Are you an atheist?

[Brianwarnock]

These last two posts pretty much say the same thing, Galaxiom just a little more directly.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

Well, I do care which is why I keep trying. But lets face it Dan-cat, there are times you can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I have put forth my 100%, now it is your decision which will not affect me or my decision in the end thus ("No Skin off my nose")

You said you care. From that, how do you feel, despite your best efforts, that a seemingly huge number of people are going to fall short? Does it upset you?

 

[Galaxiom]

there are times you can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I have put forth my 100%,

Blade:

Clearly, from your perspective, there is no question about the existence of your God who gave the rules for mankind to distant ancestors who wrote it down in the Bible.

But I, and no doubt others here, are bewildered by the extent of your commitment to this point of view. Your are apparently unable to comprehend the remotest possibility that the whole basis for your religion, and others quite like it, could be nothing more than the musings of some ancient men?

A philosopher, whose name escapes me, is quoted as encouraging the importance of being able to adopt another perspective without being persuaded. Exploring another perspective provides an opportunity to evaluate one's own beliefs without falling in to the trap of confirmation bias.

Can you honestly tell us if there was ever any time in your whole life where you seriously considered that the whole God thing is an ancient hoax?

 

[Bladerunner]

Because knowledge equals power.

The whole point of religion is to move the power away from the person to the religion's oligarchy.

AT the time of Adam and Eve, there was no religion. Only in later chapters revealed that God adopted the Israelite people as his chosen thus Judaism. Christianity was not around until Jesus sent his apostles to the population.

sorry to bust your bubble

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade:


"Clearly, from your perspective, there is no question about the existence of your God who gave the rules for mankind to distant ancestors who wrote it down in the Bible". PLUS AccessBlaster Post #4123 ;"Or an ancient misinterpretation. The tree of life could have been a form of technology. The apple, tree, serpent merely symbols that we assigned to the event. This could explain why similar themes run though other religions

Well we are at it again. Yes let have a go at it. I will try to answer the first part of your question along with AccessBlaster's Post #4123......OK lets go (ps. have written this one time online and lost it.)

The first cities, states, kingdoms, and organized religions begin to emerge (100th to 34th century BC or 9831 BC)(1). Moses was born in Egypt on the 7th of Adar of the year 2368 from creation (1393 BCE),(2) The first five books of the bible was given (dictated) to Moses during the 2nd Century or about the time of the Jewish Salvery by Egypt. To answer your question Glaxiom, YES!

AccessBlaster, Even scientist cannot agree here. They say that Hinduism is the world's oldest relgion.Believed to have started during 1500-3000 B.C(3)--Religion to the Hindu is the native search for the divine within the Self (3). However organized religion began as far back as 9831 (8). Most if not all of these were Pagan type religions. Catholicism was started about 110AD.(4) and Isalm was written (at least one book of 3) around 600AD (6). Thus Hebrew (Judism) began when God Gave Moses the Laws for the Jewish people to abide by. Did you miss that. The laws were given to his chosen people only and there were no apostles to spread the word of God for another 1200 years. What religions were you talking about? True the tree of knowledge may well have been a technological wonder but we shall never know. I do know that God was mad and did several things to Adam, Eve and the serpent that still stands today. If interested,check out Genesis 3:14-24

But I, and no doubt others here, are bewildered by the extent of your commitment to this point of view. Your are apparently unable to comprehend the remotest possibility that the whole basis for your religion, and others quite like it, could be nothing more than the musings of some ancient men?

Yes Galaxiom it is possible but not probable. "It is generally agreed that true writing of language (not only numbers) was invented independently in at least two places: Mesopotamia (specifically, ancient Sumer) around 3200 BCE and Mesoamerica around 600 BCE. Several Mesoamerican scripts are known, the oldest being from the Olmec or Zapotec of Mexico."(7). How many people of that time could read or write and then how many could be as articulate as the bible is? THis was long before people even thought about whether the world was flat or round.They just wanted to survive. Even Religion was not around to (as you would say it--Taint) the writings. But to answer your question; I have a degree from a University in Medicine which requires numerous science subjects including Physics. Yes, I do comprehend that all science has done so far is to support the writings of the Hebrew and Christian (original writings) religions. Should you want to debate them, let me know but you had better bring you best game.

A philosopher, whose name escapes me, is quoted as encouraging the importance of being able to adopt another perspective without being persuaded. Exploring another perspective provides an opportunity to evaluate one's own beliefs without falling in to the trap of confirmation bias.

To me we are two sides of the same coin. You do not believe in God and believe that our lives(ancestors) began in the primordial ooze and evolved to our present status as dictated by Mother Earth herself. We are within each of us Gods. There is no reason for our lives other that to do what ever we want to do legally within the laws of man and when we die, that is all. We get our morality from this type view and we already see the results of such morality where there is no religious guidance. On the other side of the coin, I do believe that God created ALL things( and I do mean ALL including TIME) . That he made Adam out of the very dirt we return to when we die. I believe we have a soul that will not die in one way or the other. (Heaven or Hell). Yes there is a purpose in our lives and his laws gives us the morality that is not possible by hard coding as some of the others suggest.

As to the coin, you believe in science to prove that your are right and there is no God and I believe that science will prove there is a God!

Can you honestly tell us if there was ever any time in your whole life where you seriously considered that the whole God thing is an ancient hoax?

Everybody's faith is tested in one way or the other. Some turn to God or Jesus for guidance and some turn away from him in their hour of sorrow. I have not had to prove my loyalty like Abraham did with his son. (Genesis 22: 1-14) . The answer to your question is NO I have never thought the "God Thing" was a hoax.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

2. Moses (1393-1273 BCE) - Jewish History - Chabad.org
www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/73398/jewish/Moses.htm

3. http://www.umich.edu/~aamuhist/smullang/pubspeak.htm

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

6. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isla/hd_isla.htm

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

8.https://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Cook/WHYIAMNOTAMEMBEROFANYWORLDLYCHURCH.HTM

 

[Libre]

I'm sure this must have been brought up already, but anyway:
Why would a rational person accept, without any doubt, a wildly improbable-to-impossible tale about the origins of life (and I'm talking about Creationism, not evolution), and about the existence of a fantastically powerful super-being who could create the whole universe, that nobody alive has ever seen?
Yes, in biblical times, miracles were a dime a dozen. Seas parting, water from stones, wine from water, miraculous cures with no explanation other than God's will.
But at least for all of recorded history, there is not one single verifiable instance of a miracle, or of the physical appearance of a diety.
Couldn't God (should He actually exist) settle the question once and for all (or at least once a century) by just popping by every now and then in a public place with plenty of witnesses, and just saying, Hi there, well, I'm God, you know. If you don't believe me, you see that boulder over there? Well, poof. Now it's gone. Okay, carry on. See you next century.
I mean after all, it's a lot to ask of anybody, to believe in this with no evidence, for God's Sake!

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm sure this must have been brought up already, but anyway:
Why would a rational person accept, without any doubt, a wildly improbable-to-impossible tale about the origins of life (and I'm talking about Creationism, not evolution), and about the existence of a fantastically powerful super-being who could create the whole universe, that nobody alive has ever seen?

Why would a rational person accept, that we are within ourselves a God or Darwin's theory which has now been proven to at the very least be tainted or "This all we are and no more" (scientist view)? A entity that gave Moses the 1st five books of the bible which included creation by the day.

Yes, in biblical times, miracles were a dime a dozen. Seas parting, water from stones, wine from water, miraculous cures with no explanation other than God's will.
But at least for all of recorded history, there is not one single verifiable instance of a miracle, or of the physical appearance of a diety.

Excuse me but I thought that is what the bible was. Recorded History. If not then what? Yes, there is not one single verifiable instance of a miracle in modern times. Wonder Why? As far as the appearance of a deity is concerned, I guess the burning bush and other appearances just won't do. Well he sent his son, also the son of man to us. Was that not good enough appearance for a Deity. OH yeah, he was the one who performed a lot of those miracles and died for our sins. Yes, there are other written publications that acknowledge the life of Jesus. He was a real person!

God does not ask much from you. Simply put, 'believe in him'. What do you get out of this bagain? He Loves you! is that not enough?

 

[Libre]

Excuse me but I thought that is what the bible was. Recorded History. If not then what?

No, no, no, Bladerunner. The Bible is no more recorded history than the 1964 movie Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - but back in ancient times, they didn't have to put words to the effect:
this is a work of fiction, and any resemblence to any persons living or dead is purly coincidental
like they do now.
Seriously, Blade.
Only the most fundamentally religious of us take the Bible as a history book.
Are you telling me you take it all literally?

Yes, there is not one single verifiable instance of a miracle in modern times. Wonder Why?

because there haven't been any?

As far as the appearance of a deity is concerned, I guess the burning bush and other appearances just won't do.

No they won't. I can't accept a source's (the Bible's) own information as proof of it's own veracity. That would be akin to taking a man at his word because he says he never lies.

Well he sent his son, also the son of man to us. Was that not good enough appearance for a Deity. OH yeah, he was the one who performed a lot of those miracles and died for our sins.

see comment above

Yes, there are other written publications that acknowledge the life of Jesus. He was a real person!

There is not that much of a dispute among athiests about whether or not Jeses was a real person. I can accept the Jesus was real. I just have problems with the accounts of his sexless conception, his reincarnation, and the other paranormal accounts of his activities in the Bible (but no place in ACTUAL history books, newspapers, periodicals, scientific journals and papers, or university libraries outside of the Theology section).
Real people don't cause these kinds of debates. It is the UNreal people we have a problem with accepting. You know, like Gods.

God does not ask much from you. Simply put, 'believe in him'. What do you get out of this bagain? He Loves you! is that not enough?

No, it's far from enough. It does not begin to be enough.
Let me ammend your statement so it more reflects my own take on the matter:
'believe in him (despite the total absense of reason to do so, despite the far more plausible alternative hypotheses that don't reach for answers far beyond their explanatory power, despite the fact that, if true, this God who loves us causes massive grief and suffering to innocents, wipes out poor and depressed regions with earthquakes and tsunamis - and often the most reverent regions, I might add, seems to take a callous and even sadistic pleasure in the suffering of the world, who makes the big-bad assholes even bigger and badder, and all this is just a start).
No, it's far from enough.

 

[Galaxiom]

There is not that much of a dispute among athiests about whether or not Jeses was a real person.

I for one disagree with that.

No doubt there were men called Jesus but the overwhelming evidence is that the entire story is fiction.

There is an absolute absence of any contemporary corroborating reference despite the fantastic things he is supposed to have done.

The events described are not plausible suggesting they are concoctions of a wild imagination. I see no reason to think that Jesus himself is anything but a product of that same imagination.

The first mention of Jesus in history is a lifetime after the supposed events, conveniently putting it beyond any living memory at the time.

The NT is written in Greek rather than a language local to the supposed events.

Also worth mentioning is the complete absence of any archaeological evidence of the locations described in the Old Testament. It too is a work of fiction.

 

[Bladerunner]

I for one disagree with that.

The first mention of Jesus in history is a lifetime after the supposed events, conveniently putting it beyond any living memory at the time.

not true, there is a record of Jesus during Roman time as told in the NT.

The NT is written in Greek rather than a language local to the supposed events.

"The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881."

Also worth mentioning is the complete absence of any archaeological evidence of the locations described in the Old Testament. It too is a work of fiction.

You have got to be kidding me. Don't know what you have been reading but you had better get a better reference. um, um um

 

[Galaxiom]

... there is a record of Jesus during Roman time as told in the NT

Wrong. There is no mention of Jesus in any old writings until about 80 AD. Even this is indirect because it only refers to Jesus as a belief of the Christians.

That is not a contemporary reference.

I cannot provide a reference to the absence of something so it is up to you to provde evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist.

BTW. It would be nice if you learnt how use the forum quotes in replies. You invariably get it wrong making it harder for others to recognise what you say and what you quote, and to quote you.

 

[Bladerunner]

No, no, no, Bladerunner. The Bible is no more recorded history than the 1964 movie Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - but back in ancient times, they didn't have to put words to the effect:
this is a work of fiction, and any resemblence to any persons living or dead is purly coincidental

AT the very least you believe in something. We will just have to disagree here.

Seriously, Blade.
Only the most fundamentally religious of us take the Bible as a history book.
Are you telling me you take it all literally?

Yes, everything from the days of Moses, (who by the way is mentioned in the Egyptian writings of the day) was written down and is a history of what happened then. The days from creation of all things to Moses was written by God and given to Moses.

because there haven't been any?

Here you agreeing with me about no new miracles since the old days. My "Wonder Why" was based upon the fact that Jesus is not here to perform them. I might ad, that Peter did perform several miracles on his own.

There is not that much of a dispute among athiests about whether or not Jeses was a real person. I can accept the Jesus was real. I just have problems with the accounts of his sexless conception, his reincarnation, and the other paranormal accounts of his activities in the Bible (but no place in ACTUAL history books, newspapers, periodicals, scientific journals and papers, or university libraries outside of the Theology section).

http://canadafreepress.com/index.ph...al-proof-of-an-actual-jesus-christ-of-nazaret

Real people don't cause these kinds of debates. It is the UNreal people we have a problem with accepting. You know, like Gods.

I am having trouble comprehending this statement. Is it just me?

No, it's far from enough. It does not begin to be enough.
Let me ammend your statement so it more reflects my own take on the matter:
'believe in him (despite the total absense of reason to do so, despite the far more plausible alternative hypotheses that don't reach for answers far beyond their explanatory power, despite the fact that, if true, this God who loves us causes massive grief and suffering to innocents, wipes out poor and depressed regions with earthquakes and tsunamis - and often the most reverent regions, I might add, seems to take a callous and even sadistic pleasure in the suffering of the world, who makes the big-bad assholes even bigger and badder, and all this is just a start).
No, it's far from enough.

Not going to try and touch this, too messy. He still loves you!

 

[Brianwarnock]

BTW. It would be nice if you learnt how use the forum quotes in replies. You invariably get it wrong making it harder for others to recognise what you say and what you quote, and to quote you.

I've already mentioned this but it has had no effect, I think that it may be a ploy to dissuade people from arguing with him.

He is not the only poster who ignores requests to post normally, 50 to 1 places the quote after the reply.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

Okay so i chose - Im an atheist but if god appeared before me i would change my mind - Although i solely believe in evolution and the science behind us being here , im sorry but the whole point of being an atheist is believing in no god but if (as you say) GOD an all mighty powerful being appeared before me it would give me personal evidence behind the fact he exists as i have seen him.

Although terribly terribly unlikely he shall appear before me anytime - if he did and proved so he was an actual god then i would be forced to change my mind as then it has been proven (not to everyone but to me) that a god exists.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Disregarding part of my earlier statement being an atheist isnt all about not believing in a god but believing in evolution and science is a big part of being an atheist and as said in my above post.

If an almighty Deity appeared infront of me and showed me his ways of creation it would certainly sway my opinions as being an atheist.

I always try to see the both sides of an debate (as to being GOD/Natural Selection here) but at this moment in time there is just more evidence for me to believe in natural selection rather than a god.

 

[ConnorGiles]

But on a slightly less serious note

I believe in results!

and Odin promised to kill all frost giants

and i havent seen any frost giants recently

 

[Libre]

I for one disagree with that.

No doubt there were men called Jesus but the overwhelming evidence is that the entire story is fiction.

There is an absolute absence of any contemporary corroborating reference despite the fantastic things he is supposed to have done.

The events described are not plausible suggesting they are concoctions of a wild imagination. I see no reason to think that Jesus himself is anything but a product of that same imagination.

The first mention of Jesus in history is a lifetime after the supposed events, conveniently putting it beyond any living memory at the time.

The NT is written in Greek rather than a language local to the supposed events.

Also worth mentioning is the complete absence of any archaeological evidence of the locations described in the Old Testament. It too is a work of fiction.

Yes, well, as I said, I don't dispute the existence of a man named Jesus. It's the fantastic things he is supposed to have done that I have trouble with.
There HAS INDEED been findings in recent years, that may not be incontrovertable proof of his existence - and certainly don't prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but thre is evidence that he was a man and maybe was married. They found (as I recall) a piece of his coffin? They found writings that refer to his marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/u...refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How do I know if this is real or not?
I'm only saying it's not THAT much to accept that a human man named Jesus existed in the time he was supposed to exist and might have even preached the Gospel and been a rabbi (yes, a rabbi) as has long been supposed. It seems to me fruitless to deny it, and instead to assert that the entire story is completely conjured up, and does not cause any compromise of principals to at least accept the possibility of a human man, teacher, rabbi, and spiritual leader called Jesus.

 

[ConnorGiles]

I am really interested reading everyones opinion on this thread

Currently on page 8

Although i'm an atheist i do take opinions or theories onboard

Glad to see your such an Intelligent bunch

 

[Galaxiom]

They found (as I recall) a piece of his coffin?

I expect you are referring to what was supposed to be a piece of his brother's coffin. That proved to be a hoax. When the same archaeologist came up with two "pieces of evidence" for the existence of Jesus it was considered an extraordinary coincidence so others looked a bit harder at both.

They found writings that refer to his marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/u...refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

No provenance = No credibility. Most likely another hoax. There have been many hoaxes over a very long time, the most famous being the Shroud of Turin.

Moreover it is claimed that it was written in the fourth century. Hence it is not contemporary reference but just another reporting about the beliefs of Christians.

I doubt that it is a coincidence that the first woman to hold the academic position turns up with "evidence" to show that Jesus included female disciples.

As is evident in BladeRunner's posts, believers set a very low bar to what they consider as "proof".

 

[Bladerunner]

Okay so i chose - Im an atheist but if god appeared before me i would change my mind - Although i solely believe in evolution and the science behind us being here , im sorry but the whole point of being an atheist is believing in no god but if (as you say) GOD an all mighty powerful being appeared before me it would give me personal evidence behind the fact he exists as i have seen him.

What about Jesus, He was real and the Son of God. The road to Heaven goes through him alone. As far as your statements go, I see you are an opportunist as well as an Atheist.

Although terribly terribly unlikely he shall appear before me anytime - if he did and proved so he was an actual god then i would be forced to change my mind as then it has been proven (not to everyone but to me) that a god exists.

Yes he (Jesus) will appear near the end of revelations. However, by then you will have had to make a decision to acquire the mark or not to. Choose wisely my friend!