat of an imaginary hell to make me a good person.......

Be prepared, very prepared for very harsh skepticism. 

Believing in God does not make you logical in any way.  It makes you irrational in every way.  Your belief is based of faith, not proof.  If you truly knew, or had any real evidence of any kind that what you believe is true, you wouldn't need faith.  It would just be.

Feel free to ask any question that you might have, concerning anything you would like to debate.  I will gladly apply my soon to be masters degree in Philosophy and the stone cold logic that frees me from religious bondage.

Welcome to the forum.

mr. O

Time and time again I face the Inquisition and Crusades as a talking point on the moral bankruptcy of Christianity. This is like saying that because an Indian guy killed an Eskimo all Indians hate Eskimos. I do not condone the actions of the Inquisition or the Crusades that is a point that I will fight till I turn blue in the face. I cannot be held accountable for things other people do in the name of the gospel I can only hold up my end of the bargain and follow the thing that I believe in to my fullest ability. My heart goes out to all of those persecuted by Christians but if you look at the "Christians" in question what attributes of Christ are they showing?

I have no problem whatsoever accepting skepticism or even criticism but blatant attacks on my intelligence before you get to know me are out of the realm of rational things to do.

My belief is based totally on faith, but in an odd way so is your belief. How many times has science been proven wrong. How many times do ideas change and systems get overhauls. You put your faith in different things than I do, but just because you books are written in the modern day and mine was written 2000 years ago doesn't mean that yours can't be just as wrong as you think mine is.

I accept your welcome and am compiling a list of questions that I will get around to start asking in the next few days.

Nicely said, and I love your analogy of the Indian guy killing an Eskimo... which is a fallacy on many levels.  The inquisition is not an aberration of biblical teachings, it is an actualization of following the bible to it's literal interpretation, and cherry-picking what they thought relevant, much like you are doing.  They used the same book to draw on that you are using, you see nothing wrong with that? How does your analogy stack up now?  Please do fight that till you turn blue in the face.  

I don't agree with the intelligence ad hominem attacks.  I would comment on the clarity of your thinking, however.  You believing this crap doesn't necessarily make you stupid, but it does make you gullible, and stupid is such an all encompassing word.  

Ok I take back what I said about the ad hominem being invalid.  You probably should have left the last paragraph out if you want people to believe you're intelligent.  I look forward to your mind-blowing questions.

Most of humanity once thought the Earth was flat (some still do...), but in discovering that the Earth was actually roughly spherical, it technically wouldn't be correct to say that "science" was "proven wrong." It's a category error in the first place. Science is not a claim or set of claims, but the process we utilize to explore reality via reason and empirical evidence. You could only mean that our knowledge of reality is often corrected and improved, which is, of course, true.

Also, we can guess the unjustified assumptions made by the people who regarded the world as flat. Obviously, the Earth appeared to be flat, but really, a round surface of sufficient size is indistinguishable from a flat surface if you're a tiny speck on that surface, so they simply concluded that the Earth is flat because it's more intuitive.

Can we still be wrong? Of course. We could be wrong about almost everything; we could be brains in vats or in the matrix etc., but this doesn't make it necessary for us to have "faith." We can simply admit it when we can be wrong and when we don't know something. Additionally, we can judge the likelihood of something being true, and we can do things simply for their pragmatic value.

I'm not sure if you mean what Brian means, Redemption. With fresh empirical evidence, Brian would change his position on a dime, whereas you....

My question would be that what makes your "facts" better than mine. If your purpose is to rid the world of dogma's and false information that have people follow non-existent dietys, how do you justify spreading false information when science has been wrong?

I was told earlier that you can't pick your facts, however by stating that you change your theorys constantly aren't you changing what you accept to be fact? If my theorys stay firm while yours change doesn't that make mine more reputable?

When you only accept things that fit the world to a "useful degree" aren't you to picking and choosing what you believe can and will happen?

The idea of the world being spherical wasn't just a church belief it was church backed but many scientist believed it to be true as well and people generally accepted that idea that it was flat once it was discovered you weren't going to fall off the edge of the world. There are always going to be the loonies that hold on to the old ways and still believe that earth is flat, but that does not represent the mindset of the majority of Christians.

Because science never states that the current view is "right" or "wrong". At most it says that "<x> is correct based on the information we currently have."

If new evidence comes, the view can be confirmed, refined or scrapped if needed. Dogmatically held views don't and can't be that flexible.

Fitting the world to a useful degree is the best anyone can do (even with gods and holy books). The difference is that most of us acknowledge that we do that. Theists tend to make their beliefs fit the world while insisting that they don't and can't because their version of God is immutable.

The church once wielded great political and economic power. Scientists tended to go along with Church dogma because they knew not doing so jeopardized their livelihood. Remember what happened to Galileo.

You acknowledge that there are things in the Bible that are incorrect - good on you. What standards do you use to make that decision on the rest of it?

I do not believe the Bible is incorrect. I believe that everything in it is correct, but I am not well-versed enough to answer every question making me at fault not the Bible.

Theists are people as well. Faith is our tool.

I am not claiming that the scientific method is invalid just that I do not use that to make decisions concerning my morality. Science and Morality should be completly seperate because if they are not the results would be skewed. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have one or the other just that they should be seperate.

No matter how hard you say you don't believe in God he will always be there to believe in you.

When you discard your "facts" so easily though it shows that you never actually had the, for lack of a better word, faith in your data. You claim I spout things from the Bible out of faith then you turn around and spout numbers at me that were reported to you by a HUMAN who makes mistakes and could have false information. It doesn't bother you that you are hypocritical in your assumptions that your numbers and reports are correct even though they are proved wrong daily?

Faith is not a tool, it is a cop out. It teaches you to be satisfied without testing to insure quality of data.

AND AGAIN, do not make this out to be a personal attack on you. This is about WHY humans should not rely on "faith".

Is the sun a thinking being? NO, it is not. Think about how much quicker humanity might have gotten if the Egyptians had not settled on the sun being a god and insisted instead, on trying to find out what it really was. That credulity kept humanity away from the truth.

If we always went on what feels good instead of testing the claims we utter, humans would still believe that the earth was flat.

I do not find "faith" as any type of tool, but an excuse not to investigate.

And again, this is not a human rights issue. This is a pragmatic issue on HOW we should go about finding truth as a species. It is about using something that is universal and filters out personal bias.

"faith" is merely going with what feels good. Real challenges in life lead you where they go, not where you want them to go.

No matter the claim, even outside the issue of religion, if all you have is a claim ON ANY ISSUE, and you have no way to test or falsify the claim, it remains a claim. "faith" teaches you not to insure the quality of the data. It is merely relying on wishful thinking.

It is because humans in the past decided to challenge set norms, set beliefs and set traditions and actual test things to see what was really going on, that our species progressed.

What is more important to you, your belief, or finding the truth?

If you can accept other people's god/s are made up, I would suggest that maybe the truth is that you are merely a victim of buying a fictional utopia, like those utopias claimed by others that you reject yourself.

Firstly, you are confusing 'facts', ie what we can observe and measure, with 'theories', ie our attempts to explain those observations.

We both have the same facts.

The explanations of Science for why things appear as they do are better that yours because they have been checked and tested by every means anyone can think of, and are still only accepted as the best current explanation, not as 100% 'right'.

We do NOT, or should not, teach scientific theories as being 'right', or absolute 'truth', just that they are the best explanations and interpretations of the 'facts ' that we have been able to come up with so far. Proper understanding of science is that we do not and may never know the 'ultimate' truth behind everything.

So we should always say when 'spreading' scientific knowledge, just how confident we are about its accuracy, and be able to say what are the main tests, experiments, that have established it as the best current picture of reality. And if there are other theories around, that offer alternative explanations, and that we haven't been able to invalidate, that may still possibly turn out to be better explanations after we have done more tests, maybe with better instruments, we should tell people that too.

If there is some area which we currently have no plausible explanations for, we say "we don't know why that happens", rather that just making stuff up, like "God did it".

We don't pick our facts, we select our theories, our explanations for those facts. Some theories eventually are so well 'proven', that we treat them as 'facts', like the fact that the Earth is very close to being spherical in shape, and goes around the Sun, even though those were once both just theories, and not generally accepted.

We 'pick and choose' our theories based on what best fits the facts and observations. What is the alternative?

The problem with the religious approach to 'knowledge' is that it is based on a combination of personal 'revelation', and authority, neither of which are valid paths to knowledge, as compared to observation, experiment, and testing.

The idea of the world being spherical wasn't a church belief at all in the beginning, it did believe it was flat, even after other people had shown it to spherical by measurement and observation. Evidence showing it was curved included the way the masts of ships progressively disappeared below the horizon, and how vertical posts cast different length shadows at noon in places where one was further north than the other. Measurement of the different length shadows was used to come up with a surprisingly close figure for the diameter of the Earth. All well before anyone had travelled far enough out to sea to show there was no 'edge'.

Science, or the early philosophy that was what passed for science back then, has known the Earth was a sphere for over two thousand years.

Even the Church generally accepted a round Earth early in its history, but still centuries after 'science' had, but many, including Saint Augustine, still believed it was impossible that anyone could actually live on the far side of the Earth, for many reasons. We know that this was indeed quite wrong.

What was a longer standing error, that the Church clung to despite clear evidence, was that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything else revolved around it.

I had a sudden realization. I cant afford to bet against this. If he is right, I am screwed.

I also checked the calendar and know what today is.

Going to church?

Yeah right.

Atheism may not be the socially easy way out but it is for sure the easy way out spiritually. Would you ignore an alternate road to work that took the same time and was the same distance but was smoother than the route you take now? Simply ignoring spirituality does not make you exempt from it, I heard a guy on Fox news yell loudly one time "We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM it" and he made sense for a split second then went back to crazy yelling guy.

The Bible is correct in my eyes because I have applied the scriptures to my life and the blessings that are promised are now a part of my daily life. I do not base my faith solely on the fact that God does good things for me. My favorite scripture is Phillipians 3:10 " That I may now Him and the power of his ressurection, and the fellowship of His sufferings being made conformable unto His death" I know that I am going to come under persecution and have trials but I know that the blessing of God is upon my life even when I cannot see it.

I have studied it quite extensively. I have a concordance that shows the meanings of words in Greek and Hebrew as well as Aramaic. If there is anything you would want me to analyze for you to show you that I know what I am talking about I would be gald to.

Just because you find utility in something doesn't mean it's without error. There are many models and analogies that are wrong but nonetheless useful, and sources of information that are often incorrect yet amazingly useful. 

Satan falling is never spelled out in that manner to my knowledge.

In Job we are told angels were created before the creation of the Earth, and Satan was in the Garden so he must have fallen from grace before God created Man. Job

Revelation 12 where it talks about the angels defeating Satan with the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony is the best example in the literal  (Rev. 12:10).  But if you want to get into pre-NT interpretations there is a great example of it in Isaiah 14 where there is a war with the Kings of Babylon and Tyre that there is a exerpt about in the Dake's study bible that scholars believe symoblizes a literal war told in parable to explain the war between God and Satan.

I believe that the 7 days of creation were not literal twenty-four hour time periods because God is not bound by human's view of time these 7 days could be any length of time. No, I do not follow the idea that they were 1000 years each and that when we get to the 7000th year of creation is when the Rapture will be that is speculation with no Biblical support that I have found. The earth very well could be billions of years old it is not my place to speculate.

As for the fall from grace I believe it to be a literal scenario where man willfully turned his back on God and thus creating the need for this conversation.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 speaks for itself.

Sure, we don't judge the truth of ideas about the way the universe and life actually IS on moral considerations.

BUT we certainly should take into account what we know about both the nature of broader reality AND what we now understand about human psychology in making moral decisions.

Science is how we gain knowledge and understanding, morality is about how we interact with other people so as to maximize our own and others 'well-being'.

We all experience what you call 'spirituality', it is a kind of state of mind and way of contemplating life that is an important part of most people's life experience.

Religion feeds of our native feelings of awe and wonder and empathy toward others, and distorts them, with delusional myths and crazy 'rules' involving threats and bribes of Hell and Heaven.

I agree, except for the part about "involving threats and bribes of hell and heaven". My belief system does not include such things.

Claims that are the most correlated to reality are always "better" in the sense that they are the most likely to be true.

"Dogma" generally describes systems of unquestionable principles, so scientific theories are not dogma in that there isn't even supposed to be any bias on theories being true or false, other than what the available empirical evidence suggests.

In a sense, we are changing what we accept as fact, although we never claimed 100% certainly. Why shouldn't we? If new evidence appears that proves the very opposite of something we currently accept, then we should follow that. We value reality more than our beliefs. But, I think you are exaggerating the amount of revising in science. You sort of imply that we dramatically change our beliefs every time something new pops up, but this is not the case, and it is simply not possible in practice. If you agree that there is one reality, then our knowledge must always be improving as we gather more information. It is essentially impossible at this point for any of our well established theories to be completely wrong; they are always at least very good approximations or hold a lot of pragmatic value. E.g. even if Newtonian mechanics is not technically correct, the rules are such excellent approximations for practical everyday calculations, that it would be pointless to use relativity; you would only have to do a lot more work. 

The theories that are the most reputable should be the ones that appear to best match reality. Clinging to theories without any regard for evidence and reason is the exact opposite of what we should do. Just because you believe it very strongly and you've believed it for a really long time doesn't make any more justified than a theory that has only been held by someone for five minutes. If this were the case, how do you strongly disagree with people who regard the Earth as flat? Obviously, it's because the Earth does NOT appear to be flat! What matters is what seems to be true. 

If you want it call it "choosing," sure. But, if you don't "choose" to believe what is useful and fits the world, then what you choosing? Then, you're just choosing arbitrary religious beliefs and whatever works as a psychological crutch.