Religion on Sharenator

I see arguments over religion on this site all of the time, and it looks to me like the majority of you are atheist. I was wondering what variations there are between us.

I was Christened Roman catholic but now choose to be known as atheist, personally I am not prejudice toward people who are religious, I just don't see sense in it.

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 18

    a wise man once said if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. i believe in god, but i do not believe that man truly understands who and what god is.

    i could not agree with you more on that johnecash
    - gw2250 October 22, 2010, 9:45 am
    just speaking my mind. to me the only proof of god i need is we all know that something never comes from nothing. 0 x 0 will always = 0. yet here we are.
    - johnecash October 22, 2010, 10:27 am
    If we don't know what god is, can we even call it god? It could just be energy, or something that we don't yet understand.
    - CrazyJay October 22, 2010, 11:50 am
    when i say god i mean that something out there that allows all of us to be here now. that something that made nothing into the universe. we can call that god. you may name what you don't understand.
    - johnecash October 22, 2010, 11:53 am
    Well, according to Steven Hawking, we can explain the creation of the universe without god. (Not to say that there is beyond the shadow of a doubt no god, rather we have a natural explanation for its creation.) I'm not sure what the details are, I've been meaning to pick up his latest book so I can see for myself.
    - CrazyJay October 22, 2010, 11:58 am
    all i offer is one man's opinion. as smart as hawkings is even he does not know it all. his opinion is different from mine.
    - johnecash October 22, 2010, 12:24 pm
    The evidence shows that the mostly likely cause of the Universe's formation is quantum vacuum fluctuations. The universe was never nothing : ).
    - Logos385 October 23, 2010, 7:43 am
    if you believe in a circular universe then your are correct. the other option is a linear universe. until some one can show me that 0+0= anything other than 0, to me that all the proof i need that out of nothing, something was made. now i have given you one theory. as far as i know up to this point all we have is theory.
    - johnecash October 23, 2010, 8:01 am
    At this point is where it gets strange, because both categories of the Universe's origin "Linear" ones and "Circular" ones, as you call them, apply to what I was saying. This is because of E=MC^2. The "nothing" at the beginning is simply the lack of matter. This lack of matter directly corresponds to a great amount of permeating energy, which consistently fluctuates due to the Uncertainty Principle. This fluctuation ultimately resulted in an energy-→matter transformation that jump-started the creation of our Universe.

    Although there isn't much direct evidence, the indirect evidence is mounting. All of the math works out with unprecedented accuracy, all experiments with matter-energy conversions have been confirming the theory, etc.

    All I mean is that there really is no need to say that something came from nothing, for it is likely that we never had nothing. We may have had a situation devoid of matter, but massenergy can never be created or destroyed, meaning it's always been here, whether in mass form or energy form.
    - Logos385 October 24, 2010, 8:15 am
    that is your personal belief. to me i know that nothing + nothing = nothing.
    - johnecash November 2, 2010, 6:01 am
    It's not my personal belief. It would be a sound scientific consensus based on observational evidence and rational inquiry.
    - Logos385 November 5, 2010, 6:27 am
    don't confuse fact with theory no matter how sound the theory its not a fact.
    - johnecash November 5, 2010, 6:42 am
    I'm not confusing fact with theory, I believe you are confusing scientific theory with colloquial theory. Scientific theory is extremely well-supported, whereas colloquial theory is not.
    - Logos385 November 6, 2010, 7:37 am
    i would love to understand you more so i ask this
    you feel that theory, with enough support is a fact?
    - johnecash November 6, 2010, 7:40 am
    No offense, but I'll take the word of one of the most respected scientists of our time over someone I've met over the internet who appears to have no background in it.
    - CrazyJay November 6, 2010, 2:07 pm
    so theory is fact?
    - johnecash November 6, 2010, 5:27 pm
    It can be both. A scientific theory is used to explain a fact.
    - CrazyJay November 6, 2010, 5:48 pm
    so a theory your are supporting is fact? with what you say i agree but are you also saying a theory is fact?
    - johnecash November 6, 2010, 6:05 pm
    Yes, a theory can be a fact. Words have more than one meaning, take hot for example. It can mean either high temperature or attractive. Just like theory can mean hypothesis or fact.
    - CrazyJay November 6, 2010, 6:15 pm
    fair enough if you admitting theory is fact. i don't feet as such be more power to ya.
    - johnecash November 6, 2010, 6:21 pm
    - Logos385 November 7, 2010, 11:24 am
    then you are just giving me a theory not a fact, just as i clearly said about, this is just one man's theory, not a fact. there are other theories other than mine.
    - johnecash November 7, 2010, 5:04 pm
    Once again, a scientific theory is very different from a normal theory. A scientific theory reflects a scientific consensus. Which means I am giving you what the scientific world is 99%+ sure occurred. Although this is not a fact, there is no point in throwing out hypotheses that are completely without evidentiary backing unless you show that they have more validity than what the scientific world agrees on.
    - Logos385 November 7, 2010, 5:30 pm
    i am sorry but theory is not fact no matter how well supported. only fact is fact. the extraordinary assumption one must take, if proven incorrect, can be a game changer in the theory. thats why until all is know about a subject its a theory and not a fact.
    - johnecash November 7, 2010, 5:42 pm
    I never claimed it was a fact above.

    Look, this distinction you are trying to make here about theory vs. fact is meaningless.

    Your argument is something like:
    1. The big bang is a theory
    2. Theory is not fact
    3. Thus, the big bang might was well just be considered wrong.
    4. Therefore, one may believe whatever they feel about Earth's origins, no matter how unsupported.

    Thus is equivalent to this argument-

    1. Gravity is theory.
    2. Theory is not fact.
    3. Thus, gravity may as well be considered wrong.
    4. Therefore, one may believe anything they want about how masses interact, no matter how unsupported. Including that everyone's feet happen to be extremely sticky, thus we humans don't float. Or god forbid intelligent falling.

    You can see why it's hard for me to accept your current position.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 4:42 am
    you don't have to accept my theory (An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances). while we do know that there is gravity we don't fully understand it yet, thats why its called a theory. the fact that we have gravity is a fact. how gravity works is a theory. your guess is as good as mine. i am not trying to disprove any theory you have given, only that the theory i believe in is different. the logic you have used to try and understand my point is way off. what you need to understand is the difference between a theory and a fact. there is a reason for the distinction that people smarter than us placed on them. every theory you have given are good one's, but i don't believe in them. thats ok. you don't always have to believe all hypothetical beliefs that i do. but you do need to understand the difference between a fact and a theory, no matter how well supported.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 5:52 am
    I do understand the difference. I promise you.

    What I am saying is that to not believe in what the scientific community has deemed "theory" is to not believe in the scientific process itself. It would be what is known as "unscientific." I guess since I am such a science proponent, I assume no one wants to be unscientific. However, if you wish to be so, that is up to you. I apologize for assuming your goal was to be scientific.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 5:55 am
    just as i assumed you goal was to be scientific. you act as if theory is fact. if your goal was to be as you put it, scientific, you would never confuse the two. yet here we are as you try and convince me that your theory is the only correct theory like its a fact.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 6:00 am
    Being correct and being factual are two entirely different things.

    I am using scientific consensus with evidentiary backing to refute your claim that "nothing comes from nothing." The scientific LAW of conservation of massenergy directly contradicts your claim that there ever was nothing, as does the Big Bang Theory, and many other scientific laws, theories, and facts. Something doesn't have to be a fact to be correct.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 6:05 am
    so you feel that the theories you are offering are the only correct ones? as some one what takes the scientific approach i would recommend against that out look on life since you can miss a fact by chasing a sound theory. no matter how many people believe in it, no matter how many facts you have supporting it, until you have all the facts supporting it, its a theory hence the name. a wonderful example would be the theory that we as men can not break the sound barrier. all the fact let to a very convincing theory that was popular during its time. yet here we are proving that very sound theory wrong every day.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 6:20 am
    That was never a scientific theory. It was a colloquial theory. As I said, you do not understand the difference.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 6:22 am
    just as i would say you don't understand the difference between a fact and a theory.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 6:24 am
    Fact: Something known to exist or have happened (generally through direct observation).

    Theory: Contemplation or speculation; guess or conjecture.

    Scientific Theory: systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. Theories must be falsifiable.


    Currently, the theories I am offering are the only conceivable correct ones. No current laws, observations, facts, logical arguments, etc. contradict the Big Bang. Many laws, observations, facts, and logical arguments support the Big Bang.

    Currently, many laws, observations, facts, and logical arguments disagree with your statement of "nothing comes from nothing" in its current context. No laws, observations, facts, or logical arguments support your statement in its current context (of the discussion of the Universe's origins).

    Thus, since all of the data points towards what I say, as do all of the laws, observations, facts, and logical arguments, I feel as if I am safe in assuming my position to be scientifically superior to yours. And the scientific community agrees with me.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 6:39 am
    so far you feel your theory is the only one due to the facts backing it up. if your theory is the only one, why is it not called a fact then? its not called a fact due to extraordinary circumstances that could prove the entire theory null and void. due to these extraordinary circumstances your theory is not a fact. so at the end of the day your guess is as good as mine.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 6:43 am
    The reason it is not considered fact is because by definition no theory can ever gain fact status. No matter how accurate or well-supported it is. You are once again showing your ignorance on the subject of scientific theory. Gravitational Theory, Germ Theory, Atomic Thoery, Cell Theory, all are NOT facts, because it is, by definition, impossible for them to be such.

    What extraordinary circumstances are you talking about?

    My "guess" is not a "guess." It's a scientific theory. There's a GIGANTIC difference in those two terms that you refuse to see. I'm getting tired of you not actually putting forth any sort of argument.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 6:56 am
    a theory is a guess. we have established that a long time ago. i am not trying to change your mind since all theories are just guesses. and yes before its a fact, its a theory. but to be proven a fact a theory must be shown to be the truth. so far you offer only theories. no more no less. don't confuse them with facts.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 7:03 am
    If you were talking about colloquial things, maybe half of that statement would be correct.

    Please refer above to the definition of scientific theory I have already given you.

    A scientific theory can never be a fact. Ever. It is an EXPLANATION, and explanations can, by definition, never be facts. You simply don't understand this- even if a theory is shown to be true/correct as a theory can be shown to be- it CANNOT ever be a fact. Ever. It is literally impossible for a theory to become a fact in the scientific realm.

    Here are again some definitions:
    Scientific Law: A rule the universe is observed to follow. Not a fact.

    Scientific Conjecture: A guess without any scientific backing. It appears to be correct, but is completely unproven. This is synonymous with the colloquial definition of theory. Not a fact.

    Scientific Hypothesis: The initial stage of an explanation. A testable explanation which is falsifiable. Not a fact.

    Scientific Theory: The final stage of an explanation. A tested explanation which is falsifiable. It has been tested and not falsified. This is the highest status a scientific explanation can ever achieve, by definition.

    First a testable explanation is an hypothesis. Second, an experimental procedure is drawn up to test such a hypothesis. Third, that experiment is done, and a conclusion is made based on the evidence. Fourth, that conclusion is published and submitted for peer review. Fifth, that conclusion is scrutinized, the experiment repeated, the hypothesis discussed, etc, worldwide. Six, if the hypothesis passes the process, it advances to the triumphant status of theory. WHich is the highest it can ever possibly go.

    I am done attempting to explain the scientific process to you. If you want to discuss this more, please make sure you are using correct terminology and logical assertions. Otherwise I will not be responding.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 7:16 am
    no one is forcing you to reply. its up to you.
    as of yet you don't seem to understand that no matter how sound a theory is, its not a fact. since a theory is not a fact, there can be many different theories.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 7:20 am
    Absolutely. A theory is not a fact, as I clearly outlined above.

    We use facts to either support or rule out theories. We also use laws to do the same. Your assertion (not on par with either hypothesis or conjecture yet) that the Universe began as nothing would start as one assertion, but then remain such an assertion until formalized and tested. It has been formalized and tested, and does not agree with one of the most fundamental laws of our universe- the conservation of massenergy. Thus, your assertion is ruled out.

    The only current scientific assertion that has not been eliminated, and has been standing for quite some time, is the Big Bang Theory, which has passed the trials into the theory status. It is not the only IDEA concerning the subject, but IS currently the only THEORY. (I use caps instead of bolding, not meant to be inflammatory or to signify yelling. Just formal emphasis.) There could be many different theories, but on this subject, no hypothesis stood up to scrutiny but that of the Big Bang.
    - Logos385 November 10, 2010, 2:23 pm
    as the old saying goes, you never know, until you know. in no way shape or form have i said any of your theories are not plausible. since until we know, we don't know. what i am saying is this, your theory is not the one i believe to be true. until the question at hand is know as fact, all we have is theory. my personal belief due to reasons i have mentioned is that there is a beginning and an end.
    - johnecash November 10, 2010, 7:14 pm
    And as I said, you are welcome to be unscientific and hold that belief.
    - Logos385 November 13, 2010, 9:36 am
    but...... he just showed that 0 x 0 wasn't the case.

    In every statement in the world, the speaker should back up his statement with evidence, and if he can't then the information in the statement is unreliable.
    - Jackylegs November 13, 2010, 10:47 am
    my statement is nothing more than a theory.
    - johnecash November 14, 2010, 8:29 am
    you are correct, until we know i may hold any theory i would like.
    - johnecash November 14, 2010, 8:30 am
    ....And be unscientific.
    - Logos385 November 19, 2010, 7:10 am
    It's nothing more than a wild guess... Please see all of my above definitions or I will be forced to Facepalm.
    - Logos385 November 19, 2010, 7:10 am
    yes i know you feel theory is fact.
    - johnecash November 19, 2010, 7:17 am
    you may call me unscientific just as i may call you close minded.
    - johnecash November 19, 2010, 7:18 am
    - Logos385 November 19, 2010, 7:35 am
    - Logos385 November 19, 2010, 7:36 am
    yep, sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you are closed minded to those who don't think like you in this matter. a true scientist will consider all possible outcomes until the facts are know. theory is not fact. that is why we have the word theory and not just call everything fact.
    - johnecash November 19, 2010, 7:38 am
    *to you
    - nayzar February 23, 2011, 6:48 am
    if its a fact its called a fact. learn to read my eager friend. its called a theory or a reason.
    - johnecash February 25, 2011, 8:39 am
    You're still incorrect.
    - CrazyJay February 25, 2011, 8:48 am
    before you attempt to study anything many would suggest you study english or what ever your native tung is so that you may understand words. they are used for a reason. you don't have to argue with me, you need to argue with the govern body of language.
    - johnecash February 25, 2011, 11:05 am
    my take on the subject is that a scientific theory is fact until proven otherwise e.g gravity. most people would say gravity is a fact although it is just a scientific theory (well apart from the WBC, but they are bonkers)
    - zebidybob February 25, 2011, 1:05 pm
    - zebidybob February 25, 2011, 1:07 pm
    1. I've already explained this. Of course fact means fact, and a scientific theory is what we use to explain a fact. If you're trying to disprove that, you're wrong and it's hilarious that it took you months to even attempt to reply.

    2. You make so many elementary school level grammar/spelling mistakes in your comments that you have no business questioning my comprehension of the English language. If anything, you're the one having trouble with it. There's also the hefty yet articulate response you got from logos as well. If between the two of us you still don't get it, you must be an idiot.

    I won't waste anymore time with you. This is an old argument, I'm done feeding the troll.
    - CrazyJay February 26, 2011, 2:46 am
    its a shame you could complain about my spelling and grammar yet not know the difference between a theory and fact. i hate to say i too am not arguing. its a fact that a fact and theory are not one in the same. it is a waist of my time to try and teach you basic vocabulary.
    - johnecash February 26, 2011, 6:34 am
    Haters gonna hate bro
    - MalverdeAl100 February 26, 2011, 6:36 am
    Did you even READ anything Logos or I typed? Scientific theory is based on consensus. People do the research to conclude how something works, then develop the theory to explain it. Scientific theory isn't a guess, more like a compilation of knowledge related to a topic. You're getting stuck on the word theory, because you're assuming that theory always equals guesswork, when quite frankly, it doesn't.

    Again, questioning my knowledge of vocabulary, after making several rudimentary grammar and spelling mistakes. Here's a lesson for you. Waist and Waste have completely different meanings. Hope you know them.
    - CrazyJay February 26, 2011, 6:55 am
    your welcome for the nice job. i am going to stop feeding the troll that is you. if you want to live a life where you don't know english vocabulary go on an be my guest.
    - johnecash February 26, 2011, 7:00 am
    Fine then. Just remember to capitalize your 'i's and start sentences with capitals will you? If you want to be a grammar Nazi, at least do it properly.
    - CrazyJay February 26, 2011, 7:03 am
    if you were only as concerned about vocabulary as you are grammar. but your not. not much i can do to help you. i bet you are the type who would argue with a fence post.
    - johnecash February 26, 2011, 7:07 am
    They go hand in hand by the way. You seem quick to provoke and start an argument yourself. But I think a fence post might be better at it than you.
    - CrazyJay February 26, 2011, 7:10 am
    thank you for proving my point. its not an argument, its an observation. but i am sure you have no idea what that word means either.
    - johnecash February 26, 2011, 7:13 am
    I do actually. But ultimately, you're not interested in anyone's opinions but your own. I could explain this till my fingers hurt from typing. But you'll ignore it and keep ranting about my vocabulary (Which, is just as good as your own, if not better.) It's a shame, you could have learned something. Your loss.
    - CrazyJay February 26, 2011, 7:22 am
    just keep telling yourself that. it will help you sleep at night.
    - johnecash February 26, 2011, 7:26 am
  • 9

    Jedi here!

    • Math
    • October 22, 2010, 11:38 am
  • 8

  • 7

    I'm 100% atheist I believe in science not in some God, and life sucks btw but thanks god we have Sharenator xD

    • xdvx
    • October 22, 2010, 8:38 am
    Your athiest but you still continue to thank god? :O

    - rain42 October 22, 2010, 10:09 am
    You don't understand sarcasm but you still continue to go on the internet? :O

    - Ertrov October 22, 2010, 5:59 pm
    trident layers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    - fvfvfv8 November 7, 2010, 5:26 pm
  • 7

    agnostic here because u just cant throw away the possibility no matter how small.You cant prove it, but neither disprove it. I follow facts not beliefs
    comicagnosty - religion on sharenator

    Yeah, sure. But what most people don't realize is that Agnosticism is contained within Atheism.

    There are two spectrums:

    Atheist vs. Theist


    Gnostic vs. Agnostic.

    Atheism: Lacking belief in a deity.
    Theism: Belief in a deity.

    Gnosticism: Knowing that a deity exists.
    Agnosticism: Not knowing that a deity exists.

    These are the 4 qualifications in this area, which combine to form these general positions:

    Gnostic Theist: Knowing that there is a God and Believing that there is one. Very common.
    Agnostic Theist: Not knowing whether or not there is a God, yet believing in one. Relatively uncommon.

    Gnostic Atheist: Knowing there is no God, and not believing in one. Very uncommon.
    Agnostic Atheist: Not knowing for sure whether or not there is a God, and not believing in one specifically. Very common.

    It is my experience that most people who identify themselves as "agnostic: when they are in the "agnostic atheist" subset. Agnosticism is not a middle-ground between Atheism and Theism, it is a qualification to add to the two. Unless you believe in a god specifically, you are technically Atheistic : P.

    EDIT: IN other news, Explosm kicks ass.
    - Logos385 October 23, 2010, 7:50 am
    haha "Explosm kicks ass", thx for clarifying that ur a very intelligent person +1 for u
    - thekitkatkid October 23, 2010, 11:42 am
    Haha, I just read a lot, that's all. And Explosm really is awesome : P.

    Also the avatar, well played.
    - Logos385 October 24, 2010, 8:06 am
    =D haha thx
    - thekitkatkid October 24, 2010, 9:39 am
    +1 for you my good sir
    - zebidybob February 25, 2011, 1:11 pm
  • 5

    I'm an atheist as well. Not for attention like most douchebags at my school, but because the belief in a god is too far fetched and unreasonable to me.

    I support organized religion when it's peaceful. Fundamentalists and those who refuse to have an open mind anger and annoy me.

    • Madstyx
    • October 22, 2010, 10:54 am
    I believe the same, a belief in a god is too irrational for me to accept.
    - jakematsui October 22, 2010, 11:51 am
    When someone can prove IT (God) exists i might listen.
    - zebidybob February 25, 2011, 1:08 pm
  • 5

    flying spaghetti monster

    • Dawn
    • October 22, 2010, 2:52 pm
  • 5

    Sorry guys, but this is in what you believe (Jesus Explained):

    • xdvx
    • October 23, 2010, 1:35 am
  • 3

    i'm catholic... really a fringe messianic jew, but i follow the roman catholic traditions.

    i have a big interest in science and believe in using science to better understand God. (kind of like analysing a painting to understand the artist)

    • c8r15
    • October 22, 2010, 9:02 am
    "kind of like analyzing a painting to understand the artist"

    I like this quote@!
    - Madstyx October 22, 2010, 11:20 am
  • 3

    Im a Wumbologist.

    • rain42
    • October 22, 2010, 10:08 am
    What the hell is that?
    - jakematsui October 22, 2010, 10:10 am
    It's first grade

    - pureawesomeness October 22, 2010, 10:48 am
  • 3

    I go with christianity
    because it is the safest of all
    if you are wrong it doesnt matter you get born again or something in that way
    if you are right you dont go to hell lol
    if you believe in something else you go to hell
    at least its what they say

    I actually kind of believe in everything
    the point of almost every religion is to be a good human and respekt other people
    and if anyone would try to be that way the world would be okay
    I mean in almost no religion it is okay to kill someone or do someone else harm

    • Vans
    • October 22, 2010, 1:18 pm
    The only way to be safe in that manner is to truly believe. If you believe because it is safe, it is a false belief, and if God exists he/she will know that. If it is true belief, you believe without the calculation. There is no way to win with Pascal's wager. Also, there are over 35,000 denominations of Christianity in the US alone, most of which are mutually exclusive.
    - Logos385 October 23, 2010, 7:45 am
    it was a joke
    in europe not anything can be a religion
    scientology isnt
    therefor there arent alot different christians

    anyway the point was that it doesnt matter in what religion you believe as long as you believe in something because almost every religion has certain rules that makes living with each other better
    like not killing or stealing or respekt other people
    - Vans October 23, 2010, 8:19 am
    Sorry, I missed the humor, my bad.

    Not killing and not stealing are principles that predate religion, and actually most likely originate in our biology. This is because of the evolutionary principle of beneficial reciprocation. If you have a gene that makes it so you don't steal or kill those near you, you will fit better in society, survive longer, and find a mate much easier and more often. Thus, those genes that prevent deleterious acts foster and spread, creating an innate moral code within our genetics. Of course it is a very basic moral code, but this is the reason why, in general, humans are adverse to extreme things like killing.

    I don't know about you, but I am sick at the thought of killing- not because of the consequences of jail or society, but because something within me makes killing seem horrific. It just makes me sick, because of my inner impulses. That's all : P
    - Logos385 October 24, 2010, 8:21 am
    well but not everyone thinks that way
    and muslimic people do not have a problem with killing
    sometimes they kill women because they wanna get a job
    at least I read it once in the newspaper

    and people who are in the army do not have a problem with killing either
    they say it is for good reasons but anyway if really everyone would truly believe and try to obey the rules we probably wouldnt have war
    or be killed by all the muslimic people lol
    - Vans October 25, 2010, 6:01 am
    1. "Muslimic" people don't exist. "Islamic" people do. Those who practice such a religion to not kill women as/for an occupation. You are horrifyingly, horrifyingly mistaken/misinformed. Some extremists may become violent, but same with both extremist Christians and Jews. Extremists come from every religion, race, and creed. To think otherwise is downright incorrect and racist.

    2. Many people in the army have a huge problem with killing. It's uncomfortable and scarring. So many, many people in the military return with depression partly due to the consistent effort they must put in to ignore their biological block against killing.

    3. What do you mean "believe?"

    4. We aren't being killed by the "muslimic" people.
    - Logos385 October 30, 2010, 10:06 pm
    people who do believe in the koran kill women because they weren't a virgin when they married them
    and they said it is because of the religion
    christians killed the last time as far as I know for religion like 500 years ago
    and I never said that moslems are killing us what do you mean with us? I dont have anything to do with americans
    I live with muslimic people they are in my class my neighbors are some and I actually live in a city with one of the highest amounts of people from the east which means people from iran, turkyie, arabic and so on and most of them believe in mohammed

    and why the fuck are you going to the army when you have a problem with killing?
    I wouldnt be a butcher if I am vegeterian
    - Vans November 2, 2010, 2:48 am
    People who believe in the Q'uran kill women just as often as people who believe in the Bible kill homosexuals: both Christian and Muslim religions have their violence- the only difference right now is that the Islamic people happen to have a country to their name.

    All the time I see one religion attempting to rag on another to bolster the rationality of their own- this is ludicrous. As you say, people who follow the Q'uran kill.... Yet people who follow the Bible do to. The Bible dictates the stoning of children, the killing of a woman if she is not a virgin upon marriage, etc. I will absolutely agree that Christians seem more sensible by and large, but that is purely because Christianity lacks access to power. If the US was a theocracy (as many advocate) then a comparison would be more apt.

    People go into the army because there is a desire and/or need that overrides the biological block on killing. It is a truly admirable feat that I sincerely doubt I could do myself. However, often their biology comes back and haunts them once they have left. This phenomenon is commonly known.

    I don't know why you said wtf?
    - Logos385 November 2, 2010, 5:18 am
  • 3

    Watch this video from 2:20 inwards until 4:57. Bloody brilliant irish comedian on the bible and evolution. Not exactly a bulletproof argument but it's funny as hell.

    • Bekenel
    • October 31, 2010, 1:39 am
  • 3

    these were funny as hell and must go on this thread lmao

    21 something of that ilk s580x612 139108 580

    22 something of that ilk s580x672 139109 580

    23 something of that ilk s580x769 139110 580

    24 something of that ilk s580x612 139111 580

    25 something of that ilk s580x652 139112 580

  • 2

    Scientific Pantheist:

    No belief in a personal God, but the belief that the universe is majestic and worthy of reverence, and that science is the tool through which universal exploration is possible.

    Subset of Atheism ; ).

  • 2

    I am a strong believer in Jesus. However, I do not believe in organized religion. Man has put a damper on all things holy. Most religions are only formed to gain money and a social stance. Christianity wasn't originally a "religion" but more of a way of life. The term "Christian" was created to mock those who follow after Jesus Christ. But, it has come to be known as a person who thinks they are better than anyone else and are the most righteous yet tend to be the most hypocrite.

    Unfortunately your right :(
    - imfrikknbad October 22, 2010, 1:58 pm
  • 2

    I practice Cthulhuism. I am also a proud member of the Cult of Cthulhu.

  • 2

    God exists.

  • 1

    I prefer not to label myself in a group because I really don't know what I am. Everyday I am told what is right what is wrong and I don't like it I choose to label myself as unlabeled, although this is a complete oxymoron this is how I see myself.

    • gemie89
    • October 22, 2010, 8:32 am
  • 1

    i was Christian Methodist but now atheist

    • tacolad
    • October 22, 2010, 10:52 am
  • 1

    I'm an Atheist and I'll warn you, I love to mock religion (and I mean everything I say.) I find it hard to respect someone's opinion when they base their arguments and beliefs on books written over 1000 years ago by people with next to no knowledge on the the planet works. (These were people who didn't even know where the sun went at night, how can I possibly believe they knew what happens when you die?)

    Religion isn't even a useful source of morality either (Look at all of the violence religion has caused throughout our history, even today in the middle east.) Human behaviour is, as Logos already mentioned, genetic. If you need a 1000 year old book to tell you not to kill people or take thier stuff, there is something seriously wrong with you.

    It's even slowed scientific progress (We achieved more scientifically during the renaissance than we had during the dark ages, when europe was ruled by the church.) The less religious society gets, the more it grows and evolves. Not just technologically, but socially as well. In this mordern day and age, faith is completely worthless.

    Some books/Movies I'd recommend:
    The God who wasn't there (Documentry)
    Religilous (featuring Bill Maher)
    The end of Faith by Sam Harris
    The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
    The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

    Fair point. And the books were written over 2000 years ago, that makes your argument even better :P
    - jakematsui October 22, 2010, 12:53 pm
    I agree. and has anyone heard of energy work? i beilieve that Jesus could have performed a FEW of the most likely fabricated phenomina because he was a master of energy. i also believe in the energy. its all around us and a part of us.(google it if you want to learn more. im not an expert, but dont yahoo search it.)
    - arrowdodger7 October 22, 2010, 1:01 pm
  • 1

    It would take a whole post to explain my belief system. Might have to work on it.

    you should
    - arrowdodger7 October 22, 2010, 1:03 pm
  • 1

    I'm a Southern Baptist

  • 1

    I was baptised protestant. Now im atheists but if someone else wants to believe in god that's their choice.

  • 1

    I'm an Atheist but I still say thank god for so and so or oh my god.

  • 1

    I believe in God

    • Ertrov
    • October 22, 2010, 6:01 pm
  • 1

    I believe in God and our savior Jesus Christ.

    cool name
    - thekitkatkid October 22, 2010, 7:07 pm
    Thank you lol. For some reason i think my message thingy is a lil slow because I don't think I ever got this one.
    - 24paperwings February 23, 2011, 7:04 am
    haha wow your massage thingy is very slow 4 months too slow ^^
    - thekitkatkid February 23, 2011, 2:17 pm
  • 1

    I don't believe in it, maybe there is something out there.

    • Naugron
    • October 23, 2010, 1:14 am
  • 1

    I believe in God but I see what they atheists mean. I'm not a big ol' religious guy. I just believe in all that religious crap for motivation. If there is no heaven and we're all going to die anyway, than why live in the first place? I just want to believe that there is more to living than death and decomposing. I want to think that i'm not just going to end up a box ful of warm and maggot food and fertilizer. Is that really so bad? I'm not gonna stick religion up ur asses because all in all fuck that shit. Just because there might be a guy who made everything that doesn't mean I have to serve him. I have a huge ego and as far as I'm concerned I go before God. But I just want that little flick of hope of SOMETHING more coming out of my death whenever it comes.

  • 1

    Do we have any Christadelphians out there???? :)

  • 1

    Sharenatorism :D

    Nahh we're over the cheesy bit, I'm Christened a Church of England Christian (or Anglican) however, I don't believe in it so would call myself an Atheist.

    • SuDoku
    • October 23, 2010, 11:45 am
  • 1

    I classify myself as "by the books", an agnostic. I don't know if there is a higher power, and don't care.

    As for socially, I am a Logistical. It's not a religion, persay, but it is more so in the ways of moral and respect. It's complicated, yet ever so simple once you understand.

    Not trying to convert people, just saying everyone deserves a chance.

  • 1

    I was raised Lutheran, and have also chosen atheism. Religion seems to be too blindly trusting. For anyone open to some insight, I recommend Greg Graffin's Evolution and Religion.

  • 1

    i was raised episcopal but when i was 11 i only started goin on easter. after a while i was an athiest and then started to look into Buddhist teachings for meditation so im not sure

  • 1

    common sense my anti religion design

    • juniper
    • November 7, 2010, 6:26 pm
  • 1

    Again, it all comes down to The Matrix. Facts is non existant because what we percieve to be fact is generated through our mind and how we percieve the universe. Therefore; fact or theory, it does not matter because all facts are theories and all theories that are uphold through pure stubborn devotion within a the person percieving the universe is a fact to them. I believe there was never nothing. That a powerful being could exist that generated a master plan for the present and future but could not have controlled all that once was because it to had to have come from something. now, when i say being it does not necessarily have to be an entity embodying a physical form, however through some kind of intelligence or random occurence it dictated our creation and whiether it continues to exist or not.....who cares. I am against formed religon though because it allows people to twist it into what they want to form hidden motives and i believe praying to a deity, although very uplifting spiritually, is a wasted effort. We as humans are very lucky for what has happened and just be grateful and not ponder this irrational argument for too long. And by the way, Im all for science and it does upset me that we would be much more technologically advanced had it not been for the dark ages where the christians wiped out a good chuck of scientific accomplishments. Sio everyone can believe what they want and those who cant accept that people wont believe what they do, Deal With It.

  • 1


    Busy people wouldn't have time for theistic ponder.

    Tao Te Ching is sufficient for balanced morale without having to fear immanent entities.

    • bukka
    • November 13, 2010, 11:12 am
  • 1

    I'm atheist, but if i had to choose one religion i would go with the spaghetti monster because i think that is more believable than *God*

  • 1

    Rastafarian. SMOKE WEED ERRY DAY!!!

    • Goober
    • February 26, 2011, 7:37 am
  • 1

    Man invents God to justify genicde

    • Happy14
    • September 22, 2011, 11:53 am
  • 1

    I am a muslim and i believe strongly that god exists

Related Posts