Because that, in a nutshell, is what believing in a religion is all about - blind and unquestioning acceptance of statements presented as facts with no evidence.

Originally designed to control a population and milk them of assets, they now do a pretty similar job, a 1000 year scam and still going strong.

The problem is people like Kirkstaller don't [u[iwant[/i[/u to see this, so won't see this. They prefer the 'peace of mind' in their superior sanctiomony.

Unfortunately enough of society still more generally continues to vindicate religion instead of exposing the varied inconsistent beliefs for the superstitious nonsense that it all is.

It got me when he said all non religous people people or athiests sinners,who are all lyars,thieves and adulterers.How dare he say that about people he has never met?but If Christianity is the way of the true god,then why did they feel the need to to take on all th Pagen feasts like Yuletide and Easter etc?

I was having an argument with a Christian and I told her to go away and look objectively at the evidence, and suggested that she wouldn't believe in God for very long if she did. Her reply was that she didn't want to look at the evidence because she didn't want to not believe in God. With attitudes like that, there's really no hope.

duplicate post

Because, unfortunately, there is a difference between organised religion and the faith it grew from.

If the Big J predicted & was responsible for the 4 GF victories at Old Trafford in 5 years then I take it all back. I wonder what odds he would have got for games 2,000 years in the future?

26 pages! That's a fair old fishing trip Kirkstaller.



On one hand, we have Kirkstaller stating his beliefs, and as evidence for those beliefs providing reference points to quotations from the Bible, and to ancient scripts which may, or may not accurately reflect life thousands of years ago.Whoever had written them would surely have put a spin on the the historical realities of the age to show their political masters in the best possible light? Factor in the nuances which have been lost in various translations, and a sensible person would take it all with a large pinch of salt.

And on the other, we have the nay sayers, seemingly armed only with insults and the self same belief that their views are the correct ones.

The irony is, that neither side can provide definitive proof as to the existence or not of GOD.

Nor the existence, or not, of god[uS[/u....(please note plural with [ino[/i apostrophe)

. Maybe we're all in the matrix ? Indeed who knows ? What [uis[/u reality ?

Not the easiest thing to grasp. I can recommend a few books that do quantum and particle physics in as near to layman's terms as you're going to get, which might help - "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies covers this pretty well, and "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" and "Schroedinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin provide some good background.

However, as bright a lad as Stephen Hawking is, crediting him with coming up with the big bang theory is wildly inaccurate. Deciding whose theory it actually is is pretty tough, since it sort of evolved from the emergence of evidence about cosmological distance and recession. Fred Hoyle is given credit for coining the term "Big Bang" but he wasn't actually postulating a theory, and in fact probably didn't believe in such a theory. However, the best papers to attribute the basis for the modern theory are those by a Belgian physicist named Georges Lemaitre, who suggested in 1927 that the observed recession of distant nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe (he wasn't alone or ahead of the curve there, others were reaching the same conclusion) but then made a big leap in 1931 (around 11 years before Hawking was born) in suggesting the logical conclusion that if you extrapolated the expansion of the universe back through time, then at a finite and measurable point in time it would converge on a single point, at which he said the fabric of space and time would have come into existence.

Interestingly, for the puropses of this debate, Lemaitre was, in fact, a Roman Catholic Priest, as well as a mathematician and physicist.

True story.

Many people people have responded to Kirkstaller with reasonable points, the insults arrived later on in this thread when it became obvious that the OP was unwilling to listen to reason. The OP also demonstrated his homophobia in both this and the sin bin thread and has stated some other rather unpalatable beliefs which emerge from his the particular fundamentalist theology that he follows.

If you take the time read some of the less than pleasant things that Kirkstaller has said then it is understandle why some people have insulted the OP.



It is up to the individual making a claim to support such a claim. As an atheist it is not up to me as the non believer to disprove the existence of God but rather it is up to the theist to provide support for their position. As long as there is no actual evidence for the existence of God/s then the skeptical position is the most rational one to take and I will continue in my skepticism.

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that if nobody can produce evidence that god [idoesn't[/i exist then nobody, similarly, can produce evidence that various other gods don't exist, or that the invisible spaghetti monster god (with his holy invisible chocolate teapot) doesn't exist etc etc. Stupid argument.

Surely the burden of proof is on those who wish to prove existence and not those who believe otherwise.

If not you’re back to the “because I say it is so” argument where NOTHING can be either proved or disproved.

God falls in the same category as unicorns, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns or the Loch Ness Monster - until someone can categorically prove their existence then they don’t exist.

The difference being (as far as I know)that no-one is using the invisible spaghetti monster god (with his holy invisible chocolate teapot) as a vehicle for spreading bigotry and hate.

I know i've used the reading before, but Matthew 25: 31-46 doesn't say that one has to go to church, pray, or anything like that. If you're a good person, that's all well and good. If you don't treat others as you would wish to be treated, you're off to hell. Not anything to do with the 10 commandments, or anything like that. So you still don't believe that someone who isn't a conventional Christian can go to 'heaven'?

Thankyou

No. I think it is reasonable for both sides to provide some evidence in support of their respective beliefs. Facts are always open to interpretation, but failure to do so simply highlights the paucity of their arguments.The schoolboy response of "Please Miss, he started it!" never worked as an excuse in the playground, and the inability to at least try and substantiate your ideas is never a good starting point.

As an Agnostic, I hold the skeptical view as to the possible existence of an omniscient being, and believe that the existence of God cannot be proved. It doesn't mean that I am right, and should dismiss outright the views of others who hold Religious convictions as wrong.

However,on the other side of the debate to Kirkstaller is Gareth1984. Who is an Atheist, and as that is a definitive position which denies completely the idea of a GOD, I simply ask him to share with us his evidence for arriving at that particular viewpoint.

I'm not too sure I follow the logic in your last paragraph, re the Loch Ness Monster. For definitave proof simply text the Scottish Tourist Board.....

The thing that got me about Kirkstaller when he said all non believers/athiests etc are sinners,liars ,and adulterers.Now was he trolling here?If he is he is saying that its not possible be a non believer and be a good and decent person who shows goodwill to his or her fellow human beings,and at the same time even though you have been with the same partner for many years you are an adulterer and a thief ,and a liar.Well thats an awful lot of people to condemn.Wasnt Christ supposed to have said "vENGEANCE IS MINE"as well as other things .

Quote ="BillyRhino"However,on the other side of the debate to Kirkstaller is Gareth1984. Who is an Atheist, and as that is a definitive position which denies completely the idea of a GOD, I simply ask him to share with us his evidence for arriving at that particular viewpoint. )'" I suggest you actually learn what atheism actually means before you attempt to set up a straw man of my position. Atheism is in its broadest sense a lack of belief in God/s. What you describe is in fact "strong" atheism, however I do not subscribe to that particular viewpoint. There is a distinction between the two forms of atheism, however not all atheists are strong atheists, in fact from my own experience very few atheists could be considered "strong" atheists. The terms agnostic and atheist are also not in themselves mutually exclusive, a/gnosticism refers to knowledge whilst A/theism refers to belief or lack of belief in deities, therefore it is entirely possible to be both agnostic and an atheist. I do not require evidence to arrive at my position for the simple reason that I do not hold the view that there is no God but rather that I have no reason to believe in God/s based on the complete absence of evidence in their favour, therefore I prefer to reject theistic claims until such evidence is provided. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Whilst I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, the article does explain some of what I have said above regarding the definition of atheism.

Quote ="BillyRhino"However,on the other side of the debate to Kirkstaller is Gareth1984. Who is an Atheist, and as that is a definitive position which denies completely the idea of a GOD, I simply ask him to share with us his evidence for arriving at that particular viewpoint. )'" I suggest you actually learn what atheism actually means before you attempt to set up a straw man of my position. Atheism is in its broadest sense a lack of belief in God/s. What you describe is in fact "strong" atheism, however I do not subscribe to that particular viewpoint. There is a distinction between the two forms of atheism, however not all atheists are strong atheists, in fact from my own experience very few atheists could be considered "strong" atheists. The terms agnostic and atheist are also not in themselves mutually exclusive, a/gnosticism refers to knowledge whilst A/theism refers to belief or lack of belief in deities, therefore it is entirely possible to be both agnostic and an atheist. I do not require evidence to arrive at my position for the simple reason that I do not hold the view that there is no God but rather that I have no reason to believe in God/s based on the complete absence of evidence in their favour, therefore I prefer to reject theistic claims until such evidence is provided. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Whilst I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, the article does explain some of what I have said above regarding the definition of atheism.

He's also wildly inaccurate at predicting when the next bus should arrive at any given stand at Leeds Bus Station.

What a ridiculous post. The burden of proof is on he who says that God exists. It's bugger all to do with who 'started it', but rather the simple fact that it's impossible to prove a negative.

Faith is all you need. It doesn't matter how good you think you are, works cannot save you. Why? Grace can never be earned. You cannot earn your place in Heaven. Mercy only comes through faith alone. Therefore, anything we do in the area of religious works are not good deeds but attempts to bribe the judge of the universe. God will not be bribed.

This is what scripture tells us. Try reading John of the Pauline Epistles.

In reference to Matthew 25:31-46, this does not worry me as I believe that when one is born again such fruit is borne. I do however maintain that such good works have absolutely no bearing on salvation, for the reasons given above. We are still men, we are still fallible, we are still dripping in sin.

We are ALL already condemned.

Will you take the lifeline offered at the cross?

Oh dear. Anyone who uses "actually" twice in the first eight words of a sentence is in no position to lecture! No matter, you appear to have some difficulty with my view that an atheist per se, denies completely that there is a GOD, and yet, in the first paragraph of your Wiki link it states;

[iAtheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1 In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2[3 Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3[4[5 Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6[7 which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7[8,[/i

So,for the time being, it would appear both Wiki and I are singing off the same song sheet. Where you choose to position yourself on the Atheist Spectrum is entirely up to you of course.



Yes, I did actually read your link, and note the plagiarism in the paragraph above. Apparently I'm a Spiritual Agnostic, whilst you appear to be a weak/soft/negative Atheist.



Yes, you've already stated that, but simply repeating the mantra does not strengthen the weakness of a point of view which rests on someone else having to produce evidence, rather than reaching a conclusion based on your own facts.

If you are happy with that, then I think we'll leave it there.

The fact that I missed a grammatical error in my first point does not detract from your original lack of understanding regarding the term atheism



As I have stated by applying solely the strong definition of atheism you are setting up a straw man of my position you claimed in you previous post that I hold a definitive position, when I do not. This is done by ignoring the definition of atheist that many philosophers accept and which is held by a large number of individuals who self identify as atheists.

If you wish to ignore the broader and more common definitions of atheism then you are entitled to do so, however by doing so you misrepresent myself and manyother self identified atheists who do not subscribe to the view that there are no God/s.



The above from wikipedia supports my view as it explains that atheism is the lack of belief in deities, this is even stated in the part of the quote that you have highlighted. The article clearly contradicts your claim that atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/s. You acknowledge the fact that atheism is not necessarily as narrow as you initially stated with your last sentence, yet claim the above backs up your original position.

I also do not choose to position myself anywhere in the "spectrum" it just so happens that the position I hold in relation to God aligns with the position that is defined as "weak" atheism. As far as labels go I prefer the term nontheism as it avoids semantic arguments regarding the definition of the term "atheist".



Nothing that was written in the paragraph mentioned was plagiarised. In the paragraph I explained the definitions from my own understanding of atheism and agnosticism. It is unsurprising that those definitions will be similar to those used elsewhere however that two definitions of the same terms are similar does not equate to plagiarism.

At no point in the my post have I copied anything directly from another article and in fact I had already written my post when I even searched for the wikipedia article. I suggest you either back up your claims of plagiarism or apologise as plagiarism is quite a serious accusation to be made against another poster.



It's not a weakness, it is a simple restatement of reason that an individual making a claim needs to be the one who supports the claim they are making.

For example, if I made a claim that I have psychic powers yet am unable to demonstrate such powers then the most rational position for other people to take would be to retain a position of skepticism until such time that I can demonstrate that I hold such powers. The same also applies to God/s. I would not expect in this instance that others people provide evidence for their position regarding my claimed psychic powers as there can be no evidence for such a position, rather skepticism becomes the most justified position to hold because of the lack of evidence in this instance.

The only way we can prove a negative is if that which is claimed is falsifiable, whilst this applies to certain concepts of God it does not (at least currently) apply to God as an whole so we cannot currently falsify the concept of God. Therefore to demand "evidence" for the weak atheist position is to demand something which is impossible and it is therefore unreasonable to do so.