Are you an atheist? (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alisa
- Start date
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:10
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
Thanks Doc for sharing with us! Like you, each of us has a story to tell. It is what makes us what and who we are.
However, I cannot see what you see about my faith in Jesus Christ!(religion)
Years ago, a small child of 6-7 was saved in my grandparents Church. I kept to the church in those days but as I grew older, I realized that my home church had a lot of hypocrisy in it. We had people that were high up in the church yet they practiced deception on and/or lying to( etc.) the very people they prayed with on Sundays.
I left the church but never left Jesus Christ. I had lost my faith in 'men of faith' and made a vow never to become like them. I never lost my faith in Jesus Christ and this remains until this day. Some time ago, I became interested (out of the Blue) in pursuing the facts of the Bible. Why????? I really do not know, but I am glad I did!
Yes, Doc I looked inside and what I saw I wanted to keep.
Thanks again
Blade
However, I cannot see what you see about my faith in Jesus Christ!(religion)
Years ago, a small child of 6-7 was saved in my grandparents Church. I kept to the church in those days but as I grew older, I realized that my home church had a lot of hypocrisy in it. We had people that were high up in the church yet they practiced deception on and/or lying to( etc.) the very people they prayed with on Sundays.
I left the church but never left Jesus Christ. I had lost my faith in 'men of faith' and made a vow never to become like them. I never lost my faith in Jesus Christ and this remains until this day. Some time ago, I became interested (out of the Blue) in pursuing the facts of the Bible. Why????? I really do not know, but I am glad I did!
Yes, Doc I looked inside and what I saw I wanted to keep.
Thanks again
Blade
- Local time
- Yesterday, 22:10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,556
Blade, as I have said many times, there are things in the Bible that I want to keep - 1st among them being the value of forgiveness. Which is one (but not the only) reason that I have repeatedly said I respect your right to believe as you claim you do.
It is merely that sometimes your attitude seems a bit over-the-top, which, to my view, comes across as a type of "holier-than-thou" arrogance that your view is right and any incompatible views MUST be wrong.
As an atheist, I understand why some people prefer to cling to their religion. Once, I took my oldest grandson to an air show (when he was maybe 5 years old.) He loved the planes, got to sit in the pilot's seat of a Coast Guard helicopter - and grinned bigger than the Cheshire Cat from Wonderland! But they had an air power segment where they sent up an F-16 jet and then did another act.
When that next act was finished, the F-16 came over the airfield from behind the crowd, flying at Mach 0.99, so that it didn't QUITE outrun its own noise. It flew low and DAMN it was loud. All we could hear was the growl of engines pushing that plane through air that loudly protested being pushed out of the way. (Called a shock wave, of course.) Nobody saw it coming, which was the whole point of their demonstration.
When confronted with the horrible noise that filled him with terror, my grandson latched onto my leg and it took me a few minutes to calm him down. Afterwards, he learned that it was just a noisy jet plane, but for a moment, he was a child in terror of the unknown. He clung to me as his point of safety in the aftermath of that chaos.
To me, that provides the best analogy I can imagine of how people cling to religion when facing the big, dark, totally unknown barrier that is death. Yet we go to sleep each night not knowing whether we will wake up. That, we can face - but it is all a matter of degree, not kind.
If you need the comfort of that belief in a waiting father figure, I cannot curse you for it. The parable of the sower and the seeds - which is based on being tolerant of the varied nature of those fields, and by extension, the varied nature of PEOPLE - gives me a reason to simply accept the fact that you are what you are, and will do your best to muddle through life.
If you need religion, fine. I don't. Just don't look at me and believe that I desperately need your news. I've already heard it and if I ever decide I need to return to religion, I know where to find that, too. Just don't hold your breath.
It is merely that sometimes your attitude seems a bit over-the-top, which, to my view, comes across as a type of "holier-than-thou" arrogance that your view is right and any incompatible views MUST be wrong.
As an atheist, I understand why some people prefer to cling to their religion. Once, I took my oldest grandson to an air show (when he was maybe 5 years old.) He loved the planes, got to sit in the pilot's seat of a Coast Guard helicopter - and grinned bigger than the Cheshire Cat from Wonderland! But they had an air power segment where they sent up an F-16 jet and then did another act.
When that next act was finished, the F-16 came over the airfield from behind the crowd, flying at Mach 0.99, so that it didn't QUITE outrun its own noise. It flew low and DAMN it was loud. All we could hear was the growl of engines pushing that plane through air that loudly protested being pushed out of the way. (Called a shock wave, of course.) Nobody saw it coming, which was the whole point of their demonstration.
When confronted with the horrible noise that filled him with terror, my grandson latched onto my leg and it took me a few minutes to calm him down. Afterwards, he learned that it was just a noisy jet plane, but for a moment, he was a child in terror of the unknown. He clung to me as his point of safety in the aftermath of that chaos.
To me, that provides the best analogy I can imagine of how people cling to religion when facing the big, dark, totally unknown barrier that is death. Yet we go to sleep each night not knowing whether we will wake up. That, we can face - but it is all a matter of degree, not kind.
If you need the comfort of that belief in a waiting father figure, I cannot curse you for it. The parable of the sower and the seeds - which is based on being tolerant of the varied nature of those fields, and by extension, the varied nature of PEOPLE - gives me a reason to simply accept the fact that you are what you are, and will do your best to muddle through life.
If you need religion, fine. I don't. Just don't look at me and believe that I desperately need your news. I've already heard it and if I ever decide I need to return to religion, I know where to find that, too. Just don't hold your breath.
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:10
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
Doc as I have stated many times before, everyone has that choice to make. It is a no brainier. You either accept Jesus Christ as your savior preferably before you die OR you do not. There is no in between. To Die only means that; once you die, no decision can be made. If your decision is default, then that is what it will be.
I have never touted other baggage that goes along with that decision. You don't have to join a 'Local' Church nor are you compelled to perform certain duties as many 'Local' churches require. That is strictly a decision you can make. Don't get me wrong, the 'Local' church do a lot of good that would not be there if they were not there.
I have tried to answer any questions concerning the Bible, giving you my opinion along with the opinions of a bunch of Scholars that have done nothing but study the Bible most of their life. Most of their opinions I agree with however, there are some opinions, I still have to research myself in order for me to form an opinion or agree with them.
I am sorry I present an ""holier-than-thou" arrogance" to the thread. I really do not mean to. But I do mean to present the Bible as a Divinely written Book that is so intricately laced together, only the computers of today could accomplish its writing vs those computers of ancient times. I as you are....confident in knowing were we each respectively are going to be once we are laid to rest. Both are completely different and that is OK because to have the freedom of choice(s) is one of God's greatest gifts. As I have stated many times before, 'If I am wrong, we will never know. However, If I am right, the ones who chose badly will know one more time during the final judgement of God. (Note: according to the scriptures,( Isaiah 65: 16-17, Rev.21: 4) the ones in heaven will not remember parts of their lives here on earth. Probably the troubles times or 'sins').
Enough said. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Thanks again
Blade
I have never touted other baggage that goes along with that decision. You don't have to join a 'Local' Church nor are you compelled to perform certain duties as many 'Local' churches require. That is strictly a decision you can make. Don't get me wrong, the 'Local' church do a lot of good that would not be there if they were not there.
I have tried to answer any questions concerning the Bible, giving you my opinion along with the opinions of a bunch of Scholars that have done nothing but study the Bible most of their life. Most of their opinions I agree with however, there are some opinions, I still have to research myself in order for me to form an opinion or agree with them.
I am sorry I present an ""holier-than-thou" arrogance" to the thread. I really do not mean to. But I do mean to present the Bible as a Divinely written Book that is so intricately laced together, only the computers of today could accomplish its writing vs those computers of ancient times. I as you are....confident in knowing were we each respectively are going to be once we are laid to rest. Both are completely different and that is OK because to have the freedom of choice(s) is one of God's greatest gifts. As I have stated many times before, 'If I am wrong, we will never know. However, If I am right, the ones who chose badly will know one more time during the final judgement of God. (Note: according to the scriptures,( Isaiah 65: 16-17, Rev.21: 4) the ones in heaven will not remember parts of their lives here on earth. Probably the troubles times or 'sins').
Enough said. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Thanks again
Blade
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:10
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
I will offer this link as a definition of the 'parable of the Seed and Sower"
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-study/jesus-life/parable_sower.htm
Enjoy
Blade
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-study/jesus-life/parable_sower.htm
Enjoy
Blade
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:10
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
To Steve R. and any others that are interested.
Steve, the following link backs up what I was saying about the OT and NT. I urge to at least watch the 1 session as it has 23 more on the Book of Genesis and our creation.
Blade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtd7se5Un6Y&list=PLYIk4MAUnGh0kCtzHs-bSSwRc-Q1UuXzH
Steve, the following link backs up what I was saying about the OT and NT. I urge to at least watch the 1 session as it has 23 more on the Book of Genesis and our creation.
Blade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtd7se5Un6Y&list=PLYIk4MAUnGh0kCtzHs-bSSwRc-Q1UuXzH
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 04:10
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,887
Blade there is no decision to be made.
If there is a god and he is all-knowing as you postulate then he already knows what each of us will do. So this leads inexorably to the conclusion that free-will is entirely illusionary and we have no control over what decisions we make.
I do not believe this to be the case so I reject the concept of an all-knowing god for this reason
If there is a god and he is all-knowing as you postulate then he already knows what each of us will do. So this leads inexorably to the conclusion that free-will is entirely illusionary and we have no control over what decisions we make.
I do not believe this to be the case so I reject the concept of an all-knowing god for this reason
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:10
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,255
That has always been my argument against the idea of omniscience - the fact that omniscience utterly precludes free will.
On the flip side, if there's no free will, then Justice itself becomes immoral, because then we're punishing people for what they were literally forced to do. Perhaps imprisoning those who are too dangerous to be allowed into society would be fine, but the concept of 'rehabilitation' suddenly becomes a bad joke, 'deterrence' becomes utterly impossible, and sentences other than life without parole become pointless at best and the moral equivalent of kicking a dog for barking at worst.
The God-botherers HATE that argument, by the way. The usual come-back is generally 'you still have a choice, God simply always knows what it will be'. When I point out that that is the same as saying 'the coin has a perfect 50/50 chance of landing on heads, so it will land on heads 100% of the time', all they can argue is 'BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING!!111!one!oneOnE11!!!'.
On the flip side, if there's no free will, then Justice itself becomes immoral, because then we're punishing people for what they were literally forced to do. Perhaps imprisoning those who are too dangerous to be allowed into society would be fine, but the concept of 'rehabilitation' suddenly becomes a bad joke, 'deterrence' becomes utterly impossible, and sentences other than life without parole become pointless at best and the moral equivalent of kicking a dog for barking at worst.
The God-botherers HATE that argument, by the way. The usual come-back is generally 'you still have a choice, God simply always knows what it will be'. When I point out that that is the same as saying 'the coin has a perfect 50/50 chance of landing on heads, so it will land on heads 100% of the time', all they can argue is 'BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING!!111!one!oneOnE11!!!'.
Last edited:
That has also been my issue.
My other question has always been "since God knows whether we are going to Hell or Heaven before we were born then for those of us going to Hell why did he create us?"
Of course if we can change that outcome then God had the wrong answer.
None of that excludes a being or beings that are above us.
However, I do find the "born again" evolutionists have a similar approach in the sense that they can't accept any possible deviation from their "Bible"
Libre
been around a little
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:10
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 681
This sums it up for me pretty well.
From Greek philosopher Epicurius:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
From Greek philosopher Epicurius:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
The standard type answer to that (and similar) is "we can't be expected to know how the mind of God works" The "born again" evolutionists have " science does not have the answer yet etc." Although I think the faith required to believe in some type of superior being or beings is less than the faith required for Atheism. Of the different variations or takes on "religion" I think the atheist has the biggest leap of faith.
Libre
been around a little
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:10
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 681
Snake oil works as a cure for any disease - as long as you believe that it works.
If you ask the snake oil salesman how it works he'll tell you he doesn't know, he just knows that it works. But in order for it to work, you have to believe that it works.
If you ask a pharmacist, a medical doctor, or a chemist how it works, they'll tell you they can find no reason that it should work.
If you find someone who has been healed and who swears by it, and ask how it works, they will tell you they can't provide an explanation, they only know it works.
If you try it and it doesn't work, and you go back to the snake oil salesman and tell him that it doesn't work, he'll tell you that you have to give it more time, and then he'll sell you another bottle.
If you give it more time and take another bottle and it still doesn't work, you go back to the salesman and this time he'll tell you that it didn't work because you don't really believe it works.
"Accept that it works in your heart - and it is guaranteed to work".
Then he'll sell you another bottle.
This all sounds a lot to me like the "standard type answer" to the Epicurean dilemma.
If you ask the snake oil salesman how it works he'll tell you he doesn't know, he just knows that it works. But in order for it to work, you have to believe that it works.
If you ask a pharmacist, a medical doctor, or a chemist how it works, they'll tell you they can find no reason that it should work.
If you find someone who has been healed and who swears by it, and ask how it works, they will tell you they can't provide an explanation, they only know it works.
If you try it and it doesn't work, and you go back to the snake oil salesman and tell him that it doesn't work, he'll tell you that you have to give it more time, and then he'll sell you another bottle.
If you give it more time and take another bottle and it still doesn't work, you go back to the salesman and this time he'll tell you that it didn't work because you don't really believe it works.
"Accept that it works in your heart - and it is guaranteed to work".
Then he'll sell you another bottle.
This all sounds a lot to me like the "standard type answer" to the Epicurean dilemma.
Last edited:
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:10
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,255
Mike375, incorrect, thank you for playing.
There is no faith involved in atheism, simply the understanding that magic doesn't really exist.
Hell, I'm not even an atheist and I know that.
There is no faith involved in atheism, simply the understanding that magic doesn't really exist.
Hell, I'm not even an atheist and I know that.
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:10
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,255
For those Bible literalists among us, here's a short Easter quiz. Please provide the correct answer for each, as well as explaining how each option is actually saying the same thing as the others.
1. Who first came to the tomb on Sunday morning?
a. one woman (John 20:1)
b. two women (Matt. 28:1)
c. three women (Mark 16:1)
d. more than three women (Luke 23:55-56; 24:1,10)
2. She (they) came
a. while it was still dark (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
b. after the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)
3. The woman (women) came to the tomb
a. to anoint the body of Jesus with spices (Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1)
b. just to look at it (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
4. The women had obtained the spices
a. on Friday before sunset (Luke 23:54-56; 24:1)
a. after sunset on Saturday (Mark 16:1)
5. The first visitor(s) was/were greeted by
a. an angel (Matt. 28:2-5)
b. a young man (Mark 16:5)
c. two men (Luke 24:4)
d. no one (John 20:1-2)
6. The greeter(s)
a. was sitting on the stone outside the tomb (Matt 28:2)
b. was sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)
c. were standing inside the tomb (Luke 24:3-4)
7. After finding the tomb empty, the woman/women
a. ran to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:7-8; Mark 16:10; Luke 24:9; John 20:2)
b. ran away and said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8)
8. The risen Jesus first appeared to
a. Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:14; Mark 16:9)
b. Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:13,15,18)
c. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1,9)
d. Cephas (Peter) alone (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Luke 24:34)
9. Jesus first appeared
a. somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:8-9)
b. Just outside the tomb (John 20:11-14)
c. in Galilee - some 80 miles (130 Km) north of Jerusalem (Mark 16:6-7)
d. on the road to Emmaus - Miles (11 Km) west of Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-15)
e. we are not told where (Mark 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:4-5)
10. The disciples were to see Jesus first
a. in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7,10,16)
b. in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19; Acts 1:4)
11. the disciples were told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee
a. by the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus himself after the resurrection (Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:7)
b. by Jesus himself, before the crucifiction (Mark 26:32)
12. The risen Jesus
a. wanted to be touched (John 20:27)
b. did not want to be touched (John 20:17)
c. did not mind being touched (Matt. 28:9-10)
13. Jesus ascended to Heaven
a. the same day that he was resurrected (Mark 16:9,19; Luke 24:13,28-36,50-51)
b. forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
c. we are not told that he ascended to Heaven at all (Matt. 28:10, 16-20; John 21:25; the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8)
14. The disciples received the Holy Spirit
a. 50 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
b. in the evening of the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19-22)
15. The risen Jesus
a. was recognized by those who saw him (Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9-10)
b. was not always recognizable (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:14-15)
16. The risen Jesus
a. was physical (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:41-43; John 20:27)
b. was not physical (Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:19,26; 1 Cor. 15:5-8)
17. The risen Jesus was seen by the disciples
a. presumably only once (Matt. 28:16-17)
b. first by two of them, later by all eleven (Mark 16:12-14; Luke 24:13-15,33,36-51)
c. three times (John 20:19,26; 21:1,14)
d. many times (Acts 1:3)
18. When Jesus appeared to the disciples
a. there were eleven of them (Matt. 28:16-17; Luke 24:33,36)
b. twelve of them (1 Cor. 15:5)
1. Who first came to the tomb on Sunday morning?
a. one woman (John 20:1)
b. two women (Matt. 28:1)
c. three women (Mark 16:1)
d. more than three women (Luke 23:55-56; 24:1,10)
2. She (they) came
a. while it was still dark (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
b. after the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)
3. The woman (women) came to the tomb
a. to anoint the body of Jesus with spices (Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1)
b. just to look at it (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
4. The women had obtained the spices
a. on Friday before sunset (Luke 23:54-56; 24:1)
a. after sunset on Saturday (Mark 16:1)
5. The first visitor(s) was/were greeted by
a. an angel (Matt. 28:2-5)
b. a young man (Mark 16:5)
c. two men (Luke 24:4)
d. no one (John 20:1-2)
6. The greeter(s)
a. was sitting on the stone outside the tomb (Matt 28:2)
b. was sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)
c. were standing inside the tomb (Luke 24:3-4)
7. After finding the tomb empty, the woman/women
a. ran to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:7-8; Mark 16:10; Luke 24:9; John 20:2)
b. ran away and said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8)
8. The risen Jesus first appeared to
a. Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:14; Mark 16:9)
b. Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:13,15,18)
c. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1,9)
d. Cephas (Peter) alone (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Luke 24:34)
9. Jesus first appeared
a. somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:8-9)
b. Just outside the tomb (John 20:11-14)
c. in Galilee - some 80 miles (130 Km) north of Jerusalem (Mark 16:6-7)
d. on the road to Emmaus - Miles (11 Km) west of Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-15)
e. we are not told where (Mark 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:4-5)
10. The disciples were to see Jesus first
a. in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7,10,16)
b. in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19; Acts 1:4)
11. the disciples were told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee
a. by the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus himself after the resurrection (Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:7)
b. by Jesus himself, before the crucifiction (Mark 26:32)
12. The risen Jesus
a. wanted to be touched (John 20:27)
b. did not want to be touched (John 20:17)
c. did not mind being touched (Matt. 28:9-10)
13. Jesus ascended to Heaven
a. the same day that he was resurrected (Mark 16:9,19; Luke 24:13,28-36,50-51)
b. forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
c. we are not told that he ascended to Heaven at all (Matt. 28:10, 16-20; John 21:25; the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8)
14. The disciples received the Holy Spirit
a. 50 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
b. in the evening of the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19-22)
15. The risen Jesus
a. was recognized by those who saw him (Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9-10)
b. was not always recognizable (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:14-15)
16. The risen Jesus
a. was physical (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:41-43; John 20:27)
b. was not physical (Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:19,26; 1 Cor. 15:5-8)
17. The risen Jesus was seen by the disciples
a. presumably only once (Matt. 28:16-17)
b. first by two of them, later by all eleven (Mark 16:12-14; Luke 24:13-15,33,36-51)
c. three times (John 20:19,26; 21:1,14)
d. many times (Acts 1:3)
18. When Jesus appeared to the disciples
a. there were eleven of them (Matt. 28:16-17; Luke 24:33,36)
b. twelve of them (1 Cor. 15:5)
Proof for no God or gods etc. does not exist. Thus atheism is a faith. A lack of belief in God or gods requires faith, that is, a belief or view that can't be verified by facts.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 22:10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,556
Mike375, we can argue the fine points all day, but in the end analysis, this isn't like a quantum probability function. Either God exists or does not exist. Atheism merely says that the starting point is that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does. Religion says that the starting point is that God exists because there is no proof that He does not. (I'm trying to keep this simple, but I think this is a fair summation with limited intent.)
OK, so ... here is the crux (pardon that pun) of the dilemma. Atheism can be proven wrong by producing a god. Religion, on the other hand, to be refuted requires proof of a negative assertion, which is not possible in simple logic. It is something that has been known for millennia when elementary assertoric logic was first devised. (Or, if you are of a religious style, when logic was first divined.)
Atheism, however, is not a faith in a deity. It is simply saying that until/unless you can produce your deity, I don't have to accept your argument. Where we usually come into the big disagreement is that in Biblical times, God was ALWAYS exerting direct intervention, showing Himself before many, performing large-scale miracles that affected the Red Sea or the entire basin of the Upper Nile River or the destruction of two cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) or a world-wide flood or many other whiz-bang effects. Now... all we hear is crickets chirping. We see challenges to the Biblical God's power in the threat of ISIS taking over the world (if they could).
Atheists are essentially the ultimate skeptics. Give us evidence that we can comprehend. If you give us nothing but mysticism and redirection of attention and tales of events that patently cannot be true without having left more evidence, what do you EXPECT us to believe?
There is that old saying, "There are none so blind as those that will not see." However, it cuts both ways when those who claim their beliefs will not see the many causes - all of them quite legitimate - for our skepticism. To you, we are blind. To US, you see illusions, delusions, and confusions.
In the final argument, Mike, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to believe as you wish. I think I would be satisfied if your side of the aisle could just acknowledge that we who do NOT believe have at least some legitimacy to our doubts.
OK, so ... here is the crux (pardon that pun) of the dilemma. Atheism can be proven wrong by producing a god. Religion, on the other hand, to be refuted requires proof of a negative assertion, which is not possible in simple logic. It is something that has been known for millennia when elementary assertoric logic was first devised. (Or, if you are of a religious style, when logic was first divined.)
Atheism, however, is not a faith in a deity. It is simply saying that until/unless you can produce your deity, I don't have to accept your argument. Where we usually come into the big disagreement is that in Biblical times, God was ALWAYS exerting direct intervention, showing Himself before many, performing large-scale miracles that affected the Red Sea or the entire basin of the Upper Nile River or the destruction of two cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) or a world-wide flood or many other whiz-bang effects. Now... all we hear is crickets chirping. We see challenges to the Biblical God's power in the threat of ISIS taking over the world (if they could).
Atheists are essentially the ultimate skeptics. Give us evidence that we can comprehend. If you give us nothing but mysticism and redirection of attention and tales of events that patently cannot be true without having left more evidence, what do you EXPECT us to believe?
There is that old saying, "There are none so blind as those that will not see." However, it cuts both ways when those who claim their beliefs will not see the many causes - all of them quite legitimate - for our skepticism. To you, we are blind. To US, you see illusions, delusions, and confusions.
In the final argument, Mike, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to believe as you wish. I think I would be satisfied if your side of the aisle could just acknowledge that we who do NOT believe have at least some legitimacy to our doubts.
As I said both positions require faith, that is, taking a position that is not backed by facts. You obviously agree with this.
Atheism is a "religion". It is a religion because people define themselves by it and in many cases take the cause to "religious" like levels. One only has to look at the number and length of many of the posts on this huge thread from those pushing the atheism barrow to see it is "religious" in nature.
All the posts supporting atheism have one thing in common with the postings supporting God or gods or an outside force etc. and of course that is neither side can back any of their views with facts.
However, both sides have "faith" that their views are correct.....it can only be faith since there are no facts.
Actually the title of thread should not be Are you and atheist but what does your faith cause you to believe or not believe.
Under your definition, absolutely everything we know about everything would have to be a faith since we cannot know of all unobserved possibilities. The word faith then becomes meaningless.
You must then also have only faith that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, T. Rexs still alive on Earth. It is a ridiculous position.
You must claim that it is faith that Gravitation is proportional to the product of the masses and the inverse square of their separation because we have not observed every possible situation. Your position is absurd (like those you put forward in the Evolution thread).
In fact as far as the denial of the God of the Old and New Testaments, the atheist position is backed by facts. Any objective assessment of these books will demonstrate that they are definitely not the work of an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness. Hence the existence of that God as described by the only "evidence" offered by the believers. Likewise the Quran.
So that takes care of the gods of the vast majority of believers on this planet. Hence on the basis of these observations, the odds are that other gods are also imagine by their followers and don't exist.
Not so. Firstly I guess there is some cut off point where faith takes over.
For example, any reasonable person would accept that there are is no T Rex living today. The size of the animal is such that it is highly likely it would have been observed. Secondly, there would be more than one as if there was only one then its presence on earth would be for a limited time. Even if these T Rex were not directly observed then such things as the remains of their prey would be an indicator.
You are also tied to "God" as opposed to gods or other superior beings. That is understandable as an atheist is simple the opposite side of the same coin as the theist.
Surely you are not suggesting that in the whole universe there are not other life forms that are above us and from a technology point of view. Of course accepting that opens a new road or direction
Surely you are not suggesting that in the whole universe there are not other life forms that are above us and from a technology point of view. Of course accepting that opens a new road or direction
Indeed I should be surprised if I were to find it were not so.
However that does not make them gods, just products of their environment like us.
By "gods" I assume you mean, at the least, some kind of being that exists above the laws of nature. Beings who can with their will or some such means, overcome the normal functioning of our universe. Parting seas and the like which are clearly not plausible by any natural means.
The postulate by the average theist is that such a god is responsible for the very creation of our universe and the intricate details of everything in it.
Perhaps at this point, for those current readers possibly unfamiliar with your prior postings, you could clarify exactly what you personally mean by a "god".