Are you an atheist?

Are you an atheist?


  • Total voters
    351
Well what is wrong with that. It is the only book that does not need to update.

I have had astronomy books going back to before I was a kid and each one becomes a fairy tale.

The Bible says God created life. Then people say there is not one shred of evidence for that being the case.....one would therefore logically expect someone who says that to have a clue about how life started. Is is simple. If you don't have a clue how life started then how can you claim the Bible is all wrong.
I have NEVER stated the bible is all wrong. Don't misquote me unless you want to be thought to be dishonest.
 
Are you an atheist?
Yes I am. I have been since I could first rationalise independently the so called "evidence", "revelations" and "faith" of those who tried to inculcate their beliefs in me.

Do I care if anyone disagrees with my point of view?
Not remotely.

Do I think those who believe are deluded, either by themselves or others?
Most certainly but if it gives comfort to someone to believe in the supernatural then so be it, it exists for them. As long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me then live and let live and I promise not to go knocking on the doors of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Plymouth Brethren et al to try to bring them the joyful word of Barry......

Now let's not get started on "life after death" or we'll all be here till Christmas....
 
Thanks for the link. It was interesting but perhaps I don't have the necessary faith to trust it completely.:)

This piece of the article i felt backed up what I was saying
However, the Old Testament offers no evidence of a relationship between Moses and Akhenaten, and in fact there has never been any direct evidence of Moses discovered in Egypt. It is even questionable whether the Old Testament authors could have even known about him at all. Because of Akhenaten's revolutionary religious ideas, his successors largely eliminated his memory by hammering and hacking his name and the record of his reign from monuments throughout Egypt.
 
Now let's not get started on "life after death" or we'll all be here till Christmas....

I agree. Don't think my head could cope with that, after 50 years I'm still trying to find life after birth!
 
Thanks for the link. It was interesting but perhaps I don't have the necessary faith to trust it completely.:)

This piece of the article i felt backed up what I was saying

Same old story though, good old pagan tales get twisted and distorted into mainstream religeous beliefs. C'est la vie.
 
Mike that is not the same as all wrong. Read my posts before you reply.

From the post, seems clear to me......The Bible says God created life. Then people say there is not one shred of evidence for that being the case.....one would therefore logically expect someone who says that to have a clue about how life started. Is is simple. If you don't have a clue how life started then how can you claim the Bible is all wrong.
 
The Koran is routed in Judaism, just like the Christian bible, so I think it still counts as a bible.

It was a seperate revelation from God. To discount it is to automatically discount the faith of Islam isn't it?

Now I don't know if Moses is directly in the Koran, or its beacuse he was mentioned in earlier revelations, but if he were directly in the Koran to discount them as all the same the same thing would be like having separate eyewitness statements but saying cos they are similar its really only one eyewitness.

Two possibilities

1) They are all broadly correct and independeantly tell the same thing
2) The later ones at least are contrived (dishonestly) from the first - ie Mohammed didn't have a revelation.

Unless you can prove that God doesn't exists (which we can't), you can't say the Koran is based purely on earlier stuff.

As I say it depends on whether Moses is in the Koran directly.

But its not the bible.


Thats what I understand , perhaps someone who know will tell us?
 
From the post, seems clear to me......The Bible says God created life. Then people say there is not one shred of evidence for that being the case.....one would therefore logically expect someone who says that to have a clue about how life started. Is is simple. If you don't have a clue how life started then how can you claim the Bible is all wrong.
Glad that its clear to you:) I am sorry I do not take a single uncollaborated source as necessarily being correct. I do not accept your premise that the bible is correct. How do you explain the many contradictions in it.

AND TO REPEAT BECAUSE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT GETTING IT. I HAVE NEVER SAID THE BIBLE IS ALL WRONG. you are now trying to avoid the issue by claiming its only about how life started. From the evidence of my own eyes there is a lot more in the bible than that
 
It was a seperate revelation from God. To discount it is to automatically discount the faith of Islam isn't it?

Now I don't know if Moses is directly in the Koran, or its beacuse he was mentioned in earlier revelations, but if he were directly in the Koran to discount them as all the same the same thing would be like having separate eyewitness statements but saying cos they are similar its really only one eyewitness.

Two possibilities

1) They are all broadly correct and independeantly tell the same thing
2) The later ones at least are contrived (dishonestly) from the first - ie Mohammed didn't have a revelation.

Unless you can prove that God doesn't exists (which we can't), you can't say the Koran is based purely on earlier stuff.

As I say it depends on whether Moses is in the Koran directly.

But its not the bible.


Thats what I understand , perhaps someone who know will tell us?

Have you read the Koran? I am told it not only quotes the old testament but the new testament too. I am not discounting anyone's belief, I am simply saying that they all seem very similar.

You are right, it is a revelation, Mohammed should be reveared as a great prophit, his ideas were great, but as I said earlier, like most profits, those who follow his teachings will distort and change them to fit with their own agenda, it's not an Islamic thing, it's not a Christian thing, it's a human thing.

I can't get my head around why people who believe in "one God" have to fight about it all the time, if there's only one God then there is only one God and it will be the same one regarless of how you come to worship it. And if it does exist, surely it is such a personal thing that you shouldn't be worrying about how other people approach it, as long as it feels right to you!

Sometimes, I really hope there IS a God, just so I can be there to watch it bitch slap its followers on the day of judgement.:D Of course, I'll probably be snug and warm and looking up to see it all happen :)
 
There must be communication barriers between Australia and Englans. Different versions of the same language.

So to be clear.....the comment..how can you claim the Bible is all wrong..is to do with the creation of life.

Glad that its clear to you I am sorry I do not take a single uncollaborated source as necessarily being correct. I do not accept your premise that the bible is correct. How do you explain the many contradictions in it.

I think many areas of the Bible are very airy fairy. However, my main area of disagreement is not the Bible but the general intepretation. To me, the Bible portrays a god or person that does not not have unlimited power. As to accuracy of the Bible I would think it is like books on history in that the general theme remains true but details change with discoveries. A I remember a large grass fire through the area where George Armstrong Custer has his last show revealed much evidence that showed it was anything but Custers Last Stand and the soldiers eithe fled for their lives or froze on the spot. However, the basics are still there, Custer and his 7th calvary were slaughtered by the indians.
 
Have you read the Koran? I am told it not only quotes the old testament but the new testament too. I am not discounting anyone's belief, I am simply saying that they all seem very similar.

Yes they are similar for whatever reason, and yes the earlier books/reveleations are referenced. But they are not the same and can't be written off as such.

If the reference to Moses is only from an earlier - ie Biblical , then OK. (someone who has read it will know)
 
From the post, seems clear to me......The Bible says God created life. Then people say there is not one shred of evidence for that being the case.....one would therefore logically expect someone who says that to have a clue about how life started. Is is simple. If you don't have a clue how life started then how can you claim the Bible is all wrong.

It is feasible to disprove a concept via reductio ad absurdum. That is to say, you don't necessarily need to know the truth in order to disprove anothers claim to it.
 
As long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me then live and let live and I promise not to go knocking on the doors of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Plymouth Brethren et al to try to bring them the joyful word of Barry......

Surely the denial of such unabounded joy to your fellow man is a sin. :p
 
Surely the denial of such unabounded joy to your fellow man is a sin. :p

Of course it is, well spotted. However as a God myself (I believe we covered that in a much earlier thread somewhere) I can damn well please myself and there's nothing you ordinary mere mortals can do about it. So Nrrrrrr.
Mind you that now raises the question,"Can I, as God, be an atheist?" Oh well what's the point of being divine if you can't have it both ways?:p
 
Then you better tell Alisa because my answer won't be acceptable to her:D

By the way, I need faith for my answer. What do you need for your answer. Have you been out in the field collecting evidence again then going to the laboratory or are you still having faith in what you read and picking the article/book that gives the answer you would like.

So far everyone on this thread used faith. However, the supernatural believers also have some basis on their own experiences whereas the non supernatural believers are totally dependent on the written word of others.

Mike,
You are using the word "faith" to mean more than one thing. The kind of "faith" I have when reading an article or book is completely different than religous faith. Let compare:
My "faith" in science:
-Is based on multiple sources that have examined MULTIPLE pieces of evidence over multiple centuries.
-Is based on the concept that every possible explanation must be considered for each piece of evidence, and that a single peice of contradictory evidence invalidates a theory that may have been accepted for decades.
Religous faith:
-Is based on one historical text (such as the Bible) (as opposed to multiple).
-Is not based on evidence, and goes so far as to reject the entire concept of evidence.
-Is supported with claims about personal feelings that cannot be tested and cannot be falsified.
 
Mike,
Religous faith:
-Is based on one historical text (such as the Bible) (as opposed to multiple).
QUOTE]


I think this is as dodgy a concept as Mike's sales pitch.

The fact that it is all in one place does not mean only one source.

The 4 gospels are surely 4 separate works.

Brian
 
Mike,
Religous faith:
-Is based on one historical text (such as the Bible) (as opposed to multiple).
QUOTE]


I think this is as dodgy a concept as Mike's sales pitch.

The fact that it is all in one place does not mean only one source.

The 4 gospels are surely 4 separate works.

Brian
Agreed. There are significant differences in the content of the gospels so which is correct and which is wrong?
 
Agreed. There are significant differences in the content of the gospels so which is correct and which is wrong?

I haven't a clue. But then I find that what I have read of both the Bible and Koran difficult to follow, maybe its the translators , that I can easily understand why there are so many conflicting religions, sects, cults. As I said in an earlier post you would thing that a supernatural being would be a better communicator.

Brian
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom