It seems nearly everything is a scam. Religion will not be exempt, but it will claim it is!

Any rational religious person will admit to scamming in this area. How could it not with faith involved?
At least the Atheist have a monument. Lets keep the separation of church and state.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lFqLpoxJec

Given how monuments are a religious obsession, it almost seems absurd that atheists have their first one! But if you analyze this rationally, what atheists have is not a monument, but a rebuttal. Atheists don't have the need to praise a god, so they don't build fancy monuments or churches. But they do have a need to rebut false claims and falsehoods. So a monument might merit a monumental response.

You got such an axe to grind its funny. Mans ego to raise monuments is his obsession. Atheism will just turn into another opportunity for psychopaths to murder, control and brainwash the masses. So lets toast another millennia of monuments.

Which axe is that?


No thanks. I'm not a fan of monuments unless they serve a beneficial purpose for everyone. Man's ego is indeed a giant problem. Sociopaths set us up (their ego) to believe we were created in God's image, and we foolishly buy into it (our ego).

You dont see it. Its a form of hypocrisy. Condemning something that you do as well. Its about what you believe and the freedom thereof. When you move into the area of what is the purpose of life. And you use the violence of faith to prop up your atheism. Your arrogant about it too. It does not invite debate, nor do you show open mindedness in the area.

Interesting. I would like more details on this, and an actual example. I'm quite critical of hypocrisy, and I don't exempt myself from that criticism.


What is the purpose of life? Don't you think that 100 people will give 100 different answers to this question? Since there is no way to really settle the question, can you really call it hypocrisy?


I certainly don't need the violence of faith to prop up my atheism. That's just one facet of dozens that I can call on. I recognize that I'm often perceived as arrogant, as are many people with solid arguments that others do not want to hear or consider. But although I may think some of my arguments are superior to other arguments (for example, that sociopaths are the root of all evil among humans), I do not think that I am superior to other people, which makes the arrogant label seem inappropriate. But in weighing arguments, a certain kind of arrogance does develop when any particular idea can continually withstand all challengers. We tend to call that truth. Truth is somewhat arrogant, because all other explanations are just pretenders.

Sorry about not inviting debate, but when two potential truths are at odds, debate needs no invitation. It just happens as a natural consequence of truth-seekers pursuing truth.

And the last criticism -- not showing open mindedness. That's an important criticism that I take very seriously, because I am well aware of how crippling a closed mind can be, and I have no desire to be crippled. More details and an example would be helpful here as well, if you don't mind.

You just dont get it. There is a personal space for everyone to choose what they think life is. Atheist dont give a lot of room in this area because God, or whatever you want to call it becomes abstract. Or in other words it becomes a language you dont understand. You then project this 'language" as uncircumstantial and discount it. So the hypocrisy stems from what you accuse people of faith doing. Im not sure how much more clear I can be. You can contribute it to "your argument is solid" , but really what it is, is closed mindedness imho. The idea is to search for God, but that would undermine your current paradigm.

Listen, I dont think there is an equation I could give you. My understanding of God has taken me a lifetime of work. I suspect your POV has been the same.

There is personal space available to chose whatever you want to think about anything. It's called your private thoughts. There's lots of room there. You are only limited by your imagination. Then there's another space called truth. That space is quite cramped in comparison, because most of what is imagined or believed has no place there. And, get this -- that space is not personal. Truth exists with or without you. It is independent of you. It is space that must be shared with everything that is real. So sharing a cramped space with everything that is real doesn't leave you much wiggle room.


Mathematics is also abstract, and I did better than most understanding it. I don't believe you have special powers compared to me when it comes to understanding the abstract concept of God. I was well versed in it (or more accurately brainwashed) from an early age. I have studied the question of God for a lifetime, and I am still studying it, primarily because there is no end to the imaginations of the faithful.


People of faith discount all ideas contrary to their beliefs, regardless of the evidence. They are not interested in evidence or reason, as faith (belief) is all that is necessary to support their convictions (a circular argument if their ever was one). So I hear you accusing me of discounting all ideas contrary to my beliefs, regardless of evidence, because I am not interested in evidence or reason, as belief is all that is necessary to support my convictions. If that were true, then I agree that I would be guilty of the same hypocrisy the faithful display in abundance. Do you have evidence that I behave as accused, or is this just your firm belief?


The idea is to search for God only if there is good evidence that God exists. To search for God when there is no valid evidence for such a questionable idea is the epitome of a closed mind, IMHO.


If there were, I suspect you would have already given it to me.


Yes, so the duration of the search obviously counts for little. What is needed is reasonable evidence and solid reasoning. Plenty of evidence has been offered by the faithful, but when examined, it is either not reasonable or not based on solid reasoning. Pascal's Wager comes to mind as one argument that appears reasonable but is not based on solid reasoning. I hear the same old mind tricks (including variations of Pascal's Wager) from evangelicals coming to my door. I almost always engage them in the hopes of hearing something reasonable, but so far, no luck.

Jesus mentions know what is in front of your nose and then you will see. You dont see the obvious. That there is a creator behind everything. Reasonable evidence is just look at nature around you. But you refuse to go there and discredit it. Then you project I have special powers when a child could see what I am talking about.

Imagination balanced is the key to start seeing in front of you. This is a courageous challenge due to the loose foundation one walks upon. It helps to have a experience or time in this area so you can work on integrity.

I tried atheism and know its belief system well. I dont discount its pov, but its conclusions are wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me friend. You have things completely opposite in finding out who you are in the world. That is real sovereignty in nature.