Do you believe in God(s)?

[blue_tetris]

Science and Church don't work together. That's why we need to keep the Church and the State separate.

Hm?

No. State and Church don't have anything to do with each other. That's why we keep them separate. It's not that they're mutually exclusive. It is that they are in their own sectors and must remain there.

Science--the simple act of observing phenomena and developing theories and laws based upon these observations--should not be incompatible with any religion. If what you observe and experience is incompatible with your religion, then you need to find a new religion or stop observing. Otherwise, your religion can be perfectly compatible with your observation.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Otherwise, your religion can be perfectly compatible with your observation.

Can being the operative word. If (your interpretation of) your religion tells you that solidly established scientific phenomena are false, especially when it asserts its own version instead that can be falsified with science, it may be time to find a new religion (or interpret it differently, so long as you feel very silly in doing so).

[crescor]

They don't have anything with eachother, true, I putted that wrong.

[blue_tetris]

Otherwise, your religion can be perfectly compatible with your observation.

Can being the operative word. If (your interpretation of) your religion tells you that solidly established scientific phenomena are false, especially when it asserts its own version instead that can be falsified with science, it may be time to find a new religion (or interpret it differently, so long as you feel very silly in doing so).

I think you just took the sentence I put before the one you quoted and rephrased it.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Otherwise, your religion can be perfectly compatible with your observation.

Can being the operative word. If (your interpretation of) your religion tells you that solidly established scientific phenomena are false, especially when it asserts its own version instead that can be falsified with science, it may be time to find a new religion (or interpret it differently, so long as you feel very silly in doing so).

I think you just took the sentence I put before the one you quoted and rephrased it.

It crosses my mind that I equivocated the statement you wrote before one I had referenced...

[Sithmaster]

Religion and Science are compatible. Assuming that a Religion is willing to change based on new evidence, if not, than that Religion is not compatible with Science.


I myself am incredibly Atheist, and believe that the world has grown past the need of Religion. When Mankind wasn't able to explain things with Science, they needed something to explain all the mysteries around them, so they decided God did it. This wouldn't have been a problem, except that now that people can answer some of those mysteries with Science, but some refuse because "it isn't what their preacher/pastor/cult leader/nun/rabbi/etc." and start to bitch and whine and those nasty scientists trying to destroy their Faith. Nowadays I think people should use Religion to comfort in hard times, but not as an explanation to the worlds mysteries.

[Condog]

Science and religion are by no means mutually exclusive.

Well, considering that most aspects of any religion that are considered fact end up being disproven by scientific analysis would indicate that they are mutually exclusive. Unless they is a religion which is, you know, based on fact rather than hearsay.

[capt_weasle]

I myself am incredibly Atheist

Incredible atheist? As in, you don't believe in God more than all of the other atheists? My, what... er, unfaith you have.

When Mankind wasn't able to explain things with Science, they needed something to explain all the mysteries around them, so they decided God did it.

Why do you keep capitalizing science? I mean, if you want to consider science an omniscient being, whatever man. Tomato tamato. It kind of defeats your point, though.

This wouldn't have been a problem, except that now that people can answer some of those mysteries with Science, but some refuse because "it isn't what their preacher/pastor/cult leader/nun/rabbi/etc." and start to bitch and whine and those nasty scientists trying to destroy their Faith.

Oh, yeah. Those nasty preachers of mine. You know it's funny, because they told me the exact same thing. "....Now people can answer some of those mysteries with Religion, but some refuse because 'it isn't what their biology/psychology/chemistry professor [said].' and start to bitch and whine and those nasty religious people trying to destroy their Science."

Nowadays I think people should use Religion to comfort in hard times, but not as an explanation to the worlds mysteries.

"It's okay, Jimmy, God loves you!"
"So daddy is in heaven now?"
"Oh, goodness no! There isn't a heaven! He's just stuck in the dirt to decay and let the worms eat him. Chances are you'll never see him again!"
"But you said God loved me!"
"Right, he doesn't exist either, but don't let that disappoint you!"

[Atilla]

Why do you keep capitalizing science? I mean, if you want to consider science an omniscient being, whatever man.

Oooh, I hate that. It's what you'd do if you were the kind of lunatic who yells "For SCIENCE!" and goes on to commit genocide.

Mind you, since he's also capitalised Religion, Faith and Atheism, I'm going to assume he just has a somewhat poor Grasp of the English Language.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

"It's okay, Jimmy, God loves you!"
"So daddy is in heaven now?"
"Oh, goodness no! There isn't a heaven! He's just stuck in the dirt to decay and let the worms eat him. Chances are you'll never see him again!"
"But you said God loved me!"
"Right, he doesn't exist either, but don't let that disappoint you!"

You're right. Let's continue to lie to our children to shelter them from reality.

[scythe]

"It's okay, Jimmy, God loves you!"
"So daddy is in heaven now?"
"Oh, goodness no! There isn't a heaven! He's just stuck in the dirt to decay and let the worms eat him. Chances are you'll never see him again!"
"But you said God loved me!"
"Right, he doesn't exist either, but don't let that disappoint you!"

Obviously the reason that the human mind isn't equipped to deal with death is that for the first half a million years of human existence, nobody died.

[Deathconciousness]

i would say that deism is the most logical of the choices, as both modern theism and atheism are extremely arrogant positions. Not to mention both rely are rather weak, circumstantial arguments against each other anyway.

[otters]

i would say that deism is the most logical of the choices, as both modern theism and atheism are extremely arrogant positions. Not to mention both rely are rather weak, circumstantial arguments against each other anyway.

Deism is essentially a subset of theism. And it's still set against atheism.

Nice widely offending post, dude.

[Deathconciousness]

i would say that deism is the most logical of the choices, as both modern theism and atheism are extremely arrogant positions. Not to mention both rely are rather weak, circumstantial arguments against each other anyway.

Deism is essentially a subset of theism. And it's still set against atheism.

Nice widely offending post, dude.

i know exactly what deism is. and it probably shares more similarities with atheism, as it agrees with the belief that there has been no supernatural interaction with what human's perceive as reality since the beginning of time.

and yes, i find most people who hold beliefs in either sector to be quite asinine. Theists often don't think for themselves, and atheists are usually impressionable hipsters with no grasp of the actual purpose of proper science. Being on the internet, atheists often make me more angry, whilst the "few and proud" theists are either from my original stereotype, or they have been bludgeoned with so much anti-theistic arguments their beliefs are much more rational and understanding than they originally were.
Reverse goes for atheists who emerge from extreme conservative christian areas.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

i know exactly what deism is. and it probably shares more similarities with atheism, as it agrees with the belief that there has been no supernatural interaction with what human's perceive as reality since the beginning of time.

Deism is a subset of theism. Theism is defined as belief in the existence of the divine. Deism holds that god existed, and is therefore a type of theism. Atheism does not posit that there is no supernatural interaction with reality. It is possible to be a spiritual atheist.

and yes, i find most people who hold beliefs in either sector to be quite asinine. Theists often don't think for themselves, and atheists are usually impressionable hipsters with no grasp of the actual purpose of proper science. Being on the internet, atheists often make me more angry, whilst the "few and proud" theists are either from my original stereotype, or they have been bludgeoned with so much anti-theistic arguments their beliefs are much more rational and understanding than they originally were.
Reverse goes for atheists who emerge from extreme conservative christian areas.

When you make stupid imprecise generalizations, please acknowledge that you are doing so.

[Deathconciousness]

i know exactly what deism is. and it probably shares more similarities with atheism, as it agrees with the belief that there has been no supernatural interaction with what human's perceive as reality since the beginning of time.

Deism is a subset of theism. Theism is defined as belief in the existence of the divine. Deism holds that god existed, and is therefore a type of theism. Atheism does not posit that there is no supernatural interaction with reality. It is possible to be a spiritual atheist.

and yes, i find most people who hold beliefs in either sector to be quite asinine. Theists often don't think for themselves, and atheists are usually impressionable hipsters with no grasp of the actual purpose of proper science. Being on the internet, atheists often make me more angry, whilst the "few and proud" theists are either from my original stereotype, or they have been bludgeoned with so much anti-theistic arguments their beliefs are much more rational and understanding than they originally were.
Reverse goes for atheists who emerge from extreme conservative christian areas.

When you make stupid imprecise generalizations, please acknowledge that you are doing so.

you completely missed my point of comparing deism to atheism. why do you continue to try and define deism for me? i know what it is, i was just saying that deists and atheists are extremely skeptical towards all modern religions and deities. The only real difference between atheism and deism in practice is that one believes everything came from nothing, while the other one believes there was an entity that simply created us and left us alone.

i did mention i made stereotypes and generalizations. you shouldn't get made about it.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

you completely missed my point of comparing deism to atheism. why do you continue to try and define deism for me? i know what it is, i was just saying that deists and atheists are extremely skeptical towards all modern religions and deities.

You said "deism is closer to atheism than theism." I am pointing out that this is an erroneous statement. If anything, it's you who's missing my point here. Deism is a kind of theism. A deist's life may be more similar to an atheist's in that neither will attend church or pray, but when we're talking about the actual beliefs, deism is closer to theism because it is (a type of) theism.

The only real difference between atheism and deism in practice is that one believes everything came from nothing, while the other one believes there was an entity that simply created us and left us alone.

Atheism says nothing of the sort. Atheism does not make a statement about the origins of the universe, except that it does not come from god(s).

i did mention i made stereotypes and generalizations. you shouldn't get made about it.

I'm not getting mad about it, I just wish you wouldn't say that kind of thing. It's not particularly useful to make such oversimplified statements about heterogeneous groups of individuals.

[Brainwasher]

I'm a big religious person, and am a practicing Catholic. I believe in God and all that He teaches.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I can only imagine this conversation in person.

Deathconsciousness: "Deism is closer to atheism than theism."
Demonz: "Oh? How's that?"
Deathconsciousness: "Well, deism is the belief that there's a-"
Demonz: *grabs airhorn* *FNNNRRRRRRRRTT*
Deathconsciousness: "..."
Demonz: *puts down airhorn* "Sorry, you were saying?"
Deathconsciousness: "...a being that created the uni-"
Demonz: *grabs airhorn* *FNNNRRRRRRRRTT*
Deathconsciousness: "..."
Demonz: *puts down airhorn* "Please continue."
Deathconsciousness: "Are you going to let me finish this time?"
Demonz: "Given that I had to stop you twice just now in the same sentence, I don't think that's likely."
*Tsukatu wanders in*
Tsukatu: "Anyone seen my airhorn?"
Demonz: "Yeah, it's right here. I needed to borrow it for a sec. I knew you wouldn't mind."
Tsukatu: "Oh, yeah, that's fine. I'm just about to head into the Okay With Gays thread."
Demonz: "Here you go." *hands Tsukatu the airhorn*
Tsukatu: "Thanks." *exits the thread*
Demonz: "Where were we?"
Deathconsciousness: "I was saying how atheists also believe th-"
Demonz: "AAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!"
Deathconsciousness: (startled) "What was that?"
Demonz: "Sorry, I don't have the airhorn anymore. Do go on."
Deathconsciousness: "..."
*an airhorn sounds in a nearby thread*

[otters]

I can only imagine this conversation in person.

Deathconsciousness: "Deism is closer to atheism than theism."
Demonz: "Oh? How's that?"
Deathconsciousness: "Well, deism is the belief that there's a-"
Demonz: *grabs airhorn* *FNNNRRRRRRRRTT*
Deathconsciousness: "..."
Demonz: *puts down airhorn* "Sorry, you were saying?"
Deathconsciousness: "...a being that created the uni-"
Demonz: *grabs airhorn* *FNNNRRRRRRRRTT*
Deathconsciousness: "..."
Demonz: *puts down airhorn* "Please continue."
Deathconsciousness: "Are you going to let me finish this time?"
Demonz: "Given that I had to stop you twice just now in the same sentence, I don't think that's likely."
*Tsukatu wanders in*
Tsukatu: "Anyone seen my airhorn?"
Demonz: "Yeah, it's right here. I needed to borrow it for a sec. I knew you wouldn't mind."
Tsukatu: "Oh, yeah, that's fine. I'm just about to head into the Okay With Gays thread."
Demonz: "Here you go." *hands Tsukatu the airhorn*
Tsukatu: "Thanks." *exits the thread*
Demonz: "Where were we?"
Deathconsciousness: "I was saying how atheists also believe th-"
Demonz: "AAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!"
Deathconsciousness: (startled) "What was that?"
Demonz: "Sorry, I don't have the airhorn anymore. Do go on."
Deathconsciousness: "..."
*an airhorn sounds in a nearby thread*

Wahahahahahahahahaha.

Deathconsciousness really should get farther in his statements, though.

[blue_tetris]

About Deism:

Most of the early American leaders, like Jefferson and Franklin, were Deists because they didn't think Christianity was rational. Basically, they thought human perceptions guided all the religious texts and that no religion is correct. They believed in a higher power because they couldn't commit to the notion that one didn't exist. That required butting heads with a lot of the wrong people and explaining the lack of scientific evidence explaining certain phenomena.

If those Deists existed today, they would be atheists. Atheism is the natural evolution of Deism. Deism is obsolete.

[Deathconciousness]

Science and religion are by no means mutually exclusive.

Well, considering that most aspects of any religion that are considered fact end up being disproven by scientific analysis would indicate that they are mutually exclusive. Unless they is a religion which is, you know, based on fact rather than hearsay.

Please illustrate this without quoting Genesis and i will believe you.

[capt_weasle]

Please illustrate this without quoting Genesis and i will believe you.

Please illustrate the quadratic formula without using math and I will believe you. Note that I don't really know the context of what you're saying, but it doesn't help your argument if you ignore what could convince you otherwise.

[Deathconciousness]

You said "deism is closer to atheism than theism." I am pointing out that this is an erroneous statement. If anything, it's you who's missing my point here. Deism is a kind of theism. A deist's life may be more similar to an atheist's in that neither will attend church or pray, but when we're talking about the actual beliefs, deism is closer to theism because it is (a type of) theism.

All you did was just say i was wrong then circumvent your own conjecture and say i was right. The only belief deism holds similar with theism is the existence of supernatural deity. I know that Deism is a subset of Theism in technicality, but in practice a deist and atheist would basically share the same views of religion, and that was my original point. Please don't strawman me.

Atheism says nothing of the sort. Atheism does not make a statement about the origins of the universe, except that it does not come from god(s).

yes, that is the only statement Atheism makes about anything. You're reading too much into the technicalities of my word choice. I meant "nothing" as in the notion that "there is no supernatural being", "nothing" that is supernatural.

I'm not getting mad about it, I just wish you wouldn't say that kind of thing. It's not particularly useful to make such oversimplified statements about heterogeneous groups of individuals.

without generalizations and simplifications we couldn't make any conjectures about anything. what is your point other than the fact that it seems that you got displeased with how i referred to your belief, or lack thereof.

Deathconsciousness: "Deism is closer to atheism than theism."
Demonz: "Oh? How's that?"
Deathconsciousness: "Well, deism is the belief that there's a-"
Demonz: *grabs airhorn* *FNNNRRRRRRRRTT*
Deathconsciousness: "..."
Demonz: *puts down airhorn* "Sorry, you were saying?"
Deathconsciousness: "...a being that created the uni-"
Demonz: *grabs airhorn* *FNNNRRRRRRRRTT*
Deathconsciousness: "..."
Demonz: *puts down airhorn* "Please continue."
Deathconsciousness: "Are you going to let me finish this time?"
Demonz: "Given that I had to stop you twice just now in the same sentence, I don't think that's likely."
*Tsukatu wanders in*
Tsukatu: "Anyone seen my airhorn?"
Demonz: "Yeah, it's right here. I needed to borrow it for a sec. I knew you wouldn't mind."
Tsukatu: "Oh, yeah, that's fine. I'm just about to head into the Okay With Gays thread."
Demonz: "Here you go." *hands Tsukatu the airhorn*
Tsukatu: "Thanks." *exits the thread*
Demonz: "Where were we?"
Deathconsciousness: "I was saying how atheists also believe th-"
Demonz: "AAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!"
Deathconsciousness: (startled) "What was that?"
Demonz: "Sorry, I don't have the airhorn anymore. Do go on."
Deathconsciousness: "..."
*an airhorn sounds in a nearby thread*

a lack of belief is still a belief that something in itself is lacking. please dont be arrogant.

Please illustrate the quadratic formula without using math and I will believe you. Note that I don't really know the context of what you're saying, but it doesn't help your argument if you ignore what could convince you otherwise.

this is a complete misunderstanding of what i said, a total strawman. He made many claims of about religion and most likely Christianity. I asked for him to back it up. The burden of proof is on the person who claims something, not the other way around. What you asked me to do is completely arbitrary, logically inconsistent, and irrelevant to the discussion. Don't be childish.
I added the Genesis part because every generic anti-theist will mention it first and represent no individualistic thought. Not very many people are actually that well educated in religious texts, both theistic and atheistic alike.

[capt_weasle]

this is a complete misunderstanding of what i said, a total strawman. He made many claims of about religion and most likely Christianity. I asked for him to back it up. The burden of proof is on the person who claims something, not the other way around. What you asked me to do is completely arbitrary, logically inconsistent, and irrelevant to the discussion. Don't be childish.
I added the Genesis part because every generic anti-theist will mention it first and represent no individualistic thought. Not very many people are actually that well educated in religious texts, both theistic and atheistic alike.

You asked him to back it up, and then told him he can't use a source to back up his argument. He can use whatever the hell he wants, so stop assuming he is just going to quote the Bible and then say something stupid. Thousands of people are educated in religious texts, atheist and theist alike. Ask just about any history or English teacher and chances are they have read major religious texts more thoroughly than you ever have. And don't call me childish when I actually attempt to capitalize the beginning of every paragraph I write.