Some might believe in God and some might not,but recent polls indicate the majority of totsians currently posting on totse.com leaving their mark for the rest of the world to see apparently are athiests themselves..

Is there anything the christian society can do to prevent the overwhelming numbers of athiests from soaring to even greater numbers?

what will happen when their beliefs,moral values and tales of fantasie about God Jesus and the twelve diciples are thrown into the political trash can and raped and molested untill all there is left to try to deciepher from thier seamingly harmless fables of once great men is raw uncut tales of torture and abuse...

Could chrisianity possibly become a potential sin to all those who believe in a higher power?

The inevitability of a new era is astonishingly close at hand...

The dependency of people on religion is diminishing. A lot of people believed in God purely because it was too painful not to. In many ways, this is a good thing. Whilst, in it's time, Christianity brought a lot of good to the world, in a modern world it's no longer applicable. Homophobia, religious wars, etc are clouds without a silver lining.

I don't personally believe in any deity, and don't have a problem with those who do, as long as their beliefs don't lead them to hurt others. However, as long as freedom of speech is still around, there will still be intelligent and broad-minded individuals who don't view modern day sind as... well, sinful, and will articulately express their beliefs. Just because some people may not think christianity is good, doesn't mean everyone else will just fall in line.

And as long as these people are still around, they will have a following who agree, so don't worry about christianity being thought of as 'evil.' Merely has outdate beliefs.

The concept of God was invented by man to explain the aspects of the world we couldn't explain, e.g the creation of Earth and animals can now be explained scientifically. Now we can explain more and more of the world around us, we have less need for God, so religion will probably die out fairly soon.

[This message has been edited by Mr.Happy (edited 07-03-2004).]

i wouldnt go near your morals much less rape them. maybe i would have more respect for your morals if they ment anything but they change every 50 years and the only ones that remain constant like killing people is regularly ignored.

plus some of us have this radical idea that the earth is round and that medicine helps you more than just prayer.

You must have a lot of hope if you think athiesm will overtake the world.

Religion will never die. Athiesm takes too much of a leap of faith to believe.

I think you WILL find, however, a greater acceptance of scientific findings, as far as the origins of man and the universe goes. However, given the inability of the human mind to truly grasp and understand the creation of the universe and where it came from, I don't think you'll find enough people foolish enough to buy into athiesm to form a majority on earth any time soon.

Though the moral values added to religion might change and fade away over time, the basic belief in a higher power/s will never leave. It'll always be a thorn in your side, because it is inherent in man, from the most basic tribes to the smartest physicists.

There will always be questions left unanswered in this mortal world. How did life begin? What is our purpose on this planet? How deep is outer space?

Scientists will never find the final answers. It goes forever deeper. And the root core will never be explained because it's something that can't be viewed, only experienced.

I beg to differ...

quote:Originally posted by mr_pantz:

There will always be questions left unanswered in this mortal world. How did life begin? What is our purpose on this planet? How deep is outer space?



Shouldn't you define life to be able to ask that?

Who told you there should be any purpose?

Infinite so far.

Anyway.By those questions you already proved religion(s) won't disappear.

most of the humankind will always keep wondering questions like that...

If GOD n Satan exist, then i will see one of them when i die.

How do you know you'll even see anything when you're dead?

quote:Originally posted by Kw0nLiE:

How do you know you'll even see anything when you're dead?

Reincarnation, if you believe in that of course. I like the idea of returning onto earth as another person starting a whole new life.

finally a place to express my religious beliefs without having to worry about friends and family gettin' mad at me for my opinions. i'm an aethiest and i also believe that christianity was started by ignorant ppl lookin' for answers. i also believe religion does not hurt. i think religion does a lot of good. but i just choose to not live my life by rules made in the 4th century or any other religion. obviously i don't believe in heaven or hell or anything involving an after-life, although the idea of coming back to earth reincarnated does sound interesting. but i know without a doubt in my mind that none of this will happen. that death is like sleepin' without dreams. but all of u can take this for wat's it worth: the opinions and thoughts of a 15 yr. old country boy

quote:Originally posted by Kw0nLiE:

Is there anything the christian society can do to prevent the overwhelming numbers of athiests from soaring to even greater numbers?

Of course there is; present reasonable evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

quote:Originally posted by mr_pantz:

There will always be questions left unanswered in this mortal world. How did life begin? What is our purpose on this planet? How deep is outer space?

All questions that religion can only answer with baseless speculation, and all questions that science is working on (apart from the second one, which I don't think is a relevant question in the first place; before you can ask "what is the purpose?" you need to ask "is there a purpose?").

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 07-06-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

All questions that religion can only answer with baseless speculation, and all questions that science is working on

You're actually trying to suggest that science can figure out where everything came from?

It's the ultimate paradox. You'll NEVER find out the absolute truth.

Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Of course there is; present reasonable evidence for the existence of the Christian God.



Ok,but can reasonable evidence proving the christian gods existance be found without having to go so into so much depth about it that you end up explaining the existance of god in quantom physics?

And if so let's hear it...

You will fail in trying to prove gods existance in materialistic ways..for there is no way to prove it..I guess you're screwed.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

You're actually trying to suggest that science can figure out where everything came from?

It's the ultimate paradox. You'll NEVER find out the absolute truth.

If science can't figure it out, nothing can. Science offers a means of determining objective truth. Religion offers false comfort and no support for its claims.

If religion could support its claims, it would be a science.

Of course, it can't, so you offer it as a solution to the insoluble. If it is possible to obtain evidence for the cause of the universe, science will find that cause. If it is not possible, then "God did it" is exactly as useful and verifiable an answer as "It's always been here" or "The universe began when I imagined it" or "The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it" or ...

quote:Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

No, why should it?

Because supposedly everything can be deciphered given enough observation and study?

A few points on atheism - the new error:

1) Atheists either believe or know there is no God

2) There is no evidence that there is no God, just as there is no evidence for a God.

3) Therefore, any belief or 'knowledge' directed towards the non-existance of God is entirely faith-based.

Conclusion: Atheism is just another religious belief.

I find that people who believe in a religion usually judge it using the same standards in which they were raised; and they were raised by the same standards that particular religion dictates. For example, I was raised without the idea of God. When I heard about it, it sounded comical, how could anyone believe that? ...and the reasoning just didn't make any sense to me, it was like a foriegn language. But, some of my peers, raised to believe in God, were incredulous when I suggested there wasn't such a thing. What, they asked, was keeping me from killing people? Of course, I had no wish to kill anyone, and neither did they, but they thought that fear of God was vital to maintain the social order.



Atheism is scientific in the sense that it starts with a level playing field. It doubts the original suppositions that we base our observations on. Doubt is scientific. It is the only way to be objective. Starting with nothing, we can then observe events with an unprejudiced eye. Also, there is in science less of a need for the idea of God. More and more is being explained in other ways. The institutions of God have also been proven wrong about many things, like the Sun revolving around the Earth, so its credibility has largely evaporated.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

A few points on atheism - the new error:

1) Atheists either believe or know there is no God

2) There is no evidence that there is no God, just as there is no evidence for a God.

3) Therefore, any belief or 'knowledge' directed towards the non-existance of God is entirely faith-based.

Conclusion: Atheism is just another religious belief.

Ok,seems like someone took waaay to much fucking crack when you were being concieved...

Now..Athiesm is not a belief and it is not a religion..some might concider it to be just another class or stereotype of people who chose by common sence,knowledge,and scientific researches to concider themselves athiests because they do not have beliefs n'or are they religious in any way.

I sure as fuck hope so.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

A few points on atheism - the new error:

1) Atheists either believe or know there is no God

2) There is no evidence that there is no God, just as there is no evidence for a God.

3) Therefore, any belief or 'knowledge' directed towards the non-existance of God is entirely faith-based.

Conclusion: Atheism is just another religious belief.

This only applies if you base your beleifs on evidence without logic. There is evidence supporting evolution, evidence that thunder is not the anger of the gods, and evidence saying medicine is MUCH more effective than prayer for curing diseases. The evidence for religion is a couple of ancient books, and the fact that people have been following religions for centuries.

Now logic and reason and science can support atheism, but not theism(at least I have never seen a religion use science in support of itself). The end result is I don't need faith in the non-existance of god, because religion does not fit in the world, and it seems to have been put together by a bunch of lunitics in order to explain the world.

So: If faith is the defining facor in religion, and I have no faith in the non-existance of god, but iron clad logic supporting the non-existance of god, then atheism is not a religion. Saying that having an open mind and finding the truth is reliant on faith is ignorant.

It is easier to not put a belief in something that isn't absolutely reliable.

I myself am agnostic. I don't fucking know... no one does. I prefer to not put belief into something, but, I am not excluding the idea.

Here's a good question for you....

how come scientists haven't tried to find some sort of proof that there is a greater being among us that knows and see's all..?

because the whole entire idea together sounds incredibly rediculous and that would be like trying to proove fairy tales and other fables true...they just don't want the minions to know and get out of line,out of order,it would create chaos if they actually prooved that there really is no god,muslims and indians of all sorts would be rioting and just plain old fucking shit up after they realize they've wasted their lifes and time praying five times a day to absoloutly nothing,they would realize that all the time and effort they have put into thier religiouse beliefs was a waste and had been un-benefitial.....



so how would you classify that when an entire race needs fables and beliefs shit like that to keep themselves in order..a bunch of grown up ignorant babies I would say..poor people.

quote:Atheism is scientific in the sense that it starts with a level playing field. It doubts the original suppositions that we base our observations on. Doubt is scientific. It is the only way to be objective. Starting with nothing, we can then observe events with an unprejudiced eye. Also, there is in science less of a need for the idea of God. More and more is being explained in other ways. The institutions of God have also been proven wrong about many things, like the Sun revolving around the Earth, so its credibility has largely evaporated.

Doubt is scientific, yes, but the scientific approach is agnosticism - which says 'I have no evidence either way about a deity's existance, therefore, I don't know'.

Absolute doubt is the same as absolute belief.

quote:Now..Athiesm is not a belief and it is not a religion..

So you don't believe there is no God? Wow, looks like you're a theist then.

quote:There is evidence supporting evolution, evidence that thunder is not the anger of the gods, and evidence saying medicine is MUCH more effective than prayer for curing diseases. The evidence for religion is a couple of ancient books, and the fact that people have been following religions for centuries.

But the evidence for a deity's existance is nil on both sides. Therefore, no logical argument can be derived from it.

quote:Now logic and reason and science can support atheism, but not theism(at least I have never seen a religion use science in support of itself).

Obviously never seen a creationist then (who often try to explain their beliefs scientifically), or Buddhism (which ties into Quantum Physics at many levels).

quote:The end result is I don't need faith in the non-existance of god, because religion does not fit in the world, and it seems to have been put together by a bunch of lunitics in order to explain the world.

Really simple answer. The 'espoused truths' of certain religions, that you are quoting have little to do with the actual religion themselves. There is still no evidence either way of a deity's existance, and therefore, no logical argument can be gleaned.

quote:So: If faith is the defining facor in religion, and I have no faith in the non-existance of god, but iron clad logic supporting the non-existance of god, then atheism is not a religion. Saying that having an open mind and finding the truth is reliant on faith is ignorant.

As I've said, existance or non-existance of God has nothing to do with the world not being flat, or the invention of electrical theory. You're using illogical and unscientific arguments, and are therefore working on the faith of your beliefs to hold them up.

quote:I myself am agnostic. I don't fucking know... no one does. I prefer to not put belief into something, but, I am not excluding the idea.

JesusTookMyBike, congratulations, you are the first person on this thread to openly say 'I use logic'.

quote:how come scientists haven't tried to find some sort of proof that there is a greater being among us that knows and see's all..?

What would you look for?

quote:because the whole entire idea together sounds incredibly rediculous

Only to some. People have different values of what is 'ridiculous'.

quote:so how would you classify that when an entire race needs fables and beliefs shit like that to keep themselves in order..a bunch of grown up ignorant babies I would say..poor people.

The same as you'd classify any race. All governments/social groups/organisations do this, religious or not (one only has to look at the War on Iraq to see a perfect example), so although it was a nice try, you've only classified yourself as an ignorant baby.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 07-08-2004).]

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 07-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by JesusTookMyBike123:

It is easier to not put a belief in something that isn't absolutely reliable.

I myself am agnostic. I don't fucking know... no one does. I prefer to not put belief into something, but, I am not excluding the idea.

My thoughts exactly. More data is required to figure out such a huge question, and we simply don't have it. Yet.

People's misunderstanding about the nature of atheism can sometimes be traced to a misunderstanding about the nature of disbelief. Comprehensive dictionaries generally define atheism as the "disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods," and atheists commonly refer to atheism as simply not believing in any gods - but is not believing something the same as denying it?

Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. Or I may lack enough information to test your claim. Or I may simply not care enough to think about it.

All of these are, of course, possible reactions of an atheist to theistic claims. The atheist may not understand what the theist means by "god" or by certain characteristics of the god (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). The atheist may not have enough information to determine whether the claim is credible. Or, perhaps, the atheist may find the claim so incredible that it simply isn't worth thinking about more deeply.

Consider the following analogy: if I tell you that I visited Canada last week, would you believe me? Certainly visiting Canada is common and unremarkable, so there is no reason to think that my statement is inaccurate. However, you also have no reason to think it is true - so, although you may accept me at my word, you may just as easily accept my claim as plausible but then not give it further thought because it just isn't important.

This describes the most basic level of disbelief: you don't actively believe my claim, but you don't deny it either. Many atheists take this position with respect to theistic claims when those claims are too vague or incoherent to adequately evaluate. Obviously such claims don't merit rational belief, but there simply isn't enough substance to say anything more about them.

We can also go a bit further by modifying my claim to state that I crawled from my house to Canada. Again, such a feat is certainly possible - but on the other hand, it also isn't very likely. Why would anyone do such a thing? While you might step right up to assert that my claim is false, a more likely position would be to "reject belief in" my claim pending further evidence and support. You aren't actively believing it (because it seems implausible) but you aren't denying it either (because it's not impossible).

This is a narrower form of disbelief which is also a common atheistic reaction to theistic claims. In these cases, the claims are coherent and understandable, but there is a lack of substantive support - for example, actual evidence to back the claims up. Because the evidence to warrant rational belief is lacking, the atheist does not adopt the belief - but the atheist also does not necessarily deny the claim due to a similar lack of contrary evidence. The reaction, then, is to simply "reject belief in" the claim because the theist offers no good reasons to believe.

As we can see, not only are disbelief and denial different things, but there are different levels to disbelief, just as there are to belief. If you are interested in learning in what sense a particular atheist "disbelieves" in a god, you will have to ask. Different atheists disbelieve in different ways and for different reasons.

quote:If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false.

But you believe it to be.

quote:I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other.

In which case you should count yourself agnostic.

quote:Or I may lack enough information to test your claim.

Again, in which case you should count yourself as agnostic.

quote:Or I may simply not care enough to think about it.

In which case you are neither atheistic or agnostic - you aren't religious.

Simpy put:

Theist - will blatantly state there is a God.

Atheist - will blatantly state there is no God, or I do not believe in a God.

Agnostic - will blatantly state I haven't the foggiest.

Given a lack of evidence, the most logical answer is the agnostic.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 07-09-2004).]

VampireSlaya why do you have to ensure that evrybody knows exactly what social or religiouse group they belong to?is it really that important that you must quote a hundred things I post...? you are the kind of person who sits down looks around the room and stereotypes and i know this for a fact,because i can picture you by the way you make your posts sitting in some room classifying evryone in there(as in placing people in different social catagories due to their appearance) to see who you think might be able to sustain a substantially decent conversation with and then might not even engage in friendly conversation due to conciet or self centeredness,hmm,or you just have a thing for classifying shit....and i dont mean shit as in people are shit,i meant it as a sort of metaphor.



And in case you were wondering,yes,that was called exaggeration..I might not have spelled it right,but who cares...

^ Hmm, hypocrite!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Of course there is; present reasonable evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

Well said.

A second option would be for 'religious' people to act like it rather than just talking about it. Religion kills-just turn on your TV.

quote:Originally posted by woodlander:

Religion kills-just turn on your TV.

No, dumb people kill.

A lot of people attempt to separate agnosticism from atheism...it's foolish. Atheism means "without a belief in god(s) or religion(s)". Agnosticism is simply a subset of atheism; it fits the atheistic quality of lacking a belief in god, though is further narrowed by prescribing a possibility ratio, often 50/50, as to the likelihood of gods existing or not. Agnostics likely make up the majority of atheists, but they are atheists nonetheless...often what are called "soft atheists". Myself, I'm closer to what is called a "hard atheist".

As a hard atheist I reject the belief of God; I don't have doubt. The lack of evidence, to me, is enough to reject belief; however, as anyone who reads up on quantum theory would know, anything is possible. Because of that, I give the logical concession that a god may exist, though I put no weight into that concession because for me, it's a concession equal to this one: all of existence may just be a hologram and I'm the only consciousness that really exists...sure, possible, but fucking absurd.

I fit only into the category of atheist; whereas those with partial or near complete doubt fit the subset agnosticism, and the overall set of atheism.

quote:VampireSlaya why do you have to ensure that evrybody knows exactly what social or religiouse group they belong to?

So they don't get mixed up, and to prevent stupidity.

quote:is it really that important that you must quote a hundred things I post...?

Not really - just want to get all my points out, and if they correspond to something you say, all the better. That, and I didn't check for a day, so things piled up.

quote:you are the kind of person who sits down looks around the room and stereotypes and i know this for a fact,because i can picture you by the way you make your posts sitting in some room classifying evryone in there(as in placing people in different social catagories due to their appearance) to see who you think might be able to sustain a substantially decent conversation with and then might not even engage in friendly conversation due to conciet or self centeredness,hmm,or you just have a thing for classifying shit....and i dont mean shit as in people are shit,i meant it as a sort of metaphor.

Not at all. I talk to anyone who'll talk to me, because everyone is themself, not a stereotype.

quote:And in case you were wondering,yes,that was called exaggeration..I might not have spelled it right,but who cares...

I'm pretty certain you spelt it right.

quote:Religion kills-just turn on your TV.

Only those who break the laws of their own religion cause religion to kill. If you knew anything about Islam, you'd know the 'muslim terrorists' aren't following the Qu'ran.

quote:A lot of people attempt to separate agnosticism from atheism...it's foolish.

Not really - they're two different scales anyway. (a)gnosticism refers to knowledge, whereas (a)theism refers to belief in a deity. You can have agnostic christians, gnostic christians, agnostic atheists (that'd be most), gnostic atheists, general agnostics, and general gnostics. They apply to any religion.

quote:Atheism means "without a belief in god(s) or religion(s)".

Actually, it just means 'without belief in god(s). Theism refers to belief in god(s), not religion.

quote:Agnosticism is simply a subset of atheism; it fits the atheistic quality of lacking a belief in god

Not at all - they just don't know. Atheism believes in a 0% chance of a god existing.

quote: Agnostics likely make up the majority of atheists, but they are atheists nonetheless...often what are called "soft atheists".

A 'soft atheist' is one who doesn't press the point. They're the ones who say 'I believe there is no God'. A 'hard atheist' presses the point, and says 'There is no God'.

quote:The lack of evidence, to me, is enough to reject belief; however, as anyone who reads up on quantum theory would know, anything is possible.

And those who don't read up on quantum physics would say there's no evidence for it. So does ignorance remove something from reality? (BTW, I do read up on quantum physics, so don't take that the wrong way).

"And those who don't read up on quantum physics would say there's no evidence for it. So does ignorance remove something from reality? (BTW, I do read up on quantum physics, so don't take that the wrong way)."

No, of course ignorance doesn't remove something from reality, that's why I give the concession that it is possible, just improbable to such a degree not worth giving credance to.

quote:just improbable to such a degree not worth giving credance to.

How so? How could you even determine the probability, if it has no causal factor? You've yet to show why a deity's existance is so improbable.

quote:Originally posted by mr_pantz:

There will always be questions left unanswered in this mortal world. How did life begin? What is our purpose on this planet? How deep is outer space?

Ignorance, therefore God.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

just improbable to such a degree not worth giving credance to.

How so? How could you even determine the probability, if it has no causal factor? You've yet to show why a deity's existance is so improbable.

Until evidence exists, something is at second to lowest level of probability. The most improbable level would be something with contradicting evidence.

quote:Until evidence exists, something is at second to lowest level of probability. The most improbable level would be something with contradicting evidence.

Logically, if you have no evidence for or against, the answer is 'I don't know', not 'it doesn't exist'. Some would say there is evidence, and I would agree with them. Just because you do not have evidence in hand, doesn't mean it's unlikely. I have no evidence that you are heterosexual for instance (and no evidence that you aren't either), does that mean that it's second lowest probability that you are? Might I also point out that probability is not calculated on someone's evaluation of credibility?

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 07-13-2004).]

But if there was strong evidence for the thing in question eing a fabricated human construct, like numerous independent instances of people getting caught in the act of inventing gods, then there are good reasons to think that the God proposition is a human construct and not an actual manifestation in reality.

This applies for leprechauns, dragons, chimeras, griffins, et al. as well.

Might I remind you that dragons et al. all have some basis? For instance, they believe they've found St George's dragon (it was a dinosaur - baronyx).

So, despite the fabrications, quite possible for one to be real (and the basis of other gods fabrication).

Problem with that is that dinosaurs and humans exist in completely different chronological eras. They were long gone before early man even showed up on the scene.

That is, if you believe the earth is billions of years old, and that evolution is the reason we are all here right now.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That is, if you believe the earth is billions of years old, and that evolution is the reason we are all here right now.

There is no scientific arguments against the claims that holds any water.

The compulsory attacks on the age of the earth and evolutionary sciences are propagated by the religious right because the reality of the evidence clashes with their archaic ancient worldview wrote by people that thought stars were a few miles up and hung from a solid sky dome scaffold.

They are a religious position and not a scientific one. The issue of whether evolution takes place was settled a long time ago in the scientific community and now we have incorporated it into our medical fields to develop new drugs for pathogens that evolve resistances to the old ones and begin to use it as a source of food whereas it killed them before.

Has nothing to do with religion...has everything to do with improbability.

The science that refutes what evolution requires in order for the theory to be true is disregarded as religious fanatacism, though often the science that disproves evolution is practiced by non-Christian scientists.

Have to run, but when I get back I will list a website...

quote:Problem with that is that dinosaurs and humans exist in completely different chronological eras. They were long gone before early man even showed up on the scene.

That is my point. And yet, in China, and the Middle East, and Africa, and South America, there are many records of creatures fitting known dinosaurs.

quote:The compulsory attacks on the age of the earth and evolutionary sciences are propagated by the religious right because the reality of the evidence clashes with their archaic ancient worldview wrote by people that thought stars were a few miles up and hung from a solid sky dome scaffold.

You don't have to attack the age of the world to say that humans have records of dinosaurs.

quote:They are a religious position and not a scientific one. The issue of whether evolution takes place was settled a long time ago in the scientific community and now we have incorporated it into our medical fields to develop new drugs for pathogens that evolve resistances to the old ones and begin to use it as a source of food whereas it killed them before.

Which is why antibiotics are ceasing to work. Actually, it's not evolution that's been accepted long ago - it's natural selection, and although you'll see no difference, there is one. Evolution is the theory that all creatures are evolved from protobacteria, and natural selection is the process whereby a creature adapts to its environment.

quote:The science that refutes what evolution requires in order for the theory to be true is disregarded as religious fanatacism, though often the science that disproves evolution is practiced by non-Christian scientists.

Very true. Evolutionists argue that creationists set up straw men, but evolutionists do it just as much. Anyone who argues against evolution is automatically tossed into the 'religious right' or 'creationist fundamentalist' pile.

Not necessarily. There are some people that aren't fudamentalists that argue against evolutionary theory, some arguments being better than others, but as it currently stands there are very few scientific arguments against evolutionary theory and those arguments which are valid argue the method and not the fact that evolution, adaptation, and speciation are a phenomena which has been observed firsthand.

The Talkorigins archive is a vas compendium of all things evolution. I suggest those exploring this issue take a look at it sometime. It clears up many commonly held misconceptions and flawed arguments.

I've checked talkorigins a few times. Meh.

How did this get onto evolution instead of atheism?

Who knows.

REligion was created for two reasons.

-So that people could deal with the fear of Death .

-To explain things that most humans could not comprehend.

Religion in my opinion is outdated. It is like a abbicus(Is that how you spell it?!). It is simply inferior... It has caused so much blood-shed and ignorance. Im my opinion, religion is a crutch for the weak minded and the scared...

Religon is for the weak minded. People with high IQ's(its proven)don't belive any of religous fairy tale crap.

The ancients could freakin figure why the hell they where they came from(along with everything else)so they tried to explain. Now everything(I use that term lightly)can be explained via science.

Unfourtantly children are brainwashed at an early age. They can't think for themselves really at 5 so they belive the crap. Smarter people figure out the lies.

Alright, this could go forever. Now here's something science nor Christians will ever answer. If God exists, who created God? If the Big Bang theory is true, where'd the ATOM come from, and dont lecture me on the theory please, but do you get my point? People need to come to their senses and just admit there's things in this world they CAN'T explain. Kid's and their insecurities!

^^ Dude, that's the fucking stupidest thing I've EVER heard. I have a high IQ, and I believe in God, Jesus Christ (literally)! And you say lies? Okay Okay mom and dad, cut the bullshit, so God turns out to be just like Santa Claus again, I knew it! ... No. Our parents tell us that because they BELIEVE it. What you're saying is really hypocritical. It is my BELIEF, not a proven fact, that people of high IQ tend to be unfamiliar with being wrong.

To fix this problem, they come up with the most logical answer, and that is, that God simply cannot, and does not exist. However, in my opinion, it's just an insecurity. I don't understand why people can't just admit to something they can't explain, or to something thats HIGHER above them.

mitizaa: if you really read the quantum theory, general relativity and all that you would see that your arguments rely on the cause-effect principle which is not quite a true thing. in basic stuff like seing a smoke => there must be a fire it works, but you can't apply it to this kind questions like origins of the universe and so on.

mitizaa: of course there are things that can't be explained at a certain moment or maybe can't be explained at all. and there's another problem: NOONE SHOULD EVER BELIEVE SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE HIS/HER PARENTS DO SO AND TOLD THEM TO BECAUSE IT'S PURE IGNORANCE!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Mitizaa:

I don't understand why people can't just admit to something they can't explain, or to something thats HIGHER above them.

I will not allow myself to be fooled by the christian society n'or their beliefs(none of which can be proven).

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

It's the ultimate paradox. You'll NEVER find out the absolute truth.



is that absolutely true?

if so then the statement is inherently not true

History of the Lead Pencil

Lead pencils, of course, contain no lead. The writing medium is graphite, a form of carbon. Writing instruments made from sticks cut from high quality natural graphite mined in England and wrapped in string or inserted in wooden tubes came into use around 1560. [1] By 1662, pencils were produced in Nuremberg, in what is now Germany, apparently by gluing sticks of graphite into cases assembled from two pieces of wood. By the early 18th century, wood-cased pencils that did not require the high quality graphite available only in England were produced in Nuremberg with cores made by mixing graphite, sulfur and various binding agents. These German pencils were inferior to English pencils, which continued to be made with sticks cut from natural graphite into the 1860s.

In 1795, French chemist Nicholas Jacques Conté received a patent for the modern process for making pencil leads by mixing powdered graphite and clay, forming sticks, and hardening them in a furnace. According to Petroski (pp. 70-71), "the brittle ceramic leads…were inserted in wooden cases of a modified design, one used by some early German pencil makers to encase their sulfur-and-graphite leads. The piece of wood into which the leads were placed has a groove about twice as deep as the thickness of the rod of lead. A slat of wood was then glued in over the lead to completely fill the groove, and the pencil was ready to be finished to the desired exterior shape."

In the U.S., wood-cased lead pencils were produced in the Boston area by William Munroe beginning in 1812. Munroe’s cores were made from dried graphite paste and were not hardened in a furnace. Between the early 1820s and 1850s there were several small pencil makers near Boston, including William Munroe, John Thoreau, Joseph Dixon, and Benjamin Ball. [2] The pencils they produced were inferior to those made in England from natural graphite and in France and Austria using the Conté process. [3] The photograph to the right shows a bundle of pencils manufactured by Ball. Holden & Cutter, Boston, MA, advertised French and English lead pencils c. 1840-60; Grigg & Elliot, Philadelphia, PA, advertised lead pencils c. 1850-60; John W. Clothier, Philadelphia, PA, advertised Faber's, Guttknecht, and Brookman & Lagdon's lead pencils c. 1858. (Hagley Museum and Library)

In 1847, Dixon set up a new factory just outside New York City that used graphite to manufacture crucibles for melting metals, polish for cast iron stoves, and, on a limited scale, pencils. However, most lead pencils sold in the U.S. were still imported from Europe, increasingly from Germany as the quality of German pencils improved with adoption of the Conté process. In 1861, Eberhard Faber set up a factory in New York that made pencils using leads from Germany, and in 1862 pencils made by another New York company, the Eagle Pencil Co., won an award in London.

Mass production of lead pencils began in the U.S. after the Civil War. During 1864-67, several patents were granted for machinery for making lead pencils [4], including a Dixon wood planing machine for shaping pencils that produced 132 pencils per minute. [5] U.S. production of pencils was encouraged by the import tariff of 1865 as well as increasing demand, and the four companies that were the principal manufacturers of lead pencils throughout the latter 19th century and early 20th century—the Eagle Pencil Co., Eberhard Faber, the American Lead Pencil Co., and the Joseph Dixon Crucible Co.—all set up or expanded pencil factories in the New York/New Jersey area. [6]

American Lead Pencil Company, 1872

According to Petroski (p. 169), "The demand for pencils seems to have been growing at an unprecedented rate at the time, and in the early 1870s it was estimated that over 20 million pencils were being consumed in the United States each year." In 1887, a Dixon Crucible ad stated:

In 1868 we commenced building machinery for making lead pencils, and on November 18, 1872, we shipped the first invoice of one gross [of pencils] to Voorhees Bros., Morristown, N. J. Now our sales are beyond what our wildest expectations were then. We began in a building 25 x 25, with four or five hands, and now use one hundred thousand square feet of floor space and employ four hundred hands. In the beginning we had only three or four kinds [of pencils] for business and school uses; now we make hundreds of different kinds for business offices, schools, drawing classes, artists, architects, and mechanical draughtsmen, besides making a large variety of pen-holders, paint protectors, slate pencils, artist’s cases, special leads, assortment boxes, erasive rubbers, etc., etc. [7]

In 1878, Charles J. Cohen, Philadelphia, PA, advertised Dixon American Graphite lead pencils. In 1892, Dixon Crucible alone manufactured more than 30 million pencils. [8] Petroski (p. 182) reports that "One observer, writing in 1894, noted that in twenty years the cost of pencils had been reduced by 50 percent, at least in part because of the invention of machinery such as that used by Dixon." Petroski (p. 205) reports an estimate that in 1912 U.S. and world production of pencils were 750 million and two billion pencils, respectively.

Joseph Dixon Crucible Company Stock Certificate, 1900

Before a market for mechanical pencil sharpeners could be developed, it was necessary not only that a substantial number of pencils were is use but also that these pencils could be sharpened by a machine. The easiest pencil to sharpen with a machine is one with a round or hexagonal wood case that has a round lead that is centered in the case. The pencils made by Benjamin Ball in the mid-19th century had square leads that were typically off-center and the wood cases were somewhat out-of-round, as the photo to the right reveals.

Round lead was used in mechanical pencils in the early 19th century, but square lead continued to be used in most wood-cased pencils until the mid-1870s. (Petroski, p. 184). Wielandy (p. 67) states that "All the black lead pencils exhibited at the Centennial in Philadelphia in 1876 contained square leads, and it is said that Joseph Dixon Crucible Company was among the first manufacturers of pencils to use round leads, making the change shortly after the Centennial year." [9] In its 1881 catalog, Robert Clarke & Co., a stationer, advertised Dixon American Graphite, American Lead Pencil Co., and imported A. W. Faber pencils, all with a choice of round and hexagonal cross-sections for the wood cases. The Dixon pencils illustrated in the catalog had square leads while the Faber pencils had round leads.

The explanation for use of square lead in wood pencils is that when square lead was used, it was necessary to cut a groove in only one of the two pieces of wood used to make the case. In order to use round lead, it was necessary to cut matching grooves in the two pieces of wood. Petroski reports that limitations of woodworking machinery may have prevented round lead from being widely used in wood-cased pencils until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Petroski states that by the late 1870s U.S. pencil makers had machines with the precision and speed to mass produce wood-cased pencils with round leads. (Petroski, pp. 186, 251) In other respects as well, by the late 1870s the pencils made by the four large U.S. companies, which engaged in research and development to improve their pencils, were of substantially higher quality than the pencils made before the Civil War by the small Boston area companies. (Petroski, pp. 336-37)

Thus, by 1880 there was a potential market for mechanical pencil sharpeners. Click here to read about the development of early mechanical pencil sharpeners.

"India rubber," which may have been intended for use as a pencil eraser, was advertised by William H. Maurice, a Philadelphia, PA, stationer, in 1847. "Rubber erasers" and "Rubber pencil-tips" are listed among the purchases for members of the 1869 Illinois Constitutional Convention. (Debates & Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Illinois, Sept. 13, 1869) "Rubber erasers" were advertised by Charles J. Cohen, a Philadelphia, PA, stationer, in 1878. "Rubber pencil and ink erasers" were advertised by American News Co., New York, NY, in 1884. (Hagley Museum and Library)

Slate Pencils

During the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century, pencils cut from solid pieces of softer grades of slate or soap-stone were used by schoolchildren to write on tablets cut from harder grades of slate. Slate pencils were available with the slate core unwrapped, wrapped in paper, and encased in wood like a lead pencil. Holden & Cutter, Boston, MA, advertised slate pencils c. 1840-60; Grigg & Elliot, Philadelphia, PA, advertised slate pencils c. 1850-60; Charles J. Cohen, Philadelphia, PA, advertised slate pencils, including wood-cased ones, in 1878. (Hagley Museum and Library) We have seen advertisements for slate pencils dating as late as 1914. According to Wielandy (p. 91), wood-cased slate pencils were still sold in the early 1930s.



Paper-wrapped slate pencils



Eagle Pencil Co. wood cased slate pencils with fiber erasers

Some mechanical sharpeners were designed exclusively for slate pencils, but a number of 19th century mechanical sharpeners were marketed for use in sharpening both lead and slate pencils.

Notes:

[1] This historical sketch is based on numerous articles on the subject in the late 19th century and early 20th century trade press; Henry Petroski, The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance, Knopf, NY, 1989, 1998; Leonard C. Bruno, Science and Technology Firsts, Gale, 1996; and histories available on the web sites of Incense Cedar Institute (http://www.pencils.com); Dixon Ticonderoga (http://www.prang.com); and Sanford Berol (http://www.berol.com.uk). [Back to text]

[2] The Ball Pen and Paper Co., Harvard, Mass., produced pencils from 1830 until shortly before the Civil War. Based on research gathered at the Harvard Mass. Historical Society, Rich Karlowsky supplied the following information: "In 1830, Mr. [Benjamin] Ball set up shop in the Mill District of Harvard, Mass…. On one floor he manufactured paper and on the other…pencils…. John Thoreau and Benjamin Ball were producing pencils at the same time. Thoreau pencils were considered high quality because of the darker lead. Ball also produced a pencil, but it did not write as well as the Thoreau." Mr. Karlowsky acquired bundles of Ball pencils that were found in the attic of an old schoolhouse. Each bundle consists of a dozen cedar pencils with square leads, tied together with thread and with a paper label that reads "Superior Warranted Black Lead Pencils Manufactured by B. Ball, Harvard, Mass." For a picture of a similar bundle of Thoreau pencils, see Petroski, p. 314. The pencils, which are shorter and thinner than the standard pencil produced today, are only approximately round, and no two have the same cross-section. While the leads in some of the pencils are approximately centered, some of the leads are well off center. [Back to text]

[3] A mechanical (or "propelling") pencil was patented by Sampson Mordan and John Isaac Hawkins in Britain in 1822. For a history and superb pictures of early mechanical pencils, see Deborah Crosby, Victorian Pencils: Tools to Jewels, Schiffer Publishing Ltd., Atglen, PA, 1998. Crosby (1998, p. 62) states that "Huge numbers of patents were issued for a variety of advancements or improvements in propelling pencils during the nineteenth century (between 1820 and 1873, more than 160 patents were listed pertaining to mechanical pencils)." In the U.S., patents for mechanical pencils predate the earliest patents for wood-cased lead pencils or pencil sharpeners. [Back to text]

[4] U.S. Patent Nos. 43,267; 45,679; 54,511 (Dixon, 1866); 62,829. [Back to text]

[5] Petroski, p. 169; "Dixon Ticonderoga Company," International Directory of Company Histories, St. James Press, Vol. 12, 1996, p. 115. [Back to text]

[6] According to an 1891 account, "The manufacture of pencils was until about 1863 confined almost exclusively to Germany…; but with the [U.S.] tariff of 1865 the business was started here, and new methods were introduced, automatic machinery being largely adopted, and a reduction in the cost of production followed until lower prices than had ever been known were reached. In 1878 a combination was made among the makers, and it continued until 1889, realizing a large profit to the four manufacturers interested. The agreement was broken up in the latter year, and the market broke on all except the finer grades, which sold on brands, and today no one can complain of the price of pencils or the quality, for the commercial grades are superior to the finest produced thirty years ago." Letter to the Editor, The American Stationer, April 16, 1891, p. 825. [Back to text]

[7] The Stationer and Printer, Jan. 1, 1887, p. 1742. [Back to text]

[8] Walter Day, "Dixon American Graphite Pencils," Business, April 1892, p. ix. [Back to text]

[9] Paul J. Wielandy, The Romance of an Industry: A Retrospective Review of the Book and Stationery Business, Blackwell, Wielandy, St. Louis, 1933. Wielandy was in the wholesale stationery business by 1884. [Back to text]

quote:Originally posted by Mitizaa:

Alright, this could go forever. Now here's something science nor Christians will ever answer. If God exists, who created God? If the Big Bang theory is true, where'd the ATOM come from, and dont lecture me on the theory please, but do you get my point? People need to come to their senses and just admit there's things in this world they CAN'T explain. Kid's and their insecurities!



Do you not have a dictionary that you can access readily ?

Here ya go: http://www.dictionary.com

But just to save you some time, God is "alpha", meaning "beginning". He is infinite, always has been.

Revelation 1:8: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." (NIV)

Revelation 22:13: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

There is no way to fully understand the vast greatness of God. Infinity is the term man uses to describe something that cannot be counted or measured, and God is surely immeasurable.

"Eternal existence" means that God exists at all times. In other words, if God is eternally existent, He has already existed for an infinite amount of time, and He will continue to exist for an infinite amount of time--His existence never began and will never end.

No one created God because God has always been.

However, the existence of God implies more than just that He exists right now, in time as we see it, but may be absent or different tomorrow. In Exodus 3:6, 13-15 (NIV), it is written:

"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob..." Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of our fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob - has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation."

Thus, the name God desired His people in Israel to remember was "I am" and "I am who I am." This name implies at least five things. The name God revealed to Moses clearly implies that God exists only in the present, so that what we perceive as past, present and future is all present to God ("I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob"). God's name "I am" also asserts that He exists in Himself and that He was not created. God's self-existence, in turn, implies that He is eternal, existing both before and after His creation.

God's self-existence also implies His omnipresence in space - He exists both outside His creation, and at every point within it. And because God is present at every point of time and space, and exists only in the present tense, He is now present at every place and at every time simultaneously.

God's name "I am that I am" is not just a name in the modern sense of the word - merely a handle, devoid of information about His true nature. Instead, this name tells us the core of God's nature. God exists in Himself and exists always in the present. This fact was forcefully clarified by Jesus on two different occasions. In Matthew 22, answering the Sadducees' question about the resurrection, Jesus said:

But about the resurrection of the dead - have you not read what God said to you, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" He is not the God of the dead but of the living.

Matthew 22: 31-32 (NIV)

Here Jesus asserts the self-existence of God, as shown through a name of God which even the Sadducees would acknowledge, as proof of the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection is a future event, even today, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died more than a millennium before Jesus' birth, yet Jesus told the Jews of his day that God was presently the God of these dead patriarchs.

This implies not only that there will be a resurrection, in the future in time as we see it, but also that God sees this resurrection day as being present rather than future. As Jesus spoke, almost two thousand years ago, God was already present in the day of resurrection. It is also noteworthy that, after Jesus' resurrection, when He commissioned his disciples He promised them "and surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age[1]". Matt. 28:20. So in these places the scriptures clearly assert that God now exists in both the present and the future.

In another place, Jesus also asserted that he himself simultaneously exists in both the present and the past, thus identifying himself as God:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am." At this, they picked up stones to stone him...

John 8:56-59 (NIV)

Thus, God, being self-existent, is found simultaneously in the past, the present and the future. He is not limited by the flow of time, as we are.

I am of the opinion the things we cannot explain do not drive us to figure them out. The innate sense that SOMETHING created the universe drives us.

What do you suggest ? We sit around and do nothing ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ..That is totally irrelevant and proves nothing.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

You must have a lot of hope if you think athiesm will overtake the world.

Religion will never die. Athiesm takes too much of a leap of faith to believe.

I think you WILL find, however, a greater acceptance of scientific findings, as far as the origins of man and the universe goes. However, given the inability of the human mind to truly grasp and understand the creation of the universe and where it came from, I don't think you'll find enough people foolish enough to buy into athiesm to form a majority on earth any time soon.

Though the moral values added to religion might change and fade away over time, the basic belief in a higher power/s will never leave. It'll always be a thorn in your side, because it is inherent in man, from the most basic tribes to the smartest physicists.

ATHEISM is taking a big leap of faith? Atheism is about having no faith in anything except what can be proven and is sure, it is the scientist's viewpoint, as scientists will not go around saying that the result of their experiment is something unless they have some proof to back it up(or are really stupid). I believe that religion will die, but the age old concept of a greater power won't, or not for a VERY long time. I also believe that atheism wont take over soon, it will grow slowly, like a cancer, which the host doesn't notice until its too late. I am an atheist so im sorry to say that im very happy about this, because i remember when i was in third grade and all my little idiot christian pupils kept coming up to me every hour of the day, telling me that im going to hell and that there IS proof of god, and that they have some stupid blanket. I just don't see how a GOD(not a greater being, mind you, a creator of humanity as its child) could free christians from their Jewish "slave masters" and yet allow slavery, terrorism, anti-semitism(the haloucaust) and all of these other disasters to continue. I remember a story in a news paper one day about how a doctor who couldnt decide which city to move to, said that god had spoken to him, and he just made 100,000 dollars. I dont see how god could give this DOCTOR more money, while children are starving in 3rd world countries and people are being massacred in the Sudan. That is why i may have an acceptance that there could be a greater being, but organized religion and a god seems like a way to both influence the masses and provide meaning to those with limited understanding, who cant accept that we are probably alone, and we are what we make of ourselves.

Christians are just 1 god shy of being an atheist. If they didn't believe in their God as much as they don't believe in all the other ones, then we would all be in the same boat.

quote:Originally posted by 0M3G@:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ..That is totally irrelevant and proves nothing.

How is it irrelevant ? I was answering a question that YOU didn't ask. So butt out.

Oh, and as a side note, it proves you haven't read the Bible, which means you are basing your negative perceptions on OTHER people you have met who claim to be Christian, instead of the Bible. (If you HAD read it, you would know that it was relevant)

Who wrote the bible?

God did stupid, that's why people believe the stuff in it, because it's all true. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:it proves you haven't read the Bible,

just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean they're not familiar with it. I've read the bible multiple times, as i believe i've said before, but that didn't make me accept it as true.

and by the way, quoting scripture is completely irrelevant in this thread. quoting scritpure to those who don't believe the validity of the scripture will not prove anything, or make any reasonable point.

You have given no indication that you have read it, based on your ignorant, opinionated posts.

What good would it do me to say I was Christian, give a Christian point of view, yet not back it up with the texts from which I came to believe in Christianity ?

That's just stupid.

I can't believe you said that.

If I didn't accurately represent Christianity...oh, nevermind. You're not even worth it. *sighs*

1. Creationism is utter bullshit. The simple fact of the number of people alive today negates any possibility that Noah and his family were the only ones alive 4ooo years ago. Using the numbers for population growth necessary to hit 6 billion today completely violates what we know how world populations throughout history. For instance, according to creationsim there were approximately 150 people in the Roman empire. There is absolutely nothing to support creationism, and every piece of evidence ever collected and regarded as reputable suggests the earth is billions of years old.

I'm in college, and a physics major. I've talked with numerous professors, in multiple fields, all of whom say that anti-evolutionary theory is espoused by approximately 2% of the academic community. It's just that all sides of an issue must be given equal consideration by the media, so people get a greatly distorted view of how much of a case creationism holds.



That being said, on to the real topic. I consider myself a hard atheist. I see absolutely no reason to believe in God, and studying physics is leading me to increasingly believe that there is a scientific and rational explaination for how the universe is, specifically, the starting conditions, modified by quantum effects. I awknowledge the theoretical possibility that there is a God, but I consider it approximately as likely as the sun rising in the west tommorrow.

And Digital_Savior, I have read the Bible. Multiple copies. And a Chatechism. And there are a shit load of errors. Incontinuities. One would think that a book penned by the Allmighty would not contradict itself quite so much. The problem lies in the fact that the Bible is a collection of barbarian fairy tales written over thousands of years, then assembled several centuries after the death of Christ. I mean, damn. They don't even translate the old Testament from Hebrew correctly. You're honestly telling me that something revised so many times, by humans, is the direct and absolute word of God? The Bible will only prove something to an idiot who is too lazy to research their beliefs, or someone who allready believes it to be true, and uses it as further justification. You can not convince an intelligent non-believer by quoting any such book.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

[B]A few points on atheism - the new error:

1) Atheists either believe or know there is no God

Nope. atheists believe in a superior being but not necessarily the so-called ''god''

The people that don't believe nothing at all are agnostics.

P.S: I don't fucking believe in god, church is a bussiness to drain thy money away from ya.

If god existed, who created god?, and who created the one who created god? and who craeted the one who created who created god?(damn it, i'm feeling ooooooozzzzzzzyyyyyy)

Now, really, you guys don't know about what church is all about? What religion is all about?

For example, the crusades were in the name of god. Why would god want mankind to tear themselves to pieces? To show him their faith or what?

And when the popes tried to take over the world?(In rome, england, etc)

They were supposed to be in contact with god, but everything they wanted was power. I get to the conclusion god must be a greedy mother*****r.( if he exists, which he doesn't)

I feel sorry for all the people who have been forced to believe in religion, and didn't get a chance to choose.

As you may have noticed from this post, I think religion sucks big time.

[This message has been edited by master killer (edited 09-13-2004).]

Actual thats wrong. you wrote

Nope. atheists belive in a superior being.

Thats wrong they belive in no god or supreme being. (in the dictionary)

But Agnostic is a belife like atheism (what my name/belife is) which is means undecided. I dont belive in god (And completly hate christianity) but belive their could be something out there.

(Dont belive me look up Agnostic in the dictionairy).

Jesus is my man-whore.