Ot; new religion on the rise; possibilians

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl]

Invariably, the predictable ends up happening to them while they do nothing waiting for “God to provide.” It never occurs to them that God might “give a leg up” to those who help themselves first :=}[/quote]

First of all, I don’t agree with the view that you seem to be taking that people use religion as an excuse for making bad choices. You may have had that experience, but there are quite a few well controlled studies that support the contention that those who identify themselves as having a religious faith tend to be more physically healthy and (mildly) more emotionally healthy. Rather than inducing passivity, religion seems to be associated with people making better choices. (Or, people who make better health choices also identify themselves as being religious – sort of a chicken/egg issue.)

And second, you don’t really believe that no one else has thought of the “leg up” idea, do you? Is it really possible that there is anyone out there who hasn’t heard the phrase “God helps those who help themselves”? It’s not Biblical, but depending on who you believe, the quote is three or four hundred years old. . . Benjamin Franklin popularized it. Edna Mode had a less spiritual version: “Luck favors the prepared, dahling.”

Anyway, I don’t think there is anything to be gained by using anecdotes to discredit those who don’t have the same belief (I consider atheism a belief) as you. Live and let live . . .

[afx114]

[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico] Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

No, they are usually too busy wallowing in their own waste, trying to rid themselves of vermin and/or eating their young when environmental conditions change.

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico] Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

No, they are usually too busy wallowing in their own waste, trying to rid themselves of vermin and/or eating their young when environmental conditions change.

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico] Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

No, they are usually too busy wallowing in their own waste, trying to rid themselves of vermin and/or eating their young when environmental conditions change.

[njtosd]

[quote=Rustico] Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

No, they are usually too busy wallowing in their own waste, trying to rid themselves of vermin and/or eating their young when environmental conditions change.

[Author]

Posts