One in five Americans has no religion

cannuck · Dec 15, 2012

Didn't read through all of the nearly 600 posts, but from what I HAVE seen, there seems to be some lumping together of "religion" and "believing in a superior being". Personally, being Gnostic (I hope that doesn't lump me in as a religious person) I have to point out that since I am unable to fully comprehend infinity, I can not dismiss the idea that someone or something came before our turn in the sun. Whether this is some boogeyman doing the fire and brimstone thing or some mean spirited little kid sitting around the Earth hologram pulling legs off of spyders and people I can not imagine, nor why would I bother to try?

I heartily agree with the OP, though. Any progress in the cults' decline is a damn good thing for humanity. The amount of deceit, treachery and suffering in the name of "religion" is monumental. Of course, one could observe that at this point in time, the new religion of the world has become greed, and we on this continent seem to be the high priests.

nota bene · Dec 15, 2012

Really? World humanitarian day: which countries gave the most aid and who received the most? | News | guardian.co.uk

cannuck · Dec 16, 2012

nota bene said:
Really? World humanitarian day: which countries gave the most aid and who received the most? | News | guardian.co.uk

While you were so busy congratulating yourself with this data, you probably missed Wall Street scooping trillion$$ from the efforts of working people while Main Street's economy (you know, the one that produces ALL of the wealth) was ground into the dirt by the greatest orgy of greed since the '20s. Drive through Detroit some day or visit the bankruptcy courts and tell me what a fantastic job the US economy is doing for it's citizens.

presluc · Dec 16, 2012

nota bene said:
Poor Carlin. Such a disaffected Catholic, and he never really got over his widowhood, you know. It embittered him.

As I said, nothing new. Religious folks are hypocrites six days of the week, etc. The usual.

I'm okay, though, with the religion-as-a-crutch thing and also the opiate-of-the-masses. I don't have a problem acknowledging that I could not have survived the life I have lived without my faith.

As for being a faith believer, you are not alone, but yet remain an individual.

eace

zgoldsmith23 · Dec 16, 2012

presluc said:
Applied by who or what?, Written by who or what?

That's the universe.

Natural-law argument - Iron Chariots Wiki

It fits the scientific real according to you, not according to me.

Well, considering you don't dwell in the scientific realm (as is evidenced by your 'scientific proof' demand) so one can conclude this bears nothing to you. However, in science, you are taught to not accept things until there's evidence.

Since when did disagreeing with what fit's ones belief make one ignorant?

When disagreeing with evidenced claims in favor of superstition, that's ignorance. Using terms which do not apply to what is being discussed, that's ignorance.

After all this is a Debate forum , a lot of disagreements here on what fits according to any person.

Everyone can't be right.

You show me an opinion based on a link that is an...opinion.

Lol! That's research conducted on scientists.

POINT, simple Eureka was said after the proof was presented , not after the evidence was shown.

Perhaps in mathematical realms, yes. In science, it'd be evidence.

You really should check your eyes , maybe it's from all those long post but you keep asking what?

Your "space travel" argument makes no sense.

Knowing the meaning of an questionable statement does not present the answer, thought you knew that,
For someone who tries to set himself up as highly intellectual you're slipping.

Maybe my intellectual capacity is being dragged down by your lack thereof.

a new concept is called trial and error not "hey look a new cell phone"

... that utilizes newly invented technology. :shock:

So I can quote you on that, right?

On "no facts, only evidence?" Sure. Only if you understand the meaning, though.

Gravity although it's called a theory "don't know why" has been tried time and again in the Earth's atmosphere and has passed again and again, now how many Big Bangs have been tried?

BBT has been evidenced through its predictions. Both are theories.

Sure about that, this very thread you have said "what "yet again?

Yes.

As I said you do not question any evidence of the Big Bang you maintain it to be true and therefore accept it to be true.

No, I question it, it's just repeatedly been shown to be true.

Never said I deny the Big Bang , I mearly question it, I also question the teaching of my belief.

Then how do you "believe" the Bible?

Am I to question what I have faith in and not question the other?

Question everything, always.

The Big Bang first said it created planets, Planets are made of rock and soil these do not produce living tissue.

:lol:

This is so ignorant.

Has I have said I wish not to destroy the Big Bang but to question it.

That's fine. I'm not sure why you'd want to question it, though.

If such a premise is so set in stone a few questions should not be so upsetting.

Given those questions are actually scientifically based and not "the BBT made planets then tissue" :lol:

After all my belief/ faith is questioned ,my responses do not take a half a page to answer nor is there any name calling or slander involved, but if that is what a poster wants no problem.

Ok. That's fine. I'm not complaining.

Evolution= acceptance without proof Faith = acceptance without proof ,problem?, Oh yeah Big Bang =acceptance without proof.

Evolution = acceptance with evidence (there is no scientific proof)
Faith = acceptance without evidence
BBT = acceptance with evidence (there is no scientific proof)

Presluc, what problem do you have in accepting the notion that science doesn't deal in proofs? It deals in evidence-based claims.

Really, without any outside force can anyone, Organized Religion, Faith believer or Atheist or Agnostic FEEL , SEE HEAR OR SMELL their so called evidence personally

It must be repeatable under similar conditions.

I suppose your proof does , oh I forgot you don't need proof only evidence without question of course just acceptance.

Not true at all. Analysis of the evidence allows one to either accept or deny the claim.

Very close to Organized Religion there they say the same thing trust in the church and the preacher no questions, just acceptance

... with no evidence.

Of course I have evidence against the Big Bang unanswered questions for a start. specul;ation for another hearsay for another.

That's not evidence against the BBT. That's just unanswered questions - that doesn't mean you have discredited the BBT.

You know of course that every person submitted for a Nobel Prize must have proof he or she is worthy of the Noble Prize, but of course I'm playing by your standards thus I need no proof only evidence.

What? A person is awarded a Nobel Prize.

For such an intellectual you do a lot of assuming you do not know me but you assume my brain has decreased.

There's evidence.

So just because I ask some hard questions my brain is decreasing.

They're not hard; they are quite simple (and incorrectly asked and based) and, if you'd taken a 3rd grade science course, you'd probably be able to answer your own questions.

I suggest you should give up debating for more harder questions will be ask of you on this forum.
Not all posters are so patient and understanding as I.

Well considering you still don't understand that science doesn't deal with "proof," only evidence, you are not very understanding.

WHAT? sorry I couldn't resist lol

Your "Little Pop" claim has no evidence.

An Atheist correcting an Atheist on creation,. LOL,LOL
Man, you really should try a shorter post.

Atheist correcting atheists on various claims - not creation, necessarily.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my beliefs or questioning my beliefs but bigotry.

What bigotry? Anti-intellectual bigotry?

I am against bigotry in any form wether its Organized religion denying Atheist or Atheist denying faith believers.

Aw such a sweetheart. :roll:

Bigotry is saying forget what you know , forget what you can do, if you do not look like me, think like me, believe like me you are ignorant and no use to society. THAT I COULD NOT DO.

Ok, then don't do it.

IF THAT IS YOUR PATH WE HAVE NO MORE TO DISCUSS, I WON'T WASTE NOT MY TIME ON TRASH.

Now who is name calling? :lol:

Are you a bigot? Do you judge a person only on what they believe?

It's an indicating factor. It's not an end-all-be-all, though.

ANSWER THIS YES OR NO.

Answers are very rarely "yes" or "no," and that's an oversimplification.

presluc · Dec 16, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
That's the universe.

Natural-law argument - Iron Chariots Wiki

Well, considering you don't dwell in the scientific realm (as is evidenced by your 'scientific proof' demand) so one can conclude this bears nothing to you. However, in science, you are taught to not accept things until there's evidence.

When disagreeing with evidenced claims in favor of superstition, that's ignorance. Using terms which do not apply to what is being discussed, that's ignorance.

Everyone can't be right.

Lol! That's research conducted on scientists.

Perhaps in mathematical realms, yes. In science, it'd be evidence.

Your "space travel" argument makes no sense.

Maybe my intellectual capacity is being dragged down by your lack thereof.

... that utilizes newly invented technology. :shock:

On "no facts, only evidence?" Sure. Only if you understand the meaning, though.

BBT has been evidenced through its predictions. Both are theories.

Yes.

No, I question it, it's just repeatedly been shown to be true.

Then how do you "believe" the Bible?

Question everything, always.

:lol:

This is so ignorant.

That's fine. I'm not sure why you'd want to question it, though.

Given those questions are actually scientifically based and not "the BBT made planets then tissue" :lol:

Ok. That's fine. I'm not complaining.

Evolution = acceptance with evidence (there is no scientific proof)
Faith = acceptance without evidence
BBT = acceptance with evidence (there is no scientific proof)

Presluc, what problem do you have in accepting the notion that science doesn't deal in proofs? It deals in evidence-based claims.

It must be repeatable under similar conditions.

Not true at all. Analysis of the evidence allows one to either accept or deny the claim.

... with no evidence.

That's not evidence against the BBT. That's just unanswered questions - that doesn't mean you have discredited the BBT.

What? A person is awarded a Nobel Prize.

There's evidence.

They're not hard; they are quite simple (and incorrectly asked and based) and, if you'd taken a 3rd grade science course, you'd probably be able to answer your own questions.

Well considering you still don't understand that science doesn't deal with "proof," only evidence, you are not very understanding.

Your "Little Pop" claim has no evidence.

Atheist correcting atheists on various claims - not creation, necessarily.

What bigotry? Anti-intellectual bigotry?

Aw such a sweetheart. :roll:

Ok, then don't do it.

Now who is name calling? :lol:

It's an indicating factor. It's not an end-all-be-all, though.

Answers are very rarely "yes" or "no," and that's an oversimplification.

That's a mutiple choice question either yes or no simple .

zgoldsmith23 · Dec 16, 2012

presluc said:
That's a mutiple choice question either yes or no simple .

Then, no.

presluc · Dec 16, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
Then, no.

If you are not a bigot then you can not in good faith accept segregation .

Segregation is to say one can not form in normal society in any form based on the color of their skin or what they believe or don't believe..

In post # 586 you said theist can not be scientist.
I take it theist means faith believers meaning faith believers can not be scientist .
This judgement is based soley on what a person believes not actions not intelligence but only on what a person believes.
This is Segregation. THIS IS DIVIDING PEOPLE NOT BY WHAT THEY CAN DO OR CAN NOT DO OR WHO THEY ARE AS AN INDIVIDUAL BUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE THIS IS WRONG.

I marched against segregation in the 60's , I turned against organized religion when they turned against gays.
When a preacher said "all jews are going to0 hell" I got up and left the church.

Do you actually believe I would hang around to chat with a closet bigot.

Your next post to me will not be answered nor respond to any threads you might have.
GOOD BYE SIR.

zgoldsmith23 · Dec 16, 2012

presluc said:
If you are not a bigot then you can not in good faith accept segregation .

There are many forms of segregation. Are we talking Mendelian?

Segregation is to say one can not form in normal society in any form based on the color of their skin or what they believe or don't believe..

We separate people on what they believe all the time. Ever heard of political parties? Sports teams? You're reaching for arguments that aren't there.

In post # 586 you said theist can not be scientist.
I take it theist means faith believers meaning faith believers can not be scientist .

A scientist cannot logically be a theist. As a scientist, you don't accept hypotheses without evidence.

This judgement is based soley on what a person believes not actions not intelligence but only on what a person believes.

And logic. Their belief is an action. They choose to believe a 2000 superstitious book.

This is Segregation. THIS IS DIVIDING PEOPLE NOT BY WHAT THEY CAN DO OR CAN NOT DO OR WHO THEY ARE AS AN INDIVIDUAL BUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE THIS IS WRONG.

Again, political parties do just this. Are you crying about them? I certainly haven't see that. It's also not exactly what I "believe" is wrong, but what is wrong based on analysis of evidence.

I marched against segregation in the 60's , I turned against organized religion when they turned against gays.
When a preacher said "all jews are going to0 hell" I got up and left the church.

Here's a cookie. Your personal anecdotes are wasted on me, FYI.

Do you actually believe I would hang around to chat with a closet bigot.

Oh I like it when you call me a bigot. It shows your lack of an argument.

Your next post to me will not be answered nor respond to any threads you might have.
GOOD BYE SIR.

"I really don't have much left so I'll say goodbye before I get embarrassed anymore."

Paschendale · Dec 16, 2012

Let me ask this of the anti-science crowd. The ones who disparage the scientific method and say that scientists are just making things up and can't be sure of their theories. How exactly do you think we know how big the world is? Do you think we stretched out a long piece of string around it? Do you think we didn't know until we could piece it together from satellite pictures? No. Eratosthenes figured it out (within a reasonable margin of error) using mathematical equations based on measuring the sun. And he did it 2200 years ago! That's the scientific method. Those same principles were used to understand the movements of stars billions of miles away from the Earth, and the movements of atoms. The same is true of biology and geology. Unless you're going to go as far as disputing our comprehension of the size of the Earth, you use the scientific method every day and rely on discoveries that could not have happened without the scientific method. The entirety of modern biology relies on evolution to function. Computers require an understanding of atomic particles in order to build. All of the oil we keep digging out of the ground is dependent on the timeframes for the Earth that are established through biology and geology and NOT through faith.

So, oh people who dispute the efficacy of science and scientists, how do YOU think we know the size of the Earth?

presluc · Dec 17, 2012

Paschendale said:
Let me ask this of the anti-science crowd. The ones who disparage the scientific method and say that scientists are just making things up and can't be sure of their theories. How exactly do you think we know how big the world is? Do you think we stretched out a long piece of string around it? Do you think we didn't know until we could piece it together from satellite pictures? No. Eratosthenes figured it out (within a reasonable margin of error) using mathematical equations based on measuring the sun. And he did it 2200 years ago! That's the scientific method. Those same principles were used to understand the movements of stars billions of miles away from the Earth, and the movements of atoms. The same is true of biology and geology. Unless you're going to go as far as disputing our comprehension of the size of the Earth, you use the scientific method every day and rely on discoveries that could not have happened without the scientific method. The entirety of modern biology relies on evolution to function. Computers require an understanding of atomic particles in order to build. All of the oil we keep digging out of the ground is dependent on the timeframes for the Earth that are established through biology and geology and NOT through faith.

So, oh people who dispute the efficacy of science and scientists, how do YOU think we know the size of the Earth?

I am not now or ever have been anti-science.
It is my belief if you are a factory worker who believes in God .
You are a factory worker first your actions on the factory floor prove this.

If you are a scientist who is an Atheist
You indeed are a scientist first you work proves this.

No business in America save Organized Religion has an application that says are you an atheist, neither does it say do you have faith in God
Even if you were and had the capability to do the job and wasn't hired that is against the federal , state and local .law

To judge one' s capability based only on what they believe or does not believe is segregation.

Example; Organized religion if you are a homosexual even if you have an idea for the cure for Cancer, even if you donate huge amounts of money to church charities, YOU ARE WRONG YOUR WORDS OR DEEDS MEAN NOTHING.

Some Atheist; if you have faith in God even if you have an idea to solve the problem of alternative fuel, donate huge amounts of money to scientific research YOU ARE WRONG YOUR WORDS OR DEEDS MEAN NOTHING.

Atheist say they are against Organized religion because in organized religion there is no individualism
Yet are all Atheist for individualism or is it individualism as long as you agree with Atheist?
That is not individualism no more than Organized Religion is individualism:

Bottom Line; it is impossible to judge a person on what they believe, not everybody wears the faith on their sleeve. What you think all faith believers wear name tags? Only on an occasional debate forum thread.peace

One in five Americans has no religion

cannuck

Active member

nota bene

cannuck

Active member

presluc

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

presluc

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

presluc

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Paschendale

Uncanny

presluc