[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, it doesn't. The universal set is the set of dimensions. I'm telling you that not every dimension you can think of exists. You can't have a different universal set under a dimension that doesn't exist. It's a chicken before the egg problem.

You didn't watch the video. /sigh

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You can say whatever you want. Maybe all the evidence points towards hyteckit being your god. It's just extremely unlikely, and until you find that "Rosetta Stone," there is still no evidence of a god or gods.

Heh. String Theory is the Intelligent Design of quantum physics. We'd have to wait for the LHC to turn back on in March and actually work before we'll have a reasonable guess regarding String Theory on wether it even constitutes as a theory. As it stands, String Theory isn't even really a theory because you can't test it... it's not even wrong.

No. Physics and metaphysics are completely contradictory and do not mix. Metaphysics contains untestable, completely fabricated factors used to try to explain something (like Intelligent Design.) Theoretical physics will often create possible situations (within the confines of what we understand about the universe) or ideal conditions that can only be created in a lab to test a theory that works on paper, but hasn't necessarily been observed yet. Sometimes computer models are created based on mathematical equations that point to something existing, but we haven't actually observed it. Theoretical physics extends to a lot of Einstein's work on general relativity and special relativity. His equations are sound, they work in theory. However, it was only within the last 30 years that we began to observe and see direct evidence in regards to Einstein's theories. As with most fields of science, a lot of discoveries happen just by accident.

Just because you're ignoring these phenomena doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means you're prejudiced. I suppose I could take my time and explain the shocking "coincidences", there are a staggering number, but it would be a waste of time since you're looking the other way and have no desire to be objective. One would almost think many of you are afraid, afraid that some part of the religious/spiritual traditions could be validated. Why is that?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Just because you're ignoring these phenomena doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means you're prejudiced. I suppose I could take my time and explain the shocking "coincidences", there are a staggering number, but it would be a waste of time since you're looking the other way and have no desire to be objective.

I posit that you only see them because you want to. The human brain is really good at finding patterns even in a mess of seemingly random data. You want to see a pattern. I guarantee that the staggering number of "coincidences" are no more than any other coincidence or pattern. It doesn't validate your opinion.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

One would almost think many of you are afraid, afraid that some part of the religious/spiritual traditions could be validated. Why is that?

Not afraid, just skeptical. I can assure you that if there's an possibility of life after death, that there was empirical evidence that there is a god or gods, atheists and agnostics would be pretty ecstatic. I find the concept of being nothing after I die a little disconcerting, but hey, that's life.

You're also assuming scientists are atheists. There are lots of scientists who also practice religion, but they're also wise enough to keep it separate from any scientific work.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Just because you're ignoring these phenomena doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means you're prejudiced. I suppose I could take my time and explain the shocking "coincidences", there are a staggering number, but it would be a waste of time since you're looking the other way and have no desire to be objective. One would almost think many of you are afraid, afraid that some part of the religious/spiritual traditions could be validated. Why is that?

Huh?
His comments on string theory are entirely valid (I'm surprised this has made it outside of the community): a valid theory needs to be self-consistent and explain phenomena. String theory doesn't satisfy these criteria yet. This doesn't mean olepigeon is prejudiced.

However, nobody is ignoring string theory, in fact, a lot of research is done on it to try and make it consistent. I'd be surprised if someone manages to make it consistent before rigorously justifying quantum field theory.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You didn't watch the video. /sigh

Well, I watch the video. I pretty much had the same lesson in 10th grade math.

Both the video and Dr. Kaku talks about multi-verse or parallel universes, and string theory.

I think you are missing one big keyword here:
all possible timelines
all possible universes

Is me being a God in one of these possible timelines of one of these possible universes? Is that even possible? As I said before, God is an even number and it just not possible for God to exist in our universal or any parallel universe if all the possible timelines and all possible parallel universes is represented by a sequence of old numbers:

Our Universe and all possible timelines: [1,3,5,7]
Parallel Universe 1: [3,5,7,9]
Parallel Universe 2: [5,7,9,11]

God just does not exist in any of the above possible parallel universes or possible timelines.


Why do we treat all possible timelines in our universe as a point as shown in the video?

By treating it as a single point, it helps us imaging more than 3 dimensions. We live in a 3 dimensional world, it's easier for us to grasp the concept by treating higher dimensions as a point, line, and plane.

Say time is the 4th dimension. How do we imaging time? By treating a single event in time as a point and treating time as a line (1 dimension). We treat our universe and everything that has happened and will happen (all the possible timelines) since the big bang, as a single point, if you want to imaging parallels worlds (universe).


Our Universe: [1,3,5,7] - point A
parallel universe 1: [3,5,7,9] - point B
parallel universe 2: [5,7,9,11] - point C

To imaging the next dimension up, we imaging a line between all the possible timelines of each universe.

Point A <---> Point B <-----> Point C

However, Point A, our universe is still represented by [1,3,5,7], where God, an even integer, does not exist. Nor does God exist in any of the other possible universes if they are all represented by a sequence of odd numbers.


In our universe, is me being a King of Earth one of the possible timelines? Maybe, maybe not. It only represents all possible timelines.
In all the other possible parallel universe, is me being King of Earth one of the possible timelines? Maybe, maybe not. It only represents all possible timelines.

Shaddim, you are making the argument that I'm King of Earth or God in one of the parallel universes.

[Chuckit]

Obligatory:

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

If there are scientists that actually do so, then they are doing so only to gain some attention or just for fun.

"If they are, then…"? They are and they don't do it for reasons you project.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Aliens are one thing, the question of God (ie. if everything is created by God or came into existence out of its own) is completely different.

Why?

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

One of the first things that science-professors tell their fresh students is that if they seek truth, they should better look elsewhere. Science isn't about truth, ie. it's not about the why and the meaning, it's only and strictly about the how within theory-models that are proposed, refined using certain basic assumptions to explain the current state and predicting either not yet discovered phenomenas or within a controlled environment a development.

More projecting.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

At least in the abrahamitic religions that is a fundamental part of their doctrine: While for the prophets to whom God communicated and their direct witnesses that experienced the wonders, like for example the parting of the sea for Moses and his followers... God was indeed proven, for the following generations though God became a question of faith rather than knowledge, and the final proof will be when God leaves his self-chosen transcendency and becomes manifest to all, ie. the day of reckoning, the day of judgement.

That doesn't make sense:
1) Non-abrahamic religions don't purpose to have their doctrine based on truth?
2) "God was indeed proven" …how?
3) God will prove himself one day. Just you wait. Aaaaany day now…

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The question if God created everything and the laws and systems observed are just the way God operates His creation is exactly what scientists can't answer, what scientists need in order to acknowledge the existence of a divinity would be something extremely out of the order.

Why?

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

For example the earth travelling in a vaccuum around a sun that gives light and heat, which in combination with water already existing on earth as well as with carbon-dioxide produces energy and food for the plants to grow as well as producing the air we need to breath might seem pretty impressive, but since this is already going on for aeons, it gets taken for granted, ie. assumed to be a normal occurrence, a natural cycle... now the sun suddenly breaking in two and stopping to shine for a while still might not do the trick, but after the earth has pretty much turned into ice, only kept a little warm by the warmth saved inside the earth, and the food-cycle has broken down and the air to breath gets less and less, and when then the sun gets "repaired" and everything restored, then scientists would acknowledge a divine intervention... or just assume that the galactical energy-company sent someone to change the bulb.

Ooooookay.

I'll go with that. When that happens, I'll grant you that divine intervention might have happened. I'm not going to hold my breath on that particular scenario though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Obligatory:

Pretty much. Don't think there isn't an xkcd comic that doesn't apply to any subject.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

In our universe, is me being a King of Earth one of the possible timelines? Maybe, maybe not. It only represents all possible timelines.
In all the other possible parallel universe, is me being King of Earth one of the possible timelines? Maybe, maybe not. It only represents all possible timelines.

Shaddim, you are making the argument that I'm King of Earth or God in one of the parallel universes.

According to many belief systems, that is correct. At some point, you will be. Since time is multi-directional, it is, has, and will happen. What I'm trying to convey is that, the universe is, for lack of a better word, becoming "God". If it becomes an omnipotent, omnipresent deity, then it's always been that way.

I suppose what we're arguing about is what is possible. Some, it would seem, have a more limited view on possibility, whether it's from current scientific data or prejudice, it's difficult to say with any certainty.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

According to many belief systems, that is correct. At some point, you will be. Since time is multi-directional, it is, has, and will happen. What I'm trying to convey is that, the universe is, for lack of a better word, becoming "God". If it becomes an omnipotent, omnipresent deity, then it's always been that way.

I suppose what we're arguing about is what is possible. Some, it would seem, have a more limited view on possibility, whether it's from current scientific data or prejudice, it's difficult to say with any certainty.

So why worship God(s) if we are all Gods?

Then isn't the goal is the reach "Nirvana" rather than worship God?

This is all the concept of Buddhism. Birth and rebirth. Living our lives again and again, in another world (universe) until we reach Nirvana.

[hyteckit]

Dr. Kaku on string theory, parallel universe, and Nirvana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3u...B171D8&index=0

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

According to many belief systems, that is correct. At some point, you will be. Since time is multi-directional, it is, has, and will happen. What I'm trying to convey is that, the universe is, for lack of a better word, becoming "God". If it becomes an omnipotent, omnipresent deity, then it's always been that way.

You're taking a theory you obviously don't fully understand, elevating it to fact and twisting it to try and prove your belief.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Science-damn it!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're taking a theory you obviously don't fully understand, elevating it to fact and twisting it to try and prove your belief.

And you do understand it? Really? From what I've seen, the atheist view on String Theory has already changed 3 times since this thread began.

The only concrete conclusion that can be found is that all of you fear religion.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The only concrete conclusion that can be found is that all of you fear religion.

Shouldn't we all?

[brassplayersrock²]

if you fear an idea that an egotistical person made to be listened to and followed by billions of people... then you probably would be afraid of anything.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No no... clearly not the greatest myth debunking site on the net or University of Washington are way too biased!

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Journal of Psychology, Scientific American, How Stuff Works and Bill Nye are all in this together!!

Okay, I’m going to try once more to explain this to you:

1. We do not have an argument over the question of whether brain activity occurs throughout the entire brain, or not. It is pretty clear that it does, and I never meant to suggest otherwise.

2. The fact that brain activity occurs throughout the entire brain does not mean that you are utilising your entire mental potential, which is what this is about. The way and the extent to which people are using their brains is not uniform, otherwise everybody would be exactly as intelligent as everybody else, all of the time.

Let me illustrate. Because it happens to be a magazine I actually read, I will use the coffee-pouring example from the Scientific American article you linked to.

Originally Posted by Scientific American

Take the simple act of pouring coffee in the morning: In walking toward the coffeepot, reaching for it, pouring the brew into the mug, even leaving extra room for cream, the occipital and parietal lobes, motor sensory and sensory motor cortices, basal ganglia, cerebellum and frontal lobes all activate. A lightning storm of neuronal activity occurs almost across the entire brain in the time span of a few seconds.

Sure, neurons are firing all over the brain, but how many people do you think have optimised the act of pouring coffee?

Firstly, you have the test subject walking towards the coffee pot. Depending upon his or her intelligence and degree of perfectionism, this will require a certain number of physical steps. Will it be a whole number of equidistant steps, or will the subject have to correct for having decided on an overly long or short initial step length?

Secondly, you have the subject reaching for the pot.
Ideally, there should be some efficiency, and possibly beauty, to the way she moves her hand from its initial position to the grabbing-the-handle position. For starters, has the subject thought about how, when walking over to the pot, her arms may have been swinging back and forth to assist balance? If she did, she may have thought to pace herself in such a way that she can utilise the last swing to reach for the pot handle. If she hasn’t done that, the whole coffee-pouring process is already inefficient because she’s wasted a motion.

Thirdly, you have the subject pouring the brew into a cup.
When he lifted the coffee pot, did he correctly judge how much coffee was inside and therefore use the appropriate amount of force to lift the pot without sloshing the coffee in it around too much? Could he be pouring too fast? Maybe he is worried about pouring too fast and is therefore pouring too slowly and wasting precious time. What is the other hand doing? Is it holding down a lid on the coffee pot? If so, at which point exactly did he start reaching for that, and did he use an efficient motion initiated at a convenient time and position?

And so forth.

The way it seems to me, one can (and should) optimise the job of getting the coffee into the cup in such a way that one doesn’t use any unnecessary or inefficient moves. If one uses such a method, I would say that one is using the brain well. If one persists in wasting moves, I would say that one is not using the brain well. I’d call that being stupid.

Do you get what I am saying?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It doesn't seem rational to believe we've evolved some massive well of untapped abilities, taking up valuable resources without conferring any benefit. That's not how biology usually works. Sure, we have a lot of room to make better use of our minds — just like we can work out to get our bodies in better shape — but it's no more valid to say we only use 10% of our minds than to say we only use 10% of our muscles.

It seems to me that I sometimes feel I am being more actively intelligent than at other times. ‘Being actively intelligent’ is the expression I use for actively getting smarter, which invariably feels as if I am re-wiring connections in my brain, and can subsequently think faster.

I find it valid to argue that this seems analogous to optimising code. Ten per cent or less appears to me a generous figure to characterise the level of optimisation observable in the hypothetical average person’s brain software. (If you rated it higher, I would feel compelled to ask why. If you opposed in principle the putting a number on it, I would argue that doing so would seem to encourage a regimen of self-improvement.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

And you do understand it? Really? From what I've seen, the atheist view on String Theory has already changed 3 times since this thread began.

The only concrete conclusion that can be found is that all of you fear religion.

Of course I don't understand String Theory, and it's quite clear that neither do you. The difference is that *I'm* not trying to use something I don't understand to prove something; I'm only taking *your* twisting of String Theory and extrapolating it to expose it's flaws.

And, I absolutely fear religion. Over history religion has been used by power-hungry people to gain and hold power, to manipulate people and to cause most of the world's deaths. Anything that can manipulate people so easily should be feared.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Okay, I’m going to try once more to explain this to you:

1. We do not have an argument over the question of whether brain activity occurs throughout the entire brain, or not. It is pretty clear that it does, and I never meant to suggest otherwise.

Apology accepted. I didn't bother to read the rest.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The only concrete conclusion that can be found is that all of you fear religion.

That's your belief, not a concrete conclusion.

One of the conclusions I reach is that it's amazing that 85 - 90% of the population is so fearful of a small number of people that they would seek to deny them their beliefs, as if the could change the majority's beliefs. Doesn't say much about how strong most people are in their religious beliefs. Apparently nonbelievers have more power than we thought we did.

[olePigeon]

World would be a lot better off without religion. I fear it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

World would be a lot better off without religion. I fear it.

I disagree. Religion has had a profoundly positive impact on the arts, architecture, philanthropy, education, democracy, laws, the sciences, medicine, etc...

IMO, It is shallow and in some cases intellectually dishonest to measure the merits of religion by leadership acting under its guise. Religion does not cause human nature. For every leader exacting travesty in the name of a god for power, there are hundreds of thousands of practitioners quietly doing good, selfless works and living peaceful, productive lives.

I would not want to live in a world without religion nor would I seek to change someone's beliefs out of fear of their ideology. This brand of fear stems from a very myopic view IMO. It will only serve to perpetuate ignorance and eventually antagonism.

[hyteckit]

I believe religious people are arrogant.

Most believe in God out of fear. Fear gets people to believe in God.

So religion is not the problem. It's people who have a tendency to believe in God that is the problem. They are easily manipulated through fear.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why is it assumed an Christian stole the sign? It could have been anyone from any religion. Actually, it could have been anyone period. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of an atheist to assume anything without evidence?

It was set up next to the nativity scene. I would assume that some Christian took offense to it and wanted it destroyed; after all, their myth is the only one, true religion. It's not likely it was a Muslim or Jew because they don't believe Jesus is the son of God.

So, answer the bolded parts.

Aren't you being hypocritical to assume anything without evidence? Aren't atheists proclaiming Christians are believing/assuming something without evidence?

[Chuckit]

There is evidence. It was set up next to a nativity scene. This means the people with the most motivation to steal the sign were Christians.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

This thread (and countless others) pretty much proves that people will argue, scrap and fight over *anything*.

Religion, or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

One of the few empirical truths in this thread.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Apology accepted. I didn't bother to read the rest.

It is actually a very good read. You belittling him and twisting his words really makes you look petty and immature here.

I suggest you should be the one apologizing.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There is evidence. It was set up next to a nativity scene. This means the people with the most motivation to steal the sign were Christians.

There is no "evidence". There is no video or confession from a Christian.

You are assuming. Jumping to conclusions. Making decisions without proof. Without anything really other than bias.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by railroader 

there is no "evidence". There is no video or confession from a christian.

You are assuming. Jumping to conclusions. Making decisions without proof. Without anything really other than bias.

WMD in Iraq

God told Bush so.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

It is actually a very good read. You belittling him and twisting his words really makes you look petty and immature here.

That's rich coming from someone fresh out of their ban for personal insults.

[hyteckit]

Do Atheist and scientist make assumptions? Of course they do. They make educated guesses and estimate the probability based off of experience and known facts.

I know it wasn't God who stole the sign.
I know it wasn't the Devil who stole the sign.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't aliens from outer space who stole the sign.
I'm pretty sure it was a person who stole the sign.

There are infinite possibilities, but I limited to humans stealing the sign. Who wants to bet with me? I know, it's a crazy assumption I'm making.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

There is no "evidence". There is no video or confession from a Christian.

You are assuming. Jumping to conclusions. Making decisions without proof. Without anything really other than bias.

Are you just being argumentative or do I really need to explain what evidence and logic are to you?

Also, you do realize that personally attacking atheists on unrelated matters doesn't have any impact on the validity of their religious beliefs or your own, right?

[Wiskedjak]

I suspect Railroader is trying to make a point. There is no proof that a Christian stole the sign; anyone who *believes* a Christian stole the sign is doing so based on assumptions and "faith".

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a Christian stole the sign; most would not, but I've encountered a few who would. However, it also wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was stolen by the people who *placed* the sign there.

[- - e r i k - -]

Occam's Razor != faith.

The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. While we can't be certain, we can make assumption based on the circumstances.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

They are easily manipulated through fear.

The blazing irony is, the only people who've expressed fear in this thread, are the non-religious. Your very post wreaks of fear of other people believing differently than you do.

Fearful atheists express narcissistic notions along the lines of "I wish there were no religion- IE: I wish everyone were an atheist, because that's what I believe" all the time- several times just in this thread.

I dare say, I've rarely if ever heard a religious person say they wished everyone was religious.

But then again, that's yet another trait of human nature- the capacity for nearly boundless hypocrisy.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The blazing irony is, the only people who've expressed fear in this thread, are the non-religious. Your very post wreaks of fear of other people believing differently than you do.

Fearful atheists express narcissistic notions along the lines of "I wish there were no religion- IE: I wish everyone were an atheist, because that's what I believe" all the time- several times just in this thread.

I dare say, I've rarely if ever heard a religious person say they wished everyone was religious.

But then again, that's yet another trait of human nature- the capacity for nearly boundless hypocrisy.

That's absurd. You've never heard a religious person say they wish everyone was religious? I can point you toward some youtube videos of pastors wishing aloud that only Christians were left alive for Pete's sake.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I dare say, I've rarely if ever heard a religious person say they wished everyone was religious

When I attended a Baptist church (until I was 18 or 19), I often heard people wish that everyone was Christian.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The blazing irony is, the only people who've expressed fear in this thread, are the non-religious. Your very post wreaks of fear of other people believing differently than you do.

Fearful atheists express narcissistic notions along the lines of "I wish there were no religion- IE: I wish everyone were an atheist, because that's what I believe" all the time- several times just in this thread.

I dare say, I've rarely if ever heard a religious person say they wished everyone was religious.

But then again, that's yet another trait of human nature- the capacity for nearly boundless hypocrisy.

Once again, you get it backward, by not answering the question of why 85 - 90% of the population is so fearful that their beliefs are under assault. If you've never heard a religious person say they wished everyone was religious, then you must suffer from some congenital hearing defect. You've obviously never heard of Evangalism, or attempts by various religious groups to get their beliefs codified, which is happening now, with nutjobs like Huckabee, and Focus on the Family, or the American Family Association, or Hagee, and many more. You can't answer why these people are so fearful of such a small minority, if they're so secure in the belief; instead you disingenuously attempt to spin the focus on those poor miserable wretched heathens. Why does the majority need protection from the minority? I don't run around claiming I'm under attack for my beliefs, because I don't care what you think; if you and 100% of the rest of the population didn't agree with me, you might attempt to force me to change my beliefs (remember the Inquisition?), but I'm not going to change to suit you. Yet when so-called Christians hear someone say "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas," they scream about their sacred holiday being under attack, as if the mere utterance of some words somehow changes the meaning of the holiday for them. They're so afraid that they won't be able to say "Merry Christmas" someday, as if someone could actually force them to say otherwise. Sadly, you no doubt don't see how ludicrous this whole argument is, and will continue to twist it around to suit your views. Talk about boundless hypocrisy.

Reasons Greetings.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The blazing irony is, the only people who've expressed fear in this thread, are the non-religious. Your very post wreaks of fear of other people believing differently than you do.

Fearful atheists express narcissistic notions along the lines of "I wish there were no religion- IE: I wish everyone were an atheist, because that's what I believe" all the time- several times just in this thread.

I dare say, I've rarely if ever heard a religious person say they wished everyone was religious.

But then again, that's yet another trait of human nature- the capacity for nearly boundless hypocrisy.

I don't fear religion. Quite to opposite. I'm actively looking for the right religion.

I don't go banning/burning books and movies because they against my beliefs like Christians do. Seriously, Harry Potter and Brokeback Mountain needs to be banned? I actually enjoy watching movies with religious and spiritual themes. I enjoy reading greek mythology. I enjoy the Bible stories told to me in Sunday school and Catholic school. I enjoy reading about Buddhism and how quantum mechanics and string theory seem to be related to the ideals mention in the Buddhist religion. I enjoy visiting religious temples and churches. I had a roommate who hold Bible studies every week at our place and I had no problems with it. She was nice enough to ask me first, and I told her it was fine, cause I had no problems with religion. I just don't agree with it or believe in it.

The only thing I fear about religion, are religious nuts who would do anything in the name of God, like blowing up abortion clinics or flying planes into buildings. Most atheist just don't want religion or a particular religion to be imposed upon them in public places, public buildings, or by the government. We don't need in God we Trust in our money. Not that I care. I do care about having to recite the plead of allegiance with the words "Under God". How would you feel if we change the word "God" to "Allah" so "In God We Trust" become "In Allah We Trust" and "Under God" would be "Under Allah" in the pledge of allegiance? You wouldn't like it would you? Oh course, Atheist would disagree with having to say "Under God" during the pledge of allegiance. This is not fear. This is about not having someone else's belief imposed upon us by our own government.

Christians are fearful of Atheist and does want everyone to be religious. Christians distrust Atheist more than they distrust Muslims according to recent surveys. It's not based on anything besides their bias. Christians wants everyone to be God-fearing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

That's absurd. You've never heard a religious person say they wish everyone was religious? I can point you toward some youtube videos of pastors wishing aloud that only Christians were left alive for Pete's sake.

Can you read? I said didn't say "never". I said, rarely.

I made the point that atheists actually are the ones to FAR more often express the desire to have everyone else believe as they do, more than the religious do.

This thread itself is a classic example- atheists have proven me right several times already, and likewise, have directly expressed more fear over what other people believe, than anyone religious has.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single expression by anyone religious that no one be an atheist, nor any real expression of fear. Can you point to a single instance?

This isn't uncommon- it's something I've noticed often when these silly atheist/religion 'debates' come up.

Atheists tend to be a lot more 'up on a soapbox' preachy and have persecution complexes more often than the religious do- the last couple of preachy posts didn't do much to disprove that.

And really- a fear based on something you saw on YouTube, but can't really point to having any impact what-so-ever on your own life? Who is it that has the more irrational fear again?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I don't run around claiming I'm under attack for my beliefs,

You JUST did!

Don't you know Huckabee, Focus on the Family and 80% of the population are trying to track you down and tattoo a crucifix on your forehead? Someone saw them plotting it on YouTube!

Yet when so-called Christians hear someone say "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas," they scream about their sacred holiday being under attack, as if the mere utterance of some words somehow changes the meaning of the holiday for them.

The flipside is also true- the very fact that people get tired of being told to say Happy Holidays or whatever, rather than Merry Christmas, is a rejection of silly P.C. stupidity over the meaning of a couple of words. Athiests also get pissy over words, or there would be no friggen problem with just saying.. Merry Christmas!

If people want to say Merry Christmas or what the heck without some pissy P.C. numbskulls getting their panties in a twist about it, they have the freedom to do so.

This whole thread stems from a story where some group of "oh so tolerant" atheists couldn't mind their own business and leave someone else's holiday display alone. Classic example of atheists being EXACTLY the flipside of what you dislike of the same annoying types on the religious side. People naturally get sick and tired of some bunch of weenies trying to piss all over something they enjoy.

You've also missed the point- it's not that there aren't obnoxious and annoying religious people also, that want to shove their views down other people's throats- of course there are. But those people are just the mirror image of the same type of annoying and unable to mind their own business and keep their beliefs to themselves people on the atheist side of the SAME coin.

And again, I find it ironic and somewhat humorous that I see more expressions of fear and complete intolerance of the beliefs of others expressed by atheists, more often than the religious- this very thread being exhibit A.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Christians are fearful of Atheist and does want everyone to be religious. Christians distrust Atheist more than they distrust Muslims according to recent surveys. It's not based on anything besides their bias. Christians wants everyone to be God-fearing.

You're kind of all over the map, because on the one hand, you claim to be open-minded about the belief's of others, then you turn around and make silly (and poorly written) blanket statements as if all Christians were exactly the same.

The 'In God We Trust' on money argument of yours doesn't hold a lot of water, because no one has any reason to give a good crap that it says 'In God We Trust' on money unless they're purposefully being a tw@t.

If you don't believe in a god, then it shouldn't bother you any more than an eyeball floating over a pyramid does, or an eagle clutching a bunch of arrows in its talons. Do you have some irrational fear of those symbols also? Or maybe 10, 20, 50 etc. are your 'unlucky' numbers, so we should take those off the bills too?

If one does believe in a god, then that god could have any name, Allah, Jesus, Fred, Bob, or whatever, and you're free to place your trust in it.

Wait, which side is it that gets all bent out of shape over mere words again?

[hyteckit]

I see what you are doing.

Religious people are fearful.
No, Atheist are more fearful.

Atheism is not a religion.
No, Atheism is a religion.

Believing in God requires faith.
No, not believing in God requires more faith.

Religious people are preachy and try to convert others to their religion.
No, Atheist are more preachy and try to convert others to their religion.

Religious people are...
No, you Atheists are more...


Seriously. Not believing in something doesn't require faith. Not believing in something doesn't make it a religion. There are tons of stuff I don't believe in. It doesn't take faith to not to believe in something.

Do you believe in God? No.
Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? No.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? No.
Do you believe in Ghost? No.
Do you believe that Aliens have visited Earth? No.

Damn, I must be the most religious person on Earth. Cause it requires so much faith not to believe in all of those.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The 'In God We Trust' on money argument of yours doesn't hold a lot of water, because no one has any reason to give a good crap that it says 'In God We Trust' on money unless they're purposefully being a tw@t.

If you don't believe in a god, then it shouldn't bother you any more than an eyeball floating over a pyramid does, or an eagle clutching a bunch of arrows in its talons. Do you have some irrational fear of those symbols also? Or maybe 10, 20, 50 etc. are your 'unlucky' numbers, so we should take those off the bills too?

Like I said, I don't give a crap that "In God We Trust" on our money. Read a few responses above when I said I don't really care.

I would suggest changing to to "In Allah We Trust" though. I bet all those Christians would go crazy. I would love it. Cause Christians are fearful.

Can we agree to change to to "In Allah We Trust"? I don't care. Do you?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The 'In God We Trust' on money argument of yours doesn't hold a lot of water, because no one has any reason to give a good crap that it says 'In God We Trust' on money unless they're purposefully being a ****.

I tend to feel government shouldn't take a position on religion at all.

So that means no "In God We Trust" on money and no "Religion is a myth" plaques at courthouses.

Now, I really don't care much that very few people are going to see a government-endorsed plaque saying religion is whack. It's the principle. And likewise for the religious endorsement on money. Most people probably don't even know it's on there if you had to ask them what's on a coin. Hell, I don't even know. Is it on paper bills, too? But still, it's the principle.

Now, if that makes one a **** to raise an argument about it, then why doesn't it make one a **** to raise an argument defending it? Why, in your words, should you give a good crap about it?

[hyteckit]

Even better is to randomly change out the word 'God' with 'Allah', and Christians symbols with Buddhist symbols in government buildings.

I think Christians would freak out from fear, which then turns in anger and then violence.

By the way, how many books and movies have Christians try to banned out of fear in just the last few years? Didn't Christians wanted to ban Harry Potter, Brokeback mountain, and Religulous out of fear?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Even better is to randomly change out the word 'God' with 'Allah', and Christians symbols with Buddhist symbols in government buildings.

Yeah, Crash didn't exactly think that one through.

Defending against the change (to Allah, Buddha, etc) invariably involves defending the use of "In God We Trust" on money, which defeats his point about it not mattering. If it doesn't matter what's on our money, then why should he give a crap?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

We don't need in God we Trust in our money. Not that I care.

Again, all over the map. Clearly, it bothers you that a WORD is printed on bills, or you wouldn't feel there's no 'need' for it any more than "Novus Ordo Seclorum'.

Your raving about adding a name is illogical, it's NOT a name, doesn't single out any 'god' and is nothing for anyone (other than a tw@t who fears words) to waste even a second worrying about.

I do care about having to recite the plead of allegiance with the words "Under God".

WHY?

According to your own pseudo-'logic', the word 'God' shouldn't impact you any more than the word 'Indivisible'.

Does it bother you to sing the song "Here comes Santa Claus?" because something you also don't believe in is mentioned?

EITHER should have absolutely the same level of 'not giving a crap' if you were truly as impartial about this as you pretend.

Why do you waste time worrying about the use of words you claim are meaningless to you?

[The Crook]

It seems to me that Crash cares a great deal about it, too.