...True Believer, out to save us?
The Religion of Atheism
- Thread starter Thales750
- Start date
Couldn't or won't? Typical atheist.You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment
If you want to see where he is going with this argument, just go read the are you an atheist thread. See you back here in a month or so
cookieduster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:36
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2002
- Messages
- 14
There is no distinction to be made between atheists and theists as they both assert something that neither can prove.
Let’s hear for the agnostics!
Let’s hear for the agnostics!
Rich
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 00:36
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,898
Yes but which bunch of them are gullible enough to believe a book full of fanciful stories like the tooth fairy etc?
Don't you start
we've had the whole 'there is no difference between an atheist and an agnostic' spiel, ad nausaem, from Mike375.You don't have to prove that God does or doesn't exist for that to be your belief, otherwise everyone would be an agnostic.
The only thing atheists assert is that it is silly to believe anything in the absence of evidence.
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 00:36
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
Don't knock the tooth fairy. I remember getting real money from her which is more than god has contributed
Thankyou. I just spat tea over the keyboardDon't knock the tooth fairy. I remember getting real money from her which is more than god has contributed
Reminded me of an old Viz letter:
They say that God is all-knowing. Last night I prayed to him to fix the gearbox on my Austin Allegro and did he? Did he b*llocks. If anything, he's made it worse. Now, I can't get it out of second.
If atheism is a religion, then more people should start converting to it, as it apparently provides a stronger moral foundation than traditional religions:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html#cnnSTCText
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:36
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 28,688
Hey, I'm known for being bull-headed about some things. I like to qualify my statements, so I'll do so. Using THESE DEFINITIONS, ...
Belief is a mental condition or attitude regarding some specific subject for which the condition or attitude is capable of guiding or directing a being's decisions and actions relevant to that subject. This definition primarily considers human beings but does not rule out other beings capable of making decisions. It specifically rules out any entity that is incapable of choosing alternative behavior in given conditions where/when such alternatives exist.
Faith is a form of Belief that exists without proof of the condition or proof of correctness of the attitude. Believing in God is a form of Faith since proof is not going to happen with God. (I'm not being intransigent on that point, either. The Bible itself tells us we need faith; that the Kingdom is not of this world; and that we must not test God, which is a form of searching for proof.)
Based on those definitions, I have no faith in the existence of God. I believe there is no God. This makes me an atheist because theism is also about belief and faith - but the theist has faith that I do not.
I arrive at this position by rejecting the circular logic based this kind of cycle: "Who inspired the Bible?" Answer: "God" ... followed by "How do we know there IS a God?" Answer: "The Bible tells me so."
Once you step outside this logic, you can see the many contradictions and variances from reality. Eventually, you realize the Bible is not a valid basis for your beliefs - and there are NO other sources of that belief that DON'T derive from the Bible.
As to the difference between Theism and Atheism: They are different like black and white are different. Though both are possible perceptions, one is characterised by the total absence of light of ANY color (in the formal scientific sense of color) whereas the other is characterized by the presence of ALL colors in sufficient quantity and proportion that no color has preponderance of perception over another, but what you see won't be mis-recognized as black. Presence vs. Absence - the topic is the same but the results are very different.
IF you wish to quibble with me, remain within my definitions. If you wish to argue for the sake of argument, be my guest - but don't expect me to play your game by your rules if you won't play by mine.
Now, having taken a position on atheism, I'll take other positions. And DAMN the Aha's, full speed ahead.
While I'm certainly not aware of all details of the big bang and big bounce theories, they are at least reasonable to my way of thinking. The "Goddidit" method of creation is not at all reasonable to me because of my underlying lack of Faith in the existence of God. That level of physics isn't within my training, but to the extent that I understand all of the principles, I can accept the Big Bang/Bounce as possible.
Comments about "Physics started microseconds after the Big Bang" as stated by Mr. Hawking et al. are incorrect use of language, which any scientist or theist can do by being careless. My modification is "Physics as we know it started microseconds after the Big Bang." If there was a different type of physics, different laws, different conditions before that moment, we cannot decipher or decide what they might have been. Which is a far cry from saying "NOTHING preceded the Big Bang."
If an atheist says "We don't know how event X happened" then theists jump on our stuff. But if we question any theist about the inexplicable, they answer "God works in mysterious ways." Which is religious-speak for "We don't know how event X happened." So I'll point out that whether I believe in the Bang/Bounce idea or the FSM theory of creation or a Christian theory, I don't know that answer for certain. All I know is what I do or don't believe. I don't believe in the Creationist story or the FSM story. Hey, it's a position. You take your position, I'll take mine.
As to evolution by natural selection vs. evolution vs. natural selection, this is an apples and oranges argument semantically because one is a general statement and the other is a mechanism that might apply to or be subsumed within the general statement. So it is another example of careless use of language.
The line of thinking about the CAR and its beliefs isn't original. I came from Christian upbringing and reached my current position only after a long time. But I remember the scripture I studied as a much younger man. What usually gripes me about Christians is how they cherry-pick the Bible and then expect me to let them get away with it.
Does anyone recall the Biblical question about whether a stone could enter Heaven? The answer being that without making a choice, one cannot enter Heaven, and the stone is incapable of choice. So NO, a stone cannot enter Heaven.
Condemn me, praise me, or ignore me, but at least recognize that I have made my choices and made them as clear as my use of language allows.
Pardon me while I put on my bullet-proof vest and other protective gear for the pot-shots that so often come my way when I take this attitude. As if I cared.
Belief is a mental condition or attitude regarding some specific subject for which the condition or attitude is capable of guiding or directing a being's decisions and actions relevant to that subject. This definition primarily considers human beings but does not rule out other beings capable of making decisions. It specifically rules out any entity that is incapable of choosing alternative behavior in given conditions where/when such alternatives exist.
Faith is a form of Belief that exists without proof of the condition or proof of correctness of the attitude. Believing in God is a form of Faith since proof is not going to happen with God. (I'm not being intransigent on that point, either. The Bible itself tells us we need faith; that the Kingdom is not of this world; and that we must not test God, which is a form of searching for proof.)
Based on those definitions, I have no faith in the existence of God. I believe there is no God. This makes me an atheist because theism is also about belief and faith - but the theist has faith that I do not.
I arrive at this position by rejecting the circular logic based this kind of cycle: "Who inspired the Bible?" Answer: "God" ... followed by "How do we know there IS a God?" Answer: "The Bible tells me so."
Once you step outside this logic, you can see the many contradictions and variances from reality. Eventually, you realize the Bible is not a valid basis for your beliefs - and there are NO other sources of that belief that DON'T derive from the Bible.
As to the difference between Theism and Atheism: They are different like black and white are different. Though both are possible perceptions, one is characterised by the total absence of light of ANY color (in the formal scientific sense of color) whereas the other is characterized by the presence of ALL colors in sufficient quantity and proportion that no color has preponderance of perception over another, but what you see won't be mis-recognized as black. Presence vs. Absence - the topic is the same but the results are very different.
IF you wish to quibble with me, remain within my definitions. If you wish to argue for the sake of argument, be my guest - but don't expect me to play your game by your rules if you won't play by mine.
Now, having taken a position on atheism, I'll take other positions. And DAMN the Aha's, full speed ahead.
While I'm certainly not aware of all details of the big bang and big bounce theories, they are at least reasonable to my way of thinking. The "Goddidit" method of creation is not at all reasonable to me because of my underlying lack of Faith in the existence of God. That level of physics isn't within my training, but to the extent that I understand all of the principles, I can accept the Big Bang/Bounce as possible.
Comments about "Physics started microseconds after the Big Bang" as stated by Mr. Hawking et al. are incorrect use of language, which any scientist or theist can do by being careless. My modification is "Physics as we know it started microseconds after the Big Bang." If there was a different type of physics, different laws, different conditions before that moment, we cannot decipher or decide what they might have been. Which is a far cry from saying "NOTHING preceded the Big Bang."
If an atheist says "We don't know how event X happened" then theists jump on our stuff. But if we question any theist about the inexplicable, they answer "God works in mysterious ways." Which is religious-speak for "We don't know how event X happened." So I'll point out that whether I believe in the Bang/Bounce idea or the FSM theory of creation or a Christian theory, I don't know that answer for certain. All I know is what I do or don't believe. I don't believe in the Creationist story or the FSM story. Hey, it's a position. You take your position, I'll take mine.
As to evolution by natural selection vs. evolution vs. natural selection, this is an apples and oranges argument semantically because one is a general statement and the other is a mechanism that might apply to or be subsumed within the general statement. So it is another example of careless use of language.
The line of thinking about the CAR and its beliefs isn't original. I came from Christian upbringing and reached my current position only after a long time. But I remember the scripture I studied as a much younger man. What usually gripes me about Christians is how they cherry-pick the Bible and then expect me to let them get away with it.
Does anyone recall the Biblical question about whether a stone could enter Heaven? The answer being that without making a choice, one cannot enter Heaven, and the stone is incapable of choice. So NO, a stone cannot enter Heaven.
Condemn me, praise me, or ignore me, but at least recognize that I have made my choices and made them as clear as my use of language allows.
Pardon me while I put on my bullet-proof vest and other protective gear for the pot-shots that so often come my way when I take this attitude. As if I cared.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 00:36
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Surely you are not saying that to be a Christian you have to believe every word in the Bible, including its contradictions?
Brian
If the Bible is the word of God - as many Christians claim - then don't you have to? Otherwise, you as a fallible human are picking and choosing which bits are true and intended exactly as they are written down and which are not meant to be taken literally.
Since it's impossible to take the whole thing literally - for the reason you just gave - the Bible, as a source of any kind of information, is questionable at best and ludicrous at worst.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 00:36
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Not all, if any, Christians believe that the whole Bible is the word of God, I know that some will tell you that the old testament is pre jesus and that it is the New Testament that takes precedent, plus they recognise that it is the work of men writing after the event and not as it is being dictated to them.
The Bible is a guide to be interpreted, but not all Christians and Christian groupings agree on those interpretations.
But I am not agnostic because I do or don't believe in the in the Bible, Koran or whatever, I just don't know if there is a God or gods, and none of the religions I've come across can persuade me otherwise, and the fact that there are so many religions is to me a convincing argument against a single God that requires us to pay homage to him. or her.
Brian
The Bible is a guide to be interpreted, but not all Christians and Christian groupings agree on those interpretations.
But I am not agnostic because I do or don't believe in the in the Bible, Koran or whatever, I just don't know if there is a God or gods, and none of the religions I've come across can persuade me otherwise, and the fact that there are so many religions is to me a convincing argument against a single God that requires us to pay homage to him. or her.
Brian
Someone on this forum once tried to explain to me how people had been specially trained to copy out the Bible, from generation to generation, to ensure that no changes were ever made. Can't place who it was, but I'm sure it will come back to me. The point being that if he thinks like that and was taught to think like that, then I doubt very much that he's the only Christian who thinks in this way. Look at Paul/James's posts on one of the other threads - the 'fact' that Jesus existed is proof that he was the son of God, which proves that God exists. If you're able to swallow that logic, simply because the Bible says it's so, then believing the rest of it should be cinch.
Once you accept that any of it is untrue, you have to be open to the fact that other parts may be wrong. Who gets to say where you can stop?
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 00:36
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
I suppose that in some cases its an existing "church" but in the end it is oneself.
I don't think I can argue for long from the Christian point of view not being a follower, but I just felt that the all or nothing approach was wrong and to condemn those that reject parts opf the Bible is too simplistic.
Brian
I don't think I can argue for long from the Christian point of view not being a follower, but I just felt that the all or nothing approach was wrong and to condemn those that reject parts opf the Bible is too simplistic.
Brian
There's at least one poster who's whole argument seems to consist of pointing out that non-believers don't know what beloevers think, then refusing to expand on it, so you wouldn't be alone
I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the ludicrous hypocrisy of basing decisions on what the Bible 'tells' one to do, when the book itself is a self-contractory collections of stories open to a myriad of interpretations. They may as well base a religion on Aesop's fables. at least the morals were clear there.
'Good' people will do good things whether they've seen a Bible or not. 'Bad' people will do bad things, even if they've read one on multiple occasions. All the Bible provides is justification for the bad ones, due to the flexible interpretation.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:36
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 28,688
As Alc pointed out before I could come back, you really CANNOT accept the whole Bible. But if you are going to accept it as valid, at least be somewhat aware of what it tells you and don't parrot gibberish. Be prepared to discuss it with your mind open or you ARE a mindless sheep who richly deserves the shearing you get when the shepherd comes around. But I, for one, got the flock out of there once my eyes opened.
