I mean real.. correct...and in this case existent.

For example. Millions of children believe in Santa. That doesn't mean he exists.

The simple assumption that there is or may be a god, without any 'need' to do so, without any indication whatsoever that there might be one, is not logical. It makes your entire argument invalid, no matter where you go from there. It starts with an assumption, which makes it 'creative thinking' at best.

I don't claim to know how the universe came into existence, I'm just not going to fantasize some 'outside force', simply because I cannot explain what happened. The best we can do is accept that our knowledge on that subject is (still?) limited.

That also depends greatly on your definition of exist.

For an example relevant to this website. Consider Kyle Katarn. Does he exist?

No. Well... Yes. Sortof?

lawl the majority of Massassi is going to hell

Not really. No. I go by the dictionary definition.



So, No Kyle Katarn does no exist.

I do not go by the dictionary definition. You may limit yourself to it's confines if you wish.

[quote=Mr. Novak]Science is not in conflict with God's work, but creationists claim it is. They claim you have to reject science to accept God, because Genesis supposedly contradicts science. Intelligent design is not in conflict with evolution, and it does not negate natural selection. Intelligent design is religion, not science. But it can be discussed in science, because it lies at the boundaries of knowledge, and there are statistical probabilities indicating intelligent design. Just because some atheists assume evolution is atheism doesn't mean evolution is atheism. The science of evolution is not atheism. Life is not metabolism. Life is something one acquires by following "the path to life," which is morality. Christ said, "It is the spirit which gives life, the flesh is useless" (John 6:63).

Science isn't knowing; science is measuring. Saying what a scientist is supposed to know is talking about someone's religious values.

Atheism is a religion. Atheists in science make false statements about science, like natural selection proves there is no God.

When creationists argue against atheists in science, it is two religions opposing each other, it is not science.[/quote]

.

Good point... er, period.

Thank you for posting that. That was great.

Agnostic.

I just don't care for the whole mess anyway. I like believing that my fate is up to me.

You're stupid. And by stupid I mean "a wonderful, thoughtful human being."

Wow, the votes are insanely close.
I knew there was a fair amount of religion in massassi, but I never thought there was this much.

I was surprised at the split. It was even until I voted

I'm glad you can see things my way.

Well it could also appear that way because there's no "maybe" option.

I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Wouldn't that still put you as a theist?

It's funny how I now instinctively avoid these threads now. It must have something to do with growing up, and reaching the cynical realization that thoughtful debate is impossible in the Internet. Oh, and not have any time probably has something to do with it too.

Neither is acting high and mighty about this "realization" over the internet.

I think a lot of people don't understand what a real athiests argument is.

Basically, it consists of:
A) There is no logical, factual evidence supporting the existence of God.
B) In order to rationally believe something, there must be logical, factual evidence of it.

Therefore: In order to rationally believe something, one must believe that God does not exist.

If you choose to believe in God, you must accept that this belief is irrational.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but is irrational.

Debates were very thoughtful and rational around here until people like you showed up.

Read Bertrand Russel. End of discussion.

Yeah, [Agreeing with emon] from what I remember, it's usually YOU who are the ******* in these threads. You always come in with some holier than thou statement, and it just screws everything up.

I don't believe in god. I don't have any proof. If he has infinite power, he must be a stoner, because he sure is lazy. Also, quoting George Carlin, I say he because if there is a god it has to be a man, because no woman could ever screw things up this badly.

Yeah, that or that fact that some people have difficulty handling controversy. I mean, when I was 14, and couldn't put a post together properly, that was one thing, but it never got better. As my posts got better, all I got was inane scoffing. It's not possible to argue unless both sides genuinely want to understand the other side's position. Everyone just bashes their preconceived notion of what I believe and references back to when I were 14 and couldn't articulate myself properly.

Now I see people sit around and generally pat them selves on the back for being oh so clever. It's pretty stupid, especially when half the posters obviously didn't properly think through their position, but are just there to feel self-rightious.

And I take it that half is the half that disagrees with you?

C'mon Obi, you've basically come in this thread and judged and crapped on everyone for what's been one of the most civilized discussions on religion to have taken place on Massassi. Until you arrived on this thread the worst was some indignation at whether or not teaching very young children religion could be considered indoctrination or brain-washing.
Try actually making a point pertaining to the purpose of this thread and quit making judgements of other people and maybe try being flexible yourself if you expect that from other people. Doesn't matter what you said at 14, you can still try to turn a new leaf, several Massassians are totally different from the people they were when they first joined.

EDIT:Bah, that Novak quote is bugging me. It starts off so well and then states that life is only lived through <insert scripture here> and basically he's still stating Christianity is the only way, lived through a morality outlined by one particular religion. Not only atheists but people of every other religious persuasion will disagree with him here.
Then he describes atheism as a religion. Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour. It's the null value of relgious views.
And no atheist argues that natural selection disproves God, that doesn't even follow logically and there are plenty of religious people who believe in theistic evolution so the two ideas are hardly mutually exclusive. All it does do in regards to religion is contradict many religious creation stories.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to join, in but I'm always afraid that some jerk will start pawning off arrogant flames as arguments. Now that I actually read the thread it does seem to be progressing pretty maturely, which quite frankly shocks me. In addition it's not nearly as one sided as I had originally presumed. I suppose I was wrong, then. Massassi has really changed. I apologise.




...I need to stop reading user comments on You Tube, they're rotting my brain and turning me into an incureable cynic.

That's not what he's saying at all. The scripture defines what "life" is, not how you live it.



In concept? Yes. In practice? No. Many who say they are Atheist don't really understand what it means to be Atheist. Like wise, many who say they are "religeous-followers-of-a-particular-sect" don't really understand their religion.



This goes with above. He was using that as an example. There are those who "claim to be" Athiest who tout such non-sense. THOSE types of Atheist (which actually make up the vast majority of them) make up what he is referring to as the "Atheist Religion."

I hope that cleared things up for you.