Da_Latios

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion. It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > No. > Guess we're done with that, then. Of course I wouldn't have evidence. Beyond logic means beyond evidence silly, any evidence would disprove my theory :P But of course I wouldn't go around saying it is "true". But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!". Well that's settled, then.

There is no reason to believe in a god unless it's proven that one exists. There very well may be a god, but as of now there is no evidence to suggest that one exists.

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion. It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > No. > Guess we're done with that, then.

Then you'll be pleased to know none of the atheists in this thread are claiming, "There is no god."

Because people play RuneScape, and people are [puncture]s. EDIT: Come on TIF Admins, not even Jagex censors "[puncture]".

Wait a minute, isn't this just a VNC program? This has been possible for years now. It's nothing new. Why are you acting like you've stumbled on the Holy Grail?

I'm sure there have been more in this thread, but I've only crossed off the ones I can remember. Feel free to add to the bingo. EDIT: Crossed out another one I remembered.

My god, these are hipsterrific. :roll: First image: I'm not sure I like your post-processing on this one. You've managed to blend the centered person in with the trees. The only other thing I have to say is that it's not a particularly interesting photo. Second image: Again, not a fan of your post-processing. Your unnatural vignetting makes this look like a photo of a photo. I also dislike the shadow on the house, and the whole composition of the photo. A more interesting shot would probably have been a dead-on photo of the front of the house(side with the window). Third image: What, no fancy post-processing? This photo isn't anything special. Shadows are too sharp, not to mention there are shadows at all in the first place. It's just an average touristy photo. Fourth image: This one's not bad. Could have had the angle slightly lower, but it does well without it. Another thing you could have done is an even longer shutter speed. But, I still kinda like it. Fifth image: Missy, you keep bringing up the blacks. Why? Crushed black are often good; they make colours more vibrant. It's blown highlights that are bad. Other than my dislike for your post-processing(which I've already said a number of times) this is also an okay photo. I'm not too fussed with the "tent" cover at the top of the photo, but I probably would have tried to do something about it. Sixth image: *another rant about your post-processing* Boats are a little too dark, basically. Seventh image: More boats would be nice. No, really, shifting the angle of view a bit to the left probably would have been good. Also, remember that it's okay to crop. There's a little too much sky and you could even get away with chopping a bit off the bottom of the image too, and some of the right side. Eight image: Good use of a silhouette. I'm not too fussed with the colours here. Couldn't hurt to straighten the horizon a bit, but that's easily fixed in Photoshop. Ninth image: Probably my favourite. Again, you've creamed the highlights and brought up the blacks, and you've probably de-saturated it too(unless China or wherever the hell this is, is really that dull). Try something along the lines of: or The horizon might also need a little fixing. So apart from the supermassive yellow "Nippon Centre Superstore" sign and your hipsterrific editing, it's not a bad photo. Tenth image: Tourist photo, nothing special. BUT AT LEAST YOU DIDN'T HIPSTERFY IT. I'm not a fan of black & white. You can take any photo and desaturate it and it becomes "art". (photos often turn out better when you don't need to worry about the colour)

Okay, I guess it's time for me to step in and be the party pooper. First image: Green-cyan car, green grass, green trees, cyan sky. This whole image is cyan, I don't know where I'm supposed to look, and it's boring. Furthermore, there's no room to breathe; the photo is squashed and cluttered. Second image: Definitely better than the first as far as crop goes, and there's more breathing room, but it's still boring and the only focus point I can think of (the right-hand(or starboard) light) is almost centered and isn't anything special. Third image: I realise what you were trying to do, but it didn't really turn out too well. Firstly, this is a portrait-oriented shot with way too much head and foot room. Secondly, you can't see the left side of the car, which is really annoying. I find mysef trying to visually rotate the car to see the left side. I really do not like this photo. Fourth image: Same as the first two, but at least you've separated the car from the background a little. Fifth image: Extremely cluttered; I have no idea where to look or what this photo is trying to achieve. Then again, I know nothing about cars. Sixth image: Focal point should be the center of the logo, and you should probably think about cleaning it of dust first. Overall thoughts: You need to separate the car from the background. Put it on a bitumen road, at sunset or during twilight, turn the headlights on and take photos with the angles used in #2 and #4. Try to keep the lights as dim as possible. Do not use flash when doing this. You may also want to have the car facing the sunset(although I would probably do the opposite). I'm assuming you're using a point-and-shoot(bad chromatic abberation, huge depth of field on every shot, invariable focus, relatively soft edges and a less-than-desirable dynamic range). I haven't commented much on the depth of field, dynamic range etc. since it's your camera's fault and not you. Really, these photos look like they belong in a car thread, not the gallery. Hope I didn't offend by saying I didn't like the photos; I'm pretty much the wet blanket of The Gallery's photo threads and will point out the negatives in EVERYONE's photos.

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first? What would be the point of having the Garden of Eden before anyone suffered then? Umm, you know, as their home?Besides, according to many Christian pastors there are other worlds out there untouched by sin. Wouldn't that mean that they are all Garden-of-Eden-esque worlds with no suffering? That would make your point moot. Our world is supposedly the only one touched by Sin. There are probably hundreds of thousands of other planets with life. Is Satan on those worlds too?

Saw that earlier, wasn't sure if posting it here would get the mods worked up or not. You're probably right. I should add red warning labels.

27 Jan: People shot by police on video. WARNING: Graphic imagery http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/raw-video-man-shot-in-egypt-protest-23989401

Al Jazeera's pretty awesome. One of the few places you'll get REAL world news.

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first? Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse. Done. What about it? Well, that wouldn't excuse his crimes, would it?

This is an old video, from before they cut off the Internet: I'd imagine it would have escalated since then; I've been following the story for a while. EDIT: I just heard someone say this: "Reporters have seen some police rip off their uniforms and join the protests. And the army is on their way, and it's widely beleived the army will side with the protesters." But as of now I've seen no sources to indicate either. Does anyone know if either of those are at all true?

Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first? Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse.

I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily. @Ring_world: The basic problem with that is that knowledge of what is going to happen does not mean you have control over it. If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will. If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective). True free will is free will without punishment. Is it "free will" if, they choose the option less desirable, would be killed or exiled? That isn't free will. But so many religious people think He does. Everything is a "miracle" to the vast majority of Christians I've met. It's a "miracle" if someone survives cancer, it's a "miracle" if a plane crashes and everyone dies but a baby is found alive. It's a "miracle" if you lose your wedding ring and two days later find it. Such ordinary, easily explainable things become "miracles" and "proof of God" to many Christians. Many Christians don't read the Bible and oppose abortion. However, you wouldn't say that Christianity is about not reading the Bible and opposing abortion, would you? Just because a number of people who label themselves as "Christian" or "Atheist" have certain similar views, it doesn't mean that's what Atheism or Christianity is. Atheism is simply a "lack of a belief in a god or gods" nothing more, nothing less. You do not have to approve of same-sex marriage if you are an atheist. It's just that many atheists also happen to be humanists, or have humanistic views, and tend to be liberal/left-leaning, politically.

You're wrong though. I can assign a weight assignment, statistically speaking the probability that each of the events are going to occur, and sum them. If you hold a gun up to my head, and pull the trigger, one of several things may happen: Case 1 - There is no bullet in the gun. Case 2 - There is a bullet in the gun. In Case 1, there is some percentage that you forgot or just didn't put a bullet in the chamber. This outcome is negative, no positive. If you pulled the trigger, I'd be freaked out and jumpy, emotionally distraught with good reason. Even if I had no emotion this case at best is neutral. In Case 2, there are two more cases. Case 2.1 - The bullet is a dud, Case 2.2 - The bullet goes off. I can find the probability that the bullet is a dud through repeat testing, in fact most bullets are rated this way. 2.1 is slim to none. The outcome in 2.1 is the same though as in 1, and I'd be freaked out. Negative outcome, neutral at best. In Case 2.2, there are several more cases. 2.2.1 - Your aim sucks, and you miss. 2.2.2 - You shoot me. What's the probability you miss? Don't know, but the outcome is the same as 2.1, and its Negative, neutral at best. In 2.2.2, there are even more cases. Case 2.2.2.1 - I survive with half my face being blown off Case 2.2.2.2 - I die. Both of those to me are negative, in the extreme. You argue that there might be more cases, some of which are "positive," for some people. If you ask those people if they want to be shot in the head, they may say yes, but they'll have different reasons (like they're tripping on acid). When you sum up the probabilities multiplied by their expected results (positive or negative), the expected result is grossly negative. You don't even have to make a guess at the probabilities for any one of those outcomes, all the expected results for each probability are negative. There is absolutely no positive for me to be shot in the head, which is why without having ANY certainty in the matter at all, I can tell you I don't want you to hold a gun to my head and shoot. I don't see how that example, with a thousand or more variables, is the same saying there is no proof for the axiom against triviality. Why does it upset you that math, at it's very core, is a set of large assumptions? He said shoot. SHOOT. IN THE HEAD. Not "do you want me to pull a trigger on a gun which may or may not have a bullet in it?" or "do you want me to shoot AT you?". He said SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD, which involves the gun firing and the bullet penetrating your skull. You sound like a 5 year old kid playing fantasy games; "I shot you! You're dead!" "No you didn't, I have my shield on!" seriously, what the hell.While it's true that you may survive a shot to the head, or that the bullet will not be shot at a speed fast enough to penetrate your skull, these extremely rare occurrences are so unlikely they can be completely ignored when determining whether to gamble your life when a man has a gun pointed to your head.

*sigh* I'm really, really tired of your ignorance, your absolute lack of ability to understand what it is you're trying to debate, and your childish "you're not debating properly!" remarks. I don't give a damn whether or not I'm debating "properly". I care about the truth. I care about humanity. I care about the universe and I certainly don't care about your cry-baby remarks. I know I'm being an [wagon], but don't use that to weasel your way out of this. You've failed to show even one flaw in atheism, having claimed there are many. You've failed to identify what atheism is. You've failed at... Lol. Come on. Really? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I am currently hitting my head with both hands, trying to un-read the stupid. fsgdfslfaskdf'sdfweiufJF;lkf;safas;falskdfjalsdkjflkj;sa;fkl oiuruljkbh jkjkjklmk Like I said further up, I don't care to debate. I just enjoy tearing apart your half-assed "arguments" which you've clearly sleep-typed. I don't care if I'm being an [wagon], because that doesn't make me any less right. It just makes me less desirable to talk to, and I don't give a damn about that. At the end of the day, all your arguments have amounted to... nothing. You've still not provided a flaw with atheism, nobody has given a reason that one should believe in a god or gods, sees_all1's arguments are still completely irrelevant, and you still have no idea what the hell you're on about. From what I've gathered in this thread: >If there was evidence of a god, then it wouldn't be faith. But why would a god require faith? >Science can't be proven, or something like that. sees_all1, you're really annoying. Your "arguments" are completely irrelevant and, even though I've pointed that out to you... time and time again... you keep bring it up. Stop it. I can't believe anyone would even try to use those arguments. There is so much wrong with religion, and since I'm more familiar with the Christian religion. I will use it as the prime example. >Why does Yahweh demand faith, and worship? >Adam and Eve: The incest story. I mean come on. >Adam and Eve were kicked out for wanting to know the difference between good and evil, but didn't know the difference between good and evil yet? Then how were they to know the snake was "evil" and God was "good"? They wanted knowledge. Christianity begins by telling us that humanity was banished from paradise for wanting to know more. >Why is homosexuality wrong? Other than "The bible says so." Where is the reasoning for this? >God kills 42 children for calling Elisha bald(Kings 2:23-24). This is your idea of a moral god? >There is so much pain and suffering in the world; children in third-world countries who will never live past the age of 5. Don't worry though, God is loving and watches over each of us. >God is "jealous". This is a petty human emotion and definitely not an attribute of a supreme being. >God has 'rules' which he's not supposed to break. Well, if you're not allowed to do anything, just [bleep] off. >Why was a boat necessary in the story of Noah's ark? And why floods? Why drown everyone? Couldn't He have just made all the "evil" people disappear? Surely that would have been far less messy. And what did all the animals do to deserve death? Some people on this thread have claimed dolphins and certain monkeys can show empathy. >"...I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."(Matt 17:20) Where are all the dancing mountains? >Mark 11:12-14 "The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.' And his disciples heard him say it." Jesus was mad at a fig tree for not having fruit on it, so he basically killed it? (other versions say the tree withered and died) >In the story of the Hebrew slaves fleeing from Egypt, why did Adonai wait until the Egyptians were in the Red Sea before closing the waters, killing them all? This was an unnecessary massacre. And why didn't God just, you know, teleport the Hebrews to the other side of the sea? This Biblical God seems to be all show-off and not enough efficiency. >There is no mention of an afterlife, or a hell, until the New Testament. Why? >Why does God have a "chosen people"? >Are there other life forms in the universe? Are they made by God? If so, are they sinless? Why? If our light or radio waves can reach them, why not Satan? >My (former) pastor told me that Lucifer is not beyond redemption. He's supposed to be an angel; surely he can;t be holding a 4 billion year old grudge? >Lucifer managed to persuade 1/3 of all the angels in heaven to join him rather than God. Guess God wasn't all too convincing. >In Genesis, God had to ask Cain where Abel was. I think this speaks for itself. >In Genesis, God gives Cain a "mark" saying that anyone who comes across him will kill him. However, later on it's revealed he has is own damn city. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. It's almost 4am and I need sleep. I'll find more to post tomorrow, and try to include verses along with them.

No, but good luck trying to make a direct link between that and the statement, "I do not believe in a god or gods." This is my face IRL: -.-I mean COME ON! Many atheists also happen to be humanists? Wow! I guess there aren't any religious humanists! You quoted: I think subtlety is wasted on you. Since your quotes claimed religious moral superiority, I pointed out a case where religious leaders followed very immoral practices, and my reply was to suggest the immoral clergy were atheists... ugh. My reply was structured like a joke. Cleatly, you didn't "get it." Firstly, it's 5% (http://coloradoindependent.com/39228/vatican-defense-%E2%80%98only-5%E2%80%99-of-clergy-sex-abusers-and-most-of-those-gay).Secondly, really? I mean, seriously? I was convinced of your stupidity but now... well, perhaps it's more than that. You're like a serial killer at a murder trial saying, "Oh, I knew you would bring up THAT murder, and THAT murder, and THAT murder... why don't you ever bring up the fact that I send my father a birthday card every year?" Or, another analogy: If you found a little dung on your piece of chocolate, would you still eat it? No. It is not. Clearly all this time you've been confused as to what atheism is.Atheism is saying, "I do not believe a god or gods exist." NOT as you put it, "God does not exist." Those two are VERY different. Read: VERY DIFFERENT. The latter is a belief, in such a way collecting stamps is a hobby. The former is a lack of belief, NOT A BELIEF, in the way not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby. sees_all1: I've already been convinced you're a troll, so if you're going to stop replying, that's a dream come true. Thank you.

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic. And they say the religious are closed-minded. Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one. I've shown you a "flaw" in math and science, which is the same "flaw" for religion. Math can't prove that one does not equal zero, religion can't prove that a higher being exists. Math and science can't show everything you want to know about the Universe (like how it came to be), while religion can. However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God. Look, nobody cares about your "flaws of maths and science" right now; that's not what we're talking about. Duh, there are so many gods and so many religions. What were you even trying to prove? Y_Guy: Says who? You can be an atheist and still believe in sex after marriage, marriage between a woman and a man only etc. Yes, arguments made by atheist authors seem to be somewhat consistent with each other. In other news, there's only a limited amount of doctrines within religions, which lead to a limited number of possible arguments. Your ignorance astounds me. Huh? Blaming atheists for problems in the church? What the hell are you on about? Dude, celibacy. It's a Catholic thing. Come one, at least TRY to follow along here. I'll assert again that you really don't seem to know what atheism is. You keep trying to give atheism a doctrine, or a unified set of beliefs, when there aren't any. Stop it. You're just making yourself look dumb.

All your arguments make the assumption that atheism is a belief system; that there is a doctrine.I don't think you have any idea what atheism is, and you say I'm the one who doesn't want to debate? You don't even know what you're trying to debate against. Invalid argument; atheism has no doctrine. Invalid point; atheism has no doctrine. This is so [developmentally delayed]ed that I seriously wonder if the author isn't actually a Chihuahua. This is a bad thing? Please, he makes an assertion without even attempting to make a connection between secularism and prostitution. I'd point out all those mega-church pastors who were paying for buttsex *cough*TED HAGGARD*cough* but I suppose they aren't "real Christians". Or how about the nearly 5% of all Catholic clergymen who have raped and molested children, which the Catholic church covered up. Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS! Really, you have absolutely no idea what you're trying to debate. Stop acting like a damn child, you ignorant ass.

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic. And they say the religious are closed-minded. Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one. How on earth am I swaying from the point? Certain people like wep and rainbows actually bothered to reply to my post and point out their objections. All you're doing is making blanket statements with no attempt to actually debate. Where are the many flaws with atheism that you claim there are? Come on, you claim there are many. Let's see them.

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic. And they say the religious are closed-minded. Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one.

Pretty sure that science is debunking this one - humans aren't the only intelligent species. Prove to me that we're special. We've sent another of our species to the moon.There, happy? I don't think you will be, for some reason. Right, so then humans up until 1960 weren't special at all. You missed the point by about, hmm, five miles? That would contribute, yes. But then realising that religion is silly and there is no supernatural force guiding our world would make us special among the other intelligent species.