Atheist Discussion Thread

[Arumdaum]

My (former) girlfriend knew through my friend (who happened to be her neighbor), but she didn't really care at all.

My ex nearly literally attacked me the moment she learned I hadn't gone through communion.

"How will you get married?!" she asked, in before I explained to her the concept of civil marriage.

D: ack

[Menassa]

Sort of, he saw me through it all... he wasn't raised that religious...

Neither was my father, religion never occupied a major part of our lives.

Well, at least my family's. If anything, I was the most devout Catholic out of us all.

Neither of my parents were raised religious... my father was slightly Conservative and my mother... not so much.

Interestingly enough my father was the most religious of us all.

[Mkuki]

I'm well aware of where Buddhism originated from. Buddhism is more popular east of India than it ever has been in India, though. Not to mention that Buddhism has merged with the beliefs of other religious traditions in the areas west of India.

I haven't said that the religions are similar to each other, although Buddhism and Hinduism do share many characteristics. I'm just saying that they are more similar to each other than they are to the Abrahamic religions. It's like saying that apples and pears (both are part of the Rosaceae family) are more similar to each other than they are similar to, say, oranges (which is part of the Rutaceae family). They aren't the same (Apple= Malus genus, Pear= Pyrus genus), but they are more similar to each other than they are to the Orange.

Then why'd you try to exclude India from the similar religions thing?

I'm not entirely sure, but I did have my reasons.

No, not at all. This assumes that "eastern religions" have some kind of common ancestor, which isn't the case at all.

Says who? Not me.

How is Buddhism more similar to Confucianism or Shinto than say, Christianity? For example, both were foreign religions adopted in rich countries during times of crises (decline/fall of Rome and fall of the Han dynasty), both had leaders whom were deified by their followers, both have some type of hell or purgatory, and both are concerned more with the supernatural rather than secular affairs (reaching heaven, nirvana, or the Pure Land). Christianity had saints, and Buddhism (the kind prevalent in East Asia anyway) had bodhisattvas. Both Buddhist and Christian monasteries acquired significant amounts of wealth, and both offered similar services, such as prayers for a safe journey.

Well, Confucianism and Buddhism don't have specific deities. Which the Abrahamic religions, as well as Hinduism, do. Confucianism and the majority sect of Buddhism, Theravāda Buddhism, are also more philosophical, and less divine, in nature.

Nirvana and Heaven are quite a ways different from each other. I'd say they aren't even that relateable. Heaven is a place, a location the soul of the righteous go after death. Nirvana is not that. Nirvana is a state of being. It is is an 'ultimate' peace. In other words, it is a state of being. Not a place like Heaven.There is a difference between the two.

both had leaders whom were deified by their followers,

Depending on the sect of Buddhism one follows that is not necessarily true.

Both Buddhist and Christian monasteries acquired significant amounts of wealth, and both offered similar services, such as prayers for a safe journey.

That has little to do with religious beliefs.

Compare this to Confucianism, with its lack of an afterlife or hell, belief that things in this world were what mattered, whose leader was never deified, and its loss of popularity during times of instability. Confucianism didn't have any saints, only studious and dedicated scholars who were morally upright and could be an example to others. Of course, you could say that Confucianism isn't really a religion, but more of an ideology/teaching/philosophy...

That pretty much defines a saint: A saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

Of course, you could say that Confucianism isn't really a religion, but more of an ideology/teaching/philosophy...

I would say that it does have aspects of religious philosophy. Such as the Mandate of Heaven.

Or even to Shinto, which is definitely a religion, with its multitude of gods and spirits. How is it like Buddhism? Or how is Shinto like Confucianism? Taoism to Buddhism? Taoism to Shinto?

The Mahāyāna sect of Buddhism does have deities like Shintoism.
Since Shinto developed in Japan it has received much in the way of Chinese, and subsequently Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian, influences in the development of the religion. Something that isn't all that true with the Abrahamic religions. There is also a level of syncreticism between Buddhism, more Mahāyāna Buddhism than Theravāda Buddhism, and Shinto.

Taoism also shares beliefs with Buddhism. Same goes with Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto.

[Arumdaum]

No, not at all. This assumes that "eastern religions" have some kind of common ancestor, which isn't the case at all.

Says who? Not me.

Yes, actually, with the whole attempt to put things into families, with genera.

How is Buddhism more similar to Confucianism or Shinto than say, Christianity? For example, both were foreign religions adopted in rich countries during times of crises (decline/fall of Rome and fall of the Han dynasty), both had leaders whom were deified by their followers, both have some type of hell or purgatory, and both are concerned more with the supernatural rather than secular affairs (reaching heaven, nirvana, or the Pure Land). Christianity had saints, and Buddhism (the kind prevalent in East Asia anyway) had bodhisattvas. Both Buddhist and Christian monasteries acquired significant amounts of wealth, and both offered similar services, such as prayers for a safe journey.

Well, Confucianism and Buddhism don't have specific deities. Which the Abrahamic religions, as well as Hinduism, do. Confucianism and the majority sect of Buddhism, Theravāda Buddhism, are also more philosophical, and less divine, in nature.

So what if they lack specific deities? Both lacking something is much less than what else I've already named. And actually, no, Mahayana is the largest branch of Buddhism.

Nirvana and Heaven are quite a ways different from each other. I'd say they aren't even that relateable. Heaven is a place, a location the soul of the righteous go after death. Nirvana is not that. Nirvana is a state of being. It is is an 'ultimate' peace. In other words, it is a state of being. Not a place like Heaven.There is a difference between the two.

If you're going to get as specific as that, you might as well abandon every one of your arguments comparing Buddhism to Confucianism. So what if heaven happens to be a place, and nirvana is a state of mind? They're similar in that both are spiritual ends which one aspires to reach. Confucianism lacks that.

both had leaders whom were deified by their followers,

Depending on the sect of Buddhism one follows that is not necessarily true.

Considering our main subject appeared to be East Asia, in which Mahayana dominates, I expected that we'd be largely talking about Mahayana. It's the largest branch, anyway, with most of the followers of Buddhism.

Both Buddhist and Christian monasteries acquired significant amounts of wealth, and both offered similar services, such as prayers for a safe journey.

That has little to do with religious beliefs.

They were both able to play out similar roles in this aspect, which some religions probably lacked the capability of doing.

Compare this to Confucianism, with its lack of an afterlife or hell, belief that things in this world were what mattered, whose leader was never deified, and its loss of popularity during times of instability. Confucianism didn't have any saints, only studious and dedicated scholars who were morally upright and could be an example to others. Of course, you could say that Confucianism isn't really a religion, but more of an ideology/teaching/philosophy...

That pretty much defines a saint: A saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

And you're not willing to accept the comparison because bodhisattvas and saints aren't the same exact thing? Not to mention, bodhisattvas have pretty much all of that.

Of course, you could say that Confucianism isn't really a religion, but more of an ideology/teaching/philosophy...

I would say that it does have aspects of religious philosophy. Such as the Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven, as a religious concept, isn't part of Confucianism. It also predates Confucius by around half a millennium, with the overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou.

Or even to Shinto, which is definitely a religion, with its multitude of gods and spirits. How is it like Buddhism? Or how is Shinto like Confucianism? Taoism to Buddhism? Taoism to Shinto?

The Mahāyāna sect of Buddhism does have deities like Shintoism.
Since Shinto developed in Japan it has received much in the way of Chinese, and subsequently Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian, influences in the development of the religion. Something that isn't all that true with the Abrahamic religions. There is also a level of syncreticism between Buddhism, more Mahāyāna Buddhism than Theravāda Buddhism, and Shinto.

Ah, so now you're using Mahayana, because it fits your argument better, since Theravada doesn't have them? Similarly, if you want to get specific, you could say that bodhisattvas and Buddhas were humans, whereas in Shinto, gods and spirits are gods and spirits, whereas the dead go to rot indefinitely in Yomi, a location. However, they were also different in the aspect that Shinto believes pretty much everything has a spirit, including things such as trees, rocks, and rivers.

It isn't all that true for these either. Shinto hardly, if at all, influenced the other three, other than in Japan. Things such as Confucianism and Daoism did not affect Buddhism in places such as Thailand, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Burma, and Bhutan.

Also, syncretism doesn't mean that the structures of the religions are similar. Otherwise, Aztec and Tawantinsuyu mythology, a well as many indigenous religions from Africa, are similar to Christianity. Outside influences are inevitable, but they don't necessarily change things enough to be put into a similar group, or suggest that they have similar structures.

Also, it's pretty obvious that Theravada wouldn't have much of an influence on Japan, considering that with the transmission of Buddhism to Japan, the bulk of it came from Tang China, and much else from Shilla, where Theravada was virtually nonexistent, as well as Japan's geographical location.

Taoism also shares beliefs with Buddhism.

Like what? It says that they reacted and influenced each other. The only sect it mentions similarities with is Zen.

Same goes with Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto.

Show me a separate source for the inclusion of Yin & Yang and the Chinese concept of heaven within Shinto. Natural patterns and cause and effect? I'm pretty sure most religions have that. Good and bad spirits? Heck, Greek mythology had spirits, as do the San people in the Kalahari. Prediction of the future? Really? These are things which numerous religions profess to have, which don't require relation.

[Arumdaum]

FUCK. Odin fucking dammit. Why couldn't the largest Christian group on my campus which claims to promote reason NOT use Craig for literally EVERY argument?

Now I feel like I'm OBLIGATED to attend the atheists vs. Christian debate next week so I can expose that liar.

Fuck.

Craig?

[Tsuntion]

FUCK. Odin fucking dammit. Why couldn't the largest Christian group on my campus which claims to promote reason NOT use Craig for literally EVERY argument?

Now I feel like I'm OBLIGATED to attend the atheists vs. Christian debate next week so I can expose that liar.

Fuck.

Craig?

William Lane Craig, shitty Christian apologist.

[Menassa]

Craig?

William Lane Craig, shitty Christian apologist.

There are good Christian apologists?

[Tsuntion]

William Lane Craig, shitty Christian apologist.

There are good Christian apologists?

Some make more of an effort to be honest than others. Usually wears off after a while, though.

[Mkuki]

Says who? Not me.

Yes, actually, with the whole attempt to put things into families, with genera.

No, not really.

How is Buddhism more similar to Confucianism or Shinto than say, Christianity? For example, both were foreign religions adopted in rich countries during times of crises (decline/fall of Rome and fall of the Han dynasty), both had leaders whom were deified by their followers, both have some type of hell or purgatory, and both are concerned more with the supernatural rather than secular affairs (reaching heaven, nirvana, or the Pure Land). Christianity had saints, and Buddhism (the kind prevalent in East Asia anyway) had bodhisattvas. Both Buddhist and Christian monasteries acquired significant amounts of wealth, and both offered similar services, such as prayers for a safe journey.

Well, Confucianism and Buddhism don't have specific deities. Which the Abrahamic religions, as well as Hinduism, do. Confucianism and the majority sect of Buddhism, Theravāda Buddhism, are also more philosophical, and less divine, in nature.

So what if they lack specific deities? Both lacking something is much less than what else I've already named. And actually, no, Mahayana is the largest branch of Buddhism.

You asked how they are similar and I answered that question.

Nirvana and Heaven are quite a ways different from each other. I'd say they aren't even that relateable. Heaven is a place, a location the soul of the righteous go after death. Nirvana is not that. Nirvana is a state of being. It is is an 'ultimate' peace. In other words, it is a state of being. Not a place like Heaven.There is a difference between the two.

If you're going to get as specific as that, you might as well abandon every one of your arguments comparing Buddhism to Confucianism. So what if heaven happens to be a place, and nirvana is a state of mind? They're similar in that both are spiritual ends which one aspires to reach. Confucianism lacks that.

Okay? I've never stated Confucianism is the same as Buddhism.

Depending on the sect of Buddhism one follows that is not necessarily true.

Considering our main subject appeared to be East Asia, in which Mahayana dominates, I expected that we'd be largely talking about Mahayana. It's the largest branch, anyway, with most of the followers of Buddhism.

I don't much like generalizations when making arguments. I prefer to differentiate.

It would seem that is so.

That has little to do with religious beliefs.

They were both able to play out similar roles in this aspect, which some religions probably lacked the capability of doing. [/quote]
That doesn't change the fact they have little to do with religious beliefs.

Compare this to Confucianism, with its lack of an afterlife or hell, belief that things in this world were what mattered, whose leader was never deified, and its loss of popularity during times of instability. Confucianism didn't have any saints, only studious and dedicated scholars who were morally upright and could be an example to others. Of course, you could say that Confucianism isn't really a religion, but more of an ideology/teaching/philosophy...

That pretty much defines a saint: A saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

And you're not willing to accept the comparison because bodhisattvas and saints aren't the same exact thing? Not to mention, bodhisattvas have pretty much all of that.

Not once have I made that assertion.

Of course, you could say that Confucianism isn't really a religion, but more of an ideology/teaching/philosophy...

I would say that it does have aspects of religious philosophy. Such as the Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven, as a religious concept, isn't part of Confucianism. It also predates Confucius by around half a millennium, with the overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou.

I'm aware the Mandate of Heaven predates Confucianism and, yes, the Mandate of Heaven is a part of Confucianism.

Specifically:

The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven (天; Tian) would bless the authority of a just ruler, as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler.

Or even to Shinto, which is definitely a religion, with its multitude of gods and spirits. How is it like Buddhism? Or how is Shinto like Confucianism? Taoism to Buddhism? Taoism to Shinto?

The Mahāyāna sect of Buddhism does have deities like Shintoism.
Since Shinto developed in Japan it has received much in the way of Chinese, and subsequently Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian, influences in the development of the religion. Something that isn't all that true with the Abrahamic religions. There is also a level of syncreticism between Buddhism, more Mahāyāna Buddhism than Theravāda Buddhism, and Shinto.

Ah, so now you're using Mahayana, because it fits your argument better, since Theravada doesn't have them? Similarly, if you want to get specific, you could say that bodhisattvas and Buddhas were humans, whereas in Shinto, gods and spirits are gods and spirits, whereas the dead go to rot indefinitely in Yomi, a location. However, they were also different in the aspect that Shinto believes pretty much everything has a spirit, including things such as trees, rocks, and rivers.

I made it clear that beliefs depend on the sect of Buddhism one follows.

It isn't all that true for these either. Shinto hardly, if at all, influenced the other three, other than in Japan. Things such as Confucianism and Daoism did not affect Buddhism in places such as Thailand, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Burma, and Bhutan.

The point is that they did influence each other. Just because they didn't influence each other everywhere doesn't negate the fact that they did influence each other. You asked about relationships and I gave them to you.

Also, syncretism doesn't mean that the structures of the religions are similar. Otherwise, Aztec and Tawantinsuyu mythology, a well as many indigenous religions from Africa, are similar to Christianity. Outside influences are inevitable, but they don't necessarily change things enough to be put into a similar group, or suggest that they have similar structures.

Again, I have not said that they are absolutely similar to each other. Syncreticism does affect religious beliefs.

Also, it's pretty obvious that Theravada wouldn't have much of an influence on Japan, considering that with the transmission of Buddhism to Japan, the bulk of it came from Tang China, and much else from Shilla, where Theravada was virtually nonexistent, as well as Japan's geographical location.

That's exactly what I said.

However, if it pleases you to put useless links to make you feel smarter, go ahead.

The sarcasm is not needed.

Taoism also shares beliefs with Buddhism.

Like what? It says that they reacted and influenced each other. The only sect it mentions similarities with is Zen. [/quote]
Unfortunately I could not access the full article, but here is something.

Same goes with Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto.

Show me a separate source for the inclusion of Yin & Yang and the Chinese concept of heaven within Shinto. Natural patterns and cause and effect? I'm pretty sure most religions have that. Good and bad spirits? Heck, Greek mythology had spirits, as do the San people in the Kalahari. Prediction of the future? Really? These are things which numerous religions profess to have, which don't require relation.

I'm not arguing that they all share the same characteristics. Just that they share some.

[Menassa]

There are good Christian apologists?

Some make more of an effort to be honest than others. Usually wears off after a while, though.

Honest... as in?

[Arumdaum]

Yes, actually, with the whole attempt to put things into families, with genera.

No, not really.

It's certainly what you suggested by using such concepts.

So what if they lack specific deities? Both lacking something is much less than what else I've already named. And actually, no, Mahayana is the largest branch of Buddhism.

You asked how they are similar and I answered that question.

I asked how Buddhism was more similar to Confucianism or Shinto than Christianity.

You just said that Buddhism and Confucianism both lack deities. That was all you could name. However, why they lack this is completely different. Confucianism is focused upon the secular world, and does not concern life after death. The Buddha, on the other hand, merely stated that ideas on the creation of the world were not useful for ending suffering.

Nirvana and Heaven are quite a ways different from each other. I'd say they aren't even that relateable. Heaven is a place, a location the soul of the righteous go after death. Nirvana is not that. Nirvana is a state of being. It is is an 'ultimate' peace. In other words, it is a state of being. Not a place like Heaven.There is a difference between the two.

If you're going to get as specific as that, you might as well abandon every one of your arguments comparing Buddhism to Confucianism. So what if heaven happens to be a place, and nirvana is a state of mind? They're similar in that both are spiritual ends which one aspires to reach. Confucianism lacks that.

Okay? I've never stated Confucianism is the same as Buddhism.

When did I claim that you did? I'm pointing out that heaven and nirvana are both spiritual ends, something which Confucianism lacks. You claimed that they're completely different by arguing that heaven's a place and nirvana's a state of being (a state of mind, to be more accurate), they were too different to compare. However, I find the division rather arbitrary, and pointed out that your arguments comparing Buddhism to Confucianism are even more vague and less specific.

Depending on the sect of Buddhism one follows that is not necessarily true.

Considering our main subject appeared to be East Asia, in which Mahayana dominates, I expected that we'd be largely talking about Mahayana. It's the largest branch, anyway, with most of the followers of Buddhism.

I don't much like generalizations when making arguments. I prefer to differentiate.

It would seem that is so.

And where do generalizations come up?

That has little to do with religious beliefs.

They were both able to play out similar roles in this aspect, which some religions probably lacked the capability of doing.

That doesn't change the fact they have little to do with religious beliefs.[/quote]
If it didn't have to do with religious beliefs, monasteries wouldn't have been able to become so rich and powerful through things such as services which would help you spiritually if you gave them money.

That pretty much defines a saint: A saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

And you're not willing to accept the comparison because bodhisattvas and saints aren't the same exact thing? Not to mention, bodhisattvas have pretty much all of that.

Not once have I made that assertion.

Then what was the point of just posting the definition, then?

I would say that it does have aspects of religious philosophy. Such as the Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven, as a religious concept, isn't part of Confucianism. It also predates Confucius by around half a millennium, with the overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou.

I'm aware the Mandate of Heaven predates Confucianism and, yes, the Mandate of Heaven is a part of Confucianism.

Specifically:

The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven (天; Tian) would bless the authority of a just ruler, as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler.

As a religious concept, no.

Their authority is what is defined. Because really, the relationships of

"Ruler and subject"
"Father and son"
"Elder brother and younger brother"
"Husband and wife"
"Friend and friend"

Have nothing to do with religion.

The Mahāyāna sect of Buddhism does have deities like Shintoism.
Since Shinto developed in Japan it has received much in the way of Chinese, and subsequently Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian, influences in the development of the religion. Something that isn't all that true with the Abrahamic religions. There is also a level of syncreticism between Buddhism, more Mahāyāna Buddhism than Theravāda Buddhism, and Shinto.

Ah, so now you're using Mahayana, because it fits your argument better, since Theravada doesn't have them? Similarly, if you want to get specific, you could say that bodhisattvas and Buddhas were humans, whereas in Shinto, gods and spirits are gods and spirits, whereas the dead go to rot indefinitely in Yomi, a location. However, they were also different in the aspect that Shinto believes pretty much everything has a spirit, including things such as trees, rocks, and rivers.

I made it clear that beliefs depend on the sect of Buddhism one follows.

Which, of course, was the tiniest similarity, and wouldn't support your conclusion that "eastern religions" are similar to each other, unless you want to bundle in things like Norse paganism, Greek mythology, and Aztec mythology along with "eastern religions," considering they also have gods and spirits. In fact, I'm pretty sure most religions have deities and spirits.

It isn't all that true for these either. Shinto hardly, if at all, influenced the other three, other than in Japan. Things such as Confucianism and Daoism did not affect Buddhism in places such as Thailand, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Burma, and Bhutan.

The point is that they did influence each other. Just because they didn't influence each other everywhere doesn't negate the fact that they did influence each other. You asked about relationships and I gave them to you.

If you're going to group them all together as similar, that's a horrible way of doing it. I'm not talking about whether they influenced each other or not, since they certainly did in some places. That wasn't even what we were talking about until you brought it up. I asked about how they were similar. You just said that they mishmashed a lot where they met, which could be said of any religions which became prominent in an area.

Also, syncretism doesn't mean that the structures of the religions are similar. Otherwise, Aztec and Tawantinsuyu mythology, a well as many indigenous religions from Africa, are similar to Christianity. Outside influences are inevitable, but they don't necessarily change things enough to be put into a similar group, or suggest that they have similar structures.

Again, I have not said that they are absolutely similar to each other. Syncreticism does affect religious beliefs.

You said that they were more similar to each other, being "eastern religions," in comparison to Abrahamic religions. Of course syncretism affects religions.

Also, it's pretty obvious that Theravada wouldn't have much of an influence on Japan, considering that with the transmission of Buddhism to Japan, the bulk of it came from Tang China, and much else from Shilla, where Theravada was virtually nonexistent, as well as Japan's geographical location.

That's exactly what I said.

Yes. I was pointing out that there was no need to post a bunch of links about some well-known facts which didn't really add anything to the debate to make yourself look smarter.

Like what? It says that they reacted and influenced each other. The only sect it mentions similarities with is Zen.

Unfortunately I could not access the full article, but here is something.

You don't even know what it's talking about. Neither of us can access it. Why are you using it to support your opinion? Not to mention, this is about how Taoism and Confucianism reacted and adapted to the introduction of Buddhism in China, and the results. If you want to use syncretism in certain areas as a reason for religions being similar, then you might as well say that Christianity and the pagan religions present in Europe were similar, or that Buddhism is similar to the indigenous beliefs of Tibet.

Show me a separate source for the inclusion of Yin & Yang and the Chinese concept of heaven within Shinto. Natural patterns and cause and effect? I'm pretty sure most religions have that. Good and bad spirits? Heck, Greek mythology had spirits, as do the San people in the Kalahari. Prediction of the future? Really? These are things which numerous religions profess to have, which don't require relation.

I'm not arguing that they all share the same characteristics. Just that they share some.

Like what? Yes, I know you're not arguing that. This is about the characteristics which they share, their similarities together, and differences to other religions in other regions of the world in order to see whether we can group them together as "eastern religions." Considering both Confucianism and Taoism originated in China in a similar period, they're bound to share the existence of some concepts, although what they thought was generally in opposition to each other. However, this isn't the case for the other religions you mentioned.

About the link that you posted, you don't even know if it's including Shinto for the five general things about ancient Chinese beliefs, considering that Shinto doesn't have anything at all to do with that, being Japan's ancient beliefs, and also because some of the things listed don't even apply to Shinto. The only things which apply, which are the existence of spirits (both good and bad) and predicting of future events (I don't even know if this is in Shinto, actually, but I'm assuming it is), can be applied to most religions. "Natural patterns," whatever the hell they mean by that, is really vague. However, since it's stuff like "cause and effect," I'm pretty sure most things have "natural patterns," including subjects like history and economics.

[Shaggai]

Some make more of an effort to be honest than others. Usually wears off after a while, though.

Honest... as in?

Actually attempting to argue by something close to rationality, I assume. Rob Bell does a pretty good job in "What We Talk About When We Talk About God", although he gets some rather important facts wrong. He does better than Craig though.

[Benuty]

Honest... as in?

Actually attempting to argue by something close to rationality, I assume. Rob Bell does a pretty good job in "What We Talk About When We Talk About God", although he gets some rather important facts wrong. He does better than Craig though.

Considering Craig is a closet troll his opinion is equal to that of ant vomit.

[Mkuki]

I'm just going to concede the argument, Arumdaum. You win. Congratulations.

[Cameroi]

well i'm not an athiest. i just happen to believe, that what people pretend to know about what isn't known, is still people pretending.
i do believe there are neat fun invisible things though, which give great hugs, are mostly harmless, and don't otherwise have very much to do with anything.

[Dyakovo]

Boy you ain't atheist, whatchoo doing here?

Are Christains/Muslims/Jews not allowed to observe?

I'm just looking around. Just to see some points why they are Atheists and compare it to my beliefs. That's all.

It is universally true that atheists are atheists because they lack belief in any deity.
Hope that helps.

[Cameroi]

i do have a point, for christians, islamists, and the like though:

the problem with believing there a satan, is how do christians, islamist, and whatever other monotheists, or anyone else who believes there is one, know the god they think they're worshiping, isn't that satan they think is opposing it?

to put it quite simply, they don't.

there is however, no such rule, as requiring any such thing as a satan, to exist.

[Benuty]

i do have a point, for christians, islamists, and the like though:

the problem with believing there a satan, is how do christians, islamist, and whatever other monotheists, or anyone else who believes there is one, know the god they think they're worshiping, isn't that satan they think is opposing it?

to put it quite simply, they don't.

there is however, no such rule, as requiring any such thing as a satan, to exist.

Why would people worship Satan?

He is angel responsible for the temptations of humanity and the testing of them. Satan is not the fallen angel Lucifer they are two completely different entities.

[Vazdania]

i do have a point, for christians, islamists, and the like though:

the problem with believing there a satan, is how do christians, islamist, and whatever other monotheists, or anyone else who believes there is one, know the god they think they're worshiping, isn't that satan they think is opposing it?

to put it quite simply, they don't.

there is however, no such rule, as requiring any such thing as a satan, to exist.

Because Satan isn't the enemy of God, merely Satan is a servant of God.

[Starkiller101]

I love atheists (sarcasm)

[Benuty]

I love atheists (sarcasm)

Well you cannot hate them.

[Starkiller101]

I love atheists (sarcasm)

Well you cannot hate them.

no i don't hate them they are all very nice

[Anachronous Rex]

I love atheists (sarcasm)

Anyone cares what you think (flat out lie)

[Starkiller101]

I love atheists (sarcasm)

Anyone cares what you think (flat out lie)

thanks for the insult got anymore

[Menassa]

i do have a point, for christians, islamists, and the like though:

the problem with believing there a satan, is how do christians, islamist, and whatever other monotheists, or anyone else who believes there is one, know the god they think they're worshiping, isn't that satan they think is opposing it?

to put it quite simply, they don't.

there is however, no such rule, as requiring any such thing as a satan, to exist.

Why would people worship Satan?

He is angel responsible for the temptations of humanity and the testing of them. Satan is not the fallen angel Lucifer they are two completely different entities.

Lucifer? This name escapes me.