Should Atheism be made illegal?

Quote: FrGamble

It could also prove that there is a perfect God, but imperfect people.

Proving that there are imperfect people with an imperfect understanding of the universe and incomplete knowledge does nothing to prove that god is real.

You are locked into your beliefs, which you have stated can not be scientifically proven, and reject any alternative explanations sometimes on the grounds that it hasn't been or can't be scientifically proven. Don't you see the illogic of selecting one thing that can't be proven while rejecting all others?

Science has pushed back the explanations of phenomena through divine intervention all the way back to the big bang. Things are quite different now, that we don't believe that god creates thunder and lightning and rainbows through direct divine intervention, or formed the earth or the universe according to either of the creation stories in genesis or anyone else's holy writings.

This is one of the dumbest questions I've seen today.

Mind you its only 4am.

Atheism should be no more illegal in a free democracy than should be thinking that it's nice to have cabbage and gravy.

Quote: Evenbob

Your mind can never escape the beginning
and ending trap, can it. To you something
can't just exist, it has to 'come from' somewhere.

Um...this is not a trap, it is logic and common sense.

Quote: Evenbob

There is no evidence for any god, so logically
he doesn't exist.

This isn't true and it doesn't follow logically at all.

Quote:

For god
to exist, the physical laws that hold the universe
together would have to be proven wrong.

Why do you say this? Why would God's existence prove the physical laws wrong? Again nothing you have been saying lately follows logically.

Quote: Dalex64

You are locked into your beliefs, which you have stated can not be scientifically proven, and reject any alternative explanations sometimes on the grounds that it hasn't been or can't be scientifically proven. Don't you see the illogic of selecting one thing that can't be proven while rejecting all others?

You are mixing up two different things that I have said. You can logically prove with human reason the existence of God. You need trust and faith in Divine Revelation to recognize the truth of Christianity.

Fr. Gamble, I'm surprised at you. Do you not have enough trust in your knowledge of the true, right answer to your poll to offer objectively different choices? Or enough faith in your God to know He believes even in those who don't believe in Him?

[ x ] No, every coin needs two faces.

[ x ] No, God gave us Free Will in order to come freely to Him. We are not passive slaves to His omnipotence; rather congregants who celebrate His authority.

[ x ] No, for us to appreciate God it must be possible to imagine His absence.

[ x ] No, I respect the fact that not all people believe as I do.

None of those completely encapsulate what I'm trying to say, but I think there's room for all of them in a moral world, Theistic or not.

Quote: FrGamble

Self evident question.

Really?

I'd say it's a bullshit question with nothing but bullshit replies as poll choices.

I'm even tempted to say bullshit on whether FrGamble is actually a Father.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Really?

I'd say it's a bullshit question with nothing but bullshit replies as poll choices.

I'm even tempted to say bullshit on whether FrGamble is actually a Father.

Ah, it's a reaction to a similar thread by Nareed.

Quote: FrGamble

You are mixing up two different things that I have said. You can logically prove with human reason the existence of God. You need trust and faith in Divine Revelation to recognize the truth of Christianity.

You did say those things about science and god.
You have dismissed scientific theories for lack of evidence.
I did not mix anything up.

You are trying to mix that up with philosophical reasoning.

Ok, now I'll speak to philosophy and logic.

There are many things you can "prove" with logical reasoning, including the beliefs of many other major religions.
You then use "trust and faith" to choose the one that you want to be true - just like all of the other major religions.
"Trust and faith" - what you mean by trust and faith - is not a step of logical reasoning, evidence, or proof.

Please don't start another semantic argument about alternative uses of the words "trust" and "faith" which are used in different contexts.

In this context, "trust and faith" is circular reasoning - you believe in something because you have trust and faith that what you believe is true, therefore you believe in something.

Quote: TheCesspit

Ah, it's a reaction to a similar thread by Nareed.

Oh. Nareed's threads tend to be so idiotic that I rarely give them or him a second thought.

I would have expected something better from FrG.