Happy Atheist Forum

I will probably get the boot for promoting this idea.

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/asgard ... %20lie.jpg (http://members.arstechnica.com/x/asgard/the%20cake%20is%20a%20lie.jpg)

ahem jokes aside
you didnt "promote" anything. You just typed a title. Explain pleas with your own words why you believe it is a lie. ?
discuss

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I will probably get the boot for promoting this idea.

No...but you will be reminded that we promote discussion on this forum and "atheism is a lie" would classify as preaching since you did not discuss why you think it is a lie.

Atheism isn't a fact or a statement. It's a worldview chosen based on a number of facts and observations.

Quote from: "OED"lie, n. An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood.

lrn2grammar

magic underwear is a lie... see I can play too.

sorry.

 

The cake is a lie.

Tell me ebarrowes, did you come here with the intention of getting banned? Perhaps you want to go scurrying back to your friends and complain how the mean old atheists censored you?

Atheists enjoy a life free from the struggle to "do good" because when you leave off trying to please God, the devil leaves off of you; now you are now more or less on course for his program.

I know that atheists, especially the ones in charge of websites, are anxious to weild their power in banning those who contradict atheism.

The atheists get very disturbed at my comments and therefore, the moderator deems me bannable.

An often quoted atheist said something along the lines of;

"If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good."

Morality is not something that comes from god or the devil, morality comes from instinct and intelligence. There is quite a bit of research on the evolutionary benefits of morality.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Atheists enjoy a life free from the struggle to "do good" because when you leave off trying to please God, the devil leaves off of you; now you are now more or less on course for his program.

...the hell does that even mean?

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I know that atheists, especially the ones in charge of websites, are anxious to weild their power in banning those who contradict atheism.

Oh, do you now? Wield, like Jesus wielding the sword of holy justice, hm?

Quote from: "ebarrowes"The atheists get very disturbed at my comments and therefore, the moderator deems me bannable.

I think you're confusing the word "disturbed" with the word "annoyed." But, honestly (and I'm not a mod), all I've seen so far is ignorance, meaningless claims and the need to create a new post for every thought you have.

If you get banned for anything, it seems like it'll be spamming. Go on home, Big Love.

I'm confused by the Scientology banner.


I say Troll.

Quote from: "skurry"An often quoted atheist said something along the lines of;

"If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good."

Morality is not something that comes from god or the devil, morality comes from instinct and intelligence. There is quite a bit of research on the evolutionary benefits of morality.

There are two kinds of wrongdoing: 1) overt, negative acts and 2) not doing the positive that you know to do.  There is a verse in the Bible, Rev. 3: 15-16,  "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
A "moral" atheist refrains from the first.  Are there atheists who strive to avoid the second?

Quote from: "skurry"An often quoted atheist said something along the lines of;

"If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good."

The way I like to put it is "If the only thing stopping you going postal is a belief in God, I don't want to be around you if you have a crisis of faith".

ebarrowes,

I repeat my question. Did you come here with the intention of being banned? You seem to have a chronic case of martyr syndrome.

I say with some confidence that it will not be crticism of atheism that will cause it to happen. The spamming, preaching and lack of desire to engage in a rational debate on the other hand....

You ranting does the cause of atheism the world of good, to be honest.

I can also assure you that I do not get disturbed at your comments. That you are potentially able to vote  and live amongst normal people does undermine my faith in humanity somewhat, however.

I see, Christians are without sin.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Atheists enjoy a life free from the struggle to "do good" because when you leave off trying to please God, the devil leaves off of you; now you are now more or less on course for his program.

...the hell does that even mean?

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I know that atheists, especially the ones in charge of websites, are anxious to weild their power in banning those who contradict atheism.

Oh, do you now? Wield, like Jesus wielding the sword of holy justice, hm?

Quote from: "ebarrowes"The atheists get very disturbed at my comments and therefore, the moderator deems me bannable.

I think you're confusing the word "disturbed" with the word "annoyed." But, honestly (and I'm not a mod), all I've seen so far is ignorance, meaningless claims and the need to create a new post for every thought you have.

If you get banned for anything, it seems like it'll be spamming. Go on home, Big Love.

There are two main forces in the world.  The more effort you put into God's program, the more effort the devil puts into opposing you.  Logical, (assuming they exist) wouldn't you say?

Thanks for the spelling correction.  It looked a bit weird.

If I am in error, then I exult in that.  In my experience, atheists are like rabid dogs when you try to take away their bone.

QuoteA "moral" atheist refrains from the first. Are there atheists who strive to avoid the second?

Would you like a mirror?

Do I give to the poor? Yep, and I spend my winters in Chicago handing out blankets and "hand warmers" to the homeless.

Do I help people in need? Yep.

Adopt from shelters? Sure do.

I'm not sure what you are asking, but if you are only doing good deeds to please god then you aren't truly doing good deeds for the right reason in the eys of your god. You are doing them to buy points, and he will see right through that and call bullshite on it.

I would also like non biblical evidence for your argument of the god vs satan thing... and the magic undies thing.

Stop making assumptions, "rabid dogs"? You truly are a troll. Everyone has been kind to you so far.

I am an atheist and so is my wife. We both run animal rescues. All of our pets are special needs. We spend thousands of dollars a year rescuing special need pets and livestock and re homing them.  We do not gain anything physical or monetary from our actions. I donate my time at hospices, my wife is involved any many education programs for at need kids.

Would you care to explain our actions as we do not have god in our life to direct our morality and ethics?

Quote from: "Karras"

Quote from: "skurry"An often quoted atheist said something along the lines of;

"If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good."

The way I like to put it is "If the only thing stopping you going postal is a belief in God, I don't want to be around you if you have a crisis of faith".

ebarrowes,

I repeat my question. Did you come here with the intention of being banned? You seem to have a chronic case of martyr syndrome.

I say with some confidence that it will not be crticism of atheism that will cause it to happen. The spamming, preaching and lack of desire to engage in a rational debate on the other hand....

You ranting does the cause of atheism the world of good, to be honest.

I can also assure you that I do not get disturbed at your comments. That you are potentially able to vote  and live amongst normal people does undermine my faith in humanity somewhat, however.

I am quite aware that I may get banned here.  Sadly, I have discovered mild entertainment in seeing how many atheist forums I will get banned from, without doing anything wrong.  I would like to find common ground, but I get banned before that happens.  I've only gotten banned from the atheistforums website so far.  I think the atheists feel like I've invaded their secret garden, where they mutually congratulate each other on being right.  So, instead of deal with the issues up front, they prefer to ban me.
Common ground so far:  If you oppose a god who forces followers into obedience, then I am with you.  We have a name for that god -- Satan.  Yes, I am here to disturb your self-deceptive slumber, and for that, I will not be surprised if I get banned from here as well.  Unless... I am able to find virtue, honor, character and backbone.
Any conversation here, which does not presuppose atheistic as correct, I think will get banned.

So...how do you know that god and the devil exist? Do you have evidence for this supposition?

Quote from: "MrWizard"I am an atheist and so is my wife. We both run animal rescues. All of our pets are special needs. We spend thousands of dollars a year rescuing special need pets and livestock and re homing them.  We do not gain anything physical or monetary from our actions. I donate my time at hospices, my wife is involved any many education programs for at need kids.

Would you care to explain our actions as we do not have god in our life to direct our morality and ethics?

You live a divided life, my friend.  You dismiss God at one turn, and serve Him the next.  I have at times past, believed something that was not true, all the while doing good things unrelated, later to discover my folly.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"[I am quite aware that I may get banned here.  Sadly, I have discovered mild entertainment in seeing how many atheist forums I will get banned from, without doing anything wrong.  I would like to find common ground, but I get banned before that happens.  I've only gotten banned from the atheistforums website so far.  I think the atheists feel like I've invaded their secret garden, where they mutually congratulate each other on being right.  So, instead of deal with the issues up front, they prefer to ban me.
Common ground so far:  If you oppose a god who forces followers into obedience, then I am with you.  We have a name for that god -- Satan.  Yes, I am here to disturb your self-deceptive slumber, and for that, I will not be surprised if I get banned from here as well.  Unless... I am able to find virtue, honor, character and backbone.
Any conversation here, which does not presuppose atheistic as correct, I think will get banned.

How do you propose to find common ground when you have done nothing but preach? Do you not feel it would be beneficial to open a dialogue to discover this common ground? Do you not feel comments like

Quoteatheists are like rabid dogs when you try to take away their bone

are counter-productive?

If you cannot see what you are doing wrong, I suspect it may be beyond my ability to explain it to you.

Tell me, do you approach all disputes in life by telling the opposition that they are working for the devil?

Quote from: "Chimera"So...how do you know that god and the devil exist? Do you have evidence for this supposition?

The evidence is that if you seek Him, you will find Him, not as a figment of  your imagination, but as a real communication.  You must seek Him to seek Him, not just so you can say that you tried and got nothing.  You have to really want to know and be honest with what you find.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"

Quote from: "Chimera"So...how do you know that god and the devil exist? Do you have evidence for this supposition?

The evidence is that if you seek Him, you will find Him, not as a figment of  your imagination, but as a real communication.  You must seek Him to seek Him, not just so you can say that you tried and got nothing.  You have to really want to know and be honest with what you find.

You are about one post away from the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Tell me, how do you account for all of the honest, devout Christians who spend their lives seeking real communication with God, fail and become atheists?

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I know that atheists, especially the ones in charge of websites, are anxious to weild their power in banning those who contradict atheism.

If you had taken a moment to read some other threads before speaking like a jackass you'd notice that we do allow theists to speak here and one of the moderators is a theist.  This is your final reminder to read the rules and follow them.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"

Quote from: "Chimera"So...how do you know that god and the devil exist? Do you have evidence for this supposition?

The evidence is that if you seek Him, you will find Him, not as a figment of  your imagination, but as a real communication.  You must seek Him to seek Him, not just so you can say that you tried and got nothing.  You have to really want to know and be honest with what you find.

I'm sorry that is not evidence. Evidence is tangible. What I believe you are speaking to is a little voice inside your head, but hey, that's just me. I'm sorry that you think that WE are the ones who are lost.

god and the devil have a program? What, like AA or something? Maybe it is a course of injections.

Hmm, count me out. I dislike needles.

ebarrows, I cease to care about your faith as soon as you admit that it is FAITH, and may not be right for everyone.

If you have come here to tell us that we are lost souls, or to save us, then you've wasted your time.

Maybe you should go convert some Muslims :hmm:

Quote from: "ebarrows"You live a divided life, my friend. You dismiss God at one turn, and serve Him the next. I have at times past, believed something that was not true, all the while doing good things unrelated, later to discover my folly.

I'm sure he doesn't feel that way.

Myself, I certainly didn't just "dismiss" god.  Actually, it got to the point where I would just have been lying to myself if I said I believed in the supernatural.  Why does this make my good deeds a contradiction?

It seems like you are deliberatly being antagonistic in an atempt to get yourself banned. Like you want to be able to say "See I knew those mean atheists would bann me". Well I've got to tell you the only people who are banned are spammers, troll, and anyone else who won't read and follow the rules. Atheists get banned for breaking the rules same as Theists. It seems kind of petty, delibratly trying to get banned from as many atheist forums as possible, as you've admitted to doing. There have been several theists who can come and had a civilsed disscusion without breaking the rules. Why do you like seeing how far you can push the line before you get banned? It seems like such a petty and empty way to act the martyr.

Quote from: "Tanker"It seems like you are deliberatly being antagonistic in an atempt to get yourself banned. Like you want to be able to say "See I knew those mean atheists would bann me". Well I've got to tell you the only people who are banned are spammers, troll, and anyone else who won't read and follow the rules. Atheists get banned for breaking the rules same as Theists. It seems kind of petty, delibratly trying to get banned from as many atheist forums as possible, as you've admitted to doing. There have been several theists who can come and had a civilsed disscusion without breaking the rules. Why do you like seeing how far you can push the line before you get banned? It seems like such a petty and empty way to act the martyr.

Agreed. Skurry's 2 cents administered.

Quote from: "Tanker"It seems like you are deliberatly being antagonistic in an atempt to get yourself banned. Like you want to be able to say "See I knew those mean atheists would bann me". Well I've got to tell you the only people who are banned are spammers, troll, and anyone else who won't read and follow the rules. Atheists get banned for breaking the rules same as Theists. It seems kind of petty, delibratly trying to get banned from as many atheist forums as possible, as you've admitted to doing. There have been several theists who can come and had a civilsed disscusion without breaking the rules. Why do you like seeing how far you can push the line before you get banned? It seems like such a petty and empty way to act the martyr.

I think people who do that must not be very confident in their faith and need a reason to not take that step outside of the box...so they purposely annoy atheists so they can confirm their falsely held stereotypes.  It's certainly not being a martyr for their cause, if anything it huts it....can't attract flies with vinegar.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"There are two kinds of wrongdoing: 1) overt, negative acts and 2) not doing the positive that you know to do.  There is a verse in the Bible, Rev. 3: 15-16,  "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
A "moral" atheist refrains from the first.  Are there atheists who strive to avoid the second?

 

Not sure if it's still in my signature, but if sin may be committed by not acting when you're morally obligated to act a certain way, there is no greater sinner than God.

You probably won't get banned unless you get preachy, but we're not disturbed by you (not in the way you think, anyway), and we don't ban just for dissent.  Whitney will ban you if you abandon threads or conspicuously do not address points, or if you start preaching, though (and your post is little better than preaching).  Yes, atheists do positive acts when they feel they should.  Are you honestly suggesting atheists never stick out their neck for anyone?  What other wrong through inaction is there?  If you say not belonging to your religion is a wrong committed through inaction, you'll have to establish to me that your religion is right.  I'd hate to get tossed into hell for believing a false book, after all, and the Catholics are pretty certain you guys are going to hell, as well as it being an inactive wrong to not believe in their religion.  It'd be a much easier choice if anyone had some evidence.  Meh.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Atheists enjoy a life free from the struggle to "do good" because when you leave off trying to please God, the devil leaves off of you; now you are now more or less on course for his program.

We're not upset... we're puzzled why you choose to make a statement without anything to back it up.

And I do not enjoy a life free from the struggle to "do good."  It's a shame that it's a struggle for YOU to be good... I do it automatically, without really thinking about it.  I didn't need a book to tell me not to kill, not to steal, not to cheat, or to cherish those close to me.  Why do YOU need that book to keep you on the "straight and narrow"?

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Any conversation here, which does not presuppose atheistic as correct, I think will get banned.

See, here is a flaw in your overall thinking... no one is presupposing that atheism is "correct."  You have your way of thinking... that there is a god and that the bible is true and factual.  More power to you, friend.  I have my way of thinking... that there is evidence for a god or that the bible is fact, and I don't "believe" in things that aren't factual... that is, I don't let imaginary beings guide my life.  You believe only the bible can provide goodness.  I believe I know right from wrong, good from bad, without that book.  Am I in jail?  Nope, never have been.  Only ever had 1 speeding ticket.

Neither one of us is correct or wrong.  We just are.

Any conversation that is seen as preaching to us to change our belief system... THAT will get you banned.  Just converse with us... ask us (not snide) questions and we'll answer.   But this constant flogging of your beliefs, just waiting for the "evil" atheists to ban you... it's counterproductive and annoying.

Just for emphasis,

 I would be lying if I were to pretend that I could ever believe in your religion.


This means that, for me, Mormonism is a lie.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I will probably get the boot for promoting this idea.

Atheists don't know if God exists or not. They are playing mind games with every one.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"Atheists don't know if God exists or not. They are playing mind games with every one.

Definition. Fail.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages44.fotki.com%2Fv1468%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1235450958541-vi.gif&hash=87baa9275a72de8d5e6acefcaa01608fce2dcab8)

Quote from: "Will"I see, Christians are without sin.  

Christians are sinners. That's why we bless the Lord Jesus Christ every day of our lives. With him, we are washed free from sin.
 Peace

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"Atheists don't know if God exists or not. They are playing mind games with every one.

Definition. Fail.

Since an atheist cannot prove a universal negative. That means God can mathematically be proven.

:ban:

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"Christians are sinners.

Truer words, man... truer words.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"Christians are sinners.

Truer words, man... truer words.  

Jesus Christ saith "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone, and every man dropped their rock and walked away".

God knows we are sinners.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"Christians are sinners.

Truer words, man... truer words.  

Jesus Christ saith "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone, and every man dropped their rock and walked away".

God knows we are sinners.

If God knows we are sinners, then God knew we would be sinners at our creation, thus God made us that way knowing what we would become. That makes God a grade-A douchebag, in my book.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"If God knows we are sinners, then God knew we would be sinners at our creation, thus God made us that way knowing what we would become. That makes God a grade-A douchebag, in my book.

Yes, God knew in advance that we would sin. But you don't understand Christianity. God wants us to believe his Son (Jesus Christ) will wash away your sins with his blood. No matter what you do or say, Jesus Christ will forgive you.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"If God knows we are sinners, then God knew we would be sinners at our creation, thus God made us that way knowing what we would become. That makes God a grade-A douchebag, in my book.

Yes, God knew in advance that we would sin. But you don't understand Christianity. God wants us to believe his Son (Jesus Christ) will wash away your sins with his blood. No matter what you do or say, Jesus Christ will forgive you.

A: God wants us to believe his Son will wash away your sins with his blood.
B: No matter what you do or say, Jesus Christ will forgive you.
Therefore, it doesn't matter if you believe his Son will wash away your sins, because no matter what you do or say, Jesus Christ will forgive you.

Hear that, everybody? Orgies and baby-sandwiches for everybody! It doesn't matter what we do or say, we're forgiven! That's awesome. Now I can start up my pre-teen brothel, just like I've always wanted!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi33.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd59%2FSkurry%2Ftadah_jesus.jpg&hash=25c87ab117040ba03d8658ab99a5475faa485a24)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"A: God wants us to believe his Son will wash away your sins with his blood.
B: No matter what you do or say, Jesus Christ will forgive you.
Therefore, it doesn't matter if you believe his Son will wash away your sins, because no matter what you do or say, Jesus Christ will forgive you.

You must believe Jesus Christ shed his blood for you. If you believe, you are rewarded in Heaven for eternity. If you reject Jesus Christ. He will reject you on Judgment Day.

QuoteHear that, everybody? Orgies and baby-sandwiches for everybody! It doesn't matter what we do or say, we're forgiven! That's awesome. Now I can start up my pre-teen brothel, just like I've always wanted!

No, You have misunderstood. Jesus said 'You must live every day as if I am coming back".

When I said "No matter what you say or do", I meant within reason. the occassional swear word, using his name in vain. If you ask for forgiveness, and truly mean it. he will forgive you.

But by the looks of it, it sounds like immediately condone sexual behavior and murder.

Please, do not reply to me with such childish and immature behavior.

Honestly, from my opinion. You are embaressing the atheists.

QuoteIBelieveInHymnBut by the looks of it, it sounds like immediately condone sexual behavior and murder.

Honestly, from my opinion. You are embaressing the atheists

Don't forget canbilisim delicious delicious canablism.

As a theist you CAN'T speak for any atheist let alone all atheists.

I'm sure if you post by the rules you will stop being ridiculed.

Quote from: "Tanker"Don't forget canbilisim delicious delicious canablism.

I thought cannibalism only existed in 3rd world countries?

QuoteAs a theist you CAN'T speak for any atheist let alone all atheists.

I'm sure if you post by the rules you will stop being ridiculed.

So, you condone childish behavior on your website? Is that what atheism stands for? Ridiculing the Christians? That surely doesn't sound like atheism to me. That sounds like a force from Satan.

I watched a video on Youtube called "Atheist atrocities", and atheism has killed (only) Christians in the last 1,400 years. Untold millions of Christians have died under the communist-atheist movement, ancient and modern.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "Tanker"Don't forget canbilisim delicious delicious canablism.

I thought cannibalism only existed in 3rd world countries?

QuoteAs a theist you CAN'T speak for any atheist let alone all atheists.

I'm sure if you post by the rules you will stop being ridiculed.

So, you condone childish behavior on your website? Is that what atheism stands for? Ridiculing the Christians? That surely doesn't sound like atheism to me. That sounds like a force from Satan.

I watched a video on Youtube called "Atheist atrocities", and atheism has killed (only) Christians in the last 1,400 years. Untold millions of Christians have died under the communist-atheist movement, ancient and modern.

You. Are. Completely. Insane. :yay:

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"You must believe Jesus Christ shed his blood for you. If you believe, you are rewarded in Heaven for eternity. If you reject Jesus Christ. He will reject you on Judgment Day.

I've seen Judgment Day. That opening scene with the kids in the playground was pretty sweet.

QuoteNo, You have misunderstood. Jesus said 'You must live every day as if I am coming back".

When I said "No matter what you say or do", I meant within reason. the occassional swear word, using his name in vain. If you ask for forgiveness, and truly mean it. he will forgive you.

Ah, that's that fine print that I always seem to miss. I got fined for canceling a cell phone plan early because I didn't read the fine print.  lol

QuotePlease, do not reply to me with such childish and immature behavior.

Please, do not break the forum rules by preaching and forcing me. Also, shut up, doodoohead.

QuoteHonestly, from my opinion. You are embaressing the atheists.

Well, let me personally apologize to all the other atheists here for embaressing them. Everybody, I'm sorry for embaressing you.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "Tanker"Don't forget canbilisim delicious delicious canablism.

I thought cannibalism only existed in 3rd world countries?

QuoteAs a theist you CAN'T speak for any atheist let alone all atheists.

I'm sure if you post by the rules you will stop being ridiculed.

So, you condone childish behavior on your website? Is that what atheism stands for? Ridiculing the Christians? That surely doesn't sound like atheism to me. That sounds like a force from Satan.

I watched a video on Youtube called "Atheist atrocities", and atheism has killed (only) Christians in the last 1,400 years. Untold millions of Christians have died under the communist-atheist movement, ancient and modern.

Atheism "stands for" nothing other then the disbelief in god(s). There is no satan. If you act like a fool you will be treated like a fool. That video has been debunked repeatedly.


So i googled your name it apears you can occasionaly make cohernt arguments without only quoteing the bible, why do you feel the need here?

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"So, you condone childish behavior on your website? Is that what atheism stands for? Ridiculing the Christians? That surely doesn't sound like atheism to me. That sounds like a force from Satan.

I finally figured out who you remind me of.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_uYLeGaENxug%2FSDW4JaM40PI%2FAAAAAAAAAH8%2FEo4QzZsLUyM%2Fs400%2Fchurch_lady.jpg&hash=e2ab0813801f7e6d57a78515ecbaa55d82b62fe9)

Incidentally, it's the ridiculing of anyone who consciously joins this forum, blatantly disregards the rules after being told repeatedly that he or she is in violation of them yet continues to press on, that I stand for. Put on the big-boy pants, discuss things like an adult without preaching unwanted drivel, and you'll be treated with grace and civility. Until then, you're still a doodohead.

QuoteI watched a video on Youtube called "Atheist atrocities", and atheism has killed (only) Christians in the last 1,400 years. Untold millions of Christians have died under the communist-atheist movement, ancient and modern.

Oh, that again! Oh, sweet lord, yes, hahaha. Some people will believe anything.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages52.fotki.com%2Fv1551%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1248583818864-vi.gif&hash=84d7d4b27c640812ccac75b577036b5428157d07)

Quote from: "Tanker"Atheism "stands for" nothing other then the disbelief in god(s). There is no satan. If you act like a fool you will be treated like a fool. That video has been debunked repeatedly.

Yes, I know what atheism means. Can you explain why atheists have only persecuted Christians within the last 1400 years?

QuoteSo i googled your name it apears you can occasionaly make cohernt arguments without only quoteing the bible, why do you feel the need here?

Because some of the arguments needed to be dealt with by a bible verse.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I know that atheists, especially the ones in charge of websites, are anxious to weild their power in banning those who contradict atheism.

If you had taken a moment to read some other threads before speaking like a jackass you'd notice that we do allow theists to speak here and one of the moderators is a theist.  This is your final reminder to read the rules and follow them.

If you could tell me exactly which rule I am breaking, then we can proceed.  I think that your definition of civility, is agreement with atheism.  Perhaps you are like athiestforums.  They systematically ban anyone who seems to be making headway in revealing the folly of atheism, thus preserving their secret garden of atheistic sympathy.  That is your option.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "Tanker"Atheism "stands for" nothing other then the disbelief in god(s). There is no satan. If you act like a fool you will be treated like a fool. That video has been debunked repeatedly.

Yes, I know what atheism means. Can you explain why atheists have only persecuted Christians within the last 1400 years?

I'm sorry who persecutes whom? Atheists haven't even been openly atheist for more that a couple hundred years. Are you talking about wars? Murder? Hate crimes? I believe religion is guilty of those crimes against humanity infinite-fold.
I believe you have succumb to misinformation. It is sad really. All arguments you have are now irrelevant.

Quote from: "skurry"

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "Tanker"Atheism "stands for" nothing other then the disbelief in god(s). There is no satan. If you act like a fool you will be treated like a fool. That video has been debunked repeatedly.

Yes, I know what atheism means. Can you explain why atheists have only persecuted Christians within the last 1400 years?

I'm sorry who persecutes whom? Atheists haven't even been openly atheist for more that a couple hundred years. Are you talking about wars? Murder? Hate crimes? I believe religion is guilty of those crimes against humanity infinite-fold.
I believe you have succumb to misinformation. It is sad really. All arguments you have are now irrelevant.

Are you not familiar with the communist-atheist nations past and present? I can show you how atheists have slaughtered untold millions of Christians throughout history. I can show you proof of communist-atheist govnerments executing Christians as we speak. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534728,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534728,00.html)

I'm not saying these nations are executing Christians in the name of atheism. What I'm saying is why are atheists executing only Christians? When was the last time an atheist nation executed a Muslim for reading the Qu'ran?

These are arguments that need to be explained by atheists all across the world.

Communism is a form of government. Atheism is a disbelief in god. One does not require the other. This has actually been dicused a few times here but i doubt you've spent much time searching this forum. It is true that most Communist governments have encouraged and even tried to enforce Atheism. But that was in the name of power. Religion is a source of competing power for a totalitarian-communist government that them a treat. If you want to make baseless grouping of religious views and forms of government. How about the prevailence of Fashist governments being theist. 2 good examples would be Nazi Germany, and the Iatollah of Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 571206.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece)
"Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'"

FTA: “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

Quote from: "Tanker"Communism is a form of government. Atheism is a disbelief in god. One does not require the other. This has actually been dicused a few times here but i doubt you've spent much time searching this forum. It is true that most Communist governments have encouraged and even tried to enforce Atheism. But that was in the name of power. Religion is a source of competing power for a totalitarian-communist government which makes it a treat. If you want to make baseless grouping of religious views and forms of government. How about the prevailence of Fashist governments being theist. 2 good examples would be Nazi Germany, and the Iatollah of Iran.

Yes, I understand Communism is a form of Govnerment. But these govnerments are atheist. And they are trying to abolish Christianity, and Christianity only. Communist-atheist Nations are sending Christians to prison camps (life sentences), beheading them, some of them are held captive as slaves. And this is all condoned, and encouraged by atheists.

Did you know communist-atheist North Korea is planning to strike Hawaii with a nuclear missile?

Why are atheists encouraging World War III? Possibly Armageddon?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffriendlyatheist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F01%2Faddiscartoon.jpg&hash=127a096fecc5958b990725ac92df59eea9c55802)

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "Tanker"Communism is a form of government. Atheism is a disbelief in god. One does not require the other. This has actually been dicused a few times here but i doubt you've spent much time searching this forum. It is true that most Communist governments have encouraged and even tried to enforce Atheism. But that was in the name of power. Religion is a source of competing power for a totalitarian-communist government which makes it a treat. If you want to make baseless grouping of religious views and forms of government. How about the prevailence of Fashist governments being theist. 2 good examples would be Nazi Germany, and the Iatollah of Iran.

Yes, I understand Communism is a form of Govnerment. But these govnerments are atheist. And they are trying to abolish Christianity, and Christianity only. Communist-atheist Nations are sending Christians to prison camps (life sentences), beheading them, some of them are held captive as slaves. And this is all condoned, and encouraged by atheists.

Did you know communist-atheist North Korea is planning to strike Hawaii with a nuclear missile?

Why are atheists encouraging World War III? Possibly Armageddon?

Either you are hte most uneducated and ignorant person ever or you are pushing the trollyness of your posts on purpose.


A) they are not Atheist but they try to enforce Atheism. There is a difference.
B) they are against all religion. I know as a Christian you think the world revolves around your particular mythology, but they dislike all religions.
C) they are not Communist-atheist nations they are communist nations. Again Atheism is NOT a form of government.
D) I would LOVE some souces since thats another of the rules youve decided not to read or disregard.
E) Where did you hear that N. korea is going to attack anyone with anything again source would be nice.
F) Atheists aren't, governments are, I serious doubt it will come to WWIII
G) armengeddon is supposed to be gods wrath MAN couldn't anyway

Ok folks. This thread needs to get back on track right away. We welcome reasonable people of all kinds here. Sarcasm and personal attacks have no place on the forum. Rein it in, please. Newer members need to be familiar with the rules of the forum and make sure they stick to them as well as those of us who have been around awhile.

This post is meant for everyone, of any belief, who has stepped outside of the bounds of reasoned debate here.

Thank you.

Quote from: "PipeBox"

Quote from: "ebarrowes"There are two kinds of wrongdoing: 1) overt, negative acts and 2) not doing the positive that you know to do.  There is a verse in the Bible, Rev. 3: 15-16,  "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
A "moral" atheist refrains from the first.  Are there atheists who strive to avoid the second?

 

Not sure if it's still in my signature, but if sin may be committed by not acting when you're morally obligated to act a certain way, there is no greater sinner than God.

You probably won't get banned unless you get preachy, but we're not disturbed by you (not in the way you think, anyway), and we don't ban just for dissent.  Whitney will ban you if you abandon threads or conspicuously do not address points, or if you start preaching, though (and your post is little better than preaching).  Yes, atheists do positive acts when they feel they should.  Are you honestly suggesting atheists never stick out their neck for anyone?  What other wrong through inaction is there?  If you say not belonging to your religion is a wrong committed through inaction, you'll have to establish to me that your religion is right.  I'd hate to get tossed into hell for believing a false book, after all, and the Catholics are pretty certain you guys are going to hell, as well as it being an inactive wrong to not believe in their religion.  It'd be a much easier choice if anyone had some evidence.  Meh.

Part of the problem with atheists is that they deny the existence of "vision" or love or anything that cannot be measured with scientific instruments.  God so designed life that one must have faith to progress.  To believe in something and strive for it stretches the fiber of a person like nothing else.  This is the purpose of life, to grow.  And, if everything is perfectly spelled out in black and white then there is no need to stretch and grow.  He has purposefully kept himself hidden from the faithless.  However, the time will soon come when he descends from the sky and reigns personally on earth.  At that time, there will be no room for doubt, only flat out rebellion.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Part of the problem with atheists is that they deny the existence of "vision" or love or anything that cannot be measured with scientific instruments.

On love...

I as an atheist would think it exists even if there were no scientific evidence/explaination of it.

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Tanker"It seems like you are deliberatly being antagonistic in an atempt to get yourself banned. Like you want to be able to say "See I knew those mean atheists would bann me". Well I've got to tell you the only people who are banned are spammers, troll, and anyone else who won't read and follow the rules. Atheists get banned for breaking the rules same as Theists. It seems kind of petty, delibratly trying to get banned from as many atheist forums as possible, as you've admitted to doing. There have been several theists who can come and had a civilsed disscusion without breaking the rules. Why do you like seeing how far you can push the line before you get banned? It seems like such a petty and empty way to act the martyr.

I think people who do that must not be very confident in their faith and need a reason to not take that step outside of the box...so they purposely annoy atheists so they can confirm their falsely held stereotypes.  It's certainly not being a martyr for their cause, if anything it huts it....can't attract flies with vinegar.

I do not want to be banned.  I prefer to have open conversation.  It was an inadvertent discovery that a moderator would ban someone to eliminate opposing views.  Perhaps this forum has a little bit more intelligently moderated.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Tanker"It seems like you are deliberatly being antagonistic in an atempt to get yourself banned. Like you want to be able to say "See I knew those mean atheists would bann me". Well I've got to tell you the only people who are banned are spammers, troll, and anyone else who won't read and follow the rules. Atheists get banned for breaking the rules same as Theists. It seems kind of petty, delibratly trying to get banned from as many atheist forums as possible, as you've admitted to doing. There have been several theists who can come and had a civilsed disscusion without breaking the rules. Why do you like seeing how far you can push the line before you get banned? It seems like such a petty and empty way to act the martyr.

I think people who do that must not be very confident in their faith and need a reason to not take that step outside of the box...so they purposely annoy atheists so they can confirm their falsely held stereotypes.  It's certainly not being a martyr for their cause, if anything it huts it....can't attract flies with vinegar.

I do not want to be banned.  I prefer to have open conversation.  It was an inadvertent discovery that a moderator would ban someone to eliminate opposing views.  Perhaps this forum has a little bit more intelligently moderated.

Well, for future refence the best way to have an "open converstion" is to NOT make you very first post an attack on those you wish to coverse with.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Part of the problem with atheists is that they deny the existence of "vision" or love or anything that cannot be measured with scientific instruments.

On love...

I as an atheist would think it exists even if there were no scientific evidence/explaination of it.

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

There are "degrees" of atheism, right?  The evidence of God's existence is along the lines of the evidence of love.  God can speak to you in a way that is undeniable, but the person sitting next to you will call you a fool for "imagining" something that he cannot "prove."

QuoteWell, for future refence the best way to have an "open converstion" is to NOT make you very first post an attack on those you wish to coverse with.

I attack the lie that is atheism.  That you are ignorant of it is your redemption.  That you are ignorant of it is your affliction.  For the life of me, I cannot find any virtues attributed to it.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"

QuoteWell, for future refence the best way to have an "open converstion" is to NOT make you very first post an attack on those you wish to coverse with.

I attack the lie that is atheism.  That you are ignorant of it is your redemption.  That you are ignorant of it is your affliction.  For the life of me, I cannot find any virtues attributed to it.

Again attacks are not the best way to have the "open" conversation you state you are looking for. People tend to shut down when attacked. Attaking people is a great way to have a closed minded argument but a very poor source for open anything.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I will probably get the boot for promoting this idea.

Atheists don't know if God exists or not. They are playing mind games with every one.

Christians don't know if god exists or not... they are playing mind games with every one.

See, we can play that game, too.

FAIL.

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "IBelieveInHymn"Atheists don't know if God exists or not. They are playing mind games with every one.

Definition. Fail.

Since an atheist cannot prove a universal negative. That means God can mathematically be proven.

Christians cannot prove that god exists.  This means that the default position is nonexistence until some evidence for his existence, excluding his book, is provided.  Again, nice try.

ETA:  Wrong word in second paragraph.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"There are "degrees" of atheism, right?

No...you either believe in god or you don't.  As for love...if Squid has the time he has a nice article he wrote about the science of love that he might decide to share.

IBelieveInHymn, you are using the same IP address as Psalm23.  If you don't want to get banned you need to explain yourself before posting again, sock puppets are against our rules.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I do not want to be banned.  I prefer to have open conversation.

Your continued adoption of an aggressive, preachy posting style proves this is either a lie or you do not know the first thing about having an "open conversation".

Quote from: "Whitney"IBelieveInHymn, you are using the same IP address as Psalm23.  If you don't want to get banned you need to explain yourself before posting again, sock puppets are against our rules.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "ebarrowes"There are "degrees" of atheism, right?

No...you either believe in god or you don't.  As for love...if Squid has the time he has a nice article he wrote about the science of love that he might decide to share.

Why, yes, yes I do....although I need to update it some, there's been some great research in the past two or three years that adds to what I've written here.  Anyhow, here ya go:

"Love makes the world go round", the old saying goes. Men and women have written about, died for, sacrificed for, lament about, idolized, suffered for and sung praises of love for centuries. This concept is known to all yet it remains very much an enigma. Many cannot define it if asked to. So what is this thing we call love? What is this enigma that is the subject of sonnets and something we pursue throughout our lives in one form or another? The answer will differ from person to person.

So important to mankind is love that some of the most noted literature revolves around it. Plato wrote his Symposium of which the subject love was the topic of the night. Shakespeare wrote many sonnets about love and a play in which the characters die for it. A most curious aspect of life love is and a very important one to mankind.

Psychology has not left love untouched and has attempted to examine and explain what love is. There is no shortage of work in regards to the inquiry of love. Social theories, evolutionary theories, biological theories have all contributed to help us elucidate this thing we call love.

What exactly is this "love" concept we are referring to? A colloquial definition of love is a "deep affection and warm feeling for another" as well as "the emotion of sex and romance; strong sexual desire for another person" (Pickett, 2001). Unfortunately these definitions still leave much to be desired. It has simply explained an umbrella concept with other similar concepts. Breaking down love into more specific mechanisms and phenomena involved is shown within the literature. However, Sternberg (1986) warns, "a theory of love…can help one understand the range and composition of the phenomenon of love but should not result in the whole's being lost in its parts".

To further describe what love is and what it involves there has been a distinction of two general divisions, companionate and passionate love. Companionate love consists of feeling intimacy and affection for someone but it is not accompanied by any physiological arousal. Passionate love on the other hand involves an intense physiological arousal and an intense longing for another person (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2005). This division is referred to as the two-factor theory of love and are considered to be the two primary elements of love from which all the other varieties of love can be derived (Compton, 2005).

Expounding upon these fundamentals, Sternberg (1986) formulated his triangular theory of love. The three main components consisting of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. For Sternberg's theory, intimacy is defined as referring to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. Passion refers to "drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena" (p. 119). Decision/commitment is divided into short-term and long-term. In the short term it involves the decision that an individual loves another and in the long-term, involving a commitment to maintain the love.

Of the three main divisions, Sternberg notes the stability of each stating:

“The emotional and other involvement of the intimacy component and the cognitive commitment of the decision/commitment component seem to be relatively stable in close relationships, whereas the motivational and other arousal of the passion component tends to be relatively unstable and to come and go on a somewhat unpredictable basis (pp. 120).”

Sternberg further notes that there are eight possible subsets that can be derived from the "love triangle". These are â€" nonlove, liking, infatuated love, empty love, romantic love, companionate love, and consummate love.
Nonlove is the term that is given when all of the three components of the triangle are not present. A relationship with an acquaintance of ours such as a business partner or the gentlemen from whom we buy a newspaper every morning would be classified as nonlove.

Liking involves only the intimacy component of the triangle. Liking in Sternberg's theory is what we would find in friendships where we feel a closeness toward someone "but the friend does not 'turn one on,' nor…that one plans to love the friend for the rest of one's life" (pp. 123). In popular language many people often say that they "love" their friends yet as defined in the context of this theory, we would say we 'like' our friends. The confusion can arise on this point since there is a vague hierarchy in a common sense that love is above like both of which are very abstract in colloquial usage which can prompt such questions as, "do you like him/her or do you like him like him". Despite the obvious clumsiness of the language, most people will understand what is meant.

The third subset is infatuated love. This type of love is what is present when someone experiences "love at first sight". Infatuation, which is often mistaken for a "deeper" type of love, "results from the experiencing of passionate arousal" (pp. 124). Infatuations can come and go, spontaneously arising and dissolving just as quickly. Being as it involves arousal of passion, many psychophysiological arousals occur such as increased heart rate and genital erection.

Empty love is a subset which involves the decision/commitment component. A person has decided that they love someone and is committed to it. There is no real intimacy or passion. Empty love can often be found towards the end of a relationship although it is not exclusive to a relationships finale. For instance, "in societies where marriages are arranged, the marital partners may start with the commitment to love each other, or to try to love each other, and not much more" (pp. 124).

Romantic love is the subset that we most often find as the subject of songs, sonnets and movies. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a classic example of romantic love. Romantic love involves intimacy and passion where both people are physically aroused and attracted to one another as well as sharing an emotional bond. However, some have argued that romantic love is no different than infatuation. Even Sternberg states that, "it is difficult to maintain romantic love over a long period of time" (pp. 133).

The combination of the intimacy and the decision/commitment components will result in companionate love. Sternberg likens this type of love to a long-term, committed friendship â€" one you might find in a marriage of an elderly couple where the fires of passion have burned down.

The final subset is consummate love. Consummate love contains all three components of the theory in full. It is simply the type of love for which most relationships seek to obtain. However it is not guaranteed perfect or to last for life, as Sternberg notes, "its loss is sometimes analogous to the gain of weight after a weight reduction program: one is often not aware of the loss of the goal until it is far gone" (pp. 124).

Within the triangular theory, there is also the relation between ideal and real involvement. The ideal involvement is exemplified by consummate love, however, over and underinvolvement where aspects of the relationships fall short or overshoot the components involved.

Along with ideal vs. real involvement is the relation of the two people involved in the relationship. Perfect matches share the same level of involvement in each component involved but a mismatch may occur if these are not close in both individuals. For instance one person may be more involved in the decision/commitment component and the other more involved in the passion component and this disparity will be considered a mismatch a mean that the relationship is in trouble.

Another sort of triangle or rather a three dimensional structure of what was term a prototype of love by Aron and Westbay (1996). The three dimensions, similar to Sternberg's theory, are passion, intimacy, and commitment. These three dimensions were gleaned from work by Beverly Fehr who identified 68 features central to prototypical love. Aron and Westbay state that the three dimensions can be understood in two ways. The first way is that they "represent a summary description in the sense of providing a parsimonious set of terms" (pp. 548). That is when people rate features (of the 68 outlined by Fehr) that are central or non-central to the prototype, features within the same dimension will be rated similarly. Secondly, the similarity in rating within the dimensions hints that there "a direct linkage among the features within a dimension in the way they are treated in cognitive processing" (p. 549). From their studies, Aron and Westbay conclude that, "there is a reliable latent structure of how people understand love and that this structure is characterized by three somewhat inter-correlated dimensions of passion, intimacy, and commitment" (pp. 550).

The idea of being mismatched in a relationship and seeking to come to a balance, to become close to equilibrium is core to the equity theory of love. The equity theory of relationships holds that the costs and benefits for each individual must be equal to have in order to be the most stable. Consequently, depending upon the costs and benefits for each person there may be under or overbenefit. Both those who experience underbenefit and overbenefit "should be motivated to restore equity to the relationship" (Aronson et al., 2005). While one who is experiencing underbenefit is obviously motivated to seek this restoration of equity, the theory holds that those experiencing overbenefit should be motivated as well. The motivation for the overbenefited is said to stem from a feeling of guilt because "equity is a powerful social norm" (pp. 334). However, the imbalance is seen as more of a problem by those who are underbenefited rather than those who are overbenefited.

Delving further into the component of commitment involved in love, Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, and Smith (2001) see commitment as beneficial into two major ways to the relationship. The first way is that love promoted commitment will motivate intimacy towards a partner and is "likely to countervail feelings of desire for others" in the absence of the partner (pp. 248). The second is that the outward displays of gestures, actions and speaking communicates the commitment and thereby serves to strengthen the bond by fostering feelings such as trust and mutual dependence.

In one study, Gonzaga et al. found that there were four cues that were correlated with partner estimates of love and self-reports. These four cues were head nods, Duchenne smiling, gesticulation, and forward leans. Duchenne smiling or "genuine smile" is a smile that is produced as a result of genuine emotion and characterized by the movement of the muscles near the eyes and around the corners of the mouth. Gesticulation are gestures, the non-verbal communication made with parts of the body â€" "body language" as it is commonly termed. The study also found that this was not correlated with self-reports of happiness or desire, "suggesting that this pattern of behavior may be unique to love" (pp. 254). It was also found that the display and experiencing of love was not related to any negative emotions, only positive ones leading them to conclude that love is not about reducing distress but pleasure.

Feeney and Noller (1990) examined attachment styles in relation to romantic relationships in adults. Their study was conducted upon a sample of 374 undergraduates with questionnaires measuring attachment style, attachment history, beliefs about relationships, self-esteem, limerence, love addiction, and love styles. Their study found that secure participants had positive family relationships and trusting attitudes toward others. Anxious-ambivalent participants had a perception of a lack of paternal support and had a desire or dependence for commitment. Avoidant subjects were "most likely to endorse items measuring mistrust of and distance from others" (pp. 286). The importance of their findings is that it shows how a person's attachment style can affect their relationships with others.

Murray, Holmes and Griffin (1996) studied positive illusions in romantic relationships. They examined dating couples and measured their idealization and well-being three times over the course of a year. Some of the ideas that relate to positive illusions in relationships are they outlined:

* They act as a mechanism which allows the couple to cope with disappointments.

* Married couples will more likely stay committed if positive interactions outweigh the negative ones by a ratio of 5:1.

* Illusions may act to insulate the couple from the effects of conflict and doubt â€" the buffering hypothesis.

It was found that when couples both idealized each other, the "relationships persisted, satisfaction increased, conflicts were averted, doubts abated, and personal insecurities diminished" (pp. 1178). With these findings in mind, it might answer the common question of many people's friends when they ask, "what does he/she see in them?" What we may see and what they may "see" might not be what exactly they see but what they focus on and what they ignore in the process of idealization of their partner. As Murray et al. found, "individuals who integrated a partner's virtues and faults within a compensatory 'Yes, buts…' are actually involved in more stable relationships than individuals who compartmentalize their partners' faults, leaving pockets of doubt" (pp. 1178).

The sweet sting of Cupid's arrow not only involves the production of illusions or rather idealization of another. Aron, Paris and Aron (1995) examined the consequences of falling in love. Their study consisted of undergraduates who had a high expectancy of falling in love, who were tested with open ended lists of self-descriptive terms and standard self-efficacy and self-esteem measures. What was found was, after having fell in love the students showed an increase in the diversity of self concepts as well as an increase in self-efficacy and self-esteem. A further analysis found that the results were not due simply to a mood change in the participants. Their findings simply solidify the fact that falling in love is a very positive experience for people which obviously has self-enhancing contributions.

In the study conducted by Gonzaga et al., they commented on two other areas of inquiry into love â€" the biological and evolutionary value. They stated that, "love may have distinct neural substrates" and it may serve as a commitment function that "may increase the ability of offspring to survive" (pp. 259). The idea of biological agents underlying love is not new. Aristophanes' story in Plato's Symposium tells of creatures who were bonded together and then separated by the gods. These creatures then spent the rest of their lives trying to find their other half. This is idea may be concluded from the observation of people when pursuing love stating that they want to find someone to "complete" them. Studies into the biology of love have shown there is distinct processes involved. While it may not be the drive to find our other halves, love does have quantifiable physiology involved.

Bartels and Zeki (2004) examined the brain activity of mothers viewing pictures of their children, acquainted children, best friend and acquainted adults. This maternal love was compared to data from romantic couples. When viewing their own children, cortical activity was found in the medial insula and in the cingulated gyrus dorsal and ventral of the genu. The medial insula is involved in emotional interpretations, especially visual ones and the cingulated gyrus is part of the limbic association cortex of which the dorsal and ventral bend or "genu" was implicated (Martin, 1996). These areas overlapped with the activity findings in romantic love. Subcortical activity which also overlapped with romantic love was found in striatum and in the substantia nigra and in subthalamic regions. The striatum is made up of the caudate nucleus and the putamen.

These two structures which are involved with voluntary movement. The substantia nigra works in conjunction with the striatum in controlling movement and has axons which project to the caudate nucleus and the putamen (Carlson, 2004). Some differences were noted however. In romantic love, activity was specifically found in the dentate gyrus/hippocampus and the hypothalamus and appeared the same in male and female participants. The areas activated in the study in romantic and maternal love are "sites with a high density of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors" (pp. 1162). The areas also are known to belong to the brain's "reward system". In line with the idea of the illusions formed in love, the study suggests that love inhibits negative emotions and "affects the network involved in making social judgments about that person" (pp. 1162). Deactivation of the social judgment network was observed in the areas of the middle prefrontal, inferior parietal and middle temporal cortices. These areas are mainly playing a role in cognition and involved in emotions which are often negative. Other areas which saw deactivation were the amygdale, temporal poles, parietotemporal junction and the mesial prefrontal cortex which have been consistently "associated to negative emotions and to social, moral and 'theory of mind' tasks" (pp. 1163).

In pair-bonding and sexual behavior the specific neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin act as neurotransmitters. These chemicals are also important in birth and other reproductive behavior. Oxytocin in females is important in lactation and smooth muscle contractions of the uterus (Hiller, 2004). Hiller also notes that oxytocin release in male rats increases after ejaculation and that through sensory stimuli it possibly creates "positive mental states including calmness and openness to social engagement" (pp.397). Vasopressin in the brain is linked to temperature and blood pressure regulation as well as promotes water reabsorption (Martin, 1996) as well as promoting sexual eagerness in men (Hiller, 2004). These two neurochemicals are regulated in part by oestrogen and testosterone and "provide a link between the demands of the organism and the social and physical environment" (pp.397).

The study of these chemicals as they relate to pair bonding and attachment has been extensively studied in the prairie vole. Prairie voles are small rodents which exhibit monogamous behaviors such as keeping only one mate, cohabitation of mates, males participating in parental care and the rejection of intruders. Insel (2000) notes many other the specific findings in studies on prairie voles as it relates to the chemicals oxytocin and vasopression. Investigation on females and the role of oxytocin finds that female prairie voles who are injected with an oxytocin antagonist resemble the non-monogamous montane voles where they "mate normally but show no lasting interest in their mate" (p. 180). Montane and prairie voles are very similar and very close evolutionarily. However when montane voles were given doses of oxytocin, it had little or no effect on their social behavior even when given high doses. This finding shows that "these species share the same receptor but differ in its regional expression" (pp. 180). For the males, the operative chemical is vasopressin. When given a vasopressin antagonist male prairie voles failed to develop a partner preference after mating as they normally would.

Lim, Hammock and Young (2004) focused their attention on vasopressin, the V1a receptor and a particular gene, V1aR. They found that while prairie and montane voles' V1aR shows 99% identical coding sequences making a protein that is nearly the same, they found some differences in the sequence upstream of the V1aR:

Specifically, in the prairie vole, there is approximately 500 bp of a highly repetitive sequence located at 622 bp upstream of the transcription start site, which is absent in the montane vole. Interestingly, a similar sequence is also found in the monogamous pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), and is absent in the non-monogamous meadow vole (Microtus penssylvanicus) (pp. 326).

To test if the V1aR gene is responsible for the pair bonding behavior, transgenic mice for the prairie voles were used. When the mice were injected with vasopressin they, "responded with increased affiliative behavior, much like prairie voles, whereas the wild-type mice had no changes in social behavior, much like the non-monogamous montane voles" (p. 327). However, the mice did not show binding in some of the brain areas thought to be critical for bonding in prairie voles and they also did not show a partner preference which suggests that there are other factors involved.

Another neurotransmitter involved in love is the well known and very important neurotransmitter dopamine. It is known to be involved in many items from schizophrenia to addictive behavior and the reinforcing "reward" system. Two specific brain areas are implicated accordingly â€" the caudate nucleus and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) as evidenced through studies utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to assess activity. Both of the brain regions are part of the mesolimbic reward system. In light of this evidence, found also by Bartels and Zeki, Fisher (2000) states that the item we know as love evolved to "motivate individuals to engage in positive social behaviors and/or sustain their affiliative connections long enough to complete species-specific parental duties". Fisher also notes that the "tendency to focus on specific moments associated with the beloved are additional indications that dopamine is involved in the feeling of romantic attraction" (pp. 99). With the involvement of dopamine and the emotional reward complexes of the brain, it may not be too much of a stretch to say that when people fall in love, they can be in effect "addicted" to one another.

Wang, Yu, Cascio, Liu, Gingrich and Insel set out to further look into the role of dopamine and specific receptors involved by studying prairie voles. The team performed five experiments to test different aspects of the receptors with specific dopaminergic compounds. Their first experiment tested whether the dopamine agonist apomorphine would induce partner preference in the voles without mating. They also sought to examine whether the antagonist haloperidol would block partner preference after mating. Females treated with apomorphine spent more time with a partner than they did with a stranger. It was found that females injected with the haloperidol spent less time with a partner and more time with a stranger compared to saline-injected females. Experiment 2 focus was put upon receptor-specific antagonists and agonists to "define the receptor-mediated mechanism involved in dopamine regulation of partner preference" (p. 603). They found that D2 but not D1 receptor antagonist blocked partner preference formations. Females injected with quinpirole, a D2 receptor agonist, showed more contact with a partner than a stranger while partner preference was no observed in females who received an injection of the D1 receptor agonist SKF38393. Experiment 3 was set to examine D2 receptor antagonism on partner preference formation. Females who were injected with eticlopride before mating and females injected after mating both showed no partner preference although the control saline group did. Experiment 4 was to see if the D2 antagonist would have an effect 24 hours after mating which is presumed to be after memory consolidation has taken place. The D2 antagonist failed to block partner preference. Both females injected with eticlopride and saline still showed partner preference. Finally, experiment 5 was to test if dopamine works on the central nervous system to regulate partner preference formation. It was found that "females injected intracerebroventricularly with CSF displayed mating-induced partner preference, as they had more body contact with the partner than with a stranger" (pp. 607). Females injected with eticlopride, however, did not show partner preference which suggests that the antagonist's introduction into the brain blocked mating-induced partner preferences.

How might this information of neurochemicals in voles and mice be translated to humans? As Insel (2000) notes, oxytocin and oxytocin receptors are found in the human brain. The receptors are found in "particularly enriched dopaminergic regions, such as the substantia nigra" (pp. 182). It is also know that oxytocin is released when nursing and during copulation. For males the active chemical would be vasopressin. The dopamine "reward" system is also present and very important in humans and has been implicated to play a major role in addiction to drugs of abuse and may serve a similar function in partner pair formation.
The rise of pair-bonding and attachment became associated with the sexual mating behaviors and eventually became what we term love. This idea is noted by Diamond (2003) when she states that, "although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are governed by different social-behavioral systems that evolved to serve different goals". Which in humans can be observed and is considered obvious when considered that there is often mating without any type of pair-bonding or attachment formation. Also there can be attachments and pair-bonding without the drive to mate at all. This goes into the many aspects in human social interaction that can be covered by the term love. One can love a parent, a friend and a mate but obviously not all involve sexual behaviors. One can love a friend and a parent which would consist of only attachment or bonding. As well, one can have a mate where there is sexual behavior but not any attachment involved. Also one can love a partner without sexual behavior present as well.

Focusing on the evolutionary aspect of attachment, Immerman (2003) explores the specific behaviors not found in other terrestrial primates such as male paternalistic behaviors and the sharing of resources. In examining this aspect, Immerman notes that the neurohormonal bases for mother and child bonding would be dissimilar from the extended man-woman and man-child bond which are not seen in any of the other great apes (pp. 140). To explain this in an evolutionary view, Immerman sees past female mate selection as the driving force, pushing the species toward what we now know collectively as love. Immerman concludes that the available research indicates that these tendencies seen in humans are "based on a successful reproductive strategy of our female ancestors…that enables them to exploit a novel resource for predictable sustenance for themselves and their offspring" (pp. 146). This also highlights a mating strategy difference between men and women that has evolved.

It is hypothesized that over time males and females have developed an asymmetry in relation to mating strategies. That is, males tend to seek to produce viable offspring to carry on their genetics and women seek support and protection for themselves and the young. Testing this hypothesis can be difficult given that we only have modern humans to work with. Cramer and Abraham (2001) set out to test the evolutionary view and compare it against an alternative view while investigating emotional and sexual infidelity. The alternative hypothesis compared against is that the concern over sexual infidelity in males is a means to logically infer that an emotional attachment is also present. In females, the emotional attachment is a means to logically infer that sexual infidelity is taking place as well. In their investigation 191 participants were involved and evaluated across three treatment groups â€" forced choice, conditional probability and combined infidelity. The forced choice treatment involved 31 men and 33 women who were asked to imagine their partner forming a deep emotional bond with another person and imagine their partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person. The results of the forced choice group agreed with the evolutionary hypothesis in that “more men than women were distressed by a partner’s sexual infidelity, and more women than men were distressed by a partner’s emotional infidelity” (pp. 331). In the conditional probability group the test used the differential infidelity implication with 30 men and 35 women. The DII is defined by Cramer and Abraham:

The DII is defined by the difference between two likelihood estimates, (a) the likelihood that a partner’s emotional infidelity serves as a basis for logically inferring that sexual infidelity is also occurring (female perspective) and (b) the likelihood that a partner’s sexual infidelity serves as a basis for logically inferring that emotional infidelity is also occurring (male perspective) (pp. 332).
The results of the test did not statistically support an alternative hypothesis. The results for the women reflected a “male perspective” instead of the “female perspective” as would be predicted by the alternative hypothesis. In the combined infidelity group, involving 30 men and 32 women, both were instructed to imagine a partner being emotionally and sexually unfaithful. The results from this condition also supported the evolutionary hypothesis indicating that women were more worried about an emotional bond and men were worried more about sexual relations. Explaining these findings in the view of the evolutionary hypothesis, Cramer and Abraham state:

Emotional infidelity is more distressing for women than men because, in theory, it threatens a romantic partner’s commitment, and therefore, continued access to material resources and economic stability. Men, on the other hand, find sexual infidelity more distressing than women to because it decreases paternity certainty resulting from the loss of sexual exclusivity (pp. 333).

Cramer and Abraham’s study was not the only one supporting the evolutionary view of infidelity in relationships. A similar study was performed by Ward and Voracek (2004) where they also compare the evolutionary hypothesis to the alternative hypothesis known as the social cognitive account. Ward and Voracek examine 268 participants with a questionnaire of 15 items as well as asking about age, sex and whether or not they were currently in a romantic relationship. The findings of this study seemed to coincide with the findings of Cramer and Abraham in that the males found sexual intercourse more distressing than did women who found emotional attachment more distressing than the sexual intercourse. Ward and Voracek conclude that the results support the evolutionary account, however they do not rule out other influences stating, “this does not mean that culture plays no part in a broader explanation of these sex differences” (pp. 170). They view culture as a moderator variable influencing the expression of a sex-typed disposition.

Taking a different approach to the attachments in mates, Fraley, Brumbaugh, and Marks (2005) utilized comparative phylogenetic methods to analyze archived data of 2 divisions of mammals. Their first examination involved 44 families of mammals. The information they recorded was in five categories: pair bonding, paternal involvement, developmental immaturity, social characteristics and body size. They found that in monogamous or pair bonded animals several common items. These were:

*  Animals were more likely to have fathers who played a role in child rearing.
*  Tended to have longer life spans.
*  Tended to have longer gestation times.
*  Take longer to leave the home or nest.
*  Reach puberty at a later age.
*  Tended to have fewer siblings or offspring
*  Social structure was in smaller groups.
*  Tended to be smaller than other animals (pp. 736-737)

In the second examination, 66 anthropoid primates were examined. Similar findings occurred for the primates as the other animals with the exception of siblings and offspring. While they also tended to have smaller social groups, pair-bonded primates had more siblings or offspring. Another difference was that monogamous primates "tended to have larger family groups, whereas the monogamous mammals in Study 1 tended to have smaller family groups" (p. 740). In their analysis, it was also shown that pair-bonding emerged after paternal care in mammalian evolution. They speculate that "the presence of paternal care set the stage for pair bonding rather than the other way around" (pp. 742). This may show that the mechanisms involved in what we have come to term love have been around quite a long time.

Love is indeed a complex item involving many different interacting items. Brain function, specific neurotransmitters and millions of years of natural selection have set the stage. Through evolutionary analyses we see that the seeds have been planted long ago for love. We also can pinpoint specific areas of our brain involved as well as specific chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin. We have developed psychological models which break love into specific categories and attachment styles. However, none of this seems to have stolen the awe and magic surrounding love. We still seek it throughout our lives, we base ideologies upon it, we write moving literature about its wonders and create emotion invoking musical compositions in praise of it. For all we have learned about love it is still declared a mystery by most. Even though we can break it down to simple neurofunctionality and evolutionary lineages, the intrigue remains and may continue for long after my generation and the one after have passed into antiquity.
References

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-
concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.

Aron, A. & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2005). Social Psychology. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155-1166.

Carlson, N. (2004). Physiology of Behavior. (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Compton, W. (2005). An Introduction to Positive Psychology. Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Cramer, R. & Abraham, W. (2001). Gender differences in subjective distress to
emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation? Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20, 327-336.

Diamond, L. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model
distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173-192.

Fisher, H. (2000). Lust, attraction, attachment: Biology and evolution of the three primary emotion systems for mating, reproduction, and parenting. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 96-104.

Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment styles as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Fraley, R., Brumbaugh, C. & Marks, M. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: A comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 731-746.

Gonzaga, G., Keltner, D., Londahl, E., and Smith M. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247-262.

Hiller, J. (2004). Speculations on the links between feelings, emotions and sexual behaviour: are vasopressin and oxytocin involved? Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 393-412.

Immerman, R. (2003). Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve's unique legacy of a canine analogue. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 138-154.

Insel, T. (2000). Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Review of General Psychology, 4, 176-185.

Lim, M., Hammock, E., & Young, L. (2004). The role of vasopressin in the genetic and neural regulation of monogamy. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 16, 325-332.

Martin, J. (1996). Neuroanatomy: Text and Atlas. (2nd ed.). Stamford: Appleton & Lange.

Murray, S., Holmes, J., & Griffin, D. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive
illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155-1180.

Sternberg, R. (1986). The triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Wang, Z., Yu, G., Cascio, C., Liu, Y., Gingrich, B. & Insel, T. (1999). Dopamine D2 receptor-mediated regulation of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): A mechanism for pair bonding? Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 602-611.

Ward, J. & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 165-171.

Quote from: "Whitney"IBelieveInHymn, you are using the same IP address as Psalm23.  If you don't want to get banned you need to explain yourself before posting again, sock puppets are against our rules.

I am an admin (Darwinian) over at atheistforums.org and my advice would be to ban him straight away.  We had to ban him, twice, as he simply comes back under a different name.  With us he used Psalm23 and The_Truth.  We have quite a few theists and most are fun and enter into the spirit (pardon the pun) of the forum, but some, like Psalm23 are more trouble than they're worth.

Perhaps we should share banned lists

Quote from: "ebarrowes"Atheists enjoy a life free from the struggle to "do good" because when you are not trying to please God, the devil does not need to pull you away; you are going to hell anyways.

More readable, I hope.

Quote from: "ebarrowes"I know that atheists, especially the ones in charge of websites, are anxious to weild their power in banning those who contradict atheism.

Christians do the same...

Quote from: "ebarrowes"The atheists get very disturbed at my comments and therefore, the moderator deems me bannable.

Your comments are dumb

To Ebarrowes: I read this thread, and I saw that you think atheism is a lie. You have also given us your reasons.

Well. I'm just going to say that you are absolutely correct. Atheism is a lie. You have discovered the truth.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"To Ebarrowes: I read this thread, and I saw that you think atheism is a lie. You have also given us your reasons.

Well. I'm just going to say that you are absolutely correct. Atheism is a lie. You have discovered the truth.

Technically isn't something only a lie if a person knows that what they are saying is not true?  So, by my definition, anything you think is true is not a lie when you are saying it.  You may be mistaken or incorrect but you are not lying.

When I say that God isn't real, I'm not lying.  I really think God isn't real.  When a theist says God is real they are not lying either.  They are not trying to purposely mislead, they really think God is real.  One of us is bound to be wrong but neither of us is lying.

I know, kylyssa. But if you give him what he wants, he'll leave satisfied and happy. And we'll remain happy as well.

So, yes, ebarrows. It's a lie. Congratulations. What are you going to do now?

He already left.

Meh. *shrugs*

QuoteWhen I say that God isn't real, I'm not lying. I really think God isn't real. When a theist says God is real they are not lying either. They are not trying to purposely mislead, they really think God is real. One of us is bound to be wrong but neither of us is lying.

If they say I believe in God they're not lying. If either one of us says "I know" God is or isn't real I think that changes that story a bit.

God or Gods exist only where God or Gods Give evidence of their existence.  Atheists are absolutely right when they say God or Gods do not exist because God or Gods have given them no evidence that they exist.

  I am a Theist because at least one God has given me the evidence and proofs that I need to believe and if at least one God has done this for me, then God or Gods could easily give the evidence and proofs to Atheists to make them Theists.  But since these God or Gods have not given the proofs or evidence to Atheists then God or Gods do not exist to them.

  It is a very simple concept.  God or Gods exist where God or Gods give evidence of their existence God or Gods do not exist where God or Gods do not give evidence of their existence it is as simple as that.

Welcome to HAF, feel free to post an intro when you feel like it.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"It is a very simple concept.  God or Gods exist where God or Gods give evidence of their existence God or Gods do not exist where God or Gods do not give evidence of their existence it is as simple as that.

I'm not sure that I agree....logically god(s) either exist or they don't and what someone believes about their existence has no baring on if they exist or not.  Your statement makes me think of Tinkerbell where kids have to believe in her and clap for her to continue to exist and I don't think that is what you are intending to convey.

removed by admin:  (double post from war on christmas thread)

To Whitney

  Our awareness of things does not dictate the reality of things.  We can say that there is no other planet like earth that is made up of 2/3 rds water and where humans have evolved because nothing in our science indicates that this is possible.  But our belief that, that is fact does not preclude the existence of such a planet.

  Actual God or Gods may exist outside of our awareness, and just because we are not aware of them does not mean that they do not exist.  Now in both cases the point is mute.  So long as there is no evidence to support the belief that there is a second earth out there somewhere it can be assumed that there is no second earth even though a second earth may exist.

  The same to God or Gods.  God or Gods may actually exist, but if God or Gods do not make their existence known to an Atheist then they might as well not exist even if they do exist.  Do I know that at least one God exists yes, because I was made aware of his existence.  But this God exists only for me.  God or Gods do not exist when no evidence is given to their existence.  God or Gods exist when evidence is given that they exist.

  It is the responsibility of God or Gods to prove their existence without that proof they do not exist.  I can say that a God does exist, this is not proof that a God exists.  An Atheist can say that God or Gods do not exist and since there is no evidence or proofs given to the Atheist to contradict this then God or Gods do not exist.  Only God or Gods can give proof of their existence no one else can do it.

  But simply saying something does not exist because of lack of evidence or proofs but not necessarily mean that it does not exist, we simply have not become aware of the existence.  Ok time for the aspirins, this was a mind bender of a post.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"But simply saying something does not exist because of lack of evidence or proofs but not necessarily mean that it does not exist, we simply have not become aware of the existence.  

I agree with this part...I just don't agree with how you worded what I quoted previously.  I think to qualify something as existing or not existing in the mind of a person implies that "exist" is a belief statement rather than a truth statement.

To Whitney

  Welcome back I hope your trip went well.  Atheists do not believe that God or Gods exist and since they have been given no evidence or proofs that God or Gods exist then God or Gods do not exist.

  But I and others believe that we have been given the proofs and evidence needed to believe that God or Gods exist.  Now of course this means squat because this proof or evidence cannot be given as evidence or proofs to others.  So it is back to the my old stand bye statement God or Gods can only exist where evidence or proofs has been given to prove their existence without it they do not exist.

  At one time it was believed that the sun and planets orbited the earth, this was considered fact.  Did this known fact make it so, no.  At one time we did not believe that planets existed outside of our solar system did this belief make it a fact, no.  We now have seen hundreds of planets as well as black holes that do exist.  We even had seen a planet that has standing water on it.  Prior this discovery we believed that we were the only water planet that existed.

  Now does this really make a difference no, if God or Gods exist but do not give proofs or evidence of their existence does it matter that they exist, no.  But it does not mean they do not exist.

the trip went well, thank you.

I don't know how else to explain why I disagree with the statement:

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"Atheists do not believe that God or Gods exist and since they have been given no evidence or proofs that God or Gods exist then God or Gods do not exist.

but we agree on this:

QuoteNow does this really make a difference no, if God or Gods exist but do not give proofs or evidence of their existence does it matter that they exist, no.  But it does not mean they do not exist.

Quote from: "Whitney"the trip went well, thank you.

I don't know how else to explain why I disagree with the statement:

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"Atheists do not believe that God or Gods exist and since they have been given no evidence or proofs that God or Gods exist then God or Gods do not exist.

Sagan's Dragon

Mark L. Holland, I like you all ready.  

I think this will address the old canard that there are n o atheists.  I feel it would be appropriate to post here:

[youtube:5vksyr96]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo[/youtube:5vksyr96]