Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 05:26:27 PM

Title: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 05:26:27 PM
With all this scientific talk going on around the place here, i think it would be ah good idea to put the atheistic community to a test as to proving their beliefs. it's also clear to say that atheism is unscientific bc they have not been able to prove that there is nothing out side of our selves, and they are just as hopeful as the theistic adherents.

the fact that they could conclude on the notion that god is ah myth without proving it scientifically, shows a total disregard for science, since science is in the proof and discovery business, and until now, no burden of proof has been put on their heads, and this is ah clear kick in the face of the real scientific community.

IMO atheism is a religion in itself, and though they have no churches nor public congregations, they have the basic premiss of a religion. it's been thousands of yrs and they still can't come up with iron clad evidence that there nothing out side of us, yet they get to masquerade and tout themselves as being part and parcel of the scientific community, when there's actually no scientific basis for atheism.

with all the scientific knowledge attained over the course of our existence, we still have not been able to stain the surface of the knowledge waiting to be discovered in this vast universe, let alone scrape it! we are so soooooo far from understanding how our own planet works, and even further away from from understanding our galaxy, so why are these ppl making such elaborate claims as "there is no higher power"?

it's mind boggling to see fellas who claim to be great proponents of science, like prof francis crick, richard dawkins (especially him) and stephen gould make definite claims and negate the existence of a higher power, when there's no such evidence conclusively to make this claim!

now i could understand if these fellas proclaim that organized religion is outside of the scientific reality, and they take a stand against it, i could also understand the position of an agnostic, claiming ignorance until further proof (which IMO is much much more of a scientific stance), but to claim out right that there's nothing but time, space and matter is purely unscientific!

The hypocrisy is very great in this respect in the atheistic community, and they are doing exactly the same as their theistic counterparts, maybe even worst, bc to negate is much more conclusive that to include.

i believe it's time that true science hold the atheist community to a scientific standard, and since the basis of science is proof and discovery, i think is time the burden of proof be placed on the heads of the atheistic community! like, where's is your proof that there's only time space and matter??

(true trini, please let us deal with this thing sensibly. in other words, hold the emotional responses and stick to the subject, this is not about religion, just science)
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 06:04:43 PM
this is not about science.  Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 06:30:13 PM
I once listened to a philosopher named Daniel Dennett.   He siad that NATURAL SELECTION was Charles Darwin's "Dangerous idea.”

What he said was true and for a damn good reason: it is a very simple natural mechanism that explains the appearance of design in living things.

Before the great man Charles Darwin, we used to believe quite erroneously that the adaptations and exquisite complexity of organisms were said to have been the the creation by some pie in the sky omnipotent, beneficent designer, namely God, and indeed were among the major arguments for the existence of such a designer.  Darwin wrote a book:  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and his treatise caused quite a brouhaha when it appeared in 1859.   Darwin made this “argument from design” completely superfluous.

It accomplished for biology what Newton and his successors had accomplished in physics: it provided a purely natural explanation for order and the appearance of design.

It made the features of organisms explicable by processes that can be studied by science instead of ascribing them to miracles or Allah or Jehovah

The contemporary “intelligent design” movement is simply a repetition of the pre-Darwinian argument, and of course it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the properties of living things.
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: Football supporter on July 10, 2012, 08:59:34 PM
I once listened to a philosopher named Daniel Dennett.   He siad that NATURAL SELECTION was Charles Darwin's "Dangerous idea.”

What he said was true and for a damn good reason: it is a very simple natural mechanism that explains the appearance of design in living things.

Before the great man Charles Darwin, we used to believe quite erroneously that the adaptations and exquisite complexity of organisms were said to have been the the creation by some pie in the sky omnipotent, beneficent designer, namely God, and indeed were among the major arguments for the existence of such a designer.  Darwin wrote a book:  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and his treatise caused quite a brouhaha when it appeared in 1859.   Darwin made this “argument from design” completely superfluous.

It accomplished for biology what Newton and his successors had accomplished in physics: it provided a purely natural explanation for order and the appearance of design.

It made the features of organisms explicable by processes that can be studied by science instead of ascribing them to miracles or Allah or Jehovah

The contemporary “intelligent design” movement is simply a repetition of the pre-Darwinian argument, and of course it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the properties of living things.

I believe that the island of Madagascar (on which 80% of native species can only be found there) was put forward as proof of Darwin's theories.
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: pecan on July 10, 2012, 09:00:43 PM
this is not about science. Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?

wrong ... theists are not the one asserting that god does not exist. The existence of God is FAITH based that is why it falls outside the realm of science. We already acknowledge that it is non-scientific by calling it FAITH.

So if atheists insist on arguing with theists about the non-existence of god, then it is incumbent upon the atheists to Prove that God does not exist, not the other way around.


I think JC's post is bang on.





Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 10:30:36 PM
this is not about science.  Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?
There no reasoning with you, is there? it seems like reasoning is something foreign in your life, you like to set the rules and the rest must follow, and if they don't then all the insulting  phrases comes out, from who does chat sh!t, to who dumb, to who eh have no sense, but reasoning is not part of the equation. true trini setting the smack down once again, even when i pleaded with you to chill. 

thank you very much arseh@le!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 10:32:40 PM
this is not about science.  Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?
And there's no evidence that that one doesn't exist either!!
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 10:45:40 PM
this is not about science. Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?

wrong ... theists are not the one asserting that god does not exist. The existence of God is FAITH based that is why it falls outside the realm of science. We already acknowledge that it is non-scientific by calling it FAITH.

So if atheists insist on arguing with theists about the non-existence of god, then it is incumbent upon the atheists to Prove that God does not exist, not the other way around.


I think JC's post is bang on.







NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 10:47:06 PM
this is not about science.  Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?
There no reasoning with you, is there? it seems like reasoning is something foreign in your life, you like to set the rules and the rest must follow, and if they don't then all the insulting  phrases comes out, from who does chat sh!t, to who dumb, to who eh have no sense, but reasoning is not part of the equation. true trini setting the smack down once again, even when i pleaded with you to chill. 

thank you very much arseh@le!!!!!!!!

cunnie...you started of saying this is science and Not reliion yet you come with atheism is a religion etc.  If yuh want to aavoid a topic yuh doh go aboput making it the central theme of yuh thesis

ok kaka hole
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 10:53:01 PM
this is not about science.  Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?
Yuh damn right! i guess you could read after all.  this thread is about the way atheist use science as a crotch, and a basis for their cult, when in actuality "ATHEISM" has nothing to do with science! @ least the definition of what science supposed to be.

atheist believing just like the theist, while science on the other hand don't believe or hope, it's either proven or they're hypothesizing, but science don't use words like "there is no", or "there is" unless they conclude on a study. as a matter of fact, science only explain how things work, find solutions and trouble shoot, that's it!

scientist supposed to be truth finders, and their personal opinions and peeves should not enter into the realm of science. scientist also should not take sides, their only allegiance should be to truth and discovery, and they don't say no until there is conclusive evidence.
Title: Re: With all this science talk.
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 10:56:08 PM
this is not about science.  Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?
There no reasoning with you, is there? it seems like reasoning is something foreign in your life, you like to set the rules and the rest must follow, and if they don't then all the insulting  phrases comes out, from who does chat sh!t, to who dumb, to who eh have no sense, but reasoning is not part of the equation. true trini setting the smack down once again, even when i pleaded with you to chill. 

thank you very much arseh@le!!!!!!!!

cunnie...you started of saying this is science and Not reliion yet you come with atheism is a religion etc.  If yuh want to aavoid a topic yuh doh go aboput making it the central theme of yuh thesis

ok kaka hole
My point exactly, you're such a class act.   



BTW, to make you happy, i will change the name of the post since it pissing you off so much.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 11:02:59 PM
this is not about science. Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?

wrong ... theists are not the one asserting that god does not exist. The existence of God is FAITH based that is why it falls outside the realm of science. We already acknowledge that it is non-scientific by calling it FAITH.

So if atheists insist on arguing with theists about the non-existence of god, then it is incumbent upon the atheists to Prove that God does not exist, not the other way around.


I think JC's post is bang on.







NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory
So prove that God does not exist, oh smart one.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 11:04:11 PM
fool, I dont have to prove anyhting
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 11:04:44 PM
how I go do an experiment to prove nutten is nutten?  what ah go use nutten?
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 10, 2012, 11:19:01 PM
how I go do an experiment to prove nutten is nutten?  what ah go use nutten?
And you say yuh love and believe in science? if there's nothing out there then prove it!

all this shyte about nutten is nutten is a cop out, and the atheist dem say the world came out of nothing, and allyuh say that you solved it with a big bang theory? so that shouldn't be an arduous task to prove that God don't exist, when allyuh solve a bigger mystery.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 10, 2012, 11:47:45 PM
fella you on stupidness yes.  There is a god or God you say YOU prove it.

If I tell you I have 10 million for you ent yuh want proof, yuh cyar go around spending a cent until yuh have it...YOU prove God or god or Allah or Mickey Mouse
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 12:04:36 AM
this is not about science. Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?

wrong ... theists are not the one asserting that god does not exist. The existence of God is FAITH based that is why it falls outside the realm of science. We already acknowledge that it is non-scientific by calling it FAITH.

So if atheists insist on arguing with theists about the non-existence of god, then it is incumbent upon the atheists to Prove that God does not exist, not the other way around.


I think JC's post is bang on.







NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory
You don't even read your own words do you?  prove it you say,  scientific method you say, but aren't you doing the same thing as the ppl who say god exist?

after yrs on this site of calling out theistic folks, you have never brought one shred of evidence to substantiate your "belief" not once! but you advocating for ppl to prove what they believe.

what you fail to realize is that you are also believing, since you have no proof either. all you could say iz that "i've never seen any evidence to substantiate there's a higher power", when great scientists are baffled by so many things they cannot prove, like the bacterial flagellum for instance, the information in RNA, DNA and it's complexed proteins which cannot form on it's own under primordial circumstances, (out in the open, let alone in the ocean) which the atheist community is suggesting as basis (a pillar) for the their theory on the beginning of life as we know it.

when a lawyer negate a claim in court, he also incur a burden of proof, "my client didn't have a gun" then prove it to the jury fella!

it is said that information cannot be random, but rather derives from intelligence and it's ah fact that one DNA code contains more information that 1000 libraries. so if information derives from intelligence, then tell me where the information in the DNA code derived from?
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 12:17:04 AM
fella you on stupidness yes.  There is a god or God you say YOU prove it.

If I tell you I have 10 million for you ent yuh want proof, yuh cyar go around spending a cent until yuh have it...YOU prove God or god or Allah or Mickey Mouse
I'm not the one going around here yr after yr telling ppl that god and religion is ah farce, you are! so you fackin prove it!

no one on here could tell you if i'm rasta, christian, muslim or jew, that's bc i keep my faith to my self, all they know iz i believe in jah, that's it, but they don't know sh!t else about what i subscribe to in terms of spiritual practice,

 but every body and their dog knows that you are an atheist, and the kind who hates religion with a passion. and how could they not know, when every ten seconds yuh does be pushing yuh belief on ppl by posting some anti religious article and spurring anti religious sentiments.     so for once, you prove it!


PS: i've been proving it for yrs, but yuh kept hurling your insults and deviating from the topic every time i had you cornered. this time, you fackin prove it!
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 04:26:51 AM
TT, after doing some serious recollection i came to ah conclusion on you, IMO you're not and has never been scientifically oriented. scientific minded ppl supposed to be seekers of truth and nothing more, and as far as i can see, you are definitely not a seeker of truth, and your attitude suggest just that.

no matter how much proof you get you will never believe in theism, bc you already have your preconceived notions.

you also hate religion bc yuh hate the idea of somebody telling you how tuh live yuh life, in other words, your arrogance and disdain for ppl saying yuh need to live ah discipline life allows you to accept the notion that God don't exist.  so i will stop here with you, stay cool.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 07:53:55 AM
more bullshit..  I will never follow some desert maniac whoi had a child wife, who marry he own daughter in law, who plunder and kill and whose followers  today are nothing but lunatics who kill rape victims in the name of God.

you claim to know the truth but your only evidence is in your own mind.  in science we cal that schizophrenia.  I dont hate religion, I hate the mind control and the abuse of people in the name of religion and God.

now.go pray
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 07:57:15 AM
steups, your arguments are as weak as your mind.  because it is incredulous it must have come from God..that is your puerile and weak ass argument?
pathetic
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 08:09:08 AM
this is not about science. Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?

wrong ... theists are not the one asserting that god does not exist. The existence of God is FAITH based that is why it falls outside the realm of science. We already acknowledge that it is non-scientific by calling it FAITH.

So if atheists insist on arguing with theists about the non-existence of god, then it is incumbent upon the atheists to Prove that God does not exist, not the other way around.


I think JC's post is bang on.







NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory

you so wrapped up in science that you don't know what you talking about when it comes to FAITH. It is now obvious to me that the concept of FAITH is so foreign to  you, your attempts to wrap it in science fails you without you even realizing it.

FAITH is NOT SCIENCE.  Therefore you cannot apply the scientific method to it.

While you trying to comprehend this, go prove that the following concepts exist:

1) Love
2) Beauty


Here is my signature:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

I believe. I don't have to prove my belief. It just is.

You on the other hand state that God does not exist. I see no evidence that God does not exist.  Tell me I am wrong.



Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 08:11:19 AM
TT, I also think you confusing Faith with Organized Religion.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 08:12:37 AM
And really what is the big deal if I believe in God?  So what.

I don't belittle you because you don't believe in God. Stop haranguing the believers.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 08:17:30 AM
Hole de presses


I now have definitive proof that God exists.

In what universe without a God will we observe that Just Cool and I agree on a topic (that God exists). God must be present in our midst to allow this to occur.   ;D

Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: JDB on July 11, 2012, 08:59:29 AM
JC I think yuh putting forward some very flawed arguments based on the false equivalence between atheism and religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply the absence of belief. There is none of the ritual, dogma, rules, congregation, structure that is present with religion.

You also make the mistake of giving atheism the same relevance to atheists as religion is to believers.

For atheists God is just something that other people believe in. Atheists don’t share the belief but their investment in “non-believeing” is no where near as great as the investment of religious people is in believing. Just as there is no interest or onus in you proving scientifically that the tooth fairy does not exist, an atheists existence is not dominated by the question of God.

As for science you are making a ridiculous demand to say that there has to be proof positive that God Does Not exist. You cannot assume an unknown (and immeasurable) as fact and then say prove it is not a fact. Again it is like saying “The magical character, Santas Claus, is real”…”show me proof that he isn’t”.


you also hate religion bc yuh hate the idea of somebody telling you how tuh live yuh life, in other words, your arrogance and disdain for ppl saying yuh need to live ah discipline life allows you to accept the notion that God don't exist.  so i will stop here with you, stay cool.

Just taking your original premise and applying it here. If atheism was the same as religion TT wouldn’t be an atheist since it dictates how he should live his life. It is either that TT can subject himself to a belief system that dictates how he must live or that atheism is not a religion.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 09:16:06 AM
JC I think yuh putting forward some very flawed arguments based on the false equivalence between atheism and religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply the absence of belief. There is none of the ritual, dogma, rules, congregation, structure that is present with religion.

You also make the mistake of giving atheism the same relevance to atheists as religion is to believers.

For atheists God is just something that other people believe in. Atheists don’t share the belief but their investment in “non-believeing” is no where near as great as the investment of religious people is in believing. Just as there is no interest or onus in you proving scientifically that the tooth fairy does not exist, an atheists existence is not dominated by the question of God.

As for science you are making a ridiculous demand to say that there has to be proof positive that God Does Not exist. You cannot assume an unknown (and immeasurable) as fact and then say prove it is not a fact. Again it is like saying “The magical character, Santas Claus, is real”…”show me proof that he isn’t”.


you also hate religion bc yuh hate the idea of somebody telling you how tuh live yuh life, in other words, your arrogance and disdain for ppl saying yuh need to live ah discipline life allows you to accept the notion that God don't exist.  so i will stop here with you, stay cool.

Just taking your original premise and applying it here. If atheism was the same as religion TT wouldn’t be an atheist since it dictates how he should live his life. It is either that TT can subject himself to a belief system that dictates how he must live or that atheism is not a religion.

JDB, you make some good points that apply to most atheists I know.

Yet how they live their life and the moral codes that dictate how they live it is not necessarily inconsistent with the moral codes of moderate religions. They do not observe or adopt the rituals associated with religion but I would argue that they rely on other social constructs (for example, "science" in TT case) to understand their role in the universe or the meaning of life.

Realize though, what triggered all of this debate is TT's on-going attacks on religion and his crusade that theists should abandon their beliefs because God is a fairy tale.

I would further argue that TT's investment in discrediting religion is equal to the investment that many theists have in their religion.




Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: Bakes on July 11, 2012, 09:24:39 AM

NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory

This is true if one is trying to make a scientific claim... but that's not the case here.  Your stance here is similar to Dinho's in that thread about Jack Warner being named Min. of National Security... where he challenged us to name a better candidate.  Classic burden shifting... he's correct that Jack is the best candidate because we cannot name a better candidate (even though we don't have all the facts to prove a better candidate does or does not exist).

Here you claim there is no God and challenge us to prove there is... even though we don't have all the FACTS to prove or disprove the existence of God.  It's one of the more elementary logical fallacies.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 09:25:37 AM
this is not about science. Science doh have to prove there is a god.  There is no evidence that one exists.

And this thread is about religion, yuh state big and bold that atheism is a religion...and yuh want scientific community to hold atheists to a scientific standard.

steups yuh have real time to chat shit...why yuh eh go and find the evidence that there is a god, God or gods or Gods for the scientific community to do some peer research on yuh discoveries?

wrong ... theists are not the one asserting that god does not exist. The existence of God is FAITH based that is why it falls outside the realm of science. We already acknowledge that it is non-scientific by calling it FAITH.

So if atheists insist on arguing with theists about the non-existence of god, then it is incumbent upon the atheists to Prove that God does not exist, not the other way around.


I think JC's post is bang on.







NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory

you so wrapped up in science that you don't know what you talking about when it comes to FAITH. It is now obvious to me that the concept of FAITH is so foreign to  you, your attempts to wrap it in science fails you without you even realizing it.

FAITH is NOT SCIENCE.  Therefore you cannot apply the scientific method to it.

While you trying to comprehend this, go prove that the following concepts exist:

1) Love
2) Beauty


Here is my signature:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

I believe. I don't have to prove my belief. It just is.

You on the other hand state that God does not exist. I see no evidence that God does not exist.  Tell me I am wrong.


You can take your signature from Hebrews all you want.

And I don't harangue believers it is the believers who harangue me.

I made a post that is all over the news feeds and justcool and to a lesser extent, you come with allyuh atheist shit.

If someone makes a post about religion out of a so called Holy Book, I am well within my rights to question it if there is no scientific basis to it.  ESPECIALLY if that person is trying to convince me that there is some science to it.

Let me bring you up to speed, I am well aware of the difference between faith and organized religion, in fact faith and religion are too separate things.

Imagine you tell me that I harangue believers, yet I am the one called dummy for believing hard cold scientific facts such as Natural selection!  Go figure.

I think it is easier to believe what I can see and prove over some argument from incredulity..that becasue we have no proof of something...as yet.....that it must have come from God.  That is a load of crapola.

I heard from several here over time the following:

You have faith when you sat in that chair.

You have faith when you start your car.

You have faith you will wake up each morning.

I have sat in many chairs before and they safely held me...so my faith is justified.

Sure, after I took it for a test drive and verified it runs. It since then has started up and proven itself trustworthy and reliable. Now the other car, not so much. The battery was dead (went bad) and it never started unless jumped. So my faith in that car went away. Then I replaced the battery and behold it runs now. Faith restored. But an earned faith.

Sure, after I was old enough to understand faith and was able to think. As a new born baby up until now I have had a daily experience called waking up. So I have had plenty of evidence to enable me to have faith.

So why don't you have faith in god?

Faith in something invisible and faith in something visible are two different things. I have faith in things I use each day because I have seen them work and even understand how they work. I spent many years in church and god has yet to earn my faith. At times I really did have faith and prayed, read the Bible and all that stuff. How many centuries did Christians believe and have faith the sun revolved around the earth?

Faith is something that is earned. Telling me to “just have faith” does nothing but lock me into your ideas and religion. It seems silly to just believe in something without real solid evidence to support it. If I lack faith I am accused on doubting god and hit with some guilt trip. Can you say “cult tactics”?

Blind faith is a dangerous tool that ruins lives. My faith in my car, waking up or a chair is not blind, but earned from working examples and evidence I have encountered throughout my life.

Bible says.

    “Lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths.”


What you are really being told is stop thinking on your own, listen to what others tell you about God and believe that, stop asking questions, apply faith.  Trouble is Faith in what?  Sounds like the shit they fed black people in the Southern USA for years while Jim Crow hung over their heads!

    “Well, you just didn't have enough faith!”

 With the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains according to the Bible. Yeah right!  When it does not happen for you, the answer is It was not in God’s will.   

The same warmed over generic answers? Answers like:

    “God only knows”
    “God has his reasons”
    “God works in strange and mysterious ways”
    “We cant know the ways of god”
    “You just gotta have faith”


Some old warmed over answers. Nothing really solid to hang onto. It's simple really. Since Christians aren't allowed to think they have to repeat everything that is taught them. For years that is all you hear answer wise.

I got so tired of asking tough questions just to get a stupid answer.

Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 09:26:00 AM
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
God as depicted in La Creazione (Creation) by Michelangelo
Professor Lynn said religious belief had declined in the 20th century Photo: AP

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

8:03PM BST 11 Jun 2008

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics.

Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.

But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors.

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".

Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 09:28:44 AM

NONSENSE!

If you assert something is..you prove it.  Are you aware of the scientific method?   YOU say XYZ science demands you prove it in the lab or otherwise,it is peer reviewed, replicated and verified. No blind shit about faith!  That cannot even meet the standard of a scientific theory

This is true if one is trying to make a scientific claim... but that's not the case here.  Your stance here is similar to Dinho's in that thread about Jack Warner being named Min. of National Security... where he challenged us to name a better candidate.  Classic burden shifting... he's correct that Jack is the best candidate because we cannot name a better candidate (even though we don't have all the facts to prove a better candidate does or does not exist).

Here you claim there is no God and challenge us to prove there is... even though we don't have all the FACTS to prove or disprove the existence of God.  It's one of the more elementary logical fallacies.

My response was to a suggestion that I prove God exists as a man of science.

Yuh talking my post out of context!

I well know that NO ONE can ever prove God exists, because there is no God!
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: lefty on July 11, 2012, 09:39:30 AM
I got so tired of asking tough questions just to get a stupid answer.

I have these issues too, but I try to respect peoples right to believe, I only take issue some religious peoples' unwillingness to  critically and cautiously apply the bible to said faith, the thing is much of the stupid answers pretty much stems from the notion that questioning the contents of the bible absolutely wrong regardless of what is written
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 09:44:30 AM
Pope Ratzinger:

    "Religious liberty can not justify freedom for divergence. This freedom does not aim at any freedom relative truth, but concerns the free descicion for a person to, according to his moral inclinations accept the truth."

Let them believe all they want. 
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 10:33:43 AM

You can take your signature from Hebrews all you want.

And I don't harangue believers it is the believers who harangue me.

I made a post that is all over the news feeds and justcool and to a lesser extent, you come with allyuh atheist shit.

If someone makes a post about religion out of a so called Holy Book, I am well within my rights to question it if there is no scientific basis to it.  ESPECIALLY if that person is trying to convince me that there is some science to it.

Let me bring you up to speed, I am well aware of the difference between faith and organized religion, in fact faith and religion are too separate things.

Imagine you tell me that I harangue believers, yet I am the one called dummy for believing hard cold scientific facts such as Natural selection!  Go figure.

I think it is easier to believe what I can see and prove over some argument from incredulity..that becasue we have no proof of something...as yet.....that it must have come from God.  That is a load of crapola.

I heard from several here over time the following:

You have faith when you sat in that chair.

You have faith when you start your car.

You have faith you will wake up each morning.

I have sat in many chairs before and they safely held me...so my faith is justified.

Sure, after I took it for a test drive and verified it runs. It since then has started up and proven itself trustworthy and reliable. Now the other car, not so much. The battery was dead (went bad) and it never started unless jumped. So my faith in that car went away. Then I replaced the battery and behold it runs now. Faith restored. But an earned faith.

Sure, after I was old enough to understand faith and was able to think. As a new born baby up until now I have had a daily experience called waking up. So I have had plenty of evidence to enable me to have faith.

So why don't you have faith in god?

Faith in something invisible and faith in something visible are two different things. I have faith in things I use each day because I have seen them work and even understand how they work. I spent many years in church and god has yet to earn my faith. At times I really did have faith and prayed, read the Bible and all that stuff. How many centuries did Christians believe and have faith the sun revolved around the earth?

Faith is something that is earned. Telling me to “just have faith” does nothing but lock me into your ideas and religion. It seems silly to just believe in something without real solid evidence to support it. If I lack faith I am accused on doubting god and hit with some guilt trip. Can you say “cult tactics”?

Blind faith is a dangerous tool that ruins lives. My faith in my car, waking up or a chair is not blind, but earned from working examples and evidence I have encountered throughout my life.

Bible says.

    “Lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths.”


What you are really being told is stop thinking on your own, listen to what others tell you about God and believe that, stop asking questions, apply faith.  Trouble is Faith in what?  Sounds like the shit they fed black people in the Southern USA for years while Jim Crow hung over their heads!

    “Well, you just didn't have enough faith!”

 With the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains according to the Bible. Yeah right!  When it does not happen for you, the answer is It was not in God’s will.   

The same warmed over generic answers? Answers like:

    “God only knows”
    “God has his reasons”
    “God works in strange and mysterious ways”
    “We cant know the ways of god”
    “You just gotta have faith”


Some old warmed over answers. Nothing really solid to hang onto. It's simple really. Since Christians aren't allowed to think they have to repeat everything that is taught them. For years that is all you hear answer wise.

I got so tired of asking tough questions just to get a stupid answer.



this is a well articulated overview of non-spiritual faith but the "bolded" part is certainly not true for me. And as far I know, no one is forcing you to adopt spiritual faith.


In my experience with the Anglican Church of Canada, I don't get the "warmed over answers" that you quoted. In fact, I remember a past Bishop of the Diocese of Huron stating that if we don't question our belief and faith in God, then we are truly lost. I must admit, that comment caught me by surprise and I can say that was a turning point in my spiritual journey.

So, this is one Christian who does not take the Bible literally, this is one Christian who accepts science (in fact my undergrad degrees are in physics and engineering and I rely on science to make a living), this is one Christian who questions the unbalances I see in the world everyday and try to understand why the Biblical God will allow this, this is one Christian who does not quote "it is the will of God" to explain away bad things. Maybe for some this make me un-Christian, but probably that is why I don't belong to their church nor they mine. Yeah, I agree with you that Blind Faith is a dangerous tool. Blind faith is a cult. That is not my kind of religion.

The reason why I say you "haranguing' the believers is that more often than not, you preface your posts with some acerbic remark about religion that paints all believers with the same brush. that is why in this case, I felt compelled to response.

I have no argument with atheists. What I object to is the constant attack on religion when one can argue that science has failed mankind in many regards as well.  I don't, because typically when "science fails", it is really man's failure in using the results of science in a negative fashion. No different in the way some people of religion use it negatively.


Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 11:10:29 AM
What parts of the Bible you do not take literally?  lol

I preface my post with God is Great, and This is Christian love...that is Haranguing?

The Bishop of Canada saying that you should question your faith is nothing special, if that is all it took to make a turn in your spiritual journey all I can is did not take much..same mindless journey.

You believe in a personal God and salvation?  Anyway the Anglican Church of Canada has little moral authority to declare anything to me!  I distinctly remember the sex and physical abuse scandal with aboriginal children.  SOme children burned with cigarettes and punched in the ear so hard they lost their hearing. 

A legacy of shame!
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 11:20:50 AM
I went to trinity College, an Anglican Church, was raised an Anglican went Sunday school at All Saints, Abdullah was Bishop...nasty stinking The Very Rev'd R.I.Colin Sampson, Dean and Rector of the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.  Likes to bull little boys, I remember one day when studying to go to Codrington..yeah I was planning to go there, I see a little indian boy from Fatima walk in the rectory with Sampson and come out with he clothes rumpled and a big hickey on he neck.

Not me sir...
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: Bakes on July 11, 2012, 11:34:50 AM
Well it's a good thing Atheists doh bull little boys... or commit any of these ills that you attribute to Christianity.  Whew, what a relief!
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: JDB on July 11, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
This is true if one is trying to make a scientific claim... but that's not the case here.  Your stance here is similar to Dinho's in that thread about Jack Warner being named Min. of National Security... where he challenged us to name a better candidate.  Classic burden shifting... he's correct that Jack is the best candidate because we cannot name a better candidate (even though we don't have all the facts to prove a better candidate does or does not exist).

Here you claim there is no God and challenge us to prove there is... even though we don't have all the FACTS to prove or disprove the existence of God.  It's one of the more elementary logical fallacies.


I agree with this in part. God is an article of faith and as such cannot be proven. Science is not really used to disprove that God is real, just used to show that there is no objective evidence of such.

I think that the problem is that people do put forward phenomena as examples of God that really can’t be proven as being attributed to God. Good science can disprove all these examples and still leave the possibility that there can be an, as yet unproven, God.

JC gone to the other extreme putting forward God as real and challenging people to prove otherwise. Obvioously that is a useless exercise.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 11:54:16 AM
What parts of the Bible you do not take literally?  lol

I preface my post with God is Great, and This is Christian love...that is Haranguing?

The Bishop of Canada saying that you should question your faith is nothing special, if that is all it took to make a turn in your spiritual journey all I can is did not take much..same mindless journey.

You believe in a personal God and salvation?  Anyway the Anglican Church of Canada has little moral authority to declare anything to me!  I distinctly remember the sex and physical abuse scandal with aboriginal children.  SOme children burned with cigarettes and punched in the ear so hard they lost their hearing. 

A legacy of shame!


I have already acknowledged the atrocities committed by religious people.  Yep they have a monopoly on abuse. No one else abuses little boys.

Yeah yeah, yeah and your response is that religious people should be held to a higher standard because they invoke the name of God etc. etc, etc.

Evil is evil is evil whether religious based on not.

Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 11:55:00 AM
I went to trinity College, an Anglican Church, was raised an Anglican went Sunday school at All Saints, Abdullah was Bishop...nasty stinking The Very Rev'd R.I.Colin Sampson, Dean and Rector of the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.  Likes to bull little boys, I remember one day when studying to go to Codrington..yeah I was planning to go there, I see a little indian boy from Fatima walk in the rectory with Sampson and come out with he clothes rumpled and a big hickey on he neck.

Not me sir...

right ....
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
What parts of the Bible you do not take literally?  lol

I preface my post with God is Great, and This is Christian love...that is Haranguing?

The Bishop of Canada saying that you should question your faith is nothing special, if that is all it took to make a turn in your spiritual journey all I can is did not take much..same mindless journey.

You believe in a personal God and salvation?  Anyway the Anglican Church of Canada has little moral authority to declare anything to me!  I distinctly remember the sex and physical abuse scandal with aboriginal children.  SOme children burned with cigarettes and punched in the ear so hard they lost their hearing. 

A legacy of shame!


I have already acknowledged the atrocities committed by religious people.  Yep they have a monopoly on abuse. No one else abuses little boys.

Yeah yeah, yeah and your response is that religious people should be held to a higher standard because they invoke the name of God etc. etc, etc.

Evil is evil is evil whether religious based on not.



Exactly.   And yes evil is evil, but religious not supposed to be evil.  Not so?  A light for the lost like me...?  Not so?  Answer truthfully.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 12:08:06 PM
I went to trinity College, an Anglican Church, was raised an Anglican went Sunday school at All Saints, Abdullah was Bishop...nasty stinking The Very Rev'd R.I.Colin Sampson, Dean and Rector of the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.  Likes to bull little boys, I remember one day when studying to go to Codrington..yeah I was planning to go there, I see a little indian boy from Fatima walk in the rectory with Sampson and come out with he clothes rumpled and a big hickey on he neck.

Not me sir...

right ....

You say right...is that a yuh lie right?   Sampson does f**k little boys.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
Well it's a good thing Atheists doh bull little boys... or commit any of these ills that you attribute to Christianity.  Whew, what a relief!

Atheists are not proclaiming to commune with God, nor are they religious leaders who represent God.  There is a big difference.

Don't try to play that part down. 

Can show that atheists are organized and shield each other from such heinous crimes as child sexual abuse. Can you show where atheists are sued for decades upon decades (perhaps centuries) of child sexual and physical abuse?

You are a smart man, you know that the Church has failed!  And failed in a colossal manner.

And JDB, you are correct, science cannot as of yet declare that there is evidence that disproves a God. But the incredulity argument that science cannot explain it so it must be God is shit.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 12:14:27 PM
What parts of the Bible you do not take literally?  lol

I preface my post with God is Great, and This is Christian love...that is Haranguing?

The Bishop of Canada saying that you should question your faith is nothing special, if that is all it took to make a turn in your spiritual journey all I can is did not take much..same mindless journey.

You believe in a personal God and salvation?  Anyway the Anglican Church of Canada has little moral authority to declare anything to me!  I distinctly remember the sex and physical abuse scandal with aboriginal children.  SOme children burned with cigarettes and punched in the ear so hard they lost their hearing. 

A legacy of shame!


I have already acknowledged the atrocities committed by religious people.  Yep they have a monopoly on abuse. No one else abuses little boys.

Yeah yeah, yeah and your response is that religious people should be held to a higher standard because they invoke the name of God etc. etc, etc.

Evil is evil is evil whether religious based on not.



Exactly.   And yes evil is evil, but religious not supposed to be evil.  Not so?  A light for the lost like me...?  Not so?  Answer truthfully.

You are correct. But it is not religion per se that commits the atrocities. It is man taking advantage of the situation.  And that is the point I have being trying to make in this whole exchange.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 12:22:11 PM
Quote
Exactly.   And yes evil is evil, but religious not supposed to be evil.  Not so?  A light for the lost like me...?  Not so?  Answer truthfully.

You are correct. But it is not religion per se that commits the atrocities. It is man taking advantage of the situation.  And that is the point I have being trying to make in this whole exchange.

Off course is man taking advantage of the situation, religion is a construct, it is nothing but an idea, man made religion!..lol  BUT....Would you agree that some religious organizations have shielded these men for many, many many years, moving them around as the allegations swirl and gain momentum?  That they deny the atrocities? 

That some of the leaders who are heralded as God's representative on earth are corrupt nasty f**kers?  That the entire hierarchy of these organizations are built on lies?
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 12:24:46 PM
I bet you that if you belonged to the Lions Club or the Rotary club and it was revealed that they have been for years sexually abusing Children and using their name of being a great social service organization to hide their crimes yuh would leave dem and disavow dem first allegation.

Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: Bakes on July 11, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Well it's a good thing Atheists doh bull little boys... or commit any of these ills that you attribute to Christianity.  Whew, what a relief!

Atheists are not proclaiming to commune with God, nor are they religious leaders who represent God.  There is a big difference.

Don't try to play that part down. 

Can show that atheists are organized and shield each other from such heinous crimes as child sexual abuse. Can you show where atheists are sued for decades upon decades (perhaps centuries) of child sexual and physical abuse?

You are a smart man, you know that the Church has failed!  And failed in a colossal manner.

And JDB, you are correct, science cannot as of yet declare that there is evidence that disproves a God. But the incredulity argument that science cannot explain it so it must be God is shit.

Look stop talking shit.  You want to blame the failings of a few Christians on all of Christianity then be my guest, but don't come with yuh foolishness acting as though this is a problem with Christians as opposed to some who call themselves Christians.  The Bible itself says that many will come in [Jesus'] name and claim to be prophets, paraphrasing, will claim to represent Christ and his teachings.  He made it clear that these are false prophets...and anyone with an iota of intelligence will readily be able to distinguish between those who corrupt the tenets of Christianity for their own purposes, and the teachings of Christ himself. 

You steady bitching about abuses by individuals and failures of "the church" but cannot point to anything inherent to the faith that encourages, promotes of abets these abuses.  You seem incapable or unwilling to separate the two and that is a failing only you can address, but don't come here talking shit and carrying on as though is absolute and perfect sense yuh making.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
It is always not the Religion it is always the man, how is then a religion without the adherents?

Bullshit!

You are wrong though there is much about the "faith" that encourages the rape and abuse of innocents.

How bad does a long-established massive international pedophilic child abuse organization have to be?

What does it take, how many hundreds of thousands of innocent children have to be defiled and humiliated and abused before the whole thing – priests, parishes, bishoprics, diocese, nunneries, the whole shebang – gets closed own and wrapped with yellow crime tape, everyone arrested?

Answer that!

Right under John Paul’s express authority and supervision, Benedict (current pope) was in charge of investigating child abuse and rape in his Holy ordained role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and what the two of them did with their power and authority was systematically cover it all up for as long as they could.

On their watch hundreds – perhaps thousands – of child rapists were hidden, protected, and set back upon unsuspecting communities and their innocent children, all the while wearing the full authority of The Church of Rome, their collar and cassock carrying the imprimatur of apostolic infallibility.

What about the faith you ask?

The Roman Catholic Church is a cult of torture, abuse, and sexual exploitation. It has been so since the inception. For nearly two thousand years, the Papist throne has in the name of all that is holy rejected, rebuked and defiled the teachings of the god they claim to revere.

The US  Church’s doctrinal office elected to proceed with church trials for less than 10% of the 3000 cases of abuse reported to them between the years of 2000 and 2010. 

(http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/ratz.jpg)

This man sent a letter to Bishops threatening to throw them out of the church if they fail. “Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10 year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.”  This had to deal with child sexual abuse.

How is this excuseable and separate from the "faith?"
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: pecan on July 11, 2012, 03:11:01 PM
I went to trinity College, an Anglican Church, was raised an Anglican went Sunday school at All Saints, Abdullah was Bishop...nasty stinking The Very Rev'd R.I.Colin Sampson, Dean and Rector of the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.  Likes to bull little boys, I remember one day when studying to go to Codrington..yeah I was planning to go there, I see a little indian boy from Fatima walk in the rectory with Sampson and come out with he clothes rumpled and a big hickey on he neck.

Not me sir...

right ....

You say right...is that a yuh lie right?   Sampson does f**k little boys.

look, the RC church has covered up abuse and moved priest around without addressing the situation. I have no argument there.

Yet, I went to CIC for two years and was even in the 6th Trinidad sea scouts. The priests I encountered never behaved inappropriately. On the contrary, they guided and led and for that I am a better person. That is the type of religion and church I defend.


The Anglicans are no saints too. In Canada, as you so correctly pointed out, the abuse that the First Nation children were subjected to in the residential schools can never be excused. However, the present hierarchy of the Anglican Church of Canada have not hidden or shied away from past malfeasance and have issued apologies and settlements.

Truth and Reconciliation - Residential Schools (http://www.anglican.ca/relationships/trc)

Apology (http://www.anglican.ca/relationships/trc/apology/english)

Ultimately the ACC paid for the settlements (not that money will fix the trauma, but at least it will help) with one Diocese declaring bankruptcy and assets liquidated.

So the ACC put their money where their mouth.

I am not so much defending my religion as I am trying to illustrate that not all Christians or Muslims for that matter, should be subjected to the same scorn as the abusers and corrupt ones.

Either you abandon the church or stay and try to make it a better place.

PS, I eh know about Sampson. I tried googling him and found his profile. He only became a priest in 1980. How ole you is? I thought you were in your 50's. How could you be observing Sampson back then? If you were an adult, what prevented you from exposing him? I also checked his Interest in his profile and it made no mention of liking little Indian boys. Only classical music swimming and other mundane stuff.

Finally, I eh trying to impose any moral authority on you.

Religion is not for everyone but for some, it does work, regardless of your opinion that Religion is a crock.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
This is my point exactly, pecan. this man will do anything in order to avoid the issue, and the issue was , and still is, atheism has fack all to do with science! so allyuh please stop attributing science to this man, he has no interest in science, but instead he's anti GOD, religion, theism.

like i said before, science is the method used to figure out and trouble shoot our existence and the universe, in layman terms, the dynamics of science is explaining the creation, just like nature is the natural order of things, but nature is not an entity, and so is science.

real science is all about facts and truth seeking, and the atheist community are not truth seeker, this is why i called it a cult and a religion like unto theism, bc they are taking a strong position without any conclusive proof.

go back in TT post and see how many times he said out right, "there is "NO" GOD," just go back as far as you can and read his past post on this subject, you will find every time where he express this phrase "there is "NO" GOD", with absolution, not "i'm not sure is there a god,  i don't believe there is a god, or i'm not sure bout that, no, just like crick , dawkins and bill maher who all make definite claims that the existence of god is a fallacy, now should i not put these people in the category of belief systems, after all, what are they doing so different from fella like TD jakes and creeflow dollar? pushing their beliefs on others.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
eh pecan, ah bet yuh anything that the mad bull will come back name calling and cussin instead of defending his position amicably, yuh wanna bet? he never disappoints.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 05:53:50 PM
MR JDB, i know it's hard to swallow, but atheism is ah movement as well as a cult, and very much so an ideology. and yes they do have gatherings and convention to celebrate their common beliefs.

like you also forgetting that there are/were countries in the world where religion is out law, and ppl went to jail for practicing religion bc the sociaty was predicated on atheism which was the order of the day. vladimire lennin said that he was going to model russia as the consummate atheistic country.

i have to admit that i didn't really mean that they are as a religion in the same light as a god based faith, but more so in the light of an ideal that takes precedent and trumps most things in their life, which in any case does not represent science, bc science is neutral. check out this clip , from minute 13:55 -14:35.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&feature=related

you said they are not organized as religion, and i beg to differ. it's a known fact that they are becoming quite the movement and is more organized than ever these days. they have magazines, conventions,

here's some evidence of that.   
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/
http://atheistsunited.org/affiliated-organizations
http://www.christianpost.com/news/imagine-no-religion-canadian-atheist-convention-sells-out-75124/
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/why-do-atheists-gather
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: just cool on July 11, 2012, 06:29:51 PM
Now i could get with this scientist, and i don't mean the creationist, but the atheist jason wiles, he's honest and forth coming. he also doesn't attribute atheism to science, and doesn't say with certainty that there's no divinity, and this is my beef in a nut shell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&feature=related
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: Bakes on July 11, 2012, 07:38:39 PM
It is always not the Religion it is always the man, how is then a religion without the adherents?

Bullshit!

You are wrong though there is much about the "faith" that encourages the rape and abuse of innocents.

How bad does a long-established massive international pedophilic child abuse organization have to be?

What does it take, how many hundreds of thousands of innocent children have to be defiled and humiliated and abused before the whole thing – priests, parishes, bishoprics, diocese, nunneries, the whole shebang – gets closed own and wrapped with yellow crime tape, everyone arrested?

Answer that!

Right under John Paul’s express authority and supervision, Benedict (current pope) was in charge of investigating child abuse and rape in his Holy ordained role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and what the two of them did with their power and authority was systematically cover it all up for as long as they could.

On their watch hundreds – perhaps thousands – of child rapists were hidden, protected, and set back upon unsuspecting communities and their innocent children, all the while wearing the full authority of The Church of Rome, their collar and cassock carrying the imprimatur of apostolic infallibility.

What about the faith you ask?

The Roman Catholic Church is a cult of torture, abuse, and sexual exploitation. It has been so since the inception. For nearly two thousand years, the Papist throne has in the name of all that is holy rejected, rebuked and defiled the teachings of the god they claim to revere.

The US  Church’s doctrinal office elected to proceed with church trials for less than 10% of the 3000 cases of abuse reported to them between the years of 2000 and 2010. 

(http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/ratz.jpg)

This man sent a letter to Bishops threatening to throw them out of the church if they fail. “Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10 year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.”  This had to deal with child sexual abuse.

How is this excuseable and separate from the "faith?"

Does the Roman Catholic church encompass ALL of Christianity?  I finding it increasingly hard to bite my tongue in addressing you on this so leh we just leave it where it is and move on.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 11, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
I dd report Sampson to  Knolly Clarke  he get ordained after that, what you expected after Abdullah allowed Father John Sewell to leave T&T for Ireland under cover of darkness  when he was being investigated for raping/molesting over 300 little black boys in T&T?

Expected anything else?


Sampson was a Deacon long before he became a "Father'" fella...long before, I know this creature since late 70's.  Go research some more.

He also told me that Jesus was Gay and used to have his beloved John lay his head on his breast.  Sick f**k that he is.
Title: Re: Atheism, science or cult?
Post by: truetrini on July 12, 2012, 04:04:28 PM
Confidence in organized religion hits all-time low in Gallup poll


(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120712-gallup-poll.photoblog600.jpg)



gallup.com

By Jason White, msnbc.com

Americans' confidence in religious institutions has hit an all-time low, with only 44 percent expressing a "great deal" of confidence in organized religion, according to a new Gallup survey.


Follow @msnbc_us

This follows a downward trend since the 1970s, when 68 percent of Americans had a high degree of confidence.

Gallup cites two big blows to confidence in organized religion: 1980s scandals involving televangelists like Jim Bakker and the Catholic sex abuse scandal in the 2000s.
 
Perhaps as an outgrowth of the abuse scandal, Catholics lag far behind Protestants in their confidence in the church, by a margin of 10 percentage points.

But the scandals of recent decades, and the ensuing lack of confidence in organized religion, are not necessarily affecting the importance of religion in peoples' lives, Gallup finds.

"While various sex abuse scandals involving U.S. clerics have likely played a role in Americans' growing skepticism about the church and organized religion, the decline in confidence does not necessarily indicate a decline in Americans' personal attachment to religion," writes Lydia Saad of Gallup. "The percentage of Americans saying religion is very important in their lives has held fairly steady since the mid-1970s, after dropping sharply from 1952 levels."

It's also worth noting that organized religion is far from the only institution in which Americans are losing confidence. Americans also are souring on schools, banks and television news, according to Gallup's survey.


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12706531-confidence-in-organized-religion-hits-all-time-low-in-gallup-poll?lite