Religion Forum should be renamed "Athiest Forum"

I always find the implication that atheists should stay away from the religion forum amusing. Are Americans banned from discussion in the Europe forum? Are only immigrants allowed in the immigration forum? Are non-musicians discouraged from the music forum? What about the forums titled "terrorism" and "illuminati"?

 

Well, at least in the last two cases, we know where to find those who are out to get us. :V The latter would be pretty empty, though.

 

Who is the "us" that you refer to?

 

Really? It is not important to establish whether a deity exists before discussing what belief system that diety might champion?
Isn't any discussion about religion kind of pointless if the relevence of that religion's core belief is not established?

It's like discussing whether unicorns prefer chocolate milk or strawberry milk. Who cares, since it hasn't been established that unicorns exist?

 

Actually I think we need more religious folks here. There really does't seem that many.
I actually would like to see a thread where christians actually debate their christian beliefs and why, but they never really seem to debate each other.

 

The internet is really populated with atheists. On one hand, it's a good thing, but on the other hand, it becomes a boring echo chamber.

I kind of enjoy the antics of the extreme Christians that post here. They're rare and they're funny as hell.

 

Yes, and why the same God has different rules for christians, jews and muslims. Since 50% of the world are those of that God.
Then we can decipher is that is the God of the world or if one of the other 50% have the right God.

 

And a Muslim forum too. Can't forget the Buddhist as well. Oh or the Jews. Can't leave out Asatruar. Oh let's not forget the Wiccans either.

 

Don't be silly Wolf, surely you understand that only Christian opinions really count and are worth posting...

 

I give up. Trying to mimic your posting style hurts my brain.

 

You say you like a free forum, yet you're asking for more restrictions here.

- - - Updated - - -

I think everyone figures this out sooner or later.

 

Wow, insults instead of engagement.

 

Man, I forget. Can you use "magnitude" to imply very small magnitudes?

 

Really!

Nope! Rules governing the discussion must first be founded and agreed upon.

Isn't any discussion about religion kind of pointless if the rules governing the discussion includes rules that disallow evidence from the religious side and only allows evidence from the non-religious side? That scenario doesn't seem too equitable.

The one that would care would be the one who believes that unicorns do exist. Therefore, if the rules of the discussion are stacked against the believer, then there is no point in any discussion regarding what the unicorn prefers or does not prefer.

Now, as to your statement of "who cares": Since it has not been established in your mind that God exists, and your implied message of not caring because of that non-established condition, then what is your purpose on a religious forum where discussions about God take place. Do you care about the existence of God? If that existence has not been established and you are still discussing God, then surely you must be one of those people who does care about the existence of God.

 

Oh, so you don't know who the "us" is/was that you referred to in your earlier post? Interesting.

 

Given that the board is open to individuals of all belief systems, it seems that "rules governing discussion" have been established and do not include a "deists only" clause.

In what way are you (as a member of the "religious side") prevented from presenting evidence?
Not being allowed to present evidence is not the same thing as not having any evidence...

Once again, you've failed to illustrate how the rules are "stacked against the believer". If you have evidence that unicorns exist, feel free to present it.

I disagree with your premise. Religion makes unproven assertations regarding the existance of a deity (or more than one, depending on the religion). Debating this basic tenant is inherently a debate on religion, suited for a forum regarding religion such as this one. Caring about truth and reason is my primary motivation for posting, not debating what flavour of milk unicorns prefer or what specific set of rules/dogma "God" prefers.

 

Nor does that TOS authorize a lopsided set of rules such as denying the evidence offered by theists while accepting the evidence offered by non-theists.

Because of the use of the scientific method, the evidence offered by theists is automatically rejected... such evidence as the eyewitness testimony of persons involved in miracle events, the documentary testimony of historical persons pertaining to the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ... and the list goes on and on.

See paragraph above.

Do you even know what the unicorn is that is mentioned in the Bible? Seemingly not.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7214&t=KJV

Then prove the premise wrong.

 

So your real issue is that evidence (using the term loosely) such as "I believe 'x', therefore 'x' is true" is rejected by people who think rationally.
You wouldn't accept this standard of "proof" in relation to scientific theories, you'd expect hard evidence - as you've proven through your constant demands for proof of anything you disagree with.
The fact that you require evidence via the scientific method for most beliefs (that a theory is tested, and has reproducible results to confirm the theory), and yet want this burden of proof to be suspended when it comes to your religious beliefs because religion can't prove anything to this standard - is a sign that it may be time to reconsider the validity of beliefs that cannot stand scrutiny; or admit the hypocrisy of only requiring proof for non-religious theories.

Even if "miracle events" could be proven to have occurred, they are open to interpretation. A muslim, for example, might interpret a "miracle" completely differently to a christian, who would interpret it differently to a buddhist... and so on.
As such, I don't understand why such testimony should be considered viable as evidence of a specific religious belief. After all, there are a lot of eye-witnesses to UFO sitings...

How is this even relevent?

 

Up to the mods... so your point is?

 

Thinking rationally would allow you to accept the definitions that are socially acceptable to be worthy. In your case, you don't seem to want to accept those definitions.

The same tactic that is used by non-theists. Tit for tat.

That is correct, because science cannot deal with those things that are not tangible.It is people like you who thrive on scientific method, so all I am doing is providing you and those others an avenue to choke on that scientific method, when you know that the scientific method does not apply to religion and or beliefs.

Such is the nature of perspective. Ain't it a witch? I believe that perspective and belief are the two things that non-theists cannot deal with, because of the vast number of each that would have to be analyzed.

Any your point?

How is what even relevant?

 

Sorry, I don't read all of your posts so I may have missed them, but, what evidence have you provided to substantiate your belief?
I know of one, the absence thingy. Which by many folks standards is weak, viable, but weak.

 

That would be backwards to most people. NO. I'm not going to prove it.
As this forum would indicate, your posting style is NOT socially acceptable here.
I don't have the dictionary definition of socially acceptable, but feel free to post it, if you must.

 

translation:

science dismisses that which cannot be demonstrated via tangible evidence

I'd love it if religion were somehow magically exempt from scientific scrutiny

 

What law, rule, regulation mandates that I substantiate my belief(s)?
"sub·stan·ti·ate (sb-stnsh-t)
tr.v. sub·stan·ti·at·ed, sub·stan·ti·at·ing, sub·stan·ti·ates
1. To support with proof or evidence; verify: substantiate an accusation. See Synonyms at confirm.
2.
a. To give material form to; embody.
b. To make firm or solid.
3. To give substance to; make real or actual."

Have you ever considered the word "realize"? I mean really consider the magnitude of that word 'realize'? People use that word everyday, and I doubt seriously that many of them even consider what they are declaring when that word proceeds from between their lips. 'I realize this' or 'I realize that'. Oh well, that is another story for another day.

The "absence thingy" as you call it is merely a problem to the person who makes it a problem.

 

Seemingly there is no need for me to post any definition for your benefit dairyair... at this point you seem to be writing rationally... though I do question your concern about how others might view my postings on this forum. I have repeatedly reminded the readers that I am not concerned about their opinions. Have a good day dairyair.