Assume Nothing

I'm not too sure on why you're asking atheists - since we don't believe, we operate on theistic interpretations. I'd say that for the sake of argument, if there was a 'deity', they would either be unconcerned with human life or empathetic - i.e. deistic. I don't subscribe to the heaven/hell ideas. Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid. EDIT - I don't follow; how do you misconstrue the holy scripture if it's written therein? Why do you insist that moderate theism is the 'correct' interpretation, and that fundamentalism is a 'misconstruing the truth'? I'm asking, how exactly do you know? I don't know what exactly moderate theism entails, so to provide examples of possible issues with moderate theism would be an exercise of futility - so please, tell us what moderates believe.

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion? I'd personally say that I disagree with religion for many reasons, including the actions of 'wackos'. Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

I don't know the intricate detail of every faith and its literature in existence. I know however, that fundamentalists are statistically in the minority & that people of faith tend to hold views in line with the principles taught by their scriptures rather than literal translation, so I made my statements based on those facts. My train of thought got so convoluted though, that I really failed in trying to make what little point I could make with what little facts I had. I don't engage in these sorts of debates often because I'm not very skilled in expressing my opinions, and it shows. I'm sorry for that. It's important to note that fundamentalism is in the minority since modern times - it wasn't like this forever. EDIT - It's true, this thread is just about whether a deity exists or not, but that has little discussion value. We could argue ad nauseum and it'll still end up being 'present the evidence and I'd believe you, but until then, I'm unmoved by your arguments.' I have no reason to believe that there is a 'god', and theists believe they have no reason to stop (even though I can present plenty). I'd argue that the entire purpose of the thread leads onto whether religion is harmful or helpful, and as a whole - I'd argue it's harmful.

I'm not trying to be evasive, honestly...sorry :/ I've answered your question as best I'm able. It has more to do with human nature than religious beliefs, based on how people react. So if that's still too [citation needed] for you, I'm sorry, but I don't have the relevant research you want on-hand. :/ Strictly speaking, fundamentalists/evangelicalists are in the minority, so I see that as unreasonable to assert those stereotypes to represent all of those who adhere to the Christian faith. :/ It can still be agreed that fundamentalists are still problematic, correct? Given that belief in a deity is the requisite of religion, I'm talking about how religion is problematic as a whole - so we must not exclude the minority. I'm still interested in the beliefs of moderate Christians/theists, because we know that beliefs influence actions. If you can't present what they do believe, then how can we distinguish them from fundamentalists? I'll anticipate the defense that 'atheists do bad things too' - and thus I'll present the counterargument: because atheism is skepticism of deities, it does not follow that atheism is the cause of an atheist's immoral actions. The same can't be said of theists, who may even cite their deity as their justification of their often immoral actions (if you want, I can provide an exhaustive list)

That's really not what most religious people think at all - not those who are true to the teachings and aware of their respective scriptures. That viewpoint seems every bit as arrogant as the vilified theists this topic is portraying. so many =/= most. Besides. It's in the bible. Not sure what you mean by true to the teachings. The Bible doesn't, nor any other religious text I can think of off-hand, state that the other forms of life on our planet are our "playthings." As for what I mean when I say true to the teachings, I mean generally following the codes of morality laid out by those scriptures rather than to-the-letter adherence. (Else everyone would be stoning women and unwed mothers etc) As for the "somany != most thing" I don't know what you mean to point out. Every group has their extremists. If we're basing our views only on the extremists, then this isn't a discussion worth having. As such, I don't think it's right in the least to take such an arrogant/flippant position in such a strong, difficult discussion. Croce has made the response better than I would've worded it, so I need not reiterate - but your point about extremism seems to downplay its magnitude. It's not unreasonable to claim that a considerable proportion of theists hold fundamentalist views - and if fundamentalism is a problem, then that is also a problem. I don't see how Powerfrog is arrogant/flippant in this discussion.

If you're presenting that argument, you should be the one presenting the information alongside it. I can't ask any sizable number of theists how they interpret their holy scriptures, so if you're claiming to represent them - then tell us what they think. I don't see the point of being so unnecessarily evasive. Unrelated note: I've wanted to edit this into my other response to respond to Omar, but it's clearly too late. It's a traditional mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The assertion 'God exists' is a positive claim - the answer 'I don't believe it' is not. It doesn't assert that one does not exist. Oh, and even if the onus was on atheists - given that it's an unfalsifiable claim, that's impossible - like the analogy Russell made with his teapot. The defining differences between atheists and theists - theists tend to be gnostic; to purport that a deity, their deity, must exist as factual. Atheists tend to be agnostic, whom does not argue there is 'no God' as factual, but arguing against the arguments for deities presented to them. It seems you're confused on definitions, by the way. I'll present a small glossary for your information: [hide]Agnosticism makes the claim that 'I do not know' Gnosticism makes the claim that 'I do know' Apatheism makes the claim that 'I do not care either way' Theism makes the claim that 'I believe in a deity' Atheism makes the claim that 'I do not believe in the existence of a deity' Pantheism makes the claim that 'God is nature' Deism makes the claim that 'God created everything, but does not intervene' Ignosticism makes the claim that 'we assume too much about the concept of god' Dystheism makes the claim that 'if a god exists, it is not wholly good and/or possibly evil' Misotheism makes the claim that 'if a god exists, it is a malevolent being'[/hide]

Actually, I don't believe it does. The whole "Burden of proof" thing is just stupid if you ask me. An Atheist can claim "There is no god. How do I know? I just believe there isn't, I don't need any proof." Essentially pulling the same argument any other theist would pull. "I don't need proof, I have my faith, YOU bring the evidence!" I've got a question for you before any meaningful discussion could be made: do you care if your beliefs are true, or do you care more about whether they are comforting? If you don't care whether or not they're true, then there's no point going any further than this. The onus of responsibility for handling this burden is always on the one asserting a truth, not the one denying it. Theists make a positive claim - 'there is a God', so by definition the position makes the assertion. Given the lack of evidence/argument, there is no reason to believe in a deity in the first place, so the position by default is atheism - which is not the rejection of God, but rather - an exercise of skepticism. It's unreasonable to expect atheists to present evidence of absence when the purported deity is unfalsifiable by a theist's very own definitions. So, one last question: why do you think that there is a deity (presumably Yahweh)? That's really not what most religious people think at all - not those who are true to the teachings and aware of their respective scriptures. That viewpoint seems every bit as arrogant as the vilified theists this topic is portraying. I'd call that an undignified personal attack. Please answer the question: if that's not what religious people think, then what do they think? You're telling me we can split an atom, build a computer, get across oceans and fly in the air AND SPACE. and yet no one can scientifically disprove the fact that a higher power doesn't exist? Mankind has disproved MANY phenomena at many times through history. Why does one of the oldest still remain with...a rather large following. I'm just saying, we can explain damn near everything - but not God.. It intrigues me. I do believe god exists. By definition: Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all-loving creator who's immaterial, outside the realm of time/space, etc. I'm uncertain how it's of any surprise that we cannot disprove the existence of deities. As for your other question, it's a rather simplistic explanation for why there's a large following: it brings (false) comfort, it creates dependency, it ostracizes others who aren't of the same faith, it's easier to believe than natural explanations, it's spread by indoctrination, laws protecting them against critical scrutiny, etc. I don't know of any atheists who claim to believe in ex-nihilo creation, seems like a straw-man argument to me. It's typically 'the Universe originated from a big Bang event according to scientists, and we don't know what happens before that - if there was a before.' It seems you're presenting the watchmaker's argument too. Question - why must someone/something have created it? It sounds like a case of confirmation bias and special pleading to me. EDIT - I'm backtracking, but I've made several extra responses. I didn't expect a surge in Tif activity given how dead my Religion thread was.

I think I've made a post about this before... Pascal's Wager is admittedly a common defense of religion. [hide] [/hide] Oh, and that doesn't even cover the issue of 'even if that was a valid defense, which deity should I choose?' EDIT - I think I've briefly made a passing reference of that issue, but it's very brief. So, why should I believe your deity and not the thousands of others?

apple juice has a lot of sugar, might as well grab a soda or something If you take a freshly made apple juice vs a soda. While they both contain sugar, the apple juice contains vitamins and minerals which make up for it. The soda is just empty calories. Although in the case of the person who posted, he was probably drinking store-bought apple juice which is pasteurized, so doesn't contain much vitamins and minerals at all, and probably additional sugar was added to it. The only apple juice worth drinking is the one you juice yourself. Especially if you have a low-RPM juicer because then no vitamins are lost to oxidation. I think you failed to mention the difference between fructose, and artificial sweeteners. Store bought juice is still a ton healthier than soda for sure.

What diet are they trying to impose on you precisely? Of some relevance: I can't find these for sale in the UK, so I'm pretty annoyed.

Banned for spreading infectious diseases.

Fine. I'll illustrate it another way - answer me this: What do you think you're getting into a relationship for?

It feels as though you're just getting into relationships just to fill in some sort of psychological void. It'll be doomed to fail until you fully get in touch with yourself - don't learn the hard way.

Seems almost relevant

Given that you can't fix stupid, you might as well report them now.

Banned for lack of clarification within your syntax.

I've acquired one of these: Apollo Encounter Hybrid 21" Opinions?

>missing the point. What would you spend it on?

I think there's a lack of light-hearted threads on OT... so without any further ado, here's the question If you found a million bucks, what would you do with it? It cannot be saved for a rainy day. [hide=Here is what I'd do]If I had access to those kinds of funds and didn't have financial obligations, I'd hire two private investigators to follow each-other. What about you?[/hide]

It depends how you'd define a joke, but that's a boring discussion of semantics. I'm not sure what discussion value this has, unless it becomes a easter-egg general disc.

>it could very well ruin their career. It's spoken in a tone that almost implies sympathy - I'd say they were fully deserving of it, given that they were aware of the potential implications at the time. I'd agree that audio-recording is definitely easier to pull off - it doesn't require a lens pointed at someone.

I'd argue that a true friend would call the cops on you...

I'd post a video on foot-fetishes but Randox won't let me... note: redacted a lot of incomprehensible text. I'm too tired to post properly.

It's further distorted by the complex issues following the introduction of artificial enhancers, e.g. fake breasts/nails/hair/brows/lashes, etc. Beauty is now a gimmick.

... when I get bored, I reminisce the old times. I dig through some of the oldest threads I've made, and some of the oldest responses, and I read them - sometimes for hours at a time. I'm reminded of the good times that were had, and good times that were lost along the way. I like remembering how I made someone laugh, and perhaps how I made someone think, and just maybe even - made someone cry, in a good way. It's really fascinating how people change - it's one of the few things that makes me smile. I'm sure others can dig through their archived RS screenshots and just remember their past too. Ah, reminiscence.