Religion

[Glacier]

You sayin ise a bad apple? Huh?

Nope, anyone that buys me beer can't be a bad apple ... I was just that you're musta run into a few in your day.

[zzontar]

The athiests that I know don't give a damn what you believe as long as you don't be preachin on their doorsteps.

Isn't that like saying you don't care what political party someone believes in, and then you go to political threads to cut down someone's political belief?

[I Think]

Not at all, if you are promoting christerhood, I can leave, ask you to leave, or just ignore you.
If you are promoting harperhood (for example only) your vote or the votes of those you influence can change the nature of the region or country, vis a vis laws and regulations.

[zzontar]

My point was that there are atheists who say they don't care what religion someone is, yet will troll religious threads and cut down any religious belief... makes no sense to me.

[JLives]

Are only believers supposed to discuss religion? The non-believer's lives are still affected by religion.

[zzontar]

Are only believers supposed to discuss religion? The non-believer's lives are still affected by religion.

The atheists who you're referring to obviously care whether someone is religious or not.

[hellomynameis]

Are only believers supposed to discuss religion? The non-believer's lives are still affected by religion.

The atheists who you're referring to obviously care whether someone is religious or not.

Huh? Just because someone finds fault with your position and goes out of their way to debate you on it does not mean that they want to change your opinion, they may simply enjoy a good debate . ESPECIALLY on an online forum.

I, for one, have never gone into a debate about religion, politics, abortion, evolution, education or any other topic with the intent to change peoples minds. I've mainly done it to present more information or a new slant on it, also, its fun and intellectually healthy to exchange ideas and view points.

At least that's how I go about it, 'Steel sharpens steel' or something like that.

[NAB]

In another thread, nibs wrote: "The folks who are so certain that global warming is not happening, should take an honest moment and ask themselves - what if I am wrong?."

I guess similar could be said here?

[Mr Danksworth]

What if I'm wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

[I Think]

I think the idea of a god or gods is a fantasy, show me evidence, and I will re-consider my opinion, show me proof and I will change my opinion.

[NAB]

I think the idea of a god or gods is a fantasy, show me evidence, and I will re-consider my opinion, show me proof and I will change my opinion.

..put another way, I think the idea of a God or Gods is NOT a fantasy, show me evidence, and I will reconsider my opinion, show me proof and I will change my opinion.

Not that I have a personal opinion one way or the other anyway. I would have to be somewhat crazy to make a definite assertion either way. Lack of evidence is no evidence of anything even though some like to think it does, ....but absolute proof on the other hand.....

...same old circuitous arguments that will never be resolved. "Show me proof that God/Gods exist(ed)"... "no, you show me proof they didn't/don't". ...'round and round it goes among those who have nothing better to do but enjoy chasing their own tail.

[I Think]

In order to postulate the existence of something, you need evidence.
In order to postulate that there is not existence, you need to prove nothing.

[Mr Danksworth]

It's such a basic concept. How many times do we have to go over the burden of proof protocols?

[NAB]

To postulate is merely a starting point and can never be an end point unto itself, and is often done without evidence - taking something for granted without proof, (unless it is based on something that is 100% self evident). And that's exactly what people who play on this silly religious/anti-religious merry-go-round do. Since the solution to this argument is not self evident, there is still an onus on both sides to provide absolute proof of their position should they decide to postulate - which will never happen. In other words, why even postulate if you don't have the intention (or ability) to carry through to proof?

But it seems one side is happiest based on faith without proof, while the other is happiest not being able to produce either. They live, and they die, without hope for anything afterward but the reputation (if any) they leave behind, which in most cases is nil, just a small quantity of ashes sprinkled over some field or water - soon to be forgotten.

Oh well....... Each gets to choose your own poison in life. I choose to not worry about it either way, since I know what the worst (or best depending on your perspective) outcome can be. But I do like to live in a way that my bets are hedged, just in case. So in no way would I ever buy in to the atheist approach, at least (and particularly) the type of atheist who feels it his/her life calling to tear down other's beliefs and resulting happiness at every opportunity, .....because they are just the ugliest of the negative ugliest IMO, and worthy of nothing but scorn.

[Mr Danksworth]

I choose to not worry about it either way, since I know what the worst (or best depending on your perspective) outcome can be. But I do like to live in a way that my bets are hedged, just in case.

So you choose to remain neutral, but err on the side of belief because there might be a place of bliss or torment when you die. Belief is an insurance policy, if nothing happens when you die, you have lost nothing, but it's the other instance, you have everything to win or lose. It's called Pascal's Wager, it's been done to death. You best get converting to some other religions too...just to 'hedge your bets'.