Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


What do you think about the Revelation?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
472 replies to this topic

#101 Yann L   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1794

Posted 20 July 2011 - 11:20 PM

Belief is a binary variable, with true being "I believe" and false being "I disbelieve" or equivalently "I don't believe." It's not a choice between believe, don't believe, and don't care.

It's a choice between "I believe", "I don't believe" and "The question does not apply / cannot be answered due to lack of information". If you want it mathematical terms, the variable is undefined.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to you to semantically shift the word "atheist" for your own purposes (which I can only imagine are centered around the perhaps unconscious typical reluctance to call one's self an atheist),

You know, I live in a culture where religious people are a minority and where religion has no relevance in everyday life. There is no "typical reluctance" here, since non-religiosity (according to whatever terminology) is the norm.

You seem to be a fundamentalist atheist. While I generally agree more with the atheist worldview than with the theist one, fundamentalism is never a good thing.

In other words, you are taking this waaaaay to seriously.

Anyway, there is nothing good that can come out of this thread, so I'm out of here. I'd be tempted to close it, but since I participated I'll leave that decision to another mod.

Sponsor:

#102 Roots   Members   -  Reputation: 657

Posted 20 July 2011 - 11:25 PM


You call yourself agnostic because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "atheist."

I think you might be misunderstanding the term or maybe interpreting it in a different cultural context.

Theism implies belief in a god, atheism implies disbelief in a god. Most non-religious people here in North-Western Europe (Aardvajk is from the UK) are neither. We're just simply agnostics. We don't know if there is a god or not. Both possibilities are equally probable or improbable. The theism vs atheism axis is not really relevant. The relevant axis is the gnostic vs agnostic, and we are on the latter side - there is no possible way of knowing.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic (or apathetic agnostic as Wikipedia calls it). I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't have enough information to either believe or disbelieve in a god. I will never know (at least not during my lifetime) and as such I really don't care either way.


I disagree with your definition of atheism. Theism is a claim in a divine being of supernatural power/origin. Atheism simply means "not theism", or a rejection of the claim(s) of theism. It does not mean you know there is no god or gods, or reject the possibility that there may exist a god or gods. Others have (often mistakenly) given the word atheist to mean things that is done not, such as one who worships Satan, or one who denies the existence of a god. Theism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive, as one deals with belief and the other deals with knowledge. So you can be an "agnostic atheist", which is what I consider myself. You could also have an "agnostic theist" which is one who believes in a god, but doesn't claim to know that there is one. And likewise you could have a "gnostic atheist" and a "gnostic theist".

So when you say "I'm not an atheist", I honestly think you're wrong considering everything else you describe about your lack of belief. I'd classify you as an agnostic atheist, the same as myself. Whether you choose to use the word "atheist" or "agnostic" to describe yourself is entirely up to you though. I used to call myself agnostic because I mistakenly thought that an atheist was one who asserted that there was no god, but once I learned what the term actually meant (a rejection of the claim of theism) I found that label to be acceptable and better described my views, so I began using it.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic (or apathetic agnostic as Wikipedia calls it). I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't have enough information to either believe or disbelieve in a god. I will never know (at least not during my lifetime) and as such I really don't care either way.


You don't have to "have enough information" to reject a claim. The default position in this argument is the atheist position. The theist is trying to assert the claim "there is a god". The atheist is not asserting any claim. The burden of proof lies entirely on the person making the claim, not the person rejecting it (apologists often try to place the burden of proof on the unbeliever). However if you begin going around asserting "I know there is no god", then now the burden of proof rightly falls upon you, as you are now making a claim which needs to be backed by evidence and reasoned logic.

As a quick example to illustrate what I said above, lets say I make the following claim: "A city of mermaids called Miir exists deep within the ocean, beyond the depth that humans are able to explore". We'll call people who believe this claim to be "Miirs" and everyone else to be "Amiirs". By default, your position is that of an Amiir, because you can't believe in something that you've never heard about before. After hearing my claim I ask you "Do you believe this to be true?". If you find the claim credible and believe it, you become a Miir. If, however, your answer is anything but yes, then you remain Amiir. It doesn't matter if your answer is "maybe" or "I need evidence to confirm" or "you're spouting some serious BS". All of the people giving those types of responses are Amiir.

Does that make sense? So saying "I don't have enough evidence to believe that there is no god" does not make sense, because no one is (or at least, should be) asking you to prove that something does not exist. How could you even prove that something does not exist (especially something as nebulous as a supernatural deity)?



Okay I probably rambled on about that longer than I should, but I hope that clears up any misconceptions about labeling yourself an atheist, agnostic, theist, or whatever. Finally, this video is one of the best explanations I've ever come across that explains the use of logic, reasoning, and faith when it comes to evaluating claims. I highly recommend that everyone check it out, regardless of your position.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5wV_REEdvxo
Hero of Allacrost --- http://www.allacrost.org
A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.

Latest release Oct. 10th, 2010.

#103 A Brain in a Vat   Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 20 July 2011 - 11:38 PM

It's a choice between "I believe", "I don't believe" and "The question does not apply / cannot be answered due to lack of information". If you want it mathematical terms, the variable is undefined.

Like I said, this is a bastardization of the meaning of the words.

You know, I live in a culture where religious people are a minority and where religion has no relevance in everyday life. There is no "typical reluctance" here, since non-religiosity (according to whatever terminology) is the norm.

You seem to be a fundamentalist atheist. While I generally agree more with the atheist worldview than with the theist one, fundamentalism is never a good thing.

In other words, you are taking this waaaaay to seriously.

I said "typical reluctance to being called an atheist", not "typical reluctance to being non-religious." You're altering my arguments simply to disagree with me. Admittedly, I don't know where you live, so I don't know whether the reluctance to being called an atheist is typical where you live, but you are at least one person who is reluctant.

Fundamentalism is never a good thing? Is that really your position? So being fundamentally opposed to slavery, as I am, is not a good thing? Or being fundamentally opposed to sexism, or racism, as I am, is not a good thing? Being fundamentally opposed to war is not a good thing? I'm fundamentally opposed to lots of things which I believe have a corrupting influence on society or humanity at large.

You think I'm taking this way too seriously, and I think that the apathy you again rally for is a sad trait.

#104 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2130

Posted 21 July 2011 - 12:56 AM

You think I'm taking this way too seriously, and I think that the apathy you again rally for is a sad trait.


You do need to chill out and not take things so seriously.

It's not atheism I'm against(I used to be one), and I certainly don't believe you are going 'to hell', but your condenceding tone is a bit irritating. You don't know everything, and you certainly don't know if there is actually a Creator or not. You certainly know too little and been on this planet for too short to say that religion is corrupting human societies. Yes, religions do have stupid things in them, and yes they do dispicable crimes, but so is every man-made system, and religion is man-made. Some atheists just seem to have a superiority complex, and claim everything that has to do with faith in God is a-priori stupid. It's not like that, and verbally ridiculing another man's beliefs doesn't get you anywhere. For practical matters, if you're up against, say, the Pope and his crime of telling people not to use condoms, I will be the first in line to join you, but not with that attitude. In short: You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different. Don't forget that.

#105 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 597

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:08 AM

You don't know everything, and you certainly don't know if there is actually a Creator or not.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.

In short: You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different. Don't forget that.


You say as if believing and not believing in god were equally valid positions, when they aren't.
However, I can agree that a person who believes in Flying Spaghetti Monster is the same as believing in Christian God, he just chose differently.

#106 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2130

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:16 AM

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.


There is. The physical world exists and has order. Therefore someone made it. YMMV.

You say as if believing and not believing in god were equally valid positions, when they aren't.


They are.

I'll leave the garbage about FSM unanswered.

#107 A Brain in a Vat   Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:55 AM

It's not atheism I'm against(I used to be one), and I certainly don't believe you are going 'to hell', but your condenceding tone is a bit irritating. You don't know everything, and you certainly don't know if there is actually a Creator or not. You certainly know too little and been on this planet for too short to say that religion is corrupting human societies. Yes, religions do have stupid things in them, and yes they do dispicable crimes, but so is every man-made system, and religion is man-made. Some atheists just seem to have a superiority complex, and claim everything that has to do with faith in God is a-priori stupid. It's not like that, and verbally ridiculing another man's beliefs doesn't get you anywhere. For practical matters, if you're up against, say, the Pope and his crime of telling people not to use condoms, I will be the first in line to join you, but not with that attitude. In short: You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different. Don't forget that.

I'm a person with an opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you're welcome to not ask me about it and not participate in a discussion with me.

You say it's not the case that faith in God is a priori stupid, and I disagree. It's not simply religion I think is stupid, I just dislike ignorance. I think that people who think the Earth is flat in this modern age are stupid. Apparently you'd have me say I respectfully disagree? You'd join me in thinking the Pope's ban of contraceptives is stupid but not in saying so? Do you tip-toe around everyone's feelings at all times?

What you call verbally ridiculing I call giving my opinion. It's not personal. The fact that billions of people think something doesn't disqualify it from being thought of as stupid. Surely there are lots of Christians who think my atheism is stupid, and I don't begrudge them that. I wouldn't cry to them to be nicer to me -- if I felt like arguing a point with them (and if I felt like they were capable of taking part in a rational argument), I might, otherwise I'd let them think whatever they wanted. If I saw a Christian in the street I wouldn't go up to him and start criticizing his beliefs, but if I'm asked my opinion you can be damn sure I'll tell it the way I see it. If he overhears me telling someone else that his beliefs are stupid, I'll invite him to kindly mind his own business. If he calls me stupid, I'll chuckle at the irony.

Why are you so insecure that you can't tolerate my opinion that your beliefs are stupid? I can tolerate your opinion that mine are.

You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different

I disagree, and so does study after study. It's a nice, inclusive opinion -- that everyone is just as smart as everyone else and every worldview is equally valid. It sadly happens to be naive. I see the ignorance in your worldview just as you see the ignorance in the Pope's.

#108 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2096

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:36 AM


The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.


There is. The physical world exists and has order. Therefore someone made it. YMMV.


I don't even know where to start with how wrong that is. The fact that something exists is no way proof that anyone "made" it, at least not in the intelligent design sense. I'm willing to buy the deist concept of "god" as the laws of physics, but nothing we've seen has provided any proof of a "personal god", whereas we have a smorgasbord of evidence for self-organising systems.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#109 Roots   Members   -  Reputation: 657

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:41 AM


The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.


There is. The physical world exists and has order. Therefore someone made it. YMMV.

You say as if believing and not believing in god were equally valid positions, when they aren't.


They are.

I'll leave the garbage about FSM unanswered.


Sorry mikeman, but you are wrong on both accounts and rozz666 already told you why. If your response is simply "no you're wrong" and you can not demonstrate that you are correct with the support of substantial evidence and reasoned logic, then you don't even have an argument to put forth, but merely a baseless assertion of an unverifiable claim. And therefore no one here should take you seriously until you provide a good defense of your position.



That a physical world exists says nothing but that: it exists. It says nothing about how it got here. There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of different creation stories told by various cultures throughout human civilization and there's nothing that makes any one of them more "special" or more true than the others. Also stating that "since X exists, therefore something must have created it" is an argument from ignorance, not to mention the futility of such logic. If everything that exists has a creator, then you're cursed into falling into an infinite regress. And most people try to get around this flaw by inserting a different flaw into their argument, by saying that their creator had no creator because it existed "outside of space and time" or that it "always existed". Such an argument is a case of special pleading, yet another logical fallacy.

As Carl Sagan once said:

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]


Hero of Allacrost --- http://www.allacrost.org
A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.

Latest release Oct. 10th, 2010.

#110 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 597

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:42 AM

There is. The physical world exists and has order. Therefore someone made it. YMMV.

How would a world without order look like?
How existence requires creation?


You say as if believing and not believing in god were equally valid positions, when they aren't.

They are.

If you think so, then why is believing in FSM not equaly valid?

I'll leave the garbage about FSM unanswered.

Why?

#111 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2130

Posted 21 July 2011 - 03:40 AM


I'll leave the garbage about FSM unanswered.

Why?


Because the existence of a Creator or not is the attempt to answer who, or what, made the physical universe the way it is. FSM is what? What question does it try to answer? It is stated by several scientists(not necesarily the majority) if some(I think 6) basic constants of physics didn't have the values they do, life would not emerge. See fine-tuned universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe. It's not hard to imagine; there are countless planets but only on Earth, as far as we know, life exists, because it just happens to have the right conditions. Taking that into cosmological state, why does it happen that the universe has those specific laws and right conditions that allow the emergence of life?

Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing but a strawman argument. I'm not claiming that I believe in the existance of anything with a definitive shape or form, be it a bearded man in the clouds, or a king sitting on a high throne, or a 6-legged centaurus throwing thunders. I believe someone created the Universe and its Laws, space, time and energy. I don't know its form, so if you want to state that the Creator likes to take the form of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have no problem with that. It's just as arbitrary as a gentle bearded man in the sky. I am only interested in what made the universe come into being, not what pictures we use to depict it.

#112 Aardvajk   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5251

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:05 AM

I apologise if my ignorance has caused me to use incorrect terms. For me, knowledge and belief are the same thing. If I believe something, it is because I know it to be true. I call myself an agnostic because I neither know or believe the existence or non-existence of God.

But I am a programmer, not a theologian so I accept my use of terms may well be incorrect. I'm quite happy to accept A Brain in a Vat's point.

So, if not an atheist, what is the term for someone who positively holds the belief that there is no God? I must have dozed off during RE at school.

#113 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2130

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:08 AM

I disagree, and so does study after study.


Site your sources, please? Note that I'm a firm believer that IQ doesn't tell you anything more than your score on a fraking test designed based on several assumptions. But for the sake of argument, let's see the study and review it, per scientific method. Also, since I'm skeptic about everything, even in the Bible, I did a bit of digging around. Let us hear the professor Helmuth Nyborg himself that did the research(in which, btw, Anglicans scored higher than both atheists and agnostics!). From this article: http://www.guardian....gion-iq-atheism

The study begins with two sets of a priori assumptions. First, [intelligent] people have a brain based biological capacity for solving complex problems, and for acting rationally when confronted with fundamental questions about existence, human nature, underlying causes, or the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". Second, [unintelligent] people lack this protection and are therefore unfairly ordained to live in a pre-rational world based on poorly validated evidence and little accumulated insight. They accordingly often find themselves in cognitively, emotionally, or morally challenging situations and have to use plan B, that is, to call upon easily comprehensible religious authoritative guidance and to submit more or less uncritically to culturally given stereotyped rituals. Frustration with their life may also make them seek redemption or faith in an after life.High-IQ people are able to curb magical, supernatural thinking and tend to deal with the uncertainties of life on a rational-critical-empirical basis, and to become prosperous servants of society, whereas low-IQ people easily become trapped in religious magical thinking, in addition to achieving, earning and serving less well.


Those are not results derived from the study, they are a priori assumptions! Nice! Woe, uneducated, stupid, religious and poor! But wait it gets more interesting:

The ultimate causal level presumes that geographically separated peoples were subjected to different evolutionary pressures over extended time-periods. Those living under the hardest of evolutionary pressures, in cold or arctic areas, were gradually and over many generations selected for enhanced g (for details of the Climate Theory, see Lynn, 2006; Rushton, 2000). They had to replace ancient pre-rational supernatural beliefs with more effective rational approaches in order to survive under the harsh conditions given. People living in warm or tropical areas enjoyed in general more relaxed selective conditions, and low g individuals were not severely punished, as their survival was not seriously compromised by uncritical reference to ancient supernatural thinking, irrational beliefs in souls, invisible worlds, Gods, forces, angels, devils, hell, or holy spirits. A contemporary belief that supernatural forces control behavior, feelings and thinking is accordingly seen as a reminiscence of pre-historic animism and magical thinking.


Nyborg has also published papers on the difference on IQ between male and female, which he found to be on average about 8 points.

For further reading, please check out some of the work of Nyborg's associate in those studies,Richard Lynn, having to do with race differences in intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia....in_Intelligence

#114 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6651

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:25 AM

Because the existence of a Creator or not is the attempt to answer who, or what, made the physical universe the way it is. FSM is what? What question does it try to answer? It is stated by several scientists(not necesarily the majority) if some(I think 6) basic constants of physics didn't have the values they do, life would not emerge. See fine-tuned universe: http://en.wikipedia....-tuned_Universe. It's not hard to imagine; there are countless planets but only on Earth, as far as we know, life exists, because it just happens to have the right conditions. Taking that into cosmological state, why does it happen that the universe has those specific laws and right conditions that allow the emergence of life?


The problem is it doesn't attempt to answer anything; by invoking a creator you attempt to side step the issue by saying 'god did it, don't ask why or how because we can't understand him'. This is not an explaination, it is just hand waving and at that hand waving which then brings up the quesiton of 'ok, so how did a creator come into existance?' which is answered by yet more hand waving ('always existed', 'oh, exists outside space-time') and a side stepping of the issue again.

This is not explaining; this is fairy tales.

It would be much like if, when asked by a child, what makes the thunder and lightning during a storm you answered with 'god does it'. That is not an explaination. Now, at one point when humans didn't understand the processes involved it was considered an explaination, but these days if you tried to pass off that kind of thinking to a child then anyone over hearing it would react with horror at worst, distain at best, and the child in question would later suffer when in school he brought up such a thing and would promptly be laughted at by any child who knows the real reason.

During the 'early days' of humanities existance this would be a reoccuring pattern; encounter unknown thing, ascribe it to a 'god' or 'demon', cower in fear until technology allows us to understand it.

At one point planets and stars we consisdered gods and heroes; we know better. At one point illness was ascribed to the work of the devil or demons; we know better. At one point the earth was considered to be the centre of the universe; we now know that it exists in an ultimately unremarkable location.

And every time technology answers one question religion moves the goal posts or moves on to the next big question. The existance of the universe and ascribing it to a creator is nothing more than this; something which, when the concept of a creator was invented, was beyond our ability to understand and thus ascribed to a bigger more powerful being.

Fortunately, like every other thing religion 'explained' before, there are people there are people working to understand the REAL why rather than answering it with hand waving and mumblings about an 'all powerful' being. Without those people, those willing to question, well if we still existed at all then we'd probably still be living in caves, scared of fire and wondering why the demons have seen fit to make our arms go this smell green colour...

As for 'the tuned universe' theory... well, it is just that 'a theory', a thought experiment and one which meshes nicely still with the idea that this isn't the only universe to ever have existed. I only skimmed the article as I'm at work but I've some passing familuarity with it; it only looks like something set the universe up correctly if you consider that either a) this is the only unverise to have existed and/or b) that the universe was 'created' for humans to adapt to in our current state.

Consideration (a) doesn't hold if you consider a reality where by this is one of a series of universes to have happened one after each other. In which case feedback from one to the other got to the point where the 'constants' allows for us to evolve into. (This might also explain the lack of uniformity in the CMB of the universe; if one is seeding another there is a chance this feedback would result in a

Consideration (b) ignores the realities of evolution and how life would come about. If the physical constants were different then life would be different or not exist; the former allows for the questioning of the state of the universe and the latter naturally unquestionining.

The idea that there are 'countless planets but only one earth' is an egotistical take on human existance. As already noted there is nothing 'special' about the place of our solar system in the universe and given how mind bogglingly big the galaxy is, never mind the universe, it is more than likely that there are other life carrying planets out there. We haven't detected them yet simply because our technology isn't good enough yet (but its getting better with every passing year), however at the same time we have found evidence which points to the idea that simple life could have existed on Mars in the distant past and we've also discovered organic carbon inside metorites carried to earth.

The fact we haven't detected life yet does not disprove it's existance; much like not knowing that bacteria existed didn't stop them from doing so and making us sick.

I very much doubt you'd find a scientist alive who would say 'we know all the answers!'; science is a constant quest to find out more after all. However, at the same time, just because we don't have the answers now doesn't magic the hand waving any more 'right' either.

#115 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:33 AM

On a different subject, it's ridiculous that you people are arguing about the correlation between IQ and religion by using anecdotal evidence.

Then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up. Posted Image



And yet there are a bunch of people with IQs high enough to qualify for Mensa (myself included) that are Christians. Imagine that. Posted Image

Is this a joke? If you actually had an IQ as high as you claim I think the chances are pretty high that you'd realize how stupid it is to imply that your anecdotal evidence has any bearing on the subject. It doesn't matter if you know the smartest person in the world and she happens to be a Christian. It's irrelevant. I guess high IQs don't make up for ignorance of basic statistics.


And I think it's ridiculous that you even brought it up in the first place. It has no bearing on the subject. You could have just ignored the post you replied to since it had already been stated that discussions like this are allowed in and the purposed of the Lounge. Instead of posting the person back to the post that stated this you chose to offer up irrelevant information that had no bearing on the issue and, given the fact that probably the majority here do not fit the group you mentioned, seemed like a sad trolling attempt.


Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

#116 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2130

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:34 AM

...stuff...


I don't claim that I have "answered" the problem of existence, I merely believe, personally, in a Creator. That is all. Other than that, I acknolwedge that the only correct, scientific answer to "how the universe came into being" is "we don't know". There is a fine difference here, but it exists, between what I scientifically know, and what I believe. Just like you believe(and I, too) that it's "more than likely" that life exists in other planets, despite that we never have detected life on another planet. Or about the many-universes theory, something it is likely we will never answer either. In many cases, you just use common sense and intuition to fill the gaps. It's inevitable. In any case, you just can't rule out the possibility of a Creator. There's nothing 'irrational' about it, if nothing else, that creator is the very embodiment of the Rational Mind.

#117 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:41 AM

Finally, this video is one of the best explanations I've ever come across that explains the use of logic, reasoning, and faith when it comes to evaluating claims. I highly recommend that everyone check it out, regardless of your position.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5wV_REEdvxo

And, just like most, the person who made the video has flawed logic in that he isolates specific qualities of God to try to prove his point that, when taken by themselves, seem contradictory. It's kind of ironic. Posted Image
Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

#118 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:56 AM

Because people use it as an excuse to tell others what they should do (condoms, abortion, gay marriage).
Because it has held back the advancement of the human race for millennia (Galileo, evolution, stem cell research).
Because there have been countless, needless deaths over it (the crusades, the holocaust, 9/11).

These things are not isolated to religion. People do stupid things for any number of reasons, or even no reason at all (insanity?).
Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

#119 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2130

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:58 AM

Also, the holocaust happened because of religious issues? Well, if you count National Socialism as a religion I suppose, but still...

I'd even argue that things like the Crusades are just business as usual and happened for the usual reasons - political and economical, and religion just gave to soldiers something to shout when in battle, but we'll get way off topic...

#120 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 21 July 2011 - 06:01 AM

So, if not an atheist, what is the term for someone who positively holds the belief that there is no God?

Depends on who you ask, as we've already seen in this thread. Posted Image

Most dictionaries seem to use this as the definition for "atheist".
Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS