[urbanboom]

You don't have a theory of any sort. You have a personal belief. You claim to believe in god, but what you think god is might differ quite significantly from the next believer.

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

My belief is a set of statements. Check.
It (to me) describes a group of facts or phenomena. Check.

 

[Mot]

I used to try to respect others beliefs or faith. The sad fact is I've never had an atheist try to convert me or stand on my front lawn and tell me they do not agree with my "lifestyle" and that I could not attend the church right across the street from my home (when I was still a believer). Atheists never banned together to deprive me of my equal civil rights under the law.
Not all religious people are like that, but the majority of the organized religious leadership are exactly like that to differing degrees.

Now I wonder why I am supposed to accept unchallenged a factless God theory just because it's someone's religion. We wouldn't take a person seriously who said the sky is blue because Zeus painted it that way. For some reason our society has told us we cannot challenge religion the way we would other unfounded and many times ridiculous claims. Some of the things taught to children is just plain ridiculous and as Prometheus pointed out it can be dangerous with his Jehovah Witness example. I know of very few religious parents that give their children the option to not believe or to question what their religion is teaching them.

We are all atheists, does anyone believe in the reality of Zeus anymore?

To highlight my point of the ridiculousness of things taught to
children, I give you "6 to 8 Black men" by David Sedaris

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUHTDrca4s&feature=PlayList&p=79D30B6633C2EBFD&index=7

 

[MisterF]

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

My belief is a set of statements. Check.
It (to me) describes a group of facts or phenomena. Check.

Your belief can't (objectively) explain a group of facts or phenomena, it can't be repeatedly tested, and it can't be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Here's the word you're looking for:

be⋅lief   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leef] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The key difference between the two positions is that when something has no evidence, let alone proof, non-belief is the logical position to take. The burden of proof is on the believer.

No, there is no burden of proof necessary. That's what, IMO, drives science and analytical minded folks mad, in that Faith doesn't require proof. To someone of Faith, evidence of God is everywhere, even in the evils of the world. However, if you asked them to prove it in a scientific or analytical method, they'd likely say they can't, they just believe.

To the scientists this position must seem like insanity. How can they believe in something that they can't prove.

 

[MisterF]

No, there is no burden of proof necessary. That's what, IMO, drives science and analytical minded folks mad, in that Faith doesn't require proof. To someone of Faith, evidence of God is everywhere, even in the evils of the world. However, if you asked them to prove it in a scientific or analytical method, they'd likely say they can't, they just believe.

To the scientists this position must seem like insanity. How can they believe in something that they can't prove.

I see what you're saying, a person a faith has no obligation to try to prove anything. But that's not what I'm talking about. In discussions like this proof is exactly what we're talking about. Forumers are explaining why they believe in god, and that his existence is just as likely as his non-existence because his existence hasn't been disproved. In that case, the burden of proof is on them. Same with people going door-to-door trying to convert you, or approaching students on university campuses, right up to religious leaders trying to affect government policy: the burden of proof is on them.

 

[urbanboom]

I used to try to respect others beliefs or faith. The sad fact is I've never had an atheist try to convert me or stand on my front lawn and tell me they do not agree with my "lifestyle" and that I could not attend the church right across the street from my home (when I was still a believer). Atheists never banned together to deprive me of my equal civil rights under the law.
Not all religious people are like that, but the majority of the organized religious leadership are exactly like that to differing degrees.

That's truly awful. No one should ever have to go through that. In my church it would be them the who we sinning, since their behaviour goes against what Christ stood for: inclusiveness in a time when it was taboo and very unpopular. (Hell, they even crucified him for it!) But you must not remember not to paint everyone with the same brush. Say I'm black and the KKK comes and burns down my house because of who I am, as well as my "lifestyle". Would that be a basis to judge the entire white race on? Of course not.

Prometheus, feel free to quote any homophobic quote from the Bible, but remember that it wasn't spoken from the mouth of Christ. It was written by Paul, a mere man with his own political agenda, many years after Christ had died. The only reason it is in the Bible is because scholars (who were just men, not divine beings, and who had their own political agenda) decided to throw it in nearly a hundred years later. It was they who deemed it to be "holy", a claim I very much dispute.

 

[urbanboom]

I have answered you, I've provided proof. You have not provided anything but speculation, not based in reality.
You haven't answered anythin gasked of you, you simply deflect and post nonsense.
you are willfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest. you are a typical fundie.

Do you even know what a "fundie" is?

I'm not even going to dignify you with a response.

 

[Mot]

That's truly awful. No one should ever have to go through that. In my church it would be them the who we sinning, since their behaviour goes against what Christ stood for: inclusiveness in a time when it was taboo and very unpopular. (Hell, they even crucified him for it!) But you must not remember not to paint everyone with the same brush. Say I'm black and the KKK comes and burns down my house because of who I am, as well as my "lifestyle". Would that be a basis to judge the entire white race on? Of course not.

Prometheus, feel free to quote any homophobic quote from the Bible, but remember that it wasn't spoked from the mouth of Christ. It was written my Paul, a mere man with his own political agenda, many years after Christ had died. The only reason it is in the Bible is because scholars (who were just men, not divine beings, and who had their own political agenda) decided to throw it in nearly a hundred years later. It was they who deemed it to be "holy", a claim I very much dispute.

That is why I wrote this part, "Not all religious people are like that, but the majority of the organized religious leadership are exactly like that to differing degrees."

My immediate family are devout Catholics and great support to my hubby and I, despite what their leadership tells them.

We moved to Canada because the religious right's political power in the US forced us out. I am not happy for the reasons why we came here, but I am so glad I am here.

 

[digi]

Do you even know what a "fundie" is?

I'm not even going to dignify you with a response.

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

 

[khris]

Sticking with the topic... The ads were approved today!

http://atheistbus.ca/2009/01/28/we-have-approval/

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Prometheus, feel free to quote any homophobic quote from the Bible, but remember that it wasn't spoken from the mouth of Christ. It was written by Paul, a mere man with his own political agenda, many years after Christ had died. The only reason it is in the Bible is because scholars (who were just men, not divine beings, and who had their own political agenda) decided to throw it in nearly a hundred years later. It was they who deemed it to be "holy", a claim I very much dispute.

you can say this about any verse in the bible. your problem is that you choose to believe what is true in the bible based on if you agree with it. well, if you think people added the gay bashing in the bible out of a personal agenda, what's to say all that stuff about heaven, hell, the resurrection, miracles, walking on water, the divinity of jesus, virgin birth, spirits, demons, etc.. wasn't all added in as part of a personal/political agenda???

 

[Transportfan]

here's a nice quote..

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

-Arthur C. Clarke

That's a load of crap. The reality is that religion is a force that helps the cause of morality in a society. How many Christian people kill*, steal, rape, or are on drugs or in prison?

*Please don't bring up the inquisition of the middle ages. Those people were abusing religion for power and were not following Christian principals at all.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

That's a load of crap. The reality is that religion is a force that helps the cause of morality in a society. How many Christian people kill*, steal, rape, or are on drugs or in prison?

*Please don't bring up the inquisition of the middle ages. Those people were abusing religion for power and were not following Christian principals at all.

first of all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

secondly, i don't have the stats in front of me right now but i remember that a big chunk of the US prison population is composed of christians. in fact, christians commit horrible crimes just about at the same rate as anyone else, if not, slightly more IIRC.

 

[urbandreamer]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not unique in their beliefs: Ever talked to an Amish or Mennonite family in Waterloo County? Or an Orthodox Jewish family at Bathurst and Lawrence? Or a Sikh father regarding his daughter marrying a Hindu or "other faith" man?

Religion serves to separate, not to join.

btw, those wondering where proof of g-d exists? In the heads of every person of thinking age. (Either they believe or don't believe.)

Now, of course I don't care either way re: these ads. (Just revenue for the TTC.) Who is brainwashed by advertising, anyway? (Imho, if you believe what an ad says, you'll believe in anything....)

 

[urbandreamer]

A big chunk of the US prison population is easily targeted by xtian groups for conversion. So, say your grandma was a Lutheran but no one else in your family has gone to church in decades--what would the gov't put down as religion? Probably "xtian." I know some Mennonite missionaries actively seek out prisoners for conversion--just to give their youth something to do. (And maybe "enhance" the gene pool.)

So, knowing many prison population already have low IQ for commiting stupid crimes, you'll understand how easily converted to a religion they may be....