Two reasons for atheism:

God keeps you on the Earth. You should believe in him if you want gravity to carry on working. So really, you'd be a fool not to believe in God.

FOOL.

You start by looking at their consequences.

Belief in ghosts brings people a sense of closure that they might not be able to get from the objective fact that the bodies of their loved ones are rotting in the ground. That is a positive consequence.

A person who believes that their faith in God will cure their cancer to the extent that they will refuse regular treatment is more likely to die in terrible pain as a result of their faith. That is by most people's understanding a negative consequence.

I would argue that if faith has a positive consequence, it's a good thing. Of course, you're more interested in whether I can prove that ghosts exist, not whether it matters whether they exist or not.

No, actually, I'm not. Assumptions and faith aren't that different, at all.

 

So are you a religious person?

If so I don't want to change your views, I thought I was dealing mostly with atheists.

It is my opinion that religion is a crutch used by the down trodden and weak to give hope in times of despair and a tool used by the influential to further their own agendas on the backs of the same people who look up to it for hope.


My stance?

Religions that proclaim to be of a "divine" or supernatural origin are easily exposed as fake and man made.

Does religion do more harm than good?

Well I've never seen someone brought back from the dead by a practitioner of religion but I have heard of many people being put in the grave by them.

 

Would it change your argument if I was religious?

I had a fairly atheistic upbringing. My mother and father were both Catholic, but my father rejected his Catholicism, due primarily to his experiences with overzealous nuns and his nutbar of a mother (RIP). I was raised atheist, went to a Christian school by mistake (don't ask), and probably for some Oedipal reason have become more tolerant and sympathetic of religion to piss off Daddy.

Can you dismiss my opinions now?

So are a lot of the things you believe in. Does that mean you should stop believing in them if they're not hurting anyone (OTHER THAN REALITY)?

And if something doesn't resurrect the dead it's bad?

What would you say, as a rough estimate, is the percentage of Christians who have killed someone?

 

That fits me I think.
But, I do sometimes wonder why I have certain morals.
They do seem to be based on various religous beliefs tbh.
But, I suspect common acceptable values are a consequence of the society in which I live...which happens to be a christian one.
Even so, many of them I reject (for one I am not homophobic.)

So, I do think I have personaly created my own belief system and moral values based on various influences, that are forever shifting and altering the more I experience. Which is unique to me and is not reflected in my immediate faimily.

Although I have no "faith" or any belief in a "God" - but what/who is "God":

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=3562691&postcount=73

Fancyful and in some parts cliched as some of that might be...fundementaly it makes sense to me and I agree with it.
Does that make me a "believer"?

 

It would change my argument quite a bit if I knew that you were religious.

I would have known that you were pre biased to believing in the supernatural.

 

200,000 to be very optimistic.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm

Plus the majority of people in prison are religious out of those I'm sure quite a few of them are christian.

 

You're seriously going to make that argument, given how many people convert while in prison and that you're taking your statistics from a majority Christian country?

 

You realise that doesn't do the credibility of your argument any real favours, right?

So how do you explain away my tolerance of those with supernatural views who don't murder people now that you know I've arrived at it relatively of my own accord rather than through pre-bias?

 

Are you trying to say that you are a practicing Christian now?

 

No, and yet again, I have given you no reason to believe this unless you are prejudiced to believe that no-one could be tolerant of religion unless they were religious.

I'm going to give up on you soon, since you appear to be responding to my posts without actually reading them.

 

What is the point to your responses?

Are you trying to change my view that religion is foolish?

What are we arguing about?

 

You know that, this being a forum rather than a real-life conversation, it's very easy to go back and check what's been said if you get confused, right?

You think I'm Christian because I don't hate Christianity as much as you do. That is what's happening.

 

No you changed your stance when I said all religion was for fool's. But it wasn't on this thread for some reason we have been having the same discussion at the same time on three threads.

Consolidate?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show me a quote or it never happened.

 

Still waiting on an answer here.

And yes, obviously, this being a debate, I am trying to be persuasive. So by presenting an argument that religion is not the root of all evil, I guess I would hope to persuade others to agree. That's not because I'm an evangelist or anything, it's just that debate where no-one tries to persuade the "other side" is pointless and boring.

 

My bad I thought you had began to lean towards a christian fundamentalists stand point and from what I now understand was wrong.

My bad.

 

There; here is the third person. Is the love of peace for or against fundamentalism, because anyway in Christianity it is much to assert for the successful social life these days that would not be the case? We must wait for God to intercede.


Get it::hat:

 

Yawn, thanks for clearing that up Mr. Falwell, all my questions are answered now.

 

Couldn't be further from the truth. I'm defending religion, which means defending fundamentalism (if not its consequences) as well as the more forgivable religions, the same way that free speech should extend to things we don't necessarily want to hear.

I don't think it's that helpful to get bogged down in the extremes of any concept in justifying/damning it though. There's all kinds of "slippery slope" arguments that don't hold water.