# Reading > Religious Texts >  Atheists....

## Adelheid

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!  :FRlol:  athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves.  :FRlol:  )

Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 

I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...  :Wink:

----------


## Jay

Atheist at Wikipedia
"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively believing in the non-existence of deities."

Couldn't have put it better.

----------


## Adelheid

contradictions.... haha... somehow atheists and believing don't go together, just as believers and unbelieving don't go together.....  :Wink:

----------


## Jay

The point is an atheist doesn't belive IN deities. The way you put it sounds like 'to belive' has only a single meaning, that is 'having a theistic belief'.

----------


## dejosc

my personal view of being an atheist is that i just dont believe in any gods and follow no religion. I personally dislike religions as they are power hungry but i cant believe in gods because there is no proof also in the case of 'god' in christianity(which is the belief i know best because it was forced upon me as a younger child) it has been proven wrong many times as they say the bible is the word of god so if he disliked yi hed get soeone to change it surely. also an all-powerful being that created a planet i dont believe if it is as wise as it says it is would it let millions die? as a punishment or to learn from mistake as death is not learning.

----------


## sir

> contradictions.... haha... somehow atheists and believing don't go together, just as believers and unbelieving don't go together.....


I know an atheist who believes in charity...how about that?

the problem with the dogmatic believers is that they never think that their dogma/doctrine might be questionable ... one doesn't need a very high iq to understand that the hundreds of christian dogmas have tremendous gaps because they are MADE BY PEOPLE with more or less genius,with slight or serious psychological problems and with heaps of religious fanaticism.

if u believe in something,whatever that is,fine,good for you...but just don't try to prove me that i'm wrong if i don't trust any kind of dogma and i question everithing,starting with your idols: belief in god and love.
...trying to prove god with arguments is the worst trap a believer can fall into.
the reigious genius of the jews has given the only accurate definition for god ever... god said: "i am who i am"... beyond description,intimate,subjectiv...therefore if u've found him dont lose him by trying to prove him with arguments (wich r always vulgar in this matter).

----------


## Koa

When I stopped going to the church my mum sometimes called me 'atheist' trying to offend me... as a matter of fact, she was just calling me by the right cathegory I suppose...
Actually, I've always seen atheists refered to as people who believe that there is NO god, while 'agnostic' (assuming it's an English word...) are those who just don't believe in god but are not negating his existence.

So to me an atheist is someone who is convinced that god doesn't exist. That's why for a long time I prefered to call myself 'agnostic', but it is also partly due to the sense of guilt I've felt for a while and still slightly feel for not believing, as my family raised me as a catholic and they are still religious. But I can't really pretend to have feelings I don't have, and at the present moment I feel really close to atheism, cos I'm not really able to believe in a god or more. I do happen to believe in other things, but not always... I'm a quite beliefless person I guess.

So I guess an ateist can believe in something else... cos the word atheist includes the 'theo' part which in Greek meant god or religion or something like that (think of 'theology'), while the a- in front of the word always negates the rest.

----------


## Corlen

Atheists don't believe in a god. Like myself I only believe in materials processions. Of which I can personally see, touch, and feel. Unlike a god as many Christians believe in I do not see him. I have tried to pray to see some type of signs that to prove he exists, but as of now I have failed to get a reply. Therefore I don't believe there is a god, or ever will be one.

----------


## Dyrwen

Atheists _only_ have to have a lack of belief in gods. That is all being an atheist entails. Any "dogma" associated, any religion added on, any "beliefs" an atheist holds are *individually* associated only with the person.

That's my general definition and one that is most accurate via studying the root of the word, as well.

----------


## Ancestor

> Atheists don't believe in a god. Like myself I only believe in materials processions. Of which I can personally see, touch, and feel. Unlike a god as many Christians believe in I do not see him. I have tried to pray to see some type of signs that to prove he exists, but as of now I have failed to get a reply. Therefore I don't believe there is a god, or ever will be one.


I am a person who does have faith and I am not here to convert anyone but to learn more about people. Learning is an enriching experience and one I enjoy experiencing. How do you Corlen know you have not gotten a answer to your prayers? I do not wish to offend but am just curious because not all answers are heard nor are they the ones we wish to hear. I am not just talking from a higher but from people we know. I believe if you are happy as a person with or without faith then that is fine because happiness is important. Also believe that faith should never be pushed onto someone and it should be your own choice to choose your paths in life.

----------


## sir

just saw this movie,"the island"...there's a nice definition of god there: 

"question: what's god?
answer: u know,when u want something really bad and u close your eyes and u wish for it? that's the guy that ignores u... " 
amen! :Angel:

----------


## Loki

> "question: what's god?
> answer: u know,when u want something really bad and u close your eyes and u wish for it? that's the guy that ignores u... " 
> amen!


Nice.  :Biggrin: 

My definition is:

A giant, bearded, invisible sort of man who lives above the clouds watching the events of the world below in a bemused sort of way and doing nothing about them.

----------


## Ancestor

> just saw this movie,"the island"...there's a nice definition of god there: 
> 
> "question: what's god?
> answer: u know,when u want something really bad and u close your eyes and u wish for it? that's the guy that ignores u... " 
> amen!


I do not feel you are ignored but that you expect a certain answer and that it is not the answer you will always receive. I should be hating Great Spirit (God) for allowing the horrific things that happened to me but I do not. Your quote to me sounds selfish and no offense. I close my eye and pray for everyone to receive healing. Anything else I want I have to work for because it is not right for someone else to hand it to me that is not earning it. I do not pray for myself often and that feels right to me as I am sure you being a atheist feels right to you. I am trying to say that your quote is how people with faith do not wish for it. They often do not ask for anything for themselves even at least the people I know.

----------


## Ancestor

I do hope that I have not implied that you should start believing the same way as I do. No one should be forced to have the same beliefs as mine and even though mine are in the new age category does not mean I do not have faith. My faith is my own and to each their own and I do hope that my words were not implying conversion or offensive. If so I do apologize I just wanted to state an opinion.

----------


## Adelheid

What do atheist believe in after death? Since they don't think there's a God, they obviously would have no cause to believe in heaven or Hell, since those 2 are closely linked to what God says happens after death. Is there an eternity for them?

I don't think they would believe in nothingness after death, right? That's preposterous! But then, for those who believe in evolution, that must be their conclusion, isn't it?

----------


## Satirical

To deny is to accept as a basis for denial. To be an athiest is to say that there is something to be denied. Just as the slave only knows that he is a slave in the presence of the master. I see the word dogma put out here.

----------


## subterranean

I'm just curious, how come someone who does not believe in the existance of _something_ have a _personal definition_  of that _thing_??





> Nice. 
> 
> My definition is:
> 
> A giant, bearded, invisible sort of man who lives above the clouds watching the events of the world below in a bemused sort of way and doing nothing about them.

----------


## Ancestor

> What do atheist believe in after death? Since they don't think there's a God, they obviously would have no cause to believe in heaven or Hell, since those 2 are closely linked to what God says happens after death. Is there an eternity for them?
> 
> I don't think they would believe in nothingness after death, right? That's preposterous! But then, for those who believe in evolution, that must be their conclusion, isn't it?


Just because someone does not believe in a God or higher being does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in a after life. I am a person of faith but I do not believe in heaven or hell. For me most religions dwell way too much upon the negative aspects of life and that for me is a poisonous to my body. Through my faith (spiritualism) I dwell on the positive flow of life and I send out positive healing to those whom need it. Not all spiritualist believe the same as I do and some believe in the Bible as strong as you seem to do. For me I do not fully believe in the Bible only small parts of it. But that is my choice and that is has is should be. When I cross over and find my beliefs were then so be it. But I cannot see how they can be wrong for me because they fill my heart with joy. We were not all created to be exactly the same as everyone else and I am grateful for that. If a person can truly be happy living with or without faith what is wrong with that. Perhaps a atheist is correct and I am wrong either way I am not grateful for my life when there was a time I was not. My faith helped me but in the end I did the work to become a happier person.

----------


## Loki

> I'm just curious, how come someone who does not believe in the existance of something have a personal definition of that thing??


If you don't believe there is such a thing as witches, does that necessarilly mean that you can't have your own personal idea of what witches could be like? (Think Harry Potter  :Biggrin: )

----------


## subterranean

If I don't believe in witches or dark power or black magic, I wouldn't have my own personal definitions. The definitions I have would probably only the general ones, as (i.e.) stated in dictionary.

----------


## Loki

But would there be any limit on using your own imagination creatively in such cases? As much as I respect the dictionary, definitions can be very drab sometimes. For example:




> A woman claiming or popularly believed to possess magical powers and practice sorcery.


What sort of sorcery? What kind of magical powers? This is where imagination comes in. You can improvise even within a definition.

God, on the other hand:




> A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.


Doesn't my definition fit beneath that? Sure, my god doesn't really do much ruling (sometimes he grants a prayer though), he usually just stares down at the world from his divine couch of clouds...

This is the atheist thread, right? We can be atheists here, I gather.  :Wink:

----------


## Adelheid

Yep...be as atheistic as much as you ever wanted to be in your life!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Loki

> Yep...be as atheistic as much as you ever wanted to be in your life!


Thank you!!!  :Biggrin:  That's the nicest...thing...a Christian has every said to me as regards atheism.  :Smile:   :Nod:

----------


## sir

As we see in Kantian metaphysics, a coherent theory of transcendent objects is just impossible. 

Believing in God is a sweet surrender to the "mysteries" of some invisible world we wish there was , therefore an abandon of the reason. Some of us just cant afford it, to walk on the very quick sands the mysterious invisible world has prepared for us, especially when we refuse to completely abandon the reason and the common sense. As far as Im concerned I am quite overwhelmed by the mysteries I find in the visible world. 

Thing is,if one believes in god this is one's own problem,ilusion,weltanschauung...but by trying to prove his existence,one steps into the realm of sophisms which is quite unhealthy for a reasonable person.

----------


## Satirical

Kantian metaphysics huh, impossible huh, read some Sartre, or Hegel even.

----------


## sir

> Kantian metaphysics huh, impossible huh, read some Sartre, or Hegel even.


a famous american president (big fan of crackers) was once about to die because he never listened to his mother's advice:"first chew,then swallow" ... whether he got it other way round or he took it way too metaphorical...dunno...
i once dated a girl who told me that Sartre was not good for the skin...i dumped her...never trust women who speak their mind at the first date!

now,actually,i never "read some Sartre,or Hegel even"...but i have a friend who has a friend who once asked: 

who on earth would put together a) Hegel with his organic and teleological view of human society ,in direct opposition to the conceptions of individual rights and existentialism , with b) the atheist existentialist Sartre who stated (the opposit of any theological and teleological dialecticism) that we are here willy-nilly and must manage to do the best we can with endemic nothingness installed upon eternal floorlessness? 
(this friend of my friend also said that sartre's ideas could be quite readable if disregarded his marxist,comunist,totally leftish political views...brrrrrr!)
---------------------------------

ps: Schopenhauer about Hegel :"The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity."

...first chewing...mi raccomando!!!!  :Wave:

----------


## Satirical

Wow, a bit sensitive aren't we? I did not intend to pair them myself, only in light of your bases of "Kantian metaphysics" would I even bring them up. So I restate...impossible huh, read some Berkeley, or Borges even lol.

P.S. I love Schopenhauer, but his enviroment had something to do with that anger(I say this instead of argument because this was not one) he held, Things like that sort of taint the conviction wouldn't you say?

This, of course, is for your friend of a friend.

----------


## subterranean

Sorry to say, I don't really see a consistency ..

Like I said, I was just curios..






> But would there be any limit on using your own imagination creatively in such cases? As much as I respect the dictionary, definitions can be very drab sometimes. For example:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of sorcery? What kind of magical powers? This is where imagination comes in. You can improvise even within a definition.
> 
> God, on the other hand:
> 
> 
> ...







> i once dated a girl who told me that Sartre was not good for the skin...i dumped her...never trust women who speak their mind at the first date!



Ah I see . . . interesting. I seem have no problem with that  :Smile:

----------


## Ancestor

> Thing is,if one believes in god this is one's own problem,ilusion,weltanschauung...but by trying to prove his existence,one steps into the realm of sophisms which is quite unhealthy for a reasonable person.


I happen to be a reasonable person who was much unhealthier without my faith then I am today. I totally disagree with you sir and no offense but some people need to find faith to in order to be a healthier person and some do not. That is what makes us all very unique as you know and thank goodness we are all unique.

----------


## Adelheid

> I totally disagree with you sir and no offense but some people need to find faith to in order to be a healthier person and some do not. That is what makes us all very unique as you know and thank goodness we are all unique.


Well, I guess we are all unique, but it doesn't necessarily take people of different faith to make us unique. Each of us were made different in characteristics, look, etc. None of us are alike.




> If a person can truly be happy living with or without faith what is wrong with that.


We may be happy here. But the amount of time on earth compared to eternity is the tiniest fraction one can imagine. Would you rather be happy for this tinest fraction of time than for eternity? Eternity never ends, while life on earth does.  :Nod:

----------


## Koa

Well I don't believe in eternity for example... everything has an end.




> some people need to find faith to in order to be a healthier person and some do not


Now doesn't this make sense? Some people need to believe in something, some don't, or rather they need to believe in different things... There was a time when I believed in Literature and that sort of saved my life but now I'm not even really sure about that so nevermind, but everyone has his/her own path to follow...

----------


## sir

> So I restate...impossible huh, read some Berkeley, or Borges even lol.


 berkeley and his disciple... ha,ha,ha ...u gotta b kiddin me,dude!  :FRlol:  lol indeed,even lmao!!! 

Ancestor and Adelheid , i really apreciate your missionary task on this thread even though i'd rather need something like: "halleluia!!!! touch the screen! touch the screen!..."....that might cure my stupid atheism or agnosticism or whatever my anguish is... 
-----------------------

George Bernard Shaw :

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." 

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."

----------


## sir

THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ...(now, that's what i call an exhaustive even though succint site): http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

----------


## Satirical

Thought you would like that

----------


## sir

> Thought you would like that


like what?
your new signature? yeah,cool... see,even skeptic and atheist people are addicted to life... it is hope, curiosity and in fortunate cases LOVE (the fulfil of the the previous two ,which christianity has unfairly monopolised),who keeps a man alive,not a philosophical sistem,religious dogma or any other theory...

russell said also: "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge"

----------


## Ancestor

> berkeley and his disciple... ha,ha,ha ...u gotta b kiddin me,dude!  lol indeed,even lmao!!! 
> 
> Ancestor and Adelheid , i really apreciate your missionary task on this thread even though i'd rather need something like: "halleluia!!!! touch the screen! touch the screen!..."....that might cure my stupid atheism or agnosticism or whatever my anguish is...


I do not think nor feel that atheism or agnosticism is stupid nor do I wish that you would suddenly start believing in God. You should never be forced to convert and give up your belief that there is no God. You do appear arrogant at times and that was not meant to offend in fact I do not mind a little arrogance. In my heart I know there is a higher being and just wish you would not try to convince me to change my beliefs. If I missed interpreted you do forgive me.

----------


## sir

> In my heart I know there is a higher being and just wish you would not try to convince me to change my beliefs.


  :Confused:   :Brickwall:  :  :Crash:  

...so u think is ME who is trying 2 convince YOU 2 change your beliefs??? ... well,would u b so kind to point out one of my phrases that is specifically ment 2 change your beliefs? ...I feel some kind of fear and insecurity in your phrase above...watch out,some people just need to believe,don't lose that!  :Wink:  




> You do appear arrogant at times and that was not meant to offend in fact I do not mind a little arrogance..


 indeed u didn't offend me...somehow,from u,it sounds more like a compliment...thanx,darling!

"Women have a wonderful instinct about things. They can discover everything except the obvious." - oscar wilde

----------


## subterranean

> Now doesn't this make sense? Some people need to believe in something, some don't, or rather they need to believe in different things... There was a time when I believed in Literature and that sort of saved my life but now I'm not even really sure about that so nevermind, but everyone has his/her own path to follow...


Indeed Koa, some people considered books as their escape..means to keep their mind healty...; some (whom I coincedently know) volunteered in social works on weekend, where from Monday to Friday, they act like a true "capitalists", making profit as huge as they can. These charity acts, for them, are ways to maintain their "humanity sides. 

This believe thing will always be a subjective matter.

----------


## Satirical

I meant Berkeley and Borges. The signature had nothing to do with this lol. Still, how kind of you to notice.

----------


## Ancestor

> ...so u think is ME who is trying 2 convince YOU 2 change your beliefs??? ... well,would u b so kind to point out one of my phrases that is specifically ment 2 change your beliefs? ...I feel some kind of fear and insecurity in your phrase above...watch out,some people just need to believe,don't lose that!  
> Thing is,if one believes in god this is one's own problem,ilusion,weltanschauung...but by trying to prove his existence,one steps into the realm of sophisms which is quite unhealthy for a reasonable person.


Since you implied believing in god is one's own problem it gave me the impression you want everyone to not believe in a higher being. I do not consider it to be a problem. However I am curious to what the word weltanschauung means. I never heard of the word. You may mock me all you want in the end I decide on how your words affect me. There was a time I did not believe in a higher being and one point questioned how could a higher being let me go through a horrific ordeal. Answer: He did not man's free will did and in order to stop horrible things from happening would not have made me whom I am today. You may say all you like because you are young yet and have much to learn as do I about the world around us. Just because the human eye did not see it does not mean it was not ever there. I do not know about you but what is over looked by others I strive to see beyond the small limitations of closed minds.

----------


## Satirical

Etymology: German, from Welt world + Anschauung view
: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint

----------


## Ancestor

> Etymology: German, from Welt world + Anschauung view
> : a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint


Thanks for defining it for me I do appreciate that.  :Smile:

----------


## Ancestor

> quoted by sir"Women have a wonderful instinct about things. They can discover everything except the obvious." - oscar wilde


My instincts are so good that I knew before a doctor did that my sister was going to end up a amputee. That means I look beyond the obvious because that is where most people fear to look. I do not mean to sound arrogant here but knowing something about someone you love makes you a freak of nature no one can relate to. I knew without a doubt she would lose it and there are things I still know without a doubt without seeing them until they come true. You tell me sir how is it possible for me know something before seeing, hearing, or experiencing it? I surly cannot and it happens to me and I am sane.

----------


## sir

> You may say all you like because you are young yet and have much to learn as do I about the world around us.





> You tell me sir how is it possible for me know something before seeing, hearing, or experiencing it? I surly cannot and it happens to me and I am sane. 
> .


yup,u r right...i'm 2 young and i have so much 2 learn about...stuff...but believe me,i'm also 2 old 2 go round in circles with someone who "knows something before seeing, hearing, or experiencing it"...

Satirical,how can i like berkeley and any idealist if i like thinkers such as russell?

----------


## Satirical

Do you have a sense of humor? You seem well read, did you pay attention?

----------


## sir

> Do you have a sense of humor? You seem well read, did you pay attention?


 ...u r so exquisitely witty  :Goof:  ... your humor is so subtle ...i better step back...

----------


## Koa

Now I shouldn't step into someone else's discussion (but since when I do things I should do) but I really see no point in arguing cos noone is really trying to convince anyone, but of course noone will understand the other's point completely. I also sort of feel uncomfortable about believers always going on about how good it is to believe and implying between lines (and I think that they don't always realise it) that we are missing something, but that's also part of my present feeling of total refuse of anything that has to do with any kind of religious believe... So I probably also sound 'arrogant' at times cos we unbelievers also have that kind of way... But that doesnt mean that we are trying to convince each other cos we all (should) know that it's impossible, even if there are people who still try (that is, my grandmother...).

----------


## Satirical

As are you, we step back together.

----------


## Satirical

I heard it was the soma
Then heard it was the soul
St. Paul was driving lonely home
But forgot to pay the toll

Greekarious son Plotinus
Help him lay down the funds
It emminated from his pocket
Or from Spinoza's ONE

Matters not says Augustine
The Roman's made of better things
Forget the tale the lot of ya
While we take out Apocrapha

----------


## Lilac_R

hello everyone,
this is my 1st visit here to the forum, it was coz of that topic(& what a topic!!!). I'm a Muslim girl (but not a terrorist  :Wink:  ) & i got a dear friend who is atheist. i got no problem with that except for a few points..
i once asked him ,don't u ever ever feel u might b on the wrong side?!! what if it turned out that ur "theory" about the world was wrong? u'd b the only one who pays 4 it..& that hurts, big time!
secondly, that friend is one of the most depressive nihilistic persons i've ever known in my whole life..is everyone,atheist one, feels the same? if so, then there must b sth wrong, definitely..
well, i didn't mean t b intruding or not friendly at all, these were just my ideas n "wonders" about the topic, so wut d u think?

----------


## Koa

> i once asked him ,don't u ever ever feel u might b on the wrong side?!! what if it turned out that ur "theory" about the world was wrong? u'd b the only one who pays 4 it..& that hurts, big time!


Excuse me but... and do you ever wonder if it is your side that's wrong? I'm not meaning to provoke but this question came to me so naturally while reading yours... I'd really quote the Bible now (well I still got a religious education before I had my freedom to choose...which culturally I dont regret) when it says that people should look for the big wood in their eye (or wherever it was) rather than to the tiny one in someone else's eyes... (sorry my translation of it might be poor).

Sure, if you are wrong that might not hurt at all, but still... you asked that to him, did he ask the same to you? or did you ask yourself?

As for the rest, I think I am a nihilist too yeah, and I was depressed for a while. And when I started to feel nihlistic and depressed and all, that's when going to the church became harder and harder until I stopped and became shuly agnostic, and now I feel more convinced than ever of my ideas...I sort of feel good in it cos for me it's much better than believing in other things.

----------


## Lilac_R

> Excuse me but... and do you ever wonder if it is your side that's wrong? I'm not meaning to provoke but this question came to me so naturally while reading yours...


Nice repartee!
ok, my answer is: No! i've never thought that i might b wrong.not out of pride, but out of deep faith. so the question will b modified to "r u dead sure that u r 100% right as i am?!! is ur faith in wut u believe, wutsoever it is, that firm and deep that it could never ever b shaken?" i'm saying that coz i've always got that feeling that that friend has never been so sure, always hesitant, and when it comes to questions like "then who created that universe and what is it that makes u try hard to do the good thing (like having good morals n doing ur best), his reply makes me astonished when he says : well, i don care whether there was really a creator 4 that universe or not, n i'm doing what i do just 4 the hell of it coz i just believe in concepts!"
that really drives me up the wall..so i always think, there must b sth wrong..

----------


## mono

I once read a beautiful and wise analogy relating to the perception and "knowing" of reality, what seems just, and the idea of a Supreme Being.
An elephant rest on the ground, and multiple blind people arrived to identify the large creature; one felt its belly and thought it large, rough, and thick; another touched its ear and thought it flat, smooth, and wide; another touched its tusk and that it round, narrow, and long.
As in Immanuel Kant's concept (in his _Critique Of Pure Reason_), literally "knowing" everything of the transcendent seems impossible for a human's finite mind. In my opinion, we, as individuals, only perceive the smallest of fragments of any kind of objective reality, yet none of those fragments seems irrelevant; the elephant's tusk seems just as attached to the elephant as its ear and belly.
Calling one religion or spiritual belief superior or inferior to another communicates only that either all of us seem collectively correct, or all of us seem entirely wrong.

----------


## Satirical

I believe Hume said something along the lines of, if this religion is right then all others are wrong. Of course he was writing about miracles. Still....

----------


## Koa

> Nice repartee!
> ok, my answer is: No! i've never thought that i might b wrong.not out of pride, but out of deep faith. so the question will b modified to "r u dead sure that u r 100% right as i am?!! is ur faith in wut u believe, wutsoever it is, that firm and deep that it could never ever b shaken?" i'm saying that coz i've always got that feeling that that friend has never been so sure, always hesitant, and when it comes to questions like "then who created that universe and what is it that makes u try hard to do the good thing (like having good morals n doing ur best), his reply makes me astonished when he says : well, i don care whether there was really a creator 4 that universe or not, n i'm doing what i do just 4 the hell of it coz i just believe in concepts!"
> that really drives me up the wall..so i always think, there must b sth wrong..


Ok...so I guess that that's the difference between faith, as in religious faith, and not being faithful... And faith is just something I don't understand, because I don't have it (pretty much as I don't understand love cos I don't have it).
I only think that you should accept that your friend does things just for the sake of them, because as I said before faith is only something you can feel, and if you don't feel it then you don't, end of story - and your life can be somehow complete anyway, even with your own views which may be painful and not as hopeful as a believer's ones... but they are ours, and I just prefer to have my pessimist nihilist ideas, because they are mine and came from my experience, rather than pretend to have faith and spend one hour every week in the church wondering why I'm there.

----------


## sir

being on the right side / being on the wrong side ...jeeeeezuz krist!!!!!!!

think! think! think!!!!!!!!!!

for ****'s sake!!! "god" is just a concept,undemonstrable,utterly subjective,a postulate created by human's ancestral fears,anguishes,loneliness and cultivated through terror,lie,superstition and by our species' innermost conflict itself:awareness of death!

if one is honest with oneself,one knows one comes from nowhere and soon will go back to nowhere...lucidity is the greatest humiliation the human being must endure...a great deal of it can lead to suicide or to the edge of it.

thus ,depending on our level of lucidity,our character,education,etc.,we are chosen (we never chose) by a specific religion,doctrine,philosophy,weltanschauung...ther e's no escape,even the anarchy,the atheism,the agnosticism,etc. can b included within the large meaning of "doctrine".

therefore,talking about "the right side" or "the wrong side" in such a delicate matter shows how shallow one's thinking is...
is not wrong to believe in god and is not wrong to be atheist...these are metaphysic needs based on unstable postulates either: 
-the order in the universe is not necesarely a sign that some god created it.
-the unjustice and misery in the world is not enough proof against the existence of a superior entity.

even though i am more scared of the people with a firm belief...the inquisitors were 100% sure they were right and those who didn't believe in their god deserved to dye, the muslim kamikazes are 100% sure they are right and if u don't believe what they believe they have the right to kill u.
a man who doubts would never kill or give his life on behalf of an idea .

believe in god if u r confortable with that,don't question on what u believe in if u can't or don't want to,but please,respect your interlocutor's inteligence by not coming forth with sophisms or kindergarden statements in metaphisic debates.

----------


## Lilac_R

> if one is honest with oneself,one knows one comes from nowhere and soon will go back to nowhere


I AM honest with myself, and i know very well i came from somewhere.




> -the order in the universe is not necesarely a sign that some god created it.
> -the unjustice and misery in the world is not enough proof against the existence of a superior entity.


Can anyone live with those two ideas at the same time?Can anyone bring two extremes togther n say i'm ok with that? well, if so, then u r a super-human being!




> even though i am more scared of the people with a firm belief...the inquisitors were 100% sure they were right and those who didn't believe in their god deserved to dye, the muslim kamikazes are 100% sure they are right and if u don't believe what they believe they have the right to kill u.
> a man who doubts would never kill or give his life on behalf of an idea .


well, i guess u haven't read wut i wrote carefully.. i said i got an atheist friend, a dear one, & fortunately i haven't killed him yet! (mayb i'll do it in the future, not coz he's not a muslim, but coz his bad temper always drives me crazy!) Plz, Sir, i wish u read more about Islam, there is no killing there, if one doesn't wanna b a muslim, then it's absolutely ok with us, no problem at all, i won't hang them 4 not believing in the same thing i believe in, coz as Koa said, belief is sth inside u n u cannot pretend to have it unless u really do, nor anyone can ever compell u to adhere to sth u don really believe in.

Koa said:



> I just prefer to have my pessimist nihilist ideas, because they are mine and came from my experience, rather than pretend to have faith and spend one hour every week in the church wondering why I'm there.


I agree on and respect this.but at the same time i just wonder if one might undergo any feeling of "lack" or "incompleteness" towards one's own life(it does happen when one is a believer too but mayb in a different sense(?!))That friend told me more than once that he feels his life is wasted, being pointless..and this hurts a lot n it even sometimes makes one not very productive..does this apply to all nonbelievers?or it's just a trait?

----------


## sir

my last post in this thread ... related 2 nothing and nobody,just so,for the record...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein
-------------------

"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"
amen!

----------


## Logos

> my last post in this thread ... related 2 nothing and nobody,just so,for the record...


Well ok.. was just going to say, please, discuss _ideas_, not the _posters_ who have expressed said ideas  :Smile:

----------


## Ancestor

> Now I shouldn't step into someone else's discussion (but since when I do things I should do) but I really see no point in arguing cos noone is really trying to convince anyone, but of course noone will understand the other's point completely. I also sort of feel uncomfortable about believers always going on about how good it is to believe and implying between lines (and I think that they don't always realise it) that we are missing something, but that's also part of my present feeling of total refuse of anything that has to do with any kind of religious believe... So I probably also sound 'arrogant' at times cos we unbelievers also have that kind of way... But that doesnt mean that we are trying to convince each other cos we all (should) know that it's impossible, even if there are people who still try (that is, my grandmother...).


I do not feel you sound arrogant to me you sound like you are a happy person who just happens to not believe in a higher being. People tend to lump everyone who has the same faith as believing the same when in fact we do not. You are right you should be free to be a atheist without anyone saying, 'hey aren't you worried about your soul.' Your Grandmother sounds like mine and because even though we are both Spiritualist I do not practice our faith correctly but I still love her. Even though small strokes have affected her mind I let her say and let it go. I enjoy listening to all of you who believe or not believe. I was depressed before I found faith it is interesting to find someone opposite of me and anyway we can get out of a depression is a good way in my book.

----------


## Ancestor

> being on the right side / being on the wrong side ...jeeeeezuz krist!!!!!!!
> 
> think! think! think!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> for ****'s sake!!! "god" is just a concept,undemonstrable,utterly subjective,a postulate created by human's ancestral fears,anguishes,loneliness and cultivated through terror,lie,superstition and by our species' innermost conflict itself:awareness of death!
> 
> if one is honest with oneself,one knows one comes from nowhere and soon will go back to nowhere...lucidity is the greatest humiliation the human being must endure...a great deal of it can lead to suicide or to the edge of it.
> 
> thus ,depending on our level of lucidity,our character,education,etc.,we are chosen (we never chose) by a specific religion,doctrine,philosophy,weltanschauung...ther e's no escape,even the anarchy,the atheism,the agnosticism,etc. can b included within the large meaning of "doctrine".
> ...


This is such a fascinating example of narrow mindness that I have ever seen and I do apologize for my rude behavior but you sir do not understand what faith truly is. I am intelligent and I no longer fear and how come you imply people with faith are inferior to you. Is that not a God complex your words imply that you are suffering from. I have no problem with someone being atheist but I also feel that a atheist is as smart as I am and just as happy being a atheist as I am at being a Spiritualist. I once again apologize for my rude behavior and if I misunderstood your words sir then please try to make yourself appear less hostile. By the way I did chose my faith because I do not like anyone choosing for me.

----------


## Tuana

Atheists don't believe in a concept of religion and God. For them, God is only for something people cannot explain. That's the common idea of Atheists. And Using scientific explainations such as "Evolution Theory of Darvin" is more logical than saying : "My God created this, that, these, those or etc etc..."
Being born and dying is only biological events and have no divine meaning for them. People are born and die. That's all...Simple...Heaven, hell, satan etc. are something they don't believe in. 

PS: I am an Atheist but i have no intention to attack the other people's opinions and beliefs. I just wanted to say my opinion about Atheism... Best Regards...

----------


## Ancestor

> Atheists don't believe in a concept of religion and God. For them, God is only for something people cannot explain. That's the common idea of Atheists. And Using scientific explainations such as "Evolution Theory of Darvin" is more logical than saying : "My God created this, that, these, those or etc etc..."
> Being born and dying is only biological events and have no divine meaning for them. People are born and die. That's all...Simple...Heaven, hell, satan etc. are something they don't believe in. 
> 
> PS: I am an Atheist but i have no intention to attack the other people's opinions and beliefs. I just wanted to say my opinion about Atheism... Best Regards...


You showed respect and I hope that my words did not offend you also. Thanks for sharing your opinion and I hope we can hear more from you. I do apologize though for my attitude towards sir but I felt like he stepped upon my beliefs without any respect. I am a person whom is happy with her own skin and wish people would accept that about each other. We all live with something or without something but if we are truly happy then what is so wrong about that? Not a thing in my book. Loki's signature proudly states that he is atheist. I like Loki he is one of many who people brighten up this forum. But when someone comes off insulting I do act out and that is not a excuse for my behavior. For all atheist or not whom may have been offended by my last few posts I do apologize. I shall try to maintain my proper etiquette from now on.

----------


## Dyrwen

> Atheists don't believe in a concept of religion and God. For them, God is only for something people cannot explain. That's the common idea of Atheists.


Technically you're presuming religion has to do with god, which it doesn't. It has to do with worship, dogma, ritual, belief in a concept of great importance. Atheists can have religions, just like theists can. Atheism and theism are two spectrums of a metaphysical hierarchy. Atheists are theists are at the top, then connected to them are their respective religions which certain atheists and theists partake in, below that are the common philosophical concepts, below that political, and on and on. 

Universism (an odd offshoot that sounds too much like UU), certain sects of Buddhism, Unitarian Universalist, LaVeyian Satanism, Humanism, etc are all "atheist" religions. They hold no belief in gods and still follow a dogma of a sort to make their lives better suited to hold meaning for them. Some of these religions include theists as well, but generally speaking they don't require deities to be believed in. 

Just thought you might like to know.

----------


## Koa

> if one is honest with oneself,one knows one comes from nowhere and soon will go back to nowhere...lucidity is the greatest humiliation the human being must endure...a great deal of it can lead to suicide or to the edge of it.


Wow, this just sums up so perfectly my theory about life... I think that the only people who can be happy are those who haven't seen the truth, that is the meaningless of life and many other things... And when, 6 years ago, I found out all this, my lucidity was really taking me down and down...





> even though i am more scared of the people with a firm belief...the inquisitors were 100% sure they were right and those who didn't believe in their god deserved to dye, the muslim kamikazes are 100% sure they are right and if u don't believe what they believe they have the right to kill u.
> a man who doubts would never kill or give his life on behalf of an idea .


I actually agree on this... I don't know if the muslim kamikazes are following religious ideas or just political ideas, but they are way too convinced about them... And many people who believe in a god just try to convince the others... I think doubting can be healthy at times...




> Koa said:
> 
> Quote:
> I just prefer to have my pessimist nihilist ideas, because they are mine and came from my experience, rather than pretend to have faith and spend one hour every week in the church wondering why I'm there. 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on and respect this.but at the same time i just wonder if one might undergo any feeling of "lack" or "incompleteness" towards one's own life(it does happen when one is a believer too but mayb in a different sense(?!))That friend told me more than once that he feels his life is wasted, being pointless..and this hurts a lot n it even sometimes makes one not very productive..does this apply to all nonbelievers?or it's just a trait?


That's what I was trying to say... I do feel like that, all the time... useless - but that's not because I think that life has no meaning...well if I also think about it it does add to it, but with what I said and you quoted I wanted to say this... that I dont fee like I lack something cos I have no faith, because I feel that what I think is ok, it's right for me to think that... I can't really explain maybe but I dont feel poorer... 




> I do not feel you sound arrogant to me you sound like you are a happy person who just happens to not believe in a higher being


Oh then I should sound more depressed...  :Wink:  I'm not happy, I don't think happiness really exists, I prefer to call it 'joy' cos I think it can't last long... 
Ok, lately I don't feel depressed most of them, I just feel ok and enjoy some things... so if happiness is just the lack of pain, then maybe I'm generally happy these days.

----------


## Ancestor

Does life have meaning only when one gives it meaning? By telling ourselves that life is not going to get any better we make it come true ourselves? I can tell myself that my life is going nowhere and in the end I turn out to be right. Dwelling on anything good or bad does not help just get up and do it. Make your life have meaning through any number of things. I won't be go back into my darken world where I did not care about anyone especially myself. Then it would truly be a empty lonly and pathetic life which would be no ones fault but my own. I have only seen a few people here who break to stereotype mold of atheists. I do not know about you but I am tired of people stereotyping and placing me in bounderies. Bounderies bound me in one place for far too long in my life and would rather live life to the fullist no matter what. You make your life what it is instead just take as it comes. I may not know my purpose but who is to say I am not living today. I took care of my dying Grandfather and I was there when he took his last breath. It made me proud to be there for that because he always smiled every day of his life which brightened mine. His own Mother bragged about how many times she tried to bring on a abortion while she carried him. She threw herself downs stairs to have a miscarry but he survived to be born and his presence in the world was brighter for it at least to me. If we humans were meant to live in a world of nothingness then we would not have people whom we love with all our being.  :Smile:

----------


## Dyrwen

Just because the world has no purpose and our lives no ultimate meaning doesn't mean we cannot continue to live with our own sense of purpose. Nothingness awaits us in death, which is why we enjoy or experience life as best we can while we're here. For me, life is neither good nor bad, it just is. It's better than death so I do not dwell on it. I focus on the bad and the good in any case, because I can't avoid it, but don't expect anything grand from either. 

Life has a purpose: To live. If you add anything else to it, you're stretching it for more than it can be, personally speaking.

----------


## Ancestor

Why cannot life have both purpose and nothingness? Why do we think so one dimential when the world is not? Otherwise why have life at all if there is no purpose, no meaning, and nothing awaits us after death? Life is never just one single thing I have had patches of nothingness along patches filled with purpose. I do not think a few words can truly describe life but that life is a ongoing learning process and I for one will enjoy as much as I can.

----------


## Dyrwen

I didn't say we can't have both. I said life after death is nothingness and life as it is has no ultimate purpose, but its purpose is decided by those living it. Why live when nothing awaits you anyway? Because it beats being dead. You got one shot at this world, so use it however you want. Be happy, be sad, be whatever. Have a purpose or don't, it might help you it might not. Life is just here to be lived, make it what you want, but it won't matter in the long run from a individual aspect.

----------


## Ancestor

I did not mean to imply that you did not say we could not have both. I do believe that only our physical bodies die and that our spirit lives on afterwards. The nothingness that awaits when we die is a depressing thought to me at least. Plus since I am able to feel spiritual energy that does persuades me to believe that way. But each to his or her own I guess.  :Wink:

----------


## Satirical

To say with all the conviction in the world, that there is nothing on the other side, to say that there is even another side, or not, is just as fallacious as any religion. Nothing is something in virtue of it being nothing.

----------


## subterranean

> Posted by Koa: I don't know if the muslim kamikazes are following religious ideas or just political ideas, but they are way too convinced about them... And many people who believe in a god just try to convince the others... I think doubting can be healthy at times...


This reminds me of Plato alegory of cave. In a way, people who considered them selves enlightened and already found the truth, have this mental obligation to spread the words and convince them to follow the same steps. In Islam and Christianity, that obligation is obviously stated. Further, there are heavenly rewards waiting for "all out" believers. That's why death is a popular option in expressing the faith. 
Sometimes I think philosophy is somewhat similiar with religious teachings and philosophers are acting like preachers, spreading the ideas of truth. The difference is we are free to doubt and, as you said Koa, that can keep us healty at times.

----------


## Ancestor

> To say with all the conviction in the world, that there is nothing on the other side, to say that there is even another side, or not, is just as fallacious as any religion. Nothing is something in virtue of it being nothing.


Prove it to me and may change my point of view. Beside you make it sound so bleak and empty when for me it is not. I know there is another kind of life other than a physical one. Why limit us to one type of life?

----------


## Tuana

I think we cannot prove something and there is nothing to do except arguing about religion or God  :Smile:  We cannot prove it just like we cannot prove being of God. It is %50 possibility and people can believe in either of them. There is no proof. And if there is a %50 possibility, to believe or not to believe are both logical (i think)  :Nod:  
Best Regards...

----------


## Sabin Stargem

Currently, I do not hold much belief about the existence of the God(s), supernatural and whatnot. I probably will hold this concept to my death. What is much more important than disbelieving such things, is to be unwilling to serve. By this...I mean, I would not willing give my loyalty - my faith, to them. If I were to die, and find that they do indeed exist, I would not surrender my independence to them.

Why is that important? Well, I did not trust them in the first place - I would have to accept the consequences of my lack of faith. To stand by it in fact. This does not mean I hate the Gods, though I can dislike them. I more or less see them as powerful, flawed people.

----------


## Ancestor

Then how can either one of us be right if we cannot prove or disprove the existance of God or even life after death? Point we believe what we wish to believe and for me I have my own proof but I could not prove it to you nor should I. That would be stepping upon your toes and that is not proper for me to do. I do not think you will have consequences after death for not believing in any type of God or idol. Unless you committ murder before you die then that is a different story. Belief for me is giving to power for growth of one's self and even in a higher being or not. I do want to thank you all for the insight and I am learning more each time I visit.  :Smile:

----------


## Satirical

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

----------


## Deus

"Why cannot life have both purpose and nothingness? Why do we think so one dimential when the world is not? Otherwise why have life at all if there is no purpose, no meaning, and nothing awaits us after death? Life is never just one single thing I have had patches of nothingness along patches filled with purpose. I do not think a few words can truly describe life but that life is a ongoing learning process and I for one will enjoy as much as I can." - Ancestor

I'm a little confused as to how you jumped from saying life should ecompass both nothingness and purpose and then rather quickly accuse nothingness for making life pointless. Somehow I feel the idea of living for the sake of living has been lost. Its cropped up a few times, and I was glad to see this view brought forth. For what is wrong with living in a way that makes one happy and content? Nothing, it would be foolish to say there was some great flaw in living in such a manner, providing such a life abided in some sense an ethical and moral code, and followed laws. Who could fault peacefulness and such a contented existence? 

Seize the day, live in the moment, live as if it will be your last.

While the last may be a bit dark, the message holds true. Live in the now and don't worry about what might happen later. Be content in the knowledge that you're a good person. Why does it matter if there is nothing after death, it should not change the way life is percieved. Life is a precious state that should be enjoyed and lived as happily as possible, with the thought of what may come after saved till the occassion arises.

After all, these questions will all be answered when we die. :P

----------


## Ancestor

I meant that we all have spots in our life where we feel nothingness and there are spots in life where we feel purpose. Nothing is clear in the beginning our journeys and I surely for one have felt both but you are live your life as happy as you can be.

----------


## blp

> Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.


Everything that might be proof of god might equally well be a trick.

----------


## dejosc

> Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.


thats a stupid thing to say, going on that basis i could say that Seattle is actually a piece of plastic as no-one has given me solid proof that its there and i have not been there.

----------


## Satirical

You can say what you will, it is meant for one to keep an open mind about everything. If you would rather agree with dogma then that is for you. If you would rather not than that is equally up to you. The problem with this subject is the attempt at being universal when universal was as incomplete a topic as the "soul".

No strong convictions. And maybe somewhere there is a piece of plastic named Seattle, or maybe it is not, either way that would not be the problem would it?

As far as proof for God being a trick then it may very well be and it may not, once again either way there is no point in such a circular discussion involving it. We have a tendency to view problems as problems if they are unsolvable, instead of soluble. Some things in life are part and the base of life. Or even the origin lol.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

There is no evidence of God's existence, and it helps to look at things objectively. God's existence is a circular (invalid) argument: 
"P1" is Premise 1 
P1: God inspired the Bible
P2: Everything the Bible says is true
C: God exists.

One cannot accept this argument if he does not already believe in God. After reading the Bible objectively, as a piece of literature without religious significance, it is hard for me to understand why anyone can take the book seriously, let alone literally. The things that God does in the OT are incredibly cruel, sexist, and "bad," especially comparing the laws and actions to our modern society. 

Take Adam and Eve, for example. Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge and God punishes them. First, God must have planted the Tree in the first place, and second, what does that say about Him except that he wants his followers to be ignorant? 

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 explicitly states that disobedient children can be lawfully murdered. 

And how about poor Job, his life destroyed because of a little game between Satan and God? Does God really not care about human life? 

I also do not feel that Jesus' actions make up for his Father's abuse of Humanity. Thousands of years before Jesus was Gotama Buddha, a far more benevolent teacher without an abusive Father. Buddha's teachings, also, did not result in widespread violence, sexism, and corruption thousands of years later.

As for Creationism/Intelligent Design, the idea is compatable with anything. "God put the bones there." It's a circular argument, again, and is wholly unacceptable if the listener doesn't accept God's existence in the first place.

----------


## Satirical

Just as a side note, where I am from everyone seems to believe that the greatest thing about the Bible is that it was written by several people, but is as one. I bring this up because you brought up Job, and to this I say, Come on people! That story is written completely different from the rest! It is incredible what people accept as they have been primed as it were. Another thing about it being so concise is that the church fathers excluded many "apocrapha" that they conveniently thought was not divinly inspired. Once again, Come on! Check this out misanthrope, you may enjoy it as much as I do http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/

----------


## yellowfeverlime

they don't believe in anything. They believe NOTHING!

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

> Just as a side note, where I am from everyone seems to believe that the greatest thing about the Bible is that it was written by several people, but is as one. I bring this up because you brought up Job, and to this I say, Come on people! That story is written completely different from the rest! It is incredible what people accept as they have been primed as it were. Another thing about it being so concise is that the church fathers excluded many "apocrapha" that they conveniently thought was not divinly inspired. Once again, Come on! Check this out misanthrope, you may enjoy it as much as I do http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/


It doesnt matter who wrote which section, I know it was written by several people, but Christians believe it just the same. I am referring to the widely-accepted, traditional Bible, not the omitted texts. Not only that, but you are avoiding my arguments.  :Flare: 

It's not true that atheists believe nothing. I believe what is earthly, objectively provable, and externally valid. I tend to be very skeptical of people who say "God told me," and I will NOT jump into his bandwagon to give him all of my money for a free ticket to Heaven.

There is a big misconception that atheists have inadequate morality, and this is simply not true. Atheists do good things purely because they want to and find satisfaction in it, not because a Big Brother/Santa Claus figure is watching their every move. In fact, many studies found, such as the Journal of Religion & Society and _The Science of Good & Evil_ by Michael Shermer (Copyright 2004), that the more religious a person, or a society as a whole, is, the more likely he will do bad things, or the more "social ills" that society will have. The JoRS can be found here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

----------


## Satirical

I was unaware that we were in confrontation. I thought that I had made it clear that the discussion was circular to begin with. Even with the misunderstanding, I say that we are still in agreement. You have said nothing that I have not thought myself. I was merely pointing out something humorous to me in the context of the discussion.

You are right by the way, it does not matter who wrote that compilation of ancient myths, but I guess my sarcasm was lost in the writing. Either way, I do agree.

----------


## blp

> they don't believe in anything. They believe NOTHING!


'Nothing is better than nothing' - Samuel Beckett

Read the Tao Te Ching.

----------


## subterranean

I don't think atheist believe nothing...I mean I think they do believe in friendship, love, humanity.. just don't believe in divine being...




> There is a big misconception that atheists have inadequate morality, and this is simply not true.


I'm a theist, but I do agree with you there Misanthrope

----------


## bhekti

> ... Atheists do good things purely because they want to and find satisfaction in it, ....



So when they do those good things, they are doing them purely for themselves. Good.

----------


## Ancestor

> So when they do those good things, they are doing them purely for themselves. Good.


Excellent point and well stated.  :Nod:

----------


## subterranean

> So when they do those good things, they are doing them purely for themselves. Good.



Not always. You can't put aside the fact that sometimes people do things based on motives, that relates to certain interest and needs towards other people.

----------


## Satirical

If they do things for themselves, then they are being driven by a motive, albut an egotistical one, but a motive nonetheless. When it is said this is good, how good is it if it is self motivated? Gratification seems to be a bad word that could possibly be applied her.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

You totally missed the point. The point isnt that they feel they would get ahead if they do something good, its just general kindness and satisfaction by way of positive emotions that result from that gracious act. You maybe return someone's lost wallet and you feel good about doing that, only without the brownie points with God.

How do religious people decide when to do things? I'd rather have someone help me because he wants to out of genuine kindness, not because he wants a ticket to Heaven. I'd rather he help me because of self-motivation than to be ego-centric with the supernatural. (My friend is Catholic purely because he wants to go to Heaven.)

----------


## bhekti

> .... its just general kindness and satisfaction by way of positive emotions that result from that gracious act. ...


This, then, is atheists' theism.

----------


## Satirical

I am afraid that you have missed the point. I know what you mean and the individual will still gain some level of egotistical satisfaction. Think outside the box for a minute.

FYI Nobody really believes in heaven, not REALLY

----------


## Psycheinaboat

> FYI Nobody really believes in heaven, not REALLY


Okay, I admit that I haven't been following this thread that closely and perhaps have missed something.

Your post stuck out to me and I had to ask what you mean by this. I am not chosing a side to debate, I am just curious.

----------


## Satirical

I am joking really, I cannot say that for sure. I myself was raised in the heartland of the American Bible Belt and at a young age thought to myself that people do not really believe the scripture, and they were all just acting. I am sure that I am wrong and that some people do believe, but this is here nor there.

----------


## Psycheinaboat

I see. Well, your post made me think, so that's a good thing.

Your comment made me wonder about how many people truly believe in Heaven, as in it being a paradise where the faithful reap the reward of a good life, and how many just consider it a better fate than Hell.

As a child I had a Bible school teacher who described Heaven as if it was a never-ending church service with constant worship and singing. That did not leave me all that enthused about my options for the afterlife.  :Smile:

----------


## Satirical

I think, and do not quote me on this, that influences of an industrial society, existential, and rebelliousness in those aspects has a large bearing on the way our generation thinks about things of this nature. We are raised to be obedient and commercial with a wide array of technology opening up other possibilities, and showing us other perspectives that make us question. When I was young I doubted my faith for the first time when I realized it to be not a universal position. It has never recovered and probably never will. 
I also read much comparative mythology and that may influence me. Influences, however, are another topic in these regards.

----------


## bhekti

A true atheist is a sensitive person, a very sensitive person. He/she is honest, upright, and reasonable, very reasonable. What is lacking in him/her is patience.

----------


## Satirical

And all Cretans are liars.

----------


## subterranean

overrated......




> A true atheist is a sensitive person, a very sensitive person. He/she is honest, upright, and reasonable, very reasonable. What is lacking in him/her is patience.

----------


## subterranean

It's unfair to generalize theists with such argument. Theist may do good deeds with the reason of humanity, love, or even for the sake of kindness it self. Punishment and rewards may become considerations to some theists, but not always. And I believe not all (or always) atheists do such thing called "genuine goods"....





> How do religious people decide when to do things? I'd rather have someone help me because he wants to out of genuine kindness, not because he wants a ticket to Heaven. I'd rather he help me because of self-motivation than to be ego-centric with the supernatural. (My friend is Catholic purely because he wants to go to Heaven.)

----------


## Loki

> A true atheist is a sensitive person, a very sensitive person. He/she is honest, upright, and reasonable, very reasonable. What is lacking in him/her is patience.


That's nice of you to say, Bhekti, and very generous...but I don't know if it can really be applied to all atheists. An atheist is merely someone who does not believe in a god or gods; nothing more. It would be nice if all atheists were ethical, sensitive, and reasonable, but I'm afraid that would be something of a dream. Every atheist is different, an atheist is (usually) not part of a set group - each atheist can go his or her own way.

Of course there are atheists exactly how you described out there; however I feel that sensitivity and reasonableness can't be called general traits of the atheist.  :Wink:  Some atheists are very unreasonable, and some very skeptical, insensitive, etc. etc. and they're still atheists.

 :Smile:  Loki

----------


## Satirical

Contrary to popular belief, and I mean POPULAR belief, ethics and religion are very, very different things. To say someone of some faith or not is not to say that they are good or bad. I think this is called the non sequitor fallacy.(It does not follow)

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

Just as not all theists are good people, especially considering the dire straits of religion today, with both Islamic and Christian extremism, and, unfortunately, these people are wrongfully famous and their "warnings" about gays, endorsement of racism/sexism, and anti-sex attitudes are heeded by the majority. The UCC (United Church of Christ), however, is the first Christian organization to speak against their hateful brethren, and I do hope more outcry from the moderates follows suit.

----------


## A Hard Rain

Am i the only one who could not keep from laughing through this whole thread? 

Some situation we have! 

But really, I was just hoping that someone was going to tell those 2 off. 
I mean really lay it on thick. 
(not in an offensive way, but just an eye opener)  :Eek2:  

I was going to jump into the fray, but It has slowed.
Exhausted from going around.
It needed some fire somewhere along the line.
Maybe a car bomb.

----------


## Logos

> Am i the only one who could not keep from laughing through this whole thread? 
> 
> Some situation we have! 
> 
> But really, I was just hoping that someone was going to tell those 2 off. 
> I mean really lay it on thick. 
> (not in an offensive way, but just an eye opener)  
> 
> I was going to jump into the fray, but It has slowed.
> ...


Glad you're enjoying the topic  :Smile: 

We try to be as respectful as possible to others and their opinions and faith, but I daresay it's difficult for some.

----------


## Satirical

But really, I was just hoping that someone was going to tell those 2 off. 
I mean really lay it on thick. 
(not in an offensive way, but just an eye opener) 

By all means, please.

----------


## subterranean

Well, why don't you take the honour and be that so-called "eye opener"...




> Am i the only one who could not keep from laughing through this whole thread? 
> 
> Some situation we have! 
> 
> But really, I was just hoping that someone was going to tell those 2 off. 
> I mean really lay it on thick. 
> (not in an offensive way, but just an eye opener)

----------


## MrBojangles

My eyes are already opened after this discussion. Yet the thought keeps haunting me, why is believing in nothingness after death, depressing, I dare-say i accepted that as fact ever since.. i don't know when.. and its casted into the long list of the biological ( not devine ) ways of life, such as evolution, or lack of higher power and devine path. Thus being the "oh well" situations of life.

----------


## Ancestor

> My eyes are already opened after this discussion. Yet the thought keeps haunting me, why is believing in nothingness after death, depressing, I dare-say i accepted that as fact ever since.. i don't know when.. and its casted into the long list of the biological ( not devine ) ways of life, such as evolution, or lack of higher power and devine path. Thus being the "oh well" situations of life.



Why should there have to be nothingness after death? It is not depressing to me but I do not feel having a after life should mean that you have faith in a higher being. I would love to be a spirit and travel around the world without having to hand out cash for it.  :Smile:  In truth we believe what be want to believe about life after death. Personally have felt spiritual energy has helped me accept that there is. If your beliefs or if you do not believe and you are happy with the person you are then that is more important. I know I had said that before so forgive me repeating myself.  :Smile:

----------


## MrBojangles

What does this spiritual energy feel like? And it sounds like to me, that having a happy ending (life after death) is just hot air or wishful thinking, you can go as far to say that some sort of higher power (god etc.) is to. I see the downside of these hopes (in which the events in history has taught us) and that is why I'am atheist.

----------


## Ancestor

> What does this spiritual energy feel like? And it sounds like to me, that having a happy ending (life after death) is just hot air or wishful thinking, you can go as far to say that some sort of higher power (god etc.) is to. I see the downside of these hopes (in which the events in history has taught us) and that is why I'am atheist.


Why only see the downside of life when there is more then one side of life. They energy I can feel off of living and deceased is hard to describe but I can give you a example. I felt my sister's foot once and knew that she was going to lose it and three days after her 25 birthday the doctors amputated. I can still feel her amputated foot and knee it is a weird experience. I however do not feel it is hot air but having been lived part of my life without hope did not make me a happy person. I now deal with the bad and good but do not lose hope that my life wont' get any better anymore. That is up to me on whether it gets better or not. Caught a story tonight about a young man who had more physical pain then you could imagine. He had true courage to wake up each day and face the world. His disease was of the skin and it caused tremdous soars and even touch was painful. Never complained out load and made others laugh. Never lost hope of being free from his when death came and that was not hot air for him but a tool to survive. Sorry to get hot and no offense is intened and I hope I was not offensive to you. If so my apologies.

----------


## Chava

I personally find that the concept of afterlife is merely a form of reasurrence, "all right so you messed it up this time, no sweat, have another go." to those who wish to believe in that, I have no concern. However for several religions, the afterlife was a threat, a means of controling the people. The entire concept of paying for your sins to encourage people to treat each other better. My concern is the misuse that this power has led to, and the indulgence. People could pay their sins away, by giving money to the church (just an example) Killing a man was possible, and all the while i am convinced that the big losers in all this were the poor, and the people left without a choice, while the big winners were the arch bishops, and the rich men, who could get away with what was otherwise "sin". Pardon my opinion, but really? This is why my conviction is not for afterlife, i simply don't believe it. (of course other religions have different ideas, spirits, and kharma and what not.) But again, the point is to make you a better person in the current life by promising you a better life later.

----------


## bhekti

> What does this spiritual energy feel like? And it sounds like to me, that having a happy ending (life after death) is just hot air or wishful thinking, you can go as far to say that some sort of higher power (god etc.) is to. I see the downside of these hopes (in which the events in history has taught us) and that is why I'am atheist.



Atheists are sensitive people people who, unfortunately, always forget that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" (as the events of history has taught us)

PS: the quote is from Dostoevsky

----------


## Countess

Hello, I'm new - as in, I just joined 15 minutes ago, not as in I was born yesterday. I have always found the topic of God compelling, esp so many excellent authors have written extensively upon the subject.

I believe in God based on first principles and the ontological, cosmological, teleological arguments as well as Intelligent Design Theory, Pascal's Wager (although it has never converted a soul) as well as Anselms / Aquinas syllogistic proofs (yes, there is great layover between the forementioned.)

If one is a Christian of the reformed variety, one will readily recognize that all these arguments are made in vain; that is, that they have never converted a soul because they lack conversion *power*. The power of conversion obviously, lies with the converter, which is the Holy Spirit, or God. 

Arguments, then, are not plied with the intent of convincing anyone of the existence of God since, as we have said, that is impossible. Rather, they exist as a means of reinforcing one's own faith and removing intellectual obstacles to faith, which are sundry and inhibiting.

Thus, no atheist shall ever grow to love God because he was presented with Aristotle's "Metaphysics" or Descartes "Meditations" or even anything written by John Piper. He will grow to love God because God reached down and touched his soul aka: it is the personal experience with God that is radically altering, and that is not something we can mimic with vainglorious humanistic reasoning.

T

----------


## subterranean

What do you mean exactly?




> I would love to be a spirit and travel around the world without having to hand out cash for it.

----------


## Ancestor

> What do you mean exactly?


I was trying to say that I believe we become spirits after we die. I do have faith in a higher being but even if you do not believe in higher being why should you not still believe in a after life. 


> And it sounds like to me, that having a happy ending (life after death) is just hot air or wishful thinking, you can go as far to say that some sort of higher power (god etc.)


 It made feel that why should we have nothingness in the after life whether believing in a higher being or not. I do and I also believe in life after death and it was not just hot air to me. When I becaome a Spirit I believe that I will be able to roam the physical plane to help guide the living. Hope that explains if not I will try again. Not feeling to well today but I thought I should try to answer you suterranean also you get the nicest avatars.  :Wave:

----------


## A Hard Rain

---- it, you've converted me.

Now I will recieve my rewards.

----------


## Pendragon

> I see. Well, your post made me think, so that's a good thing.
> 
> Your comment made me wonder about how many people truly believe in Heaven, as in it being a paradise where the faithful reap the reward of a good life, and how many just consider it a better fate than Hell.
> 
> As a child I had a Bible school teacher who described Heaven as if it was a never-ending church service with constant worship and singing. That did not leave me all that enthused about my options for the afterlife.


I've stayed off this thread on purpose, but in reading over the posts I wonder if I made the right decision. Most of you seem to be genuinely interested in discussing things. Psyche, sadly, many people do feel that way about religion. My two cents: It's not to be used as a fire escape. Christ went to the common man and woman, those society had kicked out, and the established church of His day jumped all over Him. But who needs the love of God more, the people in the church or the ones who may never darken a door? Remember the story Jesus told of the shepherd with 99 sheep in the fold and one lost. He will go after the one. I say to you that there is much difference between religion and salvation! Not everyone who attends church really has God working in their life. That makes it hard on people who are trying to use Christ as an example, and show the love of God to everyone, regardless. If I cannot feel for someone, if I have no compassion for what they go through, if all I do is stand around and condemn them, how can I ever expect them to trust me to help them? The best sermon you'll ever preach is the way you act and the way you live; the way you treat others....  :Angel:   :Nod:   :Wave:

----------


## Adelheid

Agreed, Pen....  :Thumbs Up: :

----------


## Pendragon

Thanks for the support, Adelheid. Always appreciated.  :Thumbs Up:   :Angel:

----------


## emily655321

Don't know why I'm chiming in, again, but I am. I would first like to say to Ancestor that I have great respect for you, and each one of your posts is beautiful and kind and wise, even when you get frustrated. You have not said anything I would consider offensive, in fact I wish I was as patient with others as you.

I also believe that everyone's belief is right. Not "right" meaning "correct," but "right" meaning "valid." Until I was 16 or 17 I was a very spiritual person, and felt in my heart a deep connection with God. And that was right, because it was a belief that I honestly felt in my heart, and I did charitable things and tried to love others and to appreciate all the beautiful things in the world. Now I no longer feel in my heart that there is a God, and no amount of prayer or reflection or church attendence is going to change that, but that is also right, because it is what I honestly feel, and I am not a worse person for it. I just lost faith, and now I wish I could be agnostic and say, "Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't"in fact, I'm striving toward that kind of acceptance,but I can't truthfully say I'm agnostic, because I can't help believing that God just doesn't exist. I can't help it anymore than I could once have made myself not believe. It's just something that is either there or it isn't. And you know what? I still do charitable works, and I try not to hate others and to appreciate all the beautiful things in the world, and to do my best to make the bad better again. I do it because that, to me, is the purpose of life.

I did lose my faith when I became depressed, and I am still very depressed, for over five years now, but it was not because I felt God had wronged me somehow. Declaring oneself an atheist because "God would not allow such suffering in the world" seems like a very shallow argument to me. I think there is suffering in the world because human beings are the way we are; people will always misunderstand and hate one another, things will not always go the way we wish, viruses and bacteria and genetics will cause some people to be diseased, and endless other reasons, none of which have any basis in whether or not a higher power created them. I am depressed because the chemicals/electro-magnetic impulses in my head don't work right. I'm grateful for all the good things I have, I care deeply about other people, I am hopeful for the future, but the chemicals in the brain that trigger happiness in other people just don't work in mine. *shrug* It's not God's fault, and it's not a result of not believing in God; just is.

When people say they don't believe in God "because he let this bad thing happen to me," it is, to me, the ultimate example of belief. You can't hate something if you don't believe it's there. It is an example of refusing to _worship_ God out of feelings of revenge, but is in itself a very sincere expression of faith.

How did I let another post of mine get so long?  :Confused:  Sorry, folks. I'll conclude. Oh, afterlife: No, I don't believe there is such a thing as a spirit, so I don't believe it can continue on after the body is dead. I think what we feel as consciousness is the result of electro-magnetic activity in the brain, and when the brain dies, consciousness disappears, and that is the end of that. It doesn't make me sad; it makes death in general less sad to me, actually, I don't know why. It's less like someone leaving, and more like something being over and done.

Okay, so that's what this atheist is like. I hope it's helpful, somehow.


EDIT: I'd like to comment on how respectful and peaceful this area of the forum has become since the last time I was here.  :Smile:  It seems it used to be all fighting and name-calling and no one really listening, and I love it this way. Thank you, everyone, for the effort and respect it takes to keep such discussions peaceful, even when some people try to turn it into a fight. I love and respect all of you!

----------


## mike-eustace

I am an atheist and believe completely in nothingness after death. Surely it's the most likely outcome. "Preposterous"...how so? I think that it's quite arrogant of humans to be unable to accept that we're not part of some great scheme. 

If you believe your time alive is limited to that on Earth then you certainly want to make the most of it!

ME

----------


## bhekti

> If you believe your time alive is limited to that on Earth then you certainly want to make the most of it!
> 
> ME


The most of it ...in what way?

----------


## Adelheid

I finally found out the difference between these 2 words. They are not the same, even though people link them to go hand in hand.

agnosticism means ignorance, the belief that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

atheisticism is really the belief that there's no God.

That's the difference.... you get it?

----------


## Pendragon

> I finally found out the difference between these 2 words. They are not the same, even though people link them to go hand in hand.
> 
> agnosticism means ignorance, the belief that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
> 
> atheisticism is really the belief that there's no God.
> 
> That's the difference.... you get it?


I don't know that I would word it that way, the word "ignorance" is such a harsh word. Beside the agnostic person believes that he or she is right. The word I would use is "doubt". The agnostic doubts the existence of God. It's a grey area. Maybe. Maybe not. I believe the Hebrew word is "timshel" meaning "it may be". An atheist has made his/her mind up that God does not exist, but the agnostic is still thinking, leaning towards the "not" camp, but with enough doubt to not go there. I put it like this sometimes: There are three, perhaps four, kinds of believers. Unbelievers--those who choose to believe there is no God. Believers--those who choose to believe in God. Make-believers--those who try to fool people into thinking they believe in God. And doubters--those who are genuinely unsure.  :Nod:

----------


## Logos

I would say "ignorance" is a harsh word, it has many negative connotations, someone here is bound to take exception to it  :Smile:  

Emily, I am sorry you have been dealing with depression. Have you read _The Noonday Demon_ by Andrew Solomon? It was published in 2001, but I think it is still relevant today as one of _the_ most respected books ever written about depression.

----------


## emily655321

> Emily, I am sorry you have been dealing with depression. Have you read _The Noonday Demon_ by Andrew Solomon? It was published in 2001, but I think it is still relevant today as one of _the_ most respected books ever written about depression.


I haven't read that, Logos. Thanks for the suggestion!  :Smile:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity. Agnosticism is the belief that the presence of a deity can neither be proven NOR disproven. At least, that's my take on it. There is therefore some overlap, in which I fit.

It's ironic that, to hear some people tell it, the world is divided into Christians and Blasphemous Heathens (in which case, I have a BHA meeting next weekend). Even more ironic is how it took a Christian to make me a confirmed atheist. To use a mildly bizarre metaphor: I was standing on the Dock of Indecision, dipping my toes in the Sea of Atheism. It was a Christian who put me in concrete overshoes and pushed me off.

It's kind of a long story, but the main point is that a Christian missionary/youth group leader was speaking, and referred to Buddhism/Judaism/Confucianism/Islam/any non-Christian religion as "fairy-tale religions." Of course, this rubbed me the wrong way--what was worse was when, upon finding out I was an atheist, he promptly sought me out afterwards and began questioning my (non-)belief as if I'd entered the room through a smoking hole in the ground.

I came into this thread kind of late, so I apologize if what follows is somewhat haphazard and hackneyed.

Atheism is more a category than a specific form of belief. Trying to ask "What do atheists believe?" is no less ludicrous than asking "What do theists believe?"

What really busts my buttons is when people assume that atheism precludes morality, or worse, when people ask an atheist, "So nothing matters and I can do anything I want, no matter how immoral, and I won't ever be punished?" as if they think that asking the question will provoke instant conversion. One of my favorite phrases to use is, "It's not like I decided to be an atheist so I could sleep in on Sundays after Saturday night orgies"--for some reason, that conveys the desired message quite nicely, if I do say so myself.

Okay, that about does it for me for now. If anyone has any questions about my personal beliefs (and I stress "personal"), please feel free to ask, although I imagine it's somewhat egocentric of me to assume that people will significantly care.

----------


## Pendragon

Maybe this sounds rough, but have I not said time and again that the best sermon you preach is how you live and act, and the way you treat others? Attitude counts for a lot. As in sales, presentation counts for a lot. Sharing and caring means more than trying to force things down people's throats.  :Angel:

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Well I became an atheist for the very reason that I would be able to have endless orgies (preferrably with Christian girls) and live an otherwise debauched lifestyle. Also, when you're an atheist you get to be smart and have your own opinions.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I can't tell--is he kidding?

If not, I'm guessing his anthem is "Only the Good Die Young" by Billy Joel.

----------


## Scheherazade

It is expected that we have disagreements on various issues but please keep these disagreements within the bounds of common courtesy and respect each other's views.

If you find it to hard to do these, please feel free to ignore this section of the Forum.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hmm...I'm not sure which poster Scheherazade is referring to, but as my post seemed curt in retrospect:

My apologies if my post offended, but I was hoping to make a light-hearted point of referring to the lyrics of the song, which seemed to fit astonishingly well with ChuckBukowski's described lifestyle.

----------


## ChuckBukowski

This is the Atheist forum, correct? Of course I cant talk, I probablly posted some less than friendly remarks on the Christianity forum. I like Christians, usually. But Im from the south, our Christians are quick to make derogatory comment about gays, minorities and whoever we happen to be at war with. And you ever notice that Atheists never get mad when someone criticizes their atheistic views, thats becasue they are secure in their beliefs. We only get mad when Christians try to prove their point by pulling some ambiguous bible verse outta their...bible instead of supporting their ideas with facts. Atheist : "I dont think God cares if gays get married". Christians : "And who so ever drinketh from the cup of another man will suffer unto the waves of the river Canan". Atheist : "Oh, I never thought of it that way, I think you're right, pardon me while I blow my freegin brains out". Ok I made up that bible verse, but you get my point.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Um, Mr. Bukowski, you're not only making generalizations about Christians, you're also making generalizations about atheists. That's generally not a good combination.

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Whats so wrong with generalizations? If I said , "generally Americans like french fries", would I be wrong? In the south Christians are genreally right leaning and conservative.

----------


## RobinHood3000

The problem is that, in your post, you didn't use "generally"--you simply gave the categorization "Christians" or "Atheists," which has an all-encompassing implication. You say that atheists never get mad when criticized, which I seriously doubt is true. You also suggest slightly that atheists are left-leaning, which not only approaches the political arena but is not without substantial exceptions, myself included.

And I'm almost afraid to ask: were you serious in your motives to become an atheist, as stated in your earlier post?

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Yes, thats correct, I became an atheist so I could have orgies with christian women. Its kinda like joining a rock band so you can get chicks. Because we all know that girls love it when you say, "hey baby, I dont believe in God, Im a souless cynical heathen, Ill take you staight to hell." C'mon...are you serious. Being an atheist is way harder than being a Christian in modern society. You know of any self-proclaimed atheist presidents? Or any politicians for that matter? And Im sorry but in a converstaion about Atheism and Christianity how can you not bring up politics, religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. "But the post says....", ya I know what the post says, calm down, I'm not getting into politics, just reality. As far as my generalizations are concerned, If anyone reading this had to place their money on whether or not atheists were generally more left leaning or right leaning, where would you place your money? Generally, I would like to know the answer, but dont bother to respond because I already know.

----------


## Ancestor

Well I have never heard of that reason for being a athiest and guess there is nothing wrong with unless your hurt someone's feelings. I find it hard to believe though that a women Christian or not would fall for such a terrible line. No offense intended towards you but you gave the impression women with beliefs are naive when faith or not that is not the case. I felt that people always have the wrong ideals when it comes to the opposite sex. Besides you do not have to be atheist to have a orgies.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Um...I think he established that he was kidding.

Just because it's harder to be an atheist doesn't mean that it's fair to demean the arguments of Christians. Yes, they're ludicrous upon occasion, but in such cases, I find it best to at least try and help the other person understand that any generalizations that are made about atheists (and as I'm sure you probably already know, they are varied and plentiful) are not necessarily founded in reality. I know well enough not to expect to convert anyone by talking about my atheism, and I don't want to. It's against my philosophy to try and qualify myself as absolutely, undeniably right in anything beyond factual basis.

----------


## Diadem

> Atheist at Wikipedia 
> "Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively believing in the non-existence of deities."
> 
> Couldn't have put it better.


I'd say I'm more agnostic-leaning than atheist because I don't negate the possibility (not probability) of a God existing, but I'd definitely agree with that definition.

Atheists have many beliefs, they just don't happen to be theistic in nature. I do not believe in any God for the time being because no such entity has proven itself to be real to me, however I do believe the existence of such a God is possible. In addition, I do however respect the beliefs of others who happen to have faith in such an entity. I believe we all have the freedom to choose and that is something we should definitely cherish.

Furthermore, I do not believe (oh, there goes that word again) that one must submit to religious doctrine or tenets in order to be a moral and upstanding person in this society. I've all too often heard from religious people that you *need* God in your life to be a good person because only the Bible or other religious doctrine can provide you with morals. I think that's not representative of the truth. I've seen religious people as well as atheists say one thing and do another, so being religious doesn't dictate your morality.

Above all else, I believe works, not faith alone, proves one's self to be a good person.

Just my two cents. I did subscribe to Pascal's wager at one point, but I feel that it wasn't an honest acceptance of God so I decided not to subscribe anymore until I was assured that such a God existed. If He is real as He says He is, He will show me the "light".

----------


## Diadem

> ...As far as my generalizations are concerned, If anyone reading this had to place their money on whether or not atheists were generally more left leaning or right leaning, where would you place your money? Generally, I would like to know the answer...


I'm responding anyway.  :Biggrin:  

Left, my friend, and usually against the death penalty. What did I win?  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I am an atheist and I believe that:

"The good I do is to my credit,
The evil to my shame,
No praise is due to God in heaven,
Nor Lucifer to blame."

And I hold this belief just as strongly as anyone of a religious persuasion holds theirs (and with just as many doubts, I dare say).

An agnostic doesn't believe in God but an atheist believes there is no God - it's an act of faith (believe it or not!)

----------


## RobinHood3000

Actually, an agnostic takes a neutral stance towards the presence of a deity. But yes, I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Actually, an agnostic takes a neutral stance towards the presence of a deity.


I must disagree. Not with what you say but with your implication that this contradicts me, which it doesn't.

An agnostic takes a neutral stance on God's existence, agreed - but this is not in contradiction to my point above - the agnostic _does not believe_ - this is the key phrase - , either in God, or in the lack of a God, instead preferring to sit on the fence until such time as a convincing case is made either way. Neutrality on the point of God's reality is incompatible with _any_ belief regarding the subject.

The atheist has _been convinced_ and actively believes, albeit in God's non-existence. My whole point in responding to this thread was the initial premise (backed up by smilies) that any belief on the part of an atheist was laughable. I believe (there's that word again) that you cannot _be_ an atheist without belief, merely an agnostic with pretensions.

You may well have gathered that I have a lower opinion of agnostics than I do any religious group! I hate people that can't make up their minds - lol.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Ehhh...I guess I can agree, but only when they're standing in line in front of me trying to decide on whether to get chicken or fish. Some agnostics might have the right idea in that they do not necessarily try to qualify themselves as absolutely right, which would be one of the first mistakes when debating religion.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Some agnostics might have the right idea in that they do not necessarily try to qualify themselves as absolutely right, which would be one of the first mistakes when debating religion.


...and by far the commonest - lol

We all doubt. Such is Humanity's lot. We just don't all admit it. Of course, it's easier for an atheist to admit that he may be wrong - there's no fear of *DIVINE RETRIBUTION*. So perhaps we can forgive the rest for their dogmatism.

...Nah - let's not!!

----------


## falling*moon

those who live like animals..

JUST eat....drink.....play....

eat....drink.....play....


and sin for ever ...ignoring Hell..!

----------


## RobinHood3000

> ...and by far the commonest - lol
> 
> We all doubt. Such is Humanity's lot. We just don't all admit it. Of course, it's easier for an atheist to admit that he may be wrong - there's no fear of *DIVINE RETRIBUTION*. So perhaps we can forgive the rest for their dogmatism.
> 
> ...Nah - let's not!!


What do you mean, "no fear of divine retribution?" If we're wrong, divine retribution is exactly what we end up with.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

If you don't believe in a divine being, then how can you be subject to divine retribution? Religion extends no farther than one's mind, and to call something a "religious truth" is merely to find a group with a similar theological belief who concur with each other. Athiests rely on the nonexistence of belief, and collectively they then believe a divine being doesn't exist. Can you have punishment without a punisher?

----------


## Hazel-Ra

I am an athiest depending on how you choose to define the term. I do not believe in a religious being. I do, however, believe in something. My dad, however, is a classic athiest.

----------


## emily655321

> If you don't believe in a divine being, then how can you be subject to divine retribution? Religion extends no farther than one's mind, and to call something a "religious truth" is merely to find a group with a similar theological belief who concur with each other.


Well, that's what atheists believe. That's why they're atheists; no point in behaving as if there's a God if you think it's all in your head, is there? People who do believe in God honestly think there _is_ someone there to punish them. And, if they're right, and atheists are actually mistaken, then the souls of athiests may or may not be in real trouble when they die (depending on what sort of guy God happens to be).

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> What do you mean, "no fear of divine retribution?" If we're wrong, divine retribution is exactly what we end up with.


...and that risk is as great through choosing the wrong religion as from choosing none! In fact, any catholic will tell you that all other 'so-called' christians are damned because 'theirs' is the only 'true' faith. You can't follow every religion (and I have yet to come across any that is more convincing than any other) so I prefer to follow none.

In my opinion (and lacking any concrete evidence from a certifiably divine being, that's all we have to go on, a bunch of opinions) there is no reason to believe in anything that we cannot experience with our senses, or which we can deduce from those experiences. 

Any deity that _seriously_ wanted us to believe without question would (given his/her/its absolute infallability) provide incontrivertible proof to base that belief on (unless he/she/it is just toying with us, in which case they are guilty of a sick joke and not worthy of praise). 

Instead, all we have are a selection of ambiguous, self-contradictory texts, all obviously penned by far less sophisticated and wordly-wise people than ourselves. I expect that when I die, I die. I have no soul, only a brain, and I will use it to analyse _everything_ for as long as I am able, the existence of god included.

If I'm wrong, I will argue the toss with whatever deity I find in the 'next world'. And I will be wanting some pretty good explanations!

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Something to add to this as well....it doesn't take a religious person to be a moral person. Do we need a god to tell us we shouldn't kill people, or can we be civil and understand that doing so is not in the best interests of everyone involved? Of course, morality is also just in someone's head...look at all the murderers who have thought that killing was the "right thing to do". 

Regarding religion, I equate it to a bottomless cup. Why? A bottomless cup is still empty after you have put everything you have into it. A bottomless cup leaves you with what you started with when you are done with it...nothing. Both of these things I have found true of religion. How many times have people asked theological questions only to be given more questions just because religion cannot be "proven" ? Why can't we prove religion existent? Is it because some god doesn't want us figuring it out, or because we're supposed to be on some "quest for the truth"? If I'm going to go on a quest, I want an end and some sort of tangible answer. "Feeling" the call of a certain god is nothing more than someone convincing themselves that their god is real, and the reason people say they feel peace in doing so isnt because they've been invaded with all-pervasive grace....it's because they've decided to stop rationalizing. Religion is just an intellectual drug that uses the unknown to addict people. Just my thoughts.

----------


## RobinHood3000

...I'm guessing XxDarkClarityxX is an atheist, as well.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

It's a result of Catholicism being shoved down my throat as an augmentation to my education...I wasn't always an athiest, but I've turned out to be that way. Too much of a good thing, or should I say SOMETHING, will cause a reversal of the desired effect.

----------


## Ancestor

It has been a while since I posted on this thread but XXdarkclarityXX made a good point about you do not have to be a person of faith to be a moral one. I am a person of faith but I know many people whom are atheist that are more moral then a person who believes in the Bible. It a matter of how you choose to life your life and that it is okay to believe or not to believe.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> It's a result of Catholicism being shoved down my throat as an augmentation to my education...I wasn't always an athiest, but I've turned out to be that way. Too much of a good thing, or should I say SOMETHING, will cause a reversal of the desired effect.


Ah, yes, I'm familiar with the phenomenon. If you look elsewhere on these forums, I think that you can find my post on a hardcore Christian who pretty much poured cement over my feet on the "Atheist" side of the line.

----------


## emily655321

> In fact, any catholic will tell you that all other 'so-called' christians are damned because 'theirs' is the only 'true' faith.


Sorry, Xamonas, don't mean to nit-pick, but I always feel compelled to defend the religious against such blanket statements, citing my own experience with religion. I was raised in an, admittedly, very liberal Catholic church, but was always taught that any Christian, be they Catholic or Protestant, was accepted by God as his own. Now, I always took issue with the "you have to be Christian" aspect of that (I recall asking my mother when I was little, "What about all the good people who aren't Christian? What about all the people who live in the Amazon and will never hear about Jesus, but are still good people? Do you mean they don't go to Heaven? Is God really that unfair?" ...and then I aged a few years and decided it was all total BS), but my point is that there are plenty of Christians, and specifically Catholics, who do not believe Christian denomination makes a difference to the fate of one's soul.

That's all.  :Biggrin:

----------


## beowulflee

This thread is so stupid. Atheist is defined on a negative, meaning that it tells you what the person does not believe in. It does not tell you what the person believes in. The end, /gg.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> This thread is so stupid. Atheist is defined on a negative, meaning that it tells you what the person does not believe in. It does not tell you what the person believes in. The end, /gg.


Perhaps I can put things into perspective for you.

Could you answer briefly what theists believe in? Without leaving anyone out?

----------


## Virgil

> Sorry, Xamonas, don't mean to nit-pick, but ... Catholics, who do not believe Christian denomination makes a difference to the fate of one's soul.
> 
> That's all.


Emily's right. Catholic doctrine does not restrict Protestants (I'm not sure about non-Christians; I would have to look it up) from going to heaven. Some of these are folklore, rather than doctrine. For instance, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that says if an infant is not babptized and it dies, it goes to hell or limbo. But everyone thinks that.

This is an interesting thread. As someone who has gone from both sides of this at sometime in my life, I hear recurring themes.

----------


## kashifalikamil

hmmmmmmmmmmm

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Emily,

I apologise for using the words 'any catholic' in my statement. It should of course be replaced by 'most catholics'. My error. 

Beowulflee,

This point has been covered many times but bears repeating. Atheists _believe_ that there is no god. We do not merely not believe, but actively believe in the absence of a creator from the universe.

Would you consider it 'negative' to believe there is no Santa? Or no Yeti? 

Do you consider all negative words equally stupid? Uninformed, for instance? A stupid word; by your definition, it tells you what you aren't but not what you are, in exactly the same way as atheist. Imprecise? Immature? More stupid and meaningless words according to your theory.

To me, not only are they not 'stupid', but instead they serve as a very accurate description of your last post.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> This thread is so stupid. Atheist is defined on a negative, meaning that it tells you what the person does not believe in. It does not tell you what the person believes in. The end, /gg.


stupid-

adj 1: lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity 

You use a device which you yourself rebuke. Also, by telling someone what you don't believe in, aren't you telling them what you DO believe in? Not saying no means saying yes, and not saying yes means no. We're forced to make choices in life, most of which are binomial in nature: you have to pick this or that. You don't pick this, you get that. You don't pick that, you get this. You can state your beliefs or you can't, but either way you're making a stance. Good day.

----------


## emily655321

> Not saying no means saying yes, and not saying yes means no.


I'm afraid the world isn't that simple, hon. You can get yourself in sticky situations thinking that way about some things. People, for instance. Especially in matters of religion and other things metaphysical, the world is one big grey area.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Emily,

What I was talking about when I said that was relative to decisions because they CAN'T be gray...at least the outcome. The reasoning can be gray, along with the situation and circumstances surrounding the decision, but in the end you have to make a choice. That's what I think is black or white. 

For example, imagine you are standing in the middle of two train tracks and there is a train on the right track. You have your husband on the right side of the track and your son on the left side of the track, both of whom are tied down and have no way of getting loose. You also have the train lever, which can make the train go on the left track. If you don't act, your husband dies because the direction of the train doesn't change. If you do act, you save your husband. Is the decision bogged down by very gray circumstances and thoughts? Can you immediately make such a difficult choice? No, you can't, and that part is gray. BUT.....eventually, you've got to do something. By not acting, you save your son. By acting, you save your husband. You've got to make a choice either way, and each choice has definitive consequences. That's what I meant by what I said, and I hope I have clarified my thoughts for you.

----------


## emily655321

Your thoughts are clear, XXdarkclarityXX, I'm just taking issue with the idea that _all_ situations are black and white. There are, such as in the rather outlandish and unrelated example you use, situations which have only two choices. I'm saying that I disagree with applying such logic to matters of religion. Your logicin saying that "not saying no means yes, and not saying yes means no"runs with the "you're either with us or you're against us" idea, which I've always disliked. In _that specific instance_, in the difference between saying "yes" and "no," there are vast amounts of grey area. In short, "not saying yes" does not mean saying "no," it means exactly what it says: not saying one thing or the other. It could possibly mean saying "maybe," it could possibly mean saying "I don't know," or it could possibly mean that one does indeed have an opinion one way or another, but chooses to stay publicly non-committal. Those are not "grey areas" leading up to a black and white statement, they are statements in themselves; that's the sort of grey area I mean.

I don't mean to attack you on semantics, but it seems to me an important distinction to make. I understand your point, I'm just disagreeing with it.  :Smile:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Emily, 

Semantics are a viable target within my argument...no harm done. I think what might be good is if others discuss what they think, because between us we've exposed two huge schools of thought regarding decision making and it might be good to see what others believe.

----------


## falling*moon

Yo guyz..

Am here on this earth for a reason .. I should have a belief in something ..my job is to reach the TRUE instead of doubting the whole thing right? 

Loki …and the others.. lets speak rationally .. 

Even without the Holy books… do u think that God is there just to answer YOUR prayers ???
Sorry this is not logic..
And sorry if someone treated u so bad in your childhood and made u blame the sky.. 
And sorry if u wanted just to be a copy of some famous “screwed up writers” who failed to reach the truth and bluffed a lot..!
But God created us to worship him not to jump on trees and eat like……..!!
Look around u and count the blessings if u could… rivers….food…family……….. beautiful sky…roses….health….air…everything 

No..look inside you…you have a beating heart…eyes to see…a mind to think..
Do you think that God made you just to answer ur prayers?????
Do you think you are here just to be here and get ill ..or die ???? 

Am really Sorry..but this is Mega Stupid ...and am praying for YO all to be reasonable..



PS : 

SIR honey I agree with ur wisdom here “the problem with the dogmatic believers is that they never think that their dogma/doctrine might be questionable ... one doesn't need a very high iq to understand that the hundreds of Christian dogmas have tremendous gaps because they are MADE BY PEOPLE with more or less genius, with slight or serious psychological problems and with heaps of religious fanaticism.” 

But I hope you look more in something else instead of neglecting all..!

----------


## falling*moon

“even though i am more scared of the people with a firm belief...the inquisitors were 100% sure they were right and those who didn't believe in their god deserved to dye, the Muslim kamikazes are 100% sure they are right and if u don't believe what they believe they have the right to kill u.
a man who doubts would never kill or give his life on behalf of an idea .”



you say Firm belief ?? 

Most Muslims have firm believes I think and they don’t kill others… 

but those stupid kamikazes believe if they kill – what they call- nonbelievers they will go to Paradise alone and God will love them alone ..On the other hand, Some of them think of it as a revenge to these stupid un necessary Wars the US leading upon the world. 

Muslim kamikazes will rest in deep HELL, if you want my opinion ,for killing the innocent people everywhere, By the way, one Muslim priest wrote in a message dedicated to the world that Islam is not about killing at all …….. and that they are not forcing the beliefs on those who don’t believe .. those so-called “Muslim” FREAKS are killing their OWN people ..i think they are either crazy or just a depressed gang of Losers in their countries.. that’s all..


“I said life after death is nothingness”

Dear Dyrwen.. I believe we will be punished for our committed sins,, and prized for our good deeds.. what would encourage me to do good deeds in this life if I knew am not paid back in the afterlife ..!!

In other words : 

How can I encourage my son to succeed in the Final Exam if I don’t promise him a reward ..or at least a threat in case he fails..??? 

answer that .. 

Do not say he will feel good by succeeding ..i can kill somebody and feel as good as a winner of the Super Ball !! 


thanx

----------


## falling*moon

something else,
Dear MiSaNthrOpE ,

“Take Adam and Eve, for example. Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge and God punishes them. First, God must have planted the Tree in the first place, and second, what does that say about Him except that he wants his followers to be ignorant”

Yah, you maybe right in that but 
…I’ve read another version about Adam and Eve in an English copy of the Quran ..

God asked Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree… Lucifer seduced them claiming that God doesn’t want them to be knowledgeable -which was a lie- .. so they ate and disobeyed God’s order ..that’s why they were punished.. for their disobedience .. 

As for “Atheists do good things purely because they want to and find satisfaction in it”
Again…I disagree … coz Again I can do a bad thing and Find satisfaction too !!!! 
God encouraged us to do good deeds and promised us Paradise.. 


“Maybe this sounds rough, but have I not said time and again that the best sermon you preach is how you live and act, and the way you treat others? Attitude counts for a lot. As in sales, presentation counts for a lot. Sharing and caring means more than trying to force things down people's throats.”

Bliss ya 4 that 

thank u all and sorry

----------


## RobinHood3000

> How can I encourage my son to succeed in the Final Exam if I dont promise him a reward ..or at least a threat in case he fails..??? 
> 
> answer that ..


Because it is beneficial to his eventual well-being. Those exact words might not be the most effective, but that's the general idea. The concept of delayed gratification is a critical one. Plus, as any sitcom writer or ironic playwright knows, it is the flow of information that defines interaction. Some of the most awkward, uncomfortable, or downright terrible situations on earth, fictional or otherwise, stem from lack of information.

Okay, I digressed there significantly, but I think the reason why one should do well in their Final Exams is the same reason why "stupid" is considered an insult. We live in the Information Age--the more you know, the easier things get.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

falling moon,

Have you ever tried to write a coherent, gramatically correct essay? Are you aware that most rhetorical arguments lose substantial credibility when they are not correctly formulated?

Secondly, you are under an unproven assumption that there IS something to doubt. How do you know that "God" wants us to worship him? Prove to me there's something to worship and then I'll start worshiping something. "God", falling moon, is jut a set of ideals. Goodness, charity, honor, selflessness.....those are all qualities displayed by stories which depict this "God". But what we are meant to follow are these ideals themselves, and we shouldn't believe that there's a person who actually hears everyone's prayers and brings people back to life. The scripture stories all show that following these IDEALS will allow you to be rewarded in the form of other people thinking well of you. Prayer is just a confidence booster, there's no one listening to that prayer except yourself. It boosts your confidence and gives you hope because by speaking to an imaginary friend (the equivilant to God) you've complained to someone else. Then, when something good happens, you can praise "God" for answering your incessant complaints. When something bad happens, all of a sudden you've created a scapegoat. Did you do badly on a test that you had prayed about the night before? Don't blame God, and don't say it's his will! It's yours! You shape your choices. Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life? 

I apologize for the certain level of rambling, wherever apparent within the above text. Thank you and I welcome responses.

Edited by Logos to remove flames

----------


## Virgil

> Emily's right. Catholic doctrine does not restrict Protestants (I'm not sure about non-Christians; I would have to look it up) from going to heaven. Some of these are folklore, rather than doctrine. For instance, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that says if an infant is not babptized and it dies, it goes to hell or limbo. But everyone thinks that.
> 
> This is an interesting thread. As someone who has gone from both sides of this at sometime in my life, I hear recurring themes.


Just to be clear on Catholic doctrine of non-Catholics and going to heaven, the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_, which is the official position of teaching by the Roman Catholic church, states the following:



> Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation.


 (Paragraph 847)
So, you do not have to be Roman Catholic or even Christian under Roman Catholic teaching to get into heaven. What the criteria is, as I read it, is to do God's will, which I believe to mean, love thy neighbor and love God. Not too dificult, even if you don't know about Christianity.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I'm guessing, though, those of us that do know about Christianity but deny it will be playing flexibility-based party games for the rest of eternity?

_Everybody, LIMBO!!_

----------


## Logos

XXdarkclarityXX, there are many people here who do not use English as their first language so please do not flame others for their spelling and/or grammatical errors. 

You can still take someone seriously and be respectful of their opinion/belief without resorting to _ad hominem_.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Logos,

Yes, my attempt in debasing falling moon's argument did employ ad hominem tactics. However, the inability to use English effectively begs the question: Why use it to make an argument if you're not proficient with it? I have no problem with English being a second langauge, but if you do not have the proper command of it to use it effectively then I do have a problem with its use for rhetorical purposes. Imagine you are a writer and a painter, but you are much better at painting then in writing. Would it make any sense for you to write rather than paint? No, because you are much better at painting. The same goes for communicating thoughts and ideas through language: the more effective tactic should be used to convey the message. In this case, it would be the first language. Now, since this forum requires posts to be in English, it might be more beneficial to those who cannot sufficiently utilize English to find a place where they may successfully and freely state their thoughts in their native language. 

Am I elitist? No. Am I anti-immigration? No. Then what am I? I'm utilitarian, and someone who cannot make an argument with correct structure, word usage, spelling, and grammar is wasting the time of the other members here by obstructing the meaning of what they have written with blaringly obvious literary deficiencies. Logos, while I apologize for any disrespect which may have been communicated between my sentiments and any other member of this forum, I stand by my position. If you cannot or do not formulate a coherent argument, flaming is warranted due to the simple fact that it wastes time and exhibits profound laziness. If you don't know English, learn before posting. If you don't feel like learning or don't learn enough, then don't post. On that note I say good night.

----------


## Logos

Look, if you choose to enter into discussion or debate here please try to be respectful of other people in how you say things. 

There are a lot of people here learning English, they use these very forums as practice. There may be some here with vision impairment, who use voice recognition software in order to communicate and the text isn't always perfect. There are myriad other reasons why someone might not post to your satisfaction but we can't all be happy with or like what others say, but you can still be "nice" in how you say it.

----------


## rachel

> Just to be clear on Catholic doctrine of non-Catholics and going to heaven, the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_, which is the official position of teaching by the Roman Catholic church, states the following:
> (Paragraph 847)
> So, you do not have to be Roman Catholic or even Christian under Roman Catholic teaching to get into heaven. What the criteria is, as I read it, is to do God's will, which I believe to mean, love thy neighbor and love God. Not too dificult, even if you don't know about Christianity.


Having converted to Catholicism so that I am a Messianic Jew I know that Virgil says about the Catechism is true, I have read it. There is a scripture that says very plainly which Peter the first vicar of the Church after the resurrection of Christ Jesus said following a council: "For I perceive that God is not partial, but the man from every nation that does the will of God is acceptable to Him."
There is another scripture that says" the whole obligation of man is to get to know God."

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Yes, my attempt in debasing falling moon's argument did employ ad hominem tactics. However, the inability to use English effectively begs the question: Why use it to make an argument if you're not proficient with it? I have no problem with English being a second langauge, but if you do not have the proper command of it to use it effectively then I do have a problem with its use for rhetorical purposes. Imagine you are a writer and a painter, but you are much better at painting then in writing. Would it make any sense for you to write rather than paint? No, because you are much better at painting. The same goes for communicating thoughts and ideas through language: the more effective tactic should be used to convey the message. In this case, it would be the first language. Now, since this forum requires posts to be in English, it might be more beneficial to those who cannot sufficiently utilize English to find a place where they may successfully and freely state their thoughts in their native language. 
> 
> Am I elitist? No. Am I anti-immigration? No. Then what am I? I'm utilitarian, and someone who cannot make an argument with correct structure, word usage, spelling, and grammar is wasting the time of the other members here by obstructing the meaning of what they have written with blaringly obvious literary deficiencies. Logos, while I apologize for any disrespect which may have been communicated between my sentiments and any other member of this forum, I stand by my position. If you cannot or do not formulate a coherent argument, flaming is warranted due to the simple fact that it wastes time and exhibits profound laziness. If you don't know English, learn before posting. If you don't feel like learning or don't learn enough, then don't post. On that note I say good night.


¿Cómo tú sientes si una persona te diga que tú no puedes dar tu opinion?

How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't express your opinion? If someone said that, no matter how you felt on the subject, you couldn't tell people how you felt, could not contribute to a conversation because your language skills were poor and because he did not feel like bothering to try and understand you? Just because someone doesn't speak as well as you do is no reason for you to disregard their input. Nightshade here is dyslexic--would you like her to leave, as well? Or waste her time correcting every little thing, as opposed to wasting yours when you have to take two extra seconds to think about her posts?

Back on the subject--yes, one could derive pleasure from doing something bad, but there's also the potential for guilt. Strength of conscience is the benchmark, the little meter on a person's forehead that tells what kind of person they are. And indeed, one of the most frightening things to see is two people arguing about religion, each one certain that their own view is correct.

----------


## rachel

You are absolutely right M'Lord. the scriptures command us to be peaceable with all, actually considering the other as superior.
As well we are commanded to love others as we love ourselves and we must love ourselves.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> ¿Cómo tú sientes si una persona te diga que tú no puedes dar tu opinion?
> 
> How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't express your opinion? If someone said that, no matter how you felt on the subject, you couldn't tell people how you felt, could not contribute to a conversation because your language skills were poor and because he did not feel like bothering to try and understand you? Just because someone doesn't speak as well as you do is no reason for you to disregard their input. Nightshade here is dyslexic--would you like her to leave, as well? Or waste her time correcting every little thing, as opposed to wasting yours when you have to take two extra seconds to think about her posts?
> 
> Back on the subject--yes, one could derive pleasure from doing something bad, but there's also the potential for guilt. Strength of conscience is the benchmark, the little meter on a person's forehead that tells what kind of person they are. And indeed, one of the most frightening things to see is two people arguing about religion, each one certain that their own view is correct.


I never said that people couldn't express their opinion, and nightshade's case in an exception to the group of individuals i am referring to. Honestly, if an individual's language skills are poor than it is up to them to improve them. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the reader to decipher another's writing if it is faulty. Rather, the individual being read should make an effort to bring their writing to a level that includes fundamental lucidity. In any case, there shouldn't be any misspelled words or grammatical mistakes. There are such things as dictionaries and spellcheck to aid in such an endeavor. If an individual is too lazy to bring themselves to an acceptable level of expression with the English language by learning it, they shouldn't post. Legitimate medical disabilities obviously do not fall under this category, as that is not a matter of lazyness. 

All I'm saying is that those in this forum who have the capability (granted, there are a select few who don't because of circumstances within their life, such as in night shade's case) to learn english and use it effectively should. If they choose not to (it's a choice, ultimately) then they shouldn't post. Those who do not have English as their primary language would do well to learn English, as it is the primary tool of expression in this forum. Did I say immigrants couldn't come here and post? No, all I'm saying is that if they do desire to post they should do so after making sure they have a good handle on the English language. Until then, they could post on forums which use their native language and continue to expand their knowledge of English while doing so until they are ready to post here.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I never said that people couldn't express their opinion, and *N*ightshade's case *is* an exception to the group of individuals *I* am referring to. Honestly, if an individual's language skills are poor *then* it is up to them to improve them. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the reader to decipher another's writing if it is faulty. Rather, the individual being read should make an effort to bring their writing to a level that includes fundamental lucidity. In any case, there shouldn't be any misspelled words or grammatical mistakes. There are such things as dictionaries and spellcheck to aid in such an endeavor. If an individual is too lazy to bring themselves to an acceptable level of expression with the English language by learning it, they shouldn't post. Legitimate medical disabilities obviously do not fall under this category, as that is not a matter of *laziness*. 
> 
> All I'm saying is that those in this forum who have the capability (granted, there are a select few who don't because of circumstances within their *lives*, such as in *Nightshade's*  case) to learn *English* and use it effectively should. If they choose not to (it's a choice, ultimately) then they shouldn't post. Those who do not have English as their primary language would do well to learn English, as it is the primary tool of expression in this forum. Did I say immigrants couldn't come here and post? No, all I'm saying is that if they do desire to post they should do so after making sure they have a good handle on the English language. Until then, they could post on forums which use their native language and continue to expand their knowledge of English while doing so until they are ready to post here.


XXdarkclarityXX,

This Forum is open to people from all walks of life; it is visited by people from all over the world; they come from different social, economical, religious, cultural backgrounds and it is this very diversity that makes it the wonderful place that it is.

It is true that the communication medium is English but we don't discourage people who are in the process of learning English from posting. It is an opportunity for them to practise, which can be something hard to come by if you are living in a foreign country.

What's more, there are many native English speakers who have trouble with spelling/grammar rules. If you find yourself really unable to deal with such superficial issues, please feel free to ignore such posts/users and read the ones which fulfill your criteria of good English.

PS: I hope you will forgive me that I have taken the liberty of correcting some spelling mistakes you made... I could not venture on the punctutation and context as I am short of time.


*Now, please let's stay on topic  and carry on with the topic of discussion, atheism!*

----------


## water lily

> falling moon,
> 
> Have you ever tried to write a coherent, gramatically correct essay? Are you aware that most rhetorical arguments lose substantial credibility when they are not correctly formulated?
> 
> Secondly, you are under an unproven assumption that there IS something to doubt. How do you know that "God" wants us to worship him? Prove to me there's something to worship and then I'll start worshiping something. "God", falling moon, is jut a set of ideals. Goodness, charity, honor, selflessness.....those are all qualities displayed by stories which depict this "God". But what we are meant to follow are these ideals themselves, and we shouldn't believe that there's a person who actually hears everyone's prayers and brings people back to life. The scripture stories all show that following these IDEALS will allow you to be rewarded in the form of other people thinking well of you. Prayer is just a confidence booster, there's no one listening to that prayer except yourself. It boosts your confidence and gives you hope because by speaking to an imaginary friend (the equivilant to God) you've complained to someone else. Then, when something good happens, you can praise "God" for answering your incessant complaints. When something bad happens, all of a sudden you've created a scapegoat. Did you do badly on a test that you had prayed about the night before? Don't blame God, and don't say it's his will! It's yours! You shape your choices. Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life? 
> 
> I apologize for the certain level of rambling, wherever apparent within the above text. Thank you and I welcome responses.
> 
> Edited by Logos to remove flames


xxdarkclarityxx,
Evidently your first two sentences proved to be more sensational than the majority of your post, and I'm not sure that you were as welcominig to the responses given than you intended. heh. But being me, I would like to refocus the conversation on the whole religion/atheist issue. 

Firstly, you ask, "Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life?" Well, my friend, we don't have total control over our lives. We are subject to chance, disease, disaster, and all manner of "random" misfortunes. And the belief that someone does have control over our lives, over such phenomena, the belief that there's a force in the universe other than cold chance and coincidence can be reassuring.

Secondly, you're whole prayer hypothesis is intriguing, though at times, a little harsh, even vindictive (I suppose Catholicism really must have been shoved quite forcibly down your throat). But I do not mean to dsicredit your thoughts, but rather to build on them. If I am to understand you correctly, prayer and religion is in fact an adaptive behaviour: it reduces stress, it soothes, it offers protection (or for you atheists, a false sense of protection). And, in fact, I do believe that I've come across the stat that those who are religious generally have a slightly longer liife expectancy than those who are not. So perhaps the whole concept of religion was selected as adaptive behaviour vea evolution (which admittedly is very ironic). So my dear atheists, rather than argue with believers, why not congratulate them on practisinig so adaptive a behaviour?

Anyways, those are some thoughts, consequently I disagree with my entire second paragaph, but I hope it will evoke some initeresting discussion.

-Water lily  :Nod:

----------


## Nightshade

Welll  :Eek:  I saw my name. Dont know why I came in here today as I usually avoide these places however now that Im here I might as well join in  :Biggrin: 




> And indeed, one of the most frightening things to see is two people arguing about religion, each one certain that their own view is correct


Actually thats not the scariest thing Robin, the scariest is without doubt when you can it there and tottally belive one side of the argument and yet see that the other side is right too. Now I havent gone back and read this thread totallly yet, I havent really the time just now so sorry if its been said orif this is *way* off topic but , personally I think many of the "big/book" religons are the same but not.
I mean if you look at the details and ignore the big enoroums things that seperate thm its thge same thing. sort of like if you had 4 pictures and you chopped 3 of them up then stuck them back together differantly, they'd all be the same picture in detail/ or close up but each one is differant too. 

 :Biggrin:

----------


## RobinHood3000

> xxdarkclarityxx,
> Evidently your first two sentences proved to be more sensational than the majority of your post, and I'm not sure that you were as welcominig to the responses given than you intended. heh. But being me, I would like to refocus the conversation on the whole religion/atheist issue. 
> 
> Firstly, you ask, "Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life?" Well, my friend, we don't have total control over our lives. We are subject to chance, disease, disaster, and all manner of "random" misfortunes. And the belief that someone does have control over our lives, over such phenomena, the belief that there's a force in the universe other than cold chance and coincidence can be reassuring.
> 
> Secondly, you're whole prayer hypothesis is intriguing, though at times, a little harsh, even vindictive (I suppose Catholicism really must have been shoved quite forcibly down your throat). But I do not mean to dsicredit your thoughts, but rather to build on them. If I am to understand you correctly, prayer and religion is in fact an adaptive behaviour: it reduces stress, it soothes, it offers protection (or for you atheists, a false sense of protection). And, in fact, I do believe that I've come across the stat that those who are religious generally have a slightly longer liife expectancy than those who are not. So perhaps the whole concept of religion was selected as adaptive behaviour vea evolution (which admittedly is very ironic). So my dear atheists, rather than argue with believers, why not congratulate them on practisinig so adaptive a behaviour?
> 
> Anyways, those are some thoughts, consequently I disagree with my entire second paragaph, but I hope it will evoke some initeresting discussion.
> 
> -Water lily


There's a critical difference there that you should note--evolution is genetic. Religion (or lack thereof) is not.

Besides, some of us atheists do indeed support the religious in their endeavours.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> Besides, some of us atheists do indeed support the religious in their endeavours.


Robin, you can't be playing both sides against the middle here. You are either in favor of atheism, or you support some sort of religion. Why support "the religious in their endeavors" when you don't support the ideals which they stand for? That's like saying "I support the troops in Iraq but not the war", which is total BS because the troops are part of the war. In any case, I think I need to make a critical distinction myself: The people that are part of a group support that group's ideals. The endeavors are religious and are based on ideals which the religious people follow. Athiests don't support religion in any form, which means we shouldn't be supporting them or their actions.

----------


## Virgil

What's wrong with someone supporting religous people but not finding it in himself to believe? Radical atheists are just as obnoxious as radical believers. Perhaps more so, since why should they care what other people believe?

----------


## RobinHood3000

To XXdarkclarityXX:

It appears that you are unaware of the wide variety of atheistic philosophies available. ANALOGY POLICE! I think it's more like saying, "I support the troops in Iraq, but I don't necessarily agree with the ideals of every soldier--only the overall cause for which they fight."

I happen to think that religion can be an overall positive influence on the lives of the majority of people IN GENERAL. I simply don't feel that a theistic religion is right FOR ME. Just as trying to qualify oneself as 100% is one mistake, another is thinking that the same religion or philosophy is right for everyone.

----------


## water lily

in response to robin's comment:




> There's a critical difference there that you should note--evolution is genetic. Religion (or lack thereof) is not.


Have you heard of cultural evolution? it works in a similar way, you pass on your ideals, your way of life to the younger generation if you live long enough and if it is a successful behaviour. And furthermore how does one know if religion is not genetic--not religion exactly--but the capacity for spiritual thought, a cognitive thing.

-water lily

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> To XXdarkclarityXX:
> 
> It appears that you are unaware of the wide variety of atheistic philosophies available. ANALOGY POLICE! I think it's more like saying, "I support the troops in Iraq, but I don't necessarily agree with the ideals of every soldier--only the overall cause for which they fight."
> 
> I happen to think that religion can be an overall positive influence on the lives of the majority of people IN GENERAL. I simply don't feel that a theistic religion is right FOR ME. Just as trying to qualify oneself as 100% is one mistake, another is thinking that the same religion or philosophy is right for everyone.


Would you mind citing these different atheistic philosophies of which you speak? Atheism, by definition, is simply the rejection of religion. How can one make variety with that? In response to your "analogy correction", what do you mean by "not necessarily agreeing with the ideals of every soldier?" The soldier is the war, and the war is the soldier. We are not talking on an individual level here because a community is about the community, not the individual. If a religious person practices religion and believes in a god, it really doesn't matter why they are doing it. The fact is they are and because they are, what they stand for is contrary to atheistic thought. This can only mean that they themselves are against atheism. So, why support that? 

I had no intention of stating that one religion was right for everyone, but I will state that once an individual is a declared member of a religious group he/she loses his or her individuality. If they feel the need to regain such individuality by disconnecting to certain doctrines of the said group, then they need to leave. Want a good example? Cafeteria Catholics- they pick and choose what they feel like believing. If you can't accept parts of a religion, why bother being a part of it? On another note, why do you think the Catholic Church is blamed for priest misconduct more than the individual priest? The priest is a symbol of Catholicism, and when a priest screws up the Catholic Church screws up. When you communicate your desire to support religion, you communicate the tendency for atheists to do the same and that is against the identity of our community. If you wish to go against atheistic beliefs, simply do not be atheist. If you are atheist then you do not support religion. If you do support religion, then you should not identify yourself as an atheist.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Rather militant, aren't we?

Noooo, atheism is the lack of a deity in one's religion. For example, Confucianism, Daoism, and some forms of Buddhism are all example of atheistic religions.

No, the soldier is NOT the war. Soldiers are not defined as people by war--it is what they do, not what they are.

I strongly disagree with your "if they're not with us, they're against us" philosophy. To put it in geek terms, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Your argument is more or less based around the contention that if you agree with religion, you're anti-atheist, and if you're atheist, you're not allowed to like religious people. Kinda makes for a lonely lifestyle, doesn't it? I happen to know plenty of religious people who are more than compassionate towards atheists (as a matter of fact, I'm dating one), and even to those who are less than understanding, I try to be at least civil to them. 

Do you know what "tolerance" means? This is not a war being the theists and atheists--if anything, atheists and theists should pursue understanding of each other's point of view. Attacking the religious isn't going to improve their opinions or acceptance of atheists.

Now I'm going to segue into something a little firmer--nothing personal, it's just that the statement makes a better point if said angrily: How DARE you question my loyalty as an atheist!! Being an atheist doesn't mean I don't support religion, it means I don't believe in it as a philosophy. That being said, I still believe in it as a concept. Religion improves the overall quality of life of most people who seek it--how is that a bad thing?

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Robin,

We obviously have conflicting views regarding this topic. For the sake of productivity within this particular thread, I request that you send any remaining sentiments via PM to me. I personally have voiced my opinion sufficiently and have no desire to discuss this topic further. However, should you feel the need to "send in the cavalry" in this little skirmish that has been created between us, I more than welcome any sort of response that you may have. I just don't think it's appropriate to have an elongated pissing contest in public.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Mmm, actually, that last one pretty much summed it up fer me. Truce?

Could have been worse--at least this particular entanglement was semi-related to the subject matter.

Uh, what were we talking about in this thread before we started arguing?

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!  athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves.  )
> 
> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...


I suppose this should serve as an adequate refresher for the intended purpose of the thread. And yes, a truce would be favorable.

----------


## emily655321

Actually, I think that particular bout of extended bickering served well to answer the first post of the thread. "What do atheists believe?" Well, as we've just seen, some atheists believe that to be an atheist they can have no respect for religion, and that one's beliefs are synonymous with who they are as a person (interestingly enough, this dualism vs. monism argument is also being waged in the Evolution V. Creationism thread); while some others believe that atheism is just that: purely a personal lack of belief, which still allows for them to hold respect for those who believe differently. I think it was an excellently encapsulated example (how's that for assonance?) of the variances within the subscribers of a particular philosophy. I think it also goes a long way to support the argument that atheism does _not_ represent a complete belief system; the non-belief in a god clearly leaves room for many varying viewpoints in other areas of philosophy, namely with regard to other human beings.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Emily,

I think you'll find that was alliteration and not assonance. Assonance is repetition of vowel sounds such as, "He was bloated and gloated that he floated, we voted!" whereas alliteration is the repetition of an initial letter. 

Petty point precisely put, pardon my pedantry.

And back to the subject; atheism is a belief in the non-existence of any god. It is not inconsistent with believing in some of the ideals of those that believe the opposite. Personally, I applaud the work that christians do in providing relief in famine-struck countries, but not their efforts in handing out bibles to all and sundry. This is neither hypocrisy nor inconsistent with atheistic belief. Good works are good works whether done in the name of religion or humanitarianism.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Actually, it IS assonance (short "e" sounds abound). In addition, alliteration only applies to consonant sounds. And I couldn't agree more--so long as good deeds are done, do we dare declare the doers dunces?

----------


## rachel

M'LOrd,
is there in fact anything you don't know about , I mean anything at all?
No wonder you are the one and only ruler of Sherwood forest-even the trees bow to you.

----------


## Virgil

I thought for sure Xamonas was correct, but upon looking it up, but I'm not sure if either is correct. From _Patterns of Poetry: An Encylopedia of Forms_ by Miller Williams.





> *Rhyme* is the relationship between words with different consonants immediately proceding the final unaccented vowels and identical sounds thereafter (pillow/willow, go/know, undoing/construing). *Assonance*  is the relationship between words with different consonants immediately preceeding and following the last accented vowels, which vowels have identical sounds (hit/will, disturb/bird, absolute/unglued). *Consonance*  is the relationship between words whose final accented vowel sounds are different but with the same consonant frame (truck/trick, billion/bullion, impelling/compiling, trance/trounce). *Alliteration*  is the relationship between words with identical consonants preceeding the first accented vowel and differing sounds on that vowel, on the subsequent consonant, if any, and possibly, but not necessarily, on all following sounds (slip/slide, glowing/glare).


Alliteration is strickly consonants, so in that respect, Robin is correct. This surprised me, because like Xamonas I thought words starting with vowels were alliteration too. But what Emily wrote was not assonance either, according to the definition. I'm going to have to explore this further.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I shall coin a new 'Unofficial Word", Alliterassonance, to describe this phenomenon.  :Wink: 

Unless somebody knows of an official one that'll do the job...

----------


## Virgil

From _A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms_, second edition, by Richard A. Lanham.




> *Alliteration - Homoeoprophoron.*
> Originally, recurring of an initial consonant sound (and so a type of *Consonance*), but now sometimes used of vowel sounds as well (where it overlaps with *Assonace*)...Recurrence of both kinds of alliteration at once (ark, art, arm) yields what is sometimes called "front rhyme."
> 
> *Assonance*
> Identity or similarity in sound between internal vowels in neighboring words.


So, Xamonas is correct. What Emily wrote, by contempory ussage is alliteration. It is definitely not assonance. Sorry Robin.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Eh, I went by Merriam-Webster's, there's no shame in that.

----------


## Virgil

> I shall coin a new 'Unofficial Word", Alliterassonance, to describe this phenomenon. 
> 
> Unless somebody knows of an official one that'll do the job...


Hey, that's not a bad idea. I wonder how you submit that?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

...just don't get into the difference between one foot and another, that always does my brain in!

I'm happy to agree, as with religion and atheism, that there are different belief systems surrounding poetic terms. _Right_ and _wrong_ are far too absolute - although they definitely _are_ alliterative!

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Hey, that's not a bad idea. I wonder how you submit that?


You post it on the Unofficial Words thread in General Literature of course!

----------


## RobinHood3000

Now here's a couple questions for the ages: which one is the LEFT sock? Which sandal is the "flip" and which is the "flop"? And what's the atomic weight of cobalt?

...okay, I just threw that last one in, just for kicks (it's about 58.933 amu), but the other ones are important!

----------


## falling*moon

> Have you ever tried to write a coherent, gramatically correct essay? Are you aware that most rhetorical arguments lose substantial credibility when they are not correctly formulated?


No i've never tried to do so coz am not English ..so sue me or kill my tutor!  :Biggrin:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> If you don't know English, learn before posting. If you don't feel like learning or don't learn enough, then don't post.





> No i've never tried to do so coz am not English ..so sue me or kill my tutor!


Do you really want me to start up on this again? I won't sue you and I won't kill your tutor, but what I will do is tell you to get your butt in gear. It really doesn't matter what nationality you are or what language you speak...you are using English, so use it correctly! Furthermore, you chose to come on this forum knowing full well that one of the requirements is using English. Did you think you could come in here and use it incorrectly? If that is indeed what you thought, do you then suppose people here are to take you seriously? You may (or may not) be a master of your native language but here (from what you've displayed) you are illiterate and I see no need for you to post here until you've developed enough linguistically to start forming coherent words and sentences. Lastly, stop using this place as target practice for your "shooting" of the English language. This place need not be butchered by people like you who post without knowing what you are doing. The humorous part of all this is that you expect tolerance and receive it in turn. Why should you expect (or receive for that matter)tolerance when you can't communicate in English with even minimal competence? Would you tolerate someone expressing their thoughts in your native language while consistently destroying any mention of correct syntax and diction? I think not, and to think that you should get away with that is hypocritical. 

This, of course, is going to seem harsh and intolerant. To some extent, it is that way. But at least it's firm, unlike some of what I've seen here. I think some of the members here are confusing tolerance with leniency, both of which reside on either side of a very fine line. If we are to post in English, then let's do it in a correct manner or not at all. Good evening.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Why does it bother you so much if she is not as good with English as you are? Everyone has to learn some time, and posting here is how she can BECOME better. It is as if you are telling her to learn to read, and taking her books away until she does.

At any rate, we've been through this. Can we please get back to the subject at hand?

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Robin,

Why do you feel the need to be the "forum guardian"? Would it bother you so much to mind your own business? Do I have a problem with you? No. So why get involved? In any case, I apologize for the outburst and you may now continue to regularly scheduled programming.

P.S. This forum is for displaying finished products, not works in progress. All I'm telling her (and all the others who fall in her category) is to come here prepared to use English correctly. Learning English is elementary and has no place in a literary forum. BUT...I'll lay off. My point is established, I'm done here. Please, continue with atheistic debate.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Why do I feel the need to be the "forum guardian"? Take a look at my original avatar--that should clear things up. If I think someone is being unfairly persecuted, I'll say so. These forums certainly aren't for finished products--even the General Writing and Personal Poetry forums aren't for finished products. Mastering a language that isn't your own is far from elementary and is not an overnight process. It's a learning experience, and if people can't learn here, what's the point?

On the question of atheism, I'm curious: what is the dominant opinion of atheists nowadays? I'm interested in learning the religious point of view on us pagans.

----------


## Logos

> BUT...I'll lay off. .. I'm done here.


Ok! thank you and good bye.

Anymore off-topic comments will be deleted. 

Discuss the *topic*, not the *poster*.

----------


## falling*moon

[QUOTE=RobinHood3000]

Why do I feel the need to be the "forum guardian"? Take a look at my original avatar--that should clear things up. If I think someone is being unfairly persecuted, I'll say so. QUOTE]


Yes, that avator shows how fair and genteel you are .. Robin..  :Thumbs Up:  

unlike others,.. 

anyway.. i think he hates me coz of what i said..not my language itself..even if he said so ..!


Robin, Logos and Scheherazade thank u very much

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Falling*Moon-

I never said I hated you. I said I hated your methods and the fact that they are tolerated on this forum. Well, hate is a bit of a strong word. I would use "irritated by".Yes, there's the proper term. If you don't know what those two words mean maybe you could ask our resident superhero, since he seems to have all the answers  :Rolleyes:  . 

Back to atheism, people. I'd like to point out that I did not ask for the most recent interjection by Falling*Moon and am merely defending myself.

----------


## Nightshade

OK Finally read all of it and I hav quite a few things to say and its going top be badly spelt so this is a prewarnng :Biggrin: 
OK working backwards falling moon ,



> but those stupid kamikazes believe if they kill  what they call- nonbelievers they will go to Paradise alone and God will love them alone ..On the other hand, Some of them think of it as a revenge to these stupid unnecessary Wars the US leading upon the world.


right well Im not saying I belive this but to make it clearer if by kamikaze you mean the "groups" thats not quite what they belive what they belive is that bykilling and its not nonbelivers its an equivlent of idolaters, they will help spred the light of islam ( faulty logic but they are all brain washed) and should they die in the process they would have forfilled one of the ways of becoming a martyr (Others include dieing aslow agonising death like in a fire with belief strong in your heart) and thus secure a place in heaven forthemeselves and 70 of there family. he fact that this reasoning can only be backed up by cutting out and ignorting whople partsof the quarn and twisting all sorts of things is besides the point.
But what you said about Adam and Eve story interested me whats the christian version then, they werent punished becasue they disobeyed, but for somthing else?  :Confused: 
mily you said somwhere about amazons and people who never heard of GOd going to Hell? I asked pretty much the same question and there was that person(sorry lost track of your name) said that he no longer belived in traditional Islam because people like mother teresa who are Gooddont go to heave? Well as far as Ive allways understood it all belivers (Muslims, chrstiens Jews and another group caled Hanify'een in arabic (followers of Abraham)) stand a very good chance at heavn and in fact no good deed goes unrewarded, basically people go to hell first and burn off the bad deeds even muslims but eventually they get to hevean.
Well that was long, but Im really intersted in Adam and Eve angle so anyone??

 :Biggrin:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

All atheists might find this link amusing: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

It's called the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and it makes a lot of good points. 

Happy reading!  :Cool:

----------


## emily655321

> But what you said about Adam and Eve story interested me whats the christian version then, they werent punished becasue they disobeyed, but for somthing else?


Night, I'm hesitant to answer because I'm not certain which bit about Adam and Eve you mean. What's the Q'uran's version of Adam and Eve? Then I can tell you if the Bible's version is any different.  :Smile:

----------


## Nightshade

the full version? OK then
God had the world the Angels (made of light no free will or ability to think for themselves) and the Djin( made of fire and have free will very like humans). Lucifer was Gods most bekloved creaion because he was the most devout of all creatures becaus he was the most devout of the djin and rivaled the angels in devotion though he had freedom of choice in how he behaved.
So one day God said to the angles " I will create on the Earth a follower" And the angels said " " Would you create onit one who would (polute/dirty/destroy ) and shed blood on it) when we are everlastingly praising and worshipping you, and He said I know what you do not" Anyway God creates Adam from dirt and taught him "all the names" gave him knowledge then displayed him to the angels and asked the angels to tell Him there( their ) names if they were so smart, and they replied We dont know anything but wha t you tell us and god had Adam tell them the names and said see I know what you do not and then had all of them bow to Adam. So they all did except Lucifer who's pride caused him to belive his fire to be superior than Adams dirt menaing that he shouldnt bow to an infereior being. SO his obediance lowered him in rank. Anyway God let Adam and eve wnder around Heaven as they willed but told them to keep away from this one tree to show theier obediance an love of God, anyway Satan Seduced and tricked them so they (all 3 of them) lost their place in Eden and " decended enimeys of each other " until the day of judgment.
Anyway Adam (and eve) prayed to be forgiven and was forgiven so God Sad they still all had to be punished but he would send many (reminders/lights/messages) to help people stay on the right path and not stray.


Interesingly there is a story (but Im not sure if its in the Qurarn it may only be a hadeeth) that Satan approached Moses (as the only human who ever spoke directly to God) askng him to interceed with God on his (satans Behalf ashe regreted what he'd done) But when it came to it satan didnt repent enoough to do what he was asked so is still Damned.

So emily or someone now wil tyou tell me the christian and while Im at it the Jewish version as well??

 :Biggrin:

----------


## water lily

Well I know the Christian version (and I far as I know this is the Jewish version as well). It follows the same general idea as the Islamic Creation story, but with some key differences:
1) Adam and Eve were on a paradise on *Earth* (the garden of Eden), rather than in heaven
2) Humans are beleived to be slighlty *LOWER* than the angels rather than higher
3) Thus Lucifer did not sin by refusing to bow down to man, as angels are seen to be above man, rather, he was jealous of God's powers, and led a rebellion against God with 1/3 of all the angels, thus the notion of a "fallen angel". This all happened *before* the creation of humans

Those are the main differences. The rest of the story is pretty basic. God gives them one commandement: Don't eat from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Lucifer, in the form of a snake, tempts Eve to do so, she does and offers Adam some of the fruit. They are expelled from the garden and punished: Adam (males): will have to work to gain a living; Eve (females): will have pain in childbirth and be dominated by men; and their totally intimate connection with God was broken. 

Hope this was helpful, Nightshade.

----------


## Nightshade

Thanks, interesting though In islam both are equally blamed lucifer convinced *them* rather than eve. 
I love finding out little things  :Biggrin:

----------


## water lily

That is interesting. Though, I think important to note, that though Eve was the one Lucifer tempted, both Adam and Eve bit the fruit and so were equally at fault.

----------


## jollyollie

> That is interesting. Though, I think important to note, that though Eve was the one Lucifer tempted, both Adam and Eve bit the fruit and so were equally at fault.


Atheists ROCK

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> Atheists ROCK


Qualify thy statements, and thou will appear in a better light...

----------


## Whifflingpin

Maybe jollyollie was just trying to bring the thread back to its original topic

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

That is entirely possible. I was merely pointing out the value of statements which are accompanied with qualifying explanations.

----------


## emily655321

> Thanks, interesting though In islam both are equally blamed lucifer convinced *them* rather than eve. 
> I love finding out little things


I'm fascinated to learn that Eve isn't singled out in the Q'uran. That one detail has been a big deal in the history of Christianity. In the Western world, the oppression of women has often been justified by the claim that original sin (the belief that all humans are born with sin, because of the sin of Adam and Eve) is mostly Eve's fault, because she tempted Adam just as Satan tempted her. I once heard an analogy that Eve's temptation symbolized/inspired womankind's ongoing temptation of men to do evil things. Medieval monks even taught that the female body was an instrument of the devil. We're just a horrible lot, aren't we?  :Tongue: 

Anyhoo... Water Lily is right on with the main points. Basically, the story starts with God making the Earth, and on each of the six days he makes a different part, and then on the seventh he rests. Adam is lonely, and so God puts him to sleep and removes one of his ribs, and from it he creates Eve. They are happy and ignorant of their nakedness. Then Satan appears in the form of a serpent, and convinces Eve to take the fruit by telling her, "God said to care for Adam, didn't he? Isn't it your duty as a wife to provide for your husband?" So she gives it to Adam, not telling him where she got it. Upon eating it, they notice their nakedness and are ashamed, and so they cover themselves with fig leaves. Then God yells at them, and banishes them from the Garden of Eden to wander the Earth, where they have children, and Cain kills Abel, and so on... As far as I remember, no forgiveness in this story.

It's interesting to me to learn the Islamic version of the story. I think it's much more interesting! I heard once about some of the ancient Hebrew myths that didn't make it into the Old Testament, and I think that story (about angels bowing to Adam, and Lucifer's damnation) was one of them. Another was the one about Lillith, who isn't in the Bible, but "another woman" is mentioned... oh, somewhere in there.  :Tongue:  I'm a little rusty on the finer points.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I'm sorry Emily, but I'm feeling particularly pedantic tonight. There is no mention of fig leaves in the bible - they didn't appear until renaissance art.  :Wink:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I'm feeling particularly pedantic tonight. There is no mention of fig leaves in the bible - they didn't appear until renaissance art. "

"consuerunt folia ficus et fecerunt sibi perizomata "
I'll be a bit pedantic too. I don't know what was in the Hebrew, but the Latin above includes the phrase "folia ficus" which means "fig leaves"
It is from the Adam and Eve story in Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin, dated about 405AD, that is nearly a thousand years before the renaissance.

----------


## water lily

I always wondered about those fig leaves. 

But I have a question for the atheists: Would you prefer it if God did exist, but are convinced that he does not or that it is impossible? Or do you prefer it that he doesn't?

Hope that was clear.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hmm, good question. Me, I prefer to think that the jury is out on that one. My belief is that there's no such thing as an afterlife, but when you think about it, that's a very depressing concept. And though I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong and that there is a God, I accept (but don't exactly relish) my consequent lot in eternity. Still, I suppose I'll find out eventually--I doubt that personal preference will make any particular outcome any more likely.

----------


## beer good

> I always wondered about those fig leaves.


Carl von Linné - the father of modern botany - suggested that the forbidden fruit was bananas. Because A) they're so sweet it's almost impossible to resist eating them, and B) their leaves are several feet long and cover a lot more than a fig leaf could. (I'm sure Freud might have something to say about the theory of Eve being unable to resist a banana...)  :Banana:  

One question though: as far as I can see, most people in this thread (I haven't read every single post) seem to equate atheism and agnosticism. I've always understood it that _atheism_ is the firm knowledge/belief that there is no such thing as a God, whereas _agnosticism_ is saying that you cannot know whether there is a God or not - and thus labelled myself an agnostic, since it seems to me that outright atheism is simply substituting one belief for another. Is that a meaningful distinction? 

To answer water lily: I wouldn't exactly be offended if I died and found out that there is a God. I've got a bunch of questions for Him/Her/Them/It. But whether I would _prefer_ it... tricky question. Would I prefer it if the planet Jupiter existed or not? It really doesn't make much of a difference in how I live my life.

----------


## RobinHood3000

There is a distinction, but the two systems (agnosticism and atheism) not mutually exclusive. Atheism is indeed the belief that there is no God, while agnosticism is the belief that the presence of God can neither be proven NOR disproven. As most people will tell you, belief and proof are two vastly different things.

----------


## water lily

Well then according to robin, isn't everyone an agnostic. I don't beleive you can PROVE it one way or the other. 
Sponville explained it really well in his book "Presentations de la philosophie", but I don't have the book with me and if I did, it's in french, which would present a problem to most of you. So I will attempt to put the complex idea to my own words.
For atheists, they can't presume to prove the inexistence of a god, because if there is a God then His intellect would so far outstrip their own that they would have no hope of comprehending him. Like a dog, trying to understand human philosophy. They can't know if there is something beyond them, because their intellects don't go "beyond them".
For believers, there is no physical proof, in the existence of a god.
It is the belief that makes the differences, so I would define atheism as the belief in the inexistence of a god, and agnosticism as more of a static state of indecision about the existence/inexistence of a god.

ps. beer good, interesting idea. But it begs the question, in the Garden of Eden, in this state of innocence did sex exist? or did it come in with all the bad stuff?

----------


## RobinHood3000

Well, there are those that don't count themselves among the agnostics, either because of the negative connotations they may attach to the term, because they believe that God's presence has been manifested in the real world, or because they view the religious text as proof enough of the existence of a God.

----------


## beer good

I agree that proof shouldn't enter into it (I believe it was Kierkegaard who said that a Christian needs to believe in God precisely BECAUSE His existence cannot be proven, or something to that effect). 

And consequently, I call myself an agnostic because I cannot find enough... consistence in the world for me to believe in either one or the other. There's too much wonders in the world for me to say "All I believe is what I can see with my own senses", yet too much stupidity and cruelty for me to believe that there is any intelligence behind it. And so, I remain on the fence, unable to exclude either alternative. (Which is a very blunt way of explaining an process of thought which for me is in its third decade by now, but...)

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Carl von Linné - the father of modern botany - suggested that the forbidden fruit was bananas. Because A) they're so sweet it's almost impossible to resist eating them, and B) their leaves are several feet long and cover a lot more than a fig leaf could. (I'm sure Freud might have something to say about the theory of Eve being unable to resist a banana...)


I'm allergic to bananas. Beer good, bananas bad. Just think, if it had been Xamonas & Eve, we night still be in Eden.  :FRlol:

----------


## aljurado

> I'm allergic to bananas. Beer good, bananas bad. Just think, if it had been Xamonas & Eve, we night still be in Eden.


I do not get the sense of your words, my firend.

----------


## beer good

> I'm allergic to bananas. Beer good, bananas bad. Just think, if it had been Xamonas & Eve, we night still be in Eden.


What about banana beer?

----------


## emily655321

> But I have a question for the atheists: Would you prefer it if God did exist, but are convinced that he does not or that it is impossible? Or do you prefer it that he doesn't?
> 
> Hope that was clear.


Very clear. First, let me say I love your avatar, because I don't believe I've done that yet.  :Biggrin:  It's lovely.

Personally, I'm not at all opposed to the idea that God may exist. I think it would add some beauty and magic to the world if there were a guiding hand behind it all. It's not an aversion to the idea that caused my disbelief; it's simply not in me to believe. I think it would be lovely if elves and fairies existed, too, and unicorns. Inside me is always a bit of sadnesswell, a lot of sadness, but a bit of it quardoned off to the idea that there are no magic gardens and groves of talking animals having tea parties and things, like in Disney movies. But that's a wish, not a reality. I think of God the same way.

Perhaps I am really an agnostic, but I never describe myself as such because, in my experience, the word holds some pretentious associations. I've heard people describe themselves as such who then go on to say scathing things about religion, and I feel as though they only adopted the label to sound more open-minded than they are. In theory, I believe I _should_ give equal credit to the ideas of the religious as I do to those of athiests. I think there is no way of knowing whether or not there really is a God, and I would be pleasantly surprised to die and discover that there is yet more to come. But, in practice, the gut feeling inside of me is that there is not, and so I describe myself as an atheist.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

:Eek2:  Ladies and gentlemen, this thread is now hijacked.

----------


## emily655321

Worry not, XXdarkclarityXX (do you have a real name by which we can call you?), I have reclaimed it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Name? Dissent is my name, and it is I who plagues the realm of tranquility in this tangible world which we call life. My identity is that which articulates the nature of my personality. Therefore you may call me dissent. Ahhh the amusement of the intellectually blind! The splendor of those who speak but know not! How the folly of human views have perverted the truth, such a melancholy tale is this! No, there is nothing left now. Merely the remnants of dark clarity. Find what you can in the dark and elucidate. Find a target in the dark and take a shot. It's all that's left. When the light invades the void of visual knowledge that is the darkness, the truth will surely nullify the effort made by your senses to rationalize such a phenomenon. Enlighten and be awakened! Hide not in the darkness, for the light is what is needed now...take not what you want, take what is necessary! The time has arisen to abandon the depths of the unknown to begin traveling the path which leads to what is and what can be. Be not idle, be not still in the dark! All will be dark in the realm of the unknown...

----------


## RobinHood3000

Careful around whom you say the words "take a shot," XXdarkclarityXX... :Tongue:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Just keep your quiver full, Robin....

----------


## RobinHood3000

Aww, just one shaft--did you mean "dissent"?

Otherwise, a very eloquent résumé, XXdarkclarityXX! (Do you happen to have a nickname to go with that?)

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Indeed, I meant dissent. You wish to have my nickname? t'is.....Tim! Yes, it is my name. Thou may calleth me Tim.

----------


## RobinHood3000

...Tim? Well, if you say so...

Interestingly enough, I've also heard theories that the forbidden fruit of infamy was actually a pomegranate.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> ...Tim? Well, if you say so...
> 
> Interestingly enough, I've also heard theories that the forbidden fruit of infamy was actually a pomegranate.


Sure you're not thinking of persephone? Mind you, both legends could come from the same original source I suppose. Both involve a woman being tempted with fruit. Personally, I find that plying them with drink and professing an interest in whatever garbage they come out with is more effective.  :FRlol:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> What about banana beer?


Sadly that has the same effect - thus proving that it does contain real bananas. I prefer beer that _doesn't_ make my mouth swell up like this.  :Rage:

----------


## rachel

I cannot for the life of me make anything out of about half this thread.I realilze that I have been head injured so perhaps that accounts for it. Darkclarity-Tim if you will you are so confusing to me. All this time I have seen you as a troubled unhappy belligerant sort of person but then you say we mayest call thee Tim and just how you put it in that beautiful prose about well what I am not sure, I see that I have had a totally wrong impression of you. You have much more depth and swirls of humanity and emotion that is kind than I knew. But it doesn't help me understand what you are really saying or banana beer or any of this stuff. help me I am so confused
Am I to believe that atheists are always swimming in dark seas, have a lot of allergies to fruit, love beer and in general are hopeless?  :Confused:  
please someone other than Em who made perfect sense, help me understand.
please and thankyou.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Rachel,

I think all of us (and atheism in general) is like a prism. It LOOKS clear and pretty, and it seems to be pretty simple. It's just a cool looking rock, right? Well, shine some light on it and what do you get? The full color spectrum, which initially scares the hell out of you because you're not sure of what to make of the prism because it just got WAY more complicated. People and atheists are the same way. I am not a belligerent individual, I only acted that way because I was under some very falsified impressions that I have rid myself of. Have a great day.

----------


## Unspar

> I'm allergic to bananas. Beer good, bananas bad. Just think, if it had been Xamonas & Eve, we night still be in Eden.


Holy crap. I'm allergic to bananas too! I've never heard of that in anyone else before! Are you allergic to carrots and celery too?

Sorry to interrupt the ideas that were going on in this thread, but I can't let something so special as this pass me by. I'd have sent a PM, but that seems less interesting.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Rachel,

Yes - you got it in one. All atheists are allergic to bananas, love beer and are hopeless. Glad that's sorted out. Let's talk about muffins instead - what's your favourite flavour?

XXdcXX errrm...Tim (Are you related to Tim the evil enchanter in Monty Python & the Holy Grail? (a far more convincing version of the legend than Dan Brown's, if you'll excuse the double parentheses.))

Actually, I think you'll find that most people are multi-faceted. The ones that appear not to be are faking and I don't trust them an inch! For the record, I'm starting to think you may be more trustworthy than my original assessment.

As I've said elsewhere - superficiality is only skin deep - and that's nowhere near as flippant as it sounds.

Unspar,

I luuuuuurrve celery and have no problem with carrots. I have a slight allergy to avocados though, how about you?

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

"Follow, but follow only if ye be men of valor! For the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so fowl, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived. Bones of four fifty men lie strewn about its lair! So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage, or your strength, come nay further, for death awaits you all . . . with nasty big pointy teeth!" - Tim the Enchanter, brethren of mine

XC, you are most correct in your assertions regarding my identity. My kin is none other than the Enchanter known as Tim. Watch out, for a dangerous bunny rabbit lurks within the ravages of this forum. Good day to all.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> "Follow, but follow only if ye be men of valor! For the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so fowl, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived. Bones of four fifty men lie strewn about its lair! So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage, or your strength, come nay further, for death awaits you all . . . with nasty big pointy teeth!" - Tim the Enchanter, brethren of mine
> 
> XC, you are most correct in your assertions regarding my identity. My kin is none other than the Enchanter known as Tim. Watch out, for a dangerous bunny rabbit lurks within the ravages of this forum. Good day to all.


Fortunately, I travel not far without possessing in my possession the true and only HOLY HAND-GRENADE (I'm not going to sink so low as to do the "three shalt thou count..." routine - funny though it is). Bring on thy rabbit. Thou heathen!

oops, just remembered, I'm a heathen as well. You'd better take that as a compliment then.

----------


## rachel

You thought Xamonas that because I care deeply about people and know that there is something unique and beautiful in each one that I was a skin deep lollipop fruitcake unreal fake?
I LOATHE muffins. The very thought of them makes my stomach do gymnastics I never thought were possible.
Darkclarity I ask your forgiveness for even remotely thinking you less than the rich person you are. And now that I remember I also ask your forgiveness Xamonas(remember the s, remember the s) for wrongly assuming something way back that earned me the revolting hated dreaded loathed name of dude.
Now then, do atheists believe in meat eating or vegetarianism or do they just subsist on berries and beer?
You have a kitty cat Xamonas. WEll well there goes the last vestige of your snarly persona. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah ahahahaha!!!!!!

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Actually, I did have a pet cat once - his name was Harry the B******. He gave me these scars. Perhaps I should have realised he didn't like playing "throw the cat into the air" a little earlier. Nowadays I just breed them for restaurants.

I actually am a vegetarian, (if you don't count cannibalism) but I make an exception with cats, they're soooooo juicy!

----------


## Scheherazade

> I actually am a vegetarian, (if you don't count cannibalism) but I make an exception with cats, they're soooooo juicy!


Do you prefer them roasted too?

----------


## rachel

I rescue cats and love them and feed them and find homes for them, you eat them.
Well at least we have cats in common.
(by the way your prose on Riesa has to be the funniest thing I have read since a child.I shudder to think what sort of child you were, cute or not)So as I see it atheists are vegetarians that see cats as a sort of hairy veggie?(trying to keep on topic here)

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Ha, the discussion has taken an amusing turn! The chosen path now leads toward the realm of the grotesque! Fear not, for safeguarding one's mind will lead to a most needed diversion. Let not the thoughts of a few pollute the minds of many! Animals we are, and to animals we shall return...

----------


## emily655321

Well, it seems to suit that the atheists' corner of the religion forum would be the most off-topic and darkly humored of the bunch. "We" seem to hijack every other thread and turn it to the subject of atheism, so in the one thread specifically regarding said topic, hijacking necessitates turning the conversation in another, more cat-eating-oriented direction.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Refer to the next post for the tool of deletion has yet to be found...

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

The comments of Emily attempt in vain to cast light upon an unknown cavern of atheistic belief! Are we not perplexed at the difficulty present in shedding light upon that which resides in darkness? The dwellers of such a place can only look upon the penetrating lumination as a sign of what could be but never will. What irony! Light has been repulsed by that which commands the dark! The fruitful labors of the enlightened cannot redeem those who inhabit this void of luminous prescence. Humorous is the individual who attempts to attain the unattainable, yet merely gazes in subdued disbelief after finding his attempts futile. One need not shed the light upon that which harbors it, for the darkness is too powerful. He can only hope that those who call the darkness home may one day look upon the face of the illuminator and will allow curiosity to guide his steps out into the light, for that is the moment of salvation.

----------


## Riesa

ah ha. another thread I would be better off to avoid. oh, pooh, everyone. just remember to breathe. why even discuss these unanswerable questions?(shut up!) It just leads to people assuming one thing or another about the other. It's sooooo lame. It's just what is wrong with the world. and it will never change, will it? God, I hate being human.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Lame is he who examines not the world around him. Damned from salvation is the individual who fails to recognize his need for intellectual salvation. Your mind is perverted by darkness! Bring forth the essence that is the light and allow it to pervade your mind! Make the choice, for the choice is yours...

----------


## Riesa

you are right, dearie

----------


## Scheherazade

I hate to drag the thread back to the topic but now there is a poll you can take on the subject!

PS: Let's try not to personalise the discussion.  :Smile:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

The truth is personal for it applies itself in a plethora of ways in order to match the acuity of the individual. However, I will restrain myself from further personalized comments. My apologies.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Xamonas--No, seriously. I once read a newspaper article about the supposition that the Forbidden Fruit of Eden was the pomegranate.

XXdarkclarityXX--Kindly tell that rabbit friend of yours to run around a bit. Moving targets are more challenging.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Wily is the rabbit who evades the bow and arrow. Persistent is the man who chases him. Think like the rabbit, and you will find him...until then, I shall draw amusement from your little expedition of hilarity. Carry on, bearer of the bow!

----------


## RobinHood3000

I'll do you one step better...

~shifts into FOX MCCLOUD, wiliest space pilot in the universe and acclaimed hunter of wascally wabbits... :Biggrin: ~

----------


## water lily

I like the way you express yourself, dark clarity, or Tim or whomsoever you be.

----------


## rachel

> ah ha. another thread I would be better off to avoid. oh, pooh, everyone. just remember to breathe. why even discuss these unanswerable questions?(shut up!) It just leads to people assuming one thing or another about the other. It's sooooo lame. It's just what is wrong with the world. and it will never change, will it? God, I hate being human.


but sweet woman, it is just that tender humanity in you that brings sanity backfrom a whirpool of strange emotions that don't satisfy anyone. Your tender heart is needed, I am so glad you are human.
And unless you are a beer drinking, bannana allergic, hairy cat eating vegetarian , you know you have something fresh and wonderful to say that will bring joy and light to such a thread as this.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Riesa

lol. that would be something to be wouldn't it. "I was a skin deep lollipop fruitcake unreal fake?" brilliant. I love that, but you forgot Milquetoast. that would have fit in nicely there.

Sorry, Rachel.
That was it.

----------


## Fontainhas

I don't consider myself neither an atheist, neither a very religious person. It's hard to explain, for there are many reasons. I can't just simply worship a God as an image. I prefer to think about it as an eternal energy that includes every aspect of life from Hamburguers to psychological states. I believe that somehow we are included in the same blanket. 
I'm not an atheist and I'm not a believer! Oh mediocrity!

----------


## rachel

> lol. that would be something to be wouldn't it. "I was a skin deep lollipop fruitcake unreal fake?" brilliant. I love that, but you forgot Milquetoast. that would have fit in nicely there.
> 
> Sorry, Rachel.
> That was it.


lol my dearest girl. I called myself all those things because I didn't want Xamonas to call me those things first! and I would have added MIlquetoast, I happen to love that picturesque description as well as a few other choice things but I couldn't spell them!!!! I told you guys I am not learned, I really don't even belong on this forum and I would quit it by my pm box is always full and I cannot bear not answering and being there for everyone. So unless everyone quits or dies(never may that happen) or God releases me, I am here babe. So bring it on. And hey Xamonas you never answered me now did you, did you in fact think that of me? Maybe we should have a poll. I can take it.
I have six boxes of tissue handy and a supply of milkduds. Oh and a pot of tea of course.
now to get back on topic- I understand now why poor atheists are such a tormented sickly bunch. I am just surprised none of you have caught ebola- all that cat eating. poor poor meows. And the throw the cat into the air game_ oh brother, there goes the last vestige of mean lean Xamonas machine. You are just a dear boy now who only gets hugs and flowers-for just like he who cried wolf once too many times-no one will believe you are upset except perhaps Virgil. Say there's a thought. I love reading posts where you two spar. I am happy now!

----------


## Logos

> .. and I would quit it by my pm box is always full and I cannot bear not answering and being there for everyone.


Don't you dare even think about quitting/leaving! you're our voice of reason around here  :Wink:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Unspar

A lot has happened since the allergies thought....

Xamonas, I don't know if I'm allergic to avocados because I've never had one. Guac's not appealling either. So maybe I am. We'll probably never know.

Muffins I like.

Ni.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Rachel, 

I am building up to my description of you. I want it to be (sniggers evilly) _special_.  :Wink:

----------


## Theshizznigg

That is simply not what it is about. Take for instance the fact that God created angels, now an angel is a perfect being yet Lucifer rebelled against God. Now from gods point of view you have this new creation Humans, would you want those that did not love you. In fact hated you? Of course not. Thats why humans were given free choice to choose, if they loved god or not. Its not his fault if someone chooses differently, and thus is simply wiped from all existence for that choice.
What someone needs to remember is exactly that. Its a choice, and choices have consequences.
As for the Religion is only a power hungry organization. Religion has nothing to do with personal faith. Just like people who go to church don't nessecarily believe in God, they worship religion, and not God.

----------


## Theshizznigg

> I'm fascinated to learn that Eve isn't singled out in the Q'uran. That one detail has been a big deal in the history of Christianity. In the Western world, the oppression of women has often been justified by the claim that original sin (the belief that all humans are born with sin, because of the sin of Adam and Eve) is mostly Eve's fault, because she tempted Adam just as Satan tempted her. I once heard an analogy that Eve's temptation symbolized/inspired womankind's ongoing temptation of men to do evil things. Medieval monks even taught that the female body was an instrument of the devil. We're just a horrible lot, aren't we? 
> 
> Anyhoo... Water Lily is right on with the main points. Basically, the story starts with God making the Earth, and on each of the six days he makes a different part, and then on the seventh he rests. Adam is lonely, and so God puts him to sleep and removes one of his ribs, and from it he creates Eve. They are happy and ignorant of their nakedness. Then Satan appears in the form of a serpent, and convinces Eve to take the fruit by telling her, "God said to care for Adam, didn't he? Isn't it your duty as a wife to provide for your husband?" So she gives it to Adam, not telling him where she got it. Upon eating it, they notice their nakedness and are ashamed, and so they cover themselves with fig leaves. Then God yells at them, and banishes them from the Garden of Eden to wander the Earth, where they have children, and Cain kills Abel, and so on... As far as I remember, no forgiveness in this story.
> 
> It's interesting to me to learn the Islamic version of the story. I think it's much more interesting!  I heard once about some of the ancient Hebrew myths that didn't make it into the Old Testament, and I think that story (about angels bowing to Adam, and Lucifer's damnation) was one of them. Another was the one about Lillith, who isn't in the Bible, but "another woman" is mentioned... oh, somewhere in there.  I'm a little rusty on the finer points.


Its is some very interesting points that you make about the islamic version. We must remember that the biblical version of Genesis was written by Moses about fourty thousand years after it happened. Noah is mentioned in the tales of Gilgamesh as Nephatshim. Moses was merely writing a summary of what had happened so far, and so didn't go into great detail. Got down into the real nitty gritty of it. 
There are however other tales, mythologies, and ancient books that support both the creation, the first murder, the great flood, gods existence, and even Christ crucifixion. 
An Interesting thing I read lately from the Wulfistan was the association of the great men, and them being turned into pagan gods. Jupiter, Mercury, so and so forth. Also I read a script on genesis that claimed that when Cain killed Abel the two groups of humans split. 
Cains decendants were violent and warred amongst eachother, while Abels, or seths since he took over from his brother were peaceful. Then the fallen bred amongst Cains children, and Cains children bred with Seths, thus creating violence in the world and the warring nations.

----------


## rachel

> Rachel, 
> 
> I am building up to my description of you. I want it to be (sniggers evilly) _special_.


Xamonas, 
i really loved your description of me, you get funnier and funnier with every post. Imagine, a genius(could you please help me with math?) and so very funny. I read it to my family and they were shrieking, okay I thought they laughed a little TOO hard for my enjoyment. But it was great. thank you.
did you read mine? It is how I really do see you, except it is a little hazy since I don't know the depths of you yet. Have to get thru the layers, and don't think I won't. Even if you totally ignore me from this point on I shall study you, you don't have a 'PRAYER'!!!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## rachel

> Don't you dare even think about quitting/leaving! you're our voice of reason around here


your cheque is in the mail!!!
I don't know what a skin deep lollipop fruitcake Milquetoast faker can do to h elp this forum, but :
To quote Kevin McAllister at the check out"I'll give it a whirl-for the kids!
thankyou.  :FRlol:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hehe, I love that movie. Better than the second movie as a whole, excepting the entire last third (the torture chamber scenes...I love the part when Harry blows up the ENTIRE...FIRST...FLOOR).

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Xamonas, 
> i really loved your description of me, you get funnier and funnier with every post. Imagine, a genius(could you please help me with math?) and so very funny. I read it to my family and they were shrieking, okay I thought they laughed a little TOO hard for my enjoyment. But it was great. thank you.
> did you read mine? It is how I really do see you, except it is a little hazy since I don't know the depths of you yet. Have to get thru the layers, and don't think I won't. Even if you totally ignore me from this point on I shall study you, you don't have a 'PRAYER'!!!


Of course I don't have a prayer, I'm an atheist, what would I do with it? Glad you liked the post. Have fun with those layers, I'm all onion!

----------


## RobinHood3000

Inspiration strikes...see the "What is the image you have of..." thread.

----------


## water lily

My dear atheists, I have another question. In what are your morals based? (I'm not accusing you dear folks of having no morals, because I know you do, I'm just wondering if it has to do with like having a functioning society [ie. I don't steal, because I don't want people to steal from me, and so as a society we've agreed not to steal from each other] or if it has to do with some deeper belief in the goodness of humanity, or whatever other reasons you may have). I was just thinking the other day, that if I gave up Christianity that I would still retain so many Christian values because they've been engrained into me. Let me know your thoughts.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> My dear atheists, I have another question. In what are your morals based? (I'm not accusing you dear folks of having no morals, because I know you do, I'm just wondering if it has to do with like having a functioning society [ie. I don't steal, because I don't want people to steal from me, and so as a society we've agreed not to steal from each other] or if it has to do with some deeper belief in the goodness of humanity, or whatever other reasons you may have). I was just thinking the other day, that if I gave up Christianity that I would still retain so many Christian values because they've been engrained into me. Let me know your thoughts.


An excellent question. 

Personally, I believe that unnecessarily causing pain to anyone is wrong. I agree with much of christian doctrine in this respect. Do unto others as you would be done by them is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. We all have a conflict between the caring, social part of our nature and the selfish part. A balance between the two must be sought.

I am completely against morality and laws that seek to inhibit our freedom to behave as we want _provided that that behavoir does not cause pain to, or interfere with the freedom of, others_. In this category, I include such things as laws / moralising over sexuality (I do not include rape or paedophilia here - these cause untold misery and are thus unacceptable to me), freedom of speech (not including the freedom to incite hatred, riots, etc.), taking drugs and alcohol (except where those under the influence impose on others). This kind of thing should be left to the individual.

If everyone treated everyone else with respect, the world would be better for all. With that point made, there are times when the rights of the few must be sacrificed for the good of the many. Rapists, murderers, racists and the like should not be tolerated in any sane society (even if they are in power!) Where exactly do we draw the line though? I'm as much in the dark as anyone else, but I have a sneaking suspicion that politicians and lawyers may not be the best people to guide us in this.

----------


## emily655321

> I was just thinking the other day, that if I gave up Christianity that I would still retain so many Christian values because they've been engrained into me.


Water Lily, have you read _Of Human Bondage_? It deals in some parts with that very issue.

Having been raised Christian, it is entirely possible that much of my outlook is thereby influenced. However, my father was not religious at all (it was my mother who took us to church). He had been raised in an atheistic household, but he taught me just as much in the way of ethics as did my mother. My parents taught me to pay attention to how others felt, but I tend to play the rest by ear. I tend to be a very intuitive and empathetic person, so, in application, my morals come from little more than gut instinct. In a more concrete sense, though, I feel as Xamonas does; I think less of "right vs. wrong" than I do of "society vs. selfishness;" "beneficial vs. harmful." But that's really just an impersonalized way of saying, "I do what I feel is right." The pain of others causes pain in me, and so I try to make the world as painless a place as I can. In the case of so-called "victimless crimes," such as stealing or vandalismwell, for one thing, it's a matter of personal pride; I just don't do that sort of thing. But it's also a matter of respect; I don't do things that take a jab at the respectability or dignity of others. In other words, whoever owns the property, I don't feel that they somehow deserve to have it stolen or mistreated, whether or not they find out about it. I think such reasoning, which I've heard"sticking it to the Man," you might say,is petty and undignified in itself.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I think I posted it somewhere on here before...I'll see if I can't seek it out.

----------


## The Unnamable

> An excellent question. 
> 
> Personally, I believe that unnecessarily causing pain to anyone is wrong. I agree with much of christian doctrine in this respect. Do unto others as you would be done by them is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. We all have a conflict between the caring, social part of our nature and the selfish part. A balance between the two must be sought.


Xamonas, that was interesting and well expressed as always (NO irony!). However, Im feeling a little mischievous and know that you wont run crying when I ask you awkward questions.




> I am completely against morality and laws that seek to inhibit our freedom to behave as we want _provided that that behavoir does not cause pain to, or interfere with the freedom of, others_.


How, in this case, can freedom exist? Your behaviour might be utterly innocuous to you but it might also cause someone somewhere a great deal of pain. Perhaps that is no fault of your own but the result of an action might well be hurtful to someone, somewhere.




> In this category, I include such things as laws / moralising over sexuality (I do not include rape or paedophilia here - these cause untold misery and are thus unacceptable to me),


This issue is a minefield so Ill try to tread carefully. In a logical sense, is it not conceivable that, given a sufficiently large change in our systems of values, even these could come to be acceptable? Perhaps the reason they cause untold misery is because our perception of them (which must be another construct) is negative. Okay, Ive probably outraged enough by saying that so Ill dilute it a little. 
Cultural relativity is an interesting thing. Over here sufficient numbers of daughters of very poor rice farmers move to the city to work as prostitutes to maintain a lucrative sex industry. The responses of many of the westerners Ive seen witness it obviously varies but tends to take two forms. Some embrace it, even to the point of Kurtz-like immersion and some are horrified at what they usually term sexual exploitation. This is the cry of the West, the same West that had little to say about the _economic_ exploitation of the rice farmers, which leaves their daughters feeling that they would do better to work as prostitutes, which the majority do. We dont seem to mind these young women breaking their backs in paddy-fields for subsistence wages but we are horrified when they earn hundreds of times more in the city. This is also the problem of the fact that many do not feel as exploited as our western values make us assume they should. The argument that this is simply a form of false consciousness has to deal with the fact that this is true for the rest of us.




> freedom of speech (not including the freedom to incite hatred, riots, etc.), taking drugs and alcohol (except where those under the influence impose on others). This kind of thing should be left to the individual.


If you are going to have freedom of speech meaning freedom to do anything except then we dont have freedom, surely? You cant simply decide that certain things are prohibited. You will say that it isnt an arbitrary decision but one based on (choose your discourse). What about Orwells "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."? 
I know you go on to say that its all a question of where you draw the line but you nevertheless appear to be championing freedom when really its only _your_ definition of freedom.




> I'm as much in the dark as anyone else, but I have a sneaking suspicion that politicians and lawyers may not be the best people to guide us in this.


That leaves us with the interesting question of just who _is_ going to guide us? It looks to me as if democracy is becoming dumbocracy.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Interesting Unnamable (as always). 

If you want my exact, personal definition of paedophilia, it is sex with a child that is _physically_, sexually immature. I am not referring to 'under-age' sex between consenting persons, where one or both are a birthday or 2 below society's idea of when people become _emotionally_ mature enough to have sex. It is the former which I consider repugnant and unacceptable.

Your description of Thai attitudes, and those of Westerners to them, reminds me of Chapter 35 of "The French Lieutenant's Woman", in which John Fowles has some very similar things to say regarding sexuality and morals in the Victorian age:




> What are we faced with in the nineteenth century? An age where woman was sacred; and where you could buy a thirteen-year-old girl for a few poundsa few shillings, if you wanted her for only an hour or two. Where more churches were built than in the whole previous history of the country; and where one in sixty houses in London was a brothel (the modern ratio would be nearer one in six thousand). Where the sanctity of marriage (and chastity before marriage) was proclaimed from every pulpit, in every newspaper editorial and public utterance; and when neveror hardly everhave so many great public figures, from the future king down, led scandalous private lives. Where the female body had never been so hidden from view; and where every sculptor was judged by his ability to carve naked women. Where there is not a single novel, play or poem of literary distinction that ever goes beyond the sensuality of a kiss; and where the output of pornography has never been exceeded. Where the excretory functions were never referred to; and where the sanitation remained  the flushing lavatory came late in the age and remained a luxury well up to 1900  so primitive that there can have been few houses, and few streets, where one was not constantly reminded of them. Where it was universally maintained that women do not have orgasms; and yet every prostitute was taught to simulate them. Where there was an enormous progress and liberation in every other field of human activity; and nothing but tyranny in the most personal and fundamental.


Plus ça change, plus cest la même chose.

My contention is that with freedom, comes responsibility. The absolute consequences of _any_ act can never be fully known. I was generalising to a degree. Unfortunately, there will always be those that, given freedom, will shirk that responsibility. Hence, there must always be curbs put on freedom in order to protect the greater freedoms of others. 

As an example, on your point about freedom of speech. American, Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself a vociferous advocate of freedom of speech, famously once said, "Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, where no fire exists." I would argue that neither does it give one the right to shout, "Kill the B******!" at an already volatile public demonstration. 

There have to be limits on all things. All fundamentalism, even fundamentalist liberality, is extremism and harmful to society.

----------


## The Unnamable

> If you want my exact, personal definition of paedophilia, it is sex with a child that is _physically_, sexually immature. I am not referring to 'under-age' sex between consenting persons, where one or both are a birthday or 2 below society's idea of when people become _emotionally_ mature enough to have sex. It is the former which I consider repugnant and unacceptable.


The question is not about what you consider repugnant or why you consider it so. I wasnt asking for a moral justification of your position but trying to point out that, in many ways, atheism is no less an act of faith than is belief in a deity. As an atheist myself, I dont have a problem with this. I think the main difference between someone who believes and me is that when I consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence, I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being. The comment to which you were referring asked, In what are your morals based? There seems to be an assumption there that morals are usually based on something incompatible with atheism. For me, they arent. I just dont have any faith but that doesnt mean that I cant subscribe to or help generate a system of moral values. 

Near the end of Woody Allens _Crimes and Misdemeanors_, Martin Landau explains his murder story as if it were a film plot. Woody Allen responds, I would have him turn himself in. Then your movie assumes tragic proportions, because in the absence of a God he is forced to assume that responsibility himself. Then you have tragedy. 






> My contention is that with freedom, comes responsibility. The absolute consequences of _any_ act can never be fully known. I was generalising to a degree. Unfortunately, there will always be those that, given freedom, will shirk that responsibility. Hence, there must always be curbs put on freedom in order to protect the greater freedoms of others. 
> 
> As an example, on your point about freedom of speech. American, Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself a vociferous advocate of freedom of speech, famously once said, "Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, where no fire exists." I would argue that neither does it give one the right to shout, "Kill the B******!" at an already volatile public demonstration. 
> 
> There have to be limits on all things. All fundamentalism, even fundamentalist liberality, is extremism and harmful to society.


This is a political rather than a moral stance. Its power lies in the fact that most people will agree with Holmess statement. It seems fair and sensible. To be honest though, Im not sure if I agree with you anyway. I think certain beliefs are irreconcilable and, in the end, violence is necessary. I agree that there have to be limits on all things but I wont be justifying my rejection of certain views on the grounds of protecting the greater freedom of others or the belief that they are harmful to society as a whole. Just as everyone else does, Ill be advocating them because they help promote the world I want to see.

----------


## Evergreenleaf

> ...atheism is no less an act of faith than is belief in a deity. As an atheist myself, I dont have a problem with this. I think the main difference between someone who believes and me is that when I consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence, I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being. The comment to which you were referring asked, In what are your morals based? There seems to be an assumption there that morals are usually based on something incompatible with atheism. For me, they arent. I just dont have any faith but that doesnt mean that I cant subscribe to or help generate a system of moral values.


This part is so true, Unnamable. 

Atheism is not "against belief," it's "against _theism_," and theism has to do with gods and divine beings. It isn't "against faith." We can have faith in other things, such as science or justice (though justice is itself a tricky thing to define), and we can have morals without gods. I think that sometimes people don't recognize the actual meaning of the word, and therefore they misconstrue the meaning of atheism as being amoral and against belief. We're just against belief in gods. Some of us might take it a bit further, but that's a personal thing and the actual meaning of atheism stops at no gods. 

By the way, thank you water lily for recognizing this and saying that you know atheists do have morals.

----------


## BeingaBunny

I guess I'm a nihilist, agnostic, and atheist. It's hard to explain. I know most agnostics usually don't consider themselves atheists, but I do for a reason. Because I am insulted that god, if someone could prove its existence to me, just created me. What gives god the right? What an *******. I am not a toy to be played with. 

I also know that being nihilist and agnostic is somewhat contradictory. But I don't know what to believe in. All I know is, I can't find a purpose in anything. Whenever I look for anything, all I find is something close to nothing.

Also, I think belief in an afterlife or a spirit is just sad. I would not even want to continue after death. If I die and there is something more than nothing, I will be so pissed. Nothing is amazing because it is the only thing that cannot be described. Throughout life, no human being knows nothing. When one thinks of nothing, it is probably darkness that pops into one's mind. But darkness is something. Nothing is _nothing_. You can't comprehend what nothing is.

Anyways, I can't believe anyone enjoys life so much that they would want to have an afterlife life. It is just silly. I want what is coming to me. Give me death and give me nothing.

Of course, if anyone completely opposes my views, that's cool.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Wow--awfully bitter, aren't we?

Darkness indeed is something--it implies that there is someone there to perceive the lack of something. I'm with you on the nothing-after-death thing, but I will attest to the comforting effect of the thought that there is something waiting after death (pearly gates and streets of gold usually being the most-looked-forward-to).

----------


## BeingaBunny

Well, it is sort of bitter. But being a nihilist, it's hard to have bad feelings (IMO). It's hard to really care about anything. I wouldn't recommend nihilism because you will wake up every morning wondering why you bother. But it's just what human beings do. We're animals too. Things can be good.

I was reading some stuff about Nietzsche and how nihilism is destructive or something. Nihilism is not really destructive. Nihilism is nothing. It isn't glorious like destruction at all. I'd call Nietzsche an annihilist.

That's just my take on it. I think nothing is probably amazing. I feel tranquil thinking about nothing (that sounds stupid, lol, please read the context). I just think about the entire universe, then I inverse it. Every time I have no idea what I come up with.

----------


## Theshizznigg

Bunny you are neither a toy, nor an unwanted creation. God made your soul, arranged for Adam's fall from grace, so that you, yes, you!
Could have the free will to choose, will I be for God, or will I not. 
If you are an atheist, fine, if you make peace with God, even better. 
As for the decision of yea or nay, any highschool teacher can explain to you the theory of actions, and consequences of those actions. 

"It all there, all of it." 
Biblical propositions.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hey--who are you to say which is better and which is not?

----------


## Theshizznigg

To me it is even better, because I win a fellow Christian, nothing else.

----------


## rachel

I am just sneaking on to this thread to give my Robin a hug. love you

It is important for every being, in my opinion, to be free to search and find what he'she is absolutely truly looking for and walk in that and do no harm.
I am in love with God, now and forever. But that is me.

----------


## Theshizznigg

Exactly! That is the nature of humanity.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Actually, that's more the nature of rachel (good to see you!). Humanity, on average, is less kind and less open-minded.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Bunny you are neither a toy, nor an unwanted creation.





> To me it is even better, because I *win* a fellow Christian,



There you go, BeingaBunny, you arent a toy; youre a prize.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> There you go, BeingaBunny, you arent a toy; youre a prize.


  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## RobinHood3000

One wonders what variety of cereal box she inhabits.

----------


## silence782

Here's a question I've been wondering about**: How can free will exist with an Omniscient God? How can we have free will when God knows every decision we can, have, or ever will have made? It's more like we're prewritten scripts than anything else. This question was one I strggled over before becomming an atheist...

----------


## The Unnamable

> Here's a question I've been wondering about**: How can free will exist with an Omniscient God? How can we have free will when God knows every decision we can, have, or ever will have made? It's more like we're prewritten scripts than anything else. This question was one I strggled over before becomming an atheist...


  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15953

Read it and weep.  :Biggrin:

----------


## silence782

Read what? Which post?

----------


## The Unnamable

> Read what? Which post?


It begins at # 13 and goes on like _Finnegans Wake_.

----------


## tfwelch

My opinion on God is correct. Anyone whose views are identical to mine are also correct. All others are just lying or idiots. Don't feel less of me. Deep down inside you feel the same.  :Goof:

----------


## silence782

Okay, thanks for the heads up, unameable.

----------


## bhekti

> Here's a question I've been wondering about**: How can free will exist with an Omniscient God? How can we have free will when God knows every decision we can, have, or ever will have made? It's more like we're prewritten scripts than anything else. This question was one I strggled over before becomming an atheist...


Where's the connection between God being omniscient and our free will? 
These two, say, concepts clearly can stand by themselves without interrupting one another. However, they also can be modified to interrupt one another.

True, we have free will (but there's always the question of how free (hence, ethics)). And, it is also true that God is omniscient. In my opinion, If a frame of mind can't put these two propositions in harmony with one another, there must be a fixed arrangement (be it conscious or unconscious, felt or not felt, faked or straight) of that frame of mind that, from the very outset, never permit that kind of harmony.

----------


## silence782

Your posts were simply masterful. You've put the concepts I've been thinking about in such eloquent terms, and yet, still kept your patience when dealing with illogical arguments. Well played.

----------


## silence782

Here's my take on the argument:
If God created everything, and knows what will, can, or ever could be, free will cannot exist without independent choice. But no one can be independent of god, because he created us to perform a task with we can neither change, nor deviate from. In fact, to belivers of an omnipotent god, only the illusion of free will can exist, not free will in the truest sense.

----------


## silence782

"Where's the connection between God being omniscient and our free will? "
can god be omniscient, but not omnipotent? Or omnipontent, but not omniscient? If he knew everything, but was unable to do everything, then, I could see hoe free will could exist. But, if he created me, and created all the choices I could make how is that free will? Being able to make a choice he didn't expect, one that I alone choce to make idependent of god's knolegde would be free will. Anything else is just running along the track he made for me.

----------


## bhekti

> Here's my take on the argument:
> If God created everything, and knows what will, can, or ever could be, free will cannot exist without independent choice. But no one can be independent of god, because he created us to perform a task with we can neither change, nor deviate from. In fact, to belivers of an omnipotent god, only the illusion of free will can exist, not free will in the truest sense.


Hmm... I got it.

God created us with a purpose or design, I agree. But I can't agree with your opinon that says we can neither change or deviate from it. Just look at our condition now. We can even call it "bad" (well, many of us have been so used to it that they feel just alright with it). So it means we are capable to change or deviate from the purpose or design that God always wants us to fulfill.

There's the concept of sin, an expression of our independence. Our free will, I think, is expressed when we "kill" God. (And, we kill Him continuously in our life, don't we?). But it's only one example. Another example can be when we choose to keep the faith despite our lack of understanding. 

Whatever we choose to do, God is there, omniscient and omnipotent still. We perform our free will, and God let it happen. From this, victims fall. God has promised to payback for those victims, and we.... we keep on performing our free will.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> "Where's the connection between God being omniscient and our free will? "
> can god be omniscient, but not omnipotent? Or omnipontent, but not omniscient? If he knew everything, but was unable to do everything, then, I could see hoe free will could exist. But, if he created me, and created all the choices I could make how is that free will? Being able to make a choice he didn't expect, one that I alone choce to make idependent of god's knolegde would be free will. Anything else is just running along the track he made for me.


That's where the 'logical' arguments for God's existence always fall down. Believers want it _all_ ways. They will not give an inch on the following statements:

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. God gave us free will.
5. God loves all of us.

Qualify one or more of these statements and it may be possible to reconcile the idea of God with the world around us. Try to hold to them all rigidly and you fall down holes in logic all over the place. The only way to believe all of the above is therefore to rely on 'faith' and to deny the validity of logic (at least as it relates to God). This I find myself incapable of doing - I guess that's just the way God made me!  :FRlol: 

Besides, if we were made in the image of God, as is claimed, isn't it likely that the big fella is just as ****ed up as we are?

----------


## The Unnamable

> 1. God created everything that exists.


I assume you know the following Monty Python parody of "All things bright and beautiful"?

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings;
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid;
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul, and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.

----------


## silence782

*nods* I've always dound it strange that a person can belive in two contradicting ideas at the same time. For example, "God is good." and yet he created evil. "God is love." Yet, he created Satan with full knoledge of what he would do, and loosed him upon us.

----------


## silence782

Oops, sorry for the bad spelling, but it was 3 AM when I wrote that last post...

----------


## Theshizznigg

Silence if that is your reason for not believing in God, then you aren't seeing the bigger picture. 

Now I respect XM because he is a true Athiest, and often doesn't say anything without having carefully thought it out. 
And it is not that your view is wrong, its just simply misguided. 
Now, I don't know what God is thinking, and I can be mistaken. But I seen the reasons God created us, and arranged for our fall. 

Satan was a perfect being, and in his beauty and perfection he loved himself more than the Lord. It because of that self love that he rebelled against God, with three quarters of heavens angels. 
God thus created man, planning to fill the positions lost in heaven. Knowing full well that Satan would corrupt his creations. 
But he let it happen anyways, because he had already planned it to. 
Why? The host of heaven were as the bible says perfect. But Satan loved himself more than God, and so corrupted himself, as did the others. 
Yet God created man, for the same reason he creates everything. Love. 
And he gave man through his fall the freedom of choice. 
Something the angels of heaven never had.
With that freedom of choice, a human who was no longer a perfect being and was not obligated to serve God, but serves him and seeks him out of love for his creator.
Those that choose God, or Christ, it say will inhabit the kingdoms of heaven of which Satan's hosts left vacant when htey were given the realm of Hell.
Those that lived for evil means, join Satans kingdom and become his own servants. 
And those that never choosed, as the bible says. Will simply never be ressurected and thus cease to exist. 

So, in hindview, God has allowed evil to exist to a certain point in time, so that his creations may choose to serve him, or reject him and be done with it.

And as for the evil in the world, God doesn't create evil, his creations create evil. Thus God is blameless. 

Hope this helped to give you a more open minded opinion on the subject. 
Thanks for reading. 
Shizz.

P.s. I absolutely loved Read or Die.

"So often we are looking, that we hardly ever see." 
"I can't see the trees, because the forest is in the way."

----------


## Theshizznigg

XM Don't forget, that we were perfect before we were corrupted.

And also don't forget that God is the ultimate excentric, because if he wasn't then he certainly wouldn't have created the entire universe. God simply creates for a few small reasons. 

For his own enjoyment. God's an artist, poet, writer, philosopher, etc. 
Hence we as his creations, made in his image also exude a need to create.
God wants to be love and accepted by his creations. 

God wants to have a relationship with all of his creations. His love created them and he wants to be loved in return. 
This is also a major fundamental of all human makeup, since the first thing we humans ever do, or do anything for really. Is acceptence and appreciation for what we do, regardless of who the acceptance is from.

We feel connections to thing we pursue. Like growing plants, or tending animals. You feel a connection to those things, and you want to see them prosper. 
God also wants humans to prosper and enjoy life, in the same way. 
He get his enjoyment, out of seeing our enjoyment. 

We human exhibit sinful emotions. 
Emotions we were never supposed to have. Yet we also have pure emotions, like wrath, or pure anger. 
Both do not equate to hatred, they are both fierce and severe, but quick to dissapate. And it is only when we consciously hold those feelings longer, that hate starts to grow.
We also feel many different forms of love, family love, love of a friend, pure passion, and pure desire, affectionate love, and deep love. 
Those again can be turned to feelings of envy, and hostility. 

Once again I don't claim to know all the answers, but if you look deeply at human thought, and human behaviour you find some very odd quirks, that logically shouldn't have evolved with a creature. 
Though I'm sure there is more than just one arguement for this, this is indeed my answer of what I know. And i'm quite sure there are other people out there that could indeed explain all of this better.
Still, thanks again, You actually take the time to read my post before you answer them, and it is greatly appreciated.  :Biggrin: 
Shizz.

"Tell the world, tell em all, that Franco was here!" 
An address, often not included. 
 :Banana:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Odd quirks, hm? Of course human thought and behavior patterns don't fit evolution--humans only started deviating from evolutionary behavioral patterns when they started denying the presence of evolution.

I don't suppose you've ever read _Ishmael_ by Daniel Quinn? I've mentioned it a couple times on the forums--just read it a few weeks ago, and I really enjoyed it. An eye-opener for me.

----------


## Theshizznigg

No I've never had the pleasure.
Have you ever read the poems of Caedemon, especially the ones written on Genesis? 

"Holobolo"

----------


## RobinHood3000

No, I haven't--poetry isn't my preferred category for reading, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'll look into it.

Don't laugh, but I think Michael Crichton's _The Lost World_ makes an interesting point regarding the nature of evolution. What happens it that the Velociraptors that have been cloned exhibit behaviors that are nothing like the hunters of today, and probably nothing like the hunters of prehistory.

For example, when they make a kill, all ages of raptor leap into the fray to feed, without any form of hierarchy based on rank or sex. If one raptor is contesting the meal against another, it is liable to be disemboweled and then added to the menu.

The reason for this is because, when the Velociraptors were cloned, only their GENETIC blueprint was copied. Any form of social hierarchy that existed in raptor "culture" was lost when they went extinct, and with it any rituals or practices (such as feeding patterns) that kept them orderly. Other group predators by comparison, like lions, undergo no such chaos after hunting.

So, the question is, when humans replaced the family/group structure that exists in other branches of the primate tree with a counter-evolutionary thought pattern, how did they manage to survive? For example, I was thinking about poisonous mushrooms earlier in the day (I haven't the faintest idea why). How is it that humans have to be formally educated in which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous, yet wild animals manage just fine without posters or the New York Public Library Desk Reference? Or take all of those abominable commercials for Viagra and comparable drugs--if the condition being treated is so serious and epidemic that it merits medical research to fix, how is it that we managed for the past 40,000 years as a species?

----------


## bhekti

> 5. God loves all of us


I don't think so. Not all of us he loves.

----------


## Stanislaw

hmm 5 truths?

well that is what religious people believe, 
_"1. God created everything that exists.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. God gave us free will.
5. God loves all of us."_

Number 1 is logical, but its wording can allow for a wide range of interpretations, from God has created each and every thing in the galaxy personally, to God created the matter needed by the "big Bang".

number 2, why not.
number 3, why not.
number 4, now here is a dilemma if God knows all, he knows what choice we will make so is it free will, but theoretically we are still free to make the choice, it's just that God knows the outcome.
Number 5, why not.

All of these cannot be proved nor disproved, so when discussing this one must be carefull not to commit the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, God exists because you can't prove he doesn't, and God doesn't exist because you can't prove he can.

We'll just have to wait till we die, so untill then the choice is to have blind faith or not. Maybe a different question is why do you think God does/doesn't exist, why does it have meaning for you, or why does it not have meaning for you? Is religious faith really so bad?

----------


## bhekti

If God does not exist, how can rules (either thought or felt) function? 

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted" including murder (of any forms, at any levels), theft (of any degrees), betrayals, etc. And, those things would happen at the very beginning of the history of mankind that it would take an illogical effort for the logic to accept the fact that human race have managed to survive this far.

If God did not exist, the history of mankind would not even survive a day. If God did not exist, every actions that we now call "evil" would be justified. There would be no faults, wrongs; everything would be right, good.

The reason why today we still witness people doing evil is because they don't admit the presence of God, or if they admit it (such as religious people), they openly reject him, preferring their own desires.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Wow, somebody has an EXTREMELY warped view of us atheists.

Look outside--assuming you don't live an a major urban center, there's probably some form of wildlife out there. What you see are creatures existing peacefully who haven't the faintest concept of a deity and, what's more, probably aren't inclined to seek one. Yet they've survived just dandy of MILLIONS of years without committing mass murder, wanton rape, or conscienceless theft like you seem to think we'll do.

I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school. I was born by my mother--I didn't emerge from a smoking hole in the ground. No late-night sex rituals, no sacrificing small animals. Prejudice is an ugly thing, bhekti.

----------


## Stanislaw

our friend above is assuming that a clean life can only be discovered from God, and that people could not create a morale notion on their own...from a strictly evolutionary sense it is only natural that people would develop morals or law codes...it is simply group dynamics.

Personally I do believe in God, and that God is the source of good, however, the argument is a week one, athiests are capable of making moral decisions.

----------


## ElizabethSewall

> I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school. I was born by my mother--I didn't emerge from a smoking hole in the ground. No late-night sex rituals, no sacrificing small animals. Prejudice is an ugly thing, bhekti.


I'm an atheist as well, and I wouldn't have defended that case better. Thanks Robin!!  :Biggrin:  
I think what's really important is whether or not you have principles, isn't it?  :Confused:

----------


## Whifflingpin

RobinHood3000: "I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school."

Ah but... your disbelief in God does not prevent Him from being the author of your conscience. I think that it (your disbelief, I mean) may make you better able to fulfil His purposes, because your moral code is something that you work out and choose for yourself, rather than taking it ready-made from some book. Religion can be a great barrier to godliness, and atheists do not have that hurdle to jump over. 

Now, if you could just be a bit more positive for good, as well as negative towards bad, then...

----------


## Stanislaw

Very well said, and supported by the parable of the son that leaves and then is welcomed back and treated as a king when he returns. Leading a good life is the main thing.



> RobinHood3000: "I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school."
> 
> Ah but... your disbelief in God does not prevent Him from being the author of your conscience. I think that it (your disbelief, I mean) may make you better able to fulfil His purposes, because your moral code is something that you work out and choose for yourself, rather than taking it ready-made from some book. Religion can be a great barrier to godliness, and atheists do not have that hurdle to jump over. 
> 
> Now, if you could just be a bit more positive for good, as well as negative towards bad, then...

----------


## RobinHood3000

Perhaps--whether God's purpose is authored by Him or me, I am glad to at least live my life by principles to which I can claim some degree of personal authorship.

I wonder if a valid parallel would be trying to find the right diet--often, the one that works best is one that's customized for you, rather than one from the mouths of Atkins or Jenny Craig.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Perhaps--whether God's purpose is authored by Him or me, I am glad to at least live my life by principles to which I can claim some degree of personal authorship.
> 
> I wonder if a valid parallel would be trying to find the right diet--often, the one that works best is one that's customized for you, rather than one from the mouths of Atkins or Jenny Craig.


indeed, I do not understand some of these flash diets they are as fake as some of the television preachers!

----------


## Theshizznigg

Ahh, Diets, its "Die" with a T.

Its often a hard realization that in spite of our efforts, we are not getting anywhere. 
In truth this is sometimes upsetting, in many forms of a way, and indeed vexating on a persons mind. 

For this reason it is very difficult trying to discuss things with Atheist, and the like, because we all naturally assume that our faith is the correct answer, and thus all other answers are lacking, or void in usefullness. 
This is why it is often difficult to make any head way. I can understand the views of the world from the eyes of an Atheist, but many can't, just as an atheist cannot understand the actual feelings of true faith. 
All the more we are to pitied, equally. 

For these simple reasons. 
We as Christians believe in Christ, and thus want to share our faith with those around us, while those around us usually do not wish to open their minds to that specific way of thought. 
Moreover, many people site the church as an excuse for not wishing to belong to Christianity. And we as Christians are so often causght in defence of the church that we fail to acknowledge the fact that the Atheists are right. 
Many churches are spiritually bonded to religion, or religious rituals and hardly encourage the development of personal faith. 
People who follow these, are often Sunday Christians, who neither seek a true relationship with Christ, or wish to know more about their creator.
These people are disfunctional Christians, because the do not essentially understand Christianity fully. Thus they fall into religious doctrinations of those churches which in many cases crushes someones faith. 

Many Atheist who I know were former Christians, who caught in that spiritual stagnation lost their faith, because there was no room in those churches for an individuals spiritual growth. 
This often embitters a person towards Christianity. And thus makes them unwilling to recieve or even consider ideas from a Christian perspective, because they've already been involved with church that was repressive and thus think that all Christian ideals are equally repressive to the attitude of that former church.

Therefor its hard to convince or share and idea with anyone who is deadset against what you say, before you've even had the chance to say it.

More than likely this will be shot done, or ripped apart, but by doing so it only really proves what I've said in the above.

"How often does though comst here? Too often I thinketh!" 
Bartle Bronags.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Oh, I wouldn't say that, shizznigg. Not all atheists are lunatics bent on converting the world to paganism. Some of us are quite open to religious opinions.

I'd also like to point out that being an atheist sometimes requires just as much faith as believing in a god.

----------


## Theshizznigg

> Oh, I wouldn't say that, shizznigg. Not all atheists are lunatics bent on converting the world to paganism. Some of us are quite open to religious opinions.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that being an atheist sometimes requires just as much faith as believing in a god.



I would say that it requires even more.

What I don't understand about this post is, that all atheist are bent on converting the world to paganism?

Are you a paganist? Or do you try to convert people to paganism?  :Confused:  
I didn't mention anything about atheist trying to convert people, merely the difficulties many have with being unbiased when given spiritual questions about Christianity.
I'd in no way think for a minute that Atheist are the enemies of my faith, and so on, because your not. 
In my eyes you are merely people, the same as everyone else. 

Take care, Shizz.

"Lollipops!"

----------


## Anon22

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!  athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves.  )
> 
> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...



Well... I don't know whether I should consider myself an aetheist or not... but here's what I think... that most likely... there isn't really a god in the sky... but from watching my grandmother, I love the way she just believes in him and that almost convinces me that there is a god. Sometimes though... I think that it isn't true and the reason why things turn out better for people that truly and deeply believe in God is because they believe in themselves more than anything... they assure themselves that everything is going to be alright because they know that God will open their way. This belief, it brings hope and they will know that something good is going to happen no matter what, so in my view, belief in God=unlimited feeling of hope and that's why I love that belief in God. Even though... the thing is, it's too unlikely that he exists and therefore I choose to not believe in him sometimes because I need to be realistic, things are the way they are, and if there is no God... well I can't just stand there as if a road was going to magically open for me, nothing can ever be gotten from that (even though I do tend to do that either way). Even though, the fact that there is a possibility that he might exist, shift my view every once in a while and well... it gives me faith in him... and thus... I get that feeling of hope, and also... of course if he exists I say "God... if you exist, I'm sorry for not believing... but I just can't prove if you are real... but if you do exist... thank you for what you have done". It doesn't just end there, I continue on "and if there is by any chance more gods... thank you all".

So... where does that put me? An aetheist because I don't really believe in God?

----------


## Stanislaw

> So... where does that put me? An aetheist because I don't really believe in God?


 agnostic maybe?

----------


## Anon22

huh... didn't know there was such word... hehe... well then yes I am agnostic...  :Biggrin:

----------


## RobinHood3000

To shizznigg--sorry, I think I was trying to make the point that some atheists are more open-minded than others and are available for some degree of "headway."

To DigitalCrash--I'm thinking you're more of an agnostic than an atheist.

----------


## Anon22

> If God does not exist, how can rules (either thought or felt) function? 
> 
> "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" including murder (of any forms, at any levels), theft (of any degrees), betrayals, etc. And, those things would happen at the very beginning of the history of mankind that it would take an illogical effort for the logic to accept the fact that human race have managed to survive this far.
> 
> If God did not exist, the history of mankind would not even survive a day. If God did not exist, every actions that we now call "evil" would be justified. There would be no faults, wrongs; everything would be right, good.
> 
> The reason why today we still witness people doing evil is because they don't admit the presence of God, or if they admit it (such as religious people), they openly reject him, preferring their own desires.



Here's what I don't get... if God is just... why does he have to punish those that aren't? None of us chose to be born in this family, in this life... and our minds are something that are created through experience. Sometimes I just think... and think... and I realize we never truly chose to like what we like, it simply just happens. When I was younger I had this bird and I loved it... it died 8 days later but those were some of the best days of my life, but because of that event... birds have become my favorite animals. It sounds like a choice but it kind of isn't, if I was in another body, with another mind and another life... would I still like birds? well that depends on the life you know... the experience. On the other hand... if you lived through exactly, but I mean exactly the same thing I went through when I was younger, with exactly the same thoughts and ideas... I think you would like birds. It's something I thought about, and since its not our fault that we like what we like and we hate what we hate... then its not a murderers fault that they're killing others, its simply the way things are and if God is just... then he can't punish him over something the poor man couldn't control.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Here's what I don't get... if God is just... why does he have to punish those that aren't? None of us chose to be born in this family, in this life... and our minds are something that are created through experience. Sometimes I just think... and think... and I realize we never truly chose to like what we like, it simply just happens. When I was younger I had this bird and I loved it... it died 8 days later but those were some of the best days of my life, but because of that event... birds have become my favorite animals. It sounds like a choice but it kind of isn't, if I was in another body, with another mind and another life... would I still like birds? well that depends on the life you know... the experience. On the other hand... if you lived through exactly, but I mean exactly the same thing I went through when I was younger, with exactly the same thoughts and ideas... I think you would like birds. It's something I thought about, and since its not our fault that we like what we like and we hate what we hate... then its not a murderers fault that they're killing others, its simply the way things are and if God is just... then he can't punish him over something the poor man couldn't control.


First of all, Digital, I love your signature.
As to what you ask, we must not blame our faults on our difficulties. I have never circumstantially had an easy day in my life thus far, yet I feel remorse for every sin I have ever committed - even in failing to do what would have accomplished absolute Good. I am surrounded, though, by people that give no thought to ethics, who claim they hardly have ever known hardship, and, even at the best of times, treat others like worthless dirt to walk over and hurt as they run to fill themselves with heartless luxuries. They have the same freedom of will that you and I have, but do you not grieve even for those that you are not at fault for the suffering of? I think that you do - otherwise, why would you spend so much of your heart struggling for an answer to others' sufferings?

No one is born a pedophile - that's a sinner's chosen obsession, resulting from a carrying on of avoidance of proper cultivation. No one has the inclination to be a faithful spouse because of mere circumstance, but because of a chosen cooperation with Graces from GOD, whether with perfect or imperfect awareness at some points along the way filled with trials and exercises.

Saint Francis of Assissi was the son of a godless man who encouraged his son to carry on in his juvenile delinquency, as he led his peers in rebellious teenage trouble-making. Then one day, while still rather young and popular, the lad's heart changed, and he decided to become a Catholic Christian. He was threatened by his father with rejection if he didn't reject his new Christian Life, but he chose GOD over the father he had never wanted to lose the acceptance of. All that had seemed a place of priviledge to Francis, he now saw nothing in, while all the Good he had previously had every motive to ignore, was now his one occupation.

A person may kill, undoubtedly, for a different reason than another, but murder is still murder - because of the motive. No one has a murderous motive due to mere background - because one's choice for or against a targetted disposition or attitude will remain a strong motivation against the tide. I know of some people that are exceptionally cheerful and gentle despite the odds seeming against them comprehending such good qualities. How is this? Because GOD has assigned virtues to our nature - but we choose what we shall come to: whether we cooperate with the CREATOR so that we solidify these qualities within ourselves like pottery being set in the kiln, or drift ever more and more away from our original GOD-given nature.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Ahem--you should know that I have sworn faithfulness to my significant other (and in the future, my spouse) without any divine intervention whatsoever.

----------


## Grumbleguts

As an atheist, not only don't I believe in god, but I don't believe in 'true faith' either. In my opinion, faith cannot be true if the object of that faith is non-existant. Faith is merely a more socially acceptable name for wishful thinking.

----------


## Stanislaw

> As an atheist, not only don't I believe in god, but I don't believe in 'true faith' either. In my opinion, faith cannot be true if the object of that faith is non-existant. Faith is merely a more socially acceptable name for wishful thinking.


You have faith that there is no such thing as faith or God? It can't concretely be proven either way, so in a sense you are wishfully thinking that there is no god.

----------


## Scheherazade

> As to what you ask, we must not blame our faults on our difficulties. I have never circumstantially had an easy day in my life thus far, yet I feel remorse for every sin I have ever committed - even in failing to do what would have accomplished absolute Good. I am surrounded, though, by people that give no thought to ethics, who claim they hardly have ever known hardship, and, even at the best of times, treat others like worthless dirt to walk over and hurt as they run to fill themselves with heartless luxuries. They have the same freedom of will that you and I have, but do you not grieve even for those that you are not at fault for the suffering of? I think that you do - otherwise, why would you spend so much of your heart struggling for an answer to others' sufferings?


This is awful lot of generalisation. Believing in a deity does not necessarily mean one will lead a 'good' life. Nor does one need to believe in a divine being to lead a moral life. There are many people who are atheists or, even though they believe in God, who do not actively practise any religion. If it makes it easier for one to lead a moral life in the light of religious teachings, that is perfectly fine but to assume that without those teachings one will automatically be led astray is a biased opinion in my eyes. 


> A person may kill, undoubtedly, for a different reason than another, but murder is still murder - because of the motive. No one has a murderous motive due to mere background - because one's choice for or against a targetted disposition or attitude will remain a strong motivation against the tide. I know of some people that are exceptionally cheerful and gentle despite the odds seeming against them comprehending such good qualities. How is this? Because GOD has assigned virtues to our nature - but we choose what we shall come to: whether we cooperate with the CREATOR so that we solidify these qualities within ourselves like pottery being set in the kiln, or drift ever more and more away from our original GOD-given nature.


This is interesting. If we do good things, it is because God has assigned certain virtues to us and if we don't, it is because we choose to do so? Why does God assign 'not-so- pleasant' virtues to some of us then? Like jealousy or greed? Or why does God create some of us weak enough to give in the temptation?

----------


## Stanislaw

You guys seem to be neglecting the devils influence on the situation.

----------


## Anon22

> First of all, Digital, I love your signature.
> As to what you ask, we must not blame our faults on our difficulties. I have never circumstantially had an easy day in my life thus far, yet I feel remorse for every sin I have ever committed - even in failing to do what would have accomplished absolute Good. I am surrounded, though, by people that give no thought to ethics, who claim they hardly have ever known hardship, and, even at the best of times, treat others like worthless dirt to walk over and hurt as they run to fill themselves with heartless luxuries. They have the same freedom of will that you and I have, but do you not grieve even for those that you are not at fault for the suffering of? I think that you do - otherwise, why would you spend so much of your heart struggling for an answer to others' sufferings?


Not all aetheist are like that. You see part of me doesn't believe in God, is skeptic about it (and I choose when to believe in him), it's kind of like a Jekyll and Hyde thing without the evil vs good in it. Anyhow... assuming God doesn't exist, then there would be no right or wrong, which means anything is possible, so because of that, I could just kill anyone I want right? so, why do I choose not to? It's simple, because, even though I don't believe in God (a part of me), life is life, it ends up being random events without him, it's short, and life is life, and you only get one of it, I don't kill because there is a God, the reason I don't kill is because even though I can do whatever I want, I understand that there are other people around and quite frankly, this being a one-time experience, I don't want to take that away from anyone. In order to have such a belief, do I have to believe in a God? No, and this is the reason why most aetheist don't kill, they want to give everyone a chance to live and enjoy the wonders of life. Believing in God simply adds more motive to this, but quite frankly... I don't want to kill because there is a God, because that just feels too selfish, I don't want to kill simply because I want to give others a chance, and that is, in my opinion, a much better reason for not killing. So taking this into though, does that mean aetheists are evil or bad? No, they aren't, they deserve to choose the path they want (even if it is just "given" to them, by, from my not-believing-in-God side, life)




> No one is born a pedophile - that's a sinner's chosen obsession, resulting from a carrying on of avoidance of proper cultivation. No one has the inclination to be a faithful spouse because of mere circumstance, but because of a chosen cooperation with Graces from GOD, whether with perfect or imperfect awareness at some points along the way filled with trials and exercises.
> 
> Saint Francis of Assissi was the son of a godless man who encouraged his son to carry on in his juvenile delinquency, as he led his peers in rebellious teenage trouble-making. Then one day, while still rather young and popular, the lad's heart changed, and he decided to become a Catholic Christian. He was threatened by his father with rejection if he didn't reject his new Christian Life, but he chose GOD over the father he had never wanted to lose the acceptance of. All that had seemed a place of priviledge to Francis, he now saw nothing in, while all the Good he had previously had every motive to ignore, was now his one occupation.


So, he just had a change of heart just like that? Magically? I find that impossible... nobody has change of heart for over no reason at all. That would mean that one day he was "I believe in no God" and the next he just magically changed and became "I believe in God", if that was the case, there had to be doubt about what he wanted somewhere in his life. Assuming there's a God, God set out the rules of this world, and psychology is one of them.




> A person may kill, undoubtedly, for a different reason than another, but murder is still murder - because of the motive. No one has a murderous motive due to mere background - because one's choice for or against a targetted disposition or attitude will remain a strong motivation against the tide. I know of some people that are exceptionally cheerful and gentle despite the odds seeming against them comprehending such good qualities. How is this? Because GOD has assigned virtues to our nature - but we choose what we shall come to: whether we cooperate with the CREATOR so that we solidify these qualities within ourselves like pottery being set in the kiln, or drift ever more and more away from our original GOD-given nature.


Well, how do you know that? Have you ever murdered before? I mean... a murderer murders for a reason, always, and once again... as a child... if they're mistreated, well, does a child really have such experience in life, if as a child they were taught that killing was good, then it's not their fault. Ok, if that was the case, then it'd be similar to your previous story, but as a child who is mistreated and is taught that killing was good, there's a pretty slim chance that they'll have such a change of heart, I mean, putting myself in their shoes, that's pretty tough unless something in life sparks my mind and gives me knowledge of morals. So in other words, God gives us virtues and its our decision to follow or deny them, but life, depending on the way it treats us, motivates us to either follow or deny them, but is it really our fault if we can't handle such pressure. I mean, putting myself in their shoes if I think really deeply, something awful must've happened to get them to start killing, don't you think? Decisions don't just pop out of no where.

----------


## bhekti

> I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school. I was born by my mother--I didn't emerge from a smoking hole in the ground. No late-night sex rituals, no sacrificing small animals...


Uhm... don't take offence....but since you are an atheist (and, here, for politeness sake, I am trying to adjust myself to your conviction), does it make any difference if you are not as you are?

I mean, you can't be serious with that personal description of yours, can you? Coz, what for? Is there any value in it? What is value anyway? there is no God...




> Prejudice is an ugly thing, bhekti


So? There is no God, remember? you say it's ugly, my companion here says it's not ugly, another companion of mine over there says it's necessary, .....

----------


## Anon22

> Uhm... don't take offence....but since you are an atheist (and, here, for politeness sake, I am trying to adjust myself to your conviction), does it make any difference if you are not as you are?
> 
> I mean, you can't be serious with that personal description of yours, can you? Coz, what for? Is there any value in it? What is value anyway? there is no God...
> 
> 
> 
> So? There is no God, remember? you say it's ugly, my companion here says it's not ugly, another companion of mine over there says it's necessary, .....



He is what he is, and he does what he believes is right. Prejudice being an ugly thing for him is an opinion. You have to remember though that peer pressure and stuff like that plays an important role in your beliefs, there may be no God, but because so many people frown upon prejudice, they teach their kids to frown upon it to, does it make it right? no, does it make it wrong? no, does it make it liked? no. Also, people fear problems and will try to avoid them as much as they can, thus most learn to respect others, making prejudice be more frowned upon. So basically, what happens is that, in this way, morals are created without there being a God.

Another thing I would like to add about morals, according to your term of morals, God created them, like laws that we should follow. What's more important though, the fact that he exists, or the fact that we believe in him? As long as we believe in him, the morals are still there, and even if we don't, there will still be the "preferred" morals.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Uhm... don't take offence....but since you are an atheist (and, here, for politeness sake, I am trying to adjust myself to your conviction), does it make any difference if you are not as you are?
> 
> I mean, you can't be serious with that personal description of yours, can you? Coz, what for? Is there any value in it? What is value anyway? there is no God...
> 
> So? There is no God, remember? you say it's ugly, my companion here says it's not ugly, another companion of mine over there says it's necessary, .....


Aye, there is value in it. I may not believe in a God, but I believe in goodness to others. My creed in life, since it obviously is not to serve God, is 


> To do my best to bring about the optimal balance of my health/happiness/well-being and the health/happiness/well-being of others.


Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

Did you just tell me that my beliefs are ludicrous, worthless, and empty, then ask me not to take offense?

Personally, I think that it is somewhat selfish (albeit natural) for a person to think that there is no purpose to life if there's no afterlife to work for. Regardless of what personal concern (or ego, depending on whom you ask) would tell us, the world continues beyond our passing. It is thusly that I hope to leave an impression--by seeking make the lives of those around me better and more pleasant. One does not have to believe in a god to understand the concepts of pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.

In addition, it is based on this that I can say that prejudice is an ugly thing--it attempts to portray me and those like me as less of a person because of what I believe. To me, it equates to you sacrificing my contentment for your personal self-satisfaction at having struck a blow against us heathens. Your actions thus go against my beliefs as my existence apparently goes against yours.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.


You really should try a wanton orgy sometime. Tell me your well-being is detrimented afterwards if you can.  :Wink:

----------


## Stanislaw

even if people are atheist they can lead a good life, because they want to be curtiouse to others in a hope that other will be curtiouse to them...

I think if everyone just respected the others beliefs this world would be a happier place.  :Cool:

----------


## bhekti

> .... You have to remember though that peer pressure and stuff like that plays an important role in your beliefs, there may be no God, but because so many people frown upon prejudice, they teach their kids to frown upon it to, does it make it right? no, does it make it wrong? no, does it make it liked? no. Also, people fear problems and will try to avoid them as much as they can, thus most learn to respect others, making prejudice be more frowned upon. So basically, what happens is that, in this way, morals are created without there being a God.


I see that there is a God there in your system of thought when you are thinking about moral. It's the "peer", the "so many people", the social. And, one characteristic of this God is that it creates moral out of fear. (Facism?)




> .... Another thing I would like to add about morals, according to your term of morals, God created them, like laws that we should follow. What's more important though, the fact that he exists, or the fact that we believe in him? As long as we believe in him, the morals are still there, and even if we don't, there will still be the "preferred" morals.


There _is_ a Godless moral. Such a moral can indeed be the "preferred" moral (and, I think it _is_ most "preferred" today). But, it leads to nowhere but the depreciation of its subjects. There is something of the persons of those who profess this moral that has to be died down ( is this sentence correct? please forgive my english). Such moral corrupts something, making the persons professing it repress something of their natural endowment. But, of course, this repression will not be admitted because what becomes most important is the Godless aspect. In other words, for these persons any kinds of morals will do as long as there is no God.

----------


## bhekti

> You really should try a wanton orgy sometime. Tell me your well-being is detrimented afterwards if you can.


There you go, Robin.  :Tongue:

----------


## Logos

> Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.


Wanton orgies are great I highly recommend, especially when they bring the dim sum carts around at regular intervals PHOAR!  :FRlol:

----------


## Stanislaw

> Wanton orgies are great I highly recommend, especially when they bring the dim sum carts around at regular intervals PHOAR!



Did I hear someone mention wanton orgies? And no one invited me!  :Mad:  

 :Biggrin:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Well, since everyone's set on having a wanton orgy  :Rolleyes: , what say we all travel over to Stan's ship? Plenty of rum and room below-decks...

----------


## beer good

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

----------


## bhekti

> Aye, there is value in it. I may not believe in a God, but I believe in goodness to others. My creed in life, since it obviously is not to serve God, is 
> Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.


"Goodness to others", "Well-being" are principles, or elements of a principle. What is the origin of these principle? It is God. So, God is the embodiment of principles without which human life is impossible, both in physical and moral realms.




> Did you just tell me that my beliefs are ludicrous, worthless, and empty, then ask me not to take offense?


Ludicrous? No. Worthless and empty? consequently. (please don't take offence. forgive my language. I factually don't know how to put it into more polite phrase)




> To me, it equates to you sacrificing my contentment for your personal self-satisfaction at having struck a blow against us heathens. Your actions thus go against my beliefs as my existence apparently goes against yours.


No, i don't mean that way. I'm really sorry Robin.

----------


## Anon22

> I see that there is a God there in your system of thought when you are thinking about moral. It's the "peer", the "so many people", the social. And, one characteristic of this God is that it creates moral out of fear. (Facism?)






> There _is_ a Godless moral. Such a moral can indeed be the "preferred" moral (and, I think it _is_ most "preferred" today). But, it leads to nowhere but the depreciation of its subjects. There is something of the persons of those who profess this moral that has to be died down ( is this sentence correct? please forgive my english). Such moral corrupts something, making the persons professing it repress something of their natural endowment. But, of course, this repression will not be admitted because what becomes most important is the Godless aspect. In other words, for these persons any kinds of morals will do as long as there is no God.


Or in other words, the morals aren't the same anymore because something in them dies (faith in a god is a lot different than faith in no god), and thus one of the reasons why I am not completely aetheistic, I really don't want to give up such a thing. Imagine a world where everybody was aetheistic, I know that that's not necessarily a bad thing, but everytime I see my grandmother talk about God... her eyes shine with knowledge and certainty of his existence. It's faith, a really strong faith, and I don't really want to give that up (besides, with faith comes hope, and with hope may come fortitude and optimism). Deep down I know that God doesn't exist, and this I am certain of, nevertheless, I believe in him as if he existed. Seems odd? I guess it's just something you have to experience. Perhaps there is a God though, but if there is, he's not what we would expect him to be, he's not going be a ruler, and would just simply be to life, what the Grim Reaper is to death, and it's good enough for me.




> The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?


As I said earlier before, God isn't the one creating the morals, it's the belief in him that does it, as long as we believe in him, the morals will remain, regardless of whether he exists or not. Also the wanting to be kind to others will stop us from commiting murder, raping and stuff. Friends are an amazing thing and I don't want to lose that, and thus I know that that will prevent me from commiting such things whether god is or isn't. Remember that love for others will still exist.




> But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Well, the "you can't be serious" implies that you think my principles laughable--i.e., ludicrous.

And I disagree that principles inherently originate with God. The principle of pain = bad, pleasure = good is instinctive and coincides with either science or religion (whichever you prefer). This, combined with the empathy derived from sentience and status as a social creature (that's a mouthful), establishes the beginnings of my mission statement (as stated previously).

----------


## Theshizznigg

> No, I haven't--poetry isn't my preferred category for reading, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'll look into it.
> 
> Don't laugh, but I think Michael Crichton's _The Lost World_ makes an interesting point regarding the nature of evolution. What happens it that the Velociraptors that have been cloned exhibit behaviors that are nothing like the hunters of today, and probably nothing like the hunters of prehistory.
> 
> For example, when they make a kill, all ages of raptor leap into the fray to feed, without any form of hierarchy based on rank or sex. If one raptor is contesting the meal against another, it is liable to be disemboweled and then added to the menu.
> 
> The reason for this is because, when the Velociraptors were cloned, only their GENETIC blueprint was copied. Any form of social hierarchy that existed in raptor "culture" was lost when they went extinct, and with it any rituals or practices (such as feeding patterns) that kept them orderly. Other group predators by comparison, like lions, undergo no such chaos after hunting.
> 
> So, the question is, when humans replaced the family/group structure that exists in other branches of the primate tree with a counter-evolutionary thought pattern, how did they manage to survive? For example, I was thinking about poisonous mushrooms earlier in the day (I haven't the faintest idea why). How is it that humans have to be formally educated in which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous, yet wild animals manage just fine without posters or the New York Public Library Desk Reference? Or take all of those abominable commercials for Viagra and comparable drugs--if the condition being treated is so serious and epidemic that it merits medical research to fix, how is it that we managed for the past 40,000 years as a species?



I would absolutely love to experiment with the aspects of humanity. See if humans could be manipulated into certain thinking, or if they could be completely co-existent without the traditions passed on by humanity.

The only problem with this, is that it would be considered by many as, a person playing God, because he is subjecting his fellow humans to different tests, and therefor manipulating the social, religious, mental hierachy that has existed since human creation. 

Thus such subjecting becomes a human rights issue, because under the microscope it would be considered immoral to try and raise humans to think differently, or act differently of society. 

From a clearly interesting point of view, it would be interesting to see if a human removed from all obligations of religion/social teachings would indeed be able to adequitely exist in a pure state of atheism, or would indeed try to find some form of spiritual connection. 

I also think it would be interesting to study, subversive, or repressed genological memories, and the modest role they play in the shaping of the human mind. 
Since I think that those genetical memories, (something caused by great trauma/joy or shock) that so affected Adam and his descendants could very well be laying in the more dormant part of the human brain, and thus affect the reason that the human race has a singular set of moral values which seems to be bastardized by several forms of belief or religion. 

This is not an unfounded realization, since we share our parents genetic makeup, and there parents before them, we could also inherit through our genetics, memories of past family members. 

Still this is all for time and science, and it would seem that as we answer another question of the mind, another ten suddenly crop up to take its place.

"Do you come here often?"

Esquire Hanza

----------


## Whifflingpin

Getting to God is like climbing to the top of a mountain. Each religion is like a stream running down the mountain. So follow the stream up. You could leave the stream, but you might get lost. You could find a different stream, but it might be hard. But, if you try hard enough, you come to a place on the mountain that is higher than all the streams, and then you have to go on without one.

Of course, many people by the stream think only of its refreshing qualities, so they picnic in a pretty spot, and there they stop.  :Yawnb:  

Atheists, perhaps, are those who do not care for streams. There is nothing to stop them from going up the mountain, but maybe no reason why they should, especially as it is cold  :Cold:  and clouded. They look down on the picniccers, and say, "no thanks - keep your cool refreshing water, we've got our own bottles of brandy."  :Cool:  They look at those climbing beside the streams and say that there is no point in going up to a land of cloud and ice, and they laugh "look at all those climbers, they can't even agree on which stream is best." Not surprising, since many of the climbers are wasting their efforts  :Smash:  on trying to call to climbers in different streams, to tell them they are going the wrong way.

Agnostics wander near the streams, not daring to walk far away, but not daring to get their feet wet either.  :Bawling:  

 :FRlol:

----------


## ThatIndividual

That was certainly interesting.

----------


## beer good

Whifflingpin: Well put, but you forgot to mention that those of us who choose to stay down on the plains have had hot and cold running water and indoor plumbing for the last 150 years or so... plus, we took a helicopter ride to the top once and didn't find anything there!  :Brow:

----------


## Scheherazade

*Wifflingpin*> What happens if you reach the top and realise that the journey has not been worth it?

*Beer_Good*>That was my first reaction as well when I read Whiffling's post!  :Biggrin:  

What if someone prefers the valleys or the plains?

And how does the saying 'You can take the girl/boy out of valley but you cannot take the valley out of her/him.' saying fit into all this?  :Wink:

----------


## Stanislaw

Stanislaw Lem once said something that I feel is perfect for this ocasion:
"Once you have reached the top, you realize that every road leads down"



Maybe people are just irational?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

There's nothing at the top but a view of what you're missing being up there!

So come on all you stream followers, follow them _down_ the hill. It's an easier trek, and I can promise you a beach at the end of the trip! With Ice-cream!  :FRlol:

----------


## Whifflingpin

God is like an ocean. Each religion is like a stream running down to the sea. So follow the stream down. You could leave the stream, but you might get lost. You could find a different stream, but it might be hard. But, eventually, whatever stream you follow, you reach the ocean.

Of course, many people by the stream think only of its refreshing qualities, so they picnic in a pretty spot, and there they stop. 

Atheists, perhaps, are those who do not care for streams. There is nothing to stop them from going down to the sea, but maybe no reason why they should, especially as it is deep and maybe full of monsters. They look down on the picniccers, and say, "no thanks - keep your cool refreshing water, we've got our own bottles of brandy." They look at those going down the streams and say that there is no point in going down to a place of mud and seaweed, and they laugh "look at all those bumblers, they can't even agree on which stream is best." Not surprising, since many of the travellers are wasting their efforts on trying to call to travellers in different streams, to tell them they are going the wrong way.

Agnostics wander near the streams, not daring to walk far away, but not daring to get their feet wet either.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Some streams reach lakes and go no further, some turn into foetid swampland, some get culverted and end up behind dams getting pumped into reservoirs - which religions are they? Care to expand?  :Wink: 

But a nice switcheroo, nevertheless - respect!

----------


## ThatIndividual

Whiffling, as much as I have enjoyed your allegorical representations of the almighty, they are becoming magnificently redundant. 

However, worry ye not, for I bestow unto thee a dancing banana. 

 :Banana:  

(In fact, god is_ like_ a dancing banana. Indeed! He is, indeed! Ever mocking his own human creations, he is _himself_ a silly reminder of our origin; of our _being_ as apes on enormous ego trips.)

Behold! I give ye! ..........

the dancing banana:  :Banana:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

ThatIndividual,

I think you may be on to something there. It is obvious to me now that my banana allergy only began when I became an atheist!

Perhaps if I were to embrace religion again, I would be able to enjoy bananas once more!

On second thoughts, I never liked bananas _that_ much.  :Wink:

----------


## ThatIndividual

You know that's funny... now that you mention it, I am also mildly allergic to bananas. they give me a dreadful stomach ache (like no other food.)

I am, however, not an atheist. (Takes far too much faith to be an atheist!)

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I think there's anough for a thesis here.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?


yeah, that's a good point.
I've been a filthy heathen all my life and weathered 13 years of Religious Education completeyl unscathed.
But on the other hand, i've always tried to be a good person. even in primary school my teacher said how helpful and considerate I was towards the other kids... lots of times I just feel I want to help people and there's no real motivation behind it.. I'm not some kind of goody-goody preacher who tells everybody that being altruistic is a good thing.. it's just something I do and I don't even care if people will help me in return or will be grateful or whatever...
well, hehe, i voted dunno, because I certainly don't believe in the kind of god most Christian denominations would have us believe in. but on the other hand I also believe there's more to human life than just material things or the laws of natural sciences...
--> so, what does that make me (apart from a rambling bore?  :Wink:  )

----------


## Anon22

Agnostic or something... not sure... lol anyhow, here's the reason I don't like believing in a God. Even though I loved seeing my Grandma believe in him and everything... it was just marvelous, the reason I don't really like believing in a God is pretty much the same reason. Now this is just one reason, and it's not too major, and as a matter a fact its not even something you have to do. Basically it's putting faith in him, that everything will turn out fine, that everything will turn out spectacular, but the reason I don't want to do that, is simply because it feels sort of like "as long as there is a God and you believe in him nothing bad will happen" or somewhere along those lines, which isn't necessarily true. Well... basically what I don't really like is the fact that it's not you... it's not coming from you... it's not "I know it will happen", it's "I know it will happen because God is with me"... ok... having God with you is good but... I'd rather take the "I know it will happen" because it's just a stronger certainty... it's coming from me, and it's a true feeling... it's not just because God exists, it's just because it simply is and shall be, it's trusting myself, and not God, to make sure that everything will be alright, to know that everything will be alright and with the belief in God, that sort of loses it's quality and uniqueness or something... it kind of feels as if we're in despair and the only reason there's hope is because of God or something... or perhaps... I'm just rambling or something... O.o I don't know.

----------


## Theshizznigg

I absolutely love the first, or maybe its the third Gymnopedies.
I quite enjoy classical music. 
have you ever listen to Faure's Pavane.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I prefer the gnossiennes personally, they have a deliciously melancholy tinge to them. If you're ever in Normandy, go and visit Erik Satie's house in Honfleur. It's been converted into a bizarre, surrealist museum. There is quite honestly nowhere quite like it.

----------


## Oceallaigh

I believe that there is no god for the same reason that I do not believe in the existance of fairies. It is merely a matter of common sense.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?
> 
> But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.


The idea as you stated it does sound silly, but it's not incorrect. Correctly stated, the position is more like this: in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding? A law established by a Divine Being carries authority that overrides human dysfunction and "preferrence." Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.

No - the absence of faith does not mean that the Christian becomes a socio/psychopath; it simply means that the stable, unchanging nature of morality is gone, and I am now free to decide what kind of moral framework I wish to exist within. That's only a good thing if I am a "good" being - but what if I'm not?

Nothing wrong with "living the good life" as long as your idea of "good" doesn't deprive me of my rights and freedoms.




> I believe that there is no god for the same reason that I do not believe in the existance of fairies. It is merely a matter of common sense.


Only under your definition of "common sense." We who believe in God call our view "common sense" as well - so perhaps you've got an argument that differs from mine?

----------


## metal134

> in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding?


That's very simple: because we need it to be that way. Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.




> Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.


But it already _is_ that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I disagree with the contention that "humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work." 

Animal populations have known this intuitively for years, at least insofar as primate social structures are concerned. The only thing that really happened along the line was that humans started to question why this was the case.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's very simple: because we need it to be that one.


That doesn't make it binding beyond _mutual agreement_. Once another party decides to not agree, to what do we appeal to bring them back into line beyond sheer force? And how can we even "bring them back into line" if law was merely what we agreed it was? I'm not arguing that human-constructed laws have no power; I'm well aware of their necessity and that - in general - human law does a decent job of governing things. However: for much of history human law was constructed under the umbrella of Divine Law - and as such, human law held more authority - and authority is the real issue I'm talking about. Human law works, yes - but its authority is questionable because it is open to revision and rejection in ways that Divine Law is not - hence making Divine Law ultimately more stable.




> Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.


"Somewhere along the line"? That's kind of vague. And why should they figure out that these particular things - murder, rape, etc - are bad? To what standard were they appealing when they "quickly figured out" that these things were bad? Why _should_ (not why _are_) these things be considered immoral at all?





> But it already _is_ that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.


No. Your response does not work because it is only radical Islam extremists who believe killing in the name of God is OK. Christianity and Islam do not radically differ in how they believe followers ought to behave to each other. The real problem is not between religions, but cultures. Once there is no larger framework that transcends human law that we can appeal to, we now have to allow genocide, slavery, female genital mutilation, child sex workers - you name it, because who are we to question the laws of another culture? You can't see that trap?

----------


## metal134

You're only making one religious comparision; it's not just Christians and Muslims. There is Judaism, Buddhist, Hindu, Janism, Taosim, etc. and while there are basic values across the board; don't murder, don't steal, etc., there is no shortage on issues of morality that are disagreed upon.
And why did they figure out that those things are bad? Because it meant chaos. If you allow others to murder at will, then you could be murdered, so peopled agreed that anyone who murders will be punished, therefore protecting each other. It's in my best interest to say murder is bad because if I say murder isn't bad, then I could be murdered. I have studied ethics in college and believe me, there are many theories on the origins of morality that work every bit as well as religion. Egotism, utilitarianism, relativism, etc. I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

----------


## JGL57

I am an atheist. I used to be a southern Baptist. I defy anyone to demonstrate that that is not an improvement.  :FRlol:

----------


## Wintermute

Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg. I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.

----------


## Silvia

I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit. 
I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.


I don't believe my posts indicated anything of the kind. Morality _can_ exist without religion - I've never argued otherwise. My point is simply about _authority_. The only point I keep sticking on is the authority _behind_ the law. That $20 bill in your pocket is - by itself - worthless; it is only the guarantee of the US mint that makes it worth something - the authority _behind_ the piece of paper gives it value. If you knew that the local judge would dismiss your case in your favor for that $20 bill, how seriously would you take the police? A bad, simplified example, but I think you get the point: it is not the police who are so powerful but the authority behind them. Sure: you can flee a cop, argue with one, assault and even kill one - but the authority behind that badge means that you have now brought a force to bear against yourself that will bring you to justice. My contention is that morality without a Divine Figure behind it (note that I did not say "religion") who establishes the "rules of conduct" is simply a man-made construction; as such, it cannot claim any authority over other men than what it can - by force - enforce. But if I create a bigger force, then I'm right - right? Why should the decisions of other men restrict _my_ ideas as to what is "right" or "wrong"? Divine Law means that humanity cannot override what is "right" or "wrong" in favor of personal bias or just plain cultural wierdness because a Being _beyond_ humanity (and, therefore, we assume, _smarter_ than humanity) created that law.

----------


## metal134

I don't buy _that_ for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I don't buy _that_ for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.



Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) _we_ have invested it with that power (which means _we_ can also _divest_ it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules. 

"Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?

----------


## metal134

You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they _might_ happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther _is_ a divine influence.

----------


## JGL57

> Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) _we_ have invested it with that power (which means _we_ can also _divest_ it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules. 
> 
> "Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?


Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.
As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.

What in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they _might_ happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther _is_ a divine influence.



Well, metal134, how would _you_ know _why_ I'm saying what I say? Only God would know such a thing (and maybe me, if I'm thinking before I'm speaking  :Smile:  ). Your attempt to reduce my belief to a "security blanket" (and thus trivialize it) doesn't change the validity of my point.

What do you mean "possibilities"? Those behaviors occur in reality RIGHT NOW. And, without a higher moral law to appeal to ither than cultural agreement, on what basis do you condemn those behaviors?

----------


## JGL57

> Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg. I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.





> I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
> When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit. 
> I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
> I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
> Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...


I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.

Is that ok?  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.


Right. I have no argument with this - what have I posted that indicates I don't agree with this?




> As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.


Yeah.




> in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?


I understand it just fine. What do you think I don't get? My disagreement isn't based on confusion - it's based on a _different opinion than yours_. Do _you_ understand _that_?

Neither you nor metal have answered my question: how do we interact with societies that condone behavior that we believe to be immoral? What gives us the right to "intervene" if their vision of morality is equally as valuable as ours (since both are human-created)? Deal with my argument rather than act as if I don't get your points. I get them fine.

----------


## metal134

But I've already made the point that it IS that way. Christain morals and laws are different from Buddists. Buddist morals and laws are different from Taoists. Taoists are different than Muslims. You're making it seems as if there currently is one unifying standard of withics across cultures. There isn't. You ask how, if there was moral ambiguity across cultures how we would deal with it. There alreasy IS moral ambiguity across cultures and we already DO have to do with it. If there is a divine authority as to what is moral and what is not, then how do you exlain the differences in ethics that ALREADY exist across cultures and religions.

----------


## Wintermute

> I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.
> 
> Is that ok?


Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But I've already made the point that it IS that way. Christain morals and laws are different from Buddists. Buddist morals and laws are different from Taoists. Taoists are different than Muslims. You're making it seems as if there currently is one unifying standard of withics across cultures. There isn't. You ask how, if there was moral ambiguity across cultures how we would deal with it. There alreasy IS moral ambiguity across cultures and we already DO have to do with it. If there is a divine authority as to what is moral and what is not, then how do you exlain the differences in ethics that ALREADY exist across cultures and religions.


I'm not arguing how things _are_; I'm arguing that our lack of a transcendant standard reduces the authority of humanly-constructed "morality." The current existence of "moral ambiguity" validates my position: since all standards are "equal" then we are in the sticky position of having to condemn behaviors without having a standard to appeal to that the other culture will acknowledge as having authority. I'm speaking hypothetically: I'm not so much saying we _have_ to have a divine law as much as I'm saying that our current difficulties are largely due to the fact that we don't have one. That's all.

----------


## kilted exile

> we are in the sticky position of having to condemn behaviors without having a standard to appeal to that the other culture will acknowledge as having authority.


Ok, this part interests me. Why would we assume that they would acknowledge the divine authority that they do not believe in, or follow. Surely if they were willing to acknowledge that authority they would already be ascribing to those principles?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok, this part interests me. Why would we assume that they would acknowledge the divine authority that they do not believe in, or follow. Surely if they were willing to acknowledge that authority they would already be ascribing to those principles?


OK - I probably need to shut up now because I must not be making any sense because people don't seem to understand what I'm saying. My post indicated that I'm speaking _hypothetically_. I'm simply trying to point out some of the pitfalls of extracting morality out from the context of Divine Law. If we accept that a Being of INFINITELY greater intelligence established guidelines for life then we have a "frame" within which to judge/evaluate human behavior - a "frame" based on the acceptance that the Divine Being _knows better than I_ about what is right/wrong, good/evil. Once we eliminate a transcendent law that is above and beyond human bias/preferrence, we now have difficulties in moderating/judging conflicts between cultures. I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.

----------


## JGL57

> Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.


As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists". 

I see that as a distinction without a difference. E.g.:

1. I have no belief in leprechauns. 
2. I also believe that no leprachauns exists.


Does sentence #2 above add information that either clarifies or contradicts anything is #1? No, I don't think so. It's the difference between saying "John's house is white" or "The white house is John's".

----------


## JGL57

> ...I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.


Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?

Yes, that would be a great benefit, but I don't think that is ever going to happen, so I don't worry about it much, one way or the other.

There may be a god, but there is no evidence of such, so the fact that it would be of great benefit if it did is of little consequence.

Somehow I must muddle along without my dreamed of one billion dollars and likewise humans must muddle along and make their own way, find a way to organize societies and live in peace without the dreamed of source of absolute morality that you find so fascinating.

If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?

----------


## RobinHood3000

It's more like a difference between statements like

1. I don't promote war.
2. I believe in pacifism.

One is passive, the other active. There is a difference, however subtle.

----------


## metal134

> OK - I probably need to shut up now because I must not be making any sense because people don't seem to understand what I'm saying. My post indicated that I'm speaking _hypothetically_. I'm simply trying to point out some of the pitfalls of extracting morality out from the context of Divine Law. If we accept that a Being of INFINITELY greater intelligence established guidelines for life then we have a "frame" within which to judge/evaluate human behavior - a "frame" based on the acceptance that the Divine Being _knows better than I_ about what is right/wrong, good/evil. Once we eliminate a transcendent law that is above and beyond human bias/preferrence, we now have difficulties in moderating/judging conflicts between cultures. I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.


No we understand perfectly. The issue here is that you say because of said hypothetical, then it must be divine law. Just because the absence of divine law means moral ambiguty doesn't mean that divine law exists. That's the pitfall. You're saying that because x might mean y, then z has to be true. Well, I'm saying that maybe x does mean y.l

----------


## yingqiee

JGL57: The metaphor you have used is flawed. You have already assumed God to be non-existent.



> If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?


You cannot prove that God is non-existent.

----------


## kilted exile

> You cannot prove that God is non-existent.


And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can

----------


## Wintermute

> As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists". 
> 
> I see that as a distinction without a difference. E.g.:
> 
> 1. I have no belief in leprechauns. 
> 2. I also *believe* that no leprachauns exists.
> 
> 
> Does sentence #2 above add information that either clarifies or contradicts anything is #1? No, I don't think so. It's the difference between saying "John's house is white" or "The white house is John's".


I guess my only point was that you believe something. Assuming theat belief implies certainty, a belief that something exists is not much different from believing that it doesn't. If belief does not equal certainty, then I retract my statement. 8-)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?


Was that supposed to be a serious comparison? Intellectual debate becomes very difficult when one's opponent is either unwilling or unable to even try and see the other person's point-of-view.




> Yes, that would be a great benefit, but I don't think that is ever going to happen, so I don't worry about it much, one way or the other.


OK - but just because one doesn't "_think_" something "is ever going to happen" does not mean that it cannot or willnot. 




> There may be a god, but there is no evidence of such, so the fact that it would be of great benefit if it did is of litter consequence.


Only if you're correct. 

I'm so tired of the "no evidence" argument about God. There are plenty of firm beliefs that people base their ideas of reality on that they have never actually had "proven" to them - they've been told by a book or a person that such-and-such is true, but that's not personal verification. I doubt your life is based on a ruthless commitment to believe only that which is "scientifically" proven to you through "evidence." _Please_.




> Somehow I must muddle along without my dreamed of one billion dollars and likewise humans must muddle along and make their own way, find a way to organize societies and live in peace without the dreamed of source of absolute morality that you find so fascinating.
> 
> If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?


Very entertaining - but you really didn't offer any substantial answer to my post. Could you address my argument, please?




> No we understand perfectly. The issue here is that you say because of said hypothetical, then it must be divine law. Just because the absence of divine law means moral ambiguty doesn't mean that divine law exists. That's the pitfall. You're saying that because x might mean y, then z has to be true. Well, I'm saying that maybe x does mean y.l


No I didn't. I did not imply any causal relationship. You're flipping my argument around and drawing a conclusion I did not suggest. I'll try again. I'm suggesting what the absence of Divine Law leads to: our current moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity may result in trivial conflicts, but at some point - even if that point right now seems remote and incredible - at some point something somewhere will be offered up that you and/or your culture will object to, and object strongly. I am simply telling you that the lack of a transcendant moral law means that we are now on very unstable and virtually undefendable ground when it comes to condemning certain practices - especially if committed by another culture. What's so confusing about that?

----------


## ennison

'What's so confusing about that?'
Pretty straightforward. Nothing confusing at all.

----------


## bluevictim

> I'm suggesting what the absence of Divine Law leads to: our current moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity may result in trivial conflicts, but at some point - even if that point right now seems remote and incredible - at some point something somewhere will be offered up that you and/or your culture will object to, and object strongly. I am simply telling you that the lack of a transcendant moral law means that we are now on very unstable and virtually undefendable ground when it comes to condemning certain practices - especially if committed by another culture.


 I guess it's hard to discuss religion with strangers because everyone comes to the table with so much baggage that it takes several rounds before people start understanding each other. I'll probably regret jumping in, but here goes:

I think your line of thought is pretty reasonable. If you'll allow me to try to paraphrase in my own words, it runs something like this:

Without something or someone divine to hand you a moral law, any theory of morality will logically amount to might makes right.

I more or less agree here, but I also get the impression that you feel this theoretical moral ambiguity is a relatively new phenomenon. If we simplify things and just focus on the Christianized West, it sounds like you feel a new moral ambiguity is rising because the West has abandoned it's traditional belief in God-given authority. This may well be true, but (IMO) I don't think it is much different than the previously existing moral ambiguity resulting from the difficulty of determining what the divine moral law is. Should the laymen simply accept what the clergy says is right and wrong? Do the Papists have it right, or are the Schismatics the true followers of God? Rome or Constantinople? Practically speaking, the world has always operated according to the principle of might makes right (IMO, again).

I offer these thoughts in the hope that some of them can fuel a more productive discussion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Without something or someone divine to hand you a moral law, any theory of morality will logically amount to might makes right.
> 
> I more or less agree here, but I also get the impression that you feel this theoretical moral ambiguity is a relatively new phenomenon. If we simplify things and just focus on the Christianized West, it sounds like you feel a new moral ambiguity is rising because the West has abandoned it's traditional belief in God-given authority. This may well be true, but (IMO) I don't think it is much different than the previously existing moral ambiguity resulting from the difficulty of determining what the divine moral law is. Should the laymen simply accept what the clergy says is right and wrong? Do the Papists have it right, or are the Schismatics the true followers of God? Rome or Constantinople? Practically speaking, the world has always operated according to the principle of might makes right (IMO, again).
> 
> I offer these thoughts in the hope that some of them can fuel a more productive discussion.


Thank you for a balanced response - such a refreshing thing around this thread. It's not that I think moral ambiguity is "new" but I do believe that the effects of postmodernism has taken the moral ambiguity present in the world and accelerated it to a new and scary height. Whereas in the past we might have some qualms about moral conflicts between culture, now we are virtually paralyzed because postmoderism "flattens" all belief systems into a false equality, where _all_ cultural views are accepted as _equally_ valid, despite their moral problems. That is a fairly recent (20thC) view - a view that has been exacerbated in American culture by the immense well-spring of guilt we collectively possess as a by-product of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Our postmodern culture posits the idea that we are to "accept" all views, cultures, religions and views as equally valid and equally worthy of respect (except Christianity, it seems). So, yes, moral ambiguity is not new, but the severe "levelling" of all systems of belief is.

----------


## bluevictim

> It's not that I think moral ambiguity is "new" but I do believe that the effects of postmodernism has taken the moral ambiguity present in the world and accelerated it to a new and scary height. Whereas in the past we might have some qualms about moral conflicts between culture, now we are virtually paralyzed because postmoderism "flattens" all belief systems into a false equality, where _all_ cultural views are accepted as _equally_ valid, despite their moral problems. That is a fairly recent (20thC) view - a view that has been exacerbated in American culture by the immense well-spring of guilt we collectively possess as a by-product of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Our postmodern culture posits the idea that we are to "accept" all views, cultures, religions and views as equally valid and equally worthy of respect (except Christianity, it seems). So, yes, moral ambiguity is not new, but the severe "levelling" of all systems of belief is.


What's interesting, of course, is that the political side of postmodernism is fueled in no small part by attitudes like my own, that 'the world has always operated on the principle of might makes right'.

One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about diatribes against postmodernism is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in addressing the issues that postmodernism is a reaction to. I think that perhaps this frustration is, in part, behind comments like, "Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?" Postmodernism is a reaction to a lot of difficulties that arose out of modernism. Yes, a belief in our own divine correctness made it easier for us to justify our actions, some of which are hurtful to other people. Unfortunately, we have run against some major difficulties in trying to prove our own divine correctness. Even according to our own traditional belief system, we have to account for the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken.

This brings up the idea of proof. In fact, I think postmodernism is strongly related to 20th century developments in logic which exposed major problems with the Enlightenment trust in the power of reason. This probably isn't the place to discuss that, though.

Anyways, you may be right to find the postmodern culture scary. If history is any indication, it may indicate the beginnings of the fall of our empire. However, I'm not sure it's possible to go back.

----------


## kilted exile

Ok, firstly I do not believe there has much disrespect towards christianity (or anyone elses beliefs) over the last few pages. Perhaps my comment about not being able to prove I can not make myself invisible was out of order, however it was in direct relation to a previous comment about not being able to prove god does not exist: Proof of the existence or otherwise of any supernatural being is impossible, I'll find out when I die - it is solely a matter of belief, I do not believe such a thing exists this surely shouldn't impact anyone else's faith in the same way that people believing in a god figure has no impact on mine. It has no place in this debate, but if people post about not being able to prove non-existence they must accept that there will be a response.

There has however, been response made to posts, questioning the exact meaning/origin of the idea, together with putting forward our own beliefs on the subject (which have been treated by the believers in the same manner as we have treated theirs). This has been done for the most part in a respectful manner.

Now, that is out of the way on to my main reason for posting (bullet posted for quickness):

- I believe being a fellow human being this gives me the right to criticise what I find to be unethical and proffers me the voice to do it.


- This is not to say however that if I criticise the culture of another culture/country that they are required to change their practices to suit my beliefs as to what is right or wrong. An example would be gay marriage, I believe it is unethical to deny homosexuals the right to marry - however I respect that the church & I are ideologically opposed on this issue and if they do not wish to recognise/carry out these ceremonies that is their decision and they are free to not comply if they wish not to.

- Where this relates to practices where it brings harm(of any kind) to another unwilling person, the perpetrator forgoes their right to participate within the society - where this relates to foreign countries, I believe that international organisations are the place to decide these cases.

- I actually believe that moral relativism is a good thing, as I have said on another thread I am glad we no longer accept some of the things which were thought to be Ok in the past.

----------


## Logos

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!  athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves.  )
> 
> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...


Wow, talk about topic drift. Nothing wrong with it but.. this is friendly mod note to all that just because someone doesn't agree with you or believe the same thing(s) doesn't mean they're being disrespectful or not allowed to express their perspective/opinion etc.

.
.
.

----------


## JGL57

> I guess my only point was that you believe something. Assuming that belief implies certainty, a belief that something exists is not much different from believing that it doesn't. If belief does not equal certainty, then I retract my statement. 8-)


No, belief does not equal certainty - unless it is supernatural (theistic) belief associated with organized religion. That is, one hardly hears of the existence of an agnostic Christian or an agnostic Muslim. Followers of theistic organized religion are dogmatists generally by definition (though, admittedly the rare agnostic theist does exist, similar to the white rhinoceros).  :Wink:  

Atheists, on the other hand, are much more diverse. My proof? - well, besides meeting and talking to several dozen over the years, and interacting with many, many atheists on line over the years, I posted two polls regarding atheism last year on the Internet Infidels website forum and both times about 80 per cent turned out agnostic atheists and about 20 per cent dogmatists (those willing to assert "there IS no god.").

----------


## JGL57

> JGL57: The metaphor you have used is flawed. You have already assumed God to be non-existent.
> 
> You cannot prove that God is non-existent.





> And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can


As kilted exile replied, one can never prove a universal negative - which doesn't matter because the burden of proof is on the one asserting a positive belief.

Have theists met their burden? I haven't noticed. Thus, my assumption must be 1. god is imaginary or 2. if god exists his existence is unproven, apparently non-provable, has no affect on my life, and thus "there is a god" is a trivial claim at best and a irrelevant or nonsensical claim at worst.

Another metaphor: the ball is in the theist's court.

----------


## mo_dingo

> Wow, talk about topic drift. Nothing wrong with it but.. this is friendly mod note to all that just because someone doesn't agree with you or believe the same thing(s) doesn't mean they're being disrespectful or not allowed to express their perspective/opinion etc.
> 
> .
> .
> .


:rlaugh: I was reading page after page of this and was amazed at the tangents. As often happens with threads of this nature, I suppose. 

As a 99.9% atheist I do consider myself near fundamentalism at times, because I am narrow minded. I am waiting for proof of existence; and until that happens, and argument is frivolous IMO. 

I say I am 99.9% because 100% would make me a complete fool. It wasn't so long ago that we thought the world was flat. Why should we think that anything MUST be true, even in presence of great evidence. I will never cave into any absolute; even someone saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, without a doubt.

A fool thinks he is wise; a wise man knows he is a fool. - not me.

The basis of my belief is that there is not one single thing in this world today that is conclusively supernatural. Just because we cannot explain something completely doesn't automatically make it supernatural (i.e. how the earth was created). A quote I really took to heart was "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear supernatural". I take that one further in saying "*anything* sufficiently advanced will appear supernatural".

Because in the beginning of our existence, we could not explain many things in this world, we deemed them supernatural. This spawned the idea of God, witches, etc. A final and absolute idea to explain everything in our universe. Kind of nice not needing to wonder about the world around us when you have an idea like God to explain everything, eh?

The popularity of God is due to it's widespread belief in history; The idea of an atheist back then would have got you hung. It still continues now, as no open atheist would ever have a chance to get elected president.

I believe it was Bertrand Russel who conjectured the "floating teapot". If you are not familiar, it postulates that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, so small that you could not see it with the most powerful telescope. What if everyone, in history, gave it the same attention, reverence and relentless respect that was given God? Would we still believe it? Personally, I truly think so. Just as with God, you can never disprove it, especially if you gave it the omnipotent/omniscient characteristics that God has. 

And the argument that "you cannot disprove God" holds the same weight as "you cannot disprove the floating teapot". Lack of proof leads to no logical conclusion.

A paraphrased sherlock holmes line. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." Obviously, since you can neither eliminate the idea of god's existence or lack thereof, this logic cannot apply.

I have more, but I will conclude my epic in hope that you all enjoy what I have written, and I cannot wait for your retorts.
Scott

----------


## yingqiee

> Have theists met their burden? I haven't noticed. Thus, my assumption must be 1. god is imaginary or 2. if god exists his existence is unproven, apparently non-provable, has no affect on my life, and thus "there is a god" is a trivial claim at best and a irrelevant or nonsensical claim at worst.


IMO, I believe that argument to be flawed; it can be applied both ways:

Have atheists met with their burden of asserting God does not exist? If I applied your argument, then I get this proposition which appears flawed:

"The non-existence of God is apparently non-provable, has no effect on my life, and thus "there is no God" is a trivial claim at best or nonsensical at worst."

This presents a contradiction in such an argument. Just because something cannot be proved does not mean that it is trivial or that it has no effect on our lives. I'd like to use the hackneyed analogy:

I have never in my entire life seen, felt, tasted or heard my brain. Does that mean it does not exist and that it cannot affect me? I would not like to think so.

Thus the atheist is as much a believer as the theist is; one has faith in the existence of God, the other in the non-existence of God.

----------


## yingqiee

P.S. I apologize if my previous comment about not being able to prove that God does not exist offended someone. I'm rather blunt in my writing.




> And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can


With respect to the argument about turning invisible, you raise a valid point that I also am unable to prove that God exists. However, my argument was not about proving God but rather against the argument that:

1) God cannot be proven
2)God does not exist

I think we have misunderstood each other because we are basically arguing over the same thing from a different perspective. My bad; should have been more clear.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok, firstly I do not believe there has much disrespect towards christianity (or anyone elses beliefs) over the last few pages.


If this is a response to something I said, I wasn't clear. My comments were not about this thread so much as society in general in reference to postmodernism. If you take even a quick look at the news or media publications, you'll see that there seems to be a push to tolerate all systems of belief - whether that be Islam, Buddhism, etc - but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. That was what I was referring to.

----------


## Wintermute

> If you take even a quick look at the news or media publications, you'll see that there seems to be a push to tolerate all systems of belief - whether that be Islam, Buddhism, etc - but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. That was what I was referring to.


Funny, I see exactly the opposite. Perhaps one's perspective is driven by one's preconceptions?

----------


## kilted exile

All right moving on from the respect/disrespect issue, it's a sidebar and will get us nowhere.

I have a question for anyone who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical:

If you were criticised for a practice which another culture found to be unethical, would you be willing to change that practice if the critics argued that it went against the teachings of their religion (however this is not a religion you follow)?

----------


## metal134

> but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. .


I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The problem as I see it, and I have personally run into this many times, if you say something like; "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a man", Christians take that at bashing Christianity. Since most of the overwhelmin majority of people are Christians, they don't find dismissal of other religions beliefs offensive. But I have seen many, many a Chritian become persoanlly offended by dismissal of a Chiristian belief and percieve it as oppression.

----------


## JGL57

> IMO, I believe that argument to be flawed; it can be applied both ways:
> 
> Have atheists met with their burden of asserting God does not exist? If I applied your argument, then I get this proposition which appears flawed:
> 
> "The non-existence of God is apparently non-provable, has no effect on my life, and thus "there is no God" is a trivial claim at best or nonsensical at worst."
> 
> This presents a contradiction in such an argument. Just because something cannot be proved does not mean that it is trivial or that it has no effect on our lives. I'd like to use the hackneyed analogy:
> 
> I have never in my entire life seen, felt, tasted or heard my brain. Does that mean it does not exist and that it cannot affect me? I would not like to think so.
> ...


That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard. Would it help if I said I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of a god, just like I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus or leprechauns or fire-breathing dragons on Neptune?

I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".

My disbelief in the three claimed supernatural entities mentioned about DOES NOT constitute a belief - disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.

As for your god/brain analogy, it fails on this point: If I ask you to produce your god, or even some indirect evidence for its existence, I doubt you could do it (could you?). However, if you doubt the existence of your brain, I can remove it and show it to you before you then die - ditto your heart, liver, etc.

IOW, there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.

IOW, yingqiee, let your imagination run wild - just don't expect me to take you seriously.

----------


## JGL57

> I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The problem as I see it, and I have personally run into this many times, if you say something like; "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a man", Christians take that at bashing Christianity. Since most of the overwhelmin majority of people are Christians, they don't find dismissal of other religions beliefs offensive. But I have seen many, many a Chritian become persoanlly offended by dismissal of a Chiristian belief and percieve it as oppression.


I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.

----------


## Domer121

> That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard. Would it help if I said I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of a god, just like I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus or leprechauns or fire-breathing dragons on Neptune?
> 
> I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".
> 
> My disbelief in the three claimed supernatural entities mentioned about DOES NOT constitute a belief - disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.
> 
> As for your god/brain analogy, it fails on this point: If I ask you to produce your god, or even some indirect evidence for its existence, I doubt you could do it (could you?). However, if you doubt the existence of your brain, I can remove it and show it to you before you then die - ditto your heart, liver, etc.
> 
> IOW, there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.
> ...


 I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance? 
THink about this: The parts of a sports car may be floating around the Galaxy, but without someone there to put them together how could they come about? Not simply by chance and hope that they will, in time, be put together.
And the simple fact that there are Athiest's does not disprove the existence of God, actually quite the contrary. 
"If there were no God there would be no Athiest's"
G.K CHesterton 1922

----------


## Wintermute

> I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.


I live in Georgia and agree with both of you. To suggest that the bible may not be entirely accurate is to invite ridicule and disdain. To vocalize the notion that the christian god might simply be myth of human origin feels dangerous. Sometimes I'm uncomfortable even posting in forums like this because it's entirely plausible that some religious (or atheist) zealot my come to power and use internet trails to hunt down and 'reeducate' so folks--a digital inquisition if you will. But then I think, well, if it goes that far do I really want to play anymore?

----------


## Wintermute

> I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?


Hi Domer,

As an agnostic, this is easy to answer: I dunno. 

I'm sure this has been pointed out a gazillion times in this and other forums, but the same could be said about God, no? How did God come about? Was it really just sitting in a vacuum for infinity, then 13 billion years ago decided to create a universe? Seems a little hokey to me. What created God? Who was Jesus' grandfather?

The fact that the universe appears to exist is an amazing thing. By my simple logic, there should be nothing, nada, zip. Yet here we are. Something amazing is going on. What it is I don't have a clue, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't care if I eat meat on Fridays or not.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.



There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. _Questioning_ is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.

----------


## metal134

> There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. _Questioning_ is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.


But see, the only reason this is percieve as targeting Chritianity is because it is really THE religion that is prevelent in this country; I can't say that I've had religious debates with Muslims or Jews because, quite frankly, it's almost all Christians to be found. And to be quite frank, I am dismissive of ALL organize religion because I feel very, very strongly that it is illogical. That doesn't mean I am atheist; I am open to the possibilty of a Supreme Being, heck, I even think it's probable. But I on't pretned to know. As someone said before, the burden of proof is on religion. People say, well you can disprove this or that about religious matters, but I don't get that logic. I'm more concerned with whether it can be proven than disproven.
As far as the dismissive factor; why shouldn't people be dismissive? We should all respect a person's right to have a different belief, but the belief itself is open to scrutiny. Because the fact of the matter is, with all the hundreds, nay, thousands of different belief systems on the nature of divinity and the universe, only one can be right. And naturally, if I think mine is right of course I'm going to think that everyone elses is wrong because if I am right, then everyone else IS wrong, and it goes back the other way as well.

----------


## bluevictim

> I have a question for anyone who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical:
> 
> If you were criticised for a practice which another culture found to be unethical, would you be willing to change that practice if the critics argued that it went against the teachings of their religion (however this is not a religion you follow)?


This is a good question, and hopefully one that can serve as a starting point to help clear up what everyone is trying to say. Actually, I'm not exactly sure if I qualify as someone "who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical", so I guess my answers might help to clear that up, too.

Hopefully it's ok if I simplify the question a little and assume that the practice I'm being criticized for is required by my religion (and, of course, I assume I believe wholeheartedly in the tenets of my religion). In that case, I would not change my practice.

I don't know what point you're trying to make (if you're trying to make a point at all) with this question, but I might guess it is that believing in the existence of a divine moral law doesn't add any weight to ethical criticism because here is a critic who believes in the existence of a divine moral law and yet his criticism of my behavior is not any more effective for it.

I'd like to point out, though, that my critic can prove that my practice is incorrect in his logical system, in which one of the axioms is that Zeus (say) thinks my practice is unethical, and another axiom is that Zeus is always correct.

If we make realistic assumptions about everyone's logical system (e.g., that it is true in everyone's logical system that our judgement is subject to error), I think it would be very hard to build a consistent (or at least not easily shown to be inconsistent) system without Zeus (or something very Zeus-like) in which my critic can prove that my practice is incorrect.

Like everyone else pointed out, this doesn't prove the existence of Zeus. It does allow my critic to sleep better at night after he burns me at the stake.

----------


## Domer121

> Hi Domer,
> 
> As an agnostic, this is easy to answer: I dunno. 
> 
> I'm sure this has been pointed out a gazillion times in this and other forums, but the same could be said about God, no? How did God come about? Was it really just sitting in a vacuum for infinity, then 13 billion years ago decided to create a universe? Seems a little hokey to me. What created God? Who was Jesus' grandfather?
> 
> The fact that the universe appears to exist is an amazing thing. By my simple logic, there should be nothing, nada, zip. Yet here we are. Something amazing is going on. What it is I don't have a clue, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't care if I eat meat on Fridays or not.


 
I respect your answer....I mean, there are a lot of questions out there and not a lot of answers.. I am simply saying that the rejection of a God seems, well, illogical. The way that any faith expresses themselves is up to them,whether that means not eating meat on Friday or not..I have never been able to understand the reasoning behind Athiests..But I suppose they say the same about Christians.

----------


## yingqiee

> That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard.


You can prove there are no dragons on neptune the same way that you can prove i have a liver. Yours appears to be as defective as mine. 




> I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".


Well, by the same argument that you apply faith to your disbelief, I apply faith to my belief: I have an utter lack of *disbelief* in the non-existence of this forum, in the non-existence of the world, just like I have an utter lack of disbelief in the non-existence of God. God does not exist just because you have linked the existence of God to examples of the existence of ridiculous creatures like fire-breathing dragons. If you wish to apply the philosophy of radical skepticism to belief in God, as you have just done, try applying it to your disbelief on God. Care to elaborate on why you don't have a burden of proof?




> disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.


Disbelief is still belief. Lets reduce this to well-defined propositions as present in mathematical logic. Let P be a proposition. Let not-P be the inverse of P. (1)Suppose disbelief in P is not belief. Disbelief in P would suggest a person belives in not-P because that is the inverse of P. Referring to (1), it creates a contradiction. Thus disbelief is belief of the inverse WELL-DEFINED proposition. A well-defined proposition is one in which it represents only one value, like pyramids existed in Egypt in 2006, July........




> there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.


same thing. your disbelief in God is an immaterial and invisible entity. I wont put the non existence of God as imaginary, because I cant prove that and like wise you cant prove that God is imaginary. I would also not label it as ridiculous.

In the end I believe lack of proof for the existence of something does not constitute its non existence. If someone believes or does not believe in something, its faith.

Just like I notice that many of my atheist friends have faith in the theory of evolution.

----------


## yingqiee

> I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?


That is very true. According to Professor Morowitz from Yale, evolution of just bacterium from random interactions would exceed the 15 billion year age of our universe, and the 5 billion year age of the Earth.

----------


## Guzmán

> without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?


'Evolution is faulty'. well, that is a pretty pretentious claim considering that evolution is accepted by many (if not most) biologists without the hand of God to connect its supposed faults. Perhaps you could point out those faults you talk about, as well as your sources. 




> THink about this: The parts of a sports car may be floating around the Galaxy, but without someone there to put them together how could they come about? Not simply by chance and hope that they will, in time, be put together.


Think about this: you have a disordered room, all of your stuff is lying on the floor and everything is out of its place. Now suppose you start kicking and throwing things around at random, there is a chance (though quite small) that at some point everything will become ordered, just by chance. The same way some unordered chemicals left at the mercy of the forces of nature may arrange themselves into something more complicated. YThe chance may incredibly small, however, I wonder how much beyond what you think is "common sense" you know about this topic to talk about the consecuences of probability and time. I suggest youread a little about Statistical mechanics and Statistical thermodynamics or stochastic processes before making that sort of claims about what probability may or may not do at the mercy of time.

----------


## Guzmán

> That is very true. According to Professor Morowitz from Yale, evolution of just bacterium from random interactions would exceed the 15 billion year age of our universe, and the 5 billion year age of the Earth.


Perhaps you could add some bibliography. In which paper did you find this, website, magazine, etc.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. _Questioning_ is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.


Not that I condone dismissing or snide comments on either side of the line, but I should point out that, at the base of it, many of us atheists believe what we believe because we believe that to believe otherwise contains an element of the absurd. (Tough sentence to wade through, I know, and for that I apologize.) There does come a point where to try and describe atheist beliefs in pithy and simple language is to sound offensive, particularly when speaking with people just looking for reasons to take offense.

So far, I've seen a lot of atheists make an effort to be civil, but when the occasional theist gets his/her fix of righteousness by being snide and dismissive to us and regards our arguments (however civil) as heresy, it's hard not to be a little huffy about it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Not that I condone dismissing or snide comments on either side of the line, but I should point out that, at the base of it, many of us atheists believe what we believe because we believe that to believe otherwise contains an element of the absurd.


I understand this - but Christians feel the exact same. To us, some of evolution's claims and atheist answers for this reality we wander through seem just as outlandish to us - the difference is that atheists _appear_ to have science on their side, so there's a tendency to speak to us as if were delusional madmen.




> So far, I've seen a lot of atheists make an effort to be civil, but when the occasional theist gets his/her fix of righteousness by being snide and dismissive to us and regards our arguments (however civil) as heresy, it's hard not to be a little huffy about it.


And as my post agreed, there is no shortage of obnoxious Christians out there who have a hard time according sufficient respect to their atheist opponents. Perhaps it's just me; but I have a difficult time hearing any opponent who is dismissive about my beliefs. Dismissiveness telegraphs a disdainful attitude, one that doesn't encourage open discussion, but the more hostile tone of mud-slinging. I can't imagine posting some of the things towards atheists that I get thrown at me. I lose interest in dealing with such people because I don't expect to get as fair a hearing as I 'm attempting to provide them with.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> I understand this - but Christians feel the exact same. To us, some of evolution's claims and atheist answers for this reality we wander through seem just as outlandish to us - the difference is that atheists _appear_ to have science on their side, so there's a tendency to speak to us as if were delusional madmen.


By the same token, there's also a tendency to speak to us atheists as if we were hedonistic sociopaths. ~shrug~ People are lousy sometimes.





> And as my post agreed, there is no shortage of obnoxious Christians out there who have a hard time according sufficient respect to their atheist opponents. Perhaps it's just me; but I have a difficult time hearing any opponent who is dismissive about my beliefs. Dismissiveness telegraphs a disdainful attitude, one that doesn't encourage open discussion, but the more hostile tone of mud-slinging. I can't imagine posting some of the things towards atheists that I get thrown at me. I lose interest in dealing with such people because I don't expect to get as fair a hearing as I 'm attempting to provide them with.


Agreed - thankfully, I've had the good fortune to encounter quite a few friendly and open-minded Christians (for some reason, I never get to meet other major religious sects, although based on demographic research of my school, they're a serious minority, so it's not that surprising). Of course, there have been one or two not-so-open-minded folk, but they, too, are in the minority. I'm just apprehensive about what happens when I enter the realm of adults, i.e. "people who get a lot more leeway about criticising beliefs." At least people my age have the fallback of "You're mean!! I'm telling!! ~huff~"

----------


## Redzeppelin

> People are lousy sometimes.


Amen to that, brother.





> I'm just apprehensive about what happens when I enter the realm of adults, i.e. "people who get a lot more leeway about criticising beliefs." At least people my age have the fallback of "You're mean!! I'm telling!! ~huff~"


Well, being in the realm of adults, I still don't think we should have the prerogative to be dismissive and disrespectful. As I tell my students when teaching them to argue a point, the goal is not to "conquer" your opponent but to win him/her to your side. People are more likely to hear you out if they sense you respect them.

----------


## metal134

> the difference is that atheists _appear_ to have science on their side


We don't _appear_ to have science on our side. We _do_ have science on our side.
And again, I'm not atheist, but I lump myself in that general group because I do, quite frankly (and I don't care if anyone is offended by this) find religion to be absurd. You can say to me that you find my belifs absurd, that's fine. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be absurd.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We don't _appear_ to have science on our side. We _do_ have science on our side.


So you say. 




> And again, I'm not atheist, but I lump myself in that general group because I do, quite frankly (and I don't care if anyone is offended by this) find religion to be absurd. You can say to me that you find my belifs absurd, that's fine. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be absurd.


Fine.

----------


## Lector

Metal, You would claim that you you as an atheist have science on your side? I would like to know then, scientifically how you believe that the world has come into being. As an agnostic you could easily answer that you niether know nor care, but as an atheist who claims to have science on your side I should hope that you could back that up with somthing. The way I see it science,by its very nature, has a very difficult, if not impossible task at figuring out the origin of it all. The reason I say this is that the scientific method is: 
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" -Merriam-Webster dictionary 
The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically on what basis can one believe in it? faith? And if it is faith (which I believe must be the foundation of all beliefs) then I have my choice in what I put my faith in. From what I understand the majority of people today believe either in evolution or in a divine creator. So if I believe in evolution I, in essence, believe (pardon my simplification) that somehow everything there was (we don't know where the everything came from) came together and began to spin at an incredible rate until it finaly exploded creating all the matter in the universe. From that point and in contradiction to the law of entropy, order was born and became more and more complex until here we sit today arguing about the existance of God and from this point onward who knows what will happen next.
The other option is to believe that God, a supernatural being who is beyond our comprehension for reasons we cannot fully understand created everything and here we sit.
The way I see it, both of these theories sound rather far fetched, in fact I am going to go so far as to say that, in the normal and natural realm of possiblity, both of these theories are impossible. However, one of these theories has an answer for the impossible, the theistic creationist view leaves room for the supernatural.

----------


## Guzmán

> The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically


Wrong. Evolution can and has been tested and proved scientifically, but perhaps 
you could you explain why you maintain that it cannot?

Besides, I wouldn't go around making epistemological research on a dictionary.

----------


## Guzmán

Im sorry to say that religion also has science on their side:

www.answersingenesis.com
www.leaderu.com
www.discovery.org

One of the claims against evolution by the people at answers in genesis goes a bit like:
"Oh but fossils dont come with 'age tags' on them showing their age".
I guess thats what radiocarbon dating is for, duh

----------


## Redzeppelin

> One of the claims against evolution by the people at answers in genesis goes a bit like:
> "Oh but fossils dont come with 'age tags' on them showing their age".
> I guess thats what radiocarbon dating is for, duh


Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain _assumptions_ about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain _assumptions_ in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."

----------


## JGL57

> Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain _assumptions_ about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain _assumptions_ in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."


Everything is based on assumptions except one's own consciousness, according to solipsism and Descartes’ famous dictum. And "I" think that even that may be based on a last assumption of "I", i.e., "something" thinks, therefore "something" is.

Nothing is infallible. Science has never claimed infallibility. You are confusing science with religion. Religion always claimed infallibility - all 40,000 of them.

Thus you do not understand science, Redz. Science, by the way, is self-correcting over time. Religion is not - it just claims truth, unverified and unverifiable, and just sticks with whatever it first came up with until forced to change by science, e.g., geocentricity. Science as a process or methodology makes progress in time. Religion does not.

----------


## metal134

> Metal, You would claim that you you as an atheist have science on your side? I would like to know then, scientifically how you believe that the world has come into being. As an agnostic you could easily answer that you niether know nor care, but as an atheist who claims to have science on your side I should hope that you could back that up with somthing. The way I see it science,by its very nature, has a very difficult, if not impossible task at figuring out the origin of it all. The reason I say this is that the scientific method is: 
> principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" -Merriam-Webster dictionary 
> The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically on what basis can one believe in it? faith? And if it is faith (which I believe must be the foundation of all beliefs) then I have my choice in what I put my faith in. From what I understand the majority of people today believe either in evolution or in a divine creator. So if I believe in evolution I, in essence, believe (pardon my simplification) that somehow everything there was (we don't know where the everything came from) came together and began to spin at an incredible rate until it finaly exploded creating all the matter in the universe. From that point and in contradiction to the law of entropy, order was born and became more and more complex until here we sit today arguing about the existance of God and from this point onward who knows what will happen next.
> The other option is to believe that God, a supernatural being who is beyond our comprehension for reasons we cannot fully understand created everything and here we sit.
> The way I see it, both of these theories sound rather far fetched, in fact I am going to go so far as to say that, in the normal and natural realm of possiblity, both of these theories are impossible. However, one of these theories has an answer for the impossible, the theistic creationist view leaves room for the supernatural.


I have already said about three times that I'm not an atheist. Why is it that as soon as you say you don't believe in the bible, you are an atheist? I believe in a Supreme Being, but I don't think he/she/it 1)Has anything at all to do with the affairs on this planet 2) doesn't really care anyway. And I don't mean that in a "God has forsaken us" kind of way, I mean it in a "we are not God's concern" kind of way.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Everything is based on assumptions except one's own consciousness, according to solipsism and Descartes famous dictum. And "I" think that even that may be based on a last assumption of "I", i.e., "something" thinks, therefore "something" is.
> 
> Nothing is infallible. Science has never claimed infallibility. You are confusing science with religion. Religion always claimed infallibility - all 40,000 of them.


Is there a particular reason you're throwing all this at me? Guzman made it sound like it was a foregone conclusion that carbon dating establishes the scientific age of the earth. I simply pointed out that that method is not without a certain amount of "assumption" behind it - and assumptions are not scientific proof. Scientific assertions based on methods that incorporate assumptions are open to question. That was my only point. What you're responding to, I have no idea.





> Thus you do not understand science, Redz.


Please - spare me your _assumptions_ of what you think I do and do not know. You know next to nothing about me or what I understand about science. 




> Science, by the way, is self-correcting over time. Religion is not - it just claims truth, unverified and unverifiable, and just sticks with whatever it first came up with until forced to change by science, e.g., geocentricity. Science as a process or methodology makes progress in time. Religion does not.


OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't. I'm not trying to sway you from your beliefs in science. Have at it and enjoy the comfort it gives you (at least for now, until it has to "correct" itself again, and what you believed to be right must now be revised).

----------


## kilted exile

Ok, I am going to adress bluevictims response to my question (thanks by the way). However, first something that has been annoying me: Carbon-14/Radiocarbon dating is only used for attempting to date something within the last 60,000 years, beyond that it is unreliable due to the 1/2life of the C14 isotope. For objects thought to be older than that a different isotope is used to _estimate_ age; usually Uranium-238, also carbon dating is generally used solely on formerly living organisms. It annoys me when people refer to others as not knowing about science and then go on to use the wrong terms. This is radioisotope dating not necessarilly radiocarbon dating.

Anyway.....




> This is a good question, and hopefully one that can serve as a starting point to help clear up what everyone is trying to say. Actually, I'm not exactly sure if I qualify as someone "who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical", so I guess my answers might help to clear that up, too.
> 
> Hopefully it's ok if I simplify the question a little and assume that the practice I'm being criticized for is required by my religion (and, of course, I assume I believe wholeheartedly in the tenets of my religion). In that case, I would not change my practice.
> 
> I don't know what point you're trying to make (if you're trying to make a point at all) with this question, but I might guess it is that believing in the existence of a divine moral law doesn't add any weight to ethical criticism because here is a critic who believes in the existence of a divine moral law and yet his criticism of my behavior is not any more effective for it.


It is fine to simplify the question to a religious requirement (though I am also interested on perhaps whether there would be a higher likelihood to change if was solely a cultural, not religious practice).

That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religion - perhaps with the exception of the golden rule which there is a version of in nearly all religions (if I remember my World religions class correctly)

----------


## Guzmán

> Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain _assumptions_ about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain _assumptions_ in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."


Your comment is correct, i agree with you, the duh remark was out of order. Besides as another user points out apparently it is not carbon thats used but another element, my mistake. (Then again shouldnt carbon dating be enough to tell things are older than 6000 years?).

However my real point was about the "answers in genesis" website. The thing is that in all of the articles in their page that i read it was stated, *as a fact*, that scientist dont know the age of fossils, and uranium dating (or any other method for that matter) wasn't mentioned even once!!!
Its not like they said, as you pointed out, that scientific dating of fossils may be innacurate, they just ommited it altogether and said that science cant tell the age of fossils, period. That in my book, is hiding information from the public in a malicious manner, unless they are terribly ignorant, how can they make such an outrageous statement and not offer an explanation or one friggin source is unbelievable. And they claim to be teaching people.

----------


## Guzmán

> Ok, I am going to adress bluevictims response to my question (thanks by the way). However, first something that has been annoying me: Carbon-14/Radiocarbon dating is only used for attempting to date something within the last 60,000 years, beyond that it is unreliable due to the 1/2life of the C14 isotope. For objects thought to be older than that a different isotope is used to _estimate_ age; usually Uranium-238, also carbon dating is generally used solely on formerly living organisms. It annoys me when people refer to others as not knowing about science and then go on to use the wrong terms. This is radioisotope dating not necessarilly radiocarbon dating.


I didnt lecture anyone about science, nor claim that carbon dating is the only method for dating fossils, nor anything at all about its accuracy or reach into time, i just tried to make a point about how many of this websites make outrageous claims appealing to public common sense and ingenuity to promote their world view. It is very often that these websites make claims without justfication or justify them without citing the sources from which they get the information, making it impossible for the reader to examine what they say with a critical eye. Again, im not trying to discuss carbon testing or any other device for chemical dating (which i admit to have very little knowledge of the intricacies of the subject), i only brought up radiocarbon testing because it is the most commonly known.

----------


## JGL57

> OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't....


End of debate. Bring in the clinical psychologist.

BTW, sometimes atheists have this same problem. Anyone remember Ayn Rand? Boy, she was quite a piece of work too.

----------


## Lector

> Wrong. Evolution can and has been tested and proved scientifically, but perhaps 
> you could you explain why you maintain that it cannot?


If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.

As to you not appreciating my use of a dictionary I thought that since you brought up science on your own behalf that it would be prudent to work with an actual deffinition of the scientific meathod.

----------


## ranzy

> If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.


The fact that something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That's what proofs are for. If we observed evolution we wouldn't need any proof.
Btw, I found this site, which compares some major creationist statements against evolution and their evolutionist rebuttal. I've found it interesting.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> End of debate. Bring in the clinical psychologist.



The _ad hominem_ fallacy - a sure sign of an opponent in retreat. Was this your response to my point?

----------


## Logos

Please discuss the topic and not each other.

----------


## Guzmán

> If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.
> As to you not appreciating my use of a dictionary I thought that since you brought up science on your own behalf that it would be prudent to work with an actual deffinition of the scientific meathod.


Lector:
From what i understand from ypur original post you reasoned to discredit scientific proof of evolution in this way:
-The scientific method requires some ammount of observation to take place.
-Evolution cannot be observed
Therefore evolution cannot be proved

Let me present you with the following analogy:
A policeman will never observe the murder taking place, however, through forensic science he may find out who commited the murder by looking at the scene of the crime.
Science can observe evolution (the murder) by looking at the scene of the crime, your claim that science cannot observe evolution, is wrong. Your way of reasoning is one that is often heard from creationists (im not saying you are one) when they take science to laymans terms (is this the word?) and they appeal to public common sense saying evolution cannot be observed claiming that evolution takes thousands of years, or "you'll never see a monkey turn to man", etc..
Now, what is evolution's "scene of the crime"? now i dont know much about the subject, however, according to wikipedia (i know that wikipedia isnt necessarily a reliable source, yet on the articles that i've viewed there were tons of references to what seemed reliable sources, i checked many of them) there's the fossil record and the anatomical record and comparisons drawn between the two to figure out the lineages of different species. There's also genome sequencing which accounts for many species genotypic similarities, etc. Maybe you should check out wikipedias article of evolution as well as many of the sources included at the bottom. 
There's also the unofficial Stephen Jay Gould archive website, which features plenty of articles: www.stephenjaygould.com

It is interesting to notice how science has not only seen the scene of the crimee but apparently also the murder itself:
The theory of recapitulation, which has actually been disproved in its most absoloute form by biologists, yet may be acceped in partial form, is an example. Recapitulation, or ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, is the theory that the development of an embryo imitates the development of the species to which it belongs. There are some interesting, if technical, papers about this in the Gould website.

Speciation, the process through which new species arise, has been witnessed too apparently. This is from www.talkorigins.com, (which provides its own references at the bottom of each page):
"Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures." This is from the article "29+ evidences for macroevolution" which I suggest you check out as well.

Finally I adress your concern about my remark on the definition of the scientific method you provided. I didn't imply that your definition was an erroneous one, but the fact that you looked it up on a dictionary seemed rather odd, thats all. I apologize if I may have sounded rude on that occasion, i just meant to imply that there's far more to the scientific method than that definition, in my opinion, and i gather that many epistemologists would be out of a job if it were that simple. I have gotten into arguments of that sort with young humanity students who claimed the most radical things about science and the scientific method, but who knows.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Please discuss the topic and not each other.


Of course. My apologies.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't. I'm not trying to sway you from your beliefs in science. Have at it and enjoy the comfort it gives you (at least for now, until it has to "correct" itself again, and what you believed to be right must now be revised).


First of all, please do not for an instant assume that we worship science.

And second, one could argue that science admits the possibility of mistakes up front. The interpretation of texts such as the Bible is decided UNstatic. It's been "correcting" itself in its own way, simply beneath the folds of the Church. Do you mean to tell me that ever since you first recognized yourself as a Christian, your beliefs have never changed in the slightest?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> First of all, please do not for an instant assume that we worship science.


My statement was in no way meant as a blanket comment on all atheists; to do so would be as unfair as the blanket statements I dislike being made about Christians. My statement applies specifically to JGL57. I exaggerated a bit, but my point stands: neither science nor religion can definitively answer the question of where we came from and how we got here with definite, empiracle, verifiable, whatever-you-wish-to-call-it PROOF. As I've stated many times before, both evolution and Creationism require a certain amount of _faith_ in the authority of our - for lack of a better term - "sources." By "worship" I exaggerate the idea that the atheist and I are engaged in a similar process - but we are exercising different types of "faith."




> And second, one could argue that science admits the possibility of mistakes up front. The interpretation of texts such as the Bible is decided UNstatic. It's been "correcting" itself in its own way, simply beneath the folds of the Church. Do you mean to tell me that ever since you first recognized yourself as a Christian, your beliefs have never changed in the slightest?


Not at all - but my beliefs are not comprable to scientific "fact" (in quotations because it is subject to revision). The Bible says what it says - that we have misinterpreted it throughout history doesn't make the Bible wrong - it makes us bad interpreters. If God is not leading the interpretation, there is a high degree of probablility that the interpretation will be wrong. But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.

----------


## JGL57

> ....But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.


Funny - then why is there over 34,000 christian denominations and only one science.

Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.


HUMANS repeat the same errors every daily-religious or atheists. This reminds me of Tolkiens' quote about fish-that if fish had fish lore the bussiness of anglers would be little hindered-humans have their own lore and yet they repeat the same mistakes-if history has taught us anything it is that people constantly make the same mistakes.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.


Nor is the Bible constantly expanded in order to encompass more and more knowledge, as science is.

----------


## Bii

It's interesting to read the to-ing and fro-ing between belief systems here - whether it's a belief in God or a belief in science; what is apparent here is that whilst everyone is arguing their differences, there seems to be a failure to recognise what you share which is faith (be it in God or science). Science and Religion, seem to me, to be two opposing ends of the spectrum. Religion requires positive belief - i.e. a positive affirmation in the existence of an omnipotent being, albeit that the belief must exist in the absence of tangible proof. Science, on the other hand, requires a negative belief system - so more a case of; I'll believe this in the absence of something proving otherwise, but I accept this belief could probably be wrong. So in reality I get the impression that neither side will ever agree, and perhaps if humans as a race of people spent less time focusing on their differences, and more time focussing on their similarities, there would be fewer wars fought in the name of ideals based on faith (which is not just aimed at religion, by the way). 

To answer the original question raised here, I consider myself to be an athiest because I do not believe in the existence of God. For me to believe I would require proof or evidence of some kind; if that evidence became apparent I would then not _believe_ in God but rather _know or understand_ that there was a God, hence no belief. No matter how I dress it up that ability to have faith in something in the absence of some tangible evidence is just not in me, and there's little point in lying or pretending about it. That being said, I would apply the same rules to science and find it difficult to believe that science has the answers because science is constantly changing and disproving and disagreeing with its own conclusions. What you believe one day is wrong the next. Again, science makes bald statements which, on the whole, the general public cannot understand or prove or disprove for themselves (and I've tried reading Stephen Hawkings and it's still clear as mud!) so people are left taking science largely on faith, even though as a system it is supposed to be based on proof.

Either option seems flawed to me - but what I really don't understand is why people feel so strongly about proving their view is right?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Funny - then why is there over 34,000 christian denominations and only one science.
> 
> Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.


Here we go again.

1. Denominations are based on mutual agreements as to what a particular group believes the message of the Bible to be (since any work containing complex ideas is subject to interpretation by the very flexible nature of words themselves). That there are whatever amount of denominations has nothing to do with what the Bible says and everything with how people choose to interpret it. 

2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.

Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.

Which part of this is unclear: the Bible does not claim to be a _textbook_ on the nature of physical reality or our origins. It is a _narrative_ that is concerned first and foremost with the revelation of God's character and his presence in the history of His people. It claims to be nothing more. For you to insist that it stand up to science is absurd. It is not meant to "prove" anything about the earth, the universe or God. For those who believe, it tells us invaluable things about who we are, who God is, who we are meant to be and why the world (the social world primarily) and human nature are the way they are. It was not written as a scientific book. As Bii correctly states above, science and religion both require - to some extent - a degree of faith. 

And remember: to the believer, the atheist's dogmatic faith in science can seem just as silly and blind. Each side of the debate believes it is the enlightened side. Facts are persuasive - but they are not ultimate reality.

----------


## JGL57

> 1. Denominations are based on mutual agreements as to what a particular group believes the message of the Bible to be (since any work containing complex ideas is subject to interpretation by the very flexible nature of words themselves). That there are whatever amount of denominations has nothing to do with what the Bible says and everything with how people choose to interpret it. ...


Actually I misspoke  there are over 34,000 religions, but only about 12,000 christian denominations. IF christianity is the one true religion (a giant IF), then what good is it if everyone is free to interpret it and only one group gets it right? How can I know that it is YOUR group that got it all correct and everyone else is at least slightly off the mark?




> 2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.
> 
> Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing. ...


No, there is nothing illogical about my statement that there are innumerable religions and denominations and only one science. Science has a lot of branches or disciplines, but so what? Zoologists are not a war with botanists over scriptural disagreements. Astrophysicists do not oppose microbiologist in any way. All of science is of one piece. There is no Baptist chemistry vs. Catholic chemistry, or christian anthropology vs. Muslim anthropology? That would be crazy. I.e., that is the essence of religion  utter disagreement about the basics. There is no disagreement about the naturalistic working assumptions that underlie all of science.

Rather than being illogical, I think you dont even know what logic is.




> Which part of this is unclear: the Bible does not claim to be a _textbook_ on the nature of physical reality or our origins. It is a _narrative_ that is concerned first and foremost with the revelation of God's character and his presence in the history of His people. It claims to be nothing more. For you to insist that it stand up to science is absurd. It is not meant to "prove" anything about the earth, the universe or God. For those who believe, it tells us invaluable things about who we are, who God is, who we are meant to be and why the world (the social world primarily) and human nature are the way they are. It was not written as a scientific book. As Bii correctly states above, science and religion both require - to some extent - a degree of faith...


Religion is not science and is NOTHING like science. Agreed. Religion is faith in things that go bump in the night. Science is faith or assumption that what we observe is real and naturalistic and science can only be done under that assumption, and science works or produces based on its reasonable assumption of a naturalistic ontology. 

So, lets keep religion and astrology and crap like that out of science classes  then everyone can be happy.




> And remember: to the believer, the atheist's dogmatic faith in science can seem just as silly and blind. Each side of the debate believes it is the enlightened side. Facts are persuasive - but they are not ultimate reality ...


That doesnt even make sense. To a Scientologist a christian or a Muslim is a fool. To a christian or Muslim a Scientologist is silly. To a Jew a Mormon is wrong-headed  and the reverse is obviously true.

Atheists have no problem with modern science. The naturalistic assumption is based on reason and observation and a disinterested view and commitment to objectivity. That is how scientists from different countries can verify the findings of each other. Religionists, OTOH, know nothing about anything, and can only have faith in their respective narrow, provincial, ethnocentric, narcissistic sectarian belief system  none of which are worth a bucket of warm spit to someone actually interested in understanding the fascinating reality in which we find ourselves.

Religion is just giving up and saying goddidit, over and over again, until a normal person just gets sick and throws up.

But this is American and you have your rights. Enjoy them  but you seem to assume e you have some right, some free pass, to avoiding criticism. You dont.

----------


## Lector

Thanks Guzman, I appreciate your thorough response, I have not had time to look into it all yet but I do plan on it. 

But one thing you did not address for me is that of origin. I know that this is a rather subjective argument, but to me it simply seems more farfetched to believe in a spontaniouse big bang than in a divine creator; I mean which of those takes the greater faith and is there any way to truely, scientificaly back up either one?

----------


## Wintermute

> to me it simply seems more farfetched to believe in a spontaniouse big bang than in a divine creator


Hi Lector,

What about a spontaneous divine creator? At some point, say a gazillion years ago, wouldn't the divine creator need to ... come into existance? I guess I dont see a difference.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But this is American and you have your rights. Enjoy them  but you seem to assume e you have some right, some free pass, to avoiding criticism. You dont.


Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.

----------


## JGL57

> Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.


And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.


Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Freud. The only person who really has no argument is the person who professes to know the content of someone else's heart and mind - which is precisely what you claim. You know neither, and your claim that you do is beyond absurd.

----------


## Logos

Mod note to all: 

Please stop with the 

_'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours'_ posts.

Stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now... :Frown:

----------


## Redzeppelin

OK, I'll play nice. :Biggrin:

----------


## JGL57

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!...Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?...


So, back to the OP:

The word atheist, like the word asatanist, is not a very informative word, intrinsically. One is stating what one does not believe (in), not what one does think is true. One does not believe in Satan - or a god - so now what? What does one positively believe about the nature of reality?

Technically, there can be as many personal philosophies as there are atheists. However, the word atheist is used by many as a synonym for one who assumes a naturalist, materialist, or rationalist world view. It has come to mean, then, looking at the negative side, that an atheist does not believe in the reality of so-called supernatural or paranormal claims. E.g., an atheist is generally not thought of *** someone who could be a deist, a pantheist, a believer in astrology, homeopathy, or believe in the reality of any entity, force, power,or "energy" or what have you that cannot be understood in scientific rationalist terminology.

This would describe me, for instance. However, it has come to my attention over the last 30 years (the time I have considered myself an atheist) that atheists can indeed believe in various crazy and/or unhealthy ideas. E.g., Marxism, Ayn Rand Objectavism, nihilism, escapist hedonism, anarchism, etc. Also, I have met atheists who were narcissistic - in the clinical sense of the word.

So, my view now is that being an atheist is a healthy start, but a person may still have a long way to go. Putting aside the socialist politics, which is a huge can of worms, I think the Humanist Manifesto II is a good philosophy of life. Albert Einstein, although thought to be a "mystic" by many, qualifies enough as an atheist for me to see him as a fellow atheist - certainly he was a non-theist. Einstein articulated a great many good precepts that could form the basis of a decent and rational lifestyle. 

Which brings me to two final considerations - agnosticism and Buddhism.

This can be argued endlessly by those who wish to split hairs, but an agnostic is certainly not a believer in things that go bump in the night. The word was invented by Huxley to mean a person who does not claim certainty but who still rejects unsubstantiated claims, with the burden forever being on those making such unsubstantiated claims (e.g., Huxley rejected all second-hand revelations as being unsubstantiated).

So agnostic = non-absolutist atheist in my view (agnostics, if you wish to argue this start another thread rather than hijack this one - thanks).

Thus, agnostics such as Ingersoll, Russell, Huxley, Sagan, and many others have articulated a view of life that is rational, ethically uplifting, meaningful, productive of happiness and contentment, and all the other wonderful things in life that I could mention. Such people have articulated "something to believe in" that seems adequate to me and, really, the best we can do. So-called religious "faith" seems to work quite well for some - not so well for others. But that is someone else's ball game. 

Now, to Buddhism - many westerners (Occidentals) have articulated a Buddhism that is agnostic in nature and is completely understandable, pragmatic, and morally uplifting. Esoteric Buddhism, not to mention Taoism and Hinduism, are non-supernaturalist in nature, and all can be informative to a sane, rational, moral, and happy life (really, reincarnation and karma belief are optional).

So, in a nutshell, atheists are radical individualists for the most part. They can disagree on the best positive philosophy in many ways. So, grouping them together and putting them in a box and thinking you now understand them, makes about as much sense and is as useful as grouping together things that are purple i.e., the commonality is overwhelmed by the variables.

----------


## bluevictim

> That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religion


I pretty much agree here, except I would add that it also "works" with people who are willing to change their beliefs to those of that religion.

One thing I was trying to point out was that, to someone who believes in that particular religion, this is all that is necessary. He has enough logical structure to prove to himself that he is right, and to prove to his fellow believers that he is right. Since he really believes that his religion is true, he doesn't need to be bothered by the fact that others reject it (he simply concludes that they are wrong).

----------


## RobinHood3000

> 2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.
> 
> Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.


Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

----------


## Logos

> Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...





> OK, I'll play nice.


Thanks you guys  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.
> 
> Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.


You are quite correct: religious systems are _mutually exclusive_ because they all claim to have the _truth_. Scientific subdivisions _complement_ each other - I get that. But, I think some of the branches of science may be easier to validate factually and provide evidence for than others (which must, by necessity, be more _theoretical_) - which was the point I was trying to make (but obviously not very clearly).

Good to see you back, Robin. I'd noticed your absence on the forums  :Smile:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Agered, and nice to know i was missed.  :Smile:  How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

----------


## Dorian Gray

I'm an atheist. 

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

----------


## JGL57

> I'm an atheist. 
> 
> I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.


Thanks, my friend, for proving my point. Atheism actually referred to non-belief in theism - nothing more, nothing less. The word has come to mean a lot more because of all the historical baggage, but I think we should just stick to the etymological definition to avoid confusion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Agered, and nice to know i was missed.  How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?


The Sad Cafe does _not_ use microwaves - it's harder to appear _tragic_ and _tortured_  ("in the middle of the tall drinks and the drama") if your coffee is hot and piping.

----------


## RobinHood3000

It'd be even sadder if it was decaf.  :Tongue:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It'd be even sadder if it was decaf.



Right - it's the _Sad_ Cafe - not the _Catastrophic_ Cafe.

Hmmm...perhaps you and I ought to get on to some sort of debating...but I'm tired (cold coffee doesn't have much "zip" in it - caffinated or not).

----------


## Lector

> Hi Lector,
> 
> What about a spontaneous divine creator? At some point, say a gazillion years ago, wouldn't the divine creator need to ... come into existance? I guess I dont see a difference.


I guess the differance would be that it seems to be impossible within the natural order of things for there to be an infinite regress of causality, there had to be something that had no cause to get tha ball rolling as it were. However, since the natural order of the universe we inhabit does not allow for something to happen without any cause than isn't it rational, at this point, to look at the possibily of something (or someone) opperating outside of the natural order of things? An infinite God

But a question I often hear after a statement like this is "who created God?" and although this seems to be a valid question, it is, in fatc, catagorically invalid. God is infinte, to ask for His beggining assumes that He had a beggining which is false; it is like asking how much red weighs. A color has no weight as much as an infinite being has no begining.

----------


## JGL57

The Buddhists don't believe in a creator god. Hindus believe all is god.

Does anyone here accuse either or both of these traditions of being "illogical"?

----------


## RobinHood3000

> But a question I often hear after a statement like this is "who created God?" and although this seems to be a valid question, it is, in fatc, catagorically invalid. God is infinte, to ask for His beggining assumes that He had a beggining which is false; it is like asking how much red weighs. A color has no weight as much as an infinite being has no begining.


Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

----------


## Stanislaw

> Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"
> 
> Rather thorny, no?


Right...because the universe is infinitely expanding outwards, but from an origin point, well atleast a theory.

A very difficult question.

----------


## Wintermute

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.

----------


## metal134

> You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.


One theory I've heard about what the Universe wa doing previously was that it's cyclical. By that I mean, the Universe will continue to expand until it collapses on itself into a singular point. After a time, a Big Bang and the process begins anew. However, that still doesn;t answer the question of infinity. God or no God, the whole concept is baffling. You think, there must have been a starting point, but if there was a starting point, what was before the staring point? This, in my opinion applies to both God and the Universe and neither atheists nor the pious have the market on this quandry cornered.

----------


## Stanislaw

> You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.


Well Infinity cannot be measured, so once something has ended, it can only be infint untill a definite start point has been determined.




> One theory I've heard about what the Universe wa doing previously was that it's cyclical. By that I mean, the Universe will continue to expand until it collapses on itself into a singular point. After a time, a Big Bang and the process begins anew. However, that still doesn;t answer the question of infinity. God or no God, the whole concept is baffling. You think, there must have been a starting point, but if there was a starting point, what was before the staring point? This, in my opinion applies to both God and the Universe and neither atheists nor the pious have the market on this quandry cornered.


kind of budhist for the circular. Have you checked it out.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"
> 
> Rather thorny, no?


I suppose my (ridiculously simple) answer to this would be that the universe contains _matter_, and matter (at least in our experience) does not have infinite existence. I mean, the universe is a combination of matter and energy, and we know that both of those decay/entropy as time passes, right?

----------


## Orionsbelt

I can't resist. 

Ok Matter and energy are inter-changable, yes? E=mC2. Time according to Einstein is also variable... dependent on proximity to C.. I can't remember exactly where Berkley came out on this, perception of time.... anyway.. I think .. and have always thought that you are arguing about two different things. Assuming that God is in fact not SUPERnatural but is in fact all that is natural (I am in he and he is in me) then you are in fact arguing about the mechanics of the problem..... does the car work this way or that way etc. To the extent that whatever you would refer to as the initiating or sustaining force is still inherent within the system. (cold and un-poetic scientific reference) If God is SUPERnatural and therefore outside the system then the natural world as we know it is then a system within a system and the complexity of that notion is well.... difficult. So far there is no F(x) in that domain. You choose and be happy! P.S. you will not find this in Genesis. You may however find it in Psalms. P.S.S. if you understood this would you please explain it to me!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I can't resist. 
> 
> Ok Matter and energy are inter-changable, yes? E=mC2. Time according to Einstein is also variable... dependent on proximity to C.. I can't remember exactly where Berkley came out on this, perception of time.... anyway.. I think .. and have always thought that you are arguing about two different things. Assuming that God is in fact not SUPERnatural but is in fact all that is natural (I am in he and he is in me) then you are in fact arguing about the mechanics of the problem..... does the car work this way or that way etc. To the extent that whatever you would refer to as the initiating or sustaining force is still inherent within the system. (cold and un-poetic scientific reference) If God is SUPERnatural and therefore outside the system then the natural world as we know it is then a system within a system and the complexity of that notion is well.... difficult. So far there is no F(x) in that domain. You choose and be happy! P.S. you will not find this in Genesis. You may however find it in Psalms. P.S.S. if you understood this would you please explain it to me!



Holy cow - I don't think I could even begin to try.

I think the Bible contradicts pantheism (God is everything). I do agree though that nature is a system-within-a-system - and that miracles are the invasion of our system from the "outside" by God.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Holy cow - I don't think I could even begin to try.
> 
> I think the Bible contradicts pantheism (God is everything). I do agree though that nature is a system-within-a-system - and that miracles are the invasion of our system from the "outside" by God.


The one issue with that is that God is not supposed to be distant but omnipresent, yet not pantheistic...its a bit of a contradiction, but that is my understanding.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The one issue with that is that God is not supposed to be distant but omnipresent, yet not pantheistic...its a bit of a contradiction, but that is my understanding.


Right. But I think "present everywhere" can be discriminated from "present in _everything_." Creation is flawed; it decays, it dies, it is damaged and imperfect. God is none of these things.

----------


## Tenacious

Athiests dislike me, we don't get along, they run from our conversations about religion, politics and philosophy and not only because i may be "Tenacious" or an avid christain. When they hear anything remotely close to the truth they shut their eyes and crawl under their bed. They hate anything that deals with creationism but tend to believe science is the answer for all the troubles in the world despite people that believe in science calling people with faith stupid while they blindly fill in science where they can't find the truth. Take the big bang theory for instance, a person can blow up a building an infinate amount of times but its never going to create something, there is too much order in things for there not to be a creator.

For my own peace of mind ive decided to accept Yeshuah and Christianity because ive researched it and found it to be the truth and ive since learned that hot topics like the meaning of hell and denomination debates have their purpose... anyone on here know what the word hell translates to in the hebrew language? It literaly means "seperation from god", that's right, hell isn't the burning lake of fire with countless souls being tortured for eternity, it's a boundary between someone and god, this someone was judged to be w/o faith and repentence. 

I know all the questions disbelievers have; Why doesnt god just appear and all evil would end? What makes other religions wrong and christianity correct? How and at which point does ones soul become infused with the body? Why do things i do feel good to me but the bible says there wrong? People like murderers and criminals seem to have their conscience burned away and are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, how can they be held accountable for their crimes? How can a loving god create something like hell? I know there are valid answers to these questions but the simple answer is people need to trust in the character of god and come to realize he knows whats good for us and what isnt, i highly doubt god will judge people unjustly and if people dont truly see his message in the bible those people will be judged by their acts in life. 

Athiesm is just a method of contradiction to disprove something that people think is used as a crutch to deal with the worlds and ones own problems. In todays world so many people truly waste their minds because they dont think, they just blindly go along with what the world tells them, they look at politics and religion and say "well i cant do anything about world events and religion so why bother thinking about it?" and they decieve themselves by thinking this, the majority of people that think this way are people living in poverty, they dont vote and they seem not to care so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a cycle that needs to be broken otherwise society as it is now will not work. I know this sounds like communism and equality, and i know what the nay sayers say, that communism is a good idea but just doesnt work based on their theory that people by default are not equal. 

what a mess, i can see why people turn to satanism in a world where hypocrisy is made paramount and paranoia the law, the next 50 years will be interesting, i think it'll be a show down, with the truth or contradiction of religion the prize.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

Read a book called:

God
The Failed Hypothesis

it destorys every single on of your arguements. of course every signle person who believes in science cant explain away all your arguements. every single person who believes in science doesnt understand particle physics, or any other kind of physics. they dont have the knowledge to attack your points. but read the book i named to you.

----------


## Scheherazade

*Please remember that the topic of this thread is atheism. 

In accordance with the Forum Rules, any off topic posts or posts undermining others' beliefs (however much you disagree with them) will be deleted with or without any further notice.*

----------


## JGL57

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!...athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves...)
>  
> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...)


Certainly you can get some good information concerning your questions from atheists who would post here in reply.

However, here's a suggestion IF you really want to get into the head of the average atheist: Read Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion". 

After reading that book, I would suggest you would have no serious questions left concerning what atheism is or isn't, or what atheists "believe" or don't.

(Please note: I'm not saying Dawkins can speak with certainly for all atheists - what Christian can speak for all Christians? - but I stand by the sentence above - if you read his book, you should have no more serious questions left.)

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

read:

God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger too. it gives some good refutations of god and religious arguements as to god's existence.

----------


## Chava

I realised some time ago, why I've always dislicked philosophy. I'm a pragmatic, and don't find the longwinded and inconclusive statements of philosophy worthwhile. In the same pragmatic way i feel about religion. It's great that christianity preaches love and peace, and it's great that the qu'ran argued for female emancipation. that's all very good, but i don't feel that these good features require a religion. Being an athiest i still believe in love and peace and so forth, but i don't belive there should be a punishment on the other side of it, or for not believing in God. 
So, from a pragmatist point of view it seems that religion has grown redundant in modern society.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Certainly you can get some good information concerning your questions from atheists who would post here in reply.
> 
> However, here's a suggestion IF you really want to get into the head of the average atheist: Read Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion". 
> 
> After reading that book, I would suggest you would have no serious questions left concerning what atheism is or isn't, or what atheists "believe" or don't.
> 
> (Please note: I'm not saying Dawkins can speak with certainly for all atheists - what Christian can speak for all Christians? - but I stand by the sentence above - if you read his book, you should have no more serious questions left.)


I thought this was interesting:http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ary/17.24.html

----------


## JGL57

> I realised some time ago, why I've always dislicked philosophy. I'm a pragmatic, and don't find the longwinded and inconclusive statements of philosophy worthwhile. In the same pragmatic way i feel about religion. It's great that christianity preaches love and peace, and it's great that the qu'ran argued for female emancipation. that's all very good, but i don't feel that these good features require a religion. Being an athiest i still believe in love and peace and so forth, but i don't belive there should be a punishment on the other side of it, or for not believing in God. 
> So, from a pragmatist point of view it seems that religion has grown redundant in modern society.


Exactly - one must be pragmatic and go with the theories, explanations and ideas that seem to best fit the evidence - accepting that all is subjective but that, nevertheless, that all ideas are not thereby equal. Indeed, the philosophical splitting of hairs can go on endlessly and serves no real purpose - claims without evidence about imaginary things are imaginary, failing new and exciting proof. Otherwise, get on with a rational life.

From a pragmatist viewpoint religion is indeed redundant in today's world. Too bad, though, there aren't more pragmatists - and fewer "believers".

----------


## Redzeppelin

> From a pragmatist viewpoint religion is indeed redundant in today's world.


As redundant as feet to someone who never intends to get out of bed. 




> Too bad, though, there aren't more pragmatists - and fewer "believers".


You'd think - since it's apparently so _obvious_ how pathetic religion is -that we'd have abandoned it by now, wouldn't you? And yet - maddeningly - here we are, asking our annoying little questions. Perhaps we'll eventually "evolve" into pragmatists - right? You know: adapt from a lower to a higher life form - do I have that right?

----------


## ennison

Pragmatists? Ah yes 'Eats first morals later'

----------


## JGL57

> Pragmatists? Ah yes 'Eats first morals later'


Well, you have to be alive in order to eat, obey the ten commandments or do anything else.

And you have to eat first in order to stay alive, along with getting enough water, sleep, protection from the elements, etc. - then you have time to figure out that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import, all three of which have been stated before equally well by other religious traditions.

Yeah - that's pragmatism for you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> then you have time to figure out that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import


Debatable.




> all three of which have been stated before equally well by other religious traditions.


Which means that other religions also contain "truths" well worth considering.

----------


## anydazecoo

Ateists are kind of rebellious in a way

----------


## anydazecoo

im sort of in the middle i dont really believe in anything i like to go with the flow and thats for after death also whatever happens will be only the dead knows and we never will, but i definently think evolution is bull besides most of science is based on theory

----------


## RobinHood3000

Eh? What's wrong with being based on theory? What else would science be based on? Pudding?

----------


## anydazecoo

> Eh? What's wrong with being based on theory? What else would science be based on? Pudding?


wtf do u believe in evolution? lol

----------


## kilted exile

> wtf do u believe in evolution? lol


Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:

1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
2) Common courtesy
3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
6) Not eating my vegetables

----------


## JGL57

> Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:
> 
> 1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
> 2) Common courtesy
> 3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
> 4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
> 5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
> 6) Not eating my vegetables


I like vegetables so I would replace your #6 with "Use proper grammar and spelling."  :Wink:

----------


## dramasnot6

> Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:
> 
> 1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
> 2) Common courtesy
> 3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
> 4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
> 5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
> 6) Not eating my vegetables


Ill have to second all of those but 6(i like my veggies  :Biggrin: ) and sometimes 4...i lose my self control sometimes and get a bit pedantic  :Tongue:  

I believe in freedom of belief. Enough said?

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> I thought this was interesting:http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ary/17.24.html


ive gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. evnetually religion will fall and we arent speeding it up by arguing about it. give it time. thats what got us from the church threatening to torture Galileo to today.

its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.

----------


## Chava

When I said that I found religion redundant I didn't mean it to be used offensively. I don't mind people having religion, so long as they don't preach it to others, it's the same for atheists.

I think that the core values of christianity are fine, but I don't think you have to be religious to follow them. and contrary to JGL57 I have no nedd to disprove the existance of religion to others. It's enough for me that I don't believe it.
do you see?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ive gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. evnetually religion will fall and we arent speeding it up by arguing about it. give it time.


Maybe. Maybe not. Since some form of religion has existed throughout the recorded history of humanity, your prediction (prophecy?) is pretty bold. Perhaps religion does not persist because people are deluded, but because they realize the emptiness that a materialistic/naturalistic life ultimately contains.





> its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.


I would _love_ to have you explain this statement - since many atheists would have a _fit_ if a Christian claimed the same thing. Care to explain how this statement is true? What exactly is this "whole picture" that reveals this "truth"?

----------


## JGL57

> I’ve gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. Eventually religion will fall and we aren’t speeding it up by arguing about it. Give it time. That’s what got us from the church threatening to torture Galileo to today.
> 
> its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.


I agree with you that religious debates tend toward the boring. But progress is made and I think the debates here and on other forums do serve some good purposes. I have debated religion and social issues on line now for about 6 years now and I do see some dogmatic types, both religious and atheists, move toward a more agnostic viewpoint (I consider myself an agnostic atheist).

I think that, despite what you see in the media regarding absolutist/literalist types of religion, e.g., the unholy alliance between the Republican party and super nationalistic fanatical dogmatic (mainly) protestant "christians", I suspect in the fullness of time religion here in the west will move away from the more virulent types to more modern thinking types - more deistic and pantheistic, less theistic, and more toward a religion of love, empathy, mysticism, etc. and away from a religion of fear, hate, selfishness and radical ethnocentric sectarianism. It will take a few more decades to really see this trend. If I'm wrong, then I guess Planet of the Apes will eventually prove to be a documentary.  :Biggrin:  

As to atheists having the "higher moral ground" I would say each individual atheist has the best chance at a rational moral perspective, if he or she puts in the effort to study the subject. Certainly, atheists who are, e.g., Marxists or Randians have missed the boat.  :Wink:  




> ...contrary to JGL57 I have no need to disprove the existence of religion to others. It's enough for me that I don't believe it…


I don’t even know what this means, if anything. Religion exists - I don’t think I could prove otherwise, nor have I ever tried, nor would I ever try – may as well try to prove that crab grass doesn’t exist.

----------


## ennison

'that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import'
ISD That's two too many. Let's scoff is the only one important as you said. 
Reminds me. I'm hungry and a hungry man's a ......

----------


## JGL57

> 'that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import'
> ISD That's two too many. Let's scoff is the only one important as you said.
> Reminds me. I'm hungry and a hungry man's a ......


I was referring to killing, stealing, and bearing false witness - prohibition of all which, in some form, seems to be a necessary part of societal laws, all the way back to Hammurabi's famous code. Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality.

The other commandments, so-called, are either silly, or just good rule-of-thumb suggestions at best. I mean, not coveting your neighbor's "donkey" - do you, e.g., really need celestial guidance in that particular area?

And you are hungry. And why should anyone care?

----------


## ennison

I BEG YOUR PARDON ..... My Donkey is highly covetable!! I would be offended if it was not. 
But of course my definition of silly wont match yours but I often covet the ability of the truly absurd to be very silly

----------


## quasimodo1

An atheist does not require any diety. An atheist can be ethical, spiritual and empathetic. Why do believers mostly think that atheists are anarchists or sociopaths? The Buhdists don't require a god; just a desire for enlightenment. RJS

----------


## ennison

'Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality' Of course not. It's not about morality. Any old fool can be moral - Alexander Selkirk was a goody two-shoes. And if you reduce it all to .... whatever number suits yourself well shoot even I could be moral then even if I'm hungry enough to .....

----------


## Scheherazade

*Final Warning

To All Concerned> As Moderators we have been doing more than our fair share of editing in this thread. 

Please remember that as users of this Forum, its your responsibility to familiarise yourselves with its Rules (with which you agreed when you signed up) and further posts ignoring these rules will lead to thread closure.*

----------


## JGL57

> 'Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality' Of course not. It's not about morality. Any old fool can be moral - Alexander Selkirk was a goody two-shoes. And if you reduce it all to .... whatever number suits yourself well shoot even I could be moral then even if I'm hungry enough to .....


I apologize. Obviously Christianity has nothing to do with morality - one need only look at the overall record.

So, then, since it is indeed not about morality, then what is it's use?

----------


## ennison

................. to eat a scabby horse 
Even if it aint my own. Sure we were just having fun oh mighty one ---- leastways I was but I promise on the pantheistic throbbing soul of the universe to never mention donkeys 'orses or 'unger agin ok?

Use? Ah the pragmatic approach again. Well a carpenter uses a saw - in fact it's indispensible to him. Clerk's don't need it. And there you go - I trust I make myself obscure.
Well let's see hmm the righteous have no need of Christianity.
Still obscure?
Ach I aint got the vocabulary

----------


## JGL57

> ................. to eat a scabby horse 
> Even if it aint my own. Sure we were just having fun oh mighty one ---- leastways I was but I promise on the pantheistic throbbing soul of the universe to never mention donkeys 'orses or 'unger agin ok?



I think I understand - but it would be simplier for you to just say "I have nothing new to add."

----------


## ennison

Sure I have indeed absolutely nothing new to add .... Thank goodness

----------


## anydazecoo

> Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:
> 
> 1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
> 2) Common courtesy
> 3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
> 4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
> 5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
> 6) Not eating my vegetables



wow i dont think this is my age group  :Alien:   :FRlol:

----------


## UltimaHybrid

*sighs* i'm not a atheist nor i'm in a religioin but i do respectfully know that we cant prove there is a god or not as well as heaven or hell if we did the world would be a different place..no joke

----------


## kilted exile

> wow i dont think this is my age group


This works for all age groups, there are members here from 12 to over 70 and everything in between. Congratulations though 3 years and you are the first to find yourself on my ignore list.

----------


## JBI

Protagoras, the first sophist, and probably the first agnostic, writes that man is the measure of all things, and that because of divinity being unprovable, and impossible to disprove, all logical debate should not include god. He also goes on to write, that through the use of rhetoric, oratory, and vocabulary/grammar, one can make a weaker argument appear to be the stronger.

If we look at religions, we can see by looking at any that, assuming one is correct, the others must be somewhat incorrect. As an Atheist, I personally believe all religions are wrong. Through the use of rational thought, I realize that it is virtually impossible for any religion we know of to be correct (in my opinion), and for any religion we may come to believe in the future to be incorrect too. (science is not a religion. Science is based upon analyzing theories and trying to prove them using facts, whereas religion is based upon belief, and violates all rational thought). Because of this belief, I have come to accept that there is no answer to the great Enigma, and as a people we are so fascinated by the prospect of there being one that we ignorantly believe the doctrines of a false teacher.

Do I consider myself an Atheist? Yes I do. I strongly believe there is no god/divine being(s), and that there is no answer to the problem. Thereby I accept that there is no answer, and only worry about something that really concerns myself. 

Like all things, religion is dynamic. As society, technology, science, and time change, religion is also subject to change. What we gather from this is that there never truly was an answer, and people have been looking for it since the begining of thought. By rejecting theism, we eliminate the problem of assuming that one is right, and remove all the regressive and oppressive laws indoctrinated into most religions, one can grow as a person, and can work with the free time, and the freedom created by this change to better society.

So do I consider myself an Atheist? Absolutely. Why? Because I have accepted that there is no answer. Just a question that man has obsessed over, trying to answer and to find meaning in this empty life, instead of working at making the best of what you have in this brief existence.

----------


## quasimodo1

Did you ever study logic? I think both logic and atheism can be liberating but that they can cloud your emotions. Having been a R/catholic, repression of emotion and repression of re-evaluation were a learned behavior. It is good when one can overcome all that. RJS

----------


## ALLENDALE

it means peace and harmny i looked it up

----------


## ennison

'this empty life'
Well there y' go.

----------


## Chava

> both logic and atheism can be liberating but that they can cloud your emotions.


I'm sorry to interupt, but how exactly does atheism cloud your emotions? I understand logic, but...?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

Atheists have been described as those who believe in no god, but you have to believe in _something_ . That is saying that you don't choose something. You have still chosen, it's just that you have chosen to NoT choose. Truthfully, I think that atheists, since they choose to not believe in a god as a spiaritual being, they make themselves "their god"; they practically "worship" themselves (in a sense). It's not what God can do for them, it's what they can do for themselves. Atheists say that no one can prove God, or miracles, but all you have to do is look around you for proof. Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind? Not to mention the fact that the human mind has calculated these chances, and they are so mathmatically and scientifically miniscule they are termed "impossible" by most scientists, yet they are simply to afraid to admit to the world that they cannot know and explain everything with their calculations. The truth is, people are afraid to acknowledge that there may be something greater in the world that they will have to answer to. People want to be in charge. I'm not trying to preachy or anything, I'm just stating the truth. In fact, if you talked to some philosophers and pychcyatrist people, I bet they would tell you that fact, that people want to run their own lives and be in charge. Just look at history to confirm it. Why did everybody try to conquer everything else? To rule the world. As humans, we can't face the fact that someone might rule us. I think that that is why atheists don't believe in a god. They don't want to have to submit. It's jsut human nature.

----------


## Wintermute

> Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind?


Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator? 

Same question, no?

As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.

Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?

----------


## valiantiris

Science is a continually adapting and changing Truth. On the contrary, god provides a certainty that people enjoy. Science and scientific truths, as we know today, are quite different than what we knew fifty years ago, or what we will know in a year. The facts are always changing as technology changes and give humans a better understanding of what the universe and world around us has to offer. 

However, religion remains pretty much the same. Of course if you focus on the Roman Catholic doctrine, there are certain amendments or affirmations the Vatican makes in regards to our world, and the more contact between different people must allow for Catholic believers to better orient themselves in this changing society, which is more and more intrinsically connected. Yet, the main question of what Roman Catholics believe has remained stable.

Bottom line is that religions provide certain truths that people can follow and be comfortable with. Certainties give people something to hold on to as the world around them shifts. No matter how absurd or how appealing any particular religion feels, it allows its followers to feel comfortable with the unpredictable nature of everything humans have to deal with. 

Should people point out strange discrepancies in religions? If we try to make sense of what moral obligations religions give us, there is most always a message contained that will give that certain religion a sway over its members that helps it as time passes. Hinduism does not preach that its followers must convert people, it accepts all people, no matter what religion, as following a particular quest towards an end that Hindus already see. Therefore there is no clause that says that other people must be converted. However, if you look at the message of the New Testament, the bottom line is that people must be converted. In a time that Christianity was still fighting for a position of security, there had to be a means of preserving it. But then Hinduism used its caste system as a means for pushing the fault of poor people on themselves, their behavior in a past life was currently being punished. So when a peasant was unhappy with their lot, they could only behave in the ways suited for them if they wanted to ever have anything better for their soul.

===>It is rare to find a religion that does not have an afterlife. Religions, like governments, give rules to live by, but they promise a reward that governments cannot offer. Governments can only promise negative feedback for those who do not follow their laws. It is that promise of the great reward that makes people want to be part of something that they can feel sure about. If people feel comfortable with the message of a religion, they must be able to make certain mental consolidations, as in not questioning the word of their god. If people literally take the message that they are being offered, they can feel more secure in the reward they are promised. Once the questioning begins, they cannot be sure of the promises that they are seeking. 

And does it matter if they are wrong in the story they believe in? If people want to live lives according to the morals offered by Greek myths, is that a bad thing? Can anyone actually tell them that they are wrong? No. No matter how you want to dissuade them from thinking that indeed Hera and Zeus are not real, if they really want it, they are not going to believe what anyone else says. Religions are a matter of opinion, and opinions can never be proved wrong. Which is why comparing religions and science just does not work. You can only consolidate them. But if someone believes the reason that the water in the Atlantic is blue is because it is the prison of the sapphire princess, who will one day rise again, you cannot make them admit they are wrong. If they want it that way, so it will remain in their minds.

----------


## valiantiris

> By rejecting theism, we eliminate the problem of assuming that one is right, and remove all the regressive and oppressive laws indoctrinated into most religions, one can grow as a person, and can work with the free time, and the freedom created by this change to better society.


This just made me remember the two part south park episode with Richard Dawkins. It really illustrated a good point of human nature that there is always something to make human society ridiculously divided, no matter what. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

If you don't believe in God, then you believe that humans and animals are the same, we are merely more evolved. However, I believe that the fact that we have consciousness and can philosophize seperates us from animals, which proves that we are endowed with something beyond animals, and therefore we must have been endowed by a higher being in a position to endow. We are the only animal that has members of our species who don't want to reproduce, we can question whether we are justified in destroying another for our own gains, and we cannot live in a socialistic society. We have concepts and moralities, we must be higher, which means that something must have decided that we should be higher.

----------


## Wintermute

> . . . which proves that we are endowed with something beyond animals, and therefore we must have been endowed by a higher being in a position to endow. . . .which means that something must have decided that we should be higher.


No it doesn't, and no it doesn't.

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent." 

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ." 

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you! 

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now? 

Please, I beg you to consider these kinds of questions before making blanket statements of this nature. Your observations on the nature of humans in no way proves the existance of a 'higher being'. Nothing is certain. You may be right, but you may be wrong -- 50/50.

----------


## Wintermute

> And does it matter if they are wrong in the story they believe in?


Hi Val,

Very well thought out and written. Thank you. 

It only matters to me if their beliefs have negative impact on others--banning stem cell reasearch being an example that comes to mind--the world trade center attacks would be another. When beliefs turn to zealotry, certainty, and intolerance that's when problems arise. Another tenant of most religions is the golden rule. But alas, many seem to have swept this under the rug when it comes to folks that disagree with their stories/beliefs.

----------


## valiantiris

Indeed. As long as beliefs or actions are not to the detriment of others, they are ok by me.  :Smile:

----------


## quasimodo1

Allow me to digress and explain how one person arrived at atheism as a point of view. Like most people, religion was an integral part of upbringing, family life etc. You remember, back when fathers were around and mothers, well, before Gloria kind of lifestyle. If you believed, it was logical to go the distance. A roman catholic seminary in my case. After three years of that, atheism became a substitute for cynacism; you have to get way inside a religion to debunc it with any knowledge. Don't mean to offend or bait anybody. Just another road that doesn't get traveled that much. If jihadists, and christians are praying to the same deity, I guess that entity really has a conundrum on his/her/it's hands. Where is my spellcheck? whatever. RJS

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> Atheists have been described as those who believe in no god, but you have to believe in _something_ . That is saying that you don't choose something. You have still chosen, it's just that you have chosen to NoT choose. Truthfully, I think that atheists, since they choose to not believe in a god as a spiaritual being, they make themselves "their god"; they practically "worship" themselves (in a sense). It's not what God can do for them, it's what they can do for themselves. Atheists say that no one can prove God, or miracles, but all you have to do is look around you for proof. Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind? Not to mention the fact that the human mind has calculated these chances, and they are so mathmatically and scientifically miniscule they are termed "impossible" by most scientists, yet they are simply to afraid to admit to the world that they cannot know and explain everything with their calculations. The truth is, people are afraid to acknowledge that there may be something greater in the world that they will have to answer to. People want to be in charge. I'm not trying to preachy or anything, I'm just stating the truth. In fact, if you talked to some philosophers and pychcyatrist people, I bet they would tell you that fact, that people want to run their own lives and be in charge. Just look at history to confirm it. Why did everybody try to conquer everything else? To rule the world. As humans, we can't face the fact that someone might rule us. I think that that is why atheists don't believe in a god. They don't want to have to submit. It's jsut human nature.



read the chapter in 
God
The Failed Hypothesis
to see a theory that is equally if not more reasonbable than god that explains a way the universe was created.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

[QUOTE=Wintermute;340677]

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent." 

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ." 

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you! 
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.

". . .and can philosophize. . ." 

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things? 
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator? 
> 
> Same question, no?
> 
> As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.
> 
> Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?
> 
> If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?


You say you are fairly certain that something amazing is going on, but you think that God just wamming into place isn't possible, but tell me, which is stranger, an all powerful being that has been since the beginning of time, (for only an all powerful being could be from the beginning of time), or a "god" that isn't in control? Let's define our terms for a second. Forget everything else that you have heard and believe about the "God of the Christians", or the "God of the Muslims", or whatever, and let's say that- as you believe that something amazing, not molecules wamming together, happened, there must be a being, or even just a divine force, that is controlling it. It would therefore make sense that this "being" would be there from the beginning of the world, the universe, the beginning of time! and there would be no beginning for it, as it created the beginning. That long of a time space is to incomprehensible for our brains to understand. But if it wasn't there from the beginning, then there must be _something_ that was there, or else there wouldn't _be_ a there. And since there must be something that was, then it would now be our being, divine force. That would be what most people term "God" in our culture. 
In other words, could a "creator" poof together and be created? If it had, then it wouldn't be the "creator", the thing that created it would be. It shows that there had to be something, and that something had to have been there since forever. And you could spend your whole life trying to comprehend it, and never be able to, because it's beyond our comprehension. 
I'm not saying that he cares if we don't eat meat on certain days of the year, by far. (the whole point of that was to show a sacrifice, as Jesus did for us, but now it has become a corrupted holiday in which people don't even think of the reason they celebrate it.)
As to your second point, _Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?_ As a divine being, our now termed "God" has to have had some purpose to make the world and its inhabitants in the first place. He created the animals, and the plants, but most importantly man, and made man have some of the same attributes as Himself- especially, in this circumstance- a Choice. The choice to pick btw. right and wrong. But man chose wrong, and as God did not want his creation to be without hope, sent his Son, to give us a way out, but again, with a choice, not forced. 

_If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?_ If that was the whole point in the first place, then he wouldn't have made us in the first place. If you were going to make something, but knew that it was going to be messed up, and throw away by someone, and there was no purpose in making it, then would you make it?? The point is, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was, He made us for his own glory. But enough for now.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand.  :Crash:   :Crash:   :Crash:

----------


## Wintermute

> The point was, He made us for his own glory.


Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

----------


## Wintermute

> As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand.



Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully. :Smile:  

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

----------


## Wintermute

[QUOTE=Dante Wodehouse;341717]


> That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent." 
> 
> "I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ." 
> 
> Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you! 
> Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.
> 
> ". . .and can philosophize. . ." 
> 
> ...



Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

----------


## ennison

'That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.' I'm sure your granny was right too but we here are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and are looking at the wrong things. God can create just for its own glory because a spirit infinite, eternal, unchangeable does not behave according to the rules that we understand. Rejecting God's existence is a human prerogative. It doesn't matter to God. It does matter to us as the resulting gap has to be filled with something - consciously or unconsciously.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.
> 
> So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"
> 
> No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.
> 
> Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).


Why did you join this site? Why do we make millions of types of special food? Why do authors create fictional places with characters? Why do little kids make objects out of Plato? Why do we make things in the first place? For our personal enjoyment! Do you think that if all the things we created had minds, they would be against worshiping us, their creator? One difference btw. things we make and us being made by God, is that we were made in His image, as I stated before. Notice the fact that we like when things worship us. We inherited it from Him. And in a way, your grandma was right. We do provide fellowship to Him. It's not like a "bow and worship the Almighty powerful Creator, or I will shoot lightning bolts at you." Providing fellowship to Him does worship Him. 
But He can do what he wants. Who are we to question Him?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully. 
> 
> I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?
> 
> My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?
> 
> Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.


No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one?  :Smile:  And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me. 

_My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?_  
I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this? 

_Anything is possible, nothing is certain._ Is being certain possible?

----------


## kilted exile

> As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift.



What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

Book, thats because you dont understand the point...
but if you need more simplification, 
can god do something that he cant undo?
omnipotence is impossible.
or can god kill himself?
if he cant he isnt all powerful and if he can he can die and isnt all powerful. you are looking at the literal thing instead of the point.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Wintermute said 
Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

As I went there and I would have had to buy the video to get the substance, could you say what the results of the research were? I really don't feel like coughing up the money.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one?  And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me. 
> 
> _My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?_  
> I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this? 
> 
> _Anything is possible, nothing is certain._ Is being certain possible?


christians have been found in large numbers of studies to commit more crimes than atheists and agnostics, plus we have things like the crusades. so yeah, christians do lots of good deeds.

----------


## mtpspur

I believe the point of the crimes commited by the 'c'hristians is that we have a place to come to in the putting away of those crimes and still satisfy 'justice'. I personally have commited many 'crimes' that as forthcoming as I am in my blog I would be ashamed to admit even to this august group of looker oners. And I hasten to assure you any 'good' deeds of mine are not worth a penny to remember in the long run. Deeds are a byproduct of our faith not the primary cause.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"


No, the presuposition isn't that bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks, it's that it is harder for God to lift a bigger rock than a smaller one. Size doesn't matter with Him. That was the point I was making.  :Biggrin:

----------


## kilted exile

Ok, gonna have to disagree here. The presupposition of any problem is the most basic attainable part. That being "rocks that are bigger, heavier are harder to lift"

Once you change it to harder for God, you have already made a number of other assumptions on top of the root:

1) That there is a Supreme Being (he/she/it/they/whatever)
2) That we know what powers this being has, and are aware of levels of difficulty for tasks performed by "it"

----------


## Bookworm4Him

I in no way was trying to say that it was works that got us in to Heaven, 'cause then no one could, so please don't take that wrongly. I was trying to say that, by non-Christians view, Christian do good things. Sorry for that confusion.
Also, you say that studies have shown "Christians" to commit more crimes than others, but it depends on who you are calling Christians. I know many who claim to be Christians, but in no way talk, or act like it in anyway. And though works aren't what make people Christians, they certainly show whether they truly mean it or not. If the Ben Fiesel killers claim to be Christians, would you believe it? Def. not!!!! Although there are many criminals who may become Christians, but they change their ways. If you took a survey of true Christians, I don't think they would be the majority of criminals. Visit our church sometime and judge for yourself.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds.  :Smile:  and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds.  and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?


did you in any way read my last post? At all? Ok, well maybe you should. That would clarify a few things. And as for the people who claim "god told me to do it" didn't you just say they were killers? I've no doubt they are liars too. Ever heard of a truthful murderer? Didn't think so. They're just looking for some sort of justification.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Ok, gonna have to disagree here. The presupposition of any problem is the most basic attainable part. That being "rocks that are bigger, heavier are harder to lift"
> 
> Once you change it to harder for God, you have already made a number of other assumptions on top of the root:
> 
> 1) That there is a Supreme Being (he/she/it/they/whatever)
> 2) That we know what powers this being has, and are aware of levels of difficulty for tasks performed by "it"


We already discussed the Supreme Being part. It's on page 37 (I think) Go back and read that first. And I'm not assuming that we know the limits of God, I am in fact asserting the opposites. I am saying that men, with this presumption, assume that God follows the same limits as men. That is why the whole arguement is false, b/c people base the limits of God, by their own limits.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

christians have been found in large numbers of studies to commit more crimes than atheists and agnostics, plus we have things like the crusades. so yeah, christians do lots of good deeds.-Said by Matrim Cuathon
Of course Christians have commited more crimes that Atheists and Agnostics; there are more of them. The thing about most Christianity (there is always the occasional loony who says their Jesus and then is caught embezzling money) is that they accept that they are not perfect and want to repent in order to get to heaven. You can't count the crusades; that was a war that was essentially to unite Europe and protect the Byzantines that was given Paupal blessing to get more soldiers. It also happened almost a millenia ago, when there were no agnostics or atheists around, not publicly anyway.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

On the whole 'God making a rock issue', of course God can make a rock that he can't lift, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, so why would he?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Of course Christians have commited more crimes that Atheists and Agnostics; there are more of them. The thing about most Christianity (there is always the occasional loony who says their Jesus and then is caught embezzling money) is that they accept that they are not perfect and want to repent in order to get to heaven. You can't count the crusades; that was a war that was essentially to unite Europe and protect the Byzantines that was given Paupal blessing to get more soldiers. It also happened almost a millenia ago, when there were no agnostics or atheists around, not publicly anyway.


Thank you! And also, just to address it a little more, most of people living during the Crusades called themselves Christians because they weren't Jews. Those were pretty much the only choices. It wasn't their spiritual beliefs, it was more of a...political party, like Republican and Democrat. The "Christians" in the Crusades weren't Christians fighting for the glory of God, they were simply men who wanted to fight, and also, as Dante Wodehouse said, trying to unite Europe. They aint "Christians"

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> On the whole 'God making a rock issue', of course God can make a rock that he can't lift, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, so why would he?


 Ok...this is just getting a little bothersome...let me explain it one more time.
In an arguement, or a debate, there are always things called "presupositions". For example, if you were arguing that your dog is the cutest in the world, then some of the presupositions are one, and the most obvious, that you have a dog, and then there are more, but they are usually already accepted as facts, for example, that something can be cute, that the world really does exsist, and others. If the presuposition is false, then the arguement is invalid. Got it? ok  :Thumbs Up:  let's move on
In the arguement "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" one of the persupositions is "A heavier rock is harder for God to lift than a lighter one. But that is false, as things aren't more difficult than others for God. Therefore, the arguement is invalid. ~IMPORTANT~ Remember that the presuposition is based on God's abilities, not man's. 
Ok. I hope it is clearer now.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds.  and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?



I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings _just like everybody else_.

----------


## Wintermute

> Wintermute said 
> Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.
> 
> As I went there and I would have had to buy the video to get the substance, could you say what the results of the research were? I really don't feel like coughing up the money.


Hehe, good exchuse for not spending more than a few seconds glancing at the site, lol. Yes, you can purchase the broadcast video if you want, but the site has a ton of material. If you really want to know the state of animal behavior science, I suggest you spend some time investigating. You can find all the information you could want without spending a dime--just a lil' time. I'm as agnostic as they come--uncertain of practically everything--but in this instance, in my opinion, you are very wrong. Anyway, I ain't gonna change your mind on this, and I know how I feel, so if it's ok with you, let's drop it.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings _just like everybody else_.



thats wasnt the arguement though. he said: "christians seem to do good deeds." and i was pointing out that people do good deeds regardless of demographics. and that chrisitians commit crimes as much as anyone else, and in fact, commit more large scale crimes than atheists. 

as for your complaint about those centuries, thats when christians were in power. they cant do that **** anymore because they are checked by others. they can no longer raise an army by promising freedom to criminals who fight in wars. and world leaders are no longer so totally guided by the church.

----------


## manolia

> ..all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world


"Good" and "lawyers" don't usually go in the same phrase. :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
Nothing good done by lawyers  :FRlol:  




> I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings _just like everybody else_.



As much as i don't like to defend Christianity, you have a point there. People usually tend to confuse the wrong and crimes done by people who usued (and use) the name of God to drive the ignorant masses and achieve their purposes with the true essence of Christianity which is it's theory of course. My opinion is that Christianity is a real noble and benevolent "idea" (quotation marks means that it is more than an idea) and people who REALLY AND TRULLY AND FAITHFULLY exercise it are kind hearted and good. But of course i think most Christians are like every other person (potentially bad, meaning again that a lot of Christians like me are only Christians by name, know little about what their religion dictates simply because they don't care and have no faith. And saying a lot, i do not of course claim any particular statistic if there is any, but i am simply reffering to my circle of acquaintances which i consider a good sample.)

Then again all the bad things said here about Christianity are easilly applied to every religion, since every religion on earth has power on its subjects (that is the dangerous thing with religions in general) and if used by bad people (or simply people thirsty for power, money etc) the outcome can be really nusty (crussades). But if people are properly educated and have all the means needed to live happily (which unfortunatelly is not the case and never will be) there is no fear of that.

Cheers.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> As much as i don't like to defend Christianity, you have a point there. People usually tend to confuse the wrong and crimes done by people who usued (and use) the name of God to drive the ignorant masses and achieve their purposes with the true essence of Christianity which is it's theory of course. My opinion is that Christianity is a real noble and benevolent "idea" (quotation marks means that it is more than an idea) and people who REALLY AND TRULY AND FAITHFULLY exercise it are kind hearted and good. But of course i think most Christians are like every other person (potentially bad, meaning again that a lot of Christians like me are only Christians by name, know little about what their religion dictates simply because they don't care and have no faith. And saying a lot, i do not of course claim any particular statistic if there is any, but i am simply reffering to my circle of acquaintances which i consider a good sample.)
> 
> Then again all the bad things said here about Christianity are easilly applied to every religion, since every religion on earth has power on its subjects (that is the dangerous thing with religions in general) and if used by bad people (or simply people thirsty for power, money etc) the outcome can be really nusty (crussades). But if people are properly educated and have all the means needed to live happily (which unfortunatelly is not the case and never will be) there is no fear of that.
> 
> Cheers.


My main point in the first place was that people who really are true Christians, and act like it, not just claim it, seem to do good deeds, according to men's idea of good. Though everyone has faults, including Christians, TRUE Christians aren't going to go around becoming mass murderers and the world's most wanted. I said that by men's standards, if a Christian died (one who lived it, not just claimed it) then by men's standards, they lived a pretty good life.
That was for the arguement which choice is _wiser_ If I died and was right, I'd go to heaven, but if I was wrong, then I would have lived a good life. If you die, and were right, then great for you, but if your wrong, you'd go to hell. That was the whole point. I was in no way trying to assert that those who claim to be Christians are perfect, and the rest of the world are mass murderers. Bye-bye!

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes. 
genius.

----------


## Wintermute

> That was for the arguement which choice is _wiser_ If I died and was right, I'd go to heaven, but if I was wrong, then I would have lived a good life. If you die, and were right, then great for you, but if your wrong, you'd go to hell. That was the whole point. I was in no way trying to assert that those who claim to be Christians are perfect, and the rest of the world are mass murderers. Bye-bye!


Suppose you're wrong and someone else is right--I hate to tell you, but you could still end up in another's hell. I mean suppose the nuts that flew the planes into the world trade center are right? Well then, they're going to heaven with the virgins and all that, but I've got a feeling your 'TRUE Christians' ain't gonna make it to their paradise.

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Naturally, I could be wrong  :Smile:

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

yeah, you nubs forgot that their are loads of religions and afterlife punishments for non-believers. your chance is barely better than mine.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Suppose you're wrong and someone else is right--I hate to tell you, but you could still end up in another's hell. I mean suppose the nuts that flew the planes into the world trade center are right? Well then, they're going to heaven with the virgins and all that, but I've got a feeling your 'TRUE Christians' ain't gonna make it to their paradise.

If that is your point of view, think about this. If a religion truely advocates suicide bombers etc. then it has done the world no good. I choose to believe that Islam is not a cruel religion and the suicide bombers are merely like the "Christians" who say God told them to kill, i.e. they are schizophrenics, just crazy, brainwashed, or looking for validity. Why would the creator of a world give people to ability to choose other religions, and then instruct the followers of his (I believe Muslims call Allah a man) religion to kill them. Why not personally kill infidels like myself? Therefore, Islam is either incorrect or the suicide bombers won't be in any better place than myself.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes. 
genius.

Christians, again, don't (or rather on principal shouldn't) consider themselves superior (except in odds on positive afterlives) to others in morals, but they have the hope of redemption and forgiveness for their sins.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> and that chrisitians commit crimes as much as anyone else, and in fact, commit more large scale crimes than atheists.


That is simply speculation. There is no logical reason to assume that people who generally claim a belief in Christianty and its moral requirements would be more liable to commit crime than those who have no logical basis for moral behavior. An absurd conclusion.




> as for your complaint about those centuries, thats when christians were in power. they cant do that **** anymore because they are checked by others. they can no longer raise an army by promising freedom to criminals who fight in wars. and world leaders are no longer so totally guided by the church.


These statements are equally absurd because they imply that Christianity has not changed in any significant way in 600+ years since the Crusades and that it is a rampaging horde barely being held "in check" by whoever (did you specify who's doing the heroic job of holding us back?). And, in terms of the terrible Crusades, I think it's pretty safe to say that radical Islam has returned the favor - don't you think? Shall we call it "even" - or should we suffer some more so that people like you will quit trying to "roast" Christianity for such inappropriate behavior?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"And, in terms of the terrible Crusades, I think it's pretty safe to say that radical Islam has returned the favor - don't you think?"

Given that the Crusades were attempts to restore to Christendom lands that had been conquered by Muslims, I don't see how Muslims could claim any moral high ground in respect of them at all. Not that, as far as I have noticed, Moslems do make any such claim.

The particularly evil aspect of the Crusades was that Christian west took the opportunity to ravage the Christian east - so maybe the Greek Orthodox christians have a valid complaint still to make against the rest. 

But, as you, Red, pointed out or implied, it is ridiculous to use the behaviour of mediaeval armies as any kind of argument against current christianity.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But, as you, Red, pointed out or implied, it is ridiculous to use the behaviour of mediaeval armies as any kind of argument against current christianity.


All you said about the crusades is correct. The only point I was trying to make was the one you just acknowledged. Thanks  :Smile:

----------


## hyperborean

I really don't want to take part of the "Christianity ruined western civilization" thing again, so I'll bud out of this one.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I really don't want to take part of the "Christianity ruined western civilization" thing again, so I'll bud out of this one.


There is no solid basis for such a supposition. That is simply a tactic to smear Christianity in a way that is so blatantly unfair and unprovable as to be absurd in its very conception.

----------


## manolia

> yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes. 
> genius.



When someone posts an opinion and you intend to comment on it please read it carefully and do not extract the meaning you like out of it.
The point i wanted to make was in the last few lines and it is to that effect:

If people on earth have education and do not live miserably as they do in certain parts of the earth, if countries stop invading other countries and stop meddling in their internal affairs, then religions won't be a weapon for leaders to use in order to achieve their goal. In fact i believe that there won't be any use of religions anymore. And even if there is (for many people have the need to believe in a benevolent force and can't simply cope with the idea that their pressence on earth is limited) we live in free countries so let them have it. I personally respect the choice of others to believe. And you know, it is nice since it seems that the act of believing gives strength to an individual.

----------


## Wintermute

> Why would the creator of a world give people to ability to choose other religions, and then instruct the followers of his (I believe Muslims call Allah a man) religion to kill them. Why not personally kill infidels like myself?


Howdy  :Smile:  , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game? 

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> When someone posts an opinion and you intend to comment on it please read it carefully and do not extract the meaning you like out of it.
> The point i wanted to make was in the last few lines and it is to that effect:
> 
> If people on earth have education and do not live miserably as they do in certain parts of the earth, if countries stop invading other countries and stop meddling in their internal affairs, then religions won't be a weapon for leaders to use in order to achieve their goal. In fact i believe that there won't be any use of religions anymore. And even if there is (for many people have the need to believe in a benevolent force and can't simply cope with the idea that their pressence on earth is limited) we live in free countries so let them have it. I personally respect the choice of others to believe. And you know, it is nice since it seems that the act of believing gives strength to an individual.


 you know i wasnt responding to yuo right? with that comment?

----------


## manolia

Ok sorry then..it sounded like that

----------


## hyperborean

> There is no solid basis for such a supposition. That is simply a tactic to smear Christianity in a way that is so blatantly unfair and unprovable as to be absurd in its very conception.


Organized religion in general is the corruption of the world. happy now?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Organized religion in general is the corruption of the world. happy now?


I will be once you provide some basis for this claim. Otherwise, it is simply your _opinion_ and carries as much weight as unsupported opinion does.

----------


## hyperborean

Wars that have been occurring since ancient times wouldn't be considered proof?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Wars that have been occurring since ancient times wouldn't be considered proof?


Please be as so kind to identify the particular wars and how Christianity played an _instigating_ role is said conflicts. Otherwise I'm going to be tempted to say that your statement is little more than one of the over-used stereotypes launched at Christians. Remember: the Crusades have already been dealt with, so they are no longer a valid choice. Something post-Renaissance would be nice.

----------


## watkinsguy

> Please be as so kind to identify the particular wars and how Christianity played an _instigating_ role is said conflicts. Otherwise I'm going to be tempted to say that your statement is little more than one of the over-used stereotypes launched at Christians. Remember: the Crusades have already been dealt with, so they are no longer a valid choice. Something post-Renaissance would be nice.


lol I think what he is getting at Red, is that organized religion in general has contributed to wars in the past. This is true, but not a very valid point when considering how easy wars are started. Consider this:

The Football War in 1969 between Honduras and El Salvador was sparked by a World Cup soccer match between the two countries.

Does this mean that soccer is corrupt since it has started a war? In my honest opinion, no it doesn't. To say that something besides sinful pride is the reason for all wars, is not only ridiculous, but also very ignorant.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Howdy , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game? 

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong

I prefer to take the C.S. Lewis (or perhaps I have just come up with this theory while reading the Screwtape Letters and therefore attribute it to him) philosophy, that is, that God was tired of creating things that in their fiber couldn't disobey him without knowingly ending up in Lucifer's new colony. He wanted something that chose his path as oppose to having no other paths to choose. I trust that he came up with the universe pattern that grants a majority of people heaven, but I can't really know. As regards tithing, that is just to keep the church running. Without it, new churches couldn't have been built, nor pastors given a livable salary. It has been overdone by the church, but it is necessary to keep things running.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> lol I think what he is getting at Red, is that organized religion in general has contributed to wars in the past.


Agreed. But since the contention behind the "wars" argument is that Christianity has "corrupted" the world implies to me that Christianity has had a more than passing influence in the wars of this world. Highly debatable. Nice example you gave, by the way.

----------


## watkinsguy

> Howdy , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game? 
> 
> It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."
> 
> Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong
> 
> I prefer to take the C.S. Lewis (or perhaps I have just come up with this theory while reading the Screwtape Letters and therefore attribute it to him) philosophy, that is, that God was tired of creating things that in their fiber couldn't disobey him without knowingly ending up in Lucifer's new colony. He wanted something that chose his path as oppose to having no other paths to choose. I trust that he came up with the universe pattern that grants a majority of people heaven, but I can't really know. As regards tithing, that is just to keep the church running. Without it, new churches couldn't have been built, nor pastors given a livable salary. It has been overdone by the church, but it is necessary to keep things running.


That is a very blunt perception of Christianity I will give you that  :Smile:  To answer the statement of why doesn't he just fast forward to the end of time since He knows who is going to choose what and where they are going to go, I ask you this: where is the fun in that? lol but really, I do believe that God likes too see us glorifying Him, as we are sentinent human beings that are making CHOICES to do His will, not being forced to like angels. Wouldn't you love your spouse more if they CHOSE to obey you rather than be FORCED to? just a thought  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Howdy , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game? 
> 
> It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."
> 
> Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong
> 
> I prefer to take the C.S. Lewis (or perhaps I have just come up with this theory while reading the Screwtape Letters and therefore attribute it to him) philosophy, that is, that God was tired of creating things that in their fiber couldn't disobey him without knowingly ending up in Lucifer's new colony. He wanted something that chose his path as oppose to having no other paths to choose. I trust that he came up with the universe pattern that grants a majority of people heaven, but I can't really know. As regards tithing, that is just to keep the church running. Without it, new churches couldn't have been built, nor pastors given a livable salary. It has been overdone by the church, but it is necessary to keep things running.


Whoa - what's all this and where did it come from? Did you actually want a response to this post? I'm not even sure what it's trying to say.

----------


## hyperborean

> Agreed. But since the contention behind the "wars" argument is that Christianity has "corrupted" the world implies to me that Christianity has had a more than passing influence in the wars of this world. Highly debatable. Nice example you gave, by the way.


I can't respond to your post because then my post would be deleted (political influence would be the only way to analyze the situation). And by the way...a political debate against me is going to be much harder to win than a philosophical debate (this time it's not about opinion, but instead historical fact). 

My argument would deal with Christianity and conservative politics in modern times. This would be your requested "modern example", and I shall hold me tongue (I already got demerits on this forum).

----------


## Bandiceet

> Please be as so kind to identify the particular wars and how Christianity played an _instigating_ role is said conflicts. Otherwise I'm going to be tempted to say that your statement is little more than one of the over-used stereotypes launched at Christians. Remember: the Crusades have already been dealt with, so they are no longer a valid choice. Something post-Renaissance would be nice.


One thing people tend to either don't know or deliberatly forget, is that Adolf Hitler was quite a devout Christian. One of the many theories that abound about why he did what he did to the Jews is because of a mis-construed interpritation of the Christian bible. Taking this view, WW2 was as relgious as it was anything else. Is that post-Renaissance enough for you?

Now, this is my first post here on these boards, and this is the first thread I have read, and went out of my way to join up so I can comment on it. Mind you, I have not read every single 600 odd replies.

I am in the bundle of people are classified as athiest. I find that Athiest is a name used for these people because the names like "Christian" or "Hindu" Or "Jew" or what ever don't convieniantly fit. Alot of Athiests have Faith, it is that they do not have Religion. 

Beleif and Faith are very powerful things. Since it is very rare for a person to follow more than one religion at a time, this can make an interesting condry. Relgion "A" beleive that followers of Religion "B" will go to hell for not following Relgion "A". The opposite is also can be said. Since followers of both religions truely beleive the others will go to hell, then everyone will, because of that beleif. 

If you think that is a load of Rubbish, that logic more opr less follows all the arguements I have ever been given that God exists.

When your god starts hating the same people you do, you know your god is made up.

----------


## hyperborean

Welcome to the forums Bandiceet!

----------


## Bandiceet

Thank you, Hyperborean.

----------


## kilted exile

I think using WW2 as a "religious war" is tenuous at best. Even if you do subscribe to the opinion that Hitler was christian (albeit misguided) it ignores the other major factors behind the war (desire to create German supremacy in europe, hatred for the effects/consequences of the Verseille treaty, feeling of betrayal by German leaders from previous years)

I think possibly the best example of a post rennaissance religiously inspired conflict would be the conquest of Britain/Ireland by William of Orange

----------


## Stanislaw

> One thing people tend to either don't know or deliberatly forget, is that Adolf Hitler was quite a devout Christian. One of the many theories that abound about why he did what he did to the Jews is because of a mis-construed interpritation of the Christian bible. Taking this view, WW2 was as relgious as it was anything else. Is that post-Renaissance enough for you?
> 
> Now, this is my first post here on these boards, and this is the first thread I have read, and went out of my way to join up so I can comment on it. Mind you, I have not read every single 600 odd replies.
> 
> I am in the bundle of people are classified as athiest. I find that Athiest is a name used for these people because the names like "Christian" or "Hindu" Or "Jew" or what ever don't convieniantly fit. Alot of Athiests have Faith, it is that they do not have Religion. 
> 
> Beleif and Faith are very powerful things. Since it is very rare for a person to follow more than one religion at a time, this can make an interesting condry. Relgion "A" beleive that followers of Religion "B" will go to hell for not following Relgion "A". The opposite is also can be said. Since followers of both religions truely beleive the others will go to hell, then everyone will, because of that beleif. 
> 
> If you think that is a load of Rubbish, that logic more opr less follows all the arguements I have ever been given that God exists.
> ...


Adolf was not a devout christian, and most of his antisemitism came from his childhood, rejection, and popular anti semetic feelings in europe at the time. WWII was not driven by relegion, it was a secular war around economics, and power.

Athiest is described as an individual who does not believe in a god or gods...not as a follower of non-mainstream religion. If you believe in an almighty being...higher than humans...you are not athiest.

As for going to hell...well, theres some faulty logic in there... just because it is stated doesn't make it true, ie I say the sky is pink, and those who say its blue are dumb...and you say the sky is blue and those who say it is pink are dumb...whos right...or are we both dumb?

well, God exists, as I have seen it to date.. he exists because it can't be proven he doesn't just as he doesn't because it can't be proven he does...
I guess you just have to have faith that he does or doesn't exist.

"When your god starts hating the same people you do, you know your god is made up"... well possibly, or that aspect is made up, if the debunking of God is because of a contradiction put forward by one guy...then, theres some issue in proofs there.

Now to clarify, I use the name God, as a describer for supreme deity, call it what you will...don't hate the player, hate the play.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

no, more faith is required for religion. believing in nothing till it is proven to exist is the opposite of believing in everything till it is proven not to exist, not believing in one thing till its proven not to exist. there is only one science, there are thousands of religions. it is as likely that a higher being exists as it is that one doesnt. it as not as likely that a specific one exists.

----------


## watkinsguy

WW2 was a religious war? Cmon, wars are about one thing and one thing only, and that is power. You honestly think Hitler did what he did to Jews because of his "Christian" beliefs? I think it is more along the lines of his failure earlier in life which he perceived to be caused by Jews. You should look Hitler up, that would give you a much better perception of Hitler, or read his book Mein Kampf

----------


## Stanislaw

> no, more faith is required for religion. believing in nothing till it is proven to exist is the opposite of believing in everything till it is proven not to exist, not believing in one thing till its proven not to exist. there is only one science, there are thousands of religions. it is as likely that a higher being exists as it is that one doesnt. it as not as likely that a specific one exists.



It seems to me a half empty half full argument, one side is pessimistic the other is optimistic. really, they require the same effort.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I can't respond to your post because then my post would be deleted (political influence would be the only way to analyze the situation). And by the way...a political debate against me is going to be much harder to win than a philosophical debate (this time it's not about opinion, but instead historical fact). 
> 
> My argument would deal with Christianity and conservative politics in modern times. This would be your requested "modern example", and I shall hold me tongue (I already got demerits on this forum).


Sorry - I'm not buying it. Wars started by governments influenced by Christian principles (or simply Christian-dominant cultures) do not qualify in my book as "wars caused by Christianity." Politics mitigates this particular argument. I want wars specifically started and maintained (like the Crusades) based on religion - on who God is and what we're supposed to be doing as His servants. You will have - I believe - great difficulty in doing so.

"Win?" Was anybody winning our discussion? Here's an FYI: history is the record of _what happened_ by other human beings - as such, it is prone to _interpretation_, _distortion_ and a certain degree of _subjectivity_. Not all facts are irrefutably what you say they are; they may point in a number of directions at once. Maddening, this inability to nail reality down, huh?

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

just like the bible eh?

----------


## Stanislaw

as like science?

----------


## watkinsguy

lol this is funny to read

----------


## Redzeppelin

> just like the bible eh?


Easily _said_; much more difficultly _defended_.

----------


## Wintermute

> lol this is funny to read


I find it interesting, a little sad, and in some instances scary. But not funny.

The folks that are slamming creationists can not really come up with an alternate theory of what started it all. 

And the science bashers have almost certainly never had the opportunity to investigate what science really is all about. My sister is a professor of neurobiology and I take great offence at the notion that she is somehow a liberal na'er-do-well who's primary goal is to debunk someone's religion. She goes into the lab before dawn, and usually doesn't return home until after 9pm. She works very hard to understand the human brain an how in functions in order to better our lot--for very little monetary compensation. You folks that summarily dismiss scientists as mean-spirited, close minded, ignorant, whatevers...need to examine a mirror. No scientist that I know of has ever claimed to know with certainty what is going on in the universe. They theorize, examine, then re-theorize.

----------


## watkinsguy

But isnt that what life is all about?  :Smile:

----------


## hyperborean

> Sorry - I'm not buying it. Wars started by governments influenced by Christian principles (or simply Christian-dominant cultures) do not qualify in my book as "wars caused by Christianity." Politics mitigates this particular argument. I want wars specifically started and maintained (like the Crusades) based on religion - on who God is and what we're supposed to be doing as His servants. You will have - I believe - great difficulty in doing so.
> 
> "Win?" Was anybody winning our discussion? Here's an FYI: history is the record of _what happened_ by other human beings - as such, it is prone to _interpretation_, _distortion_ and a certain degree of _subjectivity_. Not all facts are irrefutably what you say they are; they may point in a number of directions at once. Maddening, this inability to nail reality down, huh?


Government documents have perfect enough interpretation for me. My knowledge doesn't come from a propaganda filled history textbook. Let's just say I have family that have worked for the government and have seen things you couldn't possibly imagine. 

Anyways, It's not Christianity that's the problem; it's _using_ Christianity to control the populace. The Nazis wore both the cross and the swastika on their uniform.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> That is a very blunt perception of Christianity I will give you that  To answer the statement of why doesn't he just fast forward to the end of time since He knows who is going to choose what and where they are going to go, I ask you this: where is the fun in that? lol but really, I do believe that God likes too see us glorifying Him, as we are sentinent human beings that are making CHOICES to do His will, not being forced to like angels. Wouldn't you love your spouse more if they CHOSE to obey you rather than be FORCED to? just a thought


Thank you! lol How 'bout another example for our doubting companions here?  :Wink:  hmmm...!!!! I know! Everybody loves American Idol, right? If not that, then there must be some sort of show like that that you watch. So would the many viewers want to just skip right to the end and see the winner?
Ok, how 'bout the NCAA coming up? (For those of it that watch it) Now that they have arranged the brackets, let's just let the number one seeds battle it out. You know what, we all know that Florida will win, so let's just name them the champs and go about our normal buisness without having to listen to the news page constantly. 
(Just one more example, I really can't help it.) How many of ya'll have children? Are they little, just a few years old? Ok, let's just grow them up here and now. Forget their first steps, their first days of school, their little field trips, first day of high school, first car, school prom, graduation, choosing colleges, getting married, their first kid, and the list goes on. Why not just rush thru time and see where the're going to be buried. Forget their life, or that they were even born. In fact, let's just kill them in the womb. they aren't really Alive, are they?!? Is that what you want? No need your little girl who, looking up at you thru her big blue eyes and putting her little hand in your palm, plant a kiss on your cheek and give you a simple "I love you." If you are willing to give that up, then  :Flare:  shame on you! 
So you want to know why God doesn't just fast forward time and put us where we'll end up? As His children, He enjoys watching us, as we do our children.
Now, I'm sure ya'll are going to pick apart my arguement, so I'll just sit here til you do.  :Tongue:

----------


## Wandering_Child

I was simply browsing and a specific post caught my eye.




> those who live like animals..
> 
> JUST eat....drink.....play....
> 
> eat....drink.....play....
> 
> 
> and sin for ever ...ignoring Hell..!


If you really mean that seriously I...I am at a loss for words.

_This_ is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.

Now, I'm not an atheist. I am a practicing LDS member, but I do have respect enough for those who believe differently. It doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, or whatever you are should shun them simply because they don't believe in a higher being. God told us to love _everyone_. And it should end right there.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Whoa - what's all this and where did it come from? Did you actually want a response to this post? I'm not even sure what it's trying to say.

I don't know how to do the quote boxes (please be so kind as to tell me). I was responding to a previous post by Wintermute.

----------


## Logos

Dante hit the  icon which appears near the bottom right corner of the person's post that you want to quote. The text shows automatically in your reply. (or you can delete the lines out that you aren't addressing, just make sure the [quote] boxes are still at the beginning and end of it) Using the quote function makes it *much* easier and clearer for everyone to know who you're posting to  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> _This_ is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.


Well, if hell's for real, and as bad as its described, do you blame people for getting a bit _insistent_ that you really might want to avoid it? That aside, yes: some believers cross the line - but all "beliefs" have zealots (including atheists).




> God told us to love _everyone_. And it should end right there.


_What_ should end right _where_?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Dante hit the  icon which appears near the bottom right corner of the person's post that you want to quote. The text shows automatically in your reply. (or you can delete the lines out that you aren't addressing, just make sure the quote boxes are still at the beginning and end of it) Using the quote function makes it *much* easier and clearer for everyone to know who you're posting to


Thank you.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> One thing people tend to either don't know or deliberatly forget, is that Adolf Hitler was quite a devout Christian. One of the many theories that abound about why he did what he did to the Jews is because of a mis-construed interpritation of the Christian bible. Taking this view, WW2 was as relgious as it was anything else. Is that post-Renaissance enough for you?
> 
> Now, this is my first post here on these boards, and this is the first thread I have read, and went out of my way to join up so I can comment on it. Mind you, I have not read every single 600 odd replies.
> 
> I am in the bundle of people are classified as athiest. I find that Athiest is a name used for these people because the names like "Christian" or "Hindu" Or "Jew" or what ever don't convieniantly fit. Alot of Athiests have Faith, it is that they do not have Religion. 
> 
> Beleif and Faith are very powerful things. Since it is very rare for a person to follow more than one religion at a time, this can make an interesting condry. Relgion "A" beleive that followers of Religion "B" will go to hell for not following Relgion "A". The opposite is also can be said. Since followers of both religions truely beleive the others will go to hell, then everyone will, because of that beleif. 
> 
> If you think that is a load of Rubbish, that logic more opr less follows all the arguements I have ever been given that God exists.
> ...


Congrats on joining the forum! I look forward to sparring minds with you. I also just joined to comment on this subject, and am now going to comment on your post. Here goes...
First off, I don't believe for one second that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, or at least a true Christian, one who means it, not just claims it. (We talked about this subject a few pages ago. You might want to read it to understand our terms.) During the time of Shakespeare, everyone in the culture was termed a "Christian", as in not a Jew or a muslim, not as in followers of Christ. Also at the time, Jews were picked on, beaten, stolen from, tortured, and anything else imaginable, and no one was punished for it. In Rome, Nero hunted down and killed the Christians, b/c he needed some to accuse of burning Rome.
Someone is always picking on someone else. The Jews were chosen as the lesser party for Hitler's mad rage. No way he was even near a Christian, more like demon possessed.
2) You want an arguement on whether God exists, go to pg 36 and 37 (I think) and read that. Then we'll talk. And as to God hating everyone, do you think that if God really did hate everyone, anyone would be alive? think about that. I'm sure you will respond.  :Smile:

----------


## Wandering_Child

> Well, if hell's for real, and as bad as its described, do you blame people for getting a bit _insistent_ that you really might want to avoid it? That aside, yes: some believers cross the line - but all "beliefs" have zealots (including atheists).
> 
> 
> 
> _What_ should end right _where_?


There are always going to be some people who will never listen to what you have to say. I find it extremely irritating when some people insist on something that I don't agree with - even after I have told them thousands of times and they are still persistant. It annoys me greatly. I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that most people would agree with me. 

Also, I don't want to turn this into a Christian thread, but I do not believe Hell is a real place. We believe it is a state of being. That said, I am almost finished.

About the second part: Forgive me. I did not expand - I do know some Christians who think it horrific that some people do not believe in a higher being. They shun them as if they had some dangerous disease. It is quite sickening and quite sad, seeing as these people profess themselves to be disciples of Christ, whose great commandment was to love everyone.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There are always going to be some people who will never listen to what you have to say. I find it extremely irritating when some people insist on something that I don't agree with - even after I have told them thousands of times and they are still persistant. It annoys me greatly. I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that most people would agree with me. 
> 
> Also, I don't want to turn this into a Christian thread, but I do not believe Hell is a real place. We believe it is a state of being. That said, I am almost finished..


As if that makes it any less of a torment.




> About the second part: Forgive me. I did not expand - I do know some Christians who think it horrific that some people do not believe in a higher being. They shun them as if they had some dangerous disease. It is quite sickening and quite sad, seeing as these people profess themselves to be disciples of Christ, whose great commandment was to love everyone.


OK - so you've had some bad experiences with believers. I'm sorry that happened. Being an idiot is not confined to non-believers: Christians are quite capable of the same. 

As well, I'm not totally sure how your posting was supposed to contribute to the discussion at hand?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> I find it interesting, a little sad, and in some instances scary. But not funny.
> 
> The folks that are slamming creationists can not really come up with an alternate theory of what started it all. 
> 
> And the science bashers have almost certainly never had the opportunity to investigate what science really is all about. My sister is a professor of neurobiology and I take great offence at the notion that she is somehow a liberal na'er-do-well who's primary goal is to debunk someone's religion. She goes into the lab before dawn, and usually doesn't return home until after 9pm. She works very hard to understand the human brain an how in functions in order to better our lot--for very little monetary compensation. You folks that summarily dismiss scientists as mean-spirited, close minded, ignorant, whatevers...need to examine a mirror. No scientist that I know of has ever claimed to know with certainty what is going on in the universe. They theorize, examine, then re-theorize.


I not trying to slam you or your sister, I'm taking what I have learned about the universe, examining the evidence, and proving what I have found to be true. Congratulations to your sister. She is trying to protect people's lives, I'm trying to protect their eternity. Science is not mean-spirited, close-minded, and ignorant, it is very useful in today's world. It has its place. But when people make it their god, and try to prove that life came from atoms that were never there, that wammed into each other, and made a perfect world full of monkeys that over a gagillion of years turned into people...maybe some are a little close-minded.

----------


## Wandering_Child

> As well, I'm not totally sure how your posting was supposed to contribute to the discussion at hand?


Ah, and that's why I debated whether I should post here or not...I really thought I could have a small say in something without being bombarded and/or criticized. *shrugs* Religion is a picky, aggressive topic on any site you go to. 

Anyways, I take my leave. Know that I hold you _all_ in the highest esteem - Christian and Atheist alike. 

*bows respectfully out of thread*

----------


## Bandiceet

Thank you all for your welcome. I am sorry I have not had the chance to respond to those replying to my post. Since I posted that, I have gone to work and had a good nights sleep. (Yay for time zones!)

I have plenty else to ponderize over, but I am not sure a thread about Athiesim is the correct one to say it all, though it relevant to the generalised topic of what we are discussing. (I.E. Beleif systems and Religions.)

I find it difficult to put myself in any real pigeon hole on this due to the simple fact that neither side has offered me enough proof one way or the other. Basically every one can take what ever they want and put a small spin on the matter and claim that it is the proof that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

It also comes down to what you take out of something. You may find that many atheists follow the same principles as christianity, beleive that Jesus was a son of a carpenter and enjoyed a spot of fishing occasionally, but what they have difficulty with is taking that leap of faith that is required to beleive the water-into-wine, son-of-god, walking-on-water part of it all.

"Scientists have proof with out certainty, while Christians have certainty with out proof" - For the life of me I can not remember who said that, but it sums alot up quite neatly.

----------


## hyperborean

> "Scientists have proof with out certainty, while Christians have certainty with out proof" - For the life of me I can not remember who said that, but it sums alot up quite neatly.


Indeed it does.

----------


## SFG75

This has been a very worthwhile topic and the ensuing discussion says a lot about the quality members that we have here at the forum. While I don't post much, I do enjoy reading the thoughts of others. 




> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?


Richard Dawkins has stated that atheists are like cats, they are finnicky and don't like to follow orders, which is why they aren't as *organized* in the way that a lot of groups are. While there are atheist/humanist groups out there, their numbers are paltry compared to the actual number of atheists/humanists that are out there. They follow their own will and chafe at being subservient to others, or whatever form of anti-hierarchy thinking they have. In other words, they are a rather contrarian lot. I can only speak in regards to my own experience and I'll say this-to me, an atheist *believes* in rationalism, that is, approaching every situation in life with considerable thought and serious attention. This does not mean that an atheist is perfect. This carries a big responsibility as I've changed more than a few beliefs(political and otherwise) as I've examined things I didn't want to admit, but had to after considerable deliberation. An atheist is rational and always willing to examine the evidence. They know that living by a set of ethical principles is the right thing to do and that the greatest measure of one's life, is to dedicate one's life to something beyond the self. I will live forever through my children, through my life's work in the public sector, as well as through my desire to make this life around me better through civic participation.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> they are finnicky and don't like to follow orders... They follow their own will and chafe at being subservient to others, or whatever form of anti-hierarchy thinking they have. In other words, they are a rather contrarian lot...rational and always willing to examine the evidence. They know that living by a set of ethical principles is the right thing to do and that the greatest measure of one's life, is to dedicate one's life to something beyond the self.


Well stated. I'm curious: do you think this list of qualities is unique to atheists only, or can Christians claim the same qualities? I ask this because many atheists seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that Christians are not critical thinkers, that we "blindly" follow "what we've been taught" and that we need to "think for ourselves." Frankly, I think that's tired, stereotyping of Christians; it's almost as if many atheists want to brand rejection of established institutions, or "nonconformity" or whatever as their badge - but can't Christians claim the same qualites in different ways?

----------


## hyperborean

There are many Christian intellectuals and thinkers like you zeppelin, but many are "Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow" -Tool (opiate)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There are many Christian intellectuals and thinkers like you zeppelin, but many are "Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow" -Tool (opiate)


OK - I won't deny that: there are plenty of ignorant Christians out there, and I have annoyed a few of them myself.

(Thank you for the compliment - I'll take it as such even if it wasn't meant that way  :Smile:  )

----------


## Stanislaw

> I find it interesting, a little sad, and in some instances scary. But not funny.
> 
> The folks that are slamming creationists can not really come up with an alternate theory of what started it all. 
> 
> And the science bashers have almost certainly never had the opportunity to investigate what science really is all about. My sister is a professor of neurobiology and I take great offence at the notion that she is somehow a liberal na'er-do-well who's primary goal is to debunk someone's religion. She goes into the lab before dawn, and usually doesn't return home until after 9pm. She works very hard to understand the human brain an how in functions in order to better our lot--for very little monetary compensation. You folks that summarily dismiss scientists as mean-spirited, close minded, ignorant, whatevers...need to examine a mirror. No scientist that I know of has ever claimed to know with certainty what is going on in the universe. They theorize, examine, then re-theorize.


well, the same could be said of the relgion bashers...they've never checked it out... some of us are scientists, some of us believe that an open mind is best. I don't have all of the answers, neither do you, I'm just saying, keep an open mind.

----------


## watkinsguy

> well, the same could be said of the relgion bashers...they've never checked it out... some of us are scientists, some of us believe that an open mind is best. I don't have all of the answers, neither do you, I'm just saying, keep an open mind.


well, to quote some random black guy, true dat. lol anway To restate the gist of what Redzepplin has been saying, whether you like it or not, there are many Christians who know why they believe what they do and can easily defend it. To say that scientists have proof without certainty and Christians without proof shows that whomever quoted that phrase has never studied Christianity outside of TBN. In order to have a rational discussion we must all be on the same page, scientists that know about Christianity, and CHristians that know about science. I think this thread would be infinitly more interesting if we could do that...

----------


## Wintermute

> But when people make it their god, and try to prove that life came from atoms that were never there, that wammed into each other, and made a perfect world full of monkeys that over a gagillion of years turned into people...maybe some are a little close-minded.


So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.

Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?

What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!

Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?

----------


## Stanislaw

> So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.
> 
> Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?
> 
> What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!
> 
> Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?


I don't think thats what he was saying, I can't be certain though, I think generally, openmindedness on both sides should occur, both groups should acknowledge that the other side may have a point...innoccent untill guilty...

as for the question:

philisophically speeking, god is theoretically beyond our understanding, and thus perchance may not need to do anything in the snense of doing as we understand it. (thats platonic). or... we are not able to understand, based on our comprehensive limitations. (that is more rousseu , I murdered the spelling I know)

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

bookworm obviously doesnt know anything about physics.

----------


## Bandiceet

When I was in High School I had a teacher who was quite a devout Christian. He actually taught Physics. 

He openly admitted that he had seen enough scientific proof that there was a big bang. (though mind you, I don't what he thought about evolution). He had seen the proof, beleived it, though he did beleive it was god that made it go "bang" in the first place.

After reading some of these posts, I have seen SOME people have the general opinion that they are right because they see everyone else as being wrong. (Please note that the operative word in that sentence is SOME not ALL)

Do not forget, Ladies and Gents, the question that started this thread is:
"Do you consider yourself an atheist?" People have answered this with comments to quanitify and explain their answers.
It is not "Do you think that people are wrong for their beleif?"

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

but thats implied...
if you consider yourself an atheist, you think that the religious people are wrong and vice versa.

----------


## Wintermute

> . . .I think generally, openmindedness on both sides should occur, both groups should acknowledge that the other side may have a point...innoccent untill guilty...


Agreed  :Smile: 




> as for the question:
> 
> philisophically speeking, god is theoretically beyond our understanding, and thus perchance may not need to do anything in the snense of doing as we understand it. (thats platonic). or... we are not able to understand, based on our comprehensive limitations. (that is more rousseu , I murdered the spelling I know)


I was really wondering what YOU (anyone here) thought he/she/it was doing for infinity, not what philosophers of the past have concluded. Take a walk on the wild side--speculate. If you're so inclined. It seems like kind of convenient to answer a question with, "well, we're too dumb to understand God." We certainly understand some things, no--do unto others for example.

----------


## watkinsguy

> Do not forget, Ladies and Gents, the question that started this thread is:
> "Do you consider yourself an atheist?" People have answered this with comments to quanitify and explain their answers.
> It is not "Do you think that people are wrong for their beleif?"


Oh yeah that thing  :Smile:  I am not an atheist because being an atheist requires too much faith for me  :Smile:

----------


## Stanislaw

> but thats implied...
> if you consider yourself an atheist, you think that the religious people are wrong and vice versa.


Well, essentially, yes.  :Biggrin:  




> Agreed 
> 
> 
> 
> I was really wondering what YOU (anyone here) thought he/she/it was doing for infinity, not what philosophers of the past have concluded. Take a walk on the wild side--speculate. If you're so inclined. It seems like kind of convenient to answer a question with, "well, we're too dumb to understand God." We certainly understand some things, no--do unto others for example.


Well, it does seem convineient, but consider children, they do not comprehend why there are laws/rules (eventually they do, as they grow) nor do they comprehend their birth or many things for that matter...maybe its a form of existance beyond our understanding...it seems like a convieniat answer...because it is, but at the same time, it does make sense logically.

but If I were to take a guess within human parameters...I really have no idea, maybe fishing...that's what I would do.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.
> 
> Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?
> 
> What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!
> 
> Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?


No one knows what God was doing, but at least it is supposed to be a mysterious, unexplainable, and metaphysical, whereas the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order, yet still doesn't try to explain the pre-bang time period. 
Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong. Who would follow a faith that they didn't regard as superior?

----------


## SFG75

> do you think this list of qualities is unique to atheists only, or can Christians claim the same qualities? I ask this because many atheists seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that Christians are not critical thinkers, that we "blindly" follow "what we've been taught" and that we need to "think for ourselves."



Just so there is no misinterpreation, the context of my statement wasn't that religious people lack critical thinking skills, quite the contrary. Religious people are civically involved and that's a noble thing. To get to the heart of the matter, atheists don't organize themselves as well as religious people do. The American Humanist Association is a very small group compared to the relatively large number of atheists and humanists who would join. I don't believe that athiests feel compelled to join groups like that as many view it is a personal prerogative and are somewhat dismissive of those wh would "lead" the group. This is somewhat ironic to me as I know more than a few atheists who are very active in the ACLU or democratic politics. You would think they would be inclined to ban together to fight for the separation of church adn state more, but alas, that just isn't a big thing for some reason. I'm at a loss as to why that is thecase quite frankly. Christians in America have groups such as the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family. They are well-financed and have a ton of members. At the same time, not every Christian is a member of either group, so yes, critical thinking is still around for Christians, as well as for every group out there. 

On top of that, theree is a wide gap of opinion. Do I believe that a Unitarian is less of a critical thinker simply as a Christian? I do not. I know of many Methodists and Lutherans that I respect who are very profound and erudite intellectually. 




> Frankly, I think that's tired, stereotyping of Christians; it's almost as if many atheists want to brand rejection of established institutions, or "nonconformity" or whatever as their badge - but can't Christians claim the same qualites in different ways?


The sheer number of Christian sects bears that out. I would imagine that ministers/priests are also beside themselves at times with church members who clash with them over doctrinal matters. Stereotyping isn't right and yes, some atheists are "angry atheists" who only seek to trigger bad blood between people. I don't believe any group owes a monpoloy on that "bad" side of human behavior however.

----------


## Wintermute

> No one knows what God was doing, but at least it is supposed to be a mysterious, unexplainable, and metaphysical, whereas the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order, yet still doesn't try to explain the pre-bang time period. 
> Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong. Who would follow a faith that they didn't regard as superior?


So, you don't want to speculate what it was doing for infinity. Fair enough, I understand you dilemma--kind of a sticky-wicket.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order". By 'having an order' what do you mean exactly and specifically?

"Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong."

And this is not closed-minded?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> I was simply browsing and a specific post caught my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> If you really mean that seriously I...I am at a loss for words.
> 
> _This_ is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.
> 
> Now, I'm not an atheist. I am a practicing LDS member, but I do have respect enough for those who believe differently. It doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, or whatever you are should shun them simply because they don't believe in a higher being. God told us to love _everyone_. And it should end right there.


you are an athiest, so you don't belive in God, yet you claim that we should love each other because God commands it. Isn't that a little contradictory? I mean, I don't totally believe that quote either. Some people do do that, but you can't catagorize all atheists that way, just as you cant catagorize all Christians as "extremist who shove the Bible down their throats" But you can't claim something that was given by something that you don't believe exists.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> An atheist is rational and always willing to examine the evidence. They know that living by a set of ethical principles is the right thing to do and that the greatest measure of one's life, is to dedicate one's life to something beyond the self.


Well stated. Red already talked about this, but I will add my two cents. Red asked if it is possible that Christians are like this too. I am more than willing to examine the evidence. I was raised Christian, but you come to a time where people begin to tell you that Christianity isn't true, and I have examined it myself, and come to the conclusion that it the only logical option. When you accept that there is a God, but are questioning Jesus, a wonderful book to read is The Case For Christ. It is about a journalist that set out to prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. I highly recommend all you atheists to try to pull apart his arguements, and let me know your results. 
I realize that you only mean that quote for certain of the sect, and I will not catagorize all atheists by the multitude of bad ones, but I ask that you do not catagorize all the Christians by the majority of those who call themselves Christians. 
"They try to dedicate their life to something beyond the self." Isn't that our whole purpose? To try to reach out and y'all the truth before you die and go to hell? gtg

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> you are an athiest, so you don't belive in God, yet you claim that we should love each other because God commands it. Isn't that a little contradictory? I mean, I don't totally believe that quote either. Some people do do that, but you can't catagorize all atheists that way, just as you cant catagorize all Christians as "extremist who shove the Bible down their throats" But you can't claim something that was given by something that you don't believe exists.


he said he wasnt an atheist.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> So, you don't want to speculate what it was doing for infinity. Fair enough, I understand you dilemma--kind of a sticky-wicket.
> 
> I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order". By 'having an order' what do you mean exactly and specifically?
> 
> "Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong."
> 
> And this is not closed-minded?


I do speculate, but I cannot be sure. Having an order means that it should be explainable, but infinity is not explainable, not by science. It is closed minded, but why would you entrust your immortal soul to a cause that you didn't consider correct.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> If you really mean that seriously I...I am at a loss for words.
> 
> _This_ is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.
> 
> Now, I'm not an atheist. I am a practicing LDS member, but I do have respect enough for those who believe differently. It doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, or whatever you are should shun them simply because they don't believe in a higher being. God told us to love _everyone_. And it should end right there.


You don't seem to be at a loss for words. 
There are extremists out there, but there are also people who love (and this may not be such a crazy idea) by trying to save other people. Many times people who are just trying to make an atheist see the light are docketed as intolerant radicals. Respect is good, but to love you should have an interest (not neccessarily a pushy one) in helping their immortal soul. In my not-quite so humble opinion, trying to get a fellow human in to heaven demonstrates more love than playing 18 holes of golf with them every other Sunday.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

well, you nubs can go love someone else then  :Smile:

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> he said he wasnt an atheist.


sorry old chap. I was quickly skimming thru. I'm not quite sure what an LDS thingy is.

----------


## Logos

> I'm not quite sure what an LDS thingy is.


 Latter Day Saints  are people, not 'thingys'  :Smile:

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> well, you nubs can go love someone else then


True love is helping your "enemies" (i don't consider you my "enemy" as much as just not agreeing) as well as your friend. Anyone, including barbarians in who-knows-where, will help their friends; only those who really care will help those they don't know. If y'all have relatives, esp. close family, who are Christians, do you think that they will stop loving you if you don't convert? Not on your life! You don't have to agree to love.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Latter Day Saints  are people, not 'thingys'


sorry!

----------


## Weisinheimer

> "Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong."
> 
> And this is not closed-minded?


No, it's not closed-minded to be sure about something. I believe there is a God. I, therefore, believe that people who don't believe there is a God are wrong. I do however recognize that there are logical arguments for atheism. They just aren't as convincing to me as the ones for theism.

----------


## watkinsguy

Pluralism in today's society is so illogical....You can not have everyone be right and no one wrong.....i agree Weisninheimer

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

Yo! Yo! Yo! Homies!!! What's up? Word!

----------


## RobinHood3000

> No, it's not closed-minded to be sure about something. I believe there is a God. I, therefore, believe that people who don't believe there is a God are wrong. I do however recognize that there are logical arguments for atheism. They just aren't as convincing to me as the ones for theism.


In what way?

----------


## SFG75

> Red asked if it is possible that Christians are like this too.


They are like that to a degree. There are those who do acknowledge evolution and who wouldn't believe that we should take the Old Testament too literally, as stoning children and reverting back to a primtive, barbarian Taliban-esque society is untenable. There are those who are in denial. I coun't those who believe the earth is only 14,000 years old or who fail to believe that there are new species that emerge, which ultimately, validates evolution. I know more of more than a few Ph.D. holders who sudenly develop amnesia, or at least, stay away from the biology department. :FRlol:  The least critical thinking are those who are like Fred Phelps. People who take selected portions of the Old Testament, only to ignore the more absurd parts of it; people who equate a free-thinking deist Jefferson as a litaerlist; people like Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts, who talk about morality, but who ignore social justice and the economy to the detriment of working people. These are the folks who exhibit the least amount of critical thinking in my honest, biased, flawed opinion. :Yawnb:  





> I realize that you only mean that quote for certain of the sect, and I will not catagorize all atheists by the multitude of bad ones, but I ask that you do not catagorize all the Christians by the majority of those who call themselves Christians.


Oh I more than agree. Martin Heidegger was a known Nazi sympathizer. How someone with his background could have fallen under the sway of national-socialism merely accounts ofr the fact that humans...are well....human. 






> "They try to dedicate their life to something beyond the self." Isn't that our whole purpose? To try to reach out and y'all the truth before you die and go to hell?


LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false. For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor. Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief. Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes. Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO. Look at our own politicas, for years, the "curse of Ham" theory was used to justify slavery and segregation. How laughable is it that a man seeing his drunken father is cursed, but the daughters who get their father drunk and sleep with him isn't? :FRlol:  Now you could argue that those instances are different, however, that would be to admit the *relative* nature of things, and we now how *relativism* is the boogie-man for every known(or pretended) problem that there is. Third, the religion that one takes up is mostly predicated upon geography. If you grow up in Thailand, you will probably be a Buddhist. If you grew up in India, perhaps a Hindu or a Sikh. If you are an American, well, your sect depends upon your own family background. Yes, I suppose one could look at the "evidence" and dismiss other religions or sects, but that can be a rather creative task in reasoning as well. 

No, atheists aren't perfect and they(I) are more than flawed. I hold on to some ntoions myself related to politics and philosophy that I know perhaps aren't exactly so "true." However, I acknowledge that(or seek to) and in doing so, hope to continue learning what I can. I can't say the same goes for a theistic person. Contrary evidence can be rationalized away or simply ignored. 

Sorry the rant/rambling. I should have less coffee. 

I hope I did not offend with my post, it wasn't my intention. This is a fine board and I'm very impressed with the content posted thus far by everyone. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Weisinheimer

> In what way?


I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, Robin. some clarification, please.

----------


## Wintermute

> I do speculate, but I cannot be sure. Having an order means that it should be explainable, but infinity is not explainable, not by science. It is closed minded, but why would you entrust your immortal soul to a cause that you didn't consider correct.


Ok, let's do away with infinity. Lets pose the question as:

What do you think God was doing 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000 years ago? 

I think we all agree that this is only a drop in the bucket compared to infinity.

And as for an 'immortal soul', I'm far from convinced that such a thing even exists, let alone what I would trust it to if it did.

----------


## quasimodo1

Got to go with you here. I still havn't ruled out reincarnation and karma as distinct methods or resources. The deity concept has basic conundrums built in. Can the rules of physics be applied to spiritual things. Rhetorical question maybe. Oh well, back to unreality. RJS

----------


## Wintermute

> Got to go with you here. I still havn't ruled out reincarnation and karma as distinct methods or resources. The deity concept has basic conundrums built in. Can the rules of physics be applied to spiritual things. Rhetorical question maybe. Oh well, back to unreality. RJS


Hi Quasi,

Yeah, I'm with you, I can't really rule anything out. I sometimes think the native americans may have been onto something with their animal spirit guides, dreams, natural signs, etc. I could swear I've noticed unusual animal behaviour preceeding certain major events in my life--perhaps its just an over-active imagination though.

If spiritual = paranormal, then no, the laws of physics do not apply, imo. By definiton paranormal consistis of events beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation (1).

(1)
paranormal. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranormal

----------


## The Atheist

Can you guess which way I voted?

----------


## thuraiya

the one who suffere from materialism ...
and look for the reality of this life in wrong way 
he sufferes from inside because he don't understand the actual realationship between his mind and his heart ..
everything in his life must be material even the love 2 be real ..




in my opinion , if he or they don't believe that there is god "ALLAH" for this life ...
why ?
most of them live in confusing life ...

----------


## Taliesin

_O sancta simplicitas!_

----------


## thuraiya

> Atheists don't believe in a god. Like myself I only believe in materials processions. Of which I can personally see, touch, and feel. Unlike a god as many Christians believe in I do not see him. I have tried to pray to see some type of signs that to prove he exists, but as of now I have failed to get a reply. Therefore I don't believe there is a god, or ever will be one.


the actual feeling will tell you ..
the try does not carry any meaning of feeling ..
and the materials does not mean everythings ..

----------


## Taliesin

We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

ahhh! I do have a response to the eternity question, but I have to get off right now...  :Flare:  well, I will answer be back soon!

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Thuraiya,




> the actual feeling will tell you ..


What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.




> the try does not carry any meaning of feeling ..


How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.




> and the materials does not mean everythings ..


Agreed. But, and this is a big but: this concept does not in any way prove or even imply an omnipoten, omnicient, eternal, multi-universal creator/judge. It just means that love is good. It means that baseball is fun and that happiness is to be cherished.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.


I in no way am trying to say that science should just accept that they can't know everything. I'm saying that instead of trying to prove we came from monkeys, and disprove everything else, maybe they should try proving religion and see if they can find enough facts. That would be less close-minded.




> Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?
> 
> What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!
> 
> Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?


As someone has so kindly pointed out, I don't know physics very well. But still, I believe a key component of most of the equations have to do with time- seconds, minutes...months, years- am I correct? Because one thing everyone forgets is that day and night (by which we base all of our time measurements on) didn't exist until God created them on the first day of creation. Now, we can't say that God was out there for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...etc. years, because years don't exist! However, most people would still call the period between when God created the world back to forever as "time", but we cannot measure it. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a thousand years are as one day to God. I don't believe this to mean an exact measurement, but meaning a long period of time. So the "time" that cannot be measured would be quick enough anyway. 
One other thing is that we count certain periods of time as a long time. Being in school or work for a few hours is long, a 30 min. isnt. A year takes forever...etc. But I am sure God doesn't base long and short periods of time by our opinions. As He had lived, and lives, and will live, for eternity, I'm sure He doesn't get bored after half and hour.
Talliho! Good-bye! Hasta la Vista! Adios! C'ya! ...bye.

----------


## watkinsguy

this would be a valid arguement if this were amongst a group of believers Bookworm, but you are not. There is much scientific proof of Christinity all you have to do is look  :Smile:

----------


## Wintermute

> I in no way am trying to say that science should just accept that they can't know everything. I'm saying that instead of trying to prove we came from monkeys, and disprove everything else, maybe they should try proving religion and see if they can find enough facts. That would be less close-minded.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone has so kindly pointed out, I don't know physics very well. But still, I believe a key component of most of the equations have to do with time- seconds, minutes...months, years- am I correct? Because one thing everyone forgets is that day and night (by which we base all of our time measurements on) didn't exist until God created them on the first day of creation. Now, we can't say that God was out there for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...etc. years, because years don't exist! However, most people would still call the period between when God created the world back to forever as "time", but we cannot measure it. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a thousand years are as one day to God. I don't believe this to mean an exact measurement, but meaning a long period of time. So the "time" that cannot be measured would be quick enough anyway. 
> One other thing is that we count certain periods of time as a long time. Being in school or work for a few hours is long, a 30 min. isnt. A year takes forever...etc. But I am sure God doesn't base long and short periods of time by our opinions. As He had lived, and lives, and will live, for eternity, I'm sure He doesn't get bored after half and hour.
> Talliho! Good-bye! Hasta la Vista! Adios! C'ya! ...bye.


Howdy Book,

Just an fyi: 

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. 

Do you think a second is the same on say...Mars? I bet it is! If carried a caesium-133 atom to Mars, I bet it would vibrate 9.19 X 10e9 times/second just like on earth. Now, do you think a day and night are the same on Mars? Look it up if you have an open mind 8-)

Anyway, I can see when I'm beaten. You make a heck of an argument and I'd like to formally throw in the virtual towel. Be safe and happy my friend.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false. For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor. Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief. Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes. Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO.


Testimonies are not worthless. There were witnesses to Christs miracles, death, and rising, many witnesses. The process of adding and subtracting was written by the losers. Israel has been in and out of foreign control forever. The area's practices were quite cruel (the stoning children), but ethnic cleansing obviously failed, as the Jews (obviously the losers. The name Jew was actually applied to the people by the Persians who were occupying them at the time) are still there.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false.


Could you qualify the extent and method of your "investigation," please?




> For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor.


Easily countered. C.S Lewis convincingly argued in a number of essays that Christ was the fulfillment of all the other "symbolic Christs" before Him; the other myths were prefigurations of the Christ to come. If you examine Plato's _Republic_ and peruse Socrates' description of the "totally righteous man" you will see a decription that resembles Christ perfectly. Lewis suggested that if Plato had been alive at the time of the crucifixion that he would have said "yes - that is the exact thing of which I was speaking." Lewis contends (rightly so) that Christ was the "myth made real." Secondly, that the early Christian church may have had holidays that resembled pagan festivals doesn't invalidate Christianity - it simply confirms that it can, on occasion, resort to pragmatics to deal with cultural shifts (hence the Christian church's use of "harvest festivals" as alternatives to Halloween celebrations).




> Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief.


This too is false. The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal; the moral argument shows that God has a moral will, a purpose for how we are to live, that he is engaged with the world, and that the motives and actions of human beings matter to Him. No other belief system puts forth anything/body that meets the same criteria.




> Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes.


Fine - let's here your evidence, because I've heard this cliche a hundred times. Nobody who knows the history of the early church would agree with this. People do not die the horrible deaths early Christians did because of some made up book of lies. Please. The internal coherence of the Bible and numerous textual integrity studies absolutely trash-can these misinformed assertions.




> Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO.


I'm sorry - your out-of-context quoting won't work either. I could cut and paste enough statements out of your postings or take a few sentences of yours out of context and make you sound like you're saying something really bad too. Don't apply your 21st century politically correct lense on the Bible without knowing clearly what's inside it, the context within which these things occured, the the God whom it reveals. Doing so is reckless.




> Look at our own politicas, for years, the "curse of Ham" theory was used to justify slavery and segregation. How laughable is it that a man seeing his drunken father is cursed, but the daughters who get their father drunk and sleep with him isn't?


Why don't you dig up an argument from the 20th century? Current Christian theology believes no such thing. Digging through the past doesn't do much to condemn modern Christianity.




> Now you could argue that those instances are different, however, that would be to admit the *relative* nature of things, and we now how *relativism* is the boogie-man for every known(or pretended) problem that there is.


There is no "relativism" required - both actions were sinful.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work. if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change. what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work.


Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not _sheer absurdity_? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.




> if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change.


The Bible is not "how things should be" (I'm not even sure I understand what that statement means) - it reveals God's character through the history of His chosen people (the Israelites); as such, the story it tells is not "how things should be" but how things _were_. Luckily, it does contain principles that tell us how we _ought_ to be. That some people have gone off the deep end doesn't indict the Bible any more than some kid who machine-guns a high school campus after listening to heavy metal music indicts heavy metal.




> what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?


Why don't you clarify this wildly unclear statement and then I'll be happy to deal with it.

----------


## EitherOr

> The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal;


The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example).

My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example)..


There is no such thing as "infinite regression." What is known as "actual infinities" do not exist in reality - only _potential_ infinities exist. Explain your "no reason" statement, if you would, please.




> My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.



No - it states nothing of the sort. ID deals with the idea that the universe betrays signs of a "designer." One of the arguments is the idea of "irreducable complexity." But your final statement also works to _justify_ a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

----------


## Wintermute

> But your final statement also works to _justify_ a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?


Howdy Red,

I've noticed similar statements that apply to both trains of thought. For example:

Big Bang: what created it?
God: what created it?

If you accept that God is eternal, doesn't that imply infinity? Has God not been around for infinity?

----------


## Wintermute

> Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not _sheer absurdity_? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.


The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided. 

I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.


 Hi Winter - SCR's potential benefit has been much touted - but it requires the _destruction_ of an embryo - a _potential human being_. There are other ways to solve the problem. Humans are inventive. Simply because SCR is _convenient_, we argue to keep it - but something potentially human _dies_ for an unproven theory. No.




> I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.


No problem there. Watch us closely - but don't condemn us for what we personally could not condemn/prevent.




> Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).
> 
> Just my two cents.


I don't think God (or our secular society) would let that happen. The hostility out in the world today is aimed at religion, and Christianity in general. It is _I_ who worry about the future. Intellectual atheists like Dawkins have crossed the line from saying "Christians are confused and deluded" to "Christians are dangerous and their views are destructive."

----------


## billyjack

> The point is an atheist doesn't belive IN deities. The way you put it sounds like 'to belive' has only a single meaning, that is 'having a theistic belief'.


well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.


Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

----------


## watkinsguy

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95&#37; of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?


It could possibly be that the majority of people are more familiar with Christianity moreso than Islam.

But I probably shouldn't be answering this, I ain't an atheist. :Tongue:

----------


## billyjack

> Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks


yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.


Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here.  :Wink:  But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.


Christians do not have a problem with stem cell research, however they do have a problem with research on embryo stem cells. Those who are advocated of embryonic stem cell research are becoming more close-minded. They are refusing to pursue other very good and in some instances certain and more effective stem cells. For instance, umbilical cords have an abundance of stem cells that are just as (and some believe to be more so) usable as those from embryos, and you don't have to kill any potential humans (nor clone them).

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here.  But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with.


Well said.

----------


## thuraiya

As I said his attempt 2 find ALLAH does not mean anything at all !!
Surely 
I respect his attmpt . *_* 
*BUT* 
Why did I said that"?? 

Simply:- If I ask u or him 2 solve a complicated equation !!; 

But he did not find any solution 2 it .. 
"HE TRIED " 
Is that mean the equation does not have any 
solution !! 
My be u consider the equation as material  
OK 
As you believe "everything in this life should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind" 
I have one question 2 u .. 
If everything should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind as u said *
Could you describe my soul !!
How it looks...	What its colour ? 
Plz do not tell me that I have not soul because I will not believe u '

hi wintermut.*_*

as u asked:
what do you think God was doing ..... before it (he) decided to create the universe?
i think it is very good qustion .. :Thumbs Up:  
as you know everything in this life should have place & time ..
ok ...
just imagine anything without them event or anything u like ..
surly u can not..
what that mean?plz*
are our minds limited or what ?? :Idea:  
we can not know what ALLAH WAS DOING
with this limited mind...**




> We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?



hi Taliesin  :Smile:   :Smile:  
no i did not say iam sure in my feeling *at all*

and i did not say that that all people in the world have similar feelings..
you can return 2 my post*^*
may be it is misunderstanding...
i said by the actual feeling he will discover the existence of his god..




> Hi Thuraiya,
> 
> 
> 
> What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.
> 
> 
> How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.
> 
> ...


hi...Wintermute *_*

1) the feeling that can make connection between yuor heart & mind
not only with your mind ..

2)you will know the answer if you make comparison between your post & carolin's post what you are saying is completly diffrent with what carolin said *as i see*..


3)as you said it is just concept ...

Posted by Bookworm4Him 
. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. _ 


it is very fantastic sentence...
also do not say i am athiest ..
say ... i am looking for truth.. :Wink:   :Wink:

----------


## billyjack

> Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here.  But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with.


 why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

----------


## ennison

Living forever through one's children? A short distance from me there lived an old woman who lost all her sons in the war. Around me are bachelors and spinsters without children. The couple in the trees behind have none. Immortal work in the public sector? Does that knock out most people - who are after all not in the public sector. The cemeteries are full of the indispensible, whose toils now seem most obscure. Civic participation sounds neat - a hobby for the chattering classes could be synonomous. Truthfully I do not have enough irrationality to believe any of these things constitute any kind of immortality.
If by immortality you mean some historical record of your existence well it seems the World will longer remember Hitler's Nazi state than the millions of its anonymous victims.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.


I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying...  :Alien:  Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences. 
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with. 
Is that correct?

----------


## billyjack

> I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying...  Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences. 
> Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with. 
> Is that correct?


sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning. 

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out. 

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members. 

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying...  Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences. 
> Are you saying that religious scholars, after thoroughly studying religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with. 
> Is that correct?


If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add  :Smile:  
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol 
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add  
> Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol 
> If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!


C.S. Lewis did the same thing. He was born an atheist, studied theology, and then converted to christianity.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning. 
> 
> your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out. 
> 
> this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members. 
> 
> does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.


lol. I was typing my response while you were typing your translation, but you posted it first. You are probably reading my post, and responding to it right now, but i will go ahead and respond to this, to see if it helps.
First, you said that god is not within us like a liver or a brain, but we still must have gotten the liver and the brain from somewhere. We still are missing the essential point that we must have come from somewhere. We can't be the "totality of existence, because we can't have existed without being made to exist. (if that makes sense.) 
As for the "everything outside of us is the ideas of what is within us", and all that mumbo jumbo just convinces most people to believe it because it sounds confusing, and therefore people think it's right. (And before I get kicked off here, I can back that up with history and science. It's simply mob phsycology, or something like that. A perfect example is the lovely Friends, Romans, Countrymen speech. but enough of that) I will try to explain it with a little more detail oriented view, though I haven't studied this area of theology in particular. Earlier, I think starting on page 37, we talked about the neccesity for a supreme being. That was an awesome debate, and enough proof, I think, to tear the god within us belief apart; but i will continue anyway.
_"everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out. "_ You know, there are a bunch of theories about how the world is new everyday, and each day we are recreated with a new set of memories, and what I find amazing is the idea that people sit around thinking up, and trying to prove this stuff when, according to them, it won't make one ounce of difference because they think they will be a different person the next day! But back to the subject. I am not a master of any subject. I love my God, I love debate, and if you put the two together, you better have a defense. I did not major in, or spend the time studying, brain-senses-mind connections. My answer is not some profound scientific thing. It is simple.
I know what a tree is, because I have seen one, touched one, and learned what one is (not that all of those are neccesary. Someone from the desert could have it explained to them, and still know what it is) My point is, I know what a tree is, because it exists. This is where some people say that reality is different for each person, yada yada yada, but that is a different discussion. (One I would be glad to discuss, though. I don't know much about it, but would still try. Someone start a thread on that) There is proof of such a thing as a tree. I don't think that I know a tree because the "god within me" installed a knowledge of what a tree is. 
One quick thing to add on to that is that if reality was based on everyone's opinions, etc, there wouldn't be a reality. Everyone has different opinions, and they can't all be true, despite what certain people say. I say that there is one true God, and Jesus is his Son. Atheists say there is no God. We can't both be true. 
I have a bunch more to say, but this post is long enough. If you actually read all of this, then congrats!  :FRlol:

----------


## quasimodo1

Believe, worship, pray or skoff; your prerogative. Evagelalize and you migrate to some degree or arrogance. My opinion. RJs

----------


## aprildutcher

I'm an athiest and beleive in myself. However, I dont knock other peoples religions, thats just not fair.

----------


## aeroport

Funny that I happened to encounter this thread just as a rerun of the Dawkins interview is being aired on NPR. Right now!

----------


## watkinsguy

gotta love NPR...totally unbiased and oh so exciting to listen to...lol

----------


## .shuu.

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100&#37; of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".


And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".

----------


## .shuu.

> And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".



He would too, and I might wonder why he didn't do something about it then....oh well. never question the "almighty" eh?

----------


## JGL57

> Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".


I ran two polls about four months apart on the Internet Infidels forum last year regarding absolutist atheism vs. non-absolutist atheism. Both times there was a 20/80 split between absolutists and non-absolutists.

So, there, you have a definitive answer. As to religionists, I suspect the per centages would be reversed, if not completely then to a great degree.

----------


## watkinsguy

ok....how does this have anything to do with this thread? just wondering.....

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".


His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion. If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.


I see what your point is, but must clarify for others who might mistake what you're trying to say. Evidence does exist, but faith is also nessecary. You can't be like Spock (sp?) and say that you are doing it simply b/c it's the "logical choice" It Is the logical choice, but you also need to want it, to believe in it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion.


That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.




> If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.


This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?

----------


## The Atheist

> Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".


And fortunately, that's a biblically acceptable stance.

Luke 23:34. 

As they hammered the nails into his wrists, Jesus himself asked his dad to forgive the blokes doing it, "because they know what they do"

Not to mention Saulus and the Damascus Road.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.


The confusion exists in the logic of saying that one's faith is "weak" because of a _lack_ of evidence. Faith is what one relies upon in the _absence_ of evidence.




> This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?


Because He is different from all other variations of "God" presented by other belief systems. Other systems either deny the transcendancy of God, His personal nature and/or intelligence, His moral will or they make Him a blind "force" or worse, contingent upon something else. Only the God of Christianity exists, is necessary, is powerful, is transcendant, is non-contingent upon anything else, is intelligent, is personal, is moral, is engaged, is unique. No other "god" fits all that criteria.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?


"Evidence" is an interesting term; when I say "evidence" negates faith, I speak of "evidence" in terms of what a non-believer would accept - scientifically verifiable evidence based on the observable world. Christians believe we have "evidence" as well - but since our "evidence" cannot stand up to scientific inquiry, non-believers tend to brush it off as insubstantial - as if reality can _only_ be comprehended by what our senses can _perceive_. That's what I meant by my use of "evidence." I think I've got plenty of evidence for my beliefs - but my evidence is of such a personal nature that it would be all but meaningless to you - just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?

Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible. The Bible states that all men (meaning humanity) were created with an internal knowledge of God inside their hearts (all creations bear the hallmark of their creator) - knowledge which is partly present in our awareness of wrongdoing (called "guilt"), partly present in the attempts of artists to continually reach for the sublime, in our restless desire to be more, do more, to "suck the marrow out of life." Your other listed options do not change/heal lives, break addictions and inspire acts of sacrifice, compassion and love.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> ...just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?


Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.




> Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible.


The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's _History of the Kings of Britain_, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.


Your criticism is just; nonetheless, the point I was trying to make is still present (in a vague form, I guess): it is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of God - as possible as it is to convince you my wife is the best woman in the world. The analogy isn't apt because of the distinction you noted, but the subjectivity of religious experience makes it very very difficult to comminicate to others - and the primary reason for this is the nature of the presuppositional bases that you and I operate off of. I generally have found few atheists who will concede that their world view is predicated on the acceptance of a Naturalistic philosophic view of reality - many tend to insist that they are "clear thinkers" who have no biases and arrived at their conclusions by reason and consideration of the evidence alone; I'm sorry - I dispute that: I think humans are incapable of transcending the "filters" through which we see the world. I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism; as such, the same evidence which seems so persuasive to you is less effective on me because I operate off of the presuppositional base that God is real, and as such, being the all-powerful, all-knowing being that He is, that He is the sole gauge of what is reality - that nature in all its revelation, attests to His reality as well. Other believers will thus listen to my reasons for the belief in God and go "yes - of course, isn't that obvious?" while non-believers shake their heads and call us "deluded" or "blind" or ignorant. Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence? Our foundation is predicated on the reality that the world exists at two levels - the physical world being the lower (and as such, less significant) of the two worlds (the spiritual realm being the second). As such, when handed "facts" about the physical world that don't gel with what a _spiritual entity_ has told us, means that the spiritual takes priority. I know that to a scientist, such thinking appears to be intellectual suicide, but faith is not predicated upon verifiable evidence. God asks us to trust Him - because a provable God is not a God whom people would serve out of love - they would serve out of other, less noble motivations.




> The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's _History of the Kings of Britain_, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.


But the Lady of the Lake did not claim _Divine Authority_ and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.

I am not using the Bible to argue the existence of God - that would result in _circular reasoning_. The Bible is the testimony of God's character and His relationship to us - it cannot testify to the veracity of God's existence other than in whatever ways the Bible is confirmed by history, or by the truth of its moral statements. Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> t is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of God


God's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.




> I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism;


The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.




> Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence?


The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.




> But the Lady of the Lake did not claim Divine Authority and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.


Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?




> Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.


And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.


God's existence is _objective_ - but _our experience_ of it is largely _subjective_ in nature.




> The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.


True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds. That some Christians have embraced it is entirely up to them - but the Bible doesn't support its veracity.




> The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.


You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even _seem_ to be sensible.




> Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?


Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legends - legends that do not present a cohesive world view, that do not predict the future and cannot be historically verified (as many things in the Bible can). You cannot form a world-changing theology out of Arthurian legends, sorry. A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).




> And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.


I disagree. My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from _Eccesiastes_); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an _internal_ knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds.


This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals _solely_ to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.




> You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible.


I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown _in the very last topic you were talking about._ The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists, unless I missed something really big in the news.

I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.




> Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legends


Which makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?




> A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).


I know that they're _different_, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.




> My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from Eccesiastes); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an internal knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.


And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals _solely_ to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.


Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?




> Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.


So? Denominations exist because a unified interpretation of scriptures is unrealistic given humanity's tendency to interpret things inaccurately (due to bias or whatever).




> I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown _in the very last topic you were talking about._ The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists, unless I missed something really big in the news.


I'm allowed to have my opinion - _even if_ you and the above listed denominations disagree. They do not speak for all of Christianity. They speak for themselves - just as I assume you speak for yourself and not all atheists.




> I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.


That may be true.




> Which makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?


I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value. Or do I assume too much? I guess I hoped you would be willing to acknowledge that - whether God exists or not - the Bible has offered many people a hope, a guide, and a better way to live their lives. Perhaps not.




> I know that they're _different_, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.


Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you. That's why.




> And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.


Because other things cannot give you a new life and the promise of eternity in the presence of God. I know you've dismissed Pascal's Wager elsewhere here, but my belief costs me nothing in this life except the approval of society and occasional discomfort when God asks me to grow as a person. Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.

----------


## The Atheist

> The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's _History of the Kings of Britain_, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.


That's a very good analogy. I'm a longtime atheist and thought I'd seen all the good analogies, *plus* I'm a huge Arthurian legend fan, yet it had never clicked until I read that.

You could make an outstanding case for it to be factual. If the bible is factual, despite having no factual basis outside of it and the church, then _Arthur_ is a shoo-in. As you note, it ties in with fact, *and* it contains sufficient biblical references to be almost made for the job.

You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?

----------


## Redzeppelin

The one positive benefit of making Arthurian literature into a "religion" is that it is _derivative_ of Christianity - so, of all the legendary material you could chose, at least you chose one that has a legitimate baisis. Good job. :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?


If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.




> I'm allowed to have my opinion - even if you and the above listed denominations disagree.


Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:




> *You must* reject the supposition of divine creation for *any other theory* to even seem to be sensible. [Bolding mine]


Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.




> I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value.


I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The _only_ parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.




> Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you.


You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.




> Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.


And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.




> You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?


Can't say I have. I'm not really an Arthurian legend specialist. Monmouth's _History_ would be a good place to start, if you're interested, but I've got enough reading to do as it is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.


My language may have been inexact; I was implying the latter.




> Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:


Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).




> Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.


I see my error - I tend to lump all evolution together and I'm not always careful about the distinction. Sorry. I do understand the difference, and I speak primarily about the origin of life on the planet (of which evolution must address if God is eliminated as an option).




> I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The _only_ parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.


Right - and I get the basis of the analogy - I suppose I'm trying to push the analogy further by showing that there is a weakness within it that won't allow it to seriously stand as an option because the contents of each is very different; as such, I'm suggesting that not all "mythology" is created equal. In fact, C.S. Lewis - an expert on literature - confessed that as mythology, the Bible was actually not even _well-written_ mythology because it didn't follow much of the necessary patterns of mythology. My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.




> You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.


No I'm not. I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.




> And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.


I'd be worried if and only if the Egyptian's version of God answered all the _necessary_ qualifications that God must answer in order to explain the existence of life, the universe and morality - luckily, no other god does so, so I'm pretty confident in my position.

----------


## Zirkle2007

In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.


I understand this logic; I suppose I would reply that the agnostic at least _presents_ the position that he _might_ be open to the idea, provided some sort of "evidence" could be produced. In that way, I might call an agnostic a "passive" atheist. An atheist, by contrast, seems to hold the position that there is no "evidence" to be found, and even if it could be, it would more than likely be dismissed (what good is evidence for something that they refuse to acknowledge exists?). But - I speak for my atheist brothers/sisters and ought not: gentlemen/ladies - care to comment?

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

an agnostic is not a "passive atheist." agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether or not a creator exists. atheists believe that one doesnt.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).




> Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).


Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, _Finnegans Wake_ is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".




> My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.


Of course. I wasn't trying to imply any similarity further than the ones I specifically pointed out.




> I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.


I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.

----------


## The Atheist

> There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:
> 
> A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
> A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
> A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
> A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.
> 
> All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).
> 
> Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, _Finnegans Wake_ is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".


Well said.

I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:

"Hey, it's _your_ turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."

N.B. to any which think that way:

In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.

It's taken me nearly half a century to arrive at strong atheism, having passed from an openly atheist child to an agnostic youth, a questioning twenty-something, an atheist thirty-something and on to where I am now, a complete and outspoken atheist as I near fifty.

Just a note for christians - every single one of your positions or arguments is something I've already heard many times over the years and can be summed as up "anecdotal evidence + a collection of Abrahamic god myths = christianity".

You're welcome to retain the comfort-blanket of the big sky-daddy, but please do not, even for a millisecond, suggest that you know anything about life on the side of the road where there are no gods - the real world - because you have no idea why I'm an atheist and almost certainly all of the reasons you've been given to explain why people are atheists are irretrievably wrong.

Atheists are atheists for the simplest of reasons - there are no gods. We'll never agree on that, but I do respectfully ask that you learn to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's all very easily explained - from the voice of Jesus you respond to, to the religious awe you feel in contemplating your god. It's all physical and you *can* find the facts, should you choose to do so.

You won't find the truth on an internet message board, but you might if you open your eyes for a second or two along life's journey.

And note my first Orwell quote - it applies equally to religion as The Party

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:
> 
> A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
> A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
> A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
> A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.
> 
> All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).


Thank you - that is helpful.




> I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.


I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the _results_ or _overall effects_ of following a particular faith system might be said to reveal its value. A dangerous statement, I'll admit - but few things in life adhered to passionately are immune to such risks.

----------


## ennison

CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion

----------


## Redzeppelin

> CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion



Boy - wouldn't _that_ be something.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)


I assumed ennison was discussing Christianity. (Hence the use of "terrifying")

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.


Would you believe me if I told you that sometimes age changes things? I spent much of my 20s paying "lip service" to God and the Christianity I was raised within but living my life as I pleased (and I am still reaping the unfortunate results of many of those choices  :Frown:  ); years ago, my father (attempting to steer my away from an "interfaith" relationship that had the potential to turn later into a "holy war") warned me to be careful - that what I'd grown up with might come back and re-assert its value in my life. He was right.

Carl Jung asserted something similar in his treatment of the Grail Legend - that young men often come into contact with something profound in their youth that only truly makes itself known to them in middle age. For an interesting treatment of this, I recommend Robert Johnson's short book _He_.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

When I say I didn't much care for it, I am not refering to the fact that my freedom was restricted. I am refering to the capacity that was instilled in me to feel large ammounts of irrational guilt, not to mention irrational fear of eternal torture and the entirely irrational belief that sex and the sex instincts are somehow 'bad'. I don't need any of that, thank you, I'm stressed-out enough. On the off chance that I am, somehow, convinced that the Judeo-Christian version of God actually does exist, I suppose I might have a shot at Unitarian Universalism.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Well said.
> 
> I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:
> 
> "Hey, it's _your_ turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."
> 
> N.B. to any which think that way:
> 
> In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.
> ...


However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion. There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous. Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism. The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils", while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere, then vanishing (as from a flood). Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.
And a question; was Orwell an atheist?

----------


## RobinHood3000

_Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens_

Yes, no halfway fossils whatsoever.


The idea of a Big Bang is only ludicrous to those who don't understand what they're laughing at. The Big Bang was not undirected - science in its present form simply has no means of explaining it. And if evidence existed to support Christianity, it would cease to be a religion. Religion, by its nature, exists on faith and cannot be proven.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> And a question; was Orwell an atheist?


Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain. What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.
Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created. If it is directed, then there is a god who existed outside of the universe. There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?


I'm just curious. Also, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain.


They evolved, in other words.




> What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.


Ask and ye shall recieve.




> Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created.


Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.




> There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.


I've yet to hear about it.




> lso, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.


Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, _laissez-faire_ capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.

----------


## JBI

Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> They evolved, in other words.


There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.




> Ask and ye shall recieve.


The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that. 




> Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.


How was the universe created then?




> I've yet to hear about it.


Have you been looking?




> Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, _laissez-faire_ capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.


Sorry, that was The Atheist.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?


I think that serial killers, terrorists and used car salesmen are still ahead of us, but yes, it's fairly amusing. And quite sad.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.


That is quite simply false. This is what biologists spend most of their time doing. Pick any organ you like and look it up.




> The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.


Those links listed a few more creatures than the archeopteryx.




> How was the universe created then?


I haven't the foggiest idea. That certainly doesn't mean that I have to accept your idea, however.




> Have you been looking?


Yes.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.


Natural selection at work, then?

----------


## billyjack

> How was the universe created then
> .


who says it was created? maybe the answer eludes us because the question itself is silly. . .

----------


## The Atheist

> However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion.


Baseless and incorrect assertion. 

Ask an NSA scientist if you don't want to take my word for it.




> There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous.


Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.




> Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism.


Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.




> The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils",


Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.




> ... while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere,


Outright lie.




> ...then vanishing (as from a flood).


Yet another lie.




> Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.


When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.

You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.




> And a question; was Orwell an atheist?


No, firstly, he was far too consumed with this world to worry about the next, but his position was clearly agnostic. His position on religion was essentially the same as his opinion on Public Schools - bad idea, essential to survival of the human [English] spirit.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Baseless and incorrect assertion.


Religion is outright and claims to require faith, where as atheism appears to rely on science, but has no replacement for religion. 






> Baseless and incorrect assertion.
> 
> 
> Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.


Again, atheism claims to rely on logic but requires faith to deny faith, whereas religion states that it is based on faith.






> Baseless and incorrect assertion.
> 
> Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.


You might want to find another response than 'Baseless and incorrect assertion'. What took place before what is neither here nor their. 






> Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.


I did, and I responded to the old archeopterix, which appears to come from nowhere (except the distantly related dinosaurs) and go to nowhere in the evolutionary chain. If you have seen it, it can't have survived long. If it flew, it didn't fly well.






> Outright lie.


See 'Cambrian Explosion'.




> Yet another lie.


The flood part may have been baseless, but look at the dinosaurs. Some meteor or something completely removed them and mammals became dominant directly afterwards.






> When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.
> 
> You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.


You might try to prove me wrong using information, rather than 'outright lie' and 'Baseless and incorrect assertion.'[/QUOTE]

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

As this thread has drifted from the subject matter that is was based on and is becoming rather irritating (partially because of me, I must admit), I am leaving it. Goodbye.

----------


## The Atheist

> You might try to prove me wrong using information, rather than 'outright lie' and 'Baseless and incorrect assertion.'


[/QUOTE]

No point. If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.

----------


## whatsername

Does anyone know what made C.S. Lewis become a christian after being an Atheist?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No point. If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.


This thread is about atheism, not evolution. Your "facts" prove _nothing_ beyond the reality that science has found some clues and _thinks_ that it has a good shot at interpreting them into the answer it _wants to arrive at._ In that way, science is no different than religion - in that it begins with its _conclusion_ (Naturalism) and makes the "facts" fit its plan - just like Christians begin with God and do likewise. Welcom to the _presuppositional club_ - some of acknowledge we're members - others of us pretend we're not.




> Does anyone know what made C.S. Lewis become a christian after being an Atheist?


On September 19, 1931, Lewis went for an evening walk at Magdalen College with JRR Tolkien and Hugo Dyson. They were discussing their shared interest in mythology and what gave myths their truth. Tolkien argued that the truth of myth is the degree to which it reflects the story of Jesus. Then Tolkien went on to argue for the truthfulness of Christianity. About two weeks later, Lewis converted to Christianity. That's a really truncated version - it's much more complicated than that and I believe Lewis fully lays out his experience in _Surprised by Joy_.

----------


## Logos

> If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.


Please discuss the topic and not each other.

----------


## kilted exile

Ok in an attempt to get things somewhat back on track I'll answer the original Q.

What do atheists believe in?

Seeing as atheism is a position of only one shared belief, I will answer from a personal standpoint.

1) I do not believe in a benevolent creator/god/supreme being. Looking around at the world I can see no evidence of it - I may be inclined however to think that if there is a creator he/she/it is disinterested and/or incompetent.

2) I believe that humans have the power themselves to do great acts of kindness and huge amounts of evil, and that we are capable of affecting real change ourselves without the need for a god to do it for us.

3) I believe in the "no harm" philosophy, so long as what you do does not adversely affect any unwilling participant I have no real issue with it. Of course with the condition about creating laws/regulations for children and others not able to make the decision on a concious level for themselves with regards to whether they wish to participate or not.

4) I do not believe in marriage, I have never seen the need for a piece of paper or the idea that people somehow love each other more or are less likely to split up if they get married (of course this is influenced by my childhood experiences)

5) I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions - to me pre-destination/fate seems like a huge cop-out, if I work hard enough life will be good.

6) I believe people should believe in whatever works for them without attempts from people to make them see "the light" as it is percieved by the converter. It doesnt matter to me whether people believe in nothing, god, Y-W-H, Allah, Buddah, the tooth fairy or Santa if it works for you go with it. Just dont expect everyone to agree with you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok in an attempt to get things somewhat back on track I'll answer the original Q.


And I thank you kindly for doing so.




> What do atheists believe in?
> 
> Seeing as atheism is a position of only one shared belief, I will answer from a personal standpoint.
> 
> 1) I do not believe in a benevolent creator/god/supreme being. Looking around at the world I can see no evidence of it - I may be inclined however to think that if there is a creator he/she/it is disinterested and/or incompetent.


I understand the first statement and the second; I do not understand the third and would benefit from some elaboration.




> 2) I believe that humans have the power themselves to do great acts of kindness and huge amounts of evil, and that we are capable of affecting real change ourselves without the need for a god to do it for us.


I agree with the first statement, though I question your use of the word "evil" - if God (and by extension, Satan) do not exist, how does "evil" come into play? Without a Creator to establish an objective morality of good/evil, how can we define anything as "evil"?

If the second statement is true, then why are so many people in this world unhappy, addicted, dissatisfied? Why aren't we "self-actualized"?




> 3) I believe in the "no harm" philosophy, so long as what you do does not adversely affect any unwilling participant I have no real issue with it. Of course with the condition about creating laws/regulations for children and others not able to make the decision on a concious level for themselves with regards to whether they wish to participate or not.


But what is our assessment of "harm" based upon - observation? Can observation truly give us the full measure of the value of an action or behavior? Is anything really OK if both parties are consenting and nobody else is harmed? If I want to die, and I hire someone to kill me, since we're both consenting, are our actions to carry this plan out OK?




> 4) I do not believe in marriage, I have never seen the need for a piece of paper or the idea that people somehow love each other more or are less likely to split up if they get married (of course this is influenced by my childhood experiences)


The paper is a symbol, like the ring. It shows the level of committment. We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract - it makes the contract more binding, beyond "OK - I'm tired of you now and I don't particularly feel like investing the time and effort it would take to grow in this relationship so I'm just going to bail out now."




> 5) I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions - to me pre-destination/fate seems like a huge cop-out, if I work hard enough life will be good.


I fully agree with the first and second statement. The third is impossible.




> 6) I believe people should believe in whatever works for them without attempts from people to make them see "the light" as it is percieved by the converter. It doesnt matter to me whether people believe in nothing, god, Y-W-H, Allah, Buddah, the tooth fairy or Santa if it works for you go with it. Just dont expect everyone to agree with you.


"Whatever works" for some people is immoral, selfish and destructive.

What if I knew with 100&#37; certainty that the stock market would crash in one week and you had thousands of dollars invested. Would you consider my pleas to you to sell off your stock as unreasonable? What if I knew with 100% certainty that a tsunami was heading toward your seacoast town - would my pleas for you to evacuate seem unreasonable? What if I knew the way to become a millionaire and could share that secret with you - would you be annoyed by my trying to do so? Try to understand that Christians believe with 100% certainty that God will eventually execute judgment; as such, we don't want anybody left out of the great rewards that God has in store for everybody (EVERYBODY) who chooses to accept His gift of Salvation. Why wouldn't we be insistent?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract...


"Any other contract"? Don't you think there's something of a difference between a life-long monogamous commitment and 'any other contract'? Mortgage, employee agrement, sale of real estate, renter's agreement, decision to enter into a pact of mutual support and friendship with the one person you love more than anybody else in the world. One of these things is not like the others.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "Any other contract"? Don't you think there's something of a difference between a life-long monogamous commitment and 'any other contract'? Mortgage, employee agrement, sale of real estate, renter's agreement, decision to enter into a pact of mutual support and friendship with the one person you love more than anybody else in the world. One of these things is not like the others.


Yes - there is a difference - a huge difference - but I levelled the marriage certificate to the generic term "contract" in order to emphasize its symbolic value in a way that pointed out the need for commitment within the marriage. In fact, my use of contract is actually intended to be ironic in that we take other, far less important areas of our life much more seriously, creating contracts to emphasize our willingness to keep our word - but marriage (the most _significant_ relationship of your life) we treat as if it does not deserve the same seriousness, the same consideration. All this without even me bringing up the spiritual considerations inherent in creating a life-long relationship (it will suffice to quote from Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, _and they will become one flesh_" (2:24).

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> In fact, my use of contract is actually intended to be ironic in that we take other, far less important areas of our life much more seriously, creating contracts to emphasize our willingness to keep our word - but marriage (the most significant relationship of your life) we treat as if it does not deserve the same seriousness, the same consideration.


Oh, yeah. Irony. I knew that. Umm, me too, I was being ironic. Yeah, that's it.

One could, I suppose, take the opposite view and say that demanding something so crass as a written contract for something so important as a marriage degrades the institution, but I believe we've strayed into the realm of personal interpretation. *Goes off and hides in the "to each his own" corner.*

----------


## Redzeppelin

> One could, I suppose, take the opposite view and say that demanding something so crass as a written contract for something so important as a marriage degrades the institution, but I believe we've strayed into the realm of personal interpretation. *Goes off and hides in the "to each his own" corner.*


You're correct on both counts. I think the state "demands" the "contract" because marriage is a socially recognized relationship (in terms of legality and such); for most couples it functions as a symbol. (The more crass - but I suppose practical in some situations - document is the "pre-nup.") I don't imagine it would hold much power in an ugly argument to pull out the marriage certificate and wave it at one's partner and say "Hey - we'ver got a contract here!" Either way, it functions as a tangible reminder that the relationship is an agreement not to be taken on whim or "feeling" (just as I cannot refuse to pay my mortgage on such things).

----------


## kilted exile

> I understand the first statement and the second; I do not understand the third and would benefit from some elaboration.


Rereading that I probably should have limited it to "or" what I mean by that goes to my progression to atheism from good little boy with perfect sunday school attendance record to unsure agnostic fearing lightning and thunderbolts to committed non-believer.

I used to believe in a benevolent creator, but as I grew older I began to notice all the problems in the world (not man-made here) this led to the belief that either god is benevolent but incompetent with regards to addressing this indiscriminate pain & suffering or is capable of preventing it but is disinterested in doing so. This then progressed to my current belief that there is no God.




> I agree with the first statement, though I question your use of the word "evil" - if God (and by extension, Satan) do not exist, how does "evil" come into play? Without a Creator to establish an objective morality of good/evil, how can we define anything as "evil"?


We have discussed this previously (need for "divine authority" for law/moral code etc) I disagree that it is needed, however I fully understand that you think it is - one of those agree to disagree things I think.




> If the second statement is true, then why are so many people in this world unhappy, addicted, dissatisfied? Why aren't we "self-actualized"?


Because as a society we have not yet come to the full realisation that things work better if we try and work together instead of pulling against each other (cant really go too far into reason here due to forum rules on political discussion)




> But what is our assessment of "harm" based upon - observation? Can observation truly give us the full measure of the value of an action or behavior? Is anything really OK if both parties are consenting and nobody else is harmed? If I want to die, and I hire someone to kill me, since we're both consenting, are our actions to carry this plan out OK?


By harm I mean causes a negative impact or undue mental/physical/emotional suffering. If you know a better way to assess this than observation I am willing to listen, but until we have mind reading equipment I think observation is the best way yes.

With regards to the agreement to terminate life, I may be slightly opposed to the idea of payment being offered in this respect (but that is a personal thing). However if you were of sound mental health and came to this decision that for you life was meaningless or intense pain (as in the case of medical euthanasia) I would respect your decision....I may not agree with it but I would not passjudgement on you for it.




> The paper is a symbol, like the ring. It shows the level of committment. We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract - it makes the contract more binding, beyond "OK - I'm tired of you now and I don't particularly feel like investing the time and effort it would take to grow in this relationship so I'm just going to bail out now."


As I said this is really influenced by my childhood, I realise for a lot of people marriage adds extra significance to the relationship. For me however it seems pointless....




> I fully agree with the first and second statement. The third is impossible.


I think for my last statement it really depends on what you consider required for life to be "good" I dont really need much, I live a pretty simple life so long as I have a roof over my head and I am not constantly worrying about how to pay my bills I am perfectly content. I believe I can achieve this with hard work.




> "Whatever works" for some people is immoral, selfish and destructive.


And as such would go against the "no harm" belief I stated earlier. The belief itself is ok, the acting on it would not be.




> What if I knew with 100% certainty that the stock market would crash in one week and you had thousands of dollars invested. Would you consider my pleas to you to sell off your stock as unreasonable? What if I knew with 100% certainty that a tsunami was heading toward your seacoast town - would my pleas for you to evacuate seem unreasonable? What if I knew the way to become a millionaire and could share that secret with you - would you be annoyed by my trying to do so? Try to understand that Christians believe with 100% certainty that God will eventually execute judgment; as such, we don't want anybody left out of the great rewards that God has in store for everybody (EVERYBODY) who chooses to accept His gift of Salvation. Why wouldn't we be insistent?


You can tell me once, but if I choose to reject your advice then that is my decision to make. If you repeatedly tell me your secret to being rich then yes I would get pretty annoyed.

I dont think there are many people who have not been exposed to the main ideas of religions at somepoint throughout their lives, I have made my choice I will accept any consequences they hold in store for me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Rereading that I probably should have limited it to "or" what I mean by that goes to my progression to atheism from good little boy with perfect sunday school attendance record to unsure agnostic fearing lightning and thunderbolts to committed non-believer.
> 
> I used to believe in a benevolent creator, but as I grew older I began to notice all the problems in the world (not man-made here) this led to the belief that either god is benevolent but incompetent with regards to addressing this indiscriminate pain & suffering or is capable of preventing it but is disinterested in doing so. This then progressed to my current belief that there is no God.


I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.






> We have discussed this previously (need for "divine authority" for law/moral code etc) I disagree that it is needed, however I fully understand that you think it is - one of those agree to disagree things I think.


True.





> Because as a society we have not yet come to the full realisation that things work better if we try and work together instead of pulling against each other (cant really go too far into reason here due to forum rules on political discussion)


OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."





> By harm I mean causes a negative impact or undue mental/physical/emotional suffering. If you know a better way to assess this than observation I am willing to listen, but until we have mind reading equipment I think observation is the best way yes.


Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?




> With regards to the agreement to terminate life, I may be slightly opposed to the idea of payment being offered in this respect (but that is a personal thing). However if you were of sound mental health and came to this decision that for you life was meaningless or intense pain (as in the case of medical euthanasia) I would respect your decision....I may not agree with it but I would not passjudgement on you for it.


But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?





> As I said this is really influenced by my childhood, I realise for a lot of people marriage adds extra significance to the relationship. For me however it seems pointless....


Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.





> I think for my last statement it really depends on what you consider required for life to be "good" I dont really need much, I live a pretty simple life so long as I have a roof over my head and I am not constantly worrying about how to pay my bills I am perfectly content. I believe I can achieve this with hard work.


I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.





> And as such would go against the "no harm" belief I stated earlier. The belief itself is ok, the acting on it would not be.


Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.





> You can tell me once, but if I choose to reject your advice then that is my decision to make. If you repeatedly tell me your secret to being rich then yes I would get pretty annoyed.


Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)




> I dont think there are many people who have not been exposed to the main ideas of religions at somepoint throughout their lives, I have made my choice I will accept any consequences they hold in store for me.


Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.

----------


## Babbalanja

> I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering).


Well, you _assume_ He has reasons for permitting suffering. Because, say, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and homeless from a tsunami seems like just the sort of thing that a benevolent God would stop if He could, or cared to.

But oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a universe in which God takes care of us and one in which there's no God. 

Interesting.

----------


## Devon_Marie07

> Well, you _assume_ He has reasons for permitting suffering. Because, say, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and homeless from a tsunami seems like just the sort of thing that a benevolent God would stop if He could, or cared to.
> 
> But oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a universe in which God takes care of us and one in which there's no God. 
> 
> Interesting.


I have no doubt that there is a god. :Wink:  I believe that God permitts suffering because of the fact that we screwed up so many times. Note the fact that God only let the suffering start after the first time humans sinned. Plus there are people who gain Christ through suffering. I personally would not be a Christian if it were not for having to have open heart surgery at the age of 14, I was in the hospital for over three months because the doctors made a mistake. I had to relearn how to walk. My parents were told I would die in less than a week. You know that saying about how you never forget how to ride a bike? Well my best friend had to reteach me. I never saw something miraculous but for some reason I just knew. I will never regret going to have the surgery, instead I praise that I have. I know there are many people who suffer more than myself, but there are also many who suffer less. After suffering comes compation, which is the only godly persona in suffering. God doesn't want us to suffer, he never has wanted to hurt us, he wants to help us through the suffering we get from the world. Suffering comes from the world not from God. :Banana:

----------


## kilted exile

> I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.


See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.




> OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."


I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.




> Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?


Yep harm is related to a moral framework




> But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?


I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.

With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.

With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.




> Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.


That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired.
Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)





> I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.







> Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.


Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.




> Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)


Ok, _if_ that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myself




> Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.


I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.

I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:

"A priest explained
How clever it was of Giotto
To make his frescoes tell stories
That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
Of God and the suffering
Of His Son. I understood
The explanation
And the cleverness"

----------


## Redzeppelin

> See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.


That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.





> I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.


Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.





> Yep harm is related to a moral framework


We agree.




> I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.


How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?




> With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.


Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?




> With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.


May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.





> That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired. Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)


But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the _growth_ that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us _grow_ - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired). 

Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.





> Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.


Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.




> Ok, _if_ that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myself


Fair enough.




> I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.


Unfortunate, but understandable.




> I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:
> 
> "A priest explained
> How clever it was of Giotto
> To make his frescoes tell stories
> That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
> Of God and the suffering
> Of His Son. I understood
> The explanation
> And the cleverness"


Yes, that's one way of seeing things.

----------


## Babbalanja

> That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.


No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.

----------


## wrestle-135

There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.


This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?

----------


## kilted exile

> That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.


No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.




> Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.


This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a master




> How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?
> 
> Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?


100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)




> May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.


This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.




> But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the _growth_ that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us _grow_ - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired). 
> 
> Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.


My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committed




> Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.


Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the belief

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$&#37;^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.


I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.





> This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a master


Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea_ to an extent_: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you _choose_ to - not because you're _obligated_ to.)





> 100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)


I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."





> This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.


Fair enough. 





> My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committed


But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?




> Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the belief


I'll agree there.

----------


## Babbalanja

> This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?


Why don't you tell me?

It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.

Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Why don't you tell me?


Because I asked _you_ the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it. 

If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like (because to claim something as "less" - example: "heartless" - you must know what it is that is "minus" [if I have no feelings, compassion or love, I am, therefore, "heartless"]). If you can't or won't answer the question, that's fine, but I don't know how you can say what a "godless" universe looks like unless you have some idea as to what the universe is missing in terms of events or actions of characteristics that reveal that God's not here.




> It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.


The universe does not have a "heart" - its ability to kill us is incidental and not a matter of intent.




> Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.


I have no idea why you're telling me this. Why bring up Occam? I'm waiting for you to present what the universe would look like with God in it, since you seem to know what a "godless" universe looks like. I await a better answer than the one you've given.

----------


## kilted exile

> I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.


Yeah, I've heard this reasoning before. It's never really worked for me however. My main issue is with the indescriminate nature of natural disasters.




> Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea_ to an extent_: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you _choose_ to - not because you're _obligated_ to.)


I think we may be arguing semantics here, what you describe I would describe as an equal nature seeing as everyone has the same nature




> I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."


Yes we are emotional, fickle and a lot of the time self-interested. What makes me more uncomfortable is not having a good reason to refuse a particular behaviour, but still telling people they can not do it because a preconcieved notion of how we might act under the circumstances.




> But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?


If people wish to get married and wish to display it publically that is fine. However if the two people involved in the relationship, are happy living a "private" life that is fine also it is just what works for some people.

I have also realised I never actually responded to one of your previous points




> I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.


I believe you are referring to Matthew 6v24 here: "Man can not serve 2 masters etc" This is/was one of my favourite verses from the bible. It is a point which there is some degree of difficulty arguing with seeing as it is a personnally (albeit wideheld amongst the religious in nature) held belief. For a number of people the belief in a God gives their life extra meaning, for others it adds little.

----------


## Devon_Marie07

> There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.


Speaking of people healing, on the same day my pastor's daughter found out her "hole in the wall of her heart was completely gone" and she was discharged my best friend went to the doctor and found that her breast cancer that had been there a week ago was completely gone. God works gread miracules!

----------


## Babbalanja

> Because I asked _you_ the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it. 
> 
> If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like.


No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.

Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?

The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.

I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?

In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?

----------


## ennison

The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept. And a few might say, 'Well why did God create evil?' Some of us accept that there was a Fall and find that an explanation of sufficient strength. I believe this might be a partial response to some of the comments above.

----------


## Babbalanja

> The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept.


But you're really not _accepting_ it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see _anything_ as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.

So am I blaspheming for asserting that I don't see what greater good He could want to achieve by allowing child abuse or devastating tsunamis? Or are you blaspheming by asserting that God is basically responsible for these things since he doesn't deign to prevent them?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$&#37;^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.


 :Frown:  I'll pray for him.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.


No snideness intended. You said this: "No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe."
So, I assumed that such a statement implied a knowledge of what a godless universe looked like. To know this, one must have an idea of what is missing. To turn it back to me struck me as a way of avoiding an answer. My apologies if my reply was offensive.




> Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?


To answer your question would take many very lengthy paragraphs. In short: God gave His creatures freewill - as such, the presence of freewill brings with it the potential for suffering, because human beings are free to choose evil instead of good. To stop humans from exercising their free choice would be to deny freewill. Now, if we assume that God is all-benevolent and morally perfect (as the Bible describes Him), then we must assume He has a valid reason for making the world in the way He has; that is not meant to justify the fact that good people suffer - it merely explains that the existence of suffering does not negate the existence of God. For God to prohibit the exercise of men's freewill would ultimately be to limit free thought (since thought precedes action); God won't do that - He desires His creatures to be free. Prayer is not "all about" just getting things we want - it is about communication with God and the development of a relationship with Him. It is His prerogative (as an all-knowing, all-powerful Being) to answer prayers in a number of ways - one of those ways being "no." 




> The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.


Only if God is merely an exaggerated version of a human being. He's not. If He is all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing as He is described, then we must assume that He has good reasons for the way He allows what He allows. Just like children who don't always understand the complexities of the adult world that influences adults to make the decisions they do, God's decisions are far beyond what we - with our limited perspectives - are sometimes able to understand. We see only _now_ - God sees the entire picture.




> I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?


It _is_ tragedy; it _is_ suffering. Saying that it exists and that God has reasons for allowing it to exist is not "rationalizing" it so much as _framing_ it in a way that suggests that there is a reason for its existence.




> In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?


Two good reasons exist: 1) God sacrificed His own Son - Jesus Christ - to redeem all of humanity from the consequences of sin - Christ who was sinless paid the price for the sin of all humanity; as such, God freely has given us Grace, and we all may have eternal life if we choose; 2) God's kindness and compassion shows up in the people of this world who choose to serve Him by trying to alleviate suffering wherever they can.

In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.


Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.

----------


## ennison

'But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.'
Well as a matter of reality I do accept it. If I get caught in the rain (as I often do) then I get wet. Whether I like it or not I have to accept it.
And as I said The Fall explains things for many of us - at least up to the limits of our understanding.
The question of evil could be seen as a consequence of darkness which I take to be not created by God but the thing/condition from which God separated life/ Creation and which The Fall allowed back in to Creation.The fourth verse of Genesis 1 seems clear to me that Darkness is a negation of God's work. Evil belongs to darkness. Darkness is in us, as it was not in Adam and Eve at the start. 
And yes I do see your point about 'Why doesn't an omnipotent God etc?' but what benefit is it to me to take such a line which can leave individuals who have suffered loss as embittered, angry and unconsoled? Unless, of course, you want us to be supermen. There have been and are some who claim such status.

----------


## HannibalBarca

I may be a deist, but i'm definitely not an atheist.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.


I didn't say it _wouldn't_ exist or _couldn't_ exist - I said there is no _need_ for it to exist at all and its existence would be a chance occurrence that we might/might not find usefull.

There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.


Granted, but I submit that doing the good/virtuous thing pays off better in the long term, in the sense of helping to create a society in which the good/right thing is the norm. (I am aware that this reasoning is a bit circular, as I'm defining the good/virtuous thing as that which creates the 'best' society, if everybody did it. Oh well.)

As an aside: "is it", in your opinion, "pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?"

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Granted, but I submit that doing the good/virtuous thing pays off better in the long term, in the sense of helping to create a society in which the good/right thing is the norm. (I am aware that this reasoning is a bit circular, as I'm defining the good/virtuous thing as that which creates the 'best' society, if everybody did it. Oh well.)


This is workable as long as people possess the maturity to look at the long-term picture (which I would suggest is not necessarily the norm; consider our current levels of credit card debt and the housing disaster in North America where people got into houses they couldn't afford during the low-interest boom of the last 5 years - we are now looking at record foreclosure numbers due to rising interest rates - the examples go on and on that we're pretty much "I want it now and don't care about tomorrow - bill me").




> As an aside: "is it", in your opinion, "pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?"


I have trouble with the term "pious." I will swith to the word "good": Things are "good" in so much as they reflect the character of God; things are "evil" in so much as they reflect that which is _not_ in God's character. The problem with the statement you originally posed is twofold:

1) the first statement implies that it is God who decides what is right/wrong because He likes/loves it - which implies that He could perhaps like/love some other thing and call it "pious": this makes right/wrong a product of God's whim.
2) the second statement implies that "piety" exists outside of God and that He loves it for what it is; this implies that God must hold to some external standard of right/wrong; this disagrees with Christian theology that believes that good doesn't exist _outside_  or _independently_ of God - He is the definition and source of _all_ that is good.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I have trouble with the term "pious." I will swith to the word "good"


I say 'pious' only because I'm quoting.




> Things are "good" in so much as they reflect the character of God; things are "evil" in so much as they reflect that which is not in God's character.


Ok, fair enough, but saying that God's character is 'good' implies some outside standard of comparison, no?

----------


## ennison

Well one 'outside' standard of comparison is Satan (and his/hers/its demons). Though I fear our friend does not believe in Satan either - kinda hard for me not to though.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Well one 'outside' standard of comparison is Satan (and his/hers/its demons). Though I fear our friend does not believe in Satan either - kinda hard for me not to though.


God is good because _Satan_ says so? This is assuredly the craziest kind of christianity I've ever heard of.

----------


## ennison

You asked for an outside standard of comparison.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I don't think you undrstand me. If you want to say that God is 'good' and Satan is 'bad', you obviously need a definition of 'good' and 'bad' independant of God or Satan.

----------


## ennison

The evidence of Satan's works suits me as a reason for defining him as bad.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The evidence of Satan's works suits me as a reason for defining him as bad.


Thus implying that what you define as 'bad' has nothing to do with Satan, unless you're a fan of circular reasoning.

----------


## ennison

No but I don't feel the need to define the obvious until it becomes ridiculous. If my hand gets cut off I need a doctor not a dictionary. If Satan is the enemy of my soul I need a friend for my soul.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I say 'pious' only because I'm quoting.


Right - I did catch that - was that from Plato? I think one of the dialogues of Socrates begins with a discussion on piety. It seemed familiar. So I could have been more accurate by saying I take issue with the speaker's use of "pious." 




> Ok, fair enough, but saying that God's character is 'good' implies some outside standard of comparison, no?


No - God's character is _what-it-is_; He tells us that all that is good is a reflection of Him - that "goodness" is defined by its approximation to the character of God. We call "good" good because of its closeness to the character of God. Most people (I would asume) would call the characteristics of God - love, compassion, justice, mercy, kindness, longsuffering, patient, loyal, forgiving, etc - "good" things.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Right - I did catch that - was that from Plato? I think one of the dialogues of Socrates begins with a discussion on piety. It seemed familiar. So I could have been more accurate by saying I take issue with the speaker's use of "pious."


It's Plato, specifically the Euthyphro Problem. It showed up on my ethics final a few days ago. In context, 'pious' means the same as 'virtuous' or 'morally correct'. I may be reading from a poor translation.




> No - God's character is _what-it-is_; He tells us that all that is good is a reflection of Him - that "goodness" is defined by its approximation to the character of God.


But God is self-created according to the Christian conception of him, no? So he must have, at some point, molded his own character. Did he choose the character traits that you mention arbitrarily, or did he recognize them as good in and of themselves, and decide to endow himself with them on that basis?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's Plato, specifically the Euthyphro Problem. It showed up on my ethics final a few days ago. In context, 'pious' means the same as 'virtuous' or 'morally correct'. I may be reading from a poor translation.


Good - that's the dialogue I was thinking of (it's the first in my copy entitled _The Last Days of Socrates_). I thought it sounded familiar. Yeah, "morally correct" is better than "piety" because "piety" carries a religious connotation (as in "being religious" which Christianity acknowledges as no clear indicator of moral character); "morally correct" is closer to "good" in my thinking.




> But God is self-created according to the Christian conception of him, no? So he must have, at some point, molded his own character. Did he choose the character traits that you mention arbitrarily, or did he recognize them as good in and of themselves, and decide to endow himself with them on that basis?


I don't think Christianity sees God as "self-creating" because that implied He didn't always exist; we believe He is (to paraphrase Aristotle) the "unmoved mover" - the First Cause. In Christian lingo, we mean that God is the only "non-contingent" entity in the universe; only He is uncreated. We define "good" based upon God's character. God does not "choose" His character - it just _is_. In other words: love, compassion, justice, mercy et al are "good" because they are attributes of God. Not vice versa.

----------


## 3kixintehead

The beliefs of athiesm in their most basic form are:
The athiest believes in nothing supernatural or unexplainable by science. They believe there is a scientific explanation for everything even if that explanation hasn't been found yet. Most have confidence that science one day will find an explanation.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The athiest believes in nothing supernatural or unexplainable by science.


Wrong. The atheist believes in no gods. Buddhist atheists certainly have beliefs that could be consider supernatural.

----------


## cardplay

I'm surprised that one third said they were atheists. Polls say 90% of Americans 'believe in God'. I guess we're not representative of the nation, huh?

----------


## Logos

Definitely not. Only about 40% of the members here are from North America.

----------


## hyperborean

90&#37; of Americans believing in God (most blindly following faith) does represent the western populace. Sad ain't it?

----------


## 3kixintehead

> Wrong. The atheist believes in no gods. Buddhist atheists certainly have beliefs that could be consider supernatural.


If they are buddhist then they are not very good athiests since buddhism is a very spiritual faith. Vice versa also. One can follow the philosophy of buddhism but if they participate in the faith then they are buddhist not athiest.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> If they are buddhist then they are not very good athiests since buddhism is a very spiritual faith. Vice versa also. One can follow the philosophy of buddhism but if they participate in the faith then they are buddhist not athiest.


Wrong - theism is not the same as spiritualism. Buddhist atheists are Buddhists who consider Siddhartha a teacher, but NOT a deity. If they do not believe in a deity, then they may be called atheists.

----------


## The Atheist

> 90% of Americans believing in God (most blindly following faith) does represent the western populace. Sad ain't it?


It's not at all representative of general western attitudes. Most of Western Europe is non-religious, by comparison.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I suppose the question waiting to be asked might be this:

What is the atheist _spiritual_ about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?

----------


## billyjack

you could call their spirituality god or soul or mind or universe, but they dont personify or deify the spiritual into something supernatural or beyond reality. their spirituality isnt a godhead who controls or judges or creates. instead, spirituality is the way of things, the workings of nature, the spontaneous unity of the universe. its completely empirical, observable, knowable, but not speakable-only experiencable.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What is the atheist _spiritual_ about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?


Reincarnation, the idea of a "pure land" afterlife for the virtuous, the concept of Bodhisattvas  noble spirits that continually return to the earth to educated and assist the rest of us (the Dalai Lama being one example), &c. These are all supernatural beliefs held by certain Buddhist sects, while still maintaing that there is no such thing as a god. I'm going to cut myself off here, because I am definitely not an authority on Buddhism.

Oh, and "the atheist" is as fictional an entity as "the theist".

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I'm surprised that one third said they were atheists. Polls say 90&#37; of Americans 'believe in God'. I guess we're not representative of the nation, huh?


Aside from the reasons other have given, I imagine a person who is an atheist is more likely to read a thread titled 'Atheists'.

----------


## The Atheist

> What is the atheist _spiritual_ about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?



See, you clearly don't understand atheism or Buddhism.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Buddhists don't have a god.

Ergo, Buddhists can be atheists - and most of them are.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> What is the atheist _spiritual_ about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?


You answered your own question. Say spiritualism refers to belief in a supernatural entity or dimension. God is a supernatural entity. Isn't it logical, therefore, that if athestic Buddhists do not believe in God, then they believe more in the spiritual dimension?

----------


## Redzeppelin

I think I asked a silly question that I wasn't fully clear on. Excuse, please.

----------


## Scrivenor

God was created by man in his own image. Before we were aware of our mortality, we didn't build churches, we didn't pray, we didn't imagine some omnipotent "eye in the sky" watching us or watching over us. People are religious because they lack the intellectual resources and personal determination to work out ethical questions on their own.

Why would someone who wrote fourteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago or five thousand years ago have more wisdom than people who live today. 

And why are churches ond of the most lucrative businesses on earth today?

----------


## mtpspur

[
And why are churches ond of the most lucrative businesses on earth today?[/QUOTE]

Wow, I knew I was at the wrong church. Lucrative?? I've been around Protestant churches on and off over 30 years and have only known a couple of ministers that owned their own homes. SO where is this rich and well off establishment so I can put on my best presentation of a fallen saint that needs picking up? Where oh where--please tell me beacuse it sure isn't in Ohio. :Yawnb:   :Yawnb:   :Yawnb:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God was created by man in his own image.


Incorrect. 




> Before we were aware of our mortality, we didn't build churches, we didn't pray, we didn't imagine some omnipotent "eye in the sky" watching us or watching over us.


Would you mind identifying this era of our history? When exactly were people unaware that they eventually would die? I figured that would catch on pretty quick (within at least a generation or so, don't you think?).




> People are religious because they lack the intellectual resources and personal determination to work out ethical questions on their own.


Wrong again. Unbelievably wrong.




> Why would someone who wrote fourteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago or five thousand years ago have more wisdom than people who live today.


Because wisdom is not a product of technology, "civilization" or whatever it is you think we have that they didn't. Another wrong idea that we moderns have some sort of lock on wisdom.

----------


## The Atheist

> Wow, I knew I was at the wrong church. Lucrative?? I've been around Protestant churches on and off over 30 years and have only known a couple of ministers that owned their own homes. SO where is this rich and well off establishment so I can put on my best presentation of a fallen saint that needs picking up? Where oh where--please tell me beacuse it sure isn't in Ohio.


You must be in the wrong church.

Blokes like this have no troubles - cars, Harleys, Caribbean cruises...

He is by no means alone in being a very wealthy preacher. Never heard of Benny Hinn? Or noticed that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest organisation on the planet?

----------


## The Atheist

> God was created by man in his own image.


Correct.

I'm amazed at how often I get a sense of deja vu on this subject - I covered exactly that this morning. God is everything we would wish him to be - the ultimate big-daddy who not only kisses it all better, he also lets us live foreever! Who wouldn't love the guy?





> Before we were aware of our mortality, we didn't build churches, we didn't pray, we didn't imagine some omnipotent "eye in the sky" watching us or watching over us.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here, man has always had gods. The human construct of the Abrahamic god/s is quite simple to acknowledge, but earlier than that, there were certainly religions which dealt with death as one of the subjects. That's one of the finer ironies in christianity - the only way to eternal life is through Jesus and god. Yeah, right. Thousands of years earlier, the only way to eternal life was through Osiris, Baal or other deity. There's nothing new in christianity, people have worshipped gods since they first realised they could think.




> People are religious because they lack the intellectual resources and personal determination to work out ethical questions on their own.


I'm just loving the fact that a creationist denies that this is true, because I can prove, beyond *any* doubt that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he are to believe in the sky-daddy, and conversely, the dumber he is, the more likely he will be to attend a church, be a creationist, an Amway salesman, or all of the foregoing.

I know some very clever christians, all of whom have a far different opinion of god and creation from fundies. The level of gullibility and doublethink required to be a creationist ensures that the lowest intellectual group will fall for it. Some of them may appear quite smart on the surface - I know a fundie with an IQ of 190, he has appeared on tv as "the human computer", yet he is a complete loser with no personality and is therefore able to practice doublethink on himself to ensure that he nevers asks questions, thus preserving the only social group he will ever fit into.




> Why would someone who wrote fourteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago or five thousand years ago have more wisdom than people who live today.


Amen to that, too.

Do we still mill corn and wheat by hand? Do we travel by donkey? Do we go to the toilet, or do it on the side of the road? I think that in this, at least the Amish are honest - they just ignore the past thousand years or so.




> And why are churches ond of the most lucrative businesses on earth today?


Because it keeps them in business. Money buys television time which sells product and brings in new believers who tithe more money so more tv time can be bought, etc.

The Old Testament sets the financial scene quite nicely for religion when the sky-daddy himself tells the Hebrews:




> When you destroy a city, kill all the men, keep the women and kids for your own purposes, give me one tenth part of the gold and keep the rest.


I can't be bothered finding the precise quote, but that covers it exactly - god has always loved cash.

----------


## The Atheist

> Because wisdom is not a product of technology, "civilization" or whatever it is you think we have that they didn't. Another wrong idea that we moderns have some sort of lock on wisdom.


Actually, you're completely wrong, wisdom is acquired through experience. Humans today have the collective wisdom of thousands of years of science and society to start from. Children leave school with more wisdom that people used to collate in all their lives.

This is another point fundies miss entirely - there is 10,000 years of human wisdom and knowledge to refer to, yet they only refer to one book, which hasn't been updated for 1700 years or so.

----------


## mtpspur

I knew I shouldn't have made the joke about lucrative churches. I also need to stay off this forum. BUT to be serious. I am a believer in the Lord Christ as a personal Lord and Savior for sins to anyone who believes in Him which makes him available to anyone whether they have wisdom or not. I also know I'm a weak Christian in the faith due to my predilection for doing a Jonah--thinking I have a better plan then God for the "way it ought to be." If you think about the 10,000 years of recorded history for wisdom and the fact that the ONE BOOK doesn't need updating to get the lesson across should be a telling testimony to its authority. Professing themselves to be wise they become fools. Best to stick to the basics. With respect and no real interest in batting back and forth. I leave that to the more erudite amongst us. Faith, people, faith. All else is dust ands ashes.

----------


## B-Mental

mtpspur, I've been staying away from the religous texts forums for quite a while, but I've noticed several posts lately, and had to say. To Atheist - Do me a favor...please...TONE IT DOWN. I agree with many points you make, but you can take it too far. The intelligence of a person is not related to their belief in a higher being. Faith is the major thing. I would have quoted mtpspur, but its just above my post. Its true, the ability to believe is paramount to faith.




> Actually, you're completely wrong, wisdom is acquired through experience


Only part right, experience and reflection can lead to wisdom, but experience alone will not lead to wisdom. What else can be involved? Gee, I don't have my all knowing recipe. 

I know that people feel passionate about these topics, but discussion is one thing...I wonder why religous topics give me a headache.

----------


## The Atheist

Couple of nice coherent posts for a change!

I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.

What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken. Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things. 

And yes, _mea culpa_, my patience with them is thin!

----------


## B-Mental

I'll tell you that I was raised Roman Catholic, and quite a stink was made when the diocese spent 3 million dollars on a glorified garden. I know that there is a lot of things that could have been done with the money, but a garden doesn't seem high on my list.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Couple of nice coherent posts for a change!


Revise: "Couple of posts [that agree with my worldview] for a change!"




> I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.


"Clever" apparently, because they _agree_ with you. The people you described above do not sound like Christians at all - at least Christians who truly know who God is and recognize their need of Him. People who see God as a "philosophical" need have equated Him with some sort of intellectual "vitamin." I question that type of "Christianity."

Since I rarely see you make any _real_ case here (but I do see you dismiss other people's) why don't you lay out your "excellent case for [G]od" - I would _love_ to read it.




> What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken.


You know little about Christians - perhaps you ought to hang around some and listen to them on occasion so that you might stop making such ill-informed statements about them. We acknowledge science's veracity in many areas (Christians who deny that gravity works would be denying the existence of God - because He created gravity). Your comments are based largely on your non-stop _begging-the-question_ of the truth about evolution. Once again: you have a theory, with some pieces of "evidence" that appear to support that theory. Congratulations. Quit pretending that evolution is equal to gravity - to do so seriously puts to doubt your credibility as a spokesman/woman for evolution.




> Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things.


We try to avoid things that are flat-out mistruths if we are able to do so.




> And yes, _mea culpa_, my patience with them is thin!


We forgive you.

----------


## Scheherazade

> please...TONE IT DOWN.


Thank you, B-Mental.

I think this is a suggestion we can all benefit from.

Please do not personalise your arguments and/or post off topic comments.

And *The Atheist*, I think it is very lucky for us all that the patience of the Moderators of this Forum is not so 'thin'.

----------


## bazarov

> I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.


That's OK.





> What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken. Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things
> 
> And yes, _mea culpa_, my patience with them is thin!


I am a Christian, but that's not so relevant now. I am well educated and that's probably the main reason why I look and think different about some things; and those people probably aren't, and they can't understand some science things; and you should understand that. You don't have to respect that, but that will never change, especially at elderly population. My advice is to you: don't argue with them; you're probably intellectualy more superior above them and you won't prove nothing, their minds are not so open minded.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm amazed at how often I get a sense of deja vu on this subject - I covered exactly that this morning. God is everything we would wish him to be - the ultimate big-daddy who not only kisses it all better, he also lets us live foreever! Who wouldn't love the guy?


Any condemned man given a reprieve has good reason to love the man who came and freed him, and - unbelievably - took the punishment meant for the man he'd set free.




> The human construct of the Abrahamic god/s is quite simple to acknowledge, but earlier than that, there were certainly religions which dealt with death as one of the subjects. That's one of the finer ironies in christianity - the only way to eternal life is through Jesus and god. Yeah, right. Thousands of years earlier, the only way to eternal life was through Osiris, Baal or other deity. There's nothing new in christianity, people have worshipped gods since they first realised they could think.


Other mythological "gods" who promised anything (if they did at all) offered no real hope to humanity; they had no clear mission on earth, no particular moral position and certainly did not claim the power to create as did God. They were mere pretenders to the throne. And, despite your cavalier assertion about Christianity, it is very different from most world religions, in a number of distinctive ways.




> I'm just loving the fact that a creationist denies that this is true, because I can prove, beyond *any* doubt that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he are to believe in the sky-daddy, and conversely, the dumber he is, the more likely he will be to attend a church, be a creationist, an Amway salesman, or all of the foregoing.


A statement beyond absurdity. Spiritual belief does not imply deficiency in thinking unless one subscribes to Naturalism (which, from the Christian POV is its own particular form of ignorant blindness). The only person who would make such a statement would be someone whose idea of reality is one of considerable limitation. Such comments as yours ironically affirm the exact opposite of your words.




> I know some very clever christians, all of whom have a far different opinion of god and creation from fundies. The level of gullibility and doublethink required to be a creationist ensures that the lowest intellectual group will fall for it. Some of them may appear quite smart on the surface - I know a fundie with an IQ of 190, he has appeared on tv as "the human computer", yet he is a complete loser with no personality and is therefore able to practice doublethink on himself to ensure that he nevers asks questions, thus preserving the only social group he will ever fit into.


Ho-hum. This line of argument is nothing more than a collective _ad hominem_ argument; apparently, what can't be refuted through a real _argument_ will be assaulted through silly and unsubstantiated _generalizations_.




> Do we still mill corn and wheat by hand? Do we travel by donkey? Do we go to the toilet, or do it on the side of the road? I think that in this, at least the Amish are honest - they just ignore the past thousand years or so.


These things are not necessarily reflections of wisdom as much as perhaps _necessity_ or the development of _technology_. Try not to confuse the two.





> Because it keeps them in business. Money buys television time which sells product and brings in new believers who tithe more money so more tv time can be bought, etc.


This cynical view is common; in some cases deserved, in many, not.




> god has always loved cash.


Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:

1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, _period_. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.

I think that's about everything out of me for the time being.  :Wave:

----------


## B-Mental

> 2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.


I don't know if this was in my comment on faith. I intended to mean that the ability to have faith is the basis to believe. Believers and Atheists differ on the basis to accept something in their lives, or reject it. They both can have faith, but its where they place their faith.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hi Robin - haven't heard from you in a while. Thanks for your balanced response. I fully agree with your 2nd point.

----------


## Quark

Doesn't religion mistake form for content?  When we talk about deities or invisible spirits, are we not really discussing ideas like truth or justice? These concepts can be difficult to talk about. Often we use symbolic language that excites the soul more than reason, but once we commit ourself to the language of the discussion and not to the actual object don't we lose something. I generally like religious people, and I even identify with them--in that they actually hold ideals like truth and justice to be primary. But, I think that to restrict people to the standards and rules of a religion would be to make a mistake. People may begin to imagine that the strictures and plaudits of religious figures is more important than the ideals their religion stands for. This is the danger involved when people put form above content.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Doesn't religion mistake form for content? When we talk about deities or invisible spirits, are we not really discussing ideas like truth or justice?


In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of _truth_ and _justice_. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

----------


## Quark

> In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of _truth_ and _justice_. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.


Is that really honest? We know of Justice and Truth before we accept the deity that explains them. People are not born with a religious identity--they do not have any a priori notion of a specific deity. I agree that there is a connection between cause and the effect. For example, I know that object fall to the earth and I believe that gravity causes this. But, and here's the distinction, I know that gravity is the one that I have invented. I accept gravity because it appeals to certain experiences, principles, and feelings. The idea of gravity helps me bring order to my experience and it satisfies me, but I don't pretend that this just is. Instead, I realize that it's a creation which works for now, but doesn't preclude possible changes--possibly even refutation. This is my problem with religion: it pretends that gravity is the reality and the objects falling to earth is the illusion. Suddenly it becomes more important to know about gravity than it is to know that things fall to the earth, and the truth is that gravity is just one of many invented theories. Aristotle believed that objects seek rest and that causes them to move toward the center of the earth. This was another explanation that was satisfying for a time, but it yielded its place when another was found that was closer to what people thought and felt. Just as there were many theories of objects falling to earth, there any many ways of talking about spirituality, truth, and justice, but unfortunately religions believe that their theories are more important that what is really being talked about.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of _truth_ and _justice_. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.


The fact that a society which contains those two things is in the best interests of all its denizens is a very good reason for those two things to exist.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Is that really honest?


Absolutely. Lying is a sin - I'm trying to avoid sin wherever possible in my life.




> We know of Justice and Truth before we accept the deity that explains them.


Sure - but we also learn what love is before we have a name for it. Most things we learn of before we have a name or idea as to where they came from. That we understand the concepts first doesn't necessarily mean that they exist independently. All good things in this world - truth, justice, love, mercy, compassion, charity, hope, faith, kindness, etc - are all qualities of God; they are reflections of His perfect character.




> People are not born with a religious identity--they do not have any a priori notion of a specific deity.


The first statement is true; according to the Bible, the second is false.




> I agree that there is a connection between cause and the effect. For example, I know that object fall to the earth and I believe that gravity causes this.


Me too. (*audible gasps from the evolutionists in the crowd who think Christians don't acknowledge the validity of science*).




> But, and here's the distinction, I know that gravity is the one that I have invented. I accept gravity because it appeals to certain experiences, principles, and feelings. The idea of gravity helps me bring order to my experience and it satisfies me, but I don't pretend that this just is.


What? Here's where my jaw drops. Gravity _is_ - period. It is not a concept because if you decide to disbelieve in it, guess what? It still "works." Either I'm missing some subtlety in your argument (highly possible) or you just went off into some mystery land where reality gets to obey your thoughts.




> Instead, I realize that it's a creation which works for now, but doesn't preclude possible changes--possibly even refutation.


I have argued a version of this point as well - but I don't think that means that what _is_ now is not _real_.




> This is my problem with religion: it pretends that gravity is the reality and the objects falling to earth is the illusion. Suddenly it becomes more important to know about gravity than it is to know that things fall to the earth, and the truth is that gravity is just one of many invented theories. Aristotle believed that objects seek rest and that causes them to move toward the center of the earth. This was another explanation that was satisfying for a time, but it yielded its place when another was found that was closer to what people thought and felt. Just as there were many theories of objects falling to earth, there any many ways of talking about spirituality, truth, and justice, but unfortunately religions believe that their theories are more important that what is really being talked about.


Sorry - you lost me here. I don't get the analogy at all.




> The fact that a society which contains those two things is in the best interests of all its denizens is a very good reason for those two things to exist.


A _practical_ reason yes; but there's no reason they _have_ to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society. Without God, nothing has to be _as it is_.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> A practical reason yes; but there's no reason they have to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society.


How about the fact that they're the ones that work the best? 




> Without God, nothing has to be as it is.


_With_ God, there's no particular reason for everything to be as it is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> How about the fact that they're the ones that work the best?


That something turns out to be _efficient_ does not necessarily mean that it _had_ to exist.




> _With_ God, there's no particular reason for everything to be as it is.


Too vague for me to comment on without risk of falling into some sort of easily refuted error. Care to clarify?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That something turns out to be efficient does not necessarily mean that it had to exist.


No, but it means that it was probably going to turn up sooner or later. Evolution doesn't just happen to genes, you know.




> Too vague for me to comment on without risk of falling into some sort of easily refuted error. Care to clarify?


You said: without God there is no particular reason for everything to be the way it is at the moment (unless I'm badly misreading you, which is entirely possible). My position is that, with or without deities, if you ask why? enough times, you're eventually going to have to come to the conclusion that things are pretty arbitrary.

Examples:

"Why does that animal have that particular feature?"
"It evolved that way because it gives it an advantage over that other animal in competing for food."
"Why?"
"It uses energy more efficiently that way?"
"Why is that an advantage?"
"Because energy is need to sustain life."
"Why?"
"...just because."

Alternatively:

"Why does that animal have that feature?"
"Because God designed it that way?"
"Why that way and not some other way?"
"...just because."

You can do this with just about any feature of the universe, justice included.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, but it means that it was probably going to turn up sooner or later. Evolution doesn't just happen to genes, you know.


Fine - but that still doesn't mean that it _had_ to exist. That it does suggests to me something more than just "moral evolution" of some sort.




> You said: without God there is no particular reason for everything to be the way it is at the moment (unless I'm badly misreading you, which is entirely possible). My position is that, with or without deities, if you ask why? enough times, you're eventually going to have to come to the conclusion that things are pretty arbitrary.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> "Why does that animal have that particular feature?"
> "It evolved that way because it gives it an advantage over that other animal in competing for food."
> "Why?"
> "It uses energy more efficiently that way?"
> "Why is that an advantage?"
> ...



You have radically simplified the Christian response; this is where science comes in handy because ID tells us how perfectly God's creation is suited for what it does and where it lives. Only the most stunted of Christians does the "God designed it - just because" two-step.

----------


## The Atheist

> I am a Christian, but that's not so relevant now. I am well educated and that's probably the main reason why I look and think different about some things; and those people probably aren't, and they can't understand some science things; and you should understand that. You don't have to respect that, but that will never change, especially at elderly population. My advice is to you: don't argue with them; you're probably intellectualy more superior above them and you won't prove nothing, their minds are not so open minded.


Thanks!

I do try to avoid getting into this type of debate with creationists, but sometimes, I slip! I'm certainly not surprised that you are a more thoughtful christian.

----------


## The Atheist

> Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:
> 
> 1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.
> 
> 2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, _period_. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.
> 
> 3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.
> 
> I think that's about everything out of me for the time being.


Extremely well put, but I would argue the religion/intelligence ratio. There are several studies I can dig up links to, if you like. Obviously, it isn't a perfect indicator, but in general terms, the premise is correct.

----------


## The Atheist

> Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.


Hey, I'm just telling you what the bible says - no secret to it. If you want a few chapter numbers, let me know.

----------


## The Atheist

> Since I rarely see you make any _real_ case here (but I do see you dismiss other people's) why don't you lay out your "excellent case for [G]od" - I would _love_ to read it.


I may do that, if I have the time.




> You know little about Christians - perhaps you ought to hang around some and listen to them on occasion so that you might stop making such ill-informed statements about them.


As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.




> We acknowledge science's veracity in many areas (Christians who deny that gravity works would be denying the existence of God - because He created gravity).


That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.




> Your comments are based largely on your non-stop _begging-the-question_ of the truth about evolution. Once again: you have a theory, with some pieces of "evidence" that appear to support that theory. Congratulations. Quit pretending that evolution is equal to gravity - to do so seriously puts to doubt your credibility as a spokesman/woman for evolution.


Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+&#37; of its membership totally accepts evolution.

----------


## CountingSheep

I am one serious atheist. Spirituality doesn't bother me... but organized religion causes so much **** it bothers me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I may do that, if I have the time.


Please do so.




> As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.


Knowledge of "religion" is not the same as knowledge of God. Either way, your generalizations about Christianity are not part of how much "book knowledge" you have about the Bible - it is due to your unfair stereotyping.





> That is truly priceless!
> 
> We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.


Gravity is _here, now_. We can study it _here, now_. Evolution is _neither_. Only its so-called "traces" are left.





> Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.


Edit: "We understand the entire [suggested/hypothesized/sepculated] process of evolution." 

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, _isn't it?_




> Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.


The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong. Few people thought the Wright Brothers were sane. A university physics professor condemned their experiement as ludicrous.

----------


## hyperborean

> The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong.


Reminds me of Christianity  :FRlol:  

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Reminds me of Christianity  
> 
> The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.


It is _ideologically_ driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

----------


## The Atheist

> Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, _isn't it?_


Nope, it's not a problem at all.

See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect. 




> It is _ideologically_ driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.


Wrong.

Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.

----------


## Quark

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe? 

In Tolstoy's _Anna Karenina_, Levin finds himself in a spiritual crisis. He fears that life is meaningless and death will soon destroy every accomplishment that man has produced. He intends to shelter himself from this doubt--or at least find some expression of it--in philosophy. However, this quickly fails. Tolstoy recounts Levin's experience: 

"Their ideas seemed to him fruitful when he was reading or was himself seeking arguments to refute other theories, especially those of the materialists; but as soon as he began to read or sought for himself a solution of problems, the same thing always happened. As long as he followed the fixed definition of obscure words such as SPIRIT, WILL, FREEDOM, ESSENCE, purposely letting himself go into the snare of words the philosophers set for him, he seemed to comprehend something. But he had only to forget the artificial train of reasoning, and to turn from life itself to what had satisfied him while thinking in accordance with the fixed definitions, and all this artificial edifice fell to pieces at once like a house of cards, and it became clear that the edifice had been built up out of those transposed words"

Levin rejects philosophy because it is an artificial interpretation of what he feels. It uses words and symbols to replace what he already knows. In the same way, Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I THINK what Quark was trying to say on the last page about gravity is that gravity as a concept is nothing but a human construct. We do not observe gravity objectively - we observe the apple falling towards the center of the earth under the force of what we CALL gravity, which (if you want to get technical about the matter) manifests via the exchange of particles called gravitons. We believe firmly in gravity, and for practical purposes so far, it works great. But we used to think the Sun orbited around the Earth, too. However, scientists are willing to acknowledge the limitations of science. Theists are generally less so regarding their respective religious texts - depending on who you are, this could be because a) you believe aren't any flaws, or b) you believe said theist is too dense to see them.

Regarding abiogenesis - it's the same thing. Science acknowledges its limitations on this front - which are not as bad as you might think. Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).

And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics). Besides which, knowing that someone is a theist is not grounds for anyone to treat him/her like an idiot. If they open their mouths and say something stupid, then they may proceed to form opinions at will. But that applies to followers of any belief system, anyway.




> Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?


I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me what theists believe.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).


Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.




> And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics).


Alternate view: a person holding a PhD in molecular biology is more likely than the general population to be 1) a genius and 2) an atheist, thus skewing the results.

----------


## The Atheist

> Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?


That's precisely the same as asking, "What do philatelists believe?"

"Atheism" isn't a belief system, it simply signifies lack of belief in god/s. Atheists can be rationalists, humanists, anarchists, Buddhists, Universal Unitarians, polytheists and UFO nutters, among others.





> Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.


You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.


Couldn't agree more, and would extend it to other forms of theism, as well.  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.


The results consisted only of a _few_ amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.

Other notes: Miller and Urey artificially blocked out oxygen and "trapped" only the amino acids favorable to life. There is no way to explain how this could have happened on the early earth.

It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have _eliminated_ early life.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> The results consisted only of a _few_ amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.


Early monocellular organisms are also very far from modern-day forms of life. Just because it's far doesn't mean it isn't traversible.




> It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have _eliminated_ early life.


I'm a little unclear on this - what exactly constitutes this "tar"? Given that oxygen is basic to some life and deadly to others, I'm a little leery of saying that any one substance is inherently destructive to life.

----------


## Quark

> See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect. 
> 
> Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.


I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell. If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view. If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible? 




> You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them.


Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.





> Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true


I never argued the contrary

----------


## The Atheist

> I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell.


Unfortunately, any discussion of this kind inevitably does. When one side only has the bible and the bible's the word of a god, then there isn't actually a lot of room to manoever away from "goddidit".




> If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view.


No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable. There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way. A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.




> If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?


In two words - Thomas Aquinas. "Truth cannot contradict truth". This is why the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches accept evolution - to deny it is to ignore a large amount of factual evidence. Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict have no doubt that the earth is billions, not thousands of years old and that life has evolved from single-celled organisms. This is the problem - not christianity, but people who cannot accept factual evidence. The bible and science or religion and science can work alongside each other as long as they do not contradict each other. Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.




> Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.


Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.

Same old, same old...

----------


## Durgamol

it may sound naive, but i think it's easier to believe: we have some reason for living and behaving "well"  :Wink: . If there is no life after death, then all the sins wouldn't be so much forbidden anymore. why to try be human if there is no reward? Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> why to try be human if there is no reward?


That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?




> Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?


Revenge is easy. 

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

----------


## Durgamol

> That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?
> 
> 
> 
> Revenge is easy. 
> 
> Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.


what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no, if there are no "upper" rules? As i said i know it is easier to live like this. And naive. But people are finding being cruel as something natural - it comes too easy to hurt someone. So it is better to believe something not completely rational then not to believe anything and care only about myself.
the question i was asking myself since is: how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others. How someone can kill and say that believes? i don't get it...

----------


## Lote-Tree

> what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no


"Good" is anything that minimises suffering? Is not that A Criteria to go by?




> how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others.


It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

----------


## Durgamol

> It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...


That is probably a mechanism. You put it in words really well. But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive  :Wink:

----------


## soumyakans

The debate on existence vs. non existence of God has been as old as mankind itself. i was treated to many interesting arguments in this thread - i only have this to add. Several Scientists have attempted to analyze the "force" that rules this universe - and only culminated in the view point that finally all is one - a view echoed by ancient Chinese and Indian philosophies.
i suggest that you read one or all of these books and it will pass for an interesting reading leave alone solve the debate of theism vs. atheism:
"The Tau of Physics" - Fritjoff Kapra
"The dancing Wu-Li Masters" - Gary Zukav

----------


## Hand_Of_God

I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's.  :Alien:  

I think one should be a little crazy to believe in god (look at tom cruise!)

----------


## Lote-Tree

> But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive


To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)

The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.

Are you up for that challenge :-)

----------


## Durgamol

> To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)
> 
> The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.
> 
> Are you up for that challenge :-)


i wish i was such a good person, but the answer is no: there are moments when revenge seems to be so sweet  :Wink:  
So no, this challenge is not tempting me that much: i prefer to stay naive but at least a bit good, than realistic and really cruel. But Your arguments are really good - i can't wait to talk on some other matters with You  :Biggrin:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> i wish i was such a good person, but the answer is no: there are moments when revenge seems to be so sweet


LOL :-) 

Even FAITH teaches Forgivenes is better for you :-)




> So no, this challenge is not tempting me that much:


Why? do you not try to better yourself :-)




> i prefer to stay naive but at least a bit good, than realistic and really cruel.


But one has to grow out of naievety? Just like a child grows out of childhood?




> But Your arguments are really good - i can't wait to talk on some other matters with You


LOL :-)

----------


## RobinHood3000

Frankly, I think that one of the things that people find most appealing about religion is that it allows them to feel vengeful without being the person wreaking said revenge. "Hey, this guy wronged me - so, I shall take take comfort in knowing that he shall burn for eternity in a torturous world of fire, brimstone, and propane grills." On the one hand, it allows the theist to purge their vengeance without taking drastic action. On the other hand, is it really that healthy to have vengeful feelings at all?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable.


That some Christians believe evolution doesn't make it more credible; in fact, based on your argument that religious people are generally dumber than non-believers, such a claim as you make above seems odd - like it's supposed to bolster your position. When is having "dim" people agree with you a plus?




> There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way.


Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.




> A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.


Incorrect as well: a person's world-view is _always_ in effect in the interpretation of "facts." Atheists do have a belief: they believe there is no God (it has to be a belief because they can't prove He doesn't exist). That's the same type of argument from ignorance the evolution often argues: "since we don't know exactly what happened, and hypothesis that fits the evidence will do."




> Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.


Your fair admittance of the first statement leads to good odds that the second will be disproved as well.





> Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.
> 
> Same old, same old...


There's plenty of ID info out there to suggest an intelligent designer; once that's granted, then creation becomes very feasible.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.


Absolute balderdash. There is _no_ evidence whatsoever for ID, and there can never be any evidence for it because it makes no predictions. Here is about the briefest possible summary of the evidence for univeral common descent. You may notice that it is very long. This is becase there is a lot of evidence.

To summarize the summary:

1. All living organisms fit into a historical, unique nested phylogical tree (some of which you can read here). This is exactly what one would expect if they had evolved from a comon ancestor as opposed to being created all at once. This is _not_ a subjective arangement, it is mathematically verifiable.
2. Anatomical vestiges and atavisms are consistent with the theory of universal common descent, and _always_ show up in the organisms that one would expect them to, given their position in the phylogical tree (mammals sometimes have vestigal gills, but reptiles never have vestigal fur).
3. Vestiges can be seen on the molecular level, in the form of non-functional 'pseudogenes'. Humans have a pathway for manufacturing vitamin C that would be completely functional except that the gene needed to manufacture a single enzyme is missing, for example.
4. Present biogeography is consistent with evolution. Animals are found where their recent ancestors were, not where the habitat is best suited to them. The exceptions to this rule are cases of extreme mobility, such as in birds or when humans introduce different species to new habitats.
5. Widespread pharmacology (similarity of organs in structure despite difference in function) is consistent with evolution. It is a reasonable assumption that an intelligent designer would choose organs for their functionality and not for their similarity to other organs in different animals. This is not the case, as can be seen on both macroscopic and microscopic levels.
6. Protein functional reduncany. I quote the argument from the source I give:




> (P1) *Ubiquitous genes:* There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
> 
> (P2) *Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes:* Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
> 
> (P3) *Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant:* Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
> 
> (P4) *Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species:* Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
> 
> (P5) *Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity:* There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
> ...


7. Transpons are parastic DNA which serve no function and are transmitted only by heredity. They are found across species.
8. Endogenous retroviruses are similarly transmitted only by heredity. They are found across species.
9. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and the wild.
10. The fossil record conforms exactly to molecular evidence and the phylogenic tree.

I don't expect you to believe a word of this, and frankly don't care. What does concern me is the idea of you teaching others factually false statements such as "Evolution has no more evidence that proves it than ID does". Please stop doing that.

----------


## Quark

> I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's.


Welcome to the forum Hand of God. I think there is an important truth in your post that others have overlooked: that morality is innately human and not the result of religion or any set rules. People have an instinct or a conscious need for morality and they create a system that is descriptive of that feeling they have. You mention that killing is not justifiable not because you were taught so but because you know so. The rule you have established was created to be descriptive of what you know--it wasn't prescribed by any religion. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need systems of morality and physical existence that are descriptive of what we know and not prescriptive of further thinking. I am sure that religions began in accord with the thoughts and feelings of their time--they provided people with a reality that people found both beautiful and believable. Eventually, though, they slowly lost that connection and became fixed systems which gained supremacy over the very things they were supposed to describe.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.


Called omnipotence. Meaning that regardless of what evidence we produce, you can always say that God made it that way.




> Incorrect as well: a person's world-view is _always_ in effect in the interpretation of "facts." Atheists do have a belief: they believe there is no God (it has to be a belief because they can't prove He doesn't exist). That's the same type of argument from ignorance the evolution often argues: "since we don't know exactly what happened, and hypothesis that fits the evidence will do."


Science tweaks its hypothesis to fit the evidence. Via the countermeasure mentioned above, religion retroactively tweaks the evidence to fit its own hypothesis, prematurely accepted as truth.




> There's plenty of ID info out there to suggest an intelligent designer; once that's granted, then creation becomes very feasible.


And once it's debunked, creation goes right out the window again.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I don't expect you to believe a word of this, and frankly don't care. What does concern me is the idea of you teaching others factually false statements such as "Evolution has no more evidence that proves it than ID does". Please stop doing that.


I think I'm reaching "saturation" in terms of this discussion and may need to give it a rest for a while (but I've thought such things before). I am allowed to say _whatever_ I believe to be true. I can say God is real; I can say that evolution isn't; I can say that I am God; I can evan say that "Evolution has no more evidence that proves is than ID does" if I like. You continue to say things that I disagree with, things that the Bible indicates to be untrue. I don't recall that I've ever told you to stop "teaching others" what you espouse to be true. Why don't you be _tolerant_ and allow me my _opinon_, sir?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I can say God is real; I can say that evolution isn't; I can say that I am God; I can evan say that "Evolution has no more evidence that proves is than ID does" if I like.


You can certainly say all of those things, but the first two (or three) are matters of opinion. The fourth is a matter of fact. The evidence _is there_. You can argue about interpretations if you like, but denying that the evidence exists is completely dishonest.




> You continue to say things that I disagree with, things that the Bible indicates to be untrue. I don't recall that I've ever told you to stop "teaching others" what you espouse to be true. Why don't you be _tolerant_ and allow me my _opinon_, sir?


You are entitled to what ever opinion you want. That isn't what I'm complaining about. Whether or not there is evidence for evolution is _not_ a matter of opinion, only whether it's conclusive is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You can certainly say all of those things, but the first two (or three) are matters of opinion. The fourth is a matter of fact. The evidence _is there_. You can argue about interpretations if you like, but denying that the evidence exists is completely dishonest.
> 
> You are entitled to what ever opinion you want. That isn't what I'm complaining about. Whether or not there is evidence for evolution is _not_ a matter of opinion, only whether it's conclusive is.


My statements do not indicate that evolution has no evidence; they indicate that ID has comparable amounts. There's a difference. Just because you don't buy the ID arguments doesn't make them invalid.

----------


## Hand_Of_God

> Welcome to the forum Hand of God. I think there is an important truth in your post that others have overlooked: that morality is innately human and not the result of religion or any set rules. People have an instinct or a conscious need for morality and they create a system that is descriptive of that feeling they have. You mention that killing is not justifiable not because you were taught so but because you know so. The rule you have established was created to be descriptive of what you know--it wasn't prescribed by any religion. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need systems of morality and physical existence that are descriptive of what we know and not prescriptive of further thinking. I am sure that religions began in accord with the thoughts and feelings of their time--they provided people with a reality that people found both beautiful and believable. Eventually, though, they slowly lost that connection and became fixed systems which gained supremacy over the very things they were supposed to describe.


Thank you, you are very deep. And what do you think about ID? I think it's stupid, it's a way to mask religion as science, but it's not a scientific theory because you can't prove (or deny) it with observation and experiments.  :Flare:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Thank you, you are very deep. And what do you think about ID? I think it's stupid, it's a way to mask religion as science, but it's not a scientific theory because you can't prove (or deny) it with observation and experiments.


ID is scientific in that it points out (via empirical evidence and examination of life forms) that the complexity and specificity of certain life form points to a designer (because the odds of random design of the complexity and specificity of the life form are astronomical). Both evolution and ID use nature to argue their points - and both ultimately point to an origin that neither can prove.

----------


## kilted exile

The statistical argument is one that has never really held any water with me. It would be different if you could show that the odds of there being a creator and "it" creating the universe were significantly less, however I realise this is impossible to do and I would not expect it. Instead the odds argument seems to boil down to "look at the odds for anything happening in one way, it must have been this way instead" - It is not an argument for the alternative, it is a criticism of the other, something which in my mind is an important distinction.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The statistical argument is one that has never really held any water with me. It would be different if you could show that the odds of there being a creator and "it" creating the universe were significantly less, however I realise this is impossible to do and I would not expect it. Instead the odds argument seems to boil down to "look at the odds for anything happening in one way, it must have been this way instead" - It is not an argument for the alternative, it is a criticism of the other, something which in my mind is an important distinction.



I don't point out odds to suggest that God exists or that He designed the universe; I point out odds so that evolutionists must deal with the fact that the odds of their particular position are no better than mine - because the odds of abiogenesis are as close to zero as you can get. Since atheists argue that God doesn't exist (which would be odds of zero - but I'm not a statistician) then I'd say we're on equal ground in terms of the odds.

----------


## Cervan

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!  athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves.  )
> 
> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...



I know this thread started a long time ago but I had to respond to this, because you see this kind of ignorance all over the place. This ignorance as to what atheism is is so widespread that on Youtube the other day I listened to a Pulitzer Prize winning author talking to Paula Zahn and saying "What does an atheist believe? He believes in nothing, right?"

If there is to be anything productive coming out of the debates between atheism and theism, the first thing that has to happen is that theists, of whatever persuasion, must _consult a dictionary and learn what the definition of atheism is._ If they refuse to do this they are wasting everyone's time.

I hope that after nearly nine-hundred posts in this thread Adelheid now understands what atheism means. I also hope that he or she realizes that yes, theists can be unbelievers as well. They are unbelievers in respect to every god up for offer, which is thousands, save for the one they happen to believe in.

----------


## obesechicken13

I consider myself an atheists because all of the modern religions are impossibly false. This is not to say that there could be one I would join. I can recognize however that I can not disprove the existence of a sentient being that operates as the very hypersphere itself. Therefore using probability simulation I can say that there is a small chance there is a god.

You might consider me an agnostic now. Well that would be an insult, and people just wouldn't understand my real point of view. My hatred towards the thought of going to a religion was fueled by the fact that a just god would allow his closest followers to lose their loved ones. This is not my reasoning nor my subjective emotions, just an initial reason for contemplative zealotry.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> My hatred towards the thought of going to a religion was fueled by the fact that a just god would allow his closest followers to lose their loved ones.


God gave up His loved one for us. What better way to show a loyalty to God then by being willing to do the same? 
Besides, if life was all fun and cool for Christians, then everybody and their brother would "become" one. But if hardship and suffering comes with it, then only those who truly believe would stay consistent.
Lastly, everyone loses their loved ones, Christian or not. Eventually, everyone dies, and someone else is sad. But for Christians, they know that they will see their loved ones again, and be with them forever. So they don't lose them, they're just seperated for awhile. gtg

----------


## Stieg

Though I can entirely discount the existance of a god or creator, but I agree with obesechicken13. My family is traditionally Christian though not all immediate and distant family members are religious. I have had contact with Christian family members and other non-related Christians. 

I've seen some really sad things that angered me, I seen family and friends divided by lifestyles, one side earthy with feet firmly on the terra and the other Christ-centered living in preparation for the return of Christ. I have witnessed close people relatives even of one another become absolute strangers, and bitterly I have always emotionally sided with the former. And martyrdom is simply incomprehesible and barbaric to me. It happens today.

----------


## quasimodo1

These terms are not contradictory. Tibeten Buhdism believes in things like the "Bardo" and "Enlightenment"/ they require no deity in the western sense yet they believe lives have infinite differences between what westerners call good and evil. As in physics, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. A Buhdist is an atheist with strong beliefs although they would never put it that way. Believers in god and followers of the buhdist faith will both die and they will both be reborn. Just the view of one student of philosophy. quasimodo1

----------


## Hand_Of_God

> ID is scientific in that it points out (via empirical evidence and examination of life forms) that the complexity and specificity of certain life form points to a designer (because the odds of random design of the complexity and specificity of the life form are astronomical). Both evolution and ID use nature to argue their points - and both ultimately point to an origin that neither can prove.


Red, I got your point, but let me say something. I don't say evolution is right at all costs in it's last formulation, but it is a scientific theory (in fact it can be confirmed or disproved by observations, for example finding ancient animals which respect or not what the model expects). On the other side, ID is not a scientific theory, because it has no way to do that (you can always say you see a designer in nature). So, one can believe there is an Intelligent behind universe who created or organized all, there's no problem, but it is not science. For me Evolution Vs ID is not a real match between 2 scientific models like could be dark matter vs mond.  :Alien:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red, I got your point, but let me say something. I don't say evolution is right at all costs in it's last formulation, but it is a scientific theory (in fact it can be confirmed or disproved by observations, for example finding ancient animals which respect or not what the model expects). On the other side, ID is not a scientific theory, because it has no way to do that (you can always say you see a designer in nature). So, one can believe there is an Intelligent behind universe who created or organized all, there's no problem, but it is not science. For me Evolution Vs ID is not a real match between 2 scientific models like could be dark matter vs mond.


Here's how they work: evolution proceeds from the foundation that God is not the creator of Life; ID does. Both theories - once they establish the "ground rules" look to nature for clues that they believe point to their separate conclusions that they've already arrived at even before examining the data. Both camps utilize the same data. They simply interpret it differently because each side has already established the "creator": ID says it's God, evolution says it's chance. There you go.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Here's how they work: evolution proceeds from the foundation that God is not the creator of Life; ID does. Both theories - once they establish the "ground rules" look to nature for clues that they believe point to their separate conclusions that they've already arrived at even before examining the data. Both camps utilize the same data. They simply interpret it differently because each side has already established the "creator": ID says it's God, evolution says it's chance. There you go.


Chance?

You know nothing about Biological Evolution.

"chance" is mostly an illusion caused by our inability to see everything. 

Mechanisms such as natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc are not based "chance". Even mutations have definite properties, governed by genetic processes and natural law: there are germ mutations, point mutations, frame-shift mutations etc.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Chance?
> 
> You know nothing about Biological Evolution.
> 
> "chance" is mostly an illusion caused by our inability to see everything. 
> 
> Mechanisms such as natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc are not based "chance". Even mutations have definite properties, governed by genetic processes and natural law: there are germ mutations, point mutations, frame-shift mutations etc.


Well, hello, Lote; we meet again at last.

I know enough to know that things unguided by a conscious entity/design/"program" must be relegated to chance. "Natural selection" - what exactly drives that? That things have "properties" begs the question: how did those properties develop: design or chance? Genetic processes - how did those come about? Design or chance? Processes don't just appear out of nowhere - something initiates the process. You have not gone back far enough, my friend. I'm talking about the beginnings of life itself - before any "life processes" existed (which is where you went).

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Well, hello, Lote; we meet again at last.


Hola chappy :-)




> I know enough to know that things unguided by a conscious entity/design/"program" must be relegated to chance.


"chance" is a merely an illusion as I said before. 




> "Natural selection" - what exactly drives that?


Natural Selection is the DRIVE.




> That things have "properties" begs the question: how did those properties develop: design or chance?


Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance" - please study it properly.




> Genetic processes - how did those come about? Design or chance?


Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance".




> Processes don't just appear out of nowhere - something initiates the process.


Yes. Natural Laws initiates it.




> You have not gone back far enough, my friend. I'm talking about the beginnings of life itself - before any "life processes" existed (which is where you went).


As I said before research into abiogenesis is still at early days yet. But evolution is a fact and due course abiogeneis will also be established as a fact. But we are not sure how long this will take. Perhaps discovery of life on other planets - even bacterial life will help us in this regard or perhaps discovery of a second "abiogenisis" along side the current one may establish this fact...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hola chappy :-)
> 
> "chance" is a merely an illusion as I said before. 
> Natural Selection is the DRIVE.
> Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance" - please study it properly.
> Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance".
> Yes. Natural Laws initiates it.
> 
> As I said before research into abiogenesis is still at early days yet. But evolution is a fact and due course abiogeneis will also be established as a fact. But we are not sure how long this will take. Perhaps discovery of life on other planets - even bacterial life will help us in this regard or perhaps discovery of a second "abiogenisis" along side the current one may establish this fact...


You have missed the point: "natural laws" are blind forces that have no conscious will to act; as such, their existence is due to something (or Someone); life either came from conscious design, or the random workings of a "consciousless" universe. I say "chance" because there is no set law that says life must exist at all or that it must be created; one answer is God created it; the other is that the blind forces of nature somehow created it - but obviously not by conscious design. Natual laws may be obeying some particular property or process, but I'm talking about the origination of life - which is not due to any particular "natural process."

And you still didn't tell me what "drives" natural selection.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> "natural laws" are blind forces that have no conscious will to act.


It does NOT need a "conscious" will. Just like DeepBlue Chess playing computer does not needs a consciouss will to act. All it needs is some rules to follow. And those rules are inherent in the nature itself - like conservation of Energy etc.

Have you come acrosss John Conways Game of Life? all it needs is simple rules...




> I say "chance" because there is no set law that says life must exist at all or that it must be created


True, our theories do not predict the fundamental constanst of nature yet. But M theory is showing lots of promises in that regards.




> Natual laws may be obeying some particular property or process


That is all you need. The rest is driven by Natural Selection.




> And you still didn't tell me what "drives" natural selection


Natural Selection is the DRIVE.

Are you asking me what powers it?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It does NOT need a "conscious" will. Just like DeepBlue Chess playing computer does not needs a consciouss will to act. All it needs is some rules to follow. And those rules are inherent in the nature itself - like conservation of Energy etc.


Deep Blue is a bad example because a conscious will designed the program that runs it. Where do the "rules" come from? What do you mean "inherent in nature" - who says nature has to be the way it is? Nature (matter) has always existed?




> True, our theories do not predict the fundamental constanst of nature yet. But M theory is showing lots of promises in that regards.


"Showing lots of promise." (i.e. as unverifiable as God)





> That is all you need. The rest is driven by Natural Selection.
> 
> 
> Natural Selection is the DRIVE.
> 
> Are you asking me what powers it?


I'm asking where the "logic" of natural selection came from - because it is a system that is at work in living things. Once life was created, how did natural selection get "activated" or "configured" (for lack of better terms)?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Deep Blue is a bad example because a conscious will designed the program that runs it.


This is what you said:




> ...blind forces that have no conscious will to act.


And I said you don't need a "conscious will" to act. DeepBlue does not need a "consciouss will" to play chess - it follows rules.




> Where do the "rules" come from?


For you the Rules come from your Idea of God.

From science it seems that the rules are inherent in nature.




> What do you mean "inherent in nature"


like Conservation of Energy, momentum...




> - who says nature has to be the way it is?


For you it is God to others it is the part of the reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao etc..and to others no one really... 




> Nature (matter) has always existed?


This seems to be the case - Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed.




> "Showing lots of promise." (i.e. as unverifiable as God)


You said you know how science works? 

Science does not at the moment predict what the fundamental constants of the universe is. M Theory is showing lots of promise in that regards.




> I'm asking where the "logic" of natural selection came from - because it is a system that is at work in living things.


Why only living things? It works with any replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. Where did it come from? from the very nature of the replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. 




> Once life was created, how did natural selection get "activated" or "configured" (for lack of better terms)?


Soon as replication started and created varients that competed for resources in the environment so did natural selection.

----------


## weepingforloman

Okay, I think we need to address the basic point here: what is life? Where does it come from? We still have no clear idea of what "life" is, in and of itself. If we did, the debate over abortion would be different. We really don't know what "makes" something alive, dead, or inanimate. You can talk about electricity, but you can run electricity through just about anything and it will not come to life. Furthermore, I can't remember who did it, but a while ago, someone tried running an electrical current through all the chemicals the evolutionists believe to have been present at the beginning of life. Amino acids were produced, but that more or less shows that it takes more than energy to be animate. Secondly, my strongest objection to evolution is this: evolution is believed to depend on mutation (no one should be able to deny that, or else I'm totally stupid). When have we ever seen a mutation that has a positive effect on life? When have we seen a significant mutation that did not cause the death of the organism? Do we know for sure that an organism can even mutate far enough beyond its original form to evolve without being stillborn or dying immediately? And besides, what are the odds that a significant number of organisms, living in the remote past, all happened to have the same, beneficial mutation, find and mate with each other, and survive enough to create a new species? Someone want to calculate that? Besides, Lote, Red has a point. You continue to say that natural laws are a beginning in themselves, but that simply cannot be.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Okay, I think we need to address the basic point here: what is life? Where does it come from? We still have no clear idea of what "life" is, in and of itself.


Life at the level of DNA is just digital information replication.

----------


## NSAM

Slightly irrelevant, but on the poll above doesn't being "not sure" whether you're an Atheist or not make you, by definition, Agnostic?

----------


## weepingforloman

> Life at the level of DNA is just digital information replication.


My point is, we don't know what animates matter, including genetic information. A cell is considered the lowest common denominator of life: DNA is not living, according to the scientific definition, so that doesn't quite hold up. "Digital?"

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is what you said:
> 
> And I said you don't need a "conscious will" to act. DeepBlue does not need a "consciouss will" to play chess - it follows rules.


Deep Blue's ability is the product of a conscious will enabling it to act.





> For you the Rules come from your Idea of God.


It is a cop-out to answer a question directed to you by answering it in terms of how you think I see it. Why don't you answer the question, please.




> From science it seems that the rules are inherent in nature.


Why should Nature have the rules it has?




> like Conservation of Energy, momentum...


You gave an example of a natural process, but you did not answer my question as to why/how these rules would be "inherent" in nature - nature could be configured in a number of ways - why this way?




> For you it is God to others it is the part of the reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao etc..and to others no one really...


Cf. my second response above.




> This seems to be the case - Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed.


Matter is not self-existent; it must have come from somewhere.




> Why only living things? It works with any replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. Where did it come from? from the very nature of the replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment.


I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?




> Soon as replication started and created varients that competed for resources in the environment so did natural selection.


Why?

----------


## The Atheist

> I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?


Prions, RNAs - there are several "non-living" replicators.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> My point is, we don't know what animates matter, including genetic information. A cell is considered the lowest common denominator of life: DNA is not living, according to the scientific definition, so that doesn't quite hold up. "Digital?"


What I am saying is that life at the level of DNA is digital replication of information. So what is life? Life is digital replication of information? What is the differences between lump of rock and DNA? DNA is a replicator and lump of rock is not. You say DNA is non living so is a lump of rock - and the differences is? DNA replicates itself. So what animates life? Replication of digital information?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Deep Blue's ability is the product of a conscious will enabling it to act.


You don't get it do you? DeepBlue itself does not need an conscious will to act. It follows rules.




> It is a cop-out to answer a question directed to you by answering it in terms of how you think I see it. Why don't you answer the question, please.


cop-out? I have given you three alternative answers. One of them is your own answer. And my answer is that rules are inherent in nature itself.




> Why should Nature have the rules it has?


As I said before our science does not predict fundamental constants of the Universe yet. But M theory is showing to be quite promising in that regard. But early days... 




> You gave an example of a natural process, but you did not answer my question as to why/how these rules would be "inherent" in nature - nature could be configured in a number of ways - why this way?


These are rules we have discovered in nature. This is how nature works. Our science does not predict the fundamental constants of the Universe yet. But M theory is showing promising signs as I said before.




> Matter is not self-existent; it must have come from somewhere.


Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed. This is one of the tenets of science.




> I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?


Replicator is an apt definiton. 




> Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?


Yes. As long as the replication creates varients that competes for resources in the environment. 




> Why?


Because only the varients that competes well for resources survives? Hence natural selection.

----------


## ennison

'the varients that competes well for resources survives? Hence natural selection.'
Unless a big rock falls on its bonce - unnatural selection
Here is a completely innocent question. I do not believe in evolution but I would like the evolutionists view on the huge variety of leaf forms exhibited by plants growing in the same climatic zones.
Is that off topic? No. Surely some clever evolutionist can give an on-topic answer.

----------


## kiobe

> Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!  athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves.  )
> 
> Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist? 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...


Describing myself as an atheist would be to compare my belief system with that of every other bit of life on this earth. Trees, ants, dogs, armdillos, butterflies, jellyfish, sharks....etc...go about thier existance worshiping nothing. No other bit of life on this earth has created an idea of a deity that has created them. It's not belief or a nonbelief. For me it's more of an acceptance that we're just one part or piece of a puzzle that makes up this planet. I have heard lots of religious folks say that they feel sad for atheists, because atheists see no purpose to thier lives, which is an assumption that without a belief in a creator atheists have and feel no purpose. This assumption has been laid at our feet to explain and define. Why does a person, wrongly accused of a crime, need to explain thier innosence to a group of accusers? The reason is to clear the doubt in the minds of the accusers. But that doesn't change the factual innosence of the accused, but rather allows the accusers to accept the accused as innocent in _thier_ minds.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Describing myself as an atheist would be to compare my belief system with that of every other bit of life on this earth. Trees, ants, dogs, armdillos, butterflies, jellyfish, sharks....etc...go about thier existance worshiping nothing. No other bit of life on this earth has created an idea of a deity that has created them. It's not belief or a nonbelief. For me it's more of an acceptance that we're just one part or piece of a puzzle that makes up this planet.


Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the _human_ heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).

----------


## kiobe

> Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the _human_ heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).


That's absolutly true in a biblical sence, but because I don't believe in a biblical God, just as I don't believe in mythical gods, your defination belongs to you and a group of belivers like you. As far as exactly what any person or animal may or may not be thinking is impossible for me or you to know. You may be able to give an estimated guess about what your mom may be thinking about in any given situation, but that's based on a long history of your experiances with your mom. Truth is, we don't know what is going on in the minds of others be they human, animal, insect or otherwise. There's always the possibility that animals don't have the ability to accept or reject your god because it's something that's man made. Do they have ability to accept or reject anything else that's man made? What does a dog think about health care, or the U.S. occupation in Iraq. As far as God being planted in the human heart, why then is it possible to find people that have lived thier lives in remote areas of the world that, not only don't believe in a biblical God but, invent gods, (that any Christian would deny existance of), to fit thier small isolated world. If you truly believe in a God as described in the Bible and your are happier for it, I couldn't be happier for you, really, a deep belief in anything that makes a person, a better person, I'm all for.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's absolutly true in a biblical sence, but because I don't believe in a biblical God, just as I don't believe in mythical gods, your defination belongs to you and a group of belivers like you. As far as exactly what any person or animal may or may not be thinking is impossible for me or you to know. You may be able to give an estimated guess about what your mom may be thinking about in any given situation, but that's based on a long history of your experiances with your mom. Truth is, we don't know what is going on in the minds of others be they human, animal, insect or otherwise. There's always the possibility that animals don't have the ability to accept or reject your god because it's something that's man made. Do they have ability to accept or reject anything else that's man made? What does a dog think about health care, or the U.S. occupation in Iraq. As far as God being planted in the human heart, why then is it possible to find people that have lived thier lives in remote areas of the world that, not only don't believe in a biblical God but, invent gods, (that any Christian would deny existance of), to fit thier small isolated world. If you truly believe in a God as described in the Bible and your are happier for it, I couldn't be happier for you, really, a deep belief in anything that makes a person, a better person, I'm all for.


Fine - but the idea that animals do not possess a rational, self-conscious and self-reflective intellect is something that science pretty much attests to more than religion. I'm simply pointing out that your comparison to animals isn't workable because - as a human being - you possess an intellectual facility to consider questions of existence whereas they (by all apparent observation) do not. In other words, animals do not have a belief system _not_ because they choose not to, but because they lack the mental capability to even _entertain_ such a thought. 

The fact that certain tribes worship false gods and that we tend to make "gods" out of other things (money, sex, power, women, fame) merely serves to reinforce the Biblical idea of God "implanted" in the human heart: we desire to worship _something_ - that something is _supposed_ to be God, but we'll put anything in His place (of course, worshipping these other things tends to lead to all kinds of unhappiness).

----------


## kiobe

> Fine - but the idea that animals do not possess a rational, self-conscious and self-reflective intellect is something that science pretty much attests to more than religion. I'm simply pointing out that your comparison to animals isn't workable because - as a human being - you possess an intellectual facility to consider questions of existence whereas they (by all apparent observation) do not. In other words, animals do not have a belief system _not_ because they choose not to, but because they lack the mental capability to even _entertain_ such a thought. 
> 
> The fact that certain tribes worship false gods and that we tend to make "gods" out of other things (money, sex, power, women, fame) merely serves to reinforce the Biblical idea of God "implanted" in the human heart: we desire to worship _something_ - that something is _supposed_ to be God, but we'll put anything in His place (of course, worshipping these other things tends to lead to all kinds of unhappiness).


Lets say for the sake of discusson that we know, absolutly, that animals don't posess the mental capablilty to entertain the idea of a creator that we are capable of knowing. How did we, man, know this before the bible was written? What was the reason that God chose to write, through man, a series of rules and fables to tell man what man should already feel in his heart. And why so much God-inspired killing, kidnaping and rape? Don't these thing seem more man made than Godly?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Lets say for the sake of discusson that we know, absolutly, that animals don't posess the mental capablilty to entertain the idea of a creator that we are capable of knowing. How did we, man, know this before the bible was written? What was the reason that God chose to write, through man, a series of rules and fables to tell man what man should already feel in his heart. And why so much God-inspired killing, kidnaping and rape? Don't these thing seem more man made than Godly?


The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.

Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?

----------


## kiobe

> The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.
> 
> Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?


Wow, I have to say that using the bible, literally translated, as a book of morality is to do extreem cherry picking of it. Yes, the 10 commandments look like a moral life map until a person looks at the consequences of breaking any of the commandments, most of which is death. Pretty strict "guideline". Death for working on the sabbath. Ever work on a sunday? Has anyone in your family ever worked on a Sunday, if so, you know what you have to do. But you won't because it's absurd and moraly wrong to kill someone for trying to support a family even if that person needs to work on a Sunday at Wal-Mart because they offer a good health care plan. The consequence for breaking the 6th commandment, Thou shal not kill, is that the elders of the village are to stone to DEATH, the person that did the origional killing. What are we to do with the elders that just broke the 6th commandment by killing someone. Or should the 6th commandment actually read, Thou shal not kill unless DIRECTED by God. What about Numbers 31, where God DIRECTS Moses to kill all the Midinites and then chastises him for not killing the children and DIRECTS him to go back and kill the male children and return with the female virgins and to use them as vessels to grow a larger community. Any thinking person will look at this and know that it is not a moral thing to do. The bible is full of thousands of examples just like this. I've read the bible as a piece of literature and morality is not a common thread. If you look at the commandments they seem man made.
1.No other gods before me. Seems egotistical. Punishment is death.
2.No graven images. Again egotistical and rather controling. Death.
3.taking the lords name in vain. Sticks and stones, egotistical. Death.
4.Remember the sabbath. Controling. Punishment is death.
5.honour your parents. Good advise. Extreem punishment though...death.
6.Don't kill. Good advise. Punishment contradicts advise....death.
7Adultry is wrong. Good advise. Punishment is death of the 2 ofending people.
8. Don't steal. Good advise, origional meaning was that of people. Punishment, death. Someone has to break #6 to enforce the punishments for the offenders in the above 1 through 8 commandments.
9.False witness. Don't lie, good advise.
10. Don't covet. Good advise.
Well 2 out of 10 seem to have a moralistic result. Is God egotistical? Why is God so controling?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Wow, I have to say that using the bible, literally translated, as a book of morality is to do extreem cherry picking of it.


The Bible isn't a "book of morality." It is the revelation of God's character as told through the history of His people. In the process of telling that history, we get guidelines on how best to conduct ourselves.




> Yes, the 10 commandments look like a moral life map until a person looks at the consequences of breaking any of the commandments, most of which is death. Pretty strict "guideline". Death for working on the sabbath. Ever work on a sunday? Has anyone in your family ever worked on a Sunday, if so, you know what you have to do. But you won't because it's absurd and moraly wrong to kill someone for trying to support a family even if that person needs to work on a Sunday at Wal-Mart because they offer a good health care plan.


If you are going to critique the Bible, make sure you've read all of it and are aware of the interaction between the Old and New testaments. First, all sin is rebellion against God; since God is the source of all life in the universe, rebelling against Him is kind of like refusing to eat: at some point, you will die. God did not randomly decide that sin = death; that is simply the nature of reality: all that is not reflective of His character leads to death. As well, Christ's sacrifice ended the death penalty for believers - Christ's substitutionary death frees us from the inevitable sentence of death that sin brings with it. God would rather that you worked on the Sabbath and took care of your family. The New Testament makes that very clear.




> The consequence for breaking the 6th commandment, Thou shal not kill, is that the elders of the village are to stone to DEATH, the person that did the origional killing. What are we to do with the elders that just broke the 6th commandment by killing someone. Or should the 6th commandment actually read, Thou shal not kill unless DIRECTED by God.


The original Hebrew says "murder" not "kill." There is a difference. The Old Testament makes it clear that the taking of human life is not the greatest of sins - and God - the creator of all human life - is free to decide whom He wishes to live and whom He wishes to die - but these decisions are not arbitrary or random; since God is perfect in all His attributes - including justice - it is assumed that the death sentence delivered by God is completely fair (whether we see the merit in that justice or not). The Bible does not forbid _all_ killing. So, your apparent Catch-22 is no such thing. Next, your capitals indicate that you seem to place God on level with human beings (i.e. that He can never have a good reason for calling for the death of a person or people) and that you've caught Him in some sort of contradiction - as if an adult must be held to the same rules as a small child. No. God makes His decisions based on things that we do not/cannot know. To us - with our limited ideas about justice - He may appear very wrong in calling for the elimination of certain people(s) - but some of your behaviors observed without proper knowledge and context might make you look pretty bad too.




> What about Numbers 31, where God DIRECTS Moses to kill all the Midinites and then chastises him for not killing the children and DIRECTS him to go back and kill the male children and return with the female virgins and to use them as vessels to grow a larger community. Any thinking person will look at this and know that it is not a moral thing to do.


It is the honesty of the Bible to show such things that human beings are sure to misinterpret or misunderstand that makes the Bible different from many other documents. You make the assumption that the Midianites' lives should have been spared; upon what do you base this judgment? I don't understand God's decision either, but - since He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, as the source of life and love in the universe, then I have to assume that He had good reasons for His decision (reasons I may not understand just yet). As well, your definition of "moral" may or may not jive with God's - and if He is who the Bible describes Him to be, then how can you compare your vision of morality to His?




> The bible is full of thousands of examples just like this. I've read the bible as a piece of literature and morality is not a common thread. If you look at the commandments they seem man made.
> 1.No other gods before me. Seems egotistical. Punishment is death.
> 2.No graven images. Again egotistical and rather controling. Death.
> 3.taking the lords name in vain. Sticks and stones, egotistical. Death.
> 4.Remember the sabbath. Controling. Punishment is death.
> 5.honour your parents. Good advise. Extreem punishment though...death.
> 6.Don't kill. Good advise. Punishment contradicts advise....death.
> 7Adultry is wrong. Good advise. Punishment is death of the 2 ofending people.
> 8. Don't steal. Good advise, origional meaning was that of people. Punishment, death. Someone has to break #6 to enforce the punishments for the offenders in the above 1 through 8 commandments.
> ...


"Egotistical" is a term that cannot be applied to God; He who created the universe and all that exists has a perfect right to be first in the minds and hearts of those He created. Generally, to have an issue with God's decree that He should come first stems from the refusal/inability to see God as a supreme being; instead, if we view Him as a sort of "super" human with human faults, then yes, His command is egotistical; but, as the source of all reality, He is worthy of such attention and praise because without Him, nothing would exist.

----------


## kiobe

> The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.
> 
> Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?





> The Bible isn't a "book of morality." It is the revelation of God's character as told through the history of His people. In the process of telling that history, we get guidelines on how best to conduct ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to critique the Bible, make sure you've read all of it and are aware of the interaction between the Old and New testaments. First, all sin is rebellion against God; since God is the source of all life in the universe, rebelling against Him is kind of like refusing to eat: at some point, you will die. God did not randomly decide that sin = death; that is simply the nature of reality: all that is not reflective of His character leads to death. As well, Christ's sacrifice ended the death penalty for believers - Christ's substitutionary death frees us from the inevitable sentence of death that sin brings with it. God would rather that you worked on the Sabbath and took care of your family. The New Testament makes that very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> The original Hebrew says "murder" not "kill." There is a difference. The Old Testament makes it clear that the taking of human life is not the greatest of sins - and God - the creator of all human life - is free to decide whom He wishes to live and whom He wishes to die - but these decisions are not arbitrary or random; since God is perfect in all His attributes - including justice - it is assumed that the death sentence delivered by God is completely fair (whether we see the merit in that justice or not). The Bible does not forbid _all_ killing. So, your apparent Catch-22 is no such thing. Next, your capitals indicate that you seem to place God on level with human beings (i.e. that He can never have a good reason for calling for the death of a person or people) and that you've caught Him in some sort of contradiction - as if an adult must be held to the same rules as a small child. No. God makes His decisions based on things that we do not/cannot know. To us - with our limited ideas about justice - He may appear very wrong in calling for the elimination of certain people(s) - but some of your behaviors observed without proper knowledge and context might make you look pretty bad too.
> ...



You said "biblical principle of morality", not me. Incased in your reply is the very reason I don't believe in a biblical God. There's an illogical closed loop circle of contradictions, rationalizations, control and a huge L E A P of faith based on a 2500 year old blog that requires a person to shut down and answer any question with, it's God's will. Sorry man, I'll never get there. Besides we're way off the subject, Adelheid asked what do atheists believe, if anything, And I've answered that. I think the problem you and I are having coming to a middle ground on this is you are answering my inquiries with a fairy tale, and I am answering your's with what probably sounds like blasphemy........do you like football? lol

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You said "biblical principle of morality", not me. Incased in your reply is the very reason I don't believe in a biblical God. There's an illogical closed loop circle of contradictions, rationalizations, control and a huge L E A P of faith based on a 2500 year old blog that requires a person to shut down and answer any question with, it's God's will. Sorry man, I'll never get there. Besides we're way off the subject, Adelheid asked what do atheists believe, if anything, And I've answered that. I think the problem you and I are having coming to a middle ground on this is you are answering my inquiries with a fairy tale, and I am answering your's with what probably sounds like blasphemy........do you like football? lol


My answer was more developed than "God's will." As well, I wouldn't call anything you've said "blasphemous." As far as the "fairy tale" part, well that remains to be seen. I suppose the one good thing about believing is this: if you're right, we'll never know; if I'm right, we'll _both_ know. See you -

----------


## kiobe

> The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.
> 
> Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?


1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 

3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. 

4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. 

5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 

6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 

8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 

11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 

12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. 

13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 

19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day. 

20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats hair, and all things made of wood. 

21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses; 

22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead, 

23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water. 

24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp. 

25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 

26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: 

27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: 

28 And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: 

29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD. 

30 And of the children of Israels half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. 

31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 

32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, 

33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, 

34 And threescore and one thousand asses, 

35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him. 

36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep: 

37 And the LORDS tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen. 

38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORDS tribute was threescore and twelve. 

39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORDS tribute was threescore and one. 

40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORDS tribute was thirty and two persons. 

41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORDS heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. 

42 And of the children of Israels half, which Moses divided from the men that warred, 

43 (Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep, 

44 And thirty and six thousand beeves, 

45 And thirty thousand asses and five hundred, 

46 And sixteen thousand persons :Wink:  

47 Even of the children of Israels half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. 

48 And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses: 

49 And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us. 

50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD. 

51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels. 

52 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. 

53 (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.) 

54 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.

----------


## kiobe

> My answer was more developed than "God's will." As well, I wouldn't call anything you've said "blasphemous." As far as the "fairy tale" part, well that remains to be seen. I suppose the one good thing about believing is this: if you're right, we'll never know; if I'm right, we'll _both_ know. See you -


Yea but do you like football?

----------


## Scheherazade

*Please avoid posting long passages from other resources (including religious texts) without offering your own arguments. 

Such posts will be deleted with or without further warning.*

----------


## kiobe

> *Please avoid posting long passages from other resources (including religious texts) without offering your own arguments. 
> 
> Such posts will be deleted with or without further warning.*


Thanks for the warning, but the cut and paste reply IS my argument. The point is, exactly what is considered moralistic to people here and now, is overlooked and rationalized by a wide varity of theists concerning many objectional acts by God in the bible. The original post that I was replying to stated that the bible contains a "biblical principle of morality".

----------


## kiobe

> Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the _human_ heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).


The question is "what do atheists believe"? Your opinion based on what you have found in the bible doesn't apply here, now be a good boy and run down to 7-11 and get me some smokes.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Thanks for the warning, but the cut and paste reply IS my argument. The point is, exactly what is considered moralistic to people here and now, is overlooked and rationalized by a wide varity of theists concerning many objectional acts by God in the bible. The original post that I was replying to stated that the bible contains a "biblical principle of morality".



Quoting the Bible and stating that it is your argument is nothing more than you begging-the-question; you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is _clearly immoral_ - but that's _your_ interpretation. You make assumptions about an ancient culture and a God you do not understand in order to make the evaluation of a recorded incident as "moral" or not. To what standard of morality, by the way, are you appealing? Not everything in the Bible is a lesson on morality - it is a narrative dealing with the character of God and His relationship with His people. You quoted one of those incidents. As well, you make the assumption that there is clearly something wrong with the episode quoted. To do so would be your way of saying "I have evaluated the facts at hand and decided that this act - approved by God - is immoral." What's your standard? Do you have all your facts? Do you know what God knows (since it was His decision and no mortal's)?

----------


## Adolescent09

All-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent may be terms used to describe the Christianic God. But labeling him egotistic or villainous are false insinuations. Although you have excerpted parts of the bible where God portrays wrath in a way that may be hardly conceived as rational to us simple mortals, these passages of anger are eclipsed in the profound love and reasoning He shows throughout the first and second testaments. Although my knowledge of the bible is comparatively little next to yours (or so it seems) and Redzepellin’s, I earnestly believe that when God crafted the sun, earth, moon and stars, He did so for a reason. Here is where science and theology clash in an effort to derive materialistic and fundamental evidence explaining our physical creation, henceforth our existence. 

If you read it as a story God appears to have a plan however unfathomed and indefinite for all events whichsoever way they occur: Adam and Eve were subject to the penalties of labor and pain for their misdemeanors...Sodom and Gomorrah were the cities of homosexuality and vice thus the world was wholly deluged Yet the existence of mankind prevailed for He possessed a maudlin sense... Jesus was falsely implicated for having an ulterior motive to crown himself king and was severely persecuted... God depicts his furor through harsh climatic shifts...

For every evil that occurs in our world and isn't repented.. God creates a phenomena that will ultimately omit that evil, be it in the course of a few hours or a century.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is clearly immoral - but that's your interpretation. "

I'm sure that Kiobe can speak for himself, but as I read him he was responding directly to your statement "God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period." He quoted a passage from the Bible which shows, if the quoted statements are to be believed, that God inspired and commanded murder, kidnapping and rape, as well as robbery and slavery.

Personally, I would argue that the passage says something about ancient Hebrews (and modern man) but nothing about God.

If you think that the attitudes attributed to God in that passage are truly His, and are to be excused just because "God knows best," then, all I can say is "God help you!"

----------


## billyjack

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin 
Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the human heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).

animals dont have the ability to accept or reject god because they know that their is nothing outside of god. adding an acceptance or rejection to their intuitive knowing would be like putting legs on a snake---pointless.

knowledge of god is implanted via tradition, not god. your explanation rivals with using the word being defined to define the word.

----------


## quasimodo1

To all the members who have subscribed to the atheist thread or threads: Will any member (or guest) who has not been conditioned by religious people or environments please raise thier pen. After that poll, will all the people who believe that re-evaluation is an integral part of consciousness please raise their pen. That is all. quasimodo1

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm sure that Kiobe can speak for himself, but as I read him he was responding directly to your statement "God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period." He quoted a passage from the Bible which shows, if the quoted statements are to be believed, that God inspired and commanded murder, kidnapping and rape, as well as robbery and slavery.


Killing and murder are not synonyms; I saw no instance of rape; who was kidnapped? Who was robbed? Are you forgetting that there was a war? Did you not read the part about "avenge" early in the passage?




> Personally, I would argue that the passage says something about ancient Hebrews (and modern man) but nothing about God.


They acted under God's direction.




> If you think that the attitudes attributed to God in that passage are truly His, and are to be excused just because "God knows best," then, all I can say is "God help you!"


Thanks for the blessing - I return it to you as well.

I do not need to "excuse" God - He can speak for Himself; I simply contend that - (for the hunderedth time, I'm sure) if God is _who the Bible describes Him to be_ - here, specifically, a being of _perfect moral judgment_ - then I must (by faith) assume that God's sentence on the Midianites was just. I am not in possession of the knowlegde God possessed that allowed Him to lay such a judgment upon this people; it appears shocking, and - based on the lack of knowledge we have - inexcusable. But, to render a verdict for that of which you are in possession of _incomplete evidence_ seems highly presumptuous.

----------


## The Atheist

> But, to render a verdict for that of which you are in possession of _incomplete evidence_ seems highly presumptuous.


QED.



.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> QED.


RE: QED

LOL

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "I am not in possession of the knowlegde God possessed that allowed Him to lay such a judgment upon this people; it appears shocking, and - based on the lack of knowledge we have - inexcusable."

The behaviour of the Israelites to the Midianites was shocking and, by any standard of morality worth living to, inexcusable. Any claim that God could inspire or justify the behaviour described in the passage is pure blasphemy, as far as I am concerned. The passage that makes that claim is simply Israelitish propaganda, and certainly not the word of God.

----------


## kiobe

> Quoting the Bible and stating that it is your argument is nothing more than you begging-the-question; you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is _clearly immoral_ - but that's _your_ interpretation. You make assumptions about an ancient culture and a God you do not understand in order to make the evaluation of a recorded incident as "moral" or not. To what standard of morality, by the way, are you appealing? Not everything in the Bible is a lesson on morality - it is a narrative dealing with the character of God and His relationship with His people. You quoted one of those incidents. As well, you make the assumption that there is clearly something wrong with the episode quoted. To do so would be your way of saying "I have evaluated the facts at hand and decided that this act - approved by God - is immoral." What's your standard? Do you have all your facts? Do you know what God knows (since it was His decision and no mortal's)?


The midinites were slaughtered by Moses and his collected armys as directed by God to avenge the Israelites because the Israelites, as God puts it, are the chosen people. When God told moses the tell his people to "take for yourselfs all the women that have not layed with a man in bed" it clearly means virgins. Or is it something about beds? Take the virgins for yourself. God's unimaginable reasoning aside, when they took all the young women from thier families, that were just slaughtered, I can't imagine that any of the young women were thrilled about it. What would you call it if some stranger took your little sister, against her will, for himself? Wouldn't you call that kidnapping? And if that person that took your little sister used her for propagation, I think in any civilized mind, that would be considered rape. To say that God has His reason for all that He does, even if what He does seems unbelieveably cruel is to absolutly shut down the part of your God given brain that tells a person how to live in harmony with his fellow man.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The midinites were slaughtered by Moses and his collected armys as directed by God to avenge the Israelites because the Israelites, as God puts it, are the chosen people. When God told moses the tell his people to "take for yourselfs all the women that have not layed with a man in bed" it clearly means virgins. Or is it something about beds? Take the virgins for yourself. God's unimaginable reasoning aside, when they took all the young women from thier families, that were just slaughtered, I can't imagine that any of the young women were thrilled about it. What would you call it if some stranger took your little sister, against her will, for himself? Wouldn't you call that kidnapping? And if that person that took your little sister used her for propagation, I think in any civilized mind, that would be considered rape. To say that God has His reason for all that He does, even if what He does seems unbelieveably cruel is to absolutly shut down the part of your God given brain that tells a person how to live in harmony with his fellow man.


The verb "take" is a rather vague one; you've decided it means "sexually violate." It could just as easily mean "impress as servants" or even "marry" (though that was generally a no-no). You cannot assume rape off of that rather general verb. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that every frame omits certain pieces of information. I can take a picture that may appear to tell one story, but would reveal a far different story if the entire scene were shown. Example: I show you a picture of a man being burned to death by another man; you are outraged; but then I show you another picture of the same scene with a wider angle lense, and you now see a man in a director's chair, some cameras and the fire department standing at the ready - a film. So, your first picture appeared to be something that it in reality was not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you and Whiff both: we don't have all the facts - so your judgment is based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I only ask that you admit that.




> The behaviour of the Israelites to the Midianites was shocking and, by any standard of morality worth living to, inexcusable. Any claim that God could inspire or justify the behaviour described in the passage is pure blasphemy, as far as I am concerned. The passage that makes that claim is simply Israelitish propaganda, and certainly not the word of God.


Cf. response to kiobe above.

----------


## NickAdams

What does an atheist believe? It would take sometime to answer that, but not because the answer is complicated. What doesn’t an atheist believe in? That’s easier. An atheist doesn’t believe in deities or a deity. If it’s not related to that, an atheist is free to believe it. An atheist can even believe in the Ten Commandments. How? They can believe it is an ethically strong theory that would sustain order, without believing in the deity attached to it. I believe atheists have the potential to be morally stronger than anybody who subscribes to a deity religion, because their morals are upheld without future incentives, i.e. paradise. It’s funny when a atheist is said to be confused for exclaiming, “Oh my God!” which is a phrase that has worked its way into the vocabulary of the common man, by a Christian who backslides yet still considers themselves a Christian.

----------


## kiobe

> The verb "take" is a rather vague one; you've decided it means "sexually violate." It could just as easily mean "impress as servants" or even "marry" (though that was generally a no-no). You cannot assume rape off of that rather general verb. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that every frame omits certain pieces of information. I can take a picture that may appear to tell one story, but would reveal a far different story if the entire scene were shown. Example: I show you a picture of a man being burned to death by another man; you are outraged; but then I show you another picture of the same scene with a wider angle lense, and you now see a man in a director's chair, some cameras and the fire department standing at the ready - a film. So, your first picture appeared to be something that it in reality was not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you and Whiff both: we don't have all the facts - so your judgment is based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I only ask that you admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf. response to kiobe above.


No, I assume "take" to mean kidnaping. The scriptures say "take for yourselves" as wifes. Not slaves, not workers, not golf caddys. Wifes. Why bother taking 32,000 virgin women as wifes if not to start a family? Also see Judges 21:10-24. Using your analagy of the photo sugests that the person that is showing only part of the picture isn't being forthright because that person, having full knowlage of the entire photo is purposly keeping the most important information from the viewer, and thus manipulating the viewer into believing something that isn't there........

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I assume "take" to mean kidnaping. The scriptures say "take for yourselves" as wifes. Not slaves, not workers, not golf caddys. Wifes. Why bother taking 32,000 virgin women as wifes if not to start a family? Also see Judges 21:10-24. Using your analagy of the photo sugests that the person that is showing only part of the picture isn't being forthright because that person, having full knowlage of the entire photo is purposly keeping the most important information from the viewer, and thus manipulating the viewer into believing something that isn't there........


If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to _that_. In terms of death vs. marriage vs. abandonment, well, with those choices, marriage might be deemed a merciful fate. (This in no way suggests that the women were happy with the decision).

The photo analogy sticks because not all photos are _conscious attempts at manipulation_; the sheer physics of reality dictate that it is impossible to see the entire picture of _anything_ - there is no "lens" big enough to include all details of any particular picture; as well, when dealing with an ancient historical record and a decision made by a Divine Being, we are at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot access all the facts. Would a court judge condemn God on the evidence presented - or would s/he say that there is insufficient evidence to convict God because we do not know the enough of the story to be certain "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? 

You make a number of assumptions:

1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)

All assumptions within an argument ought to be considered and examined rather than assumed.

----------


## NickAdams

You can't judge the Old Testament's God by the New Testament.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You can't judge the Old Testament's God by the New Testament.



Both testaments provide different "sides" of God's character. They do interact and they _augment_ each other.

----------


## kiobe

> If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to _that_. In terms of death vs. marriage vs. abandonment, well, with those choices, marriage might be deemed a merciful fate. (This in no way suggests that the women were happy with the decision).
> 
> The photo analogy sticks because not all photos are _conscious attempts at manipulation_; the sheer physics of reality dictate that it is impossible to see the entire picture of _anything_ - there is no "lens" big enough to include all details of any particular picture; as well, when dealing with an ancient historical record and a decision made by a Divine Being, we are at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot access all the facts. Would a court judge condemn God on the evidence presented - or would s/he say that there is insufficient evidence to convict God because we do not know the enough of the story to be certain "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? 
> 
> You make a number of assumptions:
> 
> 1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
> 2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
> 3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)
> ...


"Rape" is not an interpratation but rather an asumption of an act to happen after the virgins are taken to the homes of the kidnappers as they are forced to be thier wifes.

Mercy? Again with the " never question the Lord". So, let me get this right. For the few people that were "spared" the killing, the burning of thier villages, the systematic murder of thier children, the taking (stealing of personal items, animals, objects of value), the murder of mothers, brothers, fathers, cousins, uncles, for these people you see being obducted as mercifull? Whofa!

The photo analogy doesn't "stick". We are not talking about ALL photos, we're talking about the photo analogy you comunicated to me in your post. If we are ALL at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot acesses all the facts, how then does one believe the biblical accounts if we cannot see all the facts. 

I am not an attorney, but if Goldie Locks is guilty of breaking and entering and destruction of personal property, God can't be far behind.

Again, not an asumption.
1. God didn't kill the Midinites, Moses and his army did after being directed by God.
2.Deserving or not God doesn't seem to follow his own commandments. Thou shal not kill.
3. Al qaeda believes the same thing. You?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "Rape" is not an interpratation but rather an asumption of an act to happen after the virgins are taken to the homes of the kidnappers as they are forced to be thier wifes.


An ASSUMPTION is correct.




> Mercy? Again with the " never question the Lord". So, let me get this right. For the few people that were "spared" the killing, the burning of thier villages, the systematic murder of thier children, the taking (stealing of personal items, animals, objects of value), the murder of mothers, brothers, fathers, cousins, uncles, for these people you see being obducted as mercifull? Whofa!


I said nothing about not "questioning the Lord" - please be accurate in your attempt to paraphrase my postition. I admitted that the episode described definitely appears to be a terrible one in terms of the picture of God it gives. I question the decision too - but since I believe God is who He claims to be - just, merciful, loving, compassionate, etc - then I make the assumption that there must be a good reason for His decision. Even our legal system recognizes that character counts (hence the "character witness"). The evaluation you are making of God is inconsistent with His character - and since God cannot be inconsistent in who He is, I must assume ignorance of certain knowledge that would - if known - perfectly justify God's decision.
To be granted life could be seen as "mercy" but I also qualified in my post that seeing it in that way is clearly dependent and not an in-and-of-itself given.





> The photo analogy doesn't "stick". We are not talking about ALL photos, we're talking about the photo analogy you comunicated to me in your post. If we are ALL at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot acesses all the facts, how then does one believe the biblical accounts if we cannot see all the facts.


We believe the Biblical accounts because the book is said to be the Divine Revelation of God - as such, since God does not lie, we assume that these things happened as we are told. To doubt so is to doubt who God is, and once we go down that road, we eventually arrive at the reality that there is no need to believe in Him at all.




> I am not an attorney, but if Goldie Locks is guilty of breaking and entering and destruction of personal property, God can't be far behind.


If there were mitigating circumstances in Goldie's case, the writer didn't give them to us. If, however, the writer gave us a rendering of Goldie's character that indicated that she would never, ever do something wrong under any circumstances, then we would wonder what prompted her out-of-character behavior. Even our legal system recognizes such a thing.




> Again, not an asumption.
> 1. God didn't kill the Midinites, Moses and his army did after being directed by God.
> 2.Deserving or not God doesn't seem to follow his own commandments. Thou shal not kill.
> 3. Al qaeda believes the same thing. You?


2. Already covered: God does not forbid killing - He forbids murder. Please make sure to read my posts carefully so I can avoid repeating myself. Thanks.

3. The difference is that we know why Al qaeda does what they do - they tell us. God's decision is based on things we cannot understand because God can read the deepest parts of the human heart (which is what He cares most about) while we are limited to what we see (which is not always what we think it to be).

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to that."

This is pure dementia. According to the account, the entire people were wiped out by those who took their maidchildren into slavery. To justify the slavery on the grounds that the Israelites had already slaughtered their families, destroyed their cities and stolen their goods is utterly nauseating. It would be laughable, except that it is the sort of argument that has been used by the followers of the Book, right up to the present day, to justify all kinds of atrocities. It would be laughable if it did not provide atheists with the perfectly valid attitude - "If that is what god is supposed to be like, then I am glad not to believe in him."

Redzeppelin: "You make a number of assumptions:
1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)"

Wrong - I make one assumption, namely that the writer of the account was mistaken or lying in what he said about God. 
The Israelites, by their own account, were a wandering horde, as merciless as the people of Genghiz or Tamburlaine, who slaughtered anyone living in lands that they coveted. Read the chapters before the one that was quoted and you will see that the "crime" of the Midianites was simply that they lived in Midian - a rich land that the Israelites wanted. The "war" that you mention as justifying the atrocities was nothing other than a war of conquest by marauding nomads against terrified and peaceful agriculturalists.

The fact that the chroniclers attempted to justify Israelitish depredations by claiming that God told them to do it just, in my view, makes them deluded or hypocritical or pursuing their own religio-political agenda. As I have said, I believe the account (which was not written down until at least three hundred years after the events, see for example http://www.catholicevangelism.org/bible-dates1.shtml) tells something about the people who carried out the acts, and something about those who wrote the story, but nothing whatever about God.

----------


## kiobe

> An ASSUMPTION is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing about not "questioning the Lord" - please be accurate in your attempt to paraphrase my postition. I admitted that the episode described definitely appears to be a terrible one in terms of the picture of God it gives. I question the decision too - but since I believe God is who He claims to be - just, merciful, loving, compassionate, etc - then I make the assumption that there must be a good reason for His decision. Even our legal system recognizes that character counts (hence the "character witness"). The evaluation you are making of God is inconsistent with His character - and since God cannot be inconsistent in who He is, I must assume ignorance of certain knowledge that would - if known - perfectly justify God's decision.
> To be granted life could be seen as "mercy" but I also qualified in my post that seeing it in that way is clearly dependent and not an in-and-of-itself given.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Redzeppelin: "If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to that."
> 
> This is pure dementia. According to the account, the entire people were wiped out by those who took their maidchildren into slavery. To justify the slavery on the grounds that the Israelites had already slaughtered their families, destroyed their cities and stolen their goods is utterly nauseating. It would be laughable, except that it is the sort of argument that has been used by the followers of the Book, right up to the present day, to justify all kinds of atrocities. It would be laughable if it did not provide atheists with the perfectly valid attitude - "If that is what god is supposed to be like, then I am glad not to believe in him."
> 
> Redzeppelin: "You make a number of assumptions:
> 1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
> 2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
> 3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)"
> 
> ...


Now there's a biblical history I can get my head around. Taking into account cultural history seems unavoidable. Really very succinct.

----------


## kiobe

> Would you mind citing these different atheistic philosophies of which you speak? Atheism, by definition, is simply the rejection of religion. How can one make variety with that? In response to your "analogy correction", what do you mean by "not necessarily agreeing with the ideals of every soldier?" The soldier is the war, and the war is the soldier. We are not talking on an individual level here because a community is about the community, not the individual. If a religious person practices religion and believes in a god, it really doesn't matter why they are doing it. The fact is they are and because they are, what they stand for is contrary to atheistic thought. This can only mean that they themselves are against atheism. So, why support that? 
> 
> I had no intention of stating that one religion was right for everyone, but I will state that once an individual is a declared member of a religious group he/she loses his or her individuality. If they feel the need to regain such individuality by disconnecting to certain doctrines of the said group, then they need to leave. Want a good example? Cafeteria Catholics- they pick and choose what they feel like believing. If you can't accept parts of a religion, why bother being a part of it? On another note, why do you think the Catholic Church is blamed for priest misconduct more than the individual priest? The priest is a symbol of Catholicism, and when a priest screws up the Catholic Church screws up. When you communicate your desire to support religion, you communicate the tendency for atheists to do the same and that is against the identity of our community. If you wish to go against atheistic beliefs, simply do not be atheist. If you are atheist then you do not support religion. If you do support religion, then you should not identify yourself as an atheist.


Sorry man but atheisim does cover many different styles.
Humanism
While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes.
Secularism
Secularists oppose religion or the religious being afforded privileges, which - put another way - is the same as disadvantaging others.
Rationalism
Rationalism is an approach to life based on reason and evidence and rejects authority that cannot be proved by experience.
Atheist Buddhism
The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.
Humanistic Judaism
Humanistic Judaism doesn't proclaim that there is no God, but it does do without God.
Christian Atheism
Christian Atheists, or non-realistic Christians, want to remove what they see as the fairy tale elements of Christianity.
Postmodernism
For postmodernists every society is in a state of constant change; there are no absolute values, only relative ones; nor are there any absolute truths.
Unitarian Universalism
Unitarian Universalism is not an atheist movement, but proclaims the importance of individual freedom of belief and so it is a movement into which some atheists may comfortably fit.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is pure dementia. According to the account, the entire people were wiped out by those who took their maidchildren into slavery. To justify the slavery on the grounds that the Israelites had already slaughtered their families, destroyed their cities and stolen their goods is utterly nauseating. It would be laughable, except that it is the sort of argument that has been used by the followers of the Book, right up to the present day, to justify all kinds of atrocities. It would be laughable if it did not provide atheists with the perfectly valid attitude - "If that is what god is supposed to be like, then I am glad not to believe in him."


Well: you should not be having a debate with a demented person (because on the odd chance that you get bested, it might look really bad  :Smile:  ). First off, I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts carefully, because I never said anything about "justifying" slavery. I said that - to some - it might seem a mercy to keep at least _somebody_ alive. Your response seems to indicate that death is preferable, and I'm not sure that that is a given. Either way, you're still avoiding the key points of my argument, choosing instead to express revulsion rather than deal with the point at hand. So - is it a) you _cannot_ deal with what I've said, or b) you _will not_ deal with what I've said? I'm clear on your feelings about me and Christianity - but how about the _argument_?




> Wrong - I make one assumption, namely that the writer of the account was mistaken or lying in what he said about God. 
> The Israelites, by their own account, were a wandering horde, as merciless as the people of Genghiz or Tamburlaine, who slaughtered anyone living in lands that they coveted. Read the chapters before the one that was quoted and you will see that the "crime" of the Midianites was simply that they lived in Midian - a rich land that the Israelites wanted. The "war" that you mention as justifying the atrocities was nothing other than a war of conquest by marauding nomads against terrified and peaceful agriculturalists.


And what is the basis of this assumption about the invalidity of the scriptures (especially in comparison with any ancient manuscript)? Besides the fact that you don't _like_ or _believe_ in what it says? The ones who are mistaken about God are those who decide that they possess enough knowledge about an ancient event and the peoples involved to render their own judgment as to the appropriateness of God's actions. You claim that the writer is lying or mistaken about God - which implies that you have some idea as to what the character of God should be; I'd very much like to hear what your version of God looks like; care to share?




> The fact that the chroniclers attempted to justify Israelitish depredations by claiming that God told them to do it just, in my view, makes them deluded or hypocritical or pursuing their own religio-political agenda. As I have said, I believe the account (which was not written down until at least three hundred years after the events, see for example http://www.catholicevangelism.org/bible-dates1.shtml) tells something about the people who carried out the acts, and something about those who wrote the story, but nothing whatever about God.


Upon what _authority_ do you dismiss the veracity of the Bible? Beyond the fact that you don't like the picture it presents, what is the basis of your claims? Do you have any? The incident (I repeat) is troubling to Christians too - but your interpretation contradicts the known character of God. If you heard that someone you know very, very well had been accused of something that you know is TOTALLY out of character for that person, how would you respond? Instant condemnation, or would you say "Hold on - we need to get all the facts first before we rush to judgment." We do that for humans - but not for God?

----------


## kiobe

I disagree, Wiff was very clear as to every point. Not that he needs someone to speak for him.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "Well: you should not be having a debate with a demented person (because on the odd chance that you get bested, it might look really bad ). "

You are wrong about me, as you always seem to be, in assuming that I would mind being proved wrong by anyone.

The first part of your sentence is good advice, however, so I will take it. Thanks.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I disagree, Wiff was very clear as to every point. Not that he needs someone to speak for him.


I disagree.




> You are wrong about me, as you always seem to be, in assuming that I would mind being proved wrong by anyone.
> 
> The first part of your sentence is good advice, however, so I will take it. Thanks.



1) Did you notice this:  :Smile:  ? That was my way of making a joke.
2) I'd have preferred an refutation to an _ad hominem_.

----------


## Scheherazade

This thread is no longer open to discussions since it does not serve its original purpose.

----------

