POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?

It has become quite clear that you are out of your league here.
Save yourself some embarrassment and retreat now before your world view comes tumbling down upon you.



LOL.... you have already obviously lost.
Thats what is so funny. You dont even recognize this fact :D

YOU have been destroyed.
You dont even understand the basic terms or basic reasoning.
Its over. Now go away.


peace

Guardian Angel


When an atheist has no evidence for the belief in god,
he claims that he does not BELIEVE in god, he does NOT
claim that god does NOT exist. That would be illogical.

EXACTLY! YOU are illogical.
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
agnosticism is a "neutral" belief in which the individual is not yet convienced one way or the other.


Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

You are simply running around in circles.

You have lost!

Your moronic statements are laughable.

[/B][/QUOTE]:p
 
Quote from axeman:

Your verbal abuse continues unabated, further evidence of deep seated issues with your own personal failure with atheism, and lack of acceptance of that failure.

YOU are the only one who is rage-FULL at the notion that YOU are dead wrong and have been caught with your pants down.

.........LOL:p
More...
 
Your verbal abuse continues unabated. This behavior on your part continues to reinforce my theory that you have serious issues with religion, if not just having conversations with people who have different opinions. In most circles it is considered anti-social behavior, and if this were a moderated debate you would be either asked to stop, or penalized in some manner for your rude behavior and constant verbal abuse.

The term agnostic does not belong to you, not does the term atheist.

They are words that are accepted within the English language, and have different meanings for different people. Pointing to someone's definition and saying that is the correct definition, is akin to someone pointing to a Bible and saying that the Bible is the correct and only correct explanation of God.

The term agnostic has its roots in the Greek language, and comes from the word gnostic:

Main Entry: gnos·tic
Pronunciation: 'näs-tik
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Late Latin gnosticus, from Greek gnOstikos of knowledge, from gignOskein
Date: circa 1587
: an adherent of gnosticism
- gnostic adjective, often capitalized

The term refers to knowledge of God, and the early Gnostics claimed knowledge of God was derived via spiritual methods, not empirical methodology.

Huxley rejected knowledge that did not come via the senses and application of material logic as not knowledge. His opinion of course.

So the term agnostic had its roots in not being Gnostic, or not practicing the gaining of knowledge via any spiritual methodology or practices.

However, if we look at a simple understanding of positive, negative, and neutral it is easily seen that someone is either of a belief in God, no belief in God, or negative belief in God.

Pure agnosticism would be a neutral state, in which no belief exists either positively or negatively toward God, but an open mind to believe in God would equally exist along with an open mind to disbelieve in God if reason to do so was provided.

Huxley took a position that his perspective was the correct perspective, yet his entire argument is founded on the belief system of empiricism as the only correct means to gain knowledge of God or knowledge of ultimate reality. This is his first assumption, that remains unproven either logically or empirically.

Everyone is born with the capacity to form and have beliefs, and those who choose to believe in God exercise that belief system, those who choose to believe God does not exist exercise that belief system, and a pure agnostic simply has no exercised belief one way or the other.

You claim to have taken an agnostic position, but have added the belief system to it that God could only be proven via empiricism. As yet, I have not seen an argument that supports that conclusion that will withstand some very deep and extensive questions about the existence of knowledge, the true nature of knowledge, what is the correct means of gaining true knowledge, etc.

Nitro tried at one point to have you read some information that tried to tackle these important issues and also issues with language, but you acted as if you knew it all.

Darkhorse was sincerely willing to seriously explore these issues in depth, but you weren't willing and/or to go down that path.

Consequently, I believe that any reasonable observer would conclude that your mind is not open, that it stands rigid in its conclusion.

That type of mind is hardly scientific, as science is always open to new ways of approaching situations.

I continue to assert and believe that your apparent stubbornness on these issues rests in your unresolved failure with faith.

It is common for those who fail in a marriage or relationship to practice sour grapes for a period of time, but eventually most adults outgrow that defensive and irrational posture and once again begin to open up their heart and mind to other possibilities. They may decide marriage is not for them, but they may often also decide that marriage may well work for others.


Quote from axeman:

Funny how a theist is trying to tell an atheist WHAT atheism is. :D

You are completely incorrect.

Do some philosphical research and you will find the truth.

Try going to www.infidels.org and read up on strong and weak
atheism.

Atheism is a LACK of belief. It is NOT necessarily the
belief that god does NOT exist.

I am an atheist and do NOT assert that god doesnt exist.

So catch a clue and stop pretending to know definitions you
are clearly clueless of.


Why do I bother? So fricken clueless.
Im debating amateurs here.
Do I really need to hold philosophy class here?

Bunch of ignorant theists running around trying to tell
an atheist what atheism is. LMAO :D



peace

axeman
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

I have removed myself from debating people as completely
clueless as you.
More...
i hear ya, axe. some of these people are past the event horizon....no turning back. :-/
 
Quote from Guardian Angel:

It has become quite clear that you are out of your league here.
Save yourself some embarrassment and retreat now before your world view comes tumbling down upon you.
More...
you are mentally a little dog with a loud bark. :(

you are so weak, your statements are not even worthy of intelligent discussion.
 
"Is there really a God?"

Though there are a variety of possible responses to this question, there are three traditional responses that predominate in Western society:

(1) God does not exist- atheism
(2) we cannot know whether God exist- agnosticism
(3) a personal God does exist- theism.

To begin, atheism involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say "there is no God" from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time- with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe- can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible.

By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making progress rapidly in the right direction.

This leads us to the second possible response: agnosticism. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, one who can realize and understand that the universe is in an effect which requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. As Scripture says. "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1)

It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism- the theory that "self" is the only reality, that "I alone exist." This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.)

The second possiblity is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.

The third "possibility" is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing. This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.

The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism- the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe- is the only viable option on the question of God's existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a pesonal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality. Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection. Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be devine rather than human in origin.





Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your verbal abuse continues unabated. This behavior on your part continues to reinforce my theory that you have serious issues with religion, if not just having conversations with people who have different opinions. In most circles it is considered anti-social behavior, and if this were a moderated debate you would be either asked to stop, or penalized in some manner for your rude behavior and constant verbal abuse.

Consequently, I believe that any reasonable observer would conclude that your mind is not open, that it stands rigid in its conclusion.

That type of mind is hardly scientific, as science is always open to new ways of approaching situations.

I continue to assert and believe that your apparent stubbornness on these issues rests in your unresolved failure with faith.

It is common for those who fail in a marriage or relationship to practice sour grapes for a period of time, but eventually most adults outgrow that defensive and irrational posture and once again begin to open up their heart and mind to other possibilities. They may decide marriage is not for them, but they may often also decide that marriage may well work for others.
More...
 
Quote from Guardian Angel:

"Is there really a God?"

Though there are a variety of possible responses to this question, there are three traditional responses that predominate in Western society:

(1) God does not exist- atheism
(2) we cannot know whether God exist- agnosticism
(3) a personal God does exist- theism.

To begin, atheism involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say "there is no God" from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time- with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe- can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible.

By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making progress rapidly in the right direction.

This leads us to the second possible response: agnosticism. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, one who can realize and understand that the universe is in an effect which requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. As Scripture says. "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1)

It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism- the theory that "self" is the only reality, that "I alone exist." This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.)

The second possiblity is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.

The third "possibility" is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing. This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.

The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism- the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe- is the only viable option on the question of God's existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a pesonal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality. Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection. Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be devine rather than human in origin.




The "Presumptuousness" of atheism


Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist". Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism". Another atheist Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.


First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues tha the atheist does not treat the statements "God exist" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist- whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exist"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist mus give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Forth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheist fail to see.

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe- in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death)- demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answeres the question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe- with complexity balanced conditions that seem tailored for life- points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just culteral, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness", on strictly nateralistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply culteral). These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational- not presumptuous- in embracing belief in God.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Guardian Angel:

It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.



IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
More...
 
AXE: When an atheist has no evidence for the belief in god,
he claims that he does not BELIEVE in god, he does NOT
claim that god does NOT exist. That would be illogical.

IGNORANT MORON: EXACTLY! YOU are illogical.
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
agnosticism is a "neutral" belief in which the individual is not yet convienced one way or the other.


GA... you truly are the second most ignorant theist
I have ever come across. Thunderdolt takes first place.
Maybe you are one in the same. :D

I never claimed god does not exist, you fricken idiot. :D
You are clearly mentally retarded or completely incapable of
reading.

I have no evidence for god, therefore I DONT believe in god.
I NEVER claimed god does not exist.

But you are STUPID enough to reply with:
EXACTLY! YOU are illogical. when I never
actually claimed god doesnt exist?!?!?! What a retard! :D

LMAO.... as another poster already stated:
INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE! LMAOOO :D

Are you REALLY this dumb??? I mean really???? :D
You have proven you cant reason.
You have proven you dont understand what atheism is.
Why should anyone debate with someone this clueless?

Go away GA. Your out of everyone league here.
You just make yourself look stupider with every idiotic post.
Good job. :p


peace

axeman
 
The terms do not belong to me, but unlike some ignorant
theists here, I do in fact understand them.

You incorrectly defined a-theism, so I KNOW that you do not
understand them.

When looking for a definition of a medical term, it is better
to look it up in a book of medicine than websters.

You attempt to use a weak websters definition for atheism,
when better definition are available in philosophical materials
as well as on atheist websites such as the american atheist
website.

So your lame argument is nothing more than a strawman.
You attack incorrect definitions of atheism.

Its not hard really. Look at the latin base.
A - theism. WITHOUT THEISM. Not so hard is it?
Does WITHOUT THEISM state anywhere that god
does NOT exist? Of course not.
That is NOT the typical atheist position.
Atheists usually ONLY take the STRONG atheism position
when given a precise definition of god which they
can PROVE is logically contradictory. Otherwise, the default
position is WEAK atheism. Which is NON-belief based
on a lack of evidence.

But you clearly dont understand any of this, so whats the point
of debating an ignorant person?

As for your argument, it is a complete joke and waste of time.
You have never provided ANY evidence that your
magical powers of faith are real outside of your own mind.

You give us excuses that people dont bother proving
what is obviously true to them.

Only problem is.... you ASSUME their true.
You cant test it. You cant falsify it. You cant verify it outside
of your own head.

Using the same logic, I should accept the visions and voices
that mentally insane people hear.


Your argument is a pathetic JOKE. You have never brought
anything to the table which backs it up in the slightest bit.
Just the same old stupid crap ive shot down a hundred times.

Its old. Its over. You got NADA. And its obvious for
all to see.

I really should stop wasting my time. It gets tiring swatting
such silly idiotic arguments down left and right all day long.
Its boring.



peace

axeman


Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your verbal abuse continues unabated. This behavior on your part continues to reinforce my theory that you have serious issues with religion, if not just having conversations with people who have different opinions. In most circles it is considered anti-social behavior, and if this were a moderated debate you would be either asked to stop, or penalized in some manner for your rude behavior and constant verbal abuse.

The term agnostic does not belong to you, not does the term atheist.

They are words that are accepted within the English language, and have different meanings for different people. Pointing to someone's definition and saying that is the correct definition, is akin to someone pointing to a Bible and saying that the Bible is the correct and only correct explanation of God.

The term agnostic has its roots in the Greek language, and comes from the word gnostic:

Main Entry: gnos·tic
Pronunciation: 'näs-tik
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Late Latin gnosticus, from Greek gnOstikos of knowledge, from gignOskein
Date: circa 1587
: an adherent of gnosticism
- gnostic adjective, often capitalized

The term refers to knowledge of God, and the early Gnostics claimed knowledge of God was derived via spiritual methods, not empirical methodology.

Huxley rejected knowledge that did not come via the senses and application of material logic as not knowledge. His opinion of course.

So the term agnostic had its roots in not being Gnostic, or not practicing the gaining of knowledge via any spiritual methodology or practices.

However, if we look at a simple understanding of positive, negative, and neutral it is easily seen that someone is either of a belief in God, no belief in God, or negative belief in God.

Pure agnosticism would be a neutral state, in which no belief exists either positively or negatively toward God, but an open mind to believe in God would equally exist along with an open mind to disbelieve in God if reason to do so was provided.

Huxley took a position that his perspective was the correct perspective, yet his entire argument is founded on the belief system of empiricism as the only correct means to gain knowledge of God or knowledge of ultimate reality. This is his first assumption, that remains unproven either logically or empirically.

Everyone is born with the capacity to form and have beliefs, and those who choose to believe in God exercise that belief system, those who choose to believe God does not exist exercise that belief system, and a pure agnostic simply has no exercised belief one way or the other.

You claim to have taken an agnostic position, but have added the belief system to it that God could only be proven via empiricism. As yet, I have not seen an argument that supports that conclusion that will withstand some very deep and extensive questions about the existence of knowledge, the true nature of knowledge, what is the correct means of gaining true knowledge, etc.

Nitro tried at one point to have you read some information that tried to tackle these important issues and also issues with language, but you acted as if you knew it all.

Darkhorse was sincerely willing to seriously explore these issues in depth, but you weren't willing and/or to go down that path.

Consequently, I believe that any reasonable observer would conclude that your mind is not open, that it stands rigid in its conclusion.

That type of mind is hardly scientific, as science is always open to new ways of approaching situations.

I continue to assert and believe that your apparent stubbornness on these issues rests in your unresolved failure with faith.

It is common for those who fail in a marriage or relationship to practice sour grapes for a period of time, but eventually most adults outgrow that defensive and irrational posture and once again begin to open up their heart and mind to other possibilities. They may decide marriage is not for them, but they may often also decide that marriage may well work for others.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top