Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[sirineou]

Boy, you all need some antidepressants ,

"You cant ask them if they want to be born, because they are not born yet, Don't you think it would be some what to arrogant for you to decide their right to exist?

In the first quote do you or do you not lay responsibility on Gods feet?

On the second quote, do you or do you not say

"I feel personally" from that statement should not then discern that what you state is your personal feeling?

Did you or did you not say " to pure hell on earth in some cases" and isn't this the earth you live in?

Fro the last quote ,shouldn't I assume from it. that some times you wish you were never born?

First, thank you for reading what I wrote, and I do feel strongly about this particular subject, the right of one to make the decision for another, whether or not he or she should be committed to living on earth for up to 100 years, a very long time.

Regarding what you quoted, I do not say that there is a god, but IF there is no god then we still cannot in all good conscience take responsibility to decide for another that he or she will be forced to live life in this world. This is why I have never made such a decision, and why I could not feel right about deciding to have children. What could I say to my children if they decided that life was not as good as I had always thought it to be? I would have nothing to justify my decision to have children.

If there is a god, and if one sincerely believes in this god, then one can follow the teachings of a god, and then avoid taking responsibility for having children. If the god asked that man go forth and procreate, for example, then that is what must be done. If the crappola hit the fan, if the child was hit by cancer, and had downs syndrome, and also had hydroencephalitis when abortion therapy was forbidden, then no one could lay this responsibility and man's feet. God did it.

We all are at risk of being condemned to live a hell on earth, witness Buchenwald or piles of skulls in Cambodia, or the lifeless limbs of of Stephen Hawking. When something like this happens to our children, then we better be able to say one of two things, god made me do it, or I was thoughtless and did not fully understand the potential ramifications of my actions in the sack.

If you like risk, then you will love this life.

I do not enjoy risk for risk's sake,

But some others enjoy dying on Everest while their family waits at home.

I may argue two sides of the issue, yes, but that is because this subject is not that easily answered, whether or not we even have the right to have children.

I believe that we do not have that right.

And in traditional societies, most people would say that they have an obligation to have children to work on the farm, and to care for their parents, and to pass on the family name, maybe even to provide people to fight wars.

There, too, is always the motherland, say in the former USSR, which needs children for various things.

Just as Mao needed children to build levies by digging with spoons, if required,

Another apocryphal tale, and Mao or Zhou never said that.

This is a very important thing to get straight:

Do we have the right to father a child, or bear a child into this world?

And often ones hell on earth is not brought about by any personal decision or lack of decision, or lack of fortitude, or depravity.

It just happens, because life is risk.

(Am I a native speaker of English?, you ask. Yes, sometimes I wonder myself. You decide.)

First let me say that it is good that you are thinking about this things

Of course we have the right to have children

This is empirical, it is our purpose

it is the only right that exists,

everything else derives it's self from that right, or purpose

You cant ask them if they want to be born, because they are not born yet, Don't you think it would be some what to arrogant for you to decide their right to exist?

Should you not let them make that choice them selves?

The question has being asked

What came first? the egg or the chicken?

The answer is obvious

The egg, the chicken is simply the egg's idea of making an other egg

and that;s all you are my friend, and egg trying to make an other egg

Any egg that abandons that simple proposition is simply an ex-egg

or what some might say egg drop soup alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

Should you not let them make that choice them selves?"

So what you are suggesting is that everyone has a child or two and then when those children realise that it isn't worth it, they commit suicide?

Not every one has to procreate, in fact after seeing some of them and reading some of these post replies, I highly recommend that they don.t alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

But some of as have to

What do you suggest?

we end the human specie thru attrition, because some of us are not having a good time here?

Any way , this thread is About religion and If you believe or not

I said all I want to say on the subject of procreation .

Personally I am all for it. I have contributed a beautiful, and smart daughter ,

and in case I want to contribute more, I practice with my wife every chance I get alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

You also said that "we have the right to have children" -- so your recommendation does not mean anything.

Also, as I understand, this thread was about god (not religion) and if you believe in it or not.

For the record, I don't believe in god and I don't think it should be a right to have children. I am happy for you that your have contributed a beautiful and smart daughter, but I would still like to hear from her what she thinks.

You obviously did not understand what I said

I said that it is our purpose to have children, every thing else is derivative of that purpose

did you read the comment about the egg and the chicken?

But not all of us

In fact I said that some of you clearly ,should not procreate, Please!!

I am sorry you might think that things look so bad we should not have children,

But if you all looked like me you all might have a different opinion

[itsrebel]

Boy, you all need some antidepressants ,

"You cant ask them if they want to be born, because they are not born yet, Don't you think it would be some what to arrogant for you to decide their right to exist?

In the first quote do you or do you not lay responsibility on Gods feet?

On the second quote, do you or do you not say

"I feel personally" from that statement should not then discern that what you state is your personal feeling?

Did you or did you not say " to pure hell on earth in some cases" and isn't this the earth you live in?

Fro the last quote ,shouldn't I assume from it. that some times you wish you were never born?

First, thank you for reading what I wrote, and I do feel strongly about this particular subject, the right of one to make the decision for another, whether or not he or she should be committed to living on earth for up to 100 years, a very long time.

Regarding what you quoted, I do not say that there is a god, but IF there is no god then we still cannot in all good conscience take responsibility to decide for another that he or she will be forced to live life in this world. This is why I have never made such a decision, and why I could not feel right about deciding to have children. What could I say to my children if they decided that life was not as good as I had always thought it to be? I would have nothing to justify my decision to have children.

If there is a god, and if one sincerely believes in this god, then one can follow the teachings of a god, and then avoid taking responsibility for having children. If the god asked that man go forth and procreate, for example, then that is what must be done. If the crappola hit the fan, if the child was hit by cancer, and had downs syndrome, and also had hydroencephalitis when abortion therapy was forbidden, then no one could lay this responsibility and man's feet. God did it.

We all are at risk of being condemned to live a hell on earth, witness Buchenwald or piles of skulls in Cambodia, or the lifeless limbs of of Stephen Hawking. When something like this happens to our children, then we better be able to say one of two things, god made me do it, or I was thoughtless and did not fully understand the potential ramifications of my actions in the sack.

If you like risk, then you will love this life.

I do not enjoy risk for risk's sake,

But some others enjoy dying on Everest while their family waits at home.

I may argue two sides of the issue, yes, but that is because this subject is not that easily answered, whether or not we even have the right to have children.

I believe that we do not have that right.

And in traditional societies, most people would say that they have an obligation to have children to work on the farm, and to care for their parents, and to pass on the family name, maybe even to provide people to fight wars.

There, too, is always the motherland, say in the former USSR, which needs children for various things.

Just as Mao needed children to build levies by digging with spoons, if required,

Another apocryphal tale, and Mao or Zhou never said that.

This is a very important thing to get straight:

Do we have the right to father a child, or bear a child into this world?

And often ones hell on earth is not brought about by any personal decision or lack of decision, or lack of fortitude, or depravity.

It just happens, because life is risk.

(Am I a native speaker of English?, you ask. Yes, sometimes I wonder myself. You decide.)

First let me say that it is good that you are thinking about this things

Of course we have the right to have children

This is empirical, it is our purpose

it is the only right that exists,

everything else derives it's self from that right, or purpose

You cant ask them if they want to be born, because they are not born yet, Don't you think it would be some what to arrogant for you to decide their right to exist?

Should you not let them make that choice them selves?

The question has being asked

What came first? the egg or the chicken?

The answer is obvious

The egg, the chicken is simply the egg's idea of making an other egg

and that;s all you are my friend, and egg trying to make an other egg

Any egg that abandons that simple proposition is simply an ex-egg

or what some might say egg drop soup alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

Should you not let them make that choice them selves?"

So what you are suggesting is that everyone has a child or two and then when those children realise that it isn't worth it, they commit suicide?

Not every one has to procreate, in fact after seeing some of them and reading some of these post replies, I highly recommend that they don.t alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

But some of as have to

What do you suggest?

we end the human specie thru attrition, because some of us are not having a good time here?

Any way , this thread is About religion and If you believe or not

I said all I want to say on the subject of procreation .

Personally I am all for it. I have contributed a beautiful, and smart daughter ,

and in case I want to contribute more, I practice with my wife every chance I get alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

You also said that "we have the right to have children" -- so your recommendation does not mean anything.

Also, as I understand, this thread was about god (not religion) and if you believe in it or not.

For the record, I don't believe in god and I don't think it should be a right to have children. I am happy for you that your have contributed a beautiful and smart daughter, but I would still like to hear from her what she thinks.

You obviously did not understand what I said

I said that it is our purpose to have children, every thing else is derivative of that purpose

did you read the comment about the egg and the chicken?

But not all of us

In fact I said that some of you clearly ,should not procreate, Please!!

I am sorry you might think that things look so bad we should not have children,

But if you all looked like me you all might have a different opinion alt=tongue.png pagespeed_url_hash=3761137055 width=20 height=20>

No, I understood!

Just one question though. Is it your god or my god who decides whose "purpose" it is to procreate?

Or is it just based on the reflection in the mirror?

[sirineou]

Boy, you all need some antidepressants ,

"You cant ask them if they want to be born, because they are not born yet, Don't you think it would be some what to arrogant for you to decide their right to exist?

In the first quote do you or do you not lay responsibility on Gods feet?

On the second quote, do you or do you not say

"I feel personally" from that statement should not then discern that what you state is your personal feeling?

Did you or did you not say " to pure hell on earth in some cases" and isn't this the earth you live in?

Fro the last quote ,shouldn't I assume from it. that some times you wish you were never born?

First, thank you for reading what I wrote, and I do feel strongly about this particular subject, the right of one to make the decision for another, whether or not he or she should be committed to living on earth for up to 100 years, a very long time.

Regarding what you quoted, I do not say that there is a god, but IF there is no god then we still cannot in all good conscience take responsibility to decide for another that he or she will be forced to live life in this world. This is why I have never made such a decision, and why I could not feel right about deciding to have children. What could I say to my children if they decided that life was not as good as I had always thought it to be? I would have nothing to justify my decision to have children.

If there is a god, and if one sincerely believes in this god, then one can follow the teachings of a god, and then avoid taking responsibility for having children. If the god asked that man go forth and procreate, for example, then that is what must be done. If the crappola hit the fan, if the child was hit by cancer, and had downs syndrome, and also had hydroencephalitis when abortion therapy was forbidden, then no one could lay this responsibility and man's feet. God did it.

We all are at risk of being condemned to live a hell on earth, witness Buchenwald or piles of skulls in Cambodia, or the lifeless limbs of of Stephen Hawking. When something like this happens to our children, then we better be able to say one of two things, god made me do it, or I was thoughtless and did not fully understand the potential ramifications of my actions in the sack.

If you like risk, then you will love this life.

I do not enjoy risk for risk's sake,

But some others enjoy dying on Everest while their family waits at home.

I may argue two sides of the issue, yes, but that is because this subject is not that easily answered, whether or not we even have the right to have children.

I believe that we do not have that right.

And in traditional societies, most people would say that they have an obligation to have children to work on the farm, and to care for their parents, and to pass on the family name, maybe even to provide people to fight wars.

There, too, is always the motherland, say in the former USSR, which needs children for various things.

Just as Mao needed children to build levies by digging with spoons, if required,

Another apocryphal tale, and Mao or Zhou never said that.

This is a very important thing to get straight:

Do we have the right to father a child, or bear a child into this world?

And often ones hell on earth is not brought about by any personal decision or lack of decision, or lack of fortitude, or depravity.

It just happens, because life is risk.

(Am I a native speaker of English?, you ask. Yes, sometimes I wonder myself. You decide.)

First let me say that it is good that you are thinking about this things

Of course we have the right to have children

This is empirical, it is our purpose

it is the only right that exists,

everything else derives it's self from that right, or purpose

You cant ask them if they want to be born, because they are not born yet, Don't you think it would be some what to arrogant for you to decide their right to exist?

Should you not let them make that choice them selves?

The question has being asked

What came first? the egg or the chicken?

The answer is obvious

The egg, the chicken is simply the egg's idea of making an other egg

and that;s all you are my friend, and egg trying to make an other egg

Any egg that abandons that simple proposition is simply an ex-egg

or what some might say egg drop soup alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

Should you not let them make that choice them selves?"

So what you are suggesting is that everyone has a child or two and then when those children realise that it isn't worth it, they commit suicide?

Not every one has to procreate, in fact after seeing some of them and reading some of these post replies, I highly recommend that they don.t alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

But some of as have to

What do you suggest?

we end the human specie thru attrition, because some of us are not having a good time here?

Any way , this thread is About religion and If you believe or not

I said all I want to say on the subject of procreation .

Personally I am all for it. I have contributed a beautiful, and smart daughter ,

and in case I want to contribute more, I practice with my wife every chance I get alt=laugh.png pagespeed_url_hash=4020895376 width=20 height=20>

You also said that "we have the right to have children" -- so your recommendation does not mean anything.

Also, as I understand, this thread was about god (not religion) and if you believe in it or not.

For the record, I don't believe in god and I don't think it should be a right to have children. I am happy for you that your have contributed a beautiful and smart daughter, but I would still like to hear from her what she thinks.

You obviously did not understand what I said

I said that it is our purpose to have children, every thing else is derivative of that purpose

did you read the comment about the egg and the chicken?

But not all of us

In fact I said that some of you clearly ,should not procreate, Please!!

I am sorry you might think that things look so bad we should not have children,

But if you all looked like me you all might have a different opinion alt=tongue.png pagespeed_url_hash=3761137055 width=20 height=20>

No, I understood!

Just one question though. Is it your god or my god who decides whose "purpose" it is to procreate?

Or is it just based on the reflection in the mirror?

No God at all, simply an evolutionary process

as Far as mirrors are concerned,

a good sense of humor is a true indication of intelligence..

[itsrebel]

"No God at all, simply an evolutionary process

as Far as mirrors are concerned,

a good sense of humor is a true indication of intelligence.."

I am guessing sarcasm doesn't count then...

[sirineou]

"No God at all, simply an evolutionary process

as Far as mirrors are concerned,

a good sense of humor is a true indication of intelligence.."

I am guessing sarcasm doesn't count then...

Misplaced sarcasm does not count,

What are you being sarcastic about? Perhaps you misunderstood and was to quick to pull the trigger.

Or perhaps I did not understand you

please explain

Edited January 11, 2014 by sirineou

[danbradster]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

[itsrebel]

"No God at all, simply an evolutionary process

as Far as mirrors are concerned,

a good sense of humor is a true indication of intelligence.."

I am guessing sarcasm doesn't count then...

Misplaced sarcasm does not count,

What are you being sarcastic about? Perhaps you misunderstood and was to quick to pull the trigger.

Or perhaps I did not understand you

please explain

It ain't sarcasm is one has to explain...

may be I wasn't good enough with it, or....

I do have this question for you. Where does your belief (or conclusion) that it is our "purpose to have children" come from?

[sirineou]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

Starting with the possibility that you could be wrong is the only logical position to take

but that proposition is equally applicable to any place in the spectrum of opinions, so to say seven is "ignorant/arrogant " can be as wrong as to say that a three is Ignorant/ arrogant.

But a 7 is supported by a plethora of evidence, where a 4 is only supported by faith so in my opinion the probability that 7 is wrong is lower than a 4

I don't know I'm I making any sense?

[MrGaoMungGawn]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

Starting with the possibility that you could be wrong is the only logical position to take

but that proposition is equally applicable to any place in the spectrum of opinions, so to say seven is "ignorant/arrogant " can be as wrong as to say that a three is Ignorant/ arrogant.

But a 7 is supported by a plethora of evidence, where a 4 is only supported by faith so in my opinion the probability that 7 is wrong is lower than a 4

I don't know I'm I making any sense?

Sense or not,

Let us just be thankful he does not say he is 666 related.

(55555555)

What about the cryin game?

[notmyself]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

Good post.

They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. One could be right but when you look at the whole thing in depth you see that there are as many gods as there are and have been believers.

With you 100% with regard to people being a 7.

[sirineou]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

Good post.

They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. One could be right but when you look at the whole thing in depth you see that there are as many gods as there are and have been believers.

With you 100% with regard to people being a 7.

stop being such a chicken

[notmyself]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

Good post.

They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. One could be right but when you look at the whole thing in depth you see that there are as many gods as there are and have been believers.

With you 100% with regard to people being a 7.

stop being such a chicken

lol

It's a question of being logically coherent along with not being a hypocrite.

Could be time to introduce anti-theism which by one definition is the position of someone not only being atheist (rejection of theistic claims) but being against theism as a proposition for reasons such as lack of credibility of theistic claims or because they consider theistic claims to be damaging to society. Another similar definition is that it is the wishful thinking position in that atheism is a single position on a single issue which is a rejection of theistic claims. It is possible to be an atheist but wish that theistic claims are true so an anti-theist would be someone who is glad that there is no reason to believe that theistic claims are true rather than sad about it. Neither seem to make much sense to me I must say. Nothing wrong with the positions but that the term anti-theist doesn't make sense.

Edited January 11, 2014 by notmyself

[wolf5370]

So there's this place in France called Lourdes where daily hundreds of terminally ill people go to pray for a miracle cure. Has any research been done to show that cure rates are statistically significantly better for Lourdes visitors over non-Lourdes visitors?

Could be evidence of prayer working, although there might be a placebo effect. Anyone know?

Not heard of specific Lourdes research but there have been many many studies done for decades and all point to prayer having no positive effect. I say positive because one study (the biggest I believe) conducted in the early to mid 2000s showed that there is a negative effect if the people who are unwell know they are being prayed for. This study was paid for by the Templeton Foundation who spent millions on it. The results were kept secret (brushed under the carpet) for ages until someone leaked them, soon after the Templeton Foundation released them itself saying that the delay was because the study was so big. No, they were so sure that prayer could be proved to be effective that they spent millions on a study only to show they were wrong so tried to hide it. Reminds me of Thailand.

[Edit] Fellow member Wolf is quite correct, I remember the documentary now it is mentioned.

The only scoffers of prayer are those who haven't tried it.

Even the vast majority of believers really know how futile praying is as, whenever they or their child is sick, they go to a hospital/doctor. If praying really works then why bother?!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

This is interesting in itself - some people call begging or pleading as praying --- praying the cat didn't get run over; praying they win the lottery; praying Millwall wins the FA cup / Cubs win the World Series; whatever. Some (many?) would suggest this is not praying at all, but pleading. Praying is just talking to God (the Universe/yourself or your subconscious/etc depending on your belief) - and there is no doubt that this alone brings help and peace to millions (and probably billions) of people across the world. Atheist would suggest this is just the calming affect (along with placebo perhaps) of taking time to relax and talk your problems out; whereas believers would say something like it is opening your heart/soul to God and allowing Him to bring peace, comfort and/or understanding.

Christians, Jews and Muslims should fall back to "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God". Buddhists should remember the women that pleaded for him to bring life back to her dead baby; he gave her a bowl and said to get a spoonful of rice from each household in the village that knew no grief from death in their lives and make him a meal, and then he would do so - of course she comes back with an empty bowl and a lot of understanding. If life is a lesson, as most religions teach, then why would the invigilator cheat for you?

[wolf5370]

I guess I'm a 6, since logically, the majority of believers must be wrong, since they all believe in different things, and they can't all be true. So logically, they are all stories, all equally made up. But I could be wrong, and one of them could possibly be true, since possibility itself is infinite. So I must be a 6; to be a 7 seems more like ignorance/arrogance.

Good post.

They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. One could be right but when you look at the whole thing in depth you see that there are as many gods as there are and have been believers.

With you 100% with regard to people being a 7.

This is a fallacious argument against "God" - it is only an argument against organised religion. Even so, many of the main religions do accept they have the same God; Islam, Christianity, Judaism - all have the same God, just different texts to worship by; indeed, Christianity accepts Hebrew prophets, and Muslims accept both Jesus (as a prophet not as the SOG) and the Hebrew prophets as well - each just has their own set up updates with respect to scripture. Buddhism is not theist any way; and most of the other Indic religions are not mono-theist; but accept that the multitude of Gods are all faces of Brahma (and as such could be theist too - another God or the same one with a different name?).

[notmyself]

This is interesting in itself - some people call begging or pleading as praying --- praying the cat didn't get run over; praying they win the lottery; praying Millwall wins the FA cup / Cubs win the World Series; whatever. Some (many?) would suggest this is not praying at all, but pleading. Praying is just talking to God (the Universe/yourself or your subconscious/etc depending on your belief) - and there is no doubt that this alone brings help and peace to millions (and probably billions) of people across the world. Atheist would suggest this is just the calming affect (along with placebo perhaps) of taking time to relax and talk your problems out; whereas believers would say something like it is opening your heart/soul to God and allowing Him to bring peace, comfort and/or understanding.

Christians, Jews and Muslims should fall back to "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God". Buddhists should remember the women that pleaded for him to bring life back to her dead baby; he gave her a bowl and said to get a spoonful of rice from each household in the village that knew no grief from death in their lives and make him a meal, and then he would do so - of course she comes back with an empty bowl and a lot of understanding. If life is a lesson, as most religions teach, then why would the invigilator cheat for you?

Reminds me of a very dear, very close friend of mine. Sort of friend I wouldn't think twice about giving 100,000 Baht to if she said she needed it because I know she would pay it back. Whenever she has a party at her restaurant to goes to the temple that morning and hands over a bit of cash to ensure that there is no rain. The so called rainy season on Samui just didn't happen so no doubt farmers by the hundreds were also handing over cash that there be some rain for their crops. I've tried to talk to her about this but she refuses to.

Funny old world we live in.

[notmyself]

This is a fallacious argument against "God" - it is only an argument against organised religion. Even so, many of the main religions do accept they have the same God; Islam, Christianity, Judaism - all have the same God, just different texts to worship by; indeed, Christianity accepts Hebrew prophets, and Muslims accept both Jesus (as a prophet not as the SOG) and the Hebrew prophets as well - each just has their own set up updates with respect to scripture. Buddhism is not theist any way; and most of the other Indic religions are not mono-theist; but accept that the multitude of Gods are all faces of Brahma (and as such could be theist too - another God or the same one with a different name?).

This is only to be expected since they are all religious in nature.

If you compare apples with apples then you would expect there to be some degree of 'appleness' involved.

[sirineou]

lol

It's a question of being logically coherent along with not being a hypocrite.

Could be time to introduce anti-theism which by one definition is the position of someone not only being atheist (rejection of theistic claims) but being against theism as a proposition for reasons such as lack of credibility of theistic claims or because they consider theistic claims to be damaging to society. Another similar definition is that it is the wishful thinking position in that atheism is a single position on a single issue which is a rejection of theistic claims. It is possible to be an atheist but wish that theistic claims are true so an anti-theist would be someone who is glad that there is no reason to believe that theistic claims are true rather than sad about it. Neither seem to make much sense to me I must say. Nothing wrong with the positions but that the term anti-theist doesn't make sense.

I am glad that there is no reason to believe that theistic claims are true,

As Christopher Hitchens used to say, "Who wants to live in a celestial north korea,"

But I am certainly not an Antitheist as long as you leave me along,

But when you try to impose your beliefs on me, watch out.

[madia]

[/media]

[notmyself]

But I am certainly not an Antitheist as long as you leave me along,

But when you try to impose your beliefs on me, watch out.

Which goes back to something I posted earlier for which there were no takers with the exception of fellow member Wym who agreed.

There are roughly 1.3 billion Catholics and 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today. Given a reasonable sample size of let's say 1 million people. We should be able to go anywhere on the planet, draw a circle large enough to contain a million people and find an equal proportion of Catholics and Muslims. We are not talking about cultural variance such as a preference for jeans and a T-shirt over a sari or a good veg curry over a roast dinner. They have no truth value in that there is nothing true about a roast dinner etc. It is simple preference and nothing else. What we are talking about is something that individual's believe to be true. Why is it then that we do not find a similar ratio between (1:1) between Catholics and Muslims around the globe and more importantly, why is that if a child of say 10 IS religious then they will almost certainly believe in the same particular flavour of religion as their parent/s? How does an individual's belief propagate from parent to child when as many have pointed out, reason cannot be applied?

Don't forget, this is not about a preference but about something believed to be true.

There is no argument on this. Belief IS being imposed on people and specifically on children. When theists say why can't you keep your atheism to yourself the answer is clear, theist's will not allow me to do so.

[wolf5370]

Yep, which of the following is correct IF you are a non Christian.

I have a God and he is my master

I have a god and he is my master

Most people would choose the former which would be incorrect but not all. If you go back and read all the posts there have been a number of members who have used the 'G' and 'g' perfectly.

Not the best example because (in theory) you could be a non Christian yet consider the Christian god (note not capitalized because it refers to the concept of a god) to be your god. That in itself would be rather odd and most likely off topic.

Why would you say "Yep" to that information regarding English language usage of capital letters which contradicted what you had just said and then proceed to disagree with it?

I write God all the time because it is the rule that one follows to represent something that is unique (to a varying degree). The same way I write Canada or John! There is nothing christian or holy regarding those names but I (and others) just follow the rules of the English language.

Your assertion that someone is a christian because they follow the rules of the English language is demonstrably wrong.

No, you use a capital with Canada because it is a proper noun (a name) and in any context of its use it will be so. If a country was called Country, then the use of the capital letter would depend on whether you were referring to "a country" or the "Country" country. When you refer to God you use a capital because as a Christian, God is the name, but as a non-Christian your god would be called something else, like Allah or Yahweh or Brahma etc.

The Christian god is God. The Muslim god is Allah. This is the correct spelling - and thus his point.

Hence he is not asserting that "someone is a Christian because they follow the rules of the English language", IMO, but that one is identified as such (at least historically) by the usage of the leading capital.

Of course both Christians and non-Christians would have written the latter, "I have a god and he is my master" (well assuming they believed that, which would be strange - perhaps better with "father" rather than "master" I think), due to the indefinite article 'a'. A Christian would write, "I believe in God, he is my master/father".

However, a more interesting point is perhaps the use of the capital when referring to the Christian God as "Him" or "He". This has occurred to show that it is not a gender thing, but for want of a genderless pronoun other than the ill-fitting "it" (of course "Father", "Lord" etc are gendered, so it only goes so far to appease!).

It is also interesting, perhaps just to me, that many non-Christians that are believers that came from a Christian upbringing/environment, also use the same concept of "God"/"He"/"Him". I guess that a believe without denomination or organised religion, finds it easiest to call their concept of god by the simplest honorific, if not name, "God".

[orosee]

Let me add quickly that my auto correct feature capitalizes the word God (it did it right now) automatically until I force it to accept god into its dictionary. For a quick argument, This may end up intentional or not.

[sirineou]

Let me add quickly that my auto correct feature capitalizes the word God (it did it right now) automatically until I force it to accept god into its dictionary. For a quick argument, This may end up intentional or not.

It has being told that with the exponential growth of computing power , computers will soon develop self awareness , but it seems that yours has also become religious

if it starts quoting binary scripture to you, run for the hills

Edited January 12, 2014 by sirineou

[wym]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/ian-barbour-academaic-who-resisted-conflicts-of-faith-and-science-dies-at-90.html

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Let me add quickly that my auto correct feature capitalizes the word God (it did it right now) automatically until I force it to accept god into its dictionary. For a quick argument, This may end up intentional or not.

Pls advise which spell checker you are using to post on comments where it provides auto-correction in real time?

I am trying to find one for Linux based Chrome.

HTANK YOU!

[orosee]

Let me add quickly that my auto correct feature capitalizes the word God (it did it right now) automatically until I force it to accept god into its dictionary. For a quick argument, This may end up intentional or not.

Pls advise which spell checker you are using to post on comments where it provides auto-correction in real time?

I am trying to find one for Linux based Chrome.

HTANK YOU!

Sorry to say that I'm typing this on an Android tablet, not a PC. I like what you did at the end of your post though :-)

[wym]

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

This guy (link) debating Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins

[notmyself]

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

This guy (link) debating Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins

William 'lying' Craig as he is affectionately known.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Which has been destroyed to the point that even he refuses to use it any longer.

[wym]

I like Buddhism, but almost all we humans are weak, and being in any position of authority brings temptations many find hard to resist:

• From Zen Buddhism to Preying on Vulnerable Women - Mark Oppenheimer - The Atlantic

• The Zen Predator of the Upper East Side: Our Longreads Member Pick | Longreads

• The Shocking Scandal at the Heart of American Zen - The Daily Beast

• Sexual Abuse in the Zen Sangha: Mark Oppenheimer’s Zen Predator of the Upper East Side

• Shambhala Sun - When the Candle is Blown Out: On The Death of Katagiri Roshi

• If you see the Buddha on the road | MetaFilter

• Buddhism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Meditating on a 20-year-old scandal / An outsider's view of the incestuous circles at the San Francisco Zen Center - SFGate

• If you see the Buddha on the road | MetaFilter

[stedyedy]

I beleive in god and lord jesus because of what they represent the whole loving caring side of things anyone can argue intill there blue in the face yet theyll never find qaulities higher than those and I dont know about anyone else but that definteley sounds god like to me and not the other fullah,funny how its not implemented much in societies though everyman for themselves kill or be killed right.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[slipperylobster]

Yep, which of the following is correct IF you are a non Christian.

I have a God and he is my master

I have a god and he is my master

Most people would choose the former which would be incorrect but not all. If you go back and read all the posts there have been a number of members who have used the 'G' and 'g' perfectly.

Not the best example because (in theory) you could be a non Christian yet consider the Christian god (note not capitalized because it refers to the concept of a god) to be your god. That in itself would be rather odd and most likely off topic.

Why would you say "Yep" to that information regarding English language usage of capital letters which contradicted what you had just said and then proceed to disagree with it?

I write God all the time because it is the rule that one follows to represent something that is unique (to a varying degree). The same way I write Canada or John! There is nothing christian or holy regarding those names but I (and others) just follow the rules of the English language.

Your assertion that someone is a christian because they follow the rules of the English language is demonstrably wrong.

No, you use a capital with Canada because it is a proper noun (a name) and in any context of its use it will be so. If a country was called Country, then the use of the capital letter would depend on whether you were referring to "a country" or the "Country" country. When you refer to God you use a capital because as a Christian, God is the name, but as a non-Christian your god would be called something else, like Allah or Yahweh or Brahma etc.

The Christian god is God. The Muslim god is Allah. This is the correct spelling - and thus his point.

Hence he is not asserting that "someone is a Christian because they follow the rules of the English language", IMO, but that one is identified as such (at least historically) by the usage of the leading capital.

Of course both Christians and non-Christians would have written the latter, "I have a god and he is my master" (well assuming they believed that, which would be strange - perhaps better with "father" rather than "master" I think), due to the indefinite article 'a'. A Christian would write, "I believe in God, he is my master/father".

However, a more interesting point is perhaps the use of the capital when referring to the Christian God as "Him" or "He". This has occurred to show that it is not a gender thing, but for want of a genderless pronoun other than the ill-fitting "it" (of course "Father", "Lord" etc are gendered, so it only goes so far to appease!).

It is also interesting, perhaps just to me, that many non-Christians that are believers that came from a Christian upbringing/environment, also use the same concept of "God"/"He"/"Him". I guess that a believe without denomination or organised religion, finds it easiest to call their concept of god by the simplest honorific, if not name, "God".

or a god....as in ancient gods.

[wym]

William 'lying' Craig as he is affectionately known.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Which has been destroyed to the point that even he refuses to use it any longer.

And? What's your point?

Someone being open about the progress of their thinking over the years and moving forward from their earlier lesser efforts only adds to their credibility IMO.

Rather than simply labeling him a liar, how about citing specific assertions in either of those two videos that you think others might agree are patently false?

PS making statements you think are false is not the same as "lying"