Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Athiesm versus theism; practicality of argument.

Expand Messages
  • tripsbanzai
    ... to ... an ... 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 for
    Message 1 of 40 , Sep 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In deathtoreligion@y..., proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Therefore, it can be said that thiests can never prove thier case
      to
      > athiests because they cannot provide evidence to supliment their
      > 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
      an
      > 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
      for yourself..

      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..
    • bestonnet_00
      ... With Isreal. No. They have a state religion but they have seperate leaders for religion and politics. ... In Iran. The leader of the country is a
      Message 40 of 40 , Oct 25, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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. Current
        > 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 >
        > country?

        In Iran. The leader of the country is a religious leader.

        > The 9/11 attacks were also perpetrated by those who combine politics
        > with religion, but they aren't viewed in the light of this is what
        > happens when you combine the two.

        It's actually what happens when a person believes that politics should
        be dictated by religion.

        > The terrorists are viewed as fanatics, on a holy war to attack the
        > religion of the west (christianity).

        In a way this is actually quite true. Just that they want to attack a
        lot more then just christianity.

        > And this unfortunate viewpoint only serves to strengthen the ties of
        > religion and politics, to defend said religion.

        Yes. For some christians it becomes a war against the muslims. It's
        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 modern
        > 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.

        That is the problem. Another problem is that many christians have
        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
        the face.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.