Atheism Vs. Religion

[diehard96]

bottom line: is there any conclusive evidence that would justify belief of the existence of a god, any god for that matter?

if yes, then theism is vindicated.
if no, then theists still have to finish their homework.

the burden of proof is on the theists' side. but the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. so, any failure of the theists to prove that they are right is not an argument proving any god's non-existence. it would mean that the jury would still be out on the issue.

to divide people into theists and atheists is rather unfair. there are gray areas in between, such as the agnostics, and perhaps even the deists. most theists, especially those emotionally attached to some middle eastern god, would not welcome the deists into their camp.

ahh...i just love the agnostics

[munzter666]

Whats with the tool? Everything can be used as a tool depending on ones ingenuity. Even garbage can be recycled into a useful tool. A cow dung a fertilizer. Atoms as energy source. As for religion, as I said, it really depend on ones ingenuity. Well, using it to destroy others is one used of it, unfortunately, there are those who are really stupid who can't really think of other uses of it(religion) besides destroying others.

before you call these "people" stupid...plz. reflect that these people were church heads. stupid? crazy? genius?

I guess one of the answers to that that the faith proposes is that human nature is fallen because of original sin. We all have a tendency to do bad things.

Original Sin? errr, are you still accountable for the crimes of your parents/ancestors?

One author, Dinesh D'Souza, pointed out that even taking into account the population levels in the 1950s and the 15th century or earlier centuries AD, "atheist violence surpasses religious violence by staggering proportions."

dinesh D'souza is a well known fundie...do you expect a guy like him to be more OBJECTIVE in his approach. i dont think so.

Even our minds are constantly hungry for information, for knowledge, for truth. As what Fr. Robert Barron said, "What does every seeker of truth know? That the more he knows, the more he knows that he don't know." He said that our minds are constantly seeking for that unconditioned truth; meaning truth that is absolute, and somehow it eludes us in life. We want to know everything about everything, but we are never satisfied. He said that God is that unconditioned truth, because He is truth Itself, and only in Him can our minds or intellects find its fulfillment.

and the beauty of not knowing...is the process of KNOWING.
thats also the problem. that's how the word "god" gets to be abused over and over again. "god did it"...it's becoming prevalent with lazythinking.

That is the quandary of our human experience, we are insatiable creatures. Perhaps what we are really looking for is not to be found in this world?

sure, but before i go gaga about not in this world....i'd exhaust my options within this world first. this world has lots to offer, things are yet to be discovered.

Maybe some, but not all. Pope John Paul II back in 2000 at least apologized for those horrific crimes which involved the Church in the past.

sure he apologized. better late than never ey?
...do they have to wait centuries later to say "i'm sorry, we made a booboo".

[kug_moh]

init jud ni pirme nga topic oi! bisita lng ko. hehe. religion is a must jud, no religion, no business.

[unfamous]

ako musimba ko sa simbahan sa aetheist hehehe ambot lng bitaw sad wa nko tarong2x simba.

[regnauld]

yes, better add the these comndments: "thou shall keep thy religion or thy atheism or thy in
between to thyself"

If you cant help but sharing: "thou shall remember that its a sharing of ideas & not
selling of ideas"

to remind you to be humble; "thou shall remember that any ideas are borrowed ideas,
its not yours you just have the capacity to recall thats
all"

"Nothing is new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes

[tarpolano]

bottom line: is there any conclusive evidence that would justify belief of the existence of a god, any god for that matter?

if yes, then theism is vindicated.
if no, then theists still have to finish their homework.

the burden of proof is on the theists' side. but the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. so, any failure of the theists to prove that they are right is not an argument proving any god's non-existence. it would mean that the jury would still be out on the issue.

to divide people into theists and atheists is rather unfair. there are gray areas in between, such as the agnostics, and perhaps even the deists. most theists, especially those emotionally attached to some middle eastern god, would not welcome the deists into their camp.

ahh...i just love the agnostics

Agnostics is a type of Atheism. why? because they assert that the "knowledge" of a greater being called God or any super natural being can either be unknown or can never be known.

[diehard96]

Agnostics is a type of Atheism. why? because they assert that the "knowledge" of a greater being called God or any super natural being can either be unknown or can never be known.

theists believe that god exists objectively (i.e., independent of human thought)
atheists believe that god does not exist objectively.
agnostics are not convinced of the arguments of both sides.

and now, you claim that agnostics are atheists, aw atheism diay. mejo nag lisud kog reconcile nga ang agnostics (nga mga tao) klase sa atheism (nga idea). hmmm... maybe definitions have to be updated to accommodate your idea. or maybe i'm just too dumb to understand you.

[regnauld]

theists believe that god exists objectively (i.e., independent of human thought)
atheists believe that god does not exist objectively.
agnostics are not convinced of the arguments of both sides.

and now, you claim that agnostics are atheists, aw atheism diay. mejo nag lisud kog reconcile nga ang agnostics (nga mga tao) klase sa atheism (nga idea). hmmm... maybe definitions have to be updated to accommodate your idea. or maybe i'm just too dumb to understand you.

Was Einstein agnostic bro? I think he was!

[diehard96]

Was Einstein agnostic bro? I think he was!

apparently. he used the word god a number of times in his writings but the context of the way he used it did not insinuate anything supernatural. instead it would appear more like another term for nature or laws of nature.

[regnauld]

apparently. he used the word god a number of times in his writings but the context of the way he used it did not insinuate anything supernatural. instead it would appear more like another term for nature or laws of nature.

I would say Einstein was like a theosophist for the GOD that he used was not an anthropomorphic GOD but a Universal Principle or Consciousness that pervades the entire universe! Einstein was very theosophical for me!