Did you just use academics and scholarly evidence to disprove something not even a 30 seconds after insulting academics and scholarly evidence? Just let me ask you this: Is the lack of academic approval enough to dismiss the existence of god? Why?
Assuming this is “you” in the editorial sense, atheism is not the claim that belief in a god is wrong and stupid. Atheism is the state of being without the belief in a god. It is the absence of a claim.
I assume there are many gods, paranormal entities, and other supernatural beings that you don’t believe in. So you should understand that not having a belief in something is not the same thing as making active claims about it.
Prove that Jesus was white.
also Norse mythology >>>>>> Greek mythology
yeah that goes back to my earlier post about the various gods out there always resembling the culture they’re associated with. Quick poll, who thinks there would be as many white christians as there currently off if the bible had included a picture of jesus looking like lil wayne with arabic tattoos
edit: conversely who believe that might have actually been a great alternative history for the world, imagine it. George Zimmerman would have to explain that he thought Trayvon was looking awfully jewish that day
I never insulted academics/scholarly at all, i have no idea what you are talking about. The lack of academic approval is a good reason to disapprove god but it will be the persons choice to accept it or not. Academic support is the way to draw the line from a myth. If atheists love to degrade the intelligence of theists like how Fishjie does then they are equally required to show this science and evidence that they boast about. Can real debates be taken seriously when both or one of the sides has no support for them?
PROVE JESUS WAS WHITE
I’m definitely not taking this (hopefully) fake debate seriously. :tup:
Atheists are simply saying they don’t believe the claim(s) of the theist. Why? It’s because the evidence is terrible to non-existent. If an Atheist said there is no God, yes, that would be a claim of sorts. The thing is though, they aren’t making any claims, they are just rejecting the claims of theists. This is area of a lot of confusion so I hope I cleared this up for you.
Yes it is possible disprove things in mathematics. In the realm of science though things are accepted and rejected, not proved or disproved. Even though you are a Christian I don’t think you are fundie or even stupid. Actually your rationality is completely in tact. The fact that you’ve rejected the existence of Santa Clause is evidence of this. You’ve rejected St. Nich’s existence based on insufficient evidence. Now, if you can do the same with Jesus and his miracles you’d be on the same page as the so called Atheists.
Thank you for a well reply but Atheist clearly bash on theistic beliefs (the majority of the ones do). All atheists on the net claim that there is no god and how religion and much more christians are stupid because of science and rationality etc, like that. If the evidence is “terrible” then what makes the atheist argument more valuable when not even a single common-observational example can be provided? The accusation is ironic and the dishonesty of atheists claiming science and rationality as a weapon to do there anti-theistic blabbering disgusts me, why can’t they just be honest and just say “we don’t care what science or religion says i’ll believe it when i see it”? The reason why i don’t see most of them just admitting that statement is because they where former theists and are just angry.
I’ll try to illustrate how it feels for us theists debating against atheists. Me and another person walk out of a room that is in complete mess, we later come back and find it cleaned up, arranged, with all of it’s elements placed/organized right. I say, some one did this while the person with me replies, no… it just happened, thinking that someone did this is illogical and stupid, your stupid, because there is no “evidence”. Between me and the person with me, who the hell is believing in butt random magic with out evidence or logic? You get the picture? I’m just clearing my point of view and why i have responded brashly in the past even again Fishjie because the premise is the same.
I didn’t reject St Nich’s existence, as i said history shows that the Santa Clause legend developed off a person named St Nich. I can’t do that in terms of Jesus Christ because the Sociology science with in his being is too big.
I would go one further, and assert that it is all on the one making an existential statement for a positive claim of existence.
I truly think it is nonsensical, in all, well, senses, of the term, to claim logical equivalence between arguing for an alleged, empirically unknown and unknowable something’s existence, and arguing against said alleged, empirically unknown and unknowable something’s existence.
i.e. god does not exist is a far stronger claim [than he/she/it does exist].
- I doubt you have much ground to stand on for claiming that the majority of atheists do this, when you likely are not aware of whom the majority of atheists are. 2. Atheists might bash religious belief, but that doesn’t mean that bashing religious belief is a part of atheism.
This question has been answered a number of times already. You’re just not accepting the answer.
A poor analogy. The universe hardly boils down to a messy room. Science has done a very good job at figuring out how things in the universe developed as they are, self-correcting as it goes along and sticking only to hypotheses that can be confirmed or disconfirmed.
It seems like a little information would go a long way toward correcting your misconceptions.
You were asked to prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, not how the current popular idea of him came into being.
Ok to get this thread back to some SEMBLANCE of what it was for Marvin trolled his way back in here
Yeah I’m pretty sure that although the Titans were incredibly powerful, they(atleast Chronos) still feared the power of the greek gods
edit: Takezo, Anthropologists say that quite a bit. Religions reflect and help maintain the societies in which they originate. Just compare the social structure of the region at the time, and you’ll see that reflected in the religion.
Religion affects culture enormously. Just look at the history of Western music and art.
The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and Mozart’s Requiem Mass are two examples of believing responsibly. Michelangelo and Mozart both used the ideas in their heads to affect the world in an undeniably positive way.
to be honest
all this religious debating between most people is pointless in the long run.
like that guy in that video said “religion was put into the lowest most unruly area of the world” you should pay attention to the fact he’s speaking on behalf of the fight against and between the rulers of each religion. people misinterpret what they read and think and feel EVERYDAY. maybe what people should realise is in your world you should make your own religion, make your own system of beliefs, for yourself. you should choose if you’re happy where you are, adjust to your family that are close related or not. you need to adapt to your environment, be a good person, if you’re an ass then yeah that energy spreads ***realize it! ***this is why religion has been needed in the past, because knowledge was hard to find and understanding eachother and maintaining that focus was unruly
Now speaking of religion and wars on a grand scale; the problem with that is the lack of standardization by implementation of anthropological studies in schools, the lack of increased standardization by focused implementation of sciences (biology*) and the lack of focus on the importance on rhythmical/musical studies in schools
a quote that has been said before “politics are the shadow of big business”
you’re all ruled by a flawed and selfish hierarchy. this is the reason why most of you make pointless debates that lead nowhere because they stem from an elusive core.
“You’re all”? And where do you leave, oh dear Sage?
Eh…ooooh…fuck. Why can you guys leave the word culture and anthropologists out of all discussions? Because then I have to reply and that takes a while. This one is good one so I can more or less give examples on it.
For the most part though, like all things in anthropology its a huge: IT DEPENDS or it is complicated. Some groups of people do live according to details from their origin story and others kinda don’t give a fuck. The important part to understand about this is that with those people that don’t, origin stories are as much religious as they are historical. If you want a long drawn out posts just quote the thread and ask for it. if It’s sincere I’ll reply if not I’ll leave you all dumb.
Seriously niggas, the first movie was so shitty that it straight out got tired for the Greek gods and threw in some shit from Arabian Nights in the form of Djinni.
people would still kill each other if there was no religion, they would start killing each other over who has the better science. I can see it now, “My science ideas are better.” “No mine are!” BAM BAM BAM, guns go off and everyone dies the end
I’m one of those crazy protesters that like to point the finger
Christian: “Satan is a fallen angel!”
Muslim: “Satan is a djinni!”
SLASH, SLASH! BAM! BAM! BOOM!
Yeah… that went well. 
I don’t know man, Jesus looked pretty haggard, the Dalai Lama and Buddha (previously rich) weren’t exactly bringin’ in the bucks either.