The Atheist thread

[RichWall]

* they had coped for many thousands of years before that.

I'll start here first. The Gnostics were a sect that shared many of the same concepts as the eastern religions especially Hinduism. Did these influences directly effect Jesus' teachings or were they more of an effect on the writers of the Gnostic books afterward. I do not think we will ever know. But this does show that the commonalities of the major religions may be greater than previously acknowledged by some if the cultural differences are stripped away. Also the continuity through history of these evolving philosophies not only influenced one another but were directly related to what came before.

After the Council of Nicea, there was a concerted effort by the Roman Church to purge all Gnostic writings.

But Jesus only really "saved" the humans that lived in the Middle Eastern states. What about those cultures around the world, such as China, which were a lot more advanced than the Middle East and who were not descending into a primal state? They seemed to manage without his intervention for around 600 years after Jesus' death* until Christianity was first introduced to the country, and it has never been a majority religion there.

I am not necessarily saying I believe all this, but from a historical point of view, I think most cannot deny the impact of Jesus. Who knows the impact through history from his words via the butterfly effect.

Is 600 years the time frame or 6,000 or even 60,000. I do not know.

Of course there is no way to prove this one way or another.

It just showed me that these philosophical influences are not static and the continuity through time of these same philosophies was greater than I had previously realized.

 

[Urwumpe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

 

[bujin]

I am not necessarily saying I believe all this, but from a historical point of view, I think most cannot deny the impact of Jesus. Who knows the impact through history from his words via the butterfly effect.

You can't deny that the Jesus story has become widely known and used (by most) as a set of teachings which are seen as good. You could argue that Jesus wasn't entirely original in his teachings, and that some of his philosophies can (and should) be attributed to much earlier philosophers.

 

[landon2006]

Mom always said: There are two things in life that you don't want to get into a discussion about: Religion and Politics. As we can see here and other place, the reason is simple... No two people fully agree on the same concept. Everyone's Atheism is different from anthers, as is every Christians belief to a certain extent.

What I find hard to image is how a person can go and get a science degree with the understanding that the earth was created from a "Big Bang", and god was not involved... And still go to church every Sunday and pray to him :dry:

Me, personally, I don't really believe is dis-believe. If god created the earth, great.. if not... great. Either way, I'm thankful I'm here, rather I'm thankful to a god or a rouge star, I don't know for sure. I just find it hard to firmly believe in something that has no explanation to exist. Yet at the same time, so many things clearly exist but are beyond explanation....

If it makes a difference, I do believe in Ghost's (which is my other facinantion other than space and Orbiter). I guess if Ghost's do exist, then maybe god does too.... Again, I can't be sure. I once caught a Ghost on a photograph... I'm yet to catch an image of the virgin Mary on my morning toast... Wait to see I guess..

I guess you would call me anAgnostic....
Amazing world isn't it?

 

[Ghostrider]

What I find hard to image is how a person can go and get a science degree with the understanding that the earth was created from a "Big Bang", and god was not involved... And still go to church every Sunday and pray to him :dry:

Maybe because the Big Bang theory was formulated by a Catholic priest and initially criticized as "too creationist"...

 

[Eagle]

There's a pretty silly video where a guy tries to prove that God doesn't exist because Universal set paradox. Of course proving that the Universal set doesn't exist is pointless, because its quite obvious that it does exist (and the real Universe exists as well).

I've heard a moral argument for religion. That is that it imparts certain morals on society and gives another reason to do the right thing when nobody is looking.

If it makes a difference, I do believe in Ghost's (which is my other facinantion other than space and Orbiter). I guess if Ghost's do exist, then maybe god does too.... Again, I can't be sure. I once caught a Ghost on a photograph... I'm yet to catch an image of the virgin Mary on my morning toast... Wait to see I guess..

I guess you would call me anAgnostic....
Amazing world isn't it?

Been years since I've seen a ghost. Shade or shadow person is a pretty good description of what I've seen.

I'm puzzling over your term, is it more that you don't care that you don't know?

 

[Notebook]

"The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

 

[n122vu]

I am not an atheist (and I don't play one on TV). I understand why some people choose to be atheists based on lack of scientific evidence of the existence of a Creator. Being a Christian, I do not agree with them, but I understand their viewpoint because I have always been a very analytical, scientifically minded person myself. Do I wish they would see things the way I do? Yes. Am I going to beat them over the head with my beliefs to try and change their minds? No. All I can do (and all I believe we are supposed to do) is share my experiences and hope that maybe it will inspire someone to take a second look.

I would consider myself not an atheist, but rather an atheologist. I do not believe in "theology." I believe God exists and Christ his son. I believe His Word is true and there are positive rewards and advantages following His teachings. I don't believe in "say this prayer, sing this song, do this dance, act this way and you won't go to hell, etc."

I get frustrated when people lump together everyone who believes in God and Christ or any other deity-centric belief system and deem them "religious." <opinion> Religion and faith are not the same, nor are they synonomous. To me, the word religion speaks more toward ceremony and ritual, rather than personal growth and treating others with love and respect, as well as worship of a deity. In my opinion, religion is about making yourself feel better and trying to look like a good person to everyone else. Faith is about actually being a better person and being an assett to society. </opinion>

I think a "discussion" thread would be good, as long as it's kept civil and respectful of others' views. Maybe it would help some of us better understand the views of others, whether we agree with them or not.

I promised myself I wasn't going to jump into any more of these topics though....

 

[bujin]

Mom always said: There are two things in life that you don't want to get into a discussion about: Religion and Politics. As we can see here and other place, the reason is simple... No two people fully agree on the same concept. Everyone's Atheism is different from anthers, as is every Christians belief to a certain extent.

It's an interesting topic. Just because there are many different answers from different people doesn't mean we should shy away from the topic - if anything, we should have more discussion to try to understand each other better.

I think a "discussion" thread would be good, as long as it's kept civil and respectful of others' views. Maybe it would help some of us better understand the views of others, whether we agree with them or not.

Exactly. The problem is that people often take offence on the topic of religion far too easily. Some people (and I'm not necessarily saying anyone on this board) would even interpret some of the comments I have made on this thread as an attack on their faith.

Take the "atheist bus campaign" in London. While most religious people have no problem with it, there are certain other religious people (e.g. Stephen Green) who take it extremely personal. Yet they find no problem in religious based adverts which lead to websites which tell people they will go to Hell if they do not become Christians - something most non-Christians (and even some Christians) find extremely offensive!

 

[tblaxland]

Ok. Any sources of evidence that are NOT in the Bible? Such as in Chinese history, for example?

[sarcasm]Shock, horror! You don't believe the Bible[/sarcasm]
Well, there is plenty of evidence that Christianity has spread around the world, even if it is only a minor religion in many places - just look around you. The quoted Bible passages were only presented to demonstrate the mandate that evangelical Christians feel they have. Granted, I have no other evidence that Jesus so instructed his followers, but I have little doubt that he did - it would seem to be fairly normal for religious leaders to instruct their followers to "spread the word".

Going back to your original assertion, I agree with you that Jesus didn't save the Chinese from descending into moral chaos.

 

[eveningsky339]

I find it mildly amusing how atheists feel the need to tell everyone about atheism. Almost like (dare I say it?)...preaching. How many Lutherans feel the need to start their own threads?

It has always struck me as odd that people who believe no one will have the capacity to remember that they existed will bother doing these things, such as advertising on buses and starting their own threads. I'm not trying to step on any toes, I'm just sayin'. It doesn't make a lot of sense in the grand scheme of things.


-----Post Added-----

To be honest I'd say that the majority of people I know here in Europe simply don't care about God.
It's not that they're atheist or religious, they just have more important things in their lives than bothering whether or not god exists.

Well there certainly is little use brooding about these things. But the open-minded search for God is another matter.

And I think whether or not there is a God is extremely important.

Oh, and I may as well throw in that I am a Christian Universalist. Just so you know.

 

[Hielor]

And I think whether or not there is a God is extremely important.

Why? Let us suppose that there is a God, and He truly allows humans to have free will, and does not interfere. In that case, why does it matter whether or not He exists? The case where He exists but does not interfere is indistinguishable from the case where He does not exist, from the point of view of us mere mortals, and worrying about it is just pointless because it doesn't make a difference.

 

[Juanelm]

...people who believe no one will have the capacity to remember that they existed...

:mellow: Didn't get what you mean.

 

[Moonwalker]

I don't think that it is important if "god" exists or not. People need to make their lives meaningful (or not, which creates evilness). And there are a lot of ways to do so. For me it's simply daily enjoyment. I love to sleep, to get up each morning, to eat, I love to enjoy my passions (especially aviation, space flight & computer stuff) and much more. For me life itself already is meaningful because I simply exist.

I don't like to talk about god as a person. I think it is rather undeniable that there is a creation almost everywhere around us. Nothing happens accidentally. Actio et reactio. We and everything else around us didn't happen by accident for sure. And we already research small parts of the creation by our natural sciences. We won't disclose any little secret. But our steps into the macro and micro universe are amazing already, even if it's only by using telescopes/microscopes and probes. But "god" does not exist as a godhead. There is no single evidence for it. But instead, evidences for a creation exist almost everywhere around us, including ourselves. That's it for me. The question of a creation is answered already for me, just by open my eyes and use my sense organs. I don't need man-made Holy Scriptures and godhead to explain things around us. I prefer observation, natural sciences to do so, rather than to believe subjective views which are not verifiable. But this also does not mean that I'm submissively dependent on scientific conclusions on the whole. I still have my own brain too

 

[Juanelm]

The question of a creation is answered already for me, just by open my eyes and use my sense organs. I don't need man-made Holy Scriptures and godhead to explain things around us. I prefer observation, natural sciences to do so, rather than to believe subjective views which are not verifiable.

What about evolution, then?

But this also does not mean that I'm submissively dependent on scientific conclusions on the whole. I still have my own brain too .

Well, this is what I think of this. How could I say that my belief in something that I know just barely about is more justified than the belief held by not one, but thousands of people that have dedicated their whole lives to understand that single topic, and take into account every single piece of data that humanity has gathered on that single topic, and thousands of those people state that according to all the data gathered that answer is the most reasonable answer and therefore the most justified belief? Science may be wrong (-they are called theories-), but it simply is the most logical answer according to all the data we have gathered, it simply is the most justified belief, the most reasonable thing to believe.

 

[Arrowstar]

Well, this is what I think of this. How could I say that my belief in something that I know just barely about is more justified than the belief held by not one, but thousands of people that have dedicated their whole lives to understand that single topic, and take into account every single piece of data that humanity has gathered on that single topic, and thousands of those people state that according to all the data gathered that answer is the most reasonable answer and therefore the most justified belief? Science may be wrong (-they are called theories-), but it simply is the most logical answer according to all the data we have gathered, it simply is the most justified belief, the most reasonable thing to believe.

This, of course, does not mean you are any more right, strictly speaking, than someone who comes up with their own idea. How long was the Earth flat?

 

[RichWall]

Thats VERY bad theology. As well as very bad cultural study of the subject. The "Concept of compassion" was present and important all through the old testament. It didn't have to be introduced.
Jesus "saving act" theologically can only be explained as the salvation from sin. There really is nothing else the Jews had to be saved from.

OK, You have my attention. And, I am open...

The Hebrews were already saved? Or did they provide the platform for the saving act? Philosophy? Or Person?

The definition of "sin" I know of is comes from an archery term meaning "off the bullseye" or "close, but no cigar" or "in error" or "not perfect".

You can't deny that the Jesus story has become widely known and used (by most) as a set of teachings which are seen as good. You could argue that Jesus wasn't entirely original in his teachings, and that some of his philosophies can (and should) be attributed to much earlier philosophers.

I see no reason that Jesus would not have drawn upon the past and to make it relevant for the future. A wise man would.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill".
Matthew, 5. 17

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

Gotta love it...Great stuff..!!

 

[Juanelm]

This, of course, does not mean you are any more right, strictly speaking, than someone who comes up with their own idea. How long was the Earth flat?

The thing is, we have to think in terms of justified beliefs. Not in terms of what is true and what is false. This is because we live in a world of probabilities, therefore it is literally impossible to be 100% sure of anything, impossible by the way nature is. Therefore everything is possible, even the most absurd things. So we must think in what is most justified to believe, not in what is true or what is false. Noone knows what is true or false (strictly speaking; meaning 100% sure), because it's impossible to know.

Then, if we define "being right" as having the most justified belief, then some people can be more right than others. Defining "being right" as knowing the truth does not make sense because noone knows the truth, and even if they did, it would be impossible to know if they did.

If Columbus based his belief that the world was round on observations, then he was more right than others (his belief was more justified). If he based it on nothing, then he was just as wrong as the others. Nowadays we "know" that the Earth is spherical, but maybe it's not (remember anything is always possible, even the most absurd, albeit very very very low possibility), we are "right" in thinking that the Earth is round, however there is always the possibility that tomorrow someone will show us that it's really square (showing us new data that means it's more logical to think it is square). And then again, that demonstration would have some probability of being false in it... so you get the idea. In short, reality is probabilistic. The more that data shows us that one thing might be reality, the more % we are sure of that thing. But we can never reach 100%. Having more data that shows somehting is right literally means being more right than someone that does not.

:huh: Maybe I went a little too in-depth..

 

[tblaxland]

Well, this is what I think of this. How could I say that my belief in something that I know just barely about is more justified than the belief held by not one, but thousands of people that have dedicated their whole lives to understand that single topic, and take into account every single piece of data that humanity has gathered on that single topic, and thousands of those people state that according to all the data gathered that answer is the most reasonable answer and therefore the most justified belief? Science may be wrong (-they are called theories-), but it simply is the most logical answer according to all the data we have gathered, it simply is the most justified belief, the most reasonable thing to believe.

That sounds like a post straight out of the global warming thread...

This, of course, does not mean you are any more right, strictly speaking, than someone who comes up with their own idea. How long was the Earth flat?

The Earth was never flat but it would be reasonable to believe it was flat in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But to continue to believe it is flat when that evidence comes in, is very puzzling.

 

[Juanelm]

The Earth was never flat but it would be reasonable to believe it was flat in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But to continue to believe it is flat when that evidence comes in, is very puzzling.

Exactly.

That sounds like a post straight out of the global warming thread...

Really?...It wasnt plagiarism! hehe