Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Scientifically, the evidence for nothing happening outweighs the scientifically possibility of the afterlife.
I am of the belief that religion can give something to people in need of guidance or support, but I'm an atheist.
I am of the belief that religion can give something to people in need of guidance or support, but I'm an atheist.
And that, my friend, is not proven yet which is contradictory to your first sentence.
What do you not understand about the sentence: "you cannot prove something isn't out there"?
I understand your logic. I just say it's wrong. I say I think there is no afterlife, as afterlife itself is not proven, and once AGAIN: one cannot prove there is no afterlife. I believe something is there, if it is proven. Afterlife is not proven, so I don't believe it is there. That is it, you are just not willing to understand because you are religious. It's quite a characteristic of religious people.
(edited)
What do you not understand about the sentence: "you cannot prove something isn't out there"?
I understand your logic. I just say it's wrong. I say I think there is no afterlife, as afterlife itself is not proven, and once AGAIN: one cannot prove there is no afterlife. I believe something is there, if it is proven. Afterlife is not proven, so I don't believe it is there. That is it, you are just not willing to understand because you are religious. It's quite a characteristic of religious people.
(edited)
You cannot say that the evil aspects of religion are abuse, they are inherent to any set of dogmatic moral values.
I gave 5 examples: sexuality, politics, cars, internet and religion. Are you saying that you can abuse only the first 4 but religion itself is predetermined only for abuse and is thus evil itself? How do you explain this:
"In most countries, religious people report better health; they say they have more energy, that their health is better, and that they experience less pain. Their social lives and personal behaviors are also healthier; they are more likely to be married, to have supportive friends, they are more likely to report being treated with respect, they have greater confidence in the healthcare and medical system and they are less likely to smoke."
So are you actually claiming that all or most of these people that are experiencing the above because of their religion beliefs must be producing convincingly greater evil effects caused by the same beliefs? If yes, please explain. If not, what then?
When for instance those moral values command, go forth and multiply, you have a pope condeming the use of condomns in the face of AIDS.
The Church is not saying that anyone should have unprotected sex when having AIDS. It is simply saying that they should apply apstinence instead. It's a simple prioritisation of possible solutions. What's the problem with that? Why wouldn't someone be advised to apply the best possible method?
And if this is your best example, don't even bother naming "quite a few other examples" that you supposedly know of.
Not to mention the artificial divide between those who believe the right thing and the poor misguided fools who don't. This is an open invitation for neglect, violence and differentiation.
So, claiming that atheism is the only choice for "non-fools" is not creating any divisions? How is that different from claiming to a person that he's a fool for not being e.g. a Catholic? Is it maybe because atheists are right and the religious people are not? :P
I gave 5 examples: sexuality, politics, cars, internet and religion. Are you saying that you can abuse only the first 4 but religion itself is predetermined only for abuse and is thus evil itself? How do you explain this:
"In most countries, religious people report better health; they say they have more energy, that their health is better, and that they experience less pain. Their social lives and personal behaviors are also healthier; they are more likely to be married, to have supportive friends, they are more likely to report being treated with respect, they have greater confidence in the healthcare and medical system and they are less likely to smoke."
So are you actually claiming that all or most of these people that are experiencing the above because of their religion beliefs must be producing convincingly greater evil effects caused by the same beliefs? If yes, please explain. If not, what then?
When for instance those moral values command, go forth and multiply, you have a pope condeming the use of condomns in the face of AIDS.
The Church is not saying that anyone should have unprotected sex when having AIDS. It is simply saying that they should apply apstinence instead. It's a simple prioritisation of possible solutions. What's the problem with that? Why wouldn't someone be advised to apply the best possible method?
And if this is your best example, don't even bother naming "quite a few other examples" that you supposedly know of.
Not to mention the artificial divide between those who believe the right thing and the poor misguided fools who don't. This is an open invitation for neglect, violence and differentiation.
So, claiming that atheism is the only choice for "non-fools" is not creating any divisions? How is that different from claiming to a person that he's a fool for not being e.g. a Catholic? Is it maybe because atheists are right and the religious people are not? :P
That is it, you are just not willing to understand because you are religious. It's quite a characteristic of religious people.
ROFL. You're killing me. :D
How do you explain then that Schepel agrees that your 2 sentences are contradictory?
ROFL. You're killing me. :D
How do you explain then that Schepel agrees that your 2 sentences are contradictory?
I think its contradictory in the way that loving cheese whilst being lactose intolerant is contradictory. More bending the rules rather than being mutually exclusive.
Scientifically, the evidence for nothing happening outweighs the scientifically possibility of the afterlife.
Exactly. Too bad it's not a scientific question. :P
I am of the belief that religion can give something to people in need of guidance or support, but I'm an atheist.
Exactly. Too bad all people are in need of guidance and support. And too bad not all of them realise that. :P
Blaise Pascal - “There are only three types of people: those who have found God and serve him, those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.”
Exactly. Too bad it's not a scientific question. :P
I am of the belief that religion can give something to people in need of guidance or support, but I'm an atheist.
Exactly. Too bad all people are in need of guidance and support. And too bad not all of them realise that. :P
Blaise Pascal - “There are only three types of people: those who have found God and serve him, those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.”
Exactly. Too bad it's not a scientific question. :P
But Rubinho is a scientific person ;)
Exactly. Too bad all people are in need of guidance and support. And too bad not all of them realise that. :P
I don't really care much for religion still - I don't like Richard Dawkins (major anti-religion guy) for the way he approaches the matter.
But Rubinho is a scientific person ;)
Exactly. Too bad all people are in need of guidance and support. And too bad not all of them realise that. :P
I don't really care much for religion still - I don't like Richard Dawkins (major anti-religion guy) for the way he approaches the matter.
You are very mature.
Well actually, in a discussion with you facepalm eventually becomes the only mature thing to do. :P
Well actually, in a discussion with you facepalm eventually becomes the only mature thing to do. :P
I think its contradictory in the way that loving cheese whilst being lactose intolerant is contradictory. More bending the rules rather than being mutually exclusive.
no, it was just unlogical.
and my point wasn´t exactly that what sasha76 wrote.
when robinho writes:
a) I don't believe anything that isn't proven.
b) Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.
only possible conclusion is that robinho has the proof about it what he wrote.
in other words - the same thing pronounced in affirmative way:
a) i believe everything (or something) that is proven.
b) (i believe) Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it
so he believes that is proven we die and that´s it.
i asked him more than once how can be proven something like that, and his answers are: there is no afterlife and you are very mature.
no, it was just unlogical.
and my point wasn´t exactly that what sasha76 wrote.
when robinho writes:
a) I don't believe anything that isn't proven.
b) Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.
only possible conclusion is that robinho has the proof about it what he wrote.
in other words - the same thing pronounced in affirmative way:
a) i believe everything (or something) that is proven.
b) (i believe) Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it
so he believes that is proven we die and that´s it.
i asked him more than once how can be proven something like that, and his answers are: there is no afterlife and you are very mature.
Scientifically, when you die, you die. There's no life left in your body. Anything after that is not provable, whilst you can easily argue that you die and that is it :)
No, in a sense that afterlife is believed to exist, you can't argue that. That would mean that it's either your imagination or your manners that are handicapped. Explained further: you either can't imagine an afterlife or you are mocking the people who believe in it.
I've explained why they aren't.
I believe we have a different view on mature then.
a) I don't believe anything that isn't proven.
b) Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.
only possible conclusion is that robinho has the proof about it what he wrote.
1. It Rubinho, not robinho.
2. Your conclusion is wrong, read what I've written.
i asked him more than once how can be proven something like that, and his answers are: there is no afterlife and you are very mature.
I explained why I reject afterlife and you not being mature was an answer to your facepalm thing. Be intellectual honest enough to have a decent discussion by reading what I write. I've had it with you two.
(edited)
b) Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.
only possible conclusion is that robinho has the proof about it what he wrote.
1. It Rubinho, not robinho.
2. Your conclusion is wrong, read what I've written.
i asked him more than once how can be proven something like that, and his answers are: there is no afterlife and you are very mature.
I explained why I reject afterlife and you not being mature was an answer to your facepalm thing. Be intellectual honest enough to have a decent discussion by reading what I write. I've had it with you two.
(edited)
I gave 5 examples: sexuality, politics, cars, internet and religion. Are you saying that you can abuse only the first 4 but religion itself is predetermined only for abuse and is thus evil itself? How do you explain this:
Tools are value-empty. A car is a tool. Doesn't do to compare it with another beast like religion. Politics is a better comparison, however I was not comparing one with the the other. Religion can be understood without any more or less relevant comparisons.
As for the thing you quote here, I say but one thing. Belief is key, not religion. It is a scientifically proven fact that the mind may both kill and heal. You can think yourself to death - quite rapidly, in fact. If someone believes it to be healthy to drink his own urine, that will 'help'. Religion does help in the same way. It does NOT follow logically from this point it is a good thing. However, and this is key, even if the good points about religion are all true, they do not detract from the evil points in any way. At any rate, it's a horrendous blunder to see religion as a value-empty tool which use is entirely dependant on the person using it.
The Church is not saying that anyone should have unprotected sex when having AIDS. It is simply saying that they should apply apstinence instead. It's a simple prioritisation of possible solutions. What's the problem with that? Why wouldn't someone be advised to apply the best possible method?
The church has seen the error of its ways - 20 years too late, but still. The error in this is childishly simple: human beings are animals with animal needs. Abstinence is unnatural. It does not work. For a select few it might, but for the vast majority it does not. Especially when blindly applied to cultures where sex with many different partners is normal.
So, claiming that atheism is the only choice for "non-fools" is not creating any divisions?
I did not claim any such thing. If you want to believe in anything, by all means, do so. The only thing I want to say is that there is a problem with religion. Atheïsm is rather akin to a belief as well, by the way. A belief to believe in nothing and that those who do, are fools, is still a belief with much the same pitfalls as any other religion.