Re: Athiesm versus theism; practicality of argument.
- --- In deathtoreligion@y..., proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Therefore, it can be said that thiests can never prove thier caseto
> athiests because they cannot provide evidence to supliment theiran
> arguments. All they do is argue infact, and arguing does not prove
> you right or wrong.
> It can also be said that athiest can never prove thier cast to
> thiests but we must consider the fact that from the perspective of
> athiest, it is a lack of said evidence that makes them an athiest.I disagree. Hi BTW, new to the group here, been looking for a good
place to vent, I'll let you figure out which side of the coin I'm on
The problem is not evidence or the lack thereof. Well, that is *a*
problem, but it's not *the* problem. The root of the problem is that
theists and atheists are fundamentally two different types of people.
An atheist does not need the crutch of religion (oops, gave myself
away, didn't I) to get them through the long dark night. An atheist
can accept a world that doesn't have an answer for his every
question. A theist seems to need that finality. He can't or won't
accept the notion that we're all alone in this world, and that this
is the only crack you get at bat.
Classic example, go to any funeral. Everyone talking about "god's
plan" and how glad they are that grandpa "was saved" and "he's with
Jesus now" and blah-de-blah. Tell them that he's just worm food now
and that's all there is to it, sorry, and they would reel away from
you in horror, hands over their ears yelling "na na na na na" at the
top of their lungs.
So, we (atheists) need to figure out what creates this fundamental
difference. That's how we change people. That's how we ensure our
children don't get snagged into the great mind meld. What makes one
kid give up his imaginary friends, and the other one hold on to them
for dear life? Figure that one out, and you can change the world..
- --- In deathtoreligion@y..., Captain Trips <tripsbanzai@y...> wrote:
> The leader of Israel is also their religious leader as well?With Isreal. No. They have a state religion but they have seperate
leaders for religion and politics.
> Well, as previously mentioned, history is not my forte. CurrentIn Iran. The leader of the country is a religious leader.
> events suffers as well by proxy. When I was writing that, I was
> thinking about Iran and their shaw (which is probably not spelled
> that way). Isn't he the political and religious leader of their >
> The 9/11 attacks were also perpetrated by those who combine politicsIt's actually what happens when a person believes that politics should
> with religion, but they aren't viewed in the light of this is what
> happens when you combine the two.
be dictated by religion.
> The terrorists are viewed as fanatics, on a holy war to attack theIn a way this is actually quite true. Just that they want to attack a
> religion of the west (christianity).
lot more then just christianity.
> And this unfortunate viewpoint only serves to strengthen the ties ofYes. For some christians it becomes a war against the muslims. It's
> religion and politics, to defend said religion.
good to see that it hasn't gotten to that stage and I think those
actually running it from the US axis (i.e. not bush) should be
congratulated for it. It would've been very easy to make it a
religious war (bush almost did).
> I knew I was probably wrong when I wrote that there were no modernThat is the problem. Another problem is that many christians have
> examples, but maybe the problem is that they are not being "spun" as
> problems stemming from a lack of separation between church and
> state,and thus praising our system for keeping such forces in check.
this strange idea that their religion is somehow better then any
others (in reality it's actually a good deal worse then the others)
and so they're religion wouldn't do such things.
Therefore they just can't see the problem that's staring them right in