A study of atheism worldwide

[holy king]

Yes, the problem of evil, mentioned almost every time someone debates the existence of God. There are in fact solutions to it other than the nonexistence of God.

your heresy makes the pope cry.

Spoiler :

 

[CaptainF]

Religion for the loss.

 

[Dachs]

Yes but throughout history(or at least according to the AP history books) wars have been fought all over the world because "God wills it" especially in the case of the Pope Urban II and the Crusades

So despite my very clear statement that the expeditions to the Holy Land didn't actually result in a net result in world violence (just taking a measure of the malcontents away from Western Europe and moving them elsewhere to do fighting that would have been done by other people anyway for nonreligious reasons), you're just repeating what you said originally? I like your style.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

your heresy makes the pope cry.

Well, why not? According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mormons are heretics. (And according to us, they are apostates. That's no reason why we can't be friends.) And the particularly Mormon solution to the problem of evil is different from what mainstream Christianity teaches - we don't usually explicitly say it, but by the definition that seems to be most common, we don't consider God to be omnipotent.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, why not? According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mormons are heretics. (And according to us, they are apostates. That's no reason why we can't be friends.) And the particularly Mormon solution to the problem of evil is different from what mainstream Christianity teaches - we don't usually explicitly say it, but by the definition that seems to be most common, we don't consider God to be omnipotent.

Who was it that had a theory of facts that if there is no experiment or situation that can be logically concieved that disproves a claim, then it is unscientific? An impotent God seems like one of those to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There is a difference between "not omnipotent" and impotent. There is also a difference between "unable to be falsified" and false. Beyond that I am not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Flying Pig]

There is a difference between "not omnipotent" and impotent. There is also a difference between "unable to be falsified" and false. Beyond that I am not sure what you are getting at.

OK, what I mean is that I find it difficult to understand a belief which will accomodate any evidence - surely the only evidence you have ofr it is the ancient Roman declaration - CREDO?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

In my case, and without going into a lot of detail, no. People have a lot of reasons for their belief beyond "some book or some preacher told me to" - and whether these reasons are valid don't matter in this context.

 

[Flying Pig]

Sorry (spot the only atheist convert), but I dislike anything which cannot be tested against experience and possibly provved wrong (in the words of Cromwell "I bessech you in the bowels of Christ to think that you may be wrong".

I think, ulitmately, that this is why religion is so poplar - there is no method of disproving it because it accomodates everything.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Not all religions accomodate everything, although eventually you will find that everything that can be, is, somewhere.

Anyways, most of the beliefs, opinions, and motivations of most people, religious or not, haven't been rigorously experimentally tested.

 

[civ_king]

I became an Atheist because the bible is a sham

 

[Atticus]

Who was it that had a theory of facts that if there is no experiment or situation that can be logically concieved that disproves a claim, then it is unscientific?

Unscientific doesn't mean untrue.

I dislike anything which cannot be tested against experience and possibly provved wrong

So, do you have something against maths?

 

[Masquerouge]

(spot the only atheist convert),

What do you mean by that?

 

[Flying Pig]

I have never met another, by which I mean a man who has gone from believing in God to not.

@Atticus, quite the opposite! I can see that 2+2 = 4 every day, I can prove that the square on the hypotenuse is equivalent to the square on the other two sides, etc etc. What I dislike is when I mut just accept that 2 + 2 = 5 dispite the evidence of my eyes and experience.

 

[Masquerouge]

I have never met another, by which I mean a man who has gone from believing in God to not.

Maybe you haven't met one, but there are a lot of people who stopped believing in God.

 

[Flying Pig]

ok, I amend to: the only atheist convert in my aquiantance. I would like to meet someone who converted to theism and back to atheism during their adult life.

 

[Masquerouge]

ok, I amend to: the only atheist convert in my aquiantance. I would like to meet someone who converted to theism and back to atheism during their adult life.

This is the first example that I thought of, but you can check to see if this guy is coming where you live sometime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

@Atticus, quite the opposite! I can see that 2+2 = 4 every day, I can prove that the square on the hypotenuse is equivalent to the square on the other two sides, etc etc.

2 + 2 = 4 can be considered a matter of faith. I don't even see how it could be proved, since 4 is already defined and accepted as being equal to 2 + 2.

 

[PeteAtoms]

2 + 2 = 4 can be considered a matter of faith. I don't even see how it could be proved, since 4 is already defined and accepted as being equal to 2 + 2.

I've never taken a lesson in logic or anything, but do definitions need to be proved?

Do we really need to prove that "all unmarried males are bachelors?" or that 1=1?

 

[dcmort93]

exactly pete
and technically all atheists are heretics holly king