It's not hypocrisy
I'll say that again, it's NOT hypocrisy. Look up the definition of hypocrisy and you'll see I am right.


It's also not close minded to say "I think you're story about the imaginary being who controls everything and made the entire universe is a load of rubbish". It's perfectly logical. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that over any other total load of bunkem I could make up right now. Believing that above all else IS close minded.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 18:30, 1 reply)

huh?
who said it was closed minded? once again a b3tan atheist assumes that anyone who points out a flaw in atheism automatically believes in some "imaginary being" (nice straw man btw), usually an abramhamic type god figure who has a personality.
I personally think that this idea is not true. but then I dont discount the idea that there may be a connecting life force that science cannot explain or even comprehend.
(ewe, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 18:38, closed)

Your argument is flawed.
Atheism is disbelief in god. From dictionary.com: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Belief in science is a different animal. You're confusing the two.
( argyleblanket The man on the roof works for me, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 23:53, closed)

no
atheists are and that's the point.


most b3tarded and western atheists are reacting against western god. they are reacting against primary school interpretations of christianity and/or islam/jewish religion.

they start to see science as the antithesis to western religion...and overtime science becomes their god (flame on, it's just a figure of speech)...the problem being what starts as a logical rejection of western personalised god becomes a rejection of all things that fall outside of the rigourous category of science. now people wont belive anything unless they are told by the scientific community and/or the media.


"if you want to know the truth look for a heart that comes from god alone
when you get the heart, give in back again
so we can keep the secret
safe from the tampering of human hands."
r'abia
(ewe, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 3:12, closed)

"wont belive anything unless they are told by the scientific community and/or the media."
Spelling mistakes aside, you've got to ask yourself - who's more worthy of our trust - a bunch of power-mad ex-hippies who have a history of using torture and oppression to get their way, or the scientific community?

Or you can make up your own beliefs, which is what you seem to be saying. Guess what got us started on the whole slippery slope in the first place?

Thing thing with the god of your choice is, it requires your belief to exist. No believers = no god. Subatomic particles don't give a shit whether you believe in them or not.
( argyleblanket The man on the roof works for me, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 18:10, closed)

you seem to have a problem with individualism
I would prefer "search for my own beliefs". rather than "make up".

a careful study of both religion and science reveals that they are both in essence, the same thing. attempts to find knowledge. but the problem is that the institutionalised versions attempt to take discovery of knowledge out of the hands of the "lay person" and into the realm of experts.


all in all. fuck St Paul.
(ewe, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 6:55, closed)