Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[Alc]

It would be nice to have the absolute certainty of some religious people.

Definitely agree with this bit.

I've heard plenty of people fall back on it being God's will when bad things happen. It would make life much easier if I saw any truth to this.

 

[Alisa]

Oh dear, now we're comparing ourselves to Copernicus. You're not proving anything scientifically, you're simply trying to deconstruct the reason for a belief, nothing more.

The comparison is not between myself and copernicus. The comparison is between people who believe that god exists and the people who used to believe that the sun orbited around the earth.

Deconstruct the reason for belief?

 

[Rabbie]

Well my concept is that God did not have a point of origin.

At last I can fully agree with you. I feel that a concept with no origin does not exist

 

[Alisa]

I am guessing Alisas point about those who disagreed with Copernicus's having no need to be offended was because Coppers was right. Similarly, No one who disagrees with Alisa need be offended, cos she is right?

Is that the Argument Alisa - you didn't answer before?

I will gladly answer you when and if you make an actual point.
Care to try again?

 

[Alisa]

You're trying to impose the quality of condescension on to Shaneman by saying he would 'snicker' at someone whilst their back was turned. It's highly plausible that he would do no such thing...

I apologize. I withdraw my use of the word "snicker".

 

[Alc]

I am guessing Alisas point about those who disagreed with Copernicus's having no need to be offended was because Coppers was right. Similarly, No one who disagrees with Alisa need be offended, cos she is right?

I don't think right and wrong should come into it when thinking about whether or not people are offended.

If I believed in God, I wouldn't care what anyone else thought. I find it hard to imagine that the omnipotent being I worshipped would give a toss, so why should I?

Let's say the argument was about politics. If I say your political beliefs don't exist, does it offend you? No. You know they do. You know I'm wrong. You may choose to try to convince me of the fact, but as for getting offended by my saying it, why?

 

[Alisa]

This argument would be so much easier if science had a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe. It seems as if many people would rather have an implausible explanation than no explanation at all.

 

[Pauldohert]

I will gladly answer you when and if you make an actual point.
Care to try again?

I am trying to clarify your point - only you can do that? I can imagine what you meant But since you don't like the imaginary and would rather deal in reality?..

Please explain - "For instance, Copernicus offended a lot of people. Was their sense of personal injury justified?"

 

[Alisa]

I don't think right and wrong should come into it when thinking about whether or not people are offended.

If I believed in God, I wouldn't care what anyone else thought. I find it hard to imagine that the omnipotent being I worshipped would give a toss, so why should I?

Let's say the argument was about politics. If I say your political beliefs don't exist, does it offend you? No. You know they do. You know I'm wrong. You may choose to try to convince me of the fact, but as for getting offended by my saying it, why?

I don't think your analogy quite works. For believers, god physically exists, he is not just a figment of their mind the way a political belief is.

I agree though, that whether you are actually right or wrong isn't the issue about people being offended. The issue in my mind is that some people are unwilling to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.

 

[dan-cat]

I will gladly answer you when and if you make an actual point.
Care to try again?

His point is very clear. I'm starting to believe that you 'play dumb' when the occasion suits you.

 

[Pauldohert]

His point is very clear. I'm starting to believe that you 'play dumb' when the occasion suits you.

I was going to say that - but thought it a little rude. My tact amazes me sometimes.

 

[Alisa]

Please explain - "For instance, Copernicus offended a lot of people. Was their sense of personal injury justified?"

ok I will. Everyone "knew" that the sun went around the earth. Then Copernicus gathered evidence which showed that actually, the earth went around the sun. Instead of reviewing the evidence and saying, gee, I guess we were wrong, people took his discovery as a personal insult.

I was making a parallel between the sense of personal injury that people felt at the discovery that the sun did not in fact circle the earth with the sense of personal injury that some believers feel when their belief in god is questioned. In both cases, the believers want to believe what they believe without the intrusion of scientific evidence. Unfortunately in the case of god, there is no alternative explanation for the origin of the everything the way Copernicus had an alternative explanation for why the sun rises and sets.

 

[Alisa]

His point is very clear. I'm starting to believe that you 'play dumb' when the occasion suits you.

I was temporarily blinded by the flurry of insults.

 

[dan-cat]

I don't think right and wrong should come into it when thinking about whether or not people are offended.

If I believed in God, I wouldn't care what anyone else thought. I find it hard to imagine that the omnipotent being I worshipped would give a toss, so why should I?

Let's say the argument was about politics. If I say your political beliefs don't exist, does it offend you? No. You know they do. You know I'm wrong. You may choose to try to convince me of the fact, but as for getting offended by my saying it, why?

It's a common misconception that believers are infallible in 'faith'. Nobody is perfect. There are plenty of things in the world that can 'tempt' believers into having doubts. Having 'faith' is not a permanent graduation. It is something that must be looked after everyday.

It is the toying with this fallibility that atheists do, albeit unintentionally, with little constructive end, where the 'offense' may lie.

 

[Pauldohert]

Unfortunately in the case of god, there is no alternative explanation for the origin of the everything the way Copernicus had an alternative explanation for why the sun rises and sets.

So where is the parallel?

 

[Alc]

I don't think your analogy quite works. For believers, god physically exists, he is not just a figment of their mind the way a political belief is.

Isn't the point that He doesn't physically exist? At least, not in a physical sense as we know it.

If He did, He could be measured and bob's your uncle, end of argument.

I thought likening Him to a political belief was pretty accurate. People don't need to see Him to base their whole way of life around Him. He exists because they believe he does. He's impossible to measure.

 

[Alisa]

So where is the parallel?

Now who is playing dumb?
The parallel is that both the people who believed that the sun went around the earth and the people that believe in god cling to their beliefs in spite of the evidence, or the lack of evidence, respectively.

 

[oumahexi]

Can someone explain the meaning of this thread?

For me, the point of this thread is to find out if I really do or don’t believe lol, and I’m just as confused now as when we first started

I look around me every day and, leaning carefully on my Zimmer for support, jump for joy at the beauty I see. Equally, I can get very upset at the total cr4p I see all around, but mostly that’s man made. I think mother or father earth has done a brilliant job.

As I’ve said before, I do get these, premonitions, feelings etc about things that are going to happen, and when I do they usually happen. Personally I don’t think this is a special gift, I think anyone can do it, sometimes some of us just pay more attention than others. I know many people to whom this happens and they directly attribute it to God. I know many who curse the ground I walk on because they think this ability is the work of the Devil. And I’m in the middles saying, “it’s neither, it’s natural, we have always been able to do this, but because we lead such busy lives now we choose to ignore the signs nature offers”.

Possibly a lot of what gets people’s backs up when the word God is mentioned is that they associate it with an entity, a being, something that you can see touch and hear. I don’t think that is the case. If you do bother to read the Christian bible, and I do recommend it, it’s a good read, fantastic stories, you’ll notice that Jesus talks about God as being all around, “he is in me and I am in him” idea, in fact, throughout the bible it is referred to as ubiquitous. How can this be? Perhaps we are a part of a larger entity? Like the cells in the skin on our own bodies? Able to change and mutate, alter our environment etc…

As to UFO’s and ghosts (or spirits) the theory of infinity, based on the Theory of Relativity, is that in order to prevent itself from being destroyed by the gravitational pull used during expanding and contracting of the universe, gravity would bend space, and if this was to (or indeed does) happen, then we get infinite amounts of universes. If this is the case, it is equally possible, and plausible, that these universes can overlap from time to time, creating sightings of UFO’s, spirits and, perhaps, even Gods.

I remain firmly on the fence and refuse to jump off because both sides are equally flawed.

 

[dan-cat]

I was going to say that - but thought it a little rude. My tact amazes me sometimes.

Didn't you liken somebody to a horse or was that a figment of someone's imagination...

 

[Alc]

It's a common misconception that believers are infallible in 'faith'. Nobody is perfect. There are plenty of things in the world that can 'tempt' believers into having doubts. Having 'faith' is not a permanent graduation. It is something that must be looked after everyday.

It is the toying with this fallibility that atheists do, albeit unintentionally, with little constructive end, where the 'offense' may lie.

So is it tha fact that atheists are poking holes in aspects of religion that bothers people? Or is it the possibility that certain things said ring true and make people feel less sure of their beliefs?

Those here who have gotten offended seem pretty resolute in their faith, so I genuinely don't see why they're offended by it?

Irritated by us atheists being unable/unwilling to 'see the truth'? Perhaps.
Perplexed by our inability to perceive what they see as obvious? Okay.
But offended?