To Those Who Claim A Religion: What Does Atheism Mean/Stand For?

[ILLuminato]

That's a somewhat obtuse way of looking at it. You don't take your pick based on the statistics of other people believing it, you take it based on what is the most logical for you.

Apply the same reasons for NOT believing in any other religions to your own and you'll realise they're equally valid reasons not to believe in your own.



On the "if you use that argument... pissing your pants" paragraph, i'm not sure you understood what I meant - what I mean to say is, a lot of people wouldn't throw in with a religion just because they are innundated with pressure from family etc, but when the religion also contains a terrible threat - such as the threat of eternal agony and anguish and torture - they may, due to external influence half convincing them the religion is real, start practicing the religion in fear of this consequence, where if it wasn't in place they would logically refute the religion without having to worry about the possible consequences.

As for the scientific evidence against the Christian Bible's statements, I don't remember the exact number but the Bible says the world is 6000 or so years old (definitely under 10,000), whereas carbon dating has proved that the world is over 80 million years old.

One mistake does not make the entire religion false.

How many mistakes have science made? This is like saying "Chenobyl is a case which falsifies the uses of science" because it made one mistake. I don't see what is any different. You have humans trying to dogmatically exert their "knowledge" of the supernatural/natural.

50/50. Like I've always said. This, however, being whats likely if you throw out both science and all religions. The statistical idea of it is no more then 50/50. Possible, but no reason to think even 1 percent probable (or, 51 percent.)

However, these are statistics. I'm not trying to fool anyone, it's not my fault if it still has that 'fooled you' effect on you.

It's simple. You take the top 5 religions. They all have a chance at being right and wrong. However, neither has more over the other. So, they all have an equal chance. 100 divided by 5, is 20. It's a 20 percent chance. This, of course, is if we are to believe that there is SOME FORM of God.

However, if I don't believe that God is probable, then my category doesn't match the criteria of the others in that statistic. So, you're left with a different statistic.

How likely am I to be wrong? Well, if we assume that science and the Bible don't get in the way, then it's a coin toss. 50/50. This, I didn't think, was something you could even argue.

Please, try to find a way to come up with a different statistic.

For the record, when talking about Greek Mythology, if it were to be TOTALLY debunked, then it wouldn't fall into the category I chose for the first statistic. And it isn't a top 5 religion, which is what you asked for. I was simply making the point that for ITS time, it had the same chance.

That's the point. Something that was WIDELY accepted as the truth back then was debunked. So, whats the difference between the top 5 religions and all of them? They all have just as much of a chance at being wrong. Most popular rarely ever means best option. That goes from movies and music to lifestyle choices to clothing, etc. As you JUST pointed out, the most popular ones can be clearly wrong down the road.

Pointing out the Greek Mythology situation hurts your case. Realistically, it opens up the idea of bringing all the religions back into the equation and lowering the chances of all religions in the process due to the many options. It opens it up because, as you've pointed out FOR ME, even the 'popular ones' can be proven wrong eventually.

All of these numbers you throw out are simply opinion. You put them out like they're real , but they're simply not. End of argument.

Just listen to GMitchell: "You don't take your pick based on the statistics of other people believing it, you take it based on what is the most logical for you."

[squealpiggy]

One mistake does not make the entire religion false.

If you hold your holy book to be the literal inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient deity then one mistake does falsify the religion. If the literal and inerrant word of your omniscient god cannot be trusted to reflect reality you've lost your footing.

If on the other hand you accept that part of the book is metaphorical then you are on far sounder footing.

How many mistakes have science made? This is like saying "Chenobyl is a case which falsifies the uses of science" because it made one mistake.

Chernobyl is a bad example. The failure of Chernobyl was not science, the failure was an administrative one as the director was pressured into signing safety documents when the testing of the safety systems had not been completed.

When science makes mistakes these mistakes are accounted for, the theory is modified and emerges stronger than it was before. You cannot do this with religious holy books, because the whole point of them is that they come from god and cannot be altered by man. You want a specific example?

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Basically don't change anything in this book or else.

All of these numbers you throw out are simply opinion. You put them out like they're real , but they're simply not. End of argument.

Like your "probability of the universe" scam?

[Texanballer]

Are there a lot of errors in the cathecism?

[squealpiggy]

Are there a lot of errors in the cathecism?

Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an interesting one because it does change over time. It just doesn't change quickly enough and it changes according to the opinions of the presiding cardinals rather than through anything objective.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Like your "probability of the universe" scam?

The most interesting part about this is I'm trying to do it in a way that BEST helps his argument.

He will have NONE of that.

[GMitchell]

One mistake does not make the entire religion false.

How many mistakes have science made? This is like saying "Chenobyl is a case which falsifies the uses of science" because it made one mistake. I don't see what is any different. You have humans trying to dogmatically exert their "knowledge" of the supernatural/natural.

All of these numbers you throw out are simply opinion. You put them out like they're real , but they're simply not. End of argument.

Just listen to GMitchell: "You don't take your pick based on the statistics of other people believing it, you take it based on what is the most logical for you."

Dumbass like Squealpiggy said, if your book is the word of an "all knowing, omniscient God", then it containing false statements DOES nullify it. Scientists never claim to be "right" about everything.

[ILLuminato]

Dumbass like Squealpiggy said, if your book is the word of an "all knowing, omniscient God", then it containing false statements DOES nullify it. Scientists never claim to be "right" about everything.

So then how do you know humans are right about anything?

P.S. Squeally an omniscient and omnipotent God is unfalsifiable at the moment.

[ILLuminato]

Like your "probability of the universe" scam?

Those aren't my numbers that I was using. So that wasn't my own opinion, and was presented to me by an agnostic source.

[squealpiggy]

P.S. Squeally an omniscient and omnipotent God is unfalsifiable at the moment.

It isn't falsifiable ever, which is why it is inappropriate to try and conflate science with religion.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Those aren't my numbers that I was using. So that wasn't my own opinion, and was presented to me by an agnostic source.

So, there not your numbers. Any reason as to why you decided to post them?