Atheism and Satanism

Post Reply New Topic

A Linux based security tool? Hmm. I never would have thought it.

Agnosticism isn't a religion, it's the belief that neither side is right (The people who say religion is false, or the people who say it's true), since you don't care you can probably be placed in that group.

Yes. I find that it is very far fetched that God would not reveal himself to people in Asia, but that satan did go in and inspire a person who taught the golden rule 2000 years before Jesus said to love your neighbor as your self. I find it farfetched that Buddhists are devotees of satan when they are typically concerned with promulgating ideas such as compassion and fairness. A bad tree does not yield good fruit.

Last edited by monty on 11 Sep 2008, 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Very well then slowmutant. You have the right to your religion but you CANNOT expect others who dont share the faith to automatically accept extraordinary claims without evidence. I hope you understand what Im saying. Now I havent asked but I seriously DOUBT Satan would tolerate followers who didnt acknowledge his existance, go figure .

Of course you havev a right to your own opinions and beliefs, but you know there is no "evidence" of God that you would accept. If I showed you some concrete proof of God you'd dismiss it out of hand, and therein lies the problem. Faith is more importsant than evidencd in the final analysis.

How is faith important? Faith is just a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, for whatever reason you have for doing so. I don't see the importance in faith, I also don't see how it's respectable and I don't even have to ask why it's logical because it isn't. You can have faith but that doesn't mean what you believe is true, even to yourself you're going to be doubtful because of what it is, it's faith not fact. You're also saying faith is more important than evidence yet you say you could show us concrete proof, if you could do that you wouldn't bother with this faith nonsense because you wouldn't need it.

But only the faithful will go to heaven. Isn't to have faith in God a choice, and not simply something that is either there or it isn't? How does one "find," faith?

Just as you understand that I need evidence, I understand that you don't have faith just for kicks, and your devotion proves that there is a compulsion and reason beyond "belief without evidence."

So my question is, why do you have faith, and how do you find it? Can you find it, or do you just stumble upon it at some point in your life? And if this is so, aren't the unfaithful like myself either destined to have or lack faith depending on how external events play out?

Put yourself in my shoes: I try my best to work on raw logic, and yet there are many people convinced of something due to no rational thought process at all, but only faith, and they want me to think likewise. But why should I? I am not faced with the truth of God only to turn my back; rationality defines everything I do, and to hold the largest conviction of my life while still suppressing reason is a paradigm shift I am incapable of. If there is no logical reason to believe in God, then what is the purpose, since purpose requires logic?

I've given up trying to explain religious faith to people who don't want to hear anything they don't already think or feel. If you don't have a clue, I can't give you one. Honest.

There are lots of visitors to Las Vegas who rely more on faith than evidence much to the joy of the people who run the casinos.

That's not even remotely the same thing

That's not even supported by faith. The monetary wealth moved by the gullibility of the participants in Las Vegas is direct evidence of the human frailty that supports religious belief without evidence. The comparison is one to one.

There is no statistical evidence with which to perform a significance test on the hypothesis that God exists.

There is plenty of statistical evidence with which to determine that casinos rip you off.



How can a comparison be injective?

People are gullible. That's obvious. Las Vegas operates on that basis and does wonderfully. And so do religious organizations that promise afterlife with no basis in evidence. People believe what they want to believe, not what experience indicates. Las Vegas and religions are one to one on that basis.

I take it you aren't familiar with ternary logic. Believe it or not, even I recognize that not every proposition neatly falls into the categories 'true' or 'false'.



Please look up the definition of 'one to one' before you use it in an inappropriate context; it's embarrassing

From the dictionary:
permitting the pairing of an element of one group with a corresponding element of another group

The gullibility element in gambling pairs very nicely with the gullibility element in religious faith.

Evidently this embarrasses you so you resort to technical jargon to try to refute this.

Your dictionary sucks; 'one to one' means 'injective'.



No, they are completely different. Didn't you read what I said about propositions having an undefined truth value?