Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Jump to Last Post 301-350 of 396 discussions (1882 posts)

80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
So now that I'm back I've gotta read 70 pages to get the big picture.

How did I get into this again?

reply report
54
kmackey32posted 16 years ago
OMG I pray they shut this thread down!!
reply report
1. 80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Can they do that?
  reply report
  60
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  They sure can
  
  And here's a summary which might save you reading 70 pages:
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/16891
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Glendoncaba you rule!!!
  reply report
  80
  spiderpamposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Spiderpam you rule also!!
  reply report
  54
  kmackey32posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yep they sure can and they should on things like this!!!
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  too much virtual noise huh?
  reply report
80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
OK then its very simple:

Theism ends in salvation, nirvana etc.
Atheism ends in oblivion.

I would be curious to discover the salvation story.
reply report
80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
Theists and atheists agree that:
Jenny's summary:

"1. Statements cannot be proven true, but they can be proven false.
2. Believing something to be true is a choice beyond the rational, as the rational can only demonstrate that something is false, not that it is true.
3. The Bible makes reference to people, places and events which are historically verified by other sources.
4. The Bible contains some inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies.
5. There was a historical figure who corresponds to the Biblical Jesus.
6. The NT accounts of the life of Jesus are accepted as accurate if there is a non-Biblical corroborating source.
7. For the purposes of providing evidence for new facts, the Bible should be treated in the same way as any other writings of the time."

My questions on the above:
Are we saying that these propositions were laid on the table by either side for debate?
So when jenny said "agreed" she meant that both sides have agreed to debate these propositions, not that they are acceptable conclusions?

I have a big problem with number 6 because even for a philosophy of science approach I must beg to communicate my biases by saying that the language and content of my communication will be from the Christianity worldview which uses the bible as evidence. What I will say is that numerous discoveries continue to validate the bible, and i will produce those discoveries on an ongoing basis.
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. The Bible has been proven to be a reliable source. Also I got burned on the Rationalism thing. Obviously, there are more methodologies than strict rationalisms but...
  Lets just work with what we've got brother! I've got a second wind dood!
  And BTW rad research on the prophecies by you and Mike. Amazing stuff.
  reply report
2. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  These propositions have been accepted so far as "facts" for the purposes of this discussion. Some are more agreements about procedure and scope of the discussion, while others address the content.
  
  I am sure you appreciate, glendoncaba, that you canät expect a non-Christian to treat something as fact, simply because it is written in a book. The book has mystical significance only to Christians.
  
  Therefore, if you want the atheists (and the non-Christian theists) to interact meaningfully with anything from the Bible, you will need to provide some non-Biblical corobboration for it.
  
  At that point it becomes history, and we have a shared understanding about how to relate to it.
  
  It is simply not possible to have a meaningful dialogue when one or both sides are making reference to material which only exists for them, and has no reality as far as the other side is concerned. May as well be speaking two entirely different languages without a translator - there is just no point.
  
  The exercise of getting one's mind into a different frame of reference and finding points of shared reality is what the game is all about.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
What is truth?

To say a rose is red is simply describing vibrating frequency, but to say the rose exists, wow if it prick my finger it truly exists.

The scientific method has it's shortcomings in terms of defining life.
reply report
92
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
Comparative Bible students among you might be interested in an AP article yesterday saying that the world's oldest bible, Codex Sinaiticus is now fully digitised and available on the web here http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome!
  reply report
80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
Jenny and ender wiggins:

Pardon my ignorance but could you give me

1. a quick overview of the rationalism methodology, or branch of it which is in vogue
2. justification for using that methodology in this thread
3. show its strengths and weaknesses vis a vis other methodologies

Could you also demonstrate for me where the Christian worldview is placed in philosophical studies.

I dont mean to be provocative, I'm simply trying to get up to speed.

Like I said much earlier we may end up publishing this thread (edited of course) I might.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We're just using Ender's rules, glendoncaba. He just made them up, and he hasn't been asked to justify them - people can play or not play. Nobody is saying Ender's rules are The One And Only RIght Rules - even Ender himself complains about them sometimes. The game is to explore theism vs atheism, using those rules.
  
  The theists are from a range of religions, and the atheists are from a range of non-religions. Therefore, nobody can assume that anyone else shares their personal world-view. We all need to step outside our beliefs, and consider what parts of those beliefs can actually be explained to someone who doesn't share all our starting assumptions.
  
  Yes, it's a strange and difficult thought process, especially the first time. But it is fun, and done right it is the "fast lane" to peace on Earth, IMHO.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Remember we had jumped from the Nigerian child witch thread which was an outright attack on Christianity so I came here with my guard up.
  I have already admitted that i started to participate by arguing from a christian worldview, but I realised eventually that the direction of this thread is a philosophical discussion on god vs no god. I have already said such a discussion will end in a draw because both sides can adduce excellent reasons. I even said
  
  theism ends in salvation, nirvana etc
  
  atheism ends in oblivion, eg sun goes super nova and we all die
  
  I am curious about salvation so I go with theism.
  
  Even ender has a problem with the strict rationalist methodology, but I am willing to play along. Yes it is the first time I am participating in a global summit on religion vs atheism. Yes I respect other peoples worldview but like I said earlier both the OP and I are Christians so jumping from the Nigerian thread I came with an unapologetically bibical worldview.
  
  Now that we have our frame of reference let's play.
  
  The theological argument for God vs the rational argument for atheism.
  
  Still concerned that the debate is skewed in favour of the atheist with the methodology but who says life is fair. The methodology does not leave much room for revelation and faith.
  
  But so far you have tried to be a fair moderator so I ask that you realise that when we discuss religion we can never be limited by the rational.
  reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
There you go pal! This is a pretty good reference to Epistemology.
I was arguing the different branches of epistemology and that strict adherence to one or the other is unreliable as a truth test on its own. History is cannot be tested with Rationalism alone, most of what we can know about history falls into the Empiricism camp but historians use a combination of both. Religious and Non-religious world views also tap into areas such as existentialism. There's also Pragmatism, Fidism and all sorts of isms one can choose from but each ism alone is an impotent test of truth.
reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
Or you can just look at it for what it is an stop ism'ing your way around ignorance.

I still think your funny though. No hard feelings.
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Want a definition of Theism and Deity? Google it! I swear I'm about to take you str8 to the "trash talking tread"!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I invented trash talkin! You might wanna ask Jebus about this one.
  
  No seriously I know the definition(s), I want your definition. I know you don't want to answer because you would have to eat your words.
  
  Here's a tip. It's called humility. You did read the bible in the four years you spent in college right?
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'll kill you! You copied and pasted what i agreed on and then said i agreed on something else....why the heck would i be afraid of something so lame? But just to shut your lee-press-on punk rok face up, here ya go...
  
  "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers."
  
  Now that ruined my whole argument...dang.
  
  You know I remember the days before Hot Topic...I had to smash a beer bottle over my friends face to get a Black Flag shirt. And i mean it in the nicest way!!!Hehe
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well don't go making up lies there Ender. It's all there for people to look up themselves. I have nothing to worry about here.
  
  But thanks for the death threat. I can counter act that threat with a peace offering. Please, do not hurt any more animals while on your enlightened path to a deity.
  
  So do you believe in aliens too? If Jesus is an alien and he is going to come down in a heavenly space mobile on the top of a mountain to pick up 144000 of his alien prototypes... I think you picked the wrong religion.
  
  I think Scientology is more your speed.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Proof of my supreme punk rokness/peace offering right here...
  http://www.tinglefinger.com/vam/carkass.html
  You can download all the rokin' hits!!!
  My band from the time I was fourteen until I was 22. Careful Christians, you might not want to check it out, its nice and offensive!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  lol! Awesome Ender... I keep wanting to say Bender but... umm... well... and..
  
  It's not bad.
  
  Try this one.
  It's more chill then yours but still...
  
  http://www.myspace.com/sandrarinck
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. Well done Sandra. I think you've passed and had enders agree that The Absolute and God are the same. Now when enders understands what Absolute really is, he may end up trying to erase arms and legs from his image bank? Enders have you ever considered being Agnostic?
  reply report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agnostic, an upgrade of Atheist
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmmm! I don't see it as an upgrade or a downgrade. I see it as a way.
  reply report
  66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That is rather generalized is it not? I mean India believes the Cow is tht and other cultures have their own as well. Some of them are "supernatural" (NEW AGE) and some still roam the earth.
  reply report
61
lkeippposted 16 years ago
Your initial statement violates the terms of a debate. It's derogatory. As such, how can you eexpect people to not do the same?
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Throwing rocks at the beehive my friend!
  reply report
80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
ender wigins

since you have me dusting off my old books I suggest that the rational arguments for God hence theism are:

cosmological (theology of universe)
teleological (design and purpose)
ontological (being)
anthropological (Humanity)
etc etc
None of these will prove anything except that He might exist. Only by faith do we believe that He exists.

Having put together the philosophical arguments in favour of God we can then look at defining God clearly by stating His attributes such as spirituality, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, and holiness.

Depending on which religion is speaking deity can be both transcendent and immanent.

OK guys I'm just waking up the theologian in me. M.A. degree and all, but I have been blessed to just follow my loving Saviour in the highways and hedges, streets and villages of service and I usually leave the polemic to learned scholars in marble halls.

But I've had my occasional exceptions. Even taught college courses in my better days.

To think I came to hubpages mainly because I wanted residual income from writing.

"If you want God to laugh tell Him your plans for tomorrow", I heard somewhere.
reply report
1. 60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Only by faith do we believe that He exists.
  One can make contact with god and know for certain he exists and not leave it totally on faith.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  More precisely then
  suppose I say:
  whatever we perceive with our senses the rationalist can attribute to a natural phenomonon or a phenomenon which though beyond our understanding does not have to lie in the realm of religion, therefore your conclusion that it is within the realm of religion is because of your faith in the religious experience and hence the religion/deity. So it comes back to faith in deity.
  
  "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But how can they hear without a preacher."
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  To me this is sheep being led by the shepherd. Heresay and not good evidence. Blind faith. Is interesting, and quite fine to some peoples reality to believe the words of another. If it makes you feel good, then go ahead and do it. The words must be nice otherwise you'd not have people listening to the preacher.
  
  We live in a world where the word of someone else is just not enough anymore. For some it is, for others it isn't. Thank goodness people are still able to use reason.
  reply report
  66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thre is the rub. You don't have to have a preacher. Jesus said where two or more are gathered there he will be. He siad nothing of a preacher.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Reason helps us to perceive God but in the final analysis it is our faith that anchors belief. We need both reason and faith. Faith is the key.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Self knowledge is the key
  reply report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  just as Bush got the self knowledge of killing innocents.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nope but to know oneself is to know god.
  reply report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Bush also followed his innerself
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would not disagree, but that has nothing to do with knowing self!
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You also seem to be following yours and its anything but God since neither Bush nor you know god.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But I wonder if Bush thinks he does and maybe he thought he was led by God. I don't know, I wonder what Bush was thinking though?
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Bush is a self confessed religionist.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Many are and most dont know god.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The religion he follows has a limited god evidently who is hateful and belligerent.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  God is all powerful and not to be messed with.
  report
  66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh like the butter commercils in the 70's, Don't Fool With Mother Nature"? LOL LOL
  report
  66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, The Almighty Dollar!
  reply report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That's the point. PERFECT. By following innerself or meditation or following indivisualism or other ISMs does not lead you to the right direction. Someones innerself will guide him / her towards killing and others towards raping and so on.
  
  That's the same point which God instructs mankind, not to follow your own built idols (gods, beliefs, nature, mother nature, humanity, self praise, self recognition, etc etc)
  
  Qur'an, Ch 14-ABRAHAM, V 30: And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making straightway for Hell!"
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  By following innerself or meditation or following indivisualism or other ISMs does not lead you to the right direction.
  Muhammad meditated ,are you saying he was a lost soul and you don't meditate so you are on the right path?
  reply report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No, he did'nt meditate. He used to have revelations from God
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yeh me too, then I changed medication.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  So you don't understand the meaning of meditation or revelation and you claim to understand your prophet and religion and god.
  All those links about Muhammad meditating in a cave were nonsense as you know best.
  Do you think I am your enemy ??
  Do you think you can teach or learn about god from an enlightened one??
  I care more about your soul than you do.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Then that explains it. He used Revelation from the NT which is false because the OT was false therefore...
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Therefore it must have been written by a Freemason....
  report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  what's your point ???
  report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Gnostic I see?
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Reason helps us to perceive God but in the final analysis it is our faith that anchors belief.
  I was an atheist and didnt believe in god, no amount of reason could persuade me to.
  But once came I across god my faith increased drastically as I kept communicating with him and know a hundred percent that he does exist, absolutely no doubt left.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would have thought experience anchors belief mohitmisra. Had you not had your explosive experience you may not be thinking this way? Faith does not anchor my belief at all. It is experience. So maybe faith has anchored your belief but can you generalize about that?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Your belief in what?
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Myself and my truth tk. And my belief that the world is a bit unbalanced tk. I have lots of beliefs, all based on experience. Experiences like enduring the pitfalls of the human condition tk. How's your human condition going?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Based ONLY on experience?
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  There is belief and there is wonder. Wonder to me is the possibility of knowing something that is currently unknown. Is not faith based. Can I trust myself to persevere in seeking to get the answers to what is currently unknown to me?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That doesn't answer my question. Is everything in your worldview based on experience?
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty much. I'm trying to find things that are not based on experience. I'll have to get back to you on that when I find something that is not.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever been to Tibet?
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Its what I am saying its the experience which gives you total faith,its to know for sure.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Faith in yourself or faith in god?
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Same thing. I realized I am the cosmos and not restricted to just my body.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well what has faith got to do with it?
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hearing of something gives one faith in it but being with that something the faith is total- know for sure.The universe is alive and communicating with me, I have faith in it.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I find that when I'm in it, faith is irrelevant.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Depends on how you define faith, I look at it as confidence or trust.
  reply report
  66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Faith and Religion are two differnt thngs.
  reply report
2. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  So why can't human's be the God or Creator? We do much more than what is spoken in the Bible and we do alot of what God does ir did.
  reply report
57
my-success-guruposted 16 years ago
Depends who you ask!
reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Glendon has a point, both parties live by...faith. Deduced rationally, the "I'm not certain there is a God, there could be" agnostic is a much more logical position than atheism. When we debate world views one makes evidence that only increases the probability of a certain truth not the certainty of it. This is where empirical evidence comes into play. We can make decisions about which world view we live by analyzing evidence rationally then move onto the empirical or existential aspects of the truth presented.
The strict rationalist cannot claim atheism for his own, he must apply empirical evidence to support the decision. With no knock-down-drag-out arguments for either side, we all must live by faith.

Oh and Jewels...I much prefer the spaghetti monster!
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The FSM is cool, I like the hairdo.
  reply report
2. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ramen to that!
  reply report
60
David Bowmanposted 16 years ago
One of the fundamental misunderstandings that most people have about atheism is that atheists declare certitude about the non-existence of a deity. The agnostic says "I don't know whether or not there is a god" probably due to a lack of convincing evidence. The atheist takes that statement to the logical conclusion and says "since there is nothing to base a belief on, I therefore lack belief in a deity." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

The fact of the matter is, some if not most atheists are also agnostics. A person can be an atheist via agnosticism (an agnostic atheist).

I recommend this article by the atheist Austin Cline that clarifies the terms atheism and agnosticism. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnost … theism.htm
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Tahnk you David, I went to the link and read it. Very clear.
  reply report
  60
  David Bowmanposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You're quite welcome Earnest.
  reply report
52
PurePakistaniposted 16 years ago
Fear Allah.
reply report
77
cindyvineposted 16 years ago
Why must I fear Allah? What will he do to me?
reply report
1. 52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Only one God Allah. No other god equal to Allah.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But there is only one god called by different names like Shiva, Jevovah,Brahma, Ahura Mazda, Allah etc.
  reply report
  52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Boy PurePakistani, you charge in here and take on mohitmisra? Good luck!
  By the way if you are purePakistani, are you implying that some Pakistani's are not pure?
  reply report
  52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I take name. Pakistan mean pure land.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  So there are many gods who compete with each other and have different names?
  In that case Muhammad is wrong and Islam which means one god is also wrong along with all the prophets and saints who say there is only one god.
  reply report
  52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Other Wrong. One God allah.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You wrong no god
  reply report
  52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Read Qur'an. Believe Allah forgive.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Have read Quoran, don't believe, so don't need forgiveness
  reply report
  52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Allah kind. Will forgive.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Then you've nothing to fear.
  reply report
  52
  PurePakistaniposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You're most welcome. Then why did you say fear Allah? Just for clarity.
  report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Why would Allah forgive someone who reads the Quran. So one can commit a crime and god will forgive him if he reads the Quran after that? nonsense.
  reply report
  66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What is all this about forgive. God made us this way and he already knows us so to forgive would be to admit that he made a mistake and if that is so then he can't be perfect.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  My god another fanatic.Have you seen Allah?
  reply report
2. 60
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Allan is my father in law, and is a wonderful man.
  There's no need to fear him at all.
  reply report
  80
  aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  They either missed this, or ignored it. I like it! VERY clever.
  reply report
  60
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Probably ignored it - off topic you know. But as official Thread Jester, I have to slip something like that in from time to time.
  Glad you liked it
  
  P.S. Everyone - If some of the people on this thread are driving you up the wall, check out their Hubber Quality Index to find out if they are empty vessels, or worth listening to.
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/17031
  reply report
3. 59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dear Cindy,
  
  Fear Allah means fear of his rage and anger. This fear compells you to do good deeds as prescribed by Allah and force you to abstain from all those "donts" which Allah forbid you to do so. This fear compells you to think that if i am going to involve myself in adultry then Allah will become unhappy with me.
  
  All the ISM based doctrines or the so called indivisualism, self recognition, self conciousness or maditation etc are not more than a deception as they lead you away from God - Allah. These pagan doctrines and dogmas lead you to praise self being or humans or materials. In contrast, religion, specially ISLAM guides you to praise God-Allah-One and Only-The Greatest and gives you the dos and donts for leading a healthy peacefull life. Qur'an and tradistions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a kind of instruction manual for this ultimate machine; HUMANS.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody needs to fear your invisible friend except you usmanali
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Please take your evangelising for Islam to another thread - it is not on topic for this thread.
  
  Cindy, if you want to ask more questions like this, please copy the post and start a new thread with it.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
77
cindyvineposted 16 years ago
That's your opinion
reply report
61
Pete Maidaposted 16 years ago
Why do you have to fear God if he has giving you free will? If you have free will isn't your right to worship or not? I understand freedom is not totally free and there have to be rules. I understand a powerful being laying down rules to protect his children from each other, but what about this deal about worshiping. Why would anyone that is not an ego maniac demand people gather at least once a week for the soul purpose of telling him how wonderful he is? What's the point?
The answer is if you have a religious organization the way you keep your people in line is to reaffirm the rules and the threat of punishment on a regular basis. It is a matter of control.
reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Great work in my absence, despite various detours from the topic.

We seem to have a set of working definitions for our terms! Woo hoo!

When it comes to God, the word "God" here contains all possible genders, the single and the plural, has no assumptions about physical form, etc, etc, etc. It is the widest possible ussge of the word.

Speak now if you object to any of these definitions, and if we get a resounding silence (or roar of assent) we shall move on to the continuing debate about whether people should be required to express themseves in ecumentical terms.

10. Any proposition must be formulated in ecumenical wording (that is, in such a way that it applies to any Theist's position, not just to one particular religion).

Or any other proposition that anyone may care to put up instead ...

Jenny
reply report
1. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If these represent a majority view I'll accept them. However, there is then no logical difference between agnosticism and atheism, as both 'lack belief in a deity'. It leaves us without a term to describe the position 'I believe there is no god'.
  Hmm, possibly a Markist??
  reply report
2. 80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I miss Mark and enders because the debate has just begun.
  It took us 1500 posts and miles and miles of digression (hands up all guilty including me) to arrive here.
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
Exactly. I have no reason to believe that deities are god or ever even existed yet believe them in a different sense as an actual person or persons behind the story trying to communicate something about a great mystery in the Universe which is something that all people (I believe) share.

My problem with theism and certain things being said is that theism isn't based on god, it based deities having supreme power over people and the right to control others by illogical deduction that a deity that a person claims to be god which is something you cannot see etc... is being used not only to distort the term 'god' but also being objectively used by a couple of religions and held exclusive to them which in any case seems to have lost all representation of understanding what is absolute leaving many to believe they have found the absolute truth yet all they have is a personified image of someone or something accredited with truth and all others are lies.

So since Christianity says that Jesus is god. And since they seem to have all but ever believed in god. People believe that Jesus is god which many theist do not actually believe that deities are actually 'god' which puts them in the atheist category.

Now atheism has been given a bad rep for saying 'god' does not exist yet look at what we say depending on who we are talking too.

After I thoroughly concluded that when talking to a christian and understand their position that the deity Jesus is god, I say 'your god does not exist.' So I find it ironic that some Christians like Ender are actually more atheistic then even Mark. Because they have been accrediting the term "atheist" as a person who says "god does not exist" which is strange because according to some Christians, they literally do not believe in god, by what they are defining an atheist to mean..."god does not exist.

-ps. I do know that some people who claim theism actually understand what I am talking about and might be rather irritated as well for the term theism being taken as "god is deity" as opposed to "deities are enlightened people passing on the message about what is Absolute."
reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Sandy, if I was going to summarise your point into a single proposition, would it be something like this?

10. Those aspects of human life which are experienced and described by people as "spiritual experiences", "peak experiences", "enlightenment" and "meeting God" are all experiences of the same objective thing, whatever that thing is, regardless of the person's age, gender, race, culture, religion or lack of religion.

I have tried to make it clear in the wording that there is no assumption that the thing in question is supernatural in nature.

Would that kinda capture the gist of it, Sandy?

Jenny
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  yes.
  reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
We could change the wording to "I therefore believe that there is no God ..."
reply report
1. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That restores the third position but I think David Bowman wants to avoid using it because it easily allows theists to demonise atheists. David?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  reply report
  60
  David Bowmanposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  There are of course what are referred to as "strong atheists" or "gnostic atheists" who positively state that no god exists. I think the theists would have a point to say that atheism is unreasonable when the atheist declares "there is no god" since this would require evidence to be a reasonable stance and as you all know it is impossible to prove a negative.
  
  I think atheism stated as "lacking belief in a deity" is the most general statement of non-belief that can be made since this would still apply to atheists who hold the more radical view that "no god exists." It is, in my opinion, more ecumenical. I think that "I therefore don't believe there is a God..." is preferable to "I therefore believe there is no God..." There is a subtle difference between those two statements and I think the first statement would be the more inclusive.
  reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
How about "therefore I will assume there is no God, but will continue to examine any new evidence ..."

Jenny
reply report
1. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How about "therefor I have no reason to believe that deities are god."
  reply report
60
David Bowmanposted 16 years ago
I'm fine with that.
reply report
1. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Me too. (And we'll not worry about the apathetic atheists who don't examine anything
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for that Paraglider! Once you get into qualifying the qualifications, the propositions become unwieldy ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I can dig it.
  Alright gang...i'm going to be taking a few days off from the Hub action. I've got a huge deadline. I'll prolly check out progress and make comments once in a while. Have fun, everybody!
  reply report
2. 80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The classical humanist rationalist will not seek for unknown god in any phenomenon, they will hold fast to humanist rationalist approach even in the face of phenomenon outside range of existing knowledge. And since the lead opposers are Mark and earnesthub who say "No god" why leave room to exclude their position in this thread so far.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Could you clarify your last post glendoncaba, it may be that I am slow this morning, as I am slow to wake today and not the sharpest tool in the shed!
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  He's talking about the need to go beyond strict rationalism to allow for empirical evidence to support a case.
  reply report
  92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If I can shed some light on this:
  We established about 1500 posts ago that it is logically impossible to prove the strict atheist stance. We agreed too that the theist position is proved (though not necessarily everywhere and for all time) by a clearly verified manifestation (but not by questionable reportage of one).
  
  We therefore agreed that to make progress we could accept the legal definition of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that remains the challenge to the theist (because we further agreed that the onus should be on the theist to prove their assertions true).
  
  Good morning!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Good morning.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No i was saying that the clause on examine new evidence would suggest that they are willing to consider deity but they come to the table with no desire to see the probability or possibility of deity therefore the wording excludes them.
  
  Notice that now the discussion is becoming more civilised the thread is in fact winding down. I guess people just want to have fun cussing and all.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  . I'm definitely willing to consider your deity and am waiting for it to appear on the table, not for it to be told to me from the pages of a book. The wording therefore is not exclusive. Those outside the christian faith do want and desire the appearance and sentient cognition of a deity.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I saw something once... at first I kept calling it god because I didn't know what else to make of it. It scared the holy shite out of me and everything I ever thought I knew was changed in a instant.
  
  I bumped into one problem which is how and why I understand certian complications that arise out of the belief in deities; which is that... even a deity is not god.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. Not everything is as it seems and of course not everything seen in a metaphysical world is God. Doesn't mean it's not unfathomable either.
  
  Sentience comes in here, sentience and reason. The ability to discern. There are many spaces, layers, whatever you want to call them. Not all light is the light of God. The color gold or white is not necessarily God. There are gradients of fire - that being understood as love (not the devil). Sentient experiences of this Love of God or Fire of God, or the sense of something more beautiful than the normal human experience could be a deity or presence that is not God.
  
  Therefore, what is the sentient feeling of what God is?
  
  Is God definable even in a sentient sense?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think so.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Wasnt speaking for myself, just wondering if you werent too quick to exclude your two warriors.
  Do you speak for the strong voices of the two i referenced earlier? Why exclude the vacationing MK or earnest just because he's having a hour with his chillum pipe.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I understand Mark is awaiting the production of the Almighty also. But I don't speak for others. The chillum pipe sounds good doesn't it? Could do with a bit of sun and sand and a drink with a straw.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No not the chillum!!! I'm a conservative Christian remember? Man, I'm losing my sense of humour with all this cerebral stuff.
  
  My son wants to go to negril tomorrow but family heading to the hills to district of my birth to reap mangoes etc. We might swim in river. He wants to go to Negril instead. Children nowadays, no respect for ancestral heritage
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure you can boggy with the best of em.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mark and yourself have argued a priori that there is no god but now the proposed statement is leaving room for you to "examine new evidence".
  
  Is that your view?
  
  I thought you guys shared the position of
  
  "But the rationalists do not deny anything, in fact rationalists neither assume the existence or non-existence of anything at all. With their minds free of any pre-conceived notions whatsoever the rationalists try to penetrate the unknown and try to bring more phenomenon from the sphere of unknown to that of the known. In going about this inquiry a person can use all the senses of perception available to him/her. Any phenomenon that can be so perceived is within human understanding.
  
  If there is any phenomenon beyond the human senses of perception human beings will not know of its existence hence there would be no question of entertaining any idea of its existence. And if at all humans come to know some way that such a phenomenon does exist and such a phenomenon is beyond the available senses of perception, a rationalists will endeavour to devise a method or a new sense of perception to understand and if possible to master that phenomenon. In doing this human beings may or may not be successful. But success is another issue, what matters is the question of what attitude to take as regards such partly known phenomenon. A rationalist would like to explore it, a dogmatic person would like to treat is as a deity."
  
  which I found on this site
  http://www.hindutva.org/rationalism.html
  
  Otherwise I would be happy to go along with the proposed wording especially since it gives me, the perennial evangelist, the opportunity to present new evidence to convince you that persons of faith...in the words of ender, "rock".
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey brother, i work in front of a computer! I'm still checking in but i think you are schoolin' the apologetic discourse my man! Feels good to pull out all those dusty ol' books don't it! I think you can handle it while i'm out.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No no no. big brother (not orwellian now)
  
  You are the defence counsel in this case. I'm but the whip because I have a journalistic curiosity about knowledge but you are more up to speed so dont disappear.
  
  No I'm barely touching the books but the internet provides so much if you know where to look.
  
  frankly you, jenny, earnest, and para, as well as our Indian friend mohit, are geniuses. Sandra and Mark are very smart but tempt us to go off topic too much with their personal attacks.
  
  I'm still working on my paradigm shift from vocal christian evangelist to humble participant in a world forum on religion, which despite your great wit and entertaining sarcasm, is what this thread is, a global forum on religion.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We all can learn from that buddy. I'm privileged to have such an awesome man of God on my team.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Not awesome, just the waterboy trying to keep up with you intellectual giants. I'm learning a lot even as I try to share my somewhat much too Christocentric views.
  
  Getting lots of ideas for sermons and hubs.
  
  I can see why the Christian church has been so unsuccessful in modern europe for example. Secularism has taken over Western Europe, much of Britain, and so much of USA.
  
  (I must say though that I admire the effort of secular states to humanise society, with some positive results). Do you realise that Cuba has one of the best health systems in the world? I'm giving the atheists this one for free since they are so busy attacking us they havent appealed yet to the social welfare benefits of historical materialism and its socialist ideology.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The humanist rationalist DOES seek the unknown in all phenomenon. Faith DOES NOT seek an explanation of a phenomenon and will give said phenomenon a label - 'god'. This leaves the mind unexpanded when there is major scope for expansion.
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
Unless of course she is a deity.

Therefor I would have a reason to believe that deities actually do exist yet who would consider her to be "GOD"?

ps. just to note, I think this child is very beautiful so I would hope no one take this a blasphemous example.

Her too!

and them!

and let's not leave out...

reply report
61
Randy Godwinposted 16 years ago
Thank------(fill in your favorite deity) this thread seems to be winding down.
reply report
80
glendoncabaposted 16 years ago
jenny said:

"Therefore, if you want the atheists (and the non-Christian theists) to interact meaningfully with anything from the Bible, you will need to provide some non-Biblical corobboration for it."

For establishing historical facts yes, and i said earlier i will provide non-biblical material when required.
But I'm sure that I may I argue using material from the bible as a book of literature, history, wisdom. poetry.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, sure - the rules only apply when you are trying to introduce something as a "fact".
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The bible has to be treated as more than just a collection of wise sayings.
  
  Outside of the divine revelation claim (which this thread discounts)historicity (which this thread reluctantly gives a green light)we must remember that Western civilization has held the Book in high regard as as a source of judgements, precedents, legal and ethical teachings.
  
  I'm sure our brothers from other faiths will say the same for Vedas, Koran, confucius, Torah, etc.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The western culture held slavery in "high esteem" until 150 years ago or so....that doesn't make it right.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You know what get's me... this bible seems to promote the right to kill if you are good but not to kill if you are bad...
  
  *scratching head*
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Yea...if you believe in me, go blow up that Nun working in the abortion clinic over there....
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I digress to reply as follows:
  
  thank you for strengthening my point by way of mentioning something that passed away, namely slavery. You see the bigotry that justified slavery in modern times could not stand up to our better natures (and christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce) but the bible is enduring. It stood the test of communalism, slavery, serfdom, mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism, monopoly capitalism, socialism, communism. So I am convinced it will stand the test of new capitalism, globalism, new world order, illuminati, antichrist, new age movement, secularism, etc. For God is love, and love conquers all.
  
  I digress....
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  In the OT, slavery was completely CONDONED. The jews even enslaved each other (although I will agree it was more like Endentured Servitude). Work for me and you can have my daughter. Oh you don't want my eldest daughter? OK work for me another 7 years and you can have my youngest but you also have to marry my oldest too. What is that crap? And this was his UNCLE!!!
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  God does not ignore the culture. OT slavery in hebrew society much different from sugar plantation of modern history. God works through the culture and led the called ones until today we know that the religion of Christ is a religion of freedom.
  
  "the path of the just is a shining light shining more and more until the perfect day"
  
  Paradoxically white American Christians are now going to africa to free black slaves from black owners in africa NOW.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL...I guess you aren't talking about all of the Christian White-Supremacists in the US...
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said, paradoxically.
  BTW hint hint that's my pic in the left hand there. I can tell you about slavery and its effects on island culture. Dont get me started. The irony is not lost on me that I a black man must needs lecture you on the fact that slavery is not unique to christian history, and Jesus came to reveal true freedom in christ. dont quote Paul on me now, in the words of Pearly victorious Paul was not a slave. was it Pearly victorious?
  reply report
  92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  with due respect, the Ten Commandments condone slavery. They just don't like you coveting your neighbour's slaves.
  EDIT - I was catching up. I now see that that point was covered already.
  reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Well, everyone, this is seriously great work.

As glendoncaba said, the debate can now begin!

As Paraglider reminded us, the atheists have agreed that it is impossible to prove a negative, so to believe "there is no God" is a leap of faith.

The theists, for their part, have agreed that it is reasonable for the atheists to ask for evidence of the existence of a deity before making the opposite leap of faith.

And we have some agreement from both sides about what sort of evidence would be acceptable/credible, given that we are having the discussion without making either leap of faith.

Remembering that the theists and the atheists come from a range of backgrounds (I believe we have at least one atheist Buddhist, for example, and at least one believer whose "God" doesn't fit the theist definition of "taking a personal interest"), sally forth and discuss!

Jenny
reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
And for those who may have lost what we are discussing, the current proposition is this:

10. Those aspects of human life which are experienced and described by people as "spiritual experiences", "peak experiences", "enlightenment" and "meeting God" are all experiences of the same objective thing, whatever that thing is, regardless of the person's age, gender, race, culture, religion or lack of religion.

You may take a position on this one, or argue that we don't discuss it at all, and propose an alternative ...

Jenny
reply report
1. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Great work Jenny I think this proposition is true and follows naturally from proposition 8:In other words, sentience gives rise to the search for meaning, and 'spiritual experiences' can be anything that even for an instant satisfies that need. Such moments can come from meditation, music, physical endeavour, almost anything in which we lose and find ourselves simultaneously.
  This, by the way, supports my view that theology is a venerable art form, not an absolute truth.
  reply report
92
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
BTW - I didn't have a problem with the old proposal 10. But I think it came and went while I was at work /in the bar /asleep.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ender objected to it, and nobody was wildly keen on it, so I figured it wouldn't matter if we dropped it.
  
  I think the overall tone of the discussion has become more ecumenical over time, anyway.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No problem
  reply report
89
Jewelsposted 16 years ago
As you can understand I like proposition 10. If knowledge is based on ABC learning, where does sentience come into the equation. If a preacher is magnetic and passionate with his teachings he will lure the sheep to the holding pen regardless of the content of the teachings. A person will base his feelings on the moment which is influenced by the preacher. Lets face it a magnetic person exudes a feeling of wellbeing. This wellbeing feeling is often not felt in the normal day to day comings and goings. So when it is felt, it's different to the norm. Not all feelings of well being come under the banner of "God" but to some it could be the best feeling they've ever had. Is it God?

A continual barrage of scriptures forces a belief in the written word. There is no doubt there is a force behind the teacher when the scriptures are passed.

At what point does the student 'feel' the presence of God?
reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
I just posted this in another thread.

Does anything have to be re-written into the cannon now, particularly proposition 8?

I'm not comfortable with the term "sentience" to describe what triggered the development of our mental landscape, including language, the arts, reason, and many derivatives. To tell you the truth I am not even comfortable with the idea that it was triggered. You know what I mean, man must have known from the beginning that he had to keep warm, fed and watered. To me this is the beginning of development.

If man has not been given dominion over animals by ___ (you fill in the 3 letter blank ) then why do humans keep animals in compounds or as pets and why do animals not keep humans in compounds or as pets?
reply report
1. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that there is no perfect word. We joked earlier about 'enough sentience'. It's a continuum. But simply looking after preponent needs (temperature, nutrition) doesn't qualify. Even earthworms do that. Sentience in the form or self awareness is the start of intelligence and questioning.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Truth is by the time we are finished even the great Mark Knowles will not recognise this thread. we will have so sanitised the communication that we will have articulated an agreement into which we can fit any religion, worldview, philosophy without offending any single sect/group/believer/nonbeliever. Once we get over the juicy cussing we will realise that there is no debate.
  
  basically the story of genesis illustrates the danger of freewill, yet God will have it no other way. You guys are reinventing a philosophic garden of eden. who will be serpent and tempt you to digress again.
  
  so 'sentience' is a bit thorny but I will assume you mean when Yahweh elohim blew breath into man and man became a living person. Evolutionists can believe their theory. and the annunaki sumerian and mystery people can believe their genetic factory theory. Sentient is a poor word but sapient is also debatable.
  
  I would say man was made in the likeness of God, perfect, upright, noble. Only three religions would agree on this so lets get back to proposition 10.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps that has been God's cunning plan all along, glendoncaba ...
  
  But seriously, I think there is a debate, and an interesting one. It's just that to have the interesting debate, we need to peel away the irrelevant material (which for the purposes of this debate includes any competition BETWEEN theologies), so that we can focus on the fundamental question.
  
  And it IS a slow process, getting people to let go - even for a moment - of things they have been defending as though their lives depended on it. I am impressed with how far both sides have moved in terms of becoming less dogmatic and looking more for common ground.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But then that still eliminates a lot of people's belief that the original man had what we are describing here as sentience from the start.
  
  How about this;
  
  8. Without specifying how, we recognize that man is superior to animals in intelligence and questioning which brought about the development of our mental landscape, including language, the arts, reason, and many derivatives.
  reply report
  92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That's weaker and I don't like it.Your high priest EW accepted that sentience, or self awareness, was a prerequisite of all knowledge. The idea that man was created with god-knowledge already preprogrammed is too far-fetched. You must admit that there is compelling evidence for man existing for more that 6000 years, no?
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe proposition 8 should be tossed if we can't come to an agreement.
  
  He started the thread Paraglider but he is not my high priest. No offense EW.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Can I at least be your Supreme High Commander/Glorious Potentate?
  
  Hi gang, Just stopping in to say hi. I'll be back in full force tomorrow!
  reply report
  92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'd be reluctant to lose it because it is a tidy enough form of words that doesn't conflict with either the archaeological model of the ancient developing Earth or the creation model of the bible. And while we can argue over whether sentience is the best word or not, the widespread acceptance of this proposition would confer the meaning on the word.
  
  I think we can all agree that without sentience there can be no intellectual life. Self awareness is a prerequisite of the conscious mind without which there can be no language, music, art etc.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe that is why there isn't a compromise, man is not superior to animals, we are animals.
  
  I think it is better stated in "sentience". I also like PG's introspect about religion being an art.
  reply report
2. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We have emerged as the dominant species (for the time being, at least). As such we have taken many things we have not been 'given', such as the rainforests, the oil and, if you like, dominion over animals. Though I think we have not achieved dominion over ants and roaches yet!
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I know as the moderator I should not contribute, and particularly to an off-topic theme, but I can't resist.
  
  If man has been given dominion over animals by ___ (you fill in the 3 letter blank ) then why do humans follow animals around and clean up their poop and why do animals not follow humans around and clean up their poop?
  
  Sorry, moment of weakness. I will go back to moderating now.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Good point but I believe that man's concern has something to do with hygiene.
  
  Animals don't care if man cleans up their poop.
  
  This may have sounded off topic but it really wasn't when I was trying to describe my concern with the use of sentience for proposition 8.
  reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
I can't see this flying with most Theists seeing miracles have been disallowed.

Unless you want to include miracles within this proposition.
reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
I think this is good but I think the word "logical" needs to be stricken from the meaning of atheist.
reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
Are we unaware that we are writing the cannon of the New Age world religion for the New World Order?

There are many that write about the connection between the New Age movement and the New World Order.
reply report
1. 80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome back.
  
  We have so much in common. I saw this One World religion/eastern philosophy/New Age theme from way back, but the propositions allow you to talk about your faith without using your faith as the authority. It will only accept scientifically verifiable phenomena.
  
  Here is the challenge: You are not really defending your faith, you are defending the right or logic of anyone to have a faith as opposed to the logic of no deity hence no belief in a deity. It's a religious discussion, not a Christian discussion.
  
  So like jenny said let's see if we can accommodate all the worldviews in the discussion.
  
  I know it comes across like the propositions are blasphemous at first reading.
  
  For example if you look carefully at the propositions you will see that they are really attempts by the moderator to find wordings that will include all.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Bless you, glendoncaba, and the horse you rode in on!
  
  That's a great explanation - thank you.
  
  Just as some of the propositions make some of the Christians uncomfortable, others seem a bit "woo woo" to some of the atheists, and some are fairly difficult for Hindus and Muslims to swallow.
  
  We will all need to stretch our comfort zones a little if we are to connect meaningfully with each other. Everyone will have to tolerate some discomfort in the process.
  
  Given the calibre of the participants in this debate, though, I am confident that we will all rise to the challenge.
  
  Jenny
  
  P.S. Donät worry about the slowdown, glendoncaba, it is not the civilised tone driving people away. Mark is on holidays for two weeks, and Ender has a big deadline this week. They remain interested and will return.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If everyone has to tolerate some discomfort in this process then I believe "to the logical conclusion" should be stricken from the meaning of atheist.
  
  A more appropriate meaning for atheist concerning this thread could be;
  
  The atheist takes that statement further and says "since there is nothing to base a belief on, I therefore lack belief in a deity."
  reply report
0
jaynap01posted 16 years ago
"From Nothing, Nothing Comes".......its not that hard to understand.

America didnt become the greates nation this world has ever seen because we follow Hindu, Budda, Muslim, Athiest, or any other god. America was established for the God of the Bible:

"“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”- Mayflower Compact.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." -Alexander Hamilton

Ever wonder how America got the three branches?
The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

"“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia"

There are dozens more , all taken from http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

We were built up so great because we folled the God of the Bible, or used too. (The last three words is the problem today, we dont need change, we need Jesus)
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You need a miracle and Jesus is not really in a position to do it for you. Materialism is perhaps what foiled the USA, God didn't make you use your credit cards!
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And you send this to my personal email which I'm not pleased about:
  
  *******************
  Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
  
  “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
  
  Credit Cards didnt come around until the 20's.
  **************************************
  
  My introduction of credit card use was in reference to consumerism which has a great deal to do with the current woes of America. In terms of this discussion, when a person keeps talking about miracles and only having to believe in Jesus or God, I say unto you "God didn't force you to use your Credit Cards." This is the hypocracy of people, the ignorance if you will. But keep quoting proverbs - it's supposed to save you. Good luck with being saved.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Jewels....he sent me the same friggin thing...
  reply report
2. 80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  this is the powerful argument from history/anthropology/comparative religion but they are not debating that right now
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
Wow you radical christians get more racist and prejudice the more you speak.

Every hear of living together as one. Maybe acceptance of others regardless of race, religion, or personal creed?

Ever heard "this land was made for you and me."

Get over yourselves. Praise Jebus all you want to. Pray before you make animal sacrifices to the unseen god of wrath you call love and please refrain from ignorance.

It's bring the country down.

BTW, Do any of you have proof that any part of the constitution say Jesus? Well then, it is NOT a christian country.

Assuming that god means Jesus is asinine!
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe i missed it...did somebody say something racist or prejudice? Oh you did..."Jebus" is derogatory and goes a little beyond playful trash talk.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You might want to talk to Homer about it.
  reply report
2. 80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  this is the kind of language that incites 100 posts of digression.
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
It's not in english.
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And out of bounds anyway.Not the right forum to flog a god.
  reply report
0
Leta Sposted 16 years ago
I dare you guys to reach 2000 posts on this thread by Midnight Pacific time. Think you can do it?

Go team!
reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
Jaynap01 really needs to go back to school. I saw him spooging off on another forum about the "Big Bang"...a theory of which he truly knows nothing about. And know I see he is saying that the American "division of powers" was based on the Babble??? Our American fore-fathers followed the words of the late, great John Locke when it came to setting up our government...thank you very much. And as for Ben Franklin...as great a man as he was...he also wanted out national bird to be the friggin turkey. Most of our founding fathers were Freemasons ( no it's not a dirty word Usmani) who at BEST believed in a higher power of some sort but refrained from saying what that might be. They most certainly weren't trying to push any particular denomination on anyone, and hence they were extremely adamant about preserving the separation of church and state...any church...in our Constitution.

As for Jaynap's take on the Big Bang? Well all I can say is he better re-read the theory. Every single scientist out there admits that the name is not appropriate, for after all, in a vacuum who would have heard it anyway? But the whole "explosion" thing wasn't really an explosion at all...at least not of anything material. It was a giant expulsion of energy that didn't destroy anything, because there wasn't anything to destroy. This twit compared it to the destruction of the world trade centers and such, saying that an "explosion doesn't create, it destroys". But in any case, the "energy", according to the theory, eventually separated into the 4 forces we now know of, and through very acceptable scientific methods of fusion and fission eventually gave way to the "heavier" elements, and THAT'S where matter came from. This guy is a true dolt.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  He's off topic, so ignore him.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
So, about this proposition.

10. Those aspects of human life which are experienced and described by people as "spiritual experiences", "peak experiences", "enlightenment" and "meeting God" are all experiences of the same objective thing, whatever that thing is, regardless of the person's age, gender, race, culture, religion or lack of religion.

Mike wants to know whether this includes miracles. I will do my best on this one ...

This proposition is referring to experiences, so if a person experiences a miracle as a "spiritual experience", "peak experience", "enlightenment" or "meeting God" moment, then the miracle would be included.

If a person doesn't recognise the miracle as anything out of the ordinary, and doesn't respond to it in a "spiritual" or "ecstatic" way, then the proposition would not apply.

That doesn't mean that the unnoticed miracle was therefore NOT the same objective thing, it's just that this proposition doesn't cover unrecognised miracles. It only covers things which are experienced by people as "spiritual" or "peak" experiences.

I hope that makes sense ...

Jenny
reply report
1. 68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm good with that Jenny. Thanks. If agreed upon the word 'miracle' should be included in proposition 10.
  reply report
70
earnestshubposted 16 years ago
It seems that phenomina happen when "bits of conciousness break off" according to Jung, who sites many examples and provides supporting empirical evidence for this.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Do tell please!!!! I know it was something like this. I couldn't tell if I myself had made it or if it was from something else.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Very strong irrational belief has caused phenomina. as an example Jung was present in an asylum when a man in a straight jacket was being taken away. As he left he shouted that he was god, and a huge glass vessel disintegrated.
  Other examples would be "sinchronicity" which is a very strange but common experience where a very unlikely event takes place.
  reply report
2. 89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What's the context for this in Jungs work earnestshub?
  
  I understand "bits of consciousness break off" when:
  
  In the pre-stages of death.
  Also in alzheimers.
  Also understood to be what happens after death - the shattering of the mind, whereby the transformed layers of the mind are retained.
  
  Forget the context, just read your response to Sandra.
  reply report
69
lrohnerposted 16 years ago
Wow. After 1,500+ posts, I thought I should give this a read. Now I am completely depressed and my brain hurts.

IMHO, religion (if you believe) or atheism (if you don't) shouldn't get your hackles up. It should make you happy.
reply report
0
Leta Sposted 16 years ago
I like what Paraglider has to say. But then, I usually like what Paraglider has to say...

You guys are getting slower in this thread! You aren't nearing 2000 posts yet and its been at least 72 hours!! You do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

Prop 8, huh? You mean the gay marriage is OK thing that was defeated in CA? ...oh, yeah...that's right. I belong in the forum a few threads up.

reply report
1. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey thanks Lita I've slowed down today because I thought it was about time to write a new hub. Quo facto...
  reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Yep, you guys are definitely slowing down!

Please take Jung to another thread, and thumbs-up to the rational discussion about Proposition 8. Keep it going!

I didn't word the definitions - I copied them out of the thread, where they had been pasted from other dictionaries and essays.

If it would help at all, I am happy to redraft them without any imbalance in attribution of logic or other positively or negatively connoted terms to either side.

With regard to sentience, if Mike is really stuck on the actual word, maybe go for "self-awareness"?

Jenny
reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
Actually Jenny I'm not that awfully concerned with the term sentience or self-awareness.

I'm more concerned as to whether it was triggered at a particular time or whether original man had it from the start. I would say the latter.

Meaning intelligence and questioning from the start which brought about development whether it was a slow process or not.

I can't see it any other way. I mean, when would someone figure that it was triggered?
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The proposition doesn't say sentience was triggered.
  
  It says sentience triggered other things.
  
  It makes no statement whatsoever at all about when the first spark of sentience occurred, or how. It only talks about what happened after that event.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
61
Randy Godwinposted 16 years ago
The fear of death is instinctual in most animals including humans. Could it be this fear which made religion important after humans became aware they would inevitably die? In this case, it seems an afterlife would be very comforting to a superstitious being.
reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
OOOhhhh! Look at the number of my post. 1,"666"! Should I be worried?
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Six, six, six the number of the beast. Hell and fire were sworn to be released!
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yep that's me...old beelzebub himself!
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dood, its an Iron Maiden song. If i were you I would be honored to have such a heavy metal post!
  
  It's good to see you mang!
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Sorry ender...not a fan! Good to see you too!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I laugh every time I hear beelzebub. I would think that an evil demon like such could at least have a name that I would fear instead of giggle at.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I've always thought the same thing. Maybe it sounded more sinister at some point in time. What about Lucifer, now that's a nefarious name! It does mean "light bearer" which in fact isn't evil at all. Sandra...that screams evil mastermind!
  
  Anyway back on topic...I posed some serious propositions. What do you think gang?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What propositions?
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Acknowledment by the Theists that Lucifer does in fact mean "Light bearer". Could draw the conclusion therefore that there is no Devil, or no Dark side. It is an argument from the rational that the dark side is a made up story and is a state of mind not a geographical location.
  reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Hi gang!

I'm for the proposition already laid out on human self-awareness. Whether humans were "born" with it or not has little to do with the fact that we are sentient creatures. The truth is nobody can prove either position unless we determine that God exists with absolute certainty and that He created us that way; or we hop in the Delorian and find some nasty ol' non-sentient human.
As stated in my original post, I argue for the theist team and more specifically the Christian school of thought. I think that trying to make any theistic argument fit generically into one specific category is irresponsible in that the nature of God, god or gods differ significantly between theistic world-views.
I propose to let each argue evidence to support their world-views provided that truth statements are presented properly. This has two positive effects upon the discussion at hand. Each theistic world-view can argue their position in good conscience and those theistic world-views lacking can get weeded out along the way.
Earlier I made mention of free will and i think we should revisit this notion.
Free will what is it and if God exists and He knows the beginning and the end do we truly have free will? What are the agnostic views of free will and how do they affect human interaction and community?
Somebody made mention of God standing over somebody with a club forcing them to pick up a rock and telling them that they had the freedom to chose. Is that a valid argument or can God exist and mankind have free will at the same time?
Anyhow, just trying to spark up the conversation once again. I look forward to seeing all my agnostic and theistic ninja's thoughts. See ya!
reply report
92
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
EnderW - you wanted to discuss free will. That's fine, but it is surely a discussion point between theists only? Those who don't believe in a god can hardly believe in predestination. OK, there is a sense in which the mere fact that you decide to do something 'proves' that the prevailing conditions, including your entire life history and the immediate physical and intellectual environment 'caused' you to make that decision and no other. You could even argue that our impression of free will is just a manifestation of self consciousness observing instinct at work. But I think both of these are blind alleys. They can't be disproved but they yield no fruit.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know about free will. I didn't have a choice in being born and I don't have a choice when I die either. Everything inbetween seems to just be "will".
  reply report
  92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. But the Calvinist tradition in the West and Hindu philosophy in the East seem convinced that everything was pre-planned and we are all just acting out a part. There doesn't seem a lot of point to that!
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed we have no free will, we don't even know when we will die.
  reply report
2. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That's sort of what I was getting at except there are different views among Christians/Theists about predestination. I am not a subscriber to the predestination swimsuit magazine myself.
  The point is, there are some obvious misconceptions about the idea itself that are important to discuss. For many, holding a specific religious belief is an infringement on personal rights in freedom and thought. I on the other hand think the opposite. I think for those riding the fence and for those of us in the debate will benefit from confronting preconceived notions about the nature of God (if He exists at all).
  As far as the other propositions go...I say people of specific theistic groups argue from their particular world-view as long as what is argued can be backed up. Theistic world views differ significantly and simply can't fit into the same category.
  
  In summary:
  Free-will. Do we have it? Does it matter? or is it simply and argument from emotion to be thrown out?
  
  Theists, should they be allowed to argue from their own presuppositions or be made to argue generically about the existence of deity/deities?
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ender, you are straying a bit from the structure of the debate, in which people introduce propositions they want to have agreed as "facts", and we discuss their merits until they are accepted, dismissed, or modified into an acceptable form.
  
  You would need to formulate your free will question into a proposition.
  
  Your second question was a proposition, it was discussed, several theists including yourself objected, so it was dismissed. We can re-introduce it if you like.
  
  We are heading to the end goal of discussing whether the atheist position is irrational, illogical, and/or boring.
  
  Now, along the way so far, I have seen agreement from both sides that you can apply a form of logic to rationalise a choice to believe in theism or in absolute atheism, but that the absolute form of each is a leap of faith beyond the ability of logic or rationality to justify. Occam's Razor is a fine tool, but it is not infallible.
  
  What this means is that in terms of irrational and illogical, absolute theism and absolute atheism are logically equivalent (although theism contains more variety, colour and creativity in its content).
  
  According to the points made so far, only agnosticism can be considered rational and logical, since the existence of any deity (as defined for the purposes of this debate) cannot be either proven or disproven conclusively while we are in human form.
  
  Now we are the point of considering why someone would choose to make a leap of faith to either theism or atheism. Without trying to claim that it is logical or rational to do so, each side can now present their evidence that making the leap of faith they have made has value anyway.
  
  In course of this discussion, we may well get some insight into whether atheism really is boring ...
  
  I am not sure how discussing whether we have free will or not will shed any light on why people have made their particular leap of faith. I'd suggest running that discussion in another thread.
  
  Another question which may be interesting is to ask the people who have not made either leap of faith whether their lives are boring, and how they find meaning in the absence of certainty.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would also like to introduce to the table, gnosticism.
  
  So we have a good balance:
  
  theism and atheism
  gnosticism and agnosticism
  
  I am a gnostic atheist. This is not a statement that means; I 'know' that god does not exist, it's not even a statement saying: I don't now if god exist or not.
  
  It a a dualistic idea which in other words all things, matter or spiritual have an opposite. I regard the Universe as "it is" however can hold it to be dualistic as well. Yet the balance between perfections/imperfections which are perfect in its duality; what I believe as "it" which is good and bad... the godhead some might say.
  
  As agreed previously (or was it? I can't remember) god is absolute. Meaning for me, is that whatever it is absolute from one extreme to the other.
  
  I do not believe in deities, yet I do believe in the complex nature of what the deities (the real people behind the stories) were trying to convey about the dualistic nature of the Universe. Everything from matter to spirituality, from math to philosophy, to the god within and the god without.
  
  -edit: it is the infallible "knowledge" of all things being fallible.... in such a way I represent everything to be perfect.
  
  These things can be noted at "true" in all theistic beliefs as well as science, philosophy, agnosticism, atheism as well as rationalism and so on.
  reply report
  80
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  On the subject of leap of faith, the word 'epiphany' comes to mind.
  
  some were taught, some had a subjective experience, whether singly or in a group.
  
  von daniken alien thesis is one purely scientific explanation.
  
  something or someone communicated somewhere or several times, or continuously, in history and and this communication was perceived as beyond just a subjective peak spiritual experience, or am I revisiting old ground (a previous proposition dealt with spiritual experience).
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I feel they should argue from the same position as others. I for one am over the "Are you still beating your wife" types of questions.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 … 4 5 6 78 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies