Karol88, the thread is politics and religion. That is why Stu discusses religion. People are giving their views on religion. So Stu is giving his view. The reason he is discussing it in all his posts is the same reason for everyone who posts in the thread. To discuss different points of view on religion. If everyone on the thread have to be a believer, than nothing to discuss except one point of view. That is like a dictatorship.
Question for the Athiests
- Thread starter athlonmank8
- Start date
trendlover, I agree with you, but this is not what stu is doing:
he is not only active here...in fact I see stu adding his comments almost every time someone mentions God anywhere on ET. I don't mind it, I just want to know what drives such a desire?
Maybe it's the same desire that drives the religious freaks to teach the opposite: where you can't say anything that doesn't suit their way of thinking, they will jump right in even if it's totally off topic.
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Henry Louis Mencken
sure, I agree with the first part...it should remain a private thing...
So you're 100% positive you know the truth? How about the scientists? aren't they looking for the evidence, truth?
What about those who believe? not arguing weather they're right or wrong, if you are so much into evidence, then you should at least give it a thought unlike this example:
I wish I had more time to find better ones.
btw looks like stu has a whole army here, impressive
Ok, I see what you are saying. It looks like Stu has an agenda to convert people to his thinking, but it only appears like that. I think when "someone mentions God" on ET, and Stu has a comment, it is not to convert anyone, but whatever the topic is becomes flawed for Stu when god is used, because it is not rational. Stu is commenting from his point of view and it is being confused for converting people. But I think he is not trying to convert, but trying to make a rational judgement by logic, not faith.
yes most are but there are no credible scientists that i know of that believe the biblical story is factual. the few that do have a need to believe so rationalize away the evidence. what a person may believe has no bearing on the evidence.to be intellectually honest the evidence must dictate what we believe not our emotions.
if they mention god as the cause without evidence other than a 2000 year old book of fables they are not credible. emotion,ie a need to believe, is not evidence.
there has never been a shred of evidence found that points to any god. everything happens just as it would if there were no god.
You point to science to disprove theology and find flaws in religious beliefs , spouting them as fact. But when flaws are found in science, the opposite can not be true with you, itâs always science just hasnât found the answer yet, and thatâs no proof of religion or God.
Why can it be one way and not the other? Why canât the inability of science to completely explain creation âhence a theoryâ be viewed as, God just hasnât revealed to us the complete answer yet or we have not interpreted correctly and science has no proof of the non-existence of God.
even though science is somtimes wrong the right explaination has always been found to be natural. the evidence has never pointed to a god. after thousands of years of "god did it" being falsified by scientific natural answers when do believers stop retreating into gaps in our knowledge and accept the fact that there is nothing up there?
scientifc knowledge has so decimated religious superstitious beliefs that believers have been reduced to monkeys with their hands over their eyes and ears screaming "you cant prove no god exists". it works for them but it puts their god belief on the same level as santa clause because they cant prove he does not exist either.