The holy books of many religions come from the exact same sources as modern discoveries about science

Theories and laws are based on replicable experiments and watchings. What you said was the case to varying extents in sites before the scientific way reached them. Learned guesses are based off of extending these theories and laws. The split is such like assuming if you drop a ball it will fall (over much old happenings and a law saying that they do) against thinking something with no (confirmed) old happenings, like Jesus rising to the sky. Maybe there's some grounds that these happenings don't happen anymore for anyone to confirm ("Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing." - God in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), but you don't know that.

If someone literally has to believe on faith alone without any proof, it will make the trials that come through challenges of their faith much more potent.

Why would I believe in anything in the first stead without any proof? It can be hazardous to believe something and then also insist that your belief is the right one without any proof of it. The faeriebook tells me that folk who don't believe in faeries are evil and immoral and will try to kill you at some point in their life, so you should kill them first. This is why violent faith extremists are, and also a few other nutty folk like violent racists (and unrule bombers in particular - one of the presidents of the USA was even killed by one of such).

Again, this is not the case for chsitianity, but I'm not sure about any other faiths.

I doubt it would be different for other Abrahamic faiths. If I did this, I would be Muslim (their hell is the worst, I hear).

Atheism is a commonly used term, while Godlessness isn't.

"godlessness" is a Germanic word, and it's self-explaining, while "atheism" isn't, but means the same thing in Greek.

Edited 8/14/2016 01:15:09

#StopAnglish

Theories and laws are based on replicable experiments and watchings. What you said was the case to varying extents in sites before the scientific way reached them. Learned guesses are based off of extending these theories and laws.

While there definitely are some things that are replicable and should be taken as basic fact, a lot of things aren't and are just based on observation and testimony. For example, to my knowledge we haven't been able to recreate the conditions that allowed for evolution in any artificial environment.

Why would I believe in anything in the first stead without any proof? It can be hazardous to believe something and then also insist that your belief is the right one without any proof of it.

There isn't any proof for atheism either though. With some things for which you have insufficient evidence, you just have to make a blind choice one way or the other.

In fact, practically everyone takes things as given without any proof. I just kind of assume that other people are real, even though I don't really have conclusive proof of it.

The faeriebook tells me that folk who don't believe in faeries are evil and immoral and will try to kill you at some point in their life, so you should kill them first.

This doesn't actually mean much of anything. The fact that there is more than one religion doesn't really have much to do with which one (if any) is true.

"godlessness" is a Germanic word, and it's self-explaining, while "atheism" isn't, but means the same thing in Greek.

Atheism is well known enough of a term that it's basically become self-explanatory. Also, the roots of it aren't too hard to figure out is you think about it for like literally 5 seconds. "Theos" is a really well known word for "God", and a- is a prefix which is commonly used to imply a negative. Thus, a-theos means "Without God", and "A-theos" sounds really similar to "Atheism". Plus that, it's a more novel word than "Godlessness", so it really sticks in your mind once you learn it.

Also, what if you belive in the wrong god?

It doesn't matter, your chances are still improved over not believing at all since so many religions are exclusive.

What if the god belives in reason more than faith and also rewards athiests?

Although it's an interesting idea, it literally makes no sense. What it essentially means is that this God is okay with the idea of you using mind traps to trick yourself into following your own moral code rather than his. Plus this, it doesn't really make much sense that you would be rewarded in any form by a being that you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of.

For example, to my knowledge we haven't been able to recreate the conditions that allowed for evolution in any artificial environment.

What does this mean? Just because we can't simulate it doesn't mean it didn't happen, especially when all evidence points in that direction.

Calling atheists hypocrites for following what they believe and not for just trying to be rewarded "if there is a god"?

Believing in a "god" is very illogical for us, atheists, and I would never lose any time of my life believing in something that, for me, doesnt make sense, neither change anything in my life style. If some god exists let him/her send me to the worst hell, i dont care.

What does this mean? Just because we can't simulate it doesn't mean it didn't happen, especially when all evidence points in that direction.

Dude calm down, I'm not trying to deny anything here. My point was actually that we can believe in things that we're not able to reproduce.

Edited 8/14/2016 03:13:11

I was calm lol

Lol sorry then, it kind of sounded like you were trying to start a flame war over my alleged denial of Evolution :P

Baltic paganism is the one true religion.

For example, to my knowledge we haven't been able to recreate the conditions that allowed for evolution in any artificial environment.

https://sites.google.com/site/myeds60103journeyglo2015/_/rsrc/1442416075103/blogs/2/table%20comparison.png

There have been many signs upholding evolution, such as genetic code, fossil records, and us seeing it in our own lifetimes (in cases like pathogenic evolution). A theory without any consistent signs is called a learned guess. And even with learned guesses, it's just a game of taking the least assumptions. For example, the main guess for how the Moon was made was that a colossal rock named "Theia" crashed into Earth and unloosed loads of stuff that later became the Moon. This is trying to be upheld and downheld. So which takes more assumptions: "assuming there could be a rock that crashed into the Earth" or "assuming a wise unseen being that made the Moon"?

There isn't any proof for atheism either though.

Right, but it's safe to think that there aren't any faeries living under your garden. R. Descartes, a French knowledgelover, played this game and came to the endsay that the only "proof" he has of anything is his wise being - "I think thus I am.". Maybe there's a god but without any signs of it at all, I surely won't believe in it. It's like witchcraft. If God comes into lore, just an easy truth, then I'll believe in God.

The fact that there is more than one religion doesn't really have much to do with which one (if any) is true.

That's not at all my point. You're recommending I take as truth potentially hazardous dogma. I don't believe in what's not at all signed, since there's an endless muchness of what you can make up.

Atheism is well known enough of a term that it's basically become self-explanatory.

It's needless learning of a word that stacks up in the long time. Folk shouldn't have to know the Greek roots that lead up to this word, either, unless they're Greek, when there're good English roots.

What if the god belives in reason more than faith and also rewards athiests?

Although it's an interesting idea, it literally makes no sense. What it essentially means is that this God is okay with the idea of you using mind traps to trick yourself into following your own moral code rather than his.

An allstrong and allknowing god would himself design who would do mindtraps on themselves and who would be helled forever (this god would not be a kind one). It's his own blame and he knows it. Furthermore, I don't think it's a mindtrap to not follow a, at some points, directly disproven and unsigned writ. Even most Christians and Muslims don't follow it to the mark (for example, are women banned at all in Christendom to teach men? "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 12). Furthermore, it's not a mindtrap to not assume that there's a God without signs, it's the standard way of doing things.

Plus this, it doesn't really make much sense that you would be rewarded in any form by a being that you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of.

If his point was for you to be logic about it, then sure it would. You passed his the test of logos, you took the appropriate endsay, and he purposefully made no sign of himself.

A theory without any consistent signs is called a learned guess. And even with learned guesses, it's just a game of taking the least assumptions.

If it were really a matter of taking the least assumptions, then belief in God is the obvious choice. It requires far less assumptions to conclude that There is a magical being who created everything than it does to assume that all the right factors came into play at the exact right time and intervals for things to create themselves.

That's not at all my point. You're recommending I take as truth potentially hazardous dogma.

I'm not recommending that you take up any specific doctrine at all. And although it's likely that I have revealed my religious affiliation in the forums in the past, for the purposes of this discussion you don't even know what my affiliation is (I could be a member of that fairy cult you mentioned for all you know).

Right, but it's safe to think that there aren't any faeries living under your garden.

Not really. If there were fairies there who were just kind of kicking back and chilling, there's not really any reason to think you'd ever be able to detect them. Now if you assume that all the plant growth in your garden is due to magic fairies helping them out then of course you run into some problems, but if you just have some dudes who don't really do much then there's not really any reason to think that you'd ever be able to say with confidence that there are no non-interventionist fairies hiding under your garden.

R. Descartes, a French knowledgelover, played this game and came to the endsay that the only "proof" he has of anything is his wise being - "I think thus I am.".

As I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. Do you accept nothing as proof? Do you accept the theory that requires the least assumptions? Do you accept testimony from other people as proof?

I'd say it's going a bit too far to say that nothing can be proven, but when you take into account that the very basis of human society is faith-based assumptions, it sounds a bit silly to say that you won't accept something with no proof.

It's needless learning of a word that stacks up in the long time. Folk shouldn't have to know the Greek roots that lead up to this word, either, unless they're Greek, when there're good English roots.

This word, Theos, is all over the place, you don't really need to learn any greek to pick up it's meaning.

An allstrong and allknowing god would himself design who would do mindtraps on themselves and who would be helled forever (this god would not be a kind one). It's his own blame and he knows it.

The ability of humans to think as rational beings is a truly wonderful thing. Taking this away is very, very cruel, not kind or benevolent.

Furthermore, it's not a mindtrap to not assume that there's a God without signs, it's the standard way of doing things.

Actually, irreligion is relatively new as far as major religious movements go. By default most people seem to drift towards religion.

If his point was for you to be logic about it, then sure it would. You passed his the test of logos, you took the appropriate endsay, and he purposefully made no sign of himself.

As I said, it practically makes no sense. The idea that a being would reward you for ignoring the moral code he has set out for you in favor of your own due to some logical trap you've constructed is outlandish at best.

i would choose our almighty god, lord and saviour zalmoxis
zalmoxism is the one and only true faith, my ancestors were the chosen people of zalmoxis and all infidels will be converted. my ancestors and zalmoxis gods will smile upon me once i have done my deeds and i will then ascend to zalmoxis

haven't read any besides the OP.

atheists tend to follow a belief of, believe that which is easiest to disprove.
we can never prove that a religion is incorrect, but we can prove that they are correct quite simply.
and I am not a coward.. a coward pretends to be something he's not in hopes of personal gain. If I do something wrong, I will face and take my punishment rather than pretend I didn't do it.
also, as an american I know the christian god best, and the bible contradicts itself regularly, which leads me to believe that the christian god cannot be true.. but lets say logic aside and it is real. the texts have often stated to be true in your heart, that good actions and intentions are more important than lip service, and that atonement can save you despite your failures..
I attest to the fact that if the *christian* god is real, there will be more atheists than lip service believers walking through the pearly gates once all is said and done.

It requires far less assumptions to conclude that There is a magical being who created everything than it does to assume that all the right factors came into play at the exact right time and intervals for things to create themselves.

Over time in a really really really colossal world? Not so much, and there's actual signs of how these factors came into play. Otherwise it would be a guess and would be perhaps a matter of debate. But even then, you can't know a god is.

I could be a member of that fairy cult you mentioned for all you know.

There's literally no sense in believing in what has no signs of being true. Most Christians and Muslims and other folks of faiths are raised in a Christian/Muslim family and community, and so it's pretty reasonable why they believe it - everyone else that they trust and love believe it, too. And the same thing is with racism and gayhate, and a few other mostly unsigned beliefs.

if you just have some dudes who don't really do much then there's not really any reason to think that you'd ever be able to say with confidence that there are no non-interventionist fairies hiding under your garden.

If there's fully no sign that something is, then it's safe to assume that there isn't. Even for the most fringe beliefs like vampires, aliens, and ghosts, there are some signs of it, mainly witnesses with odd and unexplained happenings.

Do you accept nothing as proof? Do you accept the theory that requires the least assumptions? Do you accept testimony from other people as proof?

Accepting the theory that needs the least assumptions as the most likely is a standard. The point that I was making, anyhow, was that you can believe what's been proved consistently and signed to consistently, the only thing that's up to you is perhaps the meaning of the word "consistently" (but experimenters and statisticians most likely have a better thought than you do).

the very basis of human society is faith-based assumptions

I don't understand.

This word, Theos, is all over the place

It shouldn't be, only need to know "god".

The ability of humans to think as rational beings is a truly wonderful thing. Taking this away is very, very cruel, not kind or benevolent.

I'm not saying it's taking it away, I'm just saying that Abrahamic God would know what our whole lives and our afterlife "fate" would be.

it's the standard way of doing things.

Actually, irreligion is relatively new as far as major religious movements go. By default most people seem to drift towards religion.

I didn't say traditional, I said "standard". It was the standard a few hundred years ago to kill the Jews if too much went wrong, that if you had a headache, your left arm had to go, and there was not nearly as many scientific disbands with faith as there is today. Heck in Europe, much of the church led scientific insight, not many folk know, but Kopernik was a very faithful Catholic fellow, and it greatly irked him that what he found looking at the stars put him in a great faith anguish.

The idea that a being would reward you for ignoring the moral code he has set out for you

Who says he has made a moral code for me? And if he doesn't tell me, then I can't follow.

I just like Christianity because it makes people moral

I like America for two grounds:

1. it's a Christian country founded on the good principles of Jesus Chirst
2. it brings freedom and order and builds peace all about the world.

I like America for two grounds:

1. it's a Christian country founded on the good principles of Jesus Chirst
2. it brings freedom and order and builds peace all about the world.

When Lukashenko tries building relations with the United States

My uncle once caught autism from a park bench.

Over time in a really really really colossal world?

It is true that over time things have a better chance of happening. For example, if there's a 1 in 200,000 chance that in any given year an airplane would crash into a circus and only kill the humans under the age of thirty and nothing else then on average this would have happened once so far in human existence.

However, this wasn't really my point at all. Rather, I pointed out that any belief that God does not exist requires way more assumptions than believing in God does.

For example, to believe that God does not exist you need to assume at least the following:

1. Evidence we have picked up supporting this theory is credible (ie not fabricated)

2. The people interpreting this evidence are competent enough for their opinions on the matter to be credible

3. That every belief requires empirical or logical evidence to support it (an assumption that you seem to hold close to heart btw)

And a lot more, but you get the point. And none of these are trivial assumptions either. There are countless instances of fabricated evidence practically everywhere, and there are a lot of people who misinterpret stuff.

Contrasted with this, the only assumption really required to believe that a powerful God exists is to assume that he exists.

I don't understand.

See above. Faith in empirical evidence is one example, as well as faith that stuff actually exists, or faith in interpreters of evidence. Also, faith in the scientific method is still faith. Here's a video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs

It shouldn't be, only need to know "god".

I don't really see any reason why. English borrows words lots of words from other languages, and when you strip out the foreign words it's really pretty meaningless to an english speaker.

(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ)

I'm not saying it's taking it away, I'm just saying that Abrahamic God would know what our whole lives and our afterlife "fate" would be.

Same point, different idea. Taking away our free will, even if it means that we're not able to damn ourselves anymore is nevertheless a very cruel thing to do.

I didn't say traditional, I said "standard". I

Standard =

ADJECTIVE

1 Used or accepted as normal or average:

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/standard)

Since at most 10-20% of people worldwide think this way, it's most definitely not "standard".

Who says he has made a moral code for me? And if he doesn't tell me, then I can't follow.

If you are rejecting a God then you are rejecting the moral code that he has prescribed for you. Pick any religion you want, all of them have moral codes.

Edited 8/15/2016 18:43:42

One of the better Catholic voices is Father Barron.

Here's an example of a few of his videos on topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

He can actually have an intelligent and respectful debate with critics of his ideas, which today is a seemingly a lost art.