Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Do you think America will ever be primarily athiest?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 205 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 6:12:27 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"How can the Bible be anything but a creation of man to atheists? Therefore, they reject it as the source and standard of truth given by God. "

Yep. Pretty much. Ditto for the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bhagavad-Gita, Romeo and Juliet, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Wizard of Oz and all six Harry Potter books.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 6:14:43 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"However, what is Asimov's meaning about it being a potent force for atheism? Anyone care to describe his thinking on that statement? "

He means that reading the Bible, especially with any critical thinking, can lead to the conclusion that there is no evidence for god.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 6:49:13 AM PDT
[do you have any actual evidence that your fictional god person exists]

I would not believe what I believe without a full body of convincing evidence. That evidence is not convincing to you therefore, there is no point in sharing it. I have already done so on many of these threads and it can be read and researched by any who wish.

Empirical evidence that I've personally accumulated abounds through sticking to Scriptural teachings and the people that uphold them. With these God exerts his power to make things happen and to keep things from happening that I see often, sometimes daily. The reason is that Christian living is opposed to the thinking and actions of the entire worldwide society and it's high standards of behavior and thought are not capable of being accomplished alone. This brings a believer into many instances where actual support is needed by a superhuman force and change of circumstances. In those times things occur that are impossible as random or human created events. These conclusions I've come up with as only a part of the body of evidence.

It is not something to sway or convince. It is for me and those who would learn the teachings of the Bible in sincerity and then to apply them to experience. The adversarial nature of what some think of as science will always reject the simple and natural ways of getting to know God as a real person.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 6:53:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 7:01:44 AM PDT
If there is an Almighty Creator who has set the laws of the universe and whose idea of justice and rightness is the standard of moral excellence then those forms of truth are in the eye of one beholder. People can think whatever they wish about what is true just like a pilot can believe whatever he/she wishes in terms of what is outside of the plane, and what their location and velocity is. However, it they crash into a mountain they don't really have any eyes anymore, neither are they beholding anymore. But the mountain is still there, despite the beholder or lack thereof. So the truth of what truly is doesn't rely on the "eye of the beholder". That is only valid to a point before it gets it's adherents into trouble.

If a pilot had Almighty power then what they choose to know as truth would be truth. The mountain would get out of the way or they would fly through it unscathed. It does not happen like that. The mountain behaves according to the laws that the Creator established for it. The plane also obeys the laws of mass, force and motion. This is immutable.

Therefore, God, who founded and continues these laws, is the center of physical truth and in the same way moral and spiritual truth. Humans are those who get data on what is and need to find ways to work within what is to safely navigate the world as we understand it for they cannot overpower the realities already founded by God. When our understanding improves we can behave and navigate safety and more effectively. God is the one who generated and generates the "landscapes" of the physical, moral and spiritual realms.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:03:37 AM PDT
Thanks for the explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 10:35:10 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
I think Asimov also was implying that the Bible--read as written and taken literally--describes a being of such monstrous, horrific evil that worship of it (if it were real) would be unthinkable.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:10:22 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Ah, but _this_ one is the real thing, Irish:

The Name of the Wind

,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:16:34 AM PDT
Joe W says:
Sing me a round of "Tinker, Tanner"? :-D

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:18:00 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
With audience participation?

,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:21:33 AM PDT
Joe W says:
Of course. We are not singing about Savien and Aloine!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:22:45 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
'I would not believe what I believe without a full body of convincing evidence.'

-Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.-

That's a flat out lie. Evidence IS evidence. For everyone. But, bible verses, delusions, and empty assertions are all NOT evidence.

Thanks for admitting that, as with 100% of all god botherers, you have NO evidence that your claimed sky pixie exists.

'The adversarial nature of what some think of as science will always reject the simple and natural ways of getting to know God as a real person.'

There's a special level of willful *hypocrisy* in trying to diss science while USING science to post your diss-filled claims. If your non-science Ways Of Knowing worked, why, you WOULDN'T NEED electricity, a computer, or the Internet (All made by SCIENCE, based on EVIDENCE, which works for EVERYONE the exact same way) to post your statements. You could just pray them onto here.

But, the reason you HAVE to use science to post here is because science WORKS, and religion DOESN'T. QED, mofo.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:32:14 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:34:46 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:42:45 AM PDT
Joe W says:
I like toilets. Sewers. Modern agriculture. Refrigeration. Vaccinations. Insulation. Insulin. Heat pumps. Air conditioning. Alloys. Plastics. Sanitary surgery. Contraception. Roads. Recorded music and entertainment. Artificial lighting. Computers.

All of these have helped create a truly better world for people.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:56:26 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
D:'Bad science doesn't work. Good science does. Bad religion fails. True religion does not.'

Yes, yes, yes, and -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-, in that order.

'Neither your religion nor your science is working to create a truly better world for people.'

The breadth of willful ignorance in such a lie is astounding; In 100 years of science based medicine, human life spans have doubled. Religion kept us in the dark, where life was nasty, brutish and short.

"I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religions one." - Sam Harris

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:57:50 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
D:'You are generalizing religion and religious people in fitting me with what you think you know about me and my religious beliefs.'

-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-

No, I addressed a very specific and contemptible act on your part. You did the crime, now STFU and do the time. It's called a consequence.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 4:01:07 PM PDT
'probabilist says:
Nor, fortunately, are we singing about The Seven.

,.-)

Posted on Apr 24, 2012 6:27:37 PM PDT
Andre,

Very good points and very well presented.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:03:41 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
SM:'Very good points and very well presented.'

Thank you very much. I do what I can... :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 8:43:41 PM PDT
Joe W says:
The books rock.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 9:09:17 PM PDT
'probabilist says:
> The books rock.

Aye.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 5:50:00 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Andre: "do you have any actual evidence that your fictional god person exists?"

Dan: "I would not believe what I believe without a full body of convincing evidence. That evidence is not convincing to you therefore, there is no point in sharing it. ... 200+ words.... The adversarial nature of what some think of as science will always reject the simple and natural ways of getting to know God as a real person. "

Translation: "No. But if you believe it, you'll believe it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 5:52:43 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"I think Asimov also was implying that the Bible--read as written and taken literally--describes a being of such monstrous, horrific evil that worship of it (if it were real) would be unthinkable."

Yes. That too.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 5:53:07 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
(~__*)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:04:18 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Neither your religion nor your science is working to create a truly better world for people. "

Dan, before science, when all people had were gods and their own wits, life was short, brutish and filthy. Half of all children died before their fifth birthday. Childbirth was a leading cause of death in women. A simple cut or a tooth carie could kill you. If your appendix went bad you died a lingering, horrible death. A simple case of conjunctivitis could blind you. A childhood ear infection could deafen you. A baby born with a cleft palate or a tied tongue would starve to death.

And that is how your alleged god _made it!_

And until man stopped praying for relief and assuming that was happened was an "act of the gods" and started searching methodically for answers to how things REALLY work, God did not contribute anything to the improvement of their miserable lives.

Science has made life IMMEASURABLY better for people.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1406 29 days ago
Is Homosexuality a 'Good Thing' II? 7383 3 minutes ago
goblue says: I can prove theism true. 1422 5 minutes ago
Will there be insects in heaven? 74 5 minutes ago
Huckabee claims to run on Christian principles 0 11 minutes ago
Do we think the "right to mock" is important? 10 26 minutes ago
Atheist dogma 1277 44 minutes ago
The War on Wonen Continues Apace 9644 45 minutes ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 1693 48 minutes ago
Selective memory/Confirmation bias test 13 58 minutes ago
Science II 5862 1 hour ago
Books on Universal Truth - Are There Any? 295 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  205
Initial post:  Mar 16, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions