http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/ Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:40:35 +0000 MyBB http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-TheThinkingTheist Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:45:26 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-TheThinkingTheist
What if there were a forum that was designed like a battlefield, or a debate club.

TheThinkingAtheist is sort of like this one. Then there's another site called TheThinkingTheist that's the theist version of this one. And there's a section in both forums that is the community area, sort of the podium for both forums.

Only atheists could see posts and converse in TTA and only theist members could see and converse in TTT (or as the cool kids will come to call it, T Cubed). But both sides can see and converse in the community part. That way the minds of the atheists and theists could talk amongst each other, formulating ideas and agreeing on talking points, before posting their final argument in the "podium" section for the other side to debate.

That way, both sides feel at home and would remain unridiculed in their respective forums, but could still offer up arguments with the support of their fellow members.

I feel like a lot more well thought out discussions would be had, without people having to flee from the pressure of having to defend theism single-handedly.]]>
What if there were a forum that was designed like a battlefield, or a debate club.

TheThinkingAtheist is sort of like this one. Then there's another site called TheThinkingTheist that's the theist version of this one. And there's a section in both forums that is the community area, sort of the podium for both forums.

Only atheists could see posts and converse in TTA and only theist members could see and converse in TTT (or as the cool kids will come to call it, T Cubed). But both sides can see and converse in the community part. That way the minds of the atheists and theists could talk amongst each other, formulating ideas and agreeing on talking points, before posting their final argument in the "podium" section for the other side to debate.

That way, both sides feel at home and would remain unridiculed in their respective forums, but could still offer up arguments with the support of their fellow members.

I feel like a lot more well thought out discussions would be had, without people having to flee from the pressure of having to defend theism single-handedly.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-The-Top-10-people-famous-people-you-would-have-dinner-with Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:32:54 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-The-Top-10-people-famous-people-you-would-have-dinner-with
I always find the answers to this question are fascinating.

Mine would be:

1. Einstein
2. Stephen Hawking
3. Jim Carrey
4. Arnold Schwarzeneggar
5. Edwin Hubble
6. George Clooney
7. Neil Armstrong
8. Carl Sagan
9. Steven Spielberg
10. Christopher Hitchens

...although this is not a definitive list
Oh, I would definitely want Sigmund Freud as well]]>
I always find the answers to this question are fascinating.

Mine would be:

1. Einstein
2. Stephen Hawking
3. Jim Carrey
4. Arnold Schwarzeneggar
5. Edwin Hubble
6. George Clooney
7. Neil Armstrong
8. Carl Sagan
9. Steven Spielberg
10. Christopher Hitchens

...although this is not a definitive list
Oh, I would definitely want Sigmund Freud as well]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-On-being-human-and-atheist Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:53:00 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-On-being-human-and-atheist How long did it take for you to feel comfortable being human again?[/font]]]> How long did it take for you to feel comfortable being human again?[/font]]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-You-can-watch-the-Super-Bowl-Online Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:58:07 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-You-can-watch-the-Super-Bowl-Online catch the game online. It's the first time it's ever been done. Be sure to fill up the servers and slow down my viewing experience so we can make sure the game is streamed next year, too!]]> catch the game online. It's the first time it's ever been done. Be sure to fill up the servers and slow down my viewing experience so we can make sure the game is streamed next year, too!]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Any-other-juicers-here Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:31:19 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Any-other-juicers-here




I got mine about a week ago and I'm starting to think "What can't I juice?" Girly does not like eating vegetables at all, but all the combinations I've tried to drink so far (various mixes of kale, spinach, celery, cucumber, lettuce, carrots, beets, apples, pears, lemons with peel, ginger, garlic, onion, asparagus, brussel sprouts, chard, burdock, wheatgrass) have all been delicious. ... And they all mix well with vodka. And the ethanol increases their antioxidant effectiveness. (reference available on request).

P.S. Wheatgrass is very expensive to buy and very sweet. Thinkin' about growing my own.]]>




I got mine about a week ago and I'm starting to think "What can't I juice?" Girly does not like eating vegetables at all, but all the combinations I've tried to drink so far (various mixes of kale, spinach, celery, cucumber, lettuce, carrots, beets, apples, pears, lemons with peel, ginger, garlic, onion, asparagus, brussel sprouts, chard, burdock, wheatgrass) have all been delicious. ... And they all mix well with vodka. And the ethanol increases their antioxidant effectiveness. (reference available on request).

P.S. Wheatgrass is very expensive to buy and very sweet. Thinkin' about growing my own.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-If-you-could-spy-on-anyone-anywhere-any-time%E2%80%A6 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:21:29 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-If-you-could-spy-on-anyone-anywhere-any-time%E2%80%A6
Such a device could be a terrific help to crime investigators, historians an voyeurs.

So, who/what/where/when would you want to watch?

Cantor does not need to answer this --- we know!

PS. You could watch a person, a group of persons or a historical event by adjusting the camera lens from telephoto to wide angle. Also you could zoom in and zoom out.
It is really a cool gizmo -- no wonder, I invented it (in my head)!

Here are some ideas:

You could watch the library window when JFK was assassinated to find out if Oswald really did it.

You could watch Bethlehem at AD 0 to see if Jesus was real.

You could watch Obama in a meeting with his close advisers to see what his game really is? Endless opportunities!

ETA:

Caveat: You can not ever use or disclose the information you obtained, it is only to satisfy your own curiosity. So forget about the Lottery numbers and the stock market.]]>
Such a device could be a terrific help to crime investigators, historians an voyeurs.

So, who/what/where/when would you want to watch?

Cantor does not need to answer this --- we know!

PS. You could watch a person, a group of persons or a historical event by adjusting the camera lens from telephoto to wide angle. Also you could zoom in and zoom out.
It is really a cool gizmo -- no wonder, I invented it (in my head)!

Here are some ideas:

You could watch the library window when JFK was assassinated to find out if Oswald really did it.

You could watch Bethlehem at AD 0 to see if Jesus was real.

You could watch Obama in a meeting with his close advisers to see what his game really is? Endless opportunities!

ETA:

Caveat: You can not ever use or disclose the information you obtained, it is only to satisfy your own curiosity. So forget about the Lottery numbers and the stock market.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-So-apparently-spiderman-is-a-real-job Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:17:13 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-So-apparently-spiderman-is-a-real-job
Spidey must be thrilled to know that his car can be insured.

]]>
Spidey must be thrilled to know that his car can be insured.

]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Letter-to-God Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:48:10 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Letter-to-God Dear God

In 2011 you called my favourite pop-star Michael Jackson, my favourite actor Patrick Swayze, my favourite actress Farah Fawcet and my favourite engineer Steve Jobs.

This letter is a friendly reminder that Sarah Palin is my favourite politician.


Greetings]]> Dear God

In 2011 you called my favourite pop-star Michael Jackson, my favourite actor Patrick Swayze, my favourite actress Farah Fawcet and my favourite engineer Steve Jobs.

This letter is a friendly reminder that Sarah Palin is my favourite politician.


Greetings]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Is-atheism-a-radical-position Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:37:59 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Is-atheism-a-radical-position http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Do-you-believe-in-%E2%80%9CInnocent-until-proven-guilty%E2%80%9D Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:33:31 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Do-you-believe-in-%E2%80%9CInnocent-until-proven-guilty%E2%80%9D
In this age it is a serious question.

It appears that now we have conditions attached to it.

If one can somehow evoke the magic word “terrorist”, then anything goes, as if terrorism were some kind of a new disease, instead of tactics used by minorities (including British, Israeli, even Americans) all over the world, all through history.

So my question to you:

If you hear that some guy (a naturalized citizen of your own country) with an Arabic sounding name, was behaving suspiciously, had traveled in Afghanistan in mysterious circumstances, applied for immigration to the US or Canada (10 years ago) with a false passport, and then was anonymously accused by a neighbor as a “possible terrorist” – what do you recommend:

A. Innocent until proven guilty
B. Give him an opportunity to explain, then check out his answers and let him go if his answers check out and make sense (like he was escaping persecution)
C. Give him a speedy trial if you think there is a case against him that will stand up in court
D. Throw him in jail, without trial, without access to information about the case against him, and then leave him there for years or decades and just plain forget that he exists (except for the constant and sadistic ‘enhanced interrogation’)
E. Send him to a third world country, famous of its torturing techniques, together with a list of questions they should ask him

Now, after you answered this question, answer it again, this time assuming that the accused person is one of your loved ones?]]>
In this age it is a serious question.

It appears that now we have conditions attached to it.

If one can somehow evoke the magic word “terrorist”, then anything goes, as if terrorism were some kind of a new disease, instead of tactics used by minorities (including British, Israeli, even Americans) all over the world, all through history.

So my question to you:

If you hear that some guy (a naturalized citizen of your own country) with an Arabic sounding name, was behaving suspiciously, had traveled in Afghanistan in mysterious circumstances, applied for immigration to the US or Canada (10 years ago) with a false passport, and then was anonymously accused by a neighbor as a “possible terrorist” – what do you recommend:

A. Innocent until proven guilty
B. Give him an opportunity to explain, then check out his answers and let him go if his answers check out and make sense (like he was escaping persecution)
C. Give him a speedy trial if you think there is a case against him that will stand up in court
D. Throw him in jail, without trial, without access to information about the case against him, and then leave him there for years or decades and just plain forget that he exists (except for the constant and sadistic ‘enhanced interrogation’)
E. Send him to a third world country, famous of its torturing techniques, together with a list of questions they should ask him

Now, after you answered this question, answer it again, this time assuming that the accused person is one of your loved ones?]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Here-is-a-Theist-science-version-of-life Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:12:10 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Here-is-a-Theist-science-version-of-life Once we finally evolve from apes and take on human form, he decides he is against premarital sex and birth control. Premarital sex is a sin now, even though sex was around for millions of years before marriage. He is against condoms, even though they protect against herpes and other diseases charlie sheen probably has.

He says everyone has free will, but still wants everyone to pray to him during and after horrible tragedies that were caused by free will, knowing full well he won't intervene. Christians, with obvious evidence of this fact, are still hypocrites and pray thinking god will help. List of things they prayed during while god never intervened: slavery,holocaust,9/11,oklahoma bombing,tsunamis,hurricane katrina,japan earthquake. and every child that was ever been kidnapped raped tortured and eventually murdered... Of course, anyone that survived during these events thinks it's because they prayed, but the dead people aren't around to say god didn't help.

God decides that abortion is a sin, but if a baby is born and dies before his parents can get his head dunked in water(baptism), they can't go to heaven. They must go to limbo first through no fault of their own.
Last but not least, god decides to send his son after 14 billion years to earth. He could have waited 2 thousand more years when cable tv was invented, so we can document it and have visual proof of jesus and his teachings, but decides to send him when it's not possible to videotape it. Hence, everyone has to use faith and 800 religions are then invented because there was no clear winner.

Last but not least #2- masturbation is a sin. All semen is a living thing and is considered murder if not used for pro creation. All men are now considered murderers.]]> Once we finally evolve from apes and take on human form, he decides he is against premarital sex and birth control. Premarital sex is a sin now, even though sex was around for millions of years before marriage. He is against condoms, even though they protect against herpes and other diseases charlie sheen probably has.

He says everyone has free will, but still wants everyone to pray to him during and after horrible tragedies that were caused by free will, knowing full well he won't intervene. Christians, with obvious evidence of this fact, are still hypocrites and pray thinking god will help. List of things they prayed during while god never intervened: slavery,holocaust,9/11,oklahoma bombing,tsunamis,hurricane katrina,japan earthquake. and every child that was ever been kidnapped raped tortured and eventually murdered... Of course, anyone that survived during these events thinks it's because they prayed, but the dead people aren't around to say god didn't help.

God decides that abortion is a sin, but if a baby is born and dies before his parents can get his head dunked in water(baptism), they can't go to heaven. They must go to limbo first through no fault of their own.
Last but not least, god decides to send his son after 14 billion years to earth. He could have waited 2 thousand more years when cable tv was invented, so we can document it and have visual proof of jesus and his teachings, but decides to send him when it's not possible to videotape it. Hence, everyone has to use faith and 800 religions are then invented because there was no clear winner.

Last but not least #2- masturbation is a sin. All semen is a living thing and is considered murder if not used for pro creation. All men are now considered murderers.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Oh-my-fucking-ALLAH Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:46:58 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Oh-my-fucking-ALLAH and a muslim "friend" of his



Not an extremist, just another middle-class muslim teenager.

This is what i meant by how moderation in islam is almost nonexistant.
a lot of the muslims i know share exactly the same sentiment, Shameful.
They think the world is their playground and anyone who isnt with them is
just a prop.]]> and a muslim "friend" of his



Not an extremist, just another middle-class muslim teenager.

This is what i meant by how moderation in islam is almost nonexistant.
a lot of the muslims i know share exactly the same sentiment, Shameful.
They think the world is their playground and anyone who isnt with them is
just a prop.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-If-you-could-live-to-1000 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:18:04 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-If-you-could-live-to-1000 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-My-Elementary-Arguments-with-Friends Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:53:56 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-My-Elementary-Arguments-with-Friends
1. My first argument (my favorite argument, one that I came up with independently, although I cannot possibly be the first) is one that attempts to undermine religious credibility. I see similar arguments commonly. I state mine something like this:

There are thousands of religions that man has made. Of these, all claim to be correct. We'll say that there are 1000 religions (although there were surely more), leaving at most .1% to be true (unless you could be more than one religion, like Shinto/Buddhism, although those might not be religions, but more like belief systems.) This leaves 99.9% of the religions to be false, at minimum (100% could definitely be a possibility). If man has created 1000 religions, and has been wrong 999 times, how does the thousandth differ? How is Christianity special (to which I have received faulty responses, such as argument #3)?

2. My second argument (one that I've never used in a real conversation, btu that I will try to remember to include) is one that shows the characteristics of religion to be ignorant to new facts, evidence, and improvement. I characterize religion like this:
a. Belief from an early age, traumatic event, or other event compels a person to believe in this religion, assuming it is true without necessary evidence.
b. Infinite threat (infinite pain, torture, etc. i.e. Hell) compels this person to never question belief (no salvation). Basically a scare tactic.
c. To compound belief, everything is attributed to the supernatural. If you flip heads on a coin, "God did it". If you pray for tails, and you get heads, "It was God's will." If you get heads, "THANK YOU GOD, this is OBVIOUSLY proof that God exists."
"Miracles" are chance events that give credit to God. Obviously, there is not a 0% chance of things like this happening, and it has to happen sometime, and it just happened to occur at this particular moment in time in one particular place.
"Tradgedies" are chance events that give credit to God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and infinite wisdom. To increase the argument of "God's Will", the religion may say that there is a larger plan, or there is a larger accident that would've happened (Your car didn't start because there was a drunk driver on the road that would've hit you. Obviously, this likely does nto qualify as a tragedy, and there are better examples, but why not just take away the drunk driver and let the car start?)
d. Lack of faith, irreligion, free thought, and questioning are viewed as dangerous, sin, and evil. This further compels the person to not question, and the "proof by majority" concept comes in.
e. There are other mechanisms that contribute, but I need to stop because my post is getting quite long.

Overall, religion seems like the perfect control tactic. I'm sure many people here would agree.

3. This is a faulty a response that one of my Christian classmates gave, a proof by majority, when I gave him argument #1. We stopped arguing afterwards due to a teacher interrupting us for educational purposes (needed to talk about grades (not bad grades, he talked to everyone, bad or good) with this person). What he basically said was this:
Do you think it is a coincidence that Christianity is the largest religion in the world?
In response to this, I see there are several courses I could take in response, along with other I have not thought of. Among these are: "Christianity was not always the largest religion, so are you saying that the largest religion at a point in time is correct? If so, consult: (insert most common religion 3000 years ago).", "Christianity does not hold the majority of religious followers, with majority meaning less than one-half, with 2/3 or so of people not Christian. Islam is growing faster and is approaching, with 1.5 billion or so.", "If 51% of the world was composed of atheists instead of Christians, would that influence the truth value of Christianity? If every Christian died today, would Christianity be true tomorrow?

4. SCIENCE. I once said "I find it silly that you would believe a 2000 year old mythology book over the theories and experiments of the greatest minds the world has ever seen", possibly unwise, and a 'shot' at religion, to which I received the ridiculous response "I find it silly that you consider yourself an agnostic atheist considering that agnostic and atheist mean two completely different things" (Others pitched in comments such as "got him..." and I promptly told him that many, if not most, atheists are agnostic atheists, he should go do research and find out what those terms actually mean before he tries to ridicule them, and that I probably know my stuff more than he does). Really, if the most brilliant minds of all time come together to formulate these theories, constantly try to improve them, and day by day become closer to explaining the phenomena of the universe, while the Church, an incredibly old, outdated institution, following a human-written, wrongly translated, 2000 year old 'mythology book', as I called it, attempts to silence all outside opinions (the Inquisition?), claim that the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, among other ridiculous arguments, how do you still side with the Church? I think that an explanation might be found if you refer to argument #2.

5. On the Bible's truth, and the proof that it is true, is an argument that I had a while ago, that I remember faintly, although I can piece together the most important parts. Here, I touch on circular logic.

Christian: "The Bible proves itself."
Me: "That is impossible. You NEED outside resources and valid proof to support your claims. For example, if you replace every instance of the words "God" and "Lord" with the word "napkin" (I saw a picture on circular logic, where the napkin 'proved' itself by saying that it is true, so I just used the napkin idea, in my own way), does the Bible hold the same truths? You must be implying that the arrangements of the words gives truth, so this should work with napkins as well, correct?"
Christian: "You know there is more to it than that."
I can't piece the rest together too well in conversation form. I can remember myself saying that his last statement is irrelevant, that I am simply asking if the truth holds, and I include the Quran as an example of circular logic, asking if it can prove itself as well.
Christian: (after long thought, stalling with random interruptions by others in between): "I can't answer that question."
I am glad he replied with "I am not qualified to answer", instead of trying to BS me. As someone (Hitchens?) said, or somewhat close to what he said, "An argument explaining everything explains nothing.", and I'm glad he didn't try to explain everything through a bunch of BS. I definitely cannot answer many questions, and there is no shame in acknowledging your ignorance in a particular area of the subject. As long as you strive to figure things out, then all is well, and you can come back with a better argument, armed with more knowledge, another day.

6. Lastly, since my post is very long now, I present a question I hear pretty often:
"If God didn't create the universe, then how do you explain the universe? Something can't come from nothing. Do you expect me to believe we came from monkeys (facepalm, what have we been learning in Biology all this time? That is not what evolution says. This is why you should stop messing around and start paying attention in class!)?", in some form one way or another, sometimes including the cliche Big Bang Theory as an example.

My typical response: "I don't know." We have theories at the moment, but we are not yet technologically advance enough to conclusively test these theories. There is no shame in not knowing, except in not knowing and being against learning (willful ignorance). I also am not qualified enough to explain these theories in detail (and neither is anyone that I argue with), and the concepts might seem silly without the incredibly complex Math invloved in them, concepts such as higher dimensions (which I believe are a valid possibility, but again, I am not qualified to speak). I say that Science has come through us countless times before, and given time, will possibly one day be able to answer that question.

I often hear people say: "You don't belive in religion, you believe in science." (Along with a negative, sarcastic connotation.)
I reply: "You can't believe in Science, you can only support and attempt to improve its claims."

For anyone who has bothered to read this post, I add one final gem that one of my few atheist friends produced during English class:
(Muslim? Not sure) Person: "Wow, you must have some serious balls to be an atheist."
Witty Atheist Friend: "No, I only have the sense to be an atheist."
(In truth, he is an apatheist, but that is irrelevant.)]]>
1. My first argument (my favorite argument, one that I came up with independently, although I cannot possibly be the first) is one that attempts to undermine religious credibility. I see similar arguments commonly. I state mine something like this:

There are thousands of religions that man has made. Of these, all claim to be correct. We'll say that there are 1000 religions (although there were surely more), leaving at most .1% to be true (unless you could be more than one religion, like Shinto/Buddhism, although those might not be religions, but more like belief systems.) This leaves 99.9% of the religions to be false, at minimum (100% could definitely be a possibility). If man has created 1000 religions, and has been wrong 999 times, how does the thousandth differ? How is Christianity special (to which I have received faulty responses, such as argument #3)?

2. My second argument (one that I've never used in a real conversation, btu that I will try to remember to include) is one that shows the characteristics of religion to be ignorant to new facts, evidence, and improvement. I characterize religion like this:
a. Belief from an early age, traumatic event, or other event compels a person to believe in this religion, assuming it is true without necessary evidence.
b. Infinite threat (infinite pain, torture, etc. i.e. Hell) compels this person to never question belief (no salvation). Basically a scare tactic.
c. To compound belief, everything is attributed to the supernatural. If you flip heads on a coin, "God did it". If you pray for tails, and you get heads, "It was God's will." If you get heads, "THANK YOU GOD, this is OBVIOUSLY proof that God exists."
"Miracles" are chance events that give credit to God. Obviously, there is not a 0% chance of things like this happening, and it has to happen sometime, and it just happened to occur at this particular moment in time in one particular place.
"Tradgedies" are chance events that give credit to God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and infinite wisdom. To increase the argument of "God's Will", the religion may say that there is a larger plan, or there is a larger accident that would've happened (Your car didn't start because there was a drunk driver on the road that would've hit you. Obviously, this likely does nto qualify as a tragedy, and there are better examples, but why not just take away the drunk driver and let the car start?)
d. Lack of faith, irreligion, free thought, and questioning are viewed as dangerous, sin, and evil. This further compels the person to not question, and the "proof by majority" concept comes in.
e. There are other mechanisms that contribute, but I need to stop because my post is getting quite long.

Overall, religion seems like the perfect control tactic. I'm sure many people here would agree.

3. This is a faulty a response that one of my Christian classmates gave, a proof by majority, when I gave him argument #1. We stopped arguing afterwards due to a teacher interrupting us for educational purposes (needed to talk about grades (not bad grades, he talked to everyone, bad or good) with this person). What he basically said was this:
Do you think it is a coincidence that Christianity is the largest religion in the world?
In response to this, I see there are several courses I could take in response, along with other I have not thought of. Among these are: "Christianity was not always the largest religion, so are you saying that the largest religion at a point in time is correct? If so, consult: (insert most common religion 3000 years ago).", "Christianity does not hold the majority of religious followers, with majority meaning less than one-half, with 2/3 or so of people not Christian. Islam is growing faster and is approaching, with 1.5 billion or so.", "If 51% of the world was composed of atheists instead of Christians, would that influence the truth value of Christianity? If every Christian died today, would Christianity be true tomorrow?

4. SCIENCE. I once said "I find it silly that you would believe a 2000 year old mythology book over the theories and experiments of the greatest minds the world has ever seen", possibly unwise, and a 'shot' at religion, to which I received the ridiculous response "I find it silly that you consider yourself an agnostic atheist considering that agnostic and atheist mean two completely different things" (Others pitched in comments such as "got him..." and I promptly told him that many, if not most, atheists are agnostic atheists, he should go do research and find out what those terms actually mean before he tries to ridicule them, and that I probably know my stuff more than he does). Really, if the most brilliant minds of all time come together to formulate these theories, constantly try to improve them, and day by day become closer to explaining the phenomena of the universe, while the Church, an incredibly old, outdated institution, following a human-written, wrongly translated, 2000 year old 'mythology book', as I called it, attempts to silence all outside opinions (the Inquisition?), claim that the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, among other ridiculous arguments, how do you still side with the Church? I think that an explanation might be found if you refer to argument #2.

5. On the Bible's truth, and the proof that it is true, is an argument that I had a while ago, that I remember faintly, although I can piece together the most important parts. Here, I touch on circular logic.

Christian: "The Bible proves itself."
Me: "That is impossible. You NEED outside resources and valid proof to support your claims. For example, if you replace every instance of the words "God" and "Lord" with the word "napkin" (I saw a picture on circular logic, where the napkin 'proved' itself by saying that it is true, so I just used the napkin idea, in my own way), does the Bible hold the same truths? You must be implying that the arrangements of the words gives truth, so this should work with napkins as well, correct?"
Christian: "You know there is more to it than that."
I can't piece the rest together too well in conversation form. I can remember myself saying that his last statement is irrelevant, that I am simply asking if the truth holds, and I include the Quran as an example of circular logic, asking if it can prove itself as well.
Christian: (after long thought, stalling with random interruptions by others in between): "I can't answer that question."
I am glad he replied with "I am not qualified to answer", instead of trying to BS me. As someone (Hitchens?) said, or somewhat close to what he said, "An argument explaining everything explains nothing.", and I'm glad he didn't try to explain everything through a bunch of BS. I definitely cannot answer many questions, and there is no shame in acknowledging your ignorance in a particular area of the subject. As long as you strive to figure things out, then all is well, and you can come back with a better argument, armed with more knowledge, another day.

6. Lastly, since my post is very long now, I present a question I hear pretty often:
"If God didn't create the universe, then how do you explain the universe? Something can't come from nothing. Do you expect me to believe we came from monkeys (facepalm, what have we been learning in Biology all this time? That is not what evolution says. This is why you should stop messing around and start paying attention in class!)?", in some form one way or another, sometimes including the cliche Big Bang Theory as an example.

My typical response: "I don't know." We have theories at the moment, but we are not yet technologically advance enough to conclusively test these theories. There is no shame in not knowing, except in not knowing and being against learning (willful ignorance). I also am not qualified enough to explain these theories in detail (and neither is anyone that I argue with), and the concepts might seem silly without the incredibly complex Math invloved in them, concepts such as higher dimensions (which I believe are a valid possibility, but again, I am not qualified to speak). I say that Science has come through us countless times before, and given time, will possibly one day be able to answer that question.

I often hear people say: "You don't belive in religion, you believe in science." (Along with a negative, sarcastic connotation.)
I reply: "You can't believe in Science, you can only support and attempt to improve its claims."

For anyone who has bothered to read this post, I add one final gem that one of my few atheist friends produced during English class:
(Muslim? Not sure) Person: "Wow, you must have some serious balls to be an atheist."
Witty Atheist Friend: "No, I only have the sense to be an atheist."
(In truth, he is an apatheist, but that is irrelevant.)]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Democracy Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:26:35 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Democracy
The first question I would like to ask is do you think that your countrys goverment has the common peoples interest at heart??? Id like you to elaborate on your answer as best you can please

The second question is do you actually feel that you have any power or say democractically wise on how your country is run and how global politics go down??? Again id be appreciative if people can elaborate on there view as best they can please.

Nice one ]]>
The first question I would like to ask is do you think that your countrys goverment has the common peoples interest at heart??? Id like you to elaborate on your answer as best you can please

The second question is do you actually feel that you have any power or say democractically wise on how your country is run and how global politics go down??? Again id be appreciative if people can elaborate on there view as best they can please.

Nice one ]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Buzz-word Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:24:26 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Buzz-word
No religion could understand the alleged cosmic perfection of "God" without locking that phenomenon into a static position.A locked in "God" would surely lack the generally required attributes of the model generally glorified.

Converversely, some atheists, by denying the possibility of supernatural phenomena also lock themselves into an overly rigid position.

'I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruce problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.' Charles Darwin.]]>
No religion could understand the alleged cosmic perfection of "God" without locking that phenomenon into a static position.A locked in "God" would surely lack the generally required attributes of the model generally glorified.

Converversely, some atheists, by denying the possibility of supernatural phenomena also lock themselves into an overly rigid position.

'I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruce problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.' Charles Darwin.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Ahlquist-v-Cranston-RI Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:02:24 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Ahlquist-v-Cranston-RI
http://centersolid.blogspot.com/2012/02/...igion.html]]>
http://centersolid.blogspot.com/2012/02/...igion.html]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Greatest-reality-check-movie-scene-of-all-time Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:59:06 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Greatest-reality-check-movie-scene-of-all-time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4EB9FKwN2c]]> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4EB9FKwN2c]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-God-Bowl-tomorrow Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:50:32 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-God-Bowl-tomorrow http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Analyze-a-Theist-Catholic Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:35:28 -0500 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Analyze-a-Theist-Catholic
My inspiration for this thread is something I learned as a skeptic, discussing psychics with other skeptics, and coming to the understanding that many of these people really believed they had psychic abilities, even when they failed completely in a test situation to which they had agreed in advance. When I understood that they really believed, I saw them in a new light, which was helpful for further discussions and interactions. In a similar vein, I'm wondering what any of the atheists here have learned about the believers.

Note: This is not the thread to argue the beliefs, or for believers to argue the observations. There are ample active threads for those purposes already.]]>
My inspiration for this thread is something I learned as a skeptic, discussing psychics with other skeptics, and coming to the understanding that many of these people really believed they had psychic abilities, even when they failed completely in a test situation to which they had agreed in advance. When I understood that they really believed, I saw them in a new light, which was helpful for further discussions and interactions. In a similar vein, I'm wondering what any of the atheists here have learned about the believers.

Note: This is not the thread to argue the beliefs, or for believers to argue the observations. There are ample active threads for those purposes already.]]>