Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by Guest Thu May 16, 2013 6:06 am

snowyflake wrote:
Your own private, personal belief system bolstered by your own thoughts.

RockOnBrother, Thursday 2 May 2013, 22:59
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p540-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#39905

As the study of physics continued, I slowly realized design on a macro scale. Just the fact that phenomena like all of the mind-bending aspects of Special and General Relativity can be precisely described mathematically pretty much blew me away. One day, maybe two years into college, somewhere around twenty years of age, these self-revelations caused me to admit that the universe I studied is designed. Shortly after that, the sure knowledge that I was permeated, inundated, and surrounded by design caused me to admit that the designed universe is caused by a designer.

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming”.⁽⁴⁾

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “The laws [of physics]… seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”.⁽⁵⁾

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

by Shirina Thu May 16, 2013 9:23 am

Truth: Personal truth is truth.

So we should assume that the guy in Bellvue who thinks he's Napoleon ... really IS Napoleon?

by Shirina Thu May 16, 2013 9:30 am

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming”.(4)

I find it rather ... interesting ... that the universe had to be so finely tuned to begin with, especially in regards to human life. Was it all necessary? Well ... no, not really. Not when we're talking about an all-powerful, universe-creating God that supposedly makes all the rules. It is absurd in the extreme to assume that God had to pull all of those levers and tweak all of those dials to get the universe "just so" for human life. It would appear that God had to circumvent physical laws that even he could not directly alter, so he had to resort to little tricks to ensure humanity's survival. That sounds more like science than the supernatural. It kinda-sorta makes one wonder just WHAT this supposed creator actually is.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 1:04 pm

Truth: Personal truth is truth.

Its as if the enlightenment never happened, a mind trapped in subjective knowledge, its about as far away from scholarly as a mind can be.

by Guest Thu May 16, 2013 3:29 pm

Shirina wrote:
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming”.(4)
I find it rather ... interesting ... that the universe had to be so finely tuned to begin with…

British astrophysicist Paul Davies also finds it interesting, as evidenced by his statement that, for him, there is “powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all”, his statement that “somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe”, his statement that the “impression of design is overwhelming”, and his statement that the “laws [of physics]… seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.”
http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

I find it interesting that Paul Davies, with his expertise in the study of the origin of everything, finds it interesting.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Paul Davies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Charles William Davies, AM (born 22 April 1946) is an English physicist, writer and broadcaster, currently a professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He is also currently affiliated with the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University in California. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has proposed that a one-way trip to Mars could be a viable option.

In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics. He is also an adviser to the Microbes Mind Forum.

Davies' inquiries have included theoretical physics, cosmology, and astrobiology; his research has been mainly in the area of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. His notable contributions are the so-called Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect, according to which an observer accelerating through empty space will perceive a bath of thermal radiation, and the Bunch–Davies vacuum state, often used as the basis for explaining the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang. A paper co-authored with Stephen Fulling and William Unruh was the first to suggest that black holes evaporating via the Hawking effect lose mass as a result of a flux of negative energy streaming into the hole from the surrounding space. Davies has had a longstanding association with the problem of time’s arrow…

Born - Paul Charles William Davies, 22 April 1946 (age 67), London, UK

Nationality – British

Fields - Physicist

Institutions - Arizona State University, University of Cambridge, University of Adelaide, Macquarie University, University of Newcastle

Alma mater - University College London

Thesis - Contributions to theoretical physics: (i) Radiation damping in the optical continuum; (ii) A quantum theory of Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics
http://www.theses.com/
(1970

Known for - Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect, Bunch–Davies vacuum state

Notable awards - Kelvin Medal (2001), Faraday Prize (2002), Templeton Prize (1995)

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

RockOnBrother, Thursday 2 May 2013, 22:59
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p540-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#39905

As the study of physics continued, I slowly realized design on a macro scale. Just the fact that phenomena like all of the mind-bending aspects of Special and General Relativity can be precisely described mathematically pretty much blew me away. One day, maybe two years into college, somewhere around twenty years of age, these self-revelations caused me to admit that the universe I studied is designed. Shortly after that, the sure knowledge that I was permeated, inundated, and surrounded by design caused me to admit that the designed universe is caused by a designer.

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming”.⁽⁴⁾

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “The laws [of physics]… seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”.⁽⁵⁾

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

Personal truth: As my armchair onscreen (television and Internet) study of physics continues, I often find myself in agreement with British astrophysicist Paul Davies.

Personal truth is truth.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 5:04 pm

Paul Davies: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.

· Paul Davies is director of Beyond, a research centre at Arizona State University, and author of The Goldilocks Enigma paul.davies@asu.edu

Just simply dishonest quote mining, a standard tactic of the ID movement, vermin.

by Guest Thu May 16, 2013 5:16 pm

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming”.⁽⁴⁾

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “The laws [of physics]… seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”.⁽⁵⁾

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 5:28 pm

The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.

Checkmate.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 5:51 pm

Texas gives us mined quotes from ID websites without links to Paul Davies original words and I give you words straight from the horses mouth.

Just intellectual fraud.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 5:56 pm

The slippery slope fallacy, try and spot the weak link:

The universe appears designed = Designer spoke to Moses through a burning bush.

You people need sectioned under the mental health act.

by snowyflake Thu May 16, 2013 7:19 pm

Truth: Personal truth is truth.

It is personal truth based on personal experience only. No one else's. That's the most one can say about it. The evidence for that is that a believers personal truth is not truth to me and I daresay billions of others.

truth
[trooth] Show IPA
noun, plural truths [troothz, trooths] Show IPA .
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.

The existence of God is none of these things except to believers. Therefore it is personal truth and does not extend beyond the person.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

by Guest Thu May 16, 2013 11:49 pm

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”⁽⁶⁾

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

RockOnBrother, Thursday 2 May 2013, 22:59
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p540-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#39905

As the study of physics continued, I slowly realized design on a macro scale. Just the fact that phenomena like all of the mind-bending aspects of Special and General Relativity can be precisely described mathematically pretty much blew me away. One day, maybe two years into college, somewhere around twenty years of age, these self-revelations caused me to admit that the universe I studied is designed. Shortly after that, the sure knowledge that I was permeated, inundated, and surrounded by design caused me to admit that the designed universe is caused by a designer.

Personal truth: As my armchair onscreen (television and Internet) study of physics continues, I here find myself in agreement with Crawford prize winner Alan Sandage.

Personal truth is truth.

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 12:46 am

I find it interesting that Paul Davies, with his expertise in the study of the origin of everything, finds it interesting.

There will always be that tiny percentage of scientists who will forever insist on a paranormal creation scenario rather than a scientific explanation. A finely tuned universe only applies to human life. The problem is that there is most likely some OTHER type of life that doesn't exist because the universe wasn't finely tuned for THEIR needs. Humans are here because the universe allowed us to exist. The universe does NOT exist as it does for the express reason of supporting human life. In short, humanity is a byproduct of the existing universe, not the reason for the universe.

Personal truth is truth.

What happens when one person's "personal truth" directly contradicts someone else's "personal truth?"

And what about Mr. Bonaparte locked up in Bellvue?

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 12:53 am

Just simply dishonest quote mining, a standard tactic of the ID movement, vermin.

"I've been workin in the quote mines, all the live-long daaaaay!"

One of the most interesting things about following the Intelligent Design carnival of illogic is its approach to rhetoric. It's safe to say, for example, that both Intelligent Design wackos and science advocates occasionally employ inflammatory language. This is a very serious debate, after all, and such debates almost always attract their fair share of caustic commentary. As such, the harshness of the debate isn't that interesting to me. Instead, what I find much more fascinating is the tendency of the I.D. folks to engage in what is known as "quote mining."

LINK

Yep, quote mining is a very well-known tactic used by creationists. That means we're on to you.

by Guest Fri May 17, 2013 2:39 am

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”⁽⁷⁾

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

Personal truth: As my armchair onscreen (television and Internet) study of physics continues, I here find myself in agreement with NASA astronomer John O'Keefe.

Personal truth is truth.

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 5:47 am

Agreement is not truth.

by Guest Fri May 17, 2013 8:25 am

Truth: I am in agreement with NASA astronomer John O'Keefe as he states “If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence” and “that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

by polyglide Fri May 17, 2013 11:23 am

Shirina, the person who thimks he is anyone in truth believes he is and that is the truth.

The fact that in your highly self importance thinks he is not does not change the fact.

by polyglide Fri May 17, 2013 11:27 am

What any sane person should be considering at the present tiime taking all the latest scientific opinion into consideration, is, if the likelyhood of life in any form coming about by chance is beyond any belief then just how did life begin?.

by polyglide Fri May 17, 2013 11:32 am

Unlike Shirina and Snowyflake I have considered both sides and found evolution other than within species sadly wanting.

I can only judge people on their posts and ,UNFORTUNATELY>///444**$$-----

by polyglide Fri May 17, 2013 11:55 am

The assumption I base my opinions on are the innane replies I recieve to ligitimate questions.

Not once has any sensible reply been made, all are just a rejection without any substance.

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 12:08 pm

Not once has any sensible reply been made, all are just a rejection without any substance.

I reject many of your questions because they are fallacious. Presenting self-refuting arguments do not need lengthy, substantive answers.

Take the one you just asked, for instance:

if the likelyhood of life in any form coming about by chance is beyond any belief then just how did life begin?.

This is the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. One cannot simply plug their unproven beliefs into an unknown quantity of knowledge. Would you do that with an algebra equation? Yeah, I thought not. Simply making up any old number to replace x would guarantee an epic failure on an exam. But that's what you do with God and the origin of life. We have told you this hundreds of times and yet you keep coming back with the same kinds of fallacious questions that do not need to be answered. Why? Because they are fallacious. You DO know what a fallacy is, correct?

Explaining one unknown with another unknown is worthless.

by polyglide Fri May 17, 2013 12:15 pm

You refute the science that does not suit your purpose but quote time after time information gained in the same manner.

You have not read that which I asked you to or even the dumbest person would realise that life cannot have come about by chance so there must be another answer.

I am just beginning to wonder at your sanity.

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 12:57 pm

You refute the science that does not suit your purpose but quote time after time information gained in the same manner.

The scientists who claim the universe must have been created are not being scientific. They are mixing theology with science and I have no time for that. As soon as they trot out the proof that God exists, I'll be happy to jump on the superstition bandwagon, but not until then. Oh, and I don't refute the science, I refute the unsubstantiated conclusion. It's like I tell people all the time in regards to history - which applies equally to science: You can have your facts straight but still misinterpret what those facts mean. Scientists aren't immune from making the same mistake.

You have not read that which I asked you

You want me to read entire books but you won't even read a website ...

or even the dumbest person would realise that life cannot have come about by chance so there must be another answer.

So that makes Adam and Eve a true story?

I am just beginning to wonder at your sanity.

Thanks for the compliment. Highly intelligent people often have various degrees of insanity, so thanks!

by Tosh Fri May 17, 2013 2:21 pm

I am just beginning to wonder at your sanity.

I read your first post and stopped wondering about your sanity, just stark raving bonkers, and I mean howling at the moon bonkers.

Religion is a care home for the mentally handicapped.

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 6:23 pm

You refute the science that does not suit your purpose but quote time after time information gained in the same manner.

No, we refute magic.

You have not read that which I asked you to or even the dumbest person would realise that life cannot have come about by chance so there must be another answer.

Did you read what I asked you to read?

I am just beginning to wonder at your sanity.

We don't believe in invisible beings that create universes and interact with humans in some vague and obscure way. You do. In psychiatry, that is a delusion, denial of facts and evidence in favour of something that is more pleasing to your psyche because you are afraid of dying. That's the only reason you believe.

by Tosh Fri May 17, 2013 8:25 pm

Texas spams the board with scientists who have no evidence for design but conclude it is designed, this is the same man who rejects the opinion of 99.9% of scientists who conclude macro-evolution is an evidence based fact.

What happened to your Portuguese sailor spamming Texas, gone off the flat earth analogy have we ?

Not doing too well, lets discuss the fundamental meaning of atheism, as if it actually means anything, maybe a theist is a person who does not believe a deity does not exist, a theist is a disbeliever not a believer.

Beyond a joke when he starts all the evasion, its just juvenile.

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 8:58 pm

Tosh my dear

We are dealing with people with serious mental health issues. It doesn't matter if they want to believe in God if they couched their language in cautious terms. But we don't see that. We see the adamant declaration of 'truth' as if personal experience extends to universal and absolute truth that is so arrogant in believers. They don't know, no matter what they tell you. They only 'believe'. And if believers just admitted that they believe for one reason only, eternal life, and it is just a belief and not 'truth', the discussion could proceed quite nicely and probably in a friendlier vein.

So why don't believers just admit that what they believe is not based on evidence or fact. I don't care if they believe but I do care when they lie to me and tell me it's truth.

I really don't like it.

by Guest Fri May 17, 2013 11:13 pm

snowyflake wrote:
We see the adamant declaration of 'truth' as if personal experience extends to universal and absolute truth that is so arrogant in believers. They don't know, no matter what they tell you. They only 'believe'. And if believers just admitted that they believe for one reason only, eternal life, and it is just a belief and not 'truth', the discussion could proceed quite nicely and probably in a friendlier vein.

So why don't believers just admit that what they believe is not based on evidence or fact. I don't care if they believe but I do care when they lie to me and tell me it's truth.

By definition, atheists are believers; accordingly:

“We see the adamant declaration of 'truth' as if personal experience extends to universal and absolute truth that is so arrogant in [atheists]”;
“[Atheists] don't know, no matter what they tell you”;
“[Atheists] only 'believe'.”;
“… if [atheists] just admitted that they believe for one reason only, eternal life, and it is just a belief and not 'truth', the discussion could proceed quite nicely and probably in a friendlier vein.”

Thus, your question can be read as “… why don't [atheists] just admit that what they believe is not based on evidence or fact”, and your second paragraph’s concluding statement can be read as “I don't care if [atheists] believe but I do care when [atheists] lie to me and tell me it's truth.”

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 11:32 pm

Atheists don't claim to 'know'. Believers do. Atheists don't claim to hold absolute truth or universal truth nor do atheists pretend that their personal spiritual experiences are truth to anyone else. Believers do. Atheists don't believe in God. Believers do. Atheists don't believe in eternal life. Believers do. Atheists conclude that God probably doesn't exist based on the evidence. We do not categorically state that God does not exist. We just live our lives using reason to navigate in our world. We don't require magic to explain the natural world when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Believers need magic, a father figure and religious structure. If you are the kind of person that really needs that, then perhaps belief is better for you and keeps you off the streets.

by Guest Sat May 18, 2013 4:46 am

snowyflake wrote:
Atheists don't claim to 'know'. Believers do. Atheists don't claim to hold absolute truth or universal truth nor do atheists pretend that their personal spiritual experiences are truth to anyone else. Believers do. Atheists don't believe in God. Believers do. Atheists don't believe in eternal life. Believers do. Atheists conclude that God probably doesn't exist based on the evidence. We do not categorically state that God does not exist. We just live our lives using reason to navigate in our world. We don't require magic to explain the natural world when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Believers need magic, a father figure and religious structure. If you are the kind of person that really needs that, then perhaps belief is better for you and keeps you off the streets.

By definition, atheists are believers; accordingly, your statements can be read:

“Atheists don’t claim to ‘know.’ [Atheists] do.”

“Atheists don’t claim to hold absolute truth or universal truth nor do atheists pretend that their personal spiritual experiences are truth to anyone else. [Atheists] do.”

“Atheists don’t believe in God. [Atheists] do.”

“Atheists don’t believe in eternal life. [Atheists] do.”

“[Atheists] need magic, a father figure and religious structure.”

by tlttf Sat May 18, 2013 7:28 am

As an atheist roc, I can assure you I don't believe in any magical uber power. Don't you find repeating the same mantra boring?

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 8:05 am

Holy crap!

Did Rock just post two consecutive "I know you are, but what am I?" arguments?

I think he did!

Given the spirit of this discussion, I do believe the proper rebuttal to Rock's post would be ...

Nuh uh!

by snowyflake Sat May 18, 2013 9:04 am

As an atheist roc, I can assure you I don't believe in any magical uber power. Don't you find repeating the same mantra boring?

It is boring and non-productive. But it serves to show that he is staunchly defending his faith because in his head we are all Satan trying to convert him to non-belief. He is arming himself. and practicing at the rifle range and we are his clay pigeons.

Please, if it helps you get through your life, then believe. As an atheist, I only ask that you don't make claims that what you believe is true or real. It is only true or real to you and you alone and as you demand cautious language from science, we only ask that you use cautious language when it pertains to your belief. Unless you have convincing proof that God exists, you cannot make that claim absolutely outside of your own personal experience.

by polyglide Sat May 18, 2013 10:33 am

Everyone bases their opinions on their experiences and the facts available.

Just because some do not accept the facts does not change matters, if you do not experience something then you cannot comment on it.

by snowyflake Sat May 18, 2013 11:31 am

Everyone bases their opinions on their experiences and the facts available.

Of course they do. But not everyone claims to have universal truth based on their own personal experiences. The problem here is that believers in the supernatural claim that what they believe is true and real. It isn't. It is only true to you and if believers just said that, no one would mind one bit. But you and Rock claim that what you believe is absolute truth and yet you provide no evidence. Calling it fact is erroneous. It is only a belief based on a personal experience. End of story.

So all we ask is that you admit that what you believe is based on your own personal experiences and may not apply universally or absolutely. It is not that difficult.

by Guest Sat May 18, 2013 2:18 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p810-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#40768

Did Rock just post two consecutive "I know you are, but what am I?"¹ arguments?

No.

RockOnBrother wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p780-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#40756
snowyflake wrote:
We see the adamant declaration of 'truth' as if personal experience extends to universal and absolute truth that is so arrogant in believers. They don't know, no matter what they tell you. They only 'believe'. And if believers just admitted that they believe for one reason only, eternal life, and it is just a belief and not 'truth', the discussion could proceed quite nicely and probably in a friendlier vein.

So why don't believers just admit that what they believe is not based on evidence or fact. I don't care if they believe but I do care when they lie to me and tell me it's truth.
By definition, atheists are believers; accordingly:

“We see the adamant declaration of 'truth' as if personal experience extends to universal and absolute truth that is so arrogant in [atheists]”;

“[Atheists] don't know, no matter what they tell you”;

“[Atheists] only 'believe'.”;

“… if [atheists] just admitted that they believe for one reason only, eternal life, and it is just a belief and not 'truth', the discussion could proceed quite nicely and probably in a friendlier vein.”

Thus, your question can be read as “… why don't [atheists] just admit that what they believe is not based on evidence or fact”, and your second paragraph’s concluding statement can be read as “I don't care if [atheists] believe but I do care when [atheists] lie to me and tell me it's truth.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p810-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#40768

… "I know you are, but what am I?"¹…

1. Text not found in my message.

RockOnBrother wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p780-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#40765
snowyflake wrote:
Atheists don't claim to 'know'. Believers do. Atheists don't claim to hold absolute truth or universal truth nor do atheists pretend that their personal spiritual experiences are truth to anyone else. Believers do. Atheists don't believe in God. Believers do. Atheists don't believe in eternal life. Believers do. Atheists conclude that God probably doesn't exist based on the evidence. We do not categorically state that God does not exist. We just live our lives using reason to navigate in our world. We don't require magic to explain the natural world when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Believers need magic, a father figure and religious structure. If you are the kind of person that really needs that, then perhaps belief is better for you and keeps you off the streets.
By definition, atheists are believers; accordingly, your statements can be read:

“Atheists don’t claim to ‘know.’ [Atheists] do.”

“Atheists don’t claim to hold absolute truth or universal truth nor do atheists pretend that their personal spiritual experiences are truth to anyone else. [Atheists] do.”

“Atheists don’t believe in God. [Atheists] do.”

“Atheists don’t believe in eternal life. [Atheists] do.”

“[Atheists] need magic, a father figure and religious structure.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p810-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#40768

… "I know you are, but what am I?"¹…

1. Text not found in my message.

by Tosh Sat May 18, 2013 2:37 pm

He is ready to blow, all pretense gone.

Texas hammering away trying to turn a disbelief into a belief, it is hilarious.

by snowyflake Sat May 18, 2013 2:46 pm

Texas hammering away trying to turn a disbelief into a belief, it is hilarious.

I think it's really sad. Sad

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 4:11 pm

Yeah, isn't it funny how it works?

Atheism is a belief, evolution is a beleif, the Big Bang is a belief, but Christianity is the absolute, unvarnished truth.

I've already proven logically how that is false and no one has even tried to take a stab at showing where I'm wrong.

by Guest Sat May 18, 2013 4:28 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t276p810-does-any-religion-matter-at-all-today#40800
Atheism is a belief…

Truth.

by Sponsored content