There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[Cuiki]

Can you actually claim you know for sure there is no such thing as god? If so, isn't then atheism just another belief, i.e. a belief in the absence of any supreme force at all?

The problem with this line of thought is: Can you actually claim you know for sure that the universe wasn't created by a giant death metal-loving unicorn who believes that all people named Cuiki should be executed by guillotine? If so, isn't then your non-belief in my death-metal unicorn just another belief, i.e. you should acknowledge the validity of my belief that you should probably be executed by guillotine (so sayeth the Unicorn)?

I just meant, can you claim we were brought into existence by nothing at all that could be, in some way, considered a divine being? And that includes pretty much anything.
The rest is kind of down to semantics. Is non-belief actually a type of belief? If it isn't, I retract that statement you quoted, but that still doesn't change that much.

[Cyrus]

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed over unfounded and superstitious beliefs. I don't hate Christianity, I hate people who are stuck in ancient morality, people who let religions corrupt them into becoming abominable assholes, even against their better judgment. What I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance (and who actually believe this!), because they'd rather die than admit that their belief system is full of holes and contradictions.

This all comes from either misunderstanding of religion or intentional misreading. On the fundamental level, Christianity is about love and compassion, and everything else is secondary. Just like "living near a power line will kill you" or quantum theory-based esoterics aren't science, this blah-blah-blah about abortion and other stuff is nothing close to what Jesus said. Besides, the original Christians (those from the Ancient Rome, etc.) never put that much emphasis on Hell, torture and punishment for sins. The "punishment" aspect was heavily laid on by the Church in Middle Ages (most likely for political reasons).

Also, I don't believe in religion making people worse. There's a certain percent of "nastiness" inside many people that just looks for an excuse to manifest itself (like in the Stanford prison experiment); if it isn't religion, it can be patriotism, revolutionary ideas or virtually anything else. Just like "if you cannot be a good person without your religion, then maybe you're not so good yourself", if your religion made you a worse person, then perhaps you weren't as good as you thought you were.

As for the gay question, since it bothers everyone so much, lemme throw in my two cents. There is both innate homosexuality (probably a result of genetic changes) and brief homosexual experiences of mostly straight people (even Marlon Brando had one in his young years). My IMHO is that religion only disapproves of the latter, since no one can be judged for what they were born with.

[Khris]

Cuiki:
I didn't say I have all the answers, and claiming that there is definitely no god is equally unjustifiable, yes (that's why I don't).
I'm saying this is about probability though, and that of the existence of for instance the God of the Christian Bible is not 50:50.
So as far as an agnostic only says "we cannot know", that's fine, but I feel they must also emphasise at the same time, that it's different with common God claims, like those made by Christianity. Because in those cases, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (because if the claim were true, we should find evidence).
Like Eric mentioned, saying that anything is possible gets you nowhere.

Intense Degree:
This is true, the only objection I would have is that atheists didn't get an equal chance. Back then, everybody was religious (or else...).
Today we have for instance Doctors without borders, a completely secular organization. They don't hold their treatments hostage until their patients read a bible passage with them.
I'm still maintaining that people who wanted to help others have always existed, and those who lived centuries ago simply joined the church in order to do so. It was the natural thing to do.
Religious people claim that believing that Jesus is God makes people help others, and my point is that that belief is not required to want to do good.

Cyrus: this is just your modern, progressive interpretation.

Christianity is all about love and compassion

Have you ever read the bible...? I am aware that is typically what priests tell people nowadays, but you really shouldn't take their word for it. If you think Christians can simply chuck out the OT, fine, but why call yourself Christian then? You just lost Genesis, Moses, the Commandments.
You are free to redefine a religion to your liking and subsequently call other interpretations misreadings. But don't make it the basis for an argument.

Here's a brilliant debate on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4&list=PL87110E560077639E
Everybody should have watched it.

[Eric]

The rest is kind of down to semantics. Is non-belief actually a type of belief? If it isn't, I retract that statement you quoted, but that still doesn't change that much.

This point of view gives validity to any belief that has been historically held, though, which is part of the problem with modern discussions of difficult issues. Fair and balanced doesn't mean that everyone who has a viewpoint gets equal airtime. For instance, if you (well, not you you, but you know what I mean) hold that black people are an inferior race, and I disagree with you, you shouldn't get to automatically say, "Well, that's just your belief, isn't it?" The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

[Stupot]

Please point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

I can only really speak for the UK and Christianity, as that is what I know, but these would include the creation of schools in England (the first we have any records of came with the spread of Christianity), the provision and spread of free schooling for all, hospitals which treated those who could not pay and a massive amount of "charity" work. I suppose it depends how you measure success but that would fit my definition.

Christians are a very charitable people, and always have been, but you get the feeling that it has rarely been entirely without strings attached.  Free schooling for all meant being able to teach more kids about God from an early age. Same with loads of things like orphanages and the Scout movement. Good things run by good people, all held together with a creepy Christian glue of hymns and prayers.

[Andail]

You are beautiful when you are angry.   I like you for that.

Thanks, trying my best!

I thought my post drawing a parallel between a person's particular religious faith and brand loyalty was clever and funny. Apparently, it was neither.

This was one of your posts:

Oh, Baron. As a Canadian, we all know that your religion is The Church Of Tim Horton's.

It's just that not all threads have room for comedians. 95% of this forum is pretty light-hearted, so when some people are trying to have a serious discussion, just try to leave the rumpus by the door. These debates are sometimes hard to keep track of as it is.
Thanks.

[miguel]

Khris,

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible(...)

So, there is hate after all. This was pretty evident since the start. From this quote on you mention religious fundamentalists who blindly use religion as a excuse to get their revenge on other men. No sane person will go against you on this. But, either for power, land or resources, men will always justify their ways with some kind of "higher" reason in order to obtain what they do not own.
How a country of intelligent, good people, went on to conquer the world based on a "blue-eyes and pale skin" concept of the world (it still goes on, see the lunatic in Iceland) is something that should make every one of us to think about how fragile we really are. Looks like a good propaganda is enough to do the trick.

(...)I oppose ignorance in all forms.

So do I. The difference is that I don't hate ignorants.

What I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance(...)

What I hate is how politicians manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that exterminating another human is not bad in every circumstance.

This is just meaningless polemics. The same could be said about any of your posts.

We agree on this one, then.

At a point where you disagree with the Vatican of all things, what's even really the point of calling yourself Catholic any longer, "modern" or not? This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No, this is me thinking about what religion means to me and how should I accept it. This is me not throwing myself into something I don't fully agree.
This is me taking what I feel is important from a religion and putting in perspective/discarding what I do not think is valuable to me.

Lt. Smash,

Why do you keep making science responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Did science decide to kill hundreds of thousand civilists to decide war in favor of the Allies? Or where it the USA who finally dropped the bombs?

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a joint effort of top leading scientist and a powerful nation to build a bomb that would and did kill a large amount of humans. Because most of us were on the allies field, the bomb may be seen as the "right" way to end the war.
The USA did drop the bomb, because they had the leading technology and the funds to do it.

Do you agree that god and religion are responsible for hundreds of wars where millions of people died because of their different beliefs? If not, then stop pissing on things that you obviously will never understand.

As long as I don't piss at your door, I'll piss everywhere I want, dude. Lot's of people have died in wars. Land and resources are what drives people to fight. Then they use "excuses" to justify it. Religions was/is one of them.
I'm sure you obviously will never understand that there are other "justifications" to attack a nation.

Could you come up with an example of why atheists are boring? People who are open for new ideas, new inventions, new experiences do you call boring? Just my opinion but people who live like they used to live 2000 years before and not trying new things are boring.

I'm sorry but your point of view on this debate is neither new or inventive or whatever. It's just boring to answer you.

[Problem]

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a joint effort of top leading scientist and a powerful nation to build a bomb that would and did kill a large amount of humans. Because most of us were on the allies field, the bomb may be seen as the "right" way to end the war.
The USA did drop the bomb, because they had the leading technology and the funds to do it.

Sorry, but a few scientists are not science as a whole, just as a few fundamentalists are not religion as a whole. So the USA had the leading technology to drop the bomb? Oh, of course this means poor USA had no choice, they simply HAD to throw it, because of science, you know? This is just ridiculous.
If you make technology responsible for any possible misuse, you should stop using technology right now. Your PC has technology in it (developed by evil scientists) that can and will be used to kill thousands of people. The same technology that you use everyday to browse these forums is used by dictatorial states to control people and to suppress their free will. And you are telling me I should blame Konrad Zuse?

[kconan]

  Had the bomb not been dropped, the alternative plan for the Allies was the invasion of the Japan.  The mainland, not the other countries they had taken over. 

  To be more on-topic, Shinto Buddhism combined with a state religion was used to help control the masses.

[miguel]

Problem,

Sorry, but a few scientists are not science as a whole(...)

Maybe, but they were the best of the best. Some of them are even universal iconic like Einstein.

So the USA had the leading technology to drop the bomb? Oh, of course this means poor USA had no choice, they simply HAD to throw it, because of science, you know? This is just ridiculous.

Yes it is ridiculous. Because you wrote it, not me. I did not say USA did not have a choice. In fact, as a reply to many posts here, my focus is that men is as "dangerous" to humanity than god.
Anyway, the Americans did spend 2Billion dollars to make the bomb. Not because, but through science they did manage do built it.
The rest of your rants about technology is not even funny. Humans create technology and decide what to do with it. Not God and obviously not technology itself. Why you retrieved that from my words is a complete unknown.

kconan,
I am nobody to judge if the bomb was better than invading Japan or not.

[Problem]

Anyway, the Americans did spend 2Billion dollars to make the bomb. Not because, but through science they did manage do built it.
The rest of your rants about technology is not even funny. Humans create technology and decide what to do with it. Not God and obviously not technology itself. Why you retrieved that from my words is a complete unknown.

Well, my point is that you made science responsible as if science was a person. Science is a method to find out the truth, or at least to come as close to the truth as possible. Science is neutral. It can be used for good and for bad. Science can't be held responsible for the bomb, because this would be insulting towards scientists in general. I'm not blaming christianity for the spanish inquisition, but if I applied your logic, I would.

[miguel]

Well, my point is that you made science responsible as if science was a person

No I did not make science responsible. In fact, I want to expose the fact that men creates science and then applies it to whatever means. If you took the time to read this thread you would know what are my thoughts on the subject.

Science can't be held responsible for the bomb, because this would be insulting towards scientists in general.

Those particular scientists can surely be held responsible for the bomb. And scientifically the bomb was a huge technology breakthrough.
But I can separate things, I have no problem with that.
Scientists are men and women just like the rest of us. They have the notion that what they are creating may kill. Removing any responsibility from them because they are scientists is a very dangerous path. But of course I'm not blaming the guy that researches a cure for a disease.

[Lt. Smash]

Why do you keep making science responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Did science decide to kill hundreds of thousand civilists to decide war in favor of the Allies? Or where it the USA who finally dropped the bombs?

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a joint effort of top leading scientist and a powerful nation to build a bomb that would and did kill a large amount of humans. Because most of us were on the allies field, the bomb may be seen as the "right" way to end the war.
The USA did drop the bomb, because they had the leading technology and the funds to do it.

It's senseless to talk further on this topic as you obviously abolish your old arguments and just invent new ones so you can keep your opposition. [EDIT] Your new posts have just proven that.

Do you agree that god and religion are responsible for hundreds of wars where millions of people died because of their different beliefs? If not, then stop pissing on things that you obviously will never understand.

As long as I don't piss at your door, I'll piss everywhere I want, dude. Lot's of people have died in wars. Land and resources are what drives people to fight. Then they use "excuses" to justify it. Religions was/is one of them.
I'm sure you obviously will never understand that there are other "justifications" to attack a nation.

You are totally right and actually you have just agreed on my opinion. The kings, emperors, the popes and the clerks they did justify war because of god and their religion. People wouldn't have killed to millions if the only reason would be land. Because religion exists, the emperors could abuse it to make people believe war is good. So if there were no religion many wars wouldn't have existed and many wars wouldn't be so disastrous. I also did never say that all wars are because of religion. There were thousands of wars but a few hundreds mostly because of religious belief/abuse.
[EDIT] Just wanted to mention this, so I'm not that boring, but this was an excellent example of how differently atheists and theists think. I did always just argument on the things that you actually posted, in oppose to you automatically assuming that I'm talking of every war and every killing.

Could you come up with an example of why atheists are boring? People who are open for new ideas, new inventions, new experiences do you call boring? Just my opinion but people who live like they used to live 2000 years before and not trying new things are boring.

I'm sorry but your point of view on this debate is neither new or inventive or whatever. It's just boring to answer you.

I'm sorry that I bore you but what do you want? If you like I can invent a new definition of atheism and/or theism but I don't think this would make this debate more clever.

[Problem]

@miguel: In this case, our opinions aren't that far apart. Of course you can make individuals responsible, and of course there were scientists who wanted the bomb, but this is not science in general. 
By the way, this is what you said:

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

No I did not make science responsible.

I know what you probably wanted to say though (and I read the whole thread), but we shouldn't confuse individuals with science, just as we shouldn't confuse individuals with religion in general.

[miguel]

Lt. Smash
I don't blame science for all the bad things in the world but do blame science for inventing the bomb.

You are totally right and actually you have just agreed on my opinion. The kings, emperors, the popes and the clerks they did justify war because of god and their religion. People wouldn't have killed to millions if the only reason would be land. Because religion exists, the emperors could abuse it to make people believe war is good. So if there were no religion many wars wouldn't have existed and many wars wouldn't be so disastrous.

Well, kings, emperors, popes did justify many wars with religion, this is a fact. If there was no religion back then I believe the kings and emperors would have had to become much better politicians. Your idea that all the wars ended during the monarchy era is wrong. People still fight as we speak. And sorry to tell you but land and resource is still the main prize.

I'm sorry that I bore you but what do you want? If you like I can invent a new definition of atheism and/or theism but I don't think this would make this debate more clever.

Don't bother.

Problem,

I know what you probably wanted to say though (and I read the whole thread), but we shouldn't confuse individuals with science, just as we shouldn't confuse individuals with religion in general.

Thanks for that.
I totally agree with what you just wrote.

[Lt. Smash]

Well, kings, emperors, popes did justify many wars with religion, this is a fact. If there was no religion back then I believe the kings and emperors would have had to become much better politicians. Your idea that all the wars ended during the monarchy era is wrong. People still fight as we speak. And sorry to tell you but land and resource is still the main prize.

Just wanted to mention this, so I'm not that boring, but this was an excellent example of how differently atheists and theists think (it could actually be just you and me but who knows). I did always just argument on the things that you actually posted, in oppose to you automatically assuming that I'm talking of every war. I also did never say that all wars ended during the monarchy. You are twisting my words so they fit your beliefs.

People are in fact still fighting for their freedom just look at Syria, Turkey, Tunesia, Libya,... Suppressed because of politics and power, many of these Islamic countries (ab-)use their religion to justify the cruelties against freethinkers and people of different religion and culture.

[Khris]

Miguel:
You're conflating science and ethics. Building a bomb is neither bad nor good. Using the bomb is what matters. Science can't tell us whether we should use a bomb or not. It can only tell us what happens if we do (or don't).

By saying that religion is basically the same thing, and whenever people do bad things in the name of religion, their religion isn't to blame, you're ignoring that religions contain ethics, which science does not. All religions ever do is tell people how to behave, and you have used this argument repeatedly to point out why religion is good.

The other thing is, if you ask fundamentalists why they do the bad stuff they do, they will point to their religion. The bible itself says that God isn't the author of confusion, and the people who burned witches or went on crusades were no different.

What you're doing boils down to arguing that whenever somebody religious does something good, it's due to their religion, and whenever they do something bad, it's because they are a bad person.
It should come as no surprise to you that some people are going to disagree with that assessment.

The other thing is that if there are so many people who do bad things despite being religious, what does that say about the effectiveness of that religion...? What I'm saying is that independent of whether Christianity is true, it obviously has failed. Your own stance is that most Catholics are not true followers of Jesus. Have you ever wondered that maybe there's something wrong with Catholicism, and not necessarily with 90% of Catholics?

[Snarky]

Yeah, the better analogy would be if they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a scientific experiment: Science as the motivation for an atrocity, not just the means that made it possible. (In fact, I believe that was a contributing reason; it was certainly a factor in later nuclear tests, some of which also did harm people.)

Of course, there have been horrible things perpetrated in the name of science too, like Nazi medical experiments and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, lobotomies and tests of certain drugs (notably, most of the obvious examples are medical experiments).

[Atelier]

Miguel:
Building a bomb is neither bad nor good. Using the bomb is what matters.

I'm really unsure about this. Once created, bombs go nowhere, do nothing else, only until they are detonated and kill people. The person who makes it essentially contains that result within the casing, postponing it - nobody builds bombs just because they can - there's a clear goal to making a bomb, it only has one purpose. Building is not the same as using it I know, but by the actual physical act of creating a bomb, the ONLY thing you are doing is directly increasing the capacity to kill other people (even if the bomb is not used, the bomb's 'potential' is brought into existence, when it did not exist before), I think does have some unethical flavour to it as well.

[Khris]

We can talk about Oppenheimer's and his colleagues' motivation all day; when all is said and done, the notion that science dropped the bomb is still nonsensical.
Even if every scientist tortured monkeys, built bombs and created viruses all day, every day, science would still be an amazing, unparalleled achievement.