Latest posts for the thread "Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?"

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

hotsauceman1 — GMT

Before we turn this topic inside out aand crucify me let me get this out of the way. I dont have anything against atheists, My belief is that gods greatest gift to us is our free choice. if he wanted blind followers he would have made us like that. I have met Atheists who are more deserving of heaven then some religious folks.
But i was going around and looking at jokes from atheists towards Religion...Cruel ones, not well intentioned ones. And i noticed somethings. Itsnearly all God, Jesus, Ala and the jewish god.
Making fun of those people who believe in those. Never once saying, Deity, Higher power, force bigger then yourself. Just mainly those and those who believe in it .
So this got me wondering. Is most atheism actually just against Abrahamic gods. Or in some more cases, Christian god.
I never see them mocking, Hinduism for example. Just those 3.
Why is that?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

Christians make up the vast majority of 1st World countries, and you don't see many Hindus pushing for atheists, gays, etc. to be made 2nd class citizens.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

MrDwhitey — GMT

Speaking for myself, while growing up in a Western country, I only really saw evidence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They're the ones in the news, the ones with obvious buildings in the cities that I see.S

Then I feel that many people misinterpret other faiths as belonging to the above three when seen at random on the street anyway.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

I'd have to agree with the posts above - most jokes will be aimed at the "big three" western religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) as those are the most commonly encountered religions most atheists will come into contact with.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

not too many Hindus in the USA.... BUT then we also don't go after Zoroastrians, Daoists, Confusionists, the gods of Hawaiian indians... (Kū, Kāne, Lono, Kanaloa), or basically anything else that is in small number

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

To be fair, Daoism and Confucianism are both fairly atheistic when taken by themselves. I'm personally a fan of both.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

ifStatement — GMT

I think atheism is the rejection of any god. I think you are confusing atheists with the anti religion types like Richard Dawkins, who crusade against religion under the title of atheism and in turn become just the kind of obnoxious self righteous donkey-caves which people associate with religion.

While I'm not one myself I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who don't like being associated with donkey-caves like Richard Dawkins.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

Atheism is just the belief that there isn't a god. Just because a few atheists really hate Christians doesn't mean that atheism is against a Christianity.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Relapse — GMT

Laughing Man wrote:Christians make up the vast majority of 1st World countries, and you don't see many Hindus pushing for atheists, gays, etc. to be made 2nd class citizens.

Don't forget, however the caste system that regulated people to be untouchable.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

Atheism isn't a rejection or stance against any god or religion, it's simply a lack of belief in any deity (hell, there are some religions out there, like Buddhism which are also atheistic).

Most jokes about religion are centered around the big Abrahamic three just because that's what most people in Western society grow up with. I could make a joke about Shiva or Brahman, but no one would get it. Furthermore, the big Abrahamic three tend to be the most vocal about how oppressive or intolerant that they or their members can be towards outside views. I'm not saying that all theists, or all Christians/Jews/Muslims are oppressive or intolerant people, but when you consider what the loudest and most widespread religious persecution has been lately, it tends to fall within that group.

For example, I grew up with a bible-thumping grandfather who likes to make a point that all atheists are violent, drunken, irresponsible and irrational pigs. Because of this, I tend to have quite a bit of animosity towards Christian fanatics (emphasis on fanatics, there are many Christians that I know and respect deeply), mainly because what I was exposed with was mostly within that vein. If I grew up in a Hindu or Pastafarian family with similar views, I'd feel similarly about those religions.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

My biggest problem with organized Atheism is that there there are atheist organizations with the basic goal of "converting" people who believe in a deity and who spend a lot of time attacking "organized religion".

And maybe it is just me, but to me it feels that once you start trying to "educate" or "convert" people into following what you believe you have turned Atheism into its own religion.

If that makes any sense.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Krellnus — GMT

Depends which type of atheism you are referring to.
'Weak' atheists simply do not believe in the existence of deities.
'Strong' atheists not only don't beleive in the existence of deities but entirely refute their existence.
Most atheists come from the wetern world where the Abrahamic religions have a strong presence, meaning their knowledge of such religions is greater than religions that are more obscure in the western world, such as Wicca, Odinism, Paganism and so on.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Orlanth — GMT

Laughing Man wrote:Christians make up the vast majority of 1st World countries, and you don't see many Hindus pushing for atheists, gays, etc. to be made 2nd class citizens.

They dont need to subdivide, they alrready have plenty of second class citizens built into Hinduism. Look up the caste system, which is alive and kicking in India.

Actually as far as the pushing is concerned its normally the other way. Most political atheist agendas have specifically anti-Christian rhetoric, with some anti-Islamic. This is true within the UK at least, and the particular targeting of the churches is politically motivated.

Church not employing a gay, thats made out as an equal opportunities scandal, wheras if you look at most Islamic views of homosexuality it makes even the hard line churches seem very mild indeed, but no critique is raised.

Political atheism differs heavily though from the average atheist on the street, who doesn't necessarily have a particular partisan agenda, as many atheists here on Dakka have demonstrated.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

d-usa wrote:My biggest problem with organized Atheism is that there there are atheist organizations with the basic goal of "converting" people who believe in a deity and who spend a lot of time attacking "organized religion".

And maybe it is just me, but to me it feels that once you start trying to "educate" or "convert" people into following what you believe you have turned Atheism into its own religion.

If that makes any sense.

The problem is that organizations like that are in some ways necessary. Even the fact that a group of people with a similar mindset exists helps when people get ostracized from their communities and families for coming out as an atheist.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Albatross — GMT

Orlanth wrote:

Church not employing a gay, thats made out as an equal opportunities scandal, wheras if you look at most Islamic views of homosexuality it makes even the hard line churches seem very mild indeed, but no critique is raised.

Yep, that's right folks - he actually said it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

MrDwhitey — GMT

Albatross wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Church not employing a gay, thats made out as an equal opportunities scandal, wheras if you look at most Islamic views of homosexuality it makes even the hard line churches seem very mild indeed, but no critique is raised.

Yep, that's right folks - he actually said it.

Surely not... no-one is that silly.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

I am an ardent atheist.
There are "no" gods.
There is only the untold wonder that is the universe and the truth and light that only science can bring.
If anyone eles says anything diffrent then they are ill...

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

MrDwhitey — GMT

That is not going to go down well, Fox.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Asherian Command — GMT

MrDwhitey wrote:That is not going to go down well, Fox.

Agreed with you there Mr.Dwhitey
Last thing we need is a political and religious war on dakkadakka.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

Why may I ask?
I didn't say what and the serveraty of the illness.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

MrDwhitey — GMT

People will find it offensive to be told that their believing in a religion is an "illness".

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:I am an ardent atheist.
There are "no" gods.
There is only the untold wonder that is the universe and the truth and light that only science can bring.

This is lovely and an appropriate contribution to the thread.

Ribon Fox wrote:If anyone eles says anything diffrent then they are ill...

This kind of broad insult toward an entire class or category of people is not acceptable on Dakka. Do not post this sort of thing again, please. It's a violation of rule #1.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

I've read (can't remember where before you ask) that the side of the brain in those that are devot (all religons by the way) have the same neuron clusters firing as someone with a mild case of psychosis. That is an illness.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

hotsauceman1 wrote: Never once saying, Deity, Higher power, force bigger then yourself. Just mainly those and those who believe in it .
So this got me wondering. Is most atheism actually just against Abrahamic gods. Or in some more cases, Christian god.
I never see them mocking, Hinduism for example. Just those 3.
Why is that?

Its complicated. Fundamentally, atheism is the absence of the belief in God/gods, but there are issues.

First, defining what is, and is not, a god is difficult. Broadly speaking, the Abrahamic faiths are the only prevalent monotheistic religions in the world, and there is a reasonable argument to be made that a god is only a god if its God (ie. omnipotent). You can go past this, of course, but then you're getting into the territory where anything more powerful than man, and supernatural, is a god.

Second, Hinduism, and really just Eastern religions, place less emphasis on deities than Western religions do.

Third, as has been said, most religious people in the West, where modern atheism is most prevalent, are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Mormon.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Douglas Adams wrote:Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it, which we call 'sacred' or 'holy.' What it means is: here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe -- no, that's holy. So, we're used to not challenging religious ideas and it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it. Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it, because you're not allowed to say these things, yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we've agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

I think good old Doug was rather missing the point that you can question these things without being a dick about it, as Dawkins frequently was. And that while certainly many religious people are intolerant of even polite and rational critique, you certainly stir up more furor by being a jerk about it.

Ribon Fox wrote:I've read (can't remember where before you ask) that the side of the brain in those that are devot (all religons by the way) have the same neuron clusters firing as someone with a mild case of psychosis. That is an illness.

No, not really. Feel free to cite your source and expand on the concept if you can. As it stands it sounds like a misremembered or misconstrued detail from something you half-remember reading.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:I've read (can't remember where before you ask) that the side of the brain in those that are devot (all religons by the way) have the same neuron clusters firing as someone with a mild case of psychosis. That is an illness.

I can't believe what I'm reading... and I'm not even religious.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

MrDwhitey wrote:People will find it offensive to be told that their believing in a religion is an "illness".

I wouldn't describe my feelings as "offended."

I think "bemused" would be a better word.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Fafnir wrote:
d-usa wrote:My biggest problem with organized Atheism is that there there are atheist organizations with the basic goal of "converting" people who believe in a deity and who spend a lot of time attacking "organized religion".

And maybe it is just me, but to me it feels that once you start trying to "educate" or "convert" people into following what you believe you have turned Atheism into its own religion.

If that makes any sense.

The problem is that organizations like that are in some ways necessary. Even the fact that a group of people with a similar mindset exists helps when people get ostracized from their communities and families for coming out as an atheist.

And I don't have a problem with atheists organizations, or having an atheist support organization for people who "came out" and are being bullied or attacked because of it.

But that is different than actively trying to attack people of faith while thing to proof to people that they are wrong for believing in God. Radical evangelism is wrong from both sides.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

I know its wiki but when you read the Psychosis entery and then the Jerusalem syndrome entery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome
I also belive I read it in "God is not greate" as well as other things (memory is shot to hell).
We all have our own illneses mine is GDS

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:
I also belive I read it in "God is not great"...

Well, that was your first mistake.

I respected Hitchens, but that book.

Just no.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Albatross — GMT

Ribon, I can't help but think that if someone described you as 'ill' because of your transvestitism, you'd be hurt, offended, and would believe that their opinion was based upon hatred and bigotry.

And I say that as a strident secularist.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

Albatross wrote:Ribon, I can't help but think that if someone described you as 'ill' because of your transvestitism, you'd be hurt, offended, and would believe that their opinion was based upon hatred and bigotry.

And I say that as a strident secularist.

I could but I wont. Nore should I becouse it is an illness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

The reason why I wouldn't is becouse I've been called alot worse than an illness, kick out when i was a teen, live on the streets for abit and had seven shades of my insides kicked out of me, been on the brink of the abyss twice (almost falling in good and proper the second time).

I see no eveidence of "any" gods, not now, not ever.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Albatross — GMT

So, because you feel that you've been badly treated because of your condition, that gives you a right to insult the religious?

Sorry, it doesn't. Disagree, yes. Verbally assault, no.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:I know its wiki but when you read the Psychosis entery and then the Jerusalem syndrome entery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome

The latter is a religiously-focused example of the former. Many psychotic or delusional people make religion the focus of their delusions or hallucinations, but that doesn't make religion itself one. You've got this one backwards.

Ribon Fox wrote:We all have our own illneses mine is GDS

That's not a legitimate justification for claiming other people are mentally ill. Many people have tendencies toward different conditions, but they're generally not considered mentally ill unless said condition significantly impairs their ability to live normally in their work or private life.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

Albatross wrote:So, because you feel that you've been badly treated because of your condition, that gives you a right to insult the religious?

Sorry, it doesn't. Disagree, yes. Verbally assault, no.

I'm not whole sale insulting, just saying those that are border line. I've been treated badly but thats nothing to do with my feeling on region, that was why I wouldn't be insulted for being called ill...which is true I am but hay

I understand that the vast majority as sain, normal people. They don't belive that the earth the universe and every thing in it was made in 6 days (or insert any creation story). I have no problem with them what so every, they lead good lifes, just lke the rest of us on this ball of rock. They are all well ajusted folk. (I hopefuly wont get linched now )

Its the ones that refuse to except facts on the universe....
Hence the ill bit.

I'm pretty sure none of the dakka members would not disagree with any thing science has given us, told us or shown us about this wonderus universe that we inhabit.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Samus_aran115 — GMT

I wonder...

For every outwardly Atheist person... how many reserved, quiet atheists are there?

Certainly, the voice of the loudest is heard the most with religion, and it seems to be the same with atheists (and everything). To my knowledge, Atheists 'buck' the abrahamic religions the most, although I'm sure in other countries (like india, for example, atheists oppose the native religion.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Medium of Death — GMT

I, for one, believe in an impotent dog.

Or at least the possibility of one in our universe.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

Most Atheists in my experience are one time members of those main 3 religions. It seems the Number 1 spawning ground for Atheists are Catholics/Jews/Protestants/Muslims.
There may well be a few ex-hindu atheists out there too, Some folks I have met also went back to their childhood religion after trying Atheism or Paganism out.

Sorry and saddened by your misfortunes Ms. Fox. I am myself a believer in reincarnation, It is my own opinion that when your higher self decided to be male, your mind sort of remembered being female in the past and now you physically seek rectification. We are all here to learn different things each go around. We sometimes go through some sort of rough life as part of a way to learn new strengths and or because we did something that required atonement, and chose to do so by having a rougher life than previous ones. One must as in Taoism, learn to flow with such things and that all of us who survive some horrific things to weird things in life try and find the pearls amongst the muck. Me? Heart is all screwed up and my legs are not as they used to be. It sometimes feels like I am 80 at age 48. But as for looking for handouts from a God, well that is another story folks here have to figure out.

The Movie Dogma sort of had an interesting concept, God living as a human amongst the population. This planet is one part looney bin, one part class room, one part ________(insert concept)

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

Samus_aran115 wrote:To my knowledge, Atheists 'buck' the abrahamic religions the most, although I'm sure in other countries (like india, for example, atheists oppose the native religion.

Yes, because atheists oppose any notion of a god. The only reason that it seems like they're opposed to one in particular is that it is going to be the most popular one in a country that is going to be referred to first.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Wyrmalla — GMT

The bi-monthly relegion discussion appears again... Whatever happened to that poll about banning these things?

The original topic point's been discussed and now we're inevitably harping on about the religious condition....

I agree with Ribbon Fox's sentiments (and not say much on the subject as I can respect other's descisions on the matter), but I'd note that it is possible that others can be offended by things that you yourself aren't (ie having your life choices belittled). =/

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Archaeo — GMT

Wyrmalla wrote:The bi-monthly relegion discussion appears again... Whatever happened to that poll about banning these things?

Not to be a jerk, but why come here and read/post if you have a problem with these types of threads?

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

Archaeo wrote:Not to be a jerk, but why come here and read/post if you have a problem with these types of threads?

People have a hard time with Dakka's rule #3.

Wyrmalla wrote:I agree with Ribbon Fox's sentiments

What strikes me as particularly amusing about this is that if there is some physiological explanation for spirituality, surely there must be some defining physiological characteristic of Atheism. Which, using the reasoning put forth in the context of this thread, would make Atheism a mental illness as well.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Relapse — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:
Albatross wrote:So, because you feel that you've been badly treated because of your condition, that gives you a right to insult the religious?

Sorry, it doesn't. Disagree, yes. Verbally assault, no.

I'm not whole sale insulting, just saying those that are border line. I've been treated badly but thats nothing to do with my feeling on region, that was why I wouldn't be insulted for being called ill...which is true I am but hay

I understand that the vast majority as sain, normal people. They don't belive that the earth the universe and every thing in it was made in 6 days (or insert any creation story). I have no problem with them what so every, they lead good lifes, just lke the rest of us on this ball of rock. They are all well ajusted folk. (I hopefuly wont get linched now )

Its the ones that refuse to except facts on the universe....
Hence the ill bit.

I'm pretty sure none of the dakka members would not disagree with any thing science has given us, told us or shown us about this wonderus universe that we inhabit.

How many times has science put forth comments on anything that have been later changed because of new discoveries?
Who's to say it is not working it's way towards the existence of God?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

That said, the burden of proof lies upon the one bringing up the possibility of God.

With no evidence to support its existence, there's no point in assuming it does.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Relapse — GMT

Fafnir wrote:That said, the burden of proof lies upon the one bringing up the possibility of God.

With no evidence to support its existence, there's no point in assuming it does.

It all depends on how you look at the evidence. You say there is no evidence, yet the fact that there is sentience is a point of evidence to me.
I could talk about other things, such as my own personal experiences, what I have learned from reading, and seeing things happen that have no explanation science could put forward.
But, as I said, it's all how you look at the evidence. There are enough cases where scientists look at the same thing and don't agree on what they are seeing.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

How is sentience a point of evidence?

And anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Just because we look at something and aren't entirely sure what it is, or because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean we should immediately leap to the conclusion that "God did it."

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Orlanth — GMT

MrDwhitey wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Church not employing a gay, thats made out as an equal opportunities scandal, wheras if you look at most Islamic views of homosexuality it makes even the hard line churches seem very mild indeed, but no critique is raised.

Yep, that's right folks - he actually said it.

Surely not... no-one is that silly.

Whats the issue here with what I wrote? Anyone want to quantify it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Relapse — GMT

Fafnir wrote:How is sentience a point of evidence?

And anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Just because we look at something and aren't entirely sure what it is, or because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean we should immediately leap to the conclusion that "God did it."

As I said, it's all in how you look at the evidence. Time and again what was evidence to one scientist was not evidence to another. I know I'm no scientist, but the situation is similar here.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

Medium of Death wrote:I, for one, believe in an impotent dog.

Or at least the possibility of one in our universe.

I have one of those. You can get one at your local vet's, usually, or make your own with a pair of bricks.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Relapse wrote:Don't forget, however the caste system that regulated people to be untouchable.

Hinduism has it's fair share of faults, it's just that antagonism to atheism isn't one of them. In fact the first Prime Minister of India, Nehru, was atheist, which I think makes him the first head of state in human history to be openly atheist.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Krellnus — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:I've read (can't remember where before you ask) that the side of the brain in those that are devot (all religons by the way) have the same neuron clusters firing as someone with a mild case of psychosis. That is an illness.

Probably because they are on the side of the brain that we use for abstract thoughts? Believing in a deity requires a certain suspension of disblelief, which requires abstract thought processes, for all we know if what you are saying is true, than it could be a pure coincidence that it is the same neurons, heck for all we know if we did the same scans on a Native American on a vision quest we might find it too uses the same neurons , does that mean that their search for inner truth and guidance is any less valid? No.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Orlanth wrote:They dont need to subdivide, they alrready have plenty of second class citizens built into Hinduism. Look up the caste system, which is alive and kicking in India.

No, the caste system is not still in place. There are still some place for it among private families (higher caste families who would not let their child marry an untouchable) and there is the residual effect of poverty, as families from what were the lower castes tend to pass their poverty down onto their children. But the existance of these after effects doesn't mean the system is still in place, any more than poverty among blacks in South Africa means Apartheid is still in place.

Political atheism differs heavily though from the average atheist on the street, who doesn't necessarily have a particular partisan agenda, as many atheists here on Dakka have demonstrated.

Fair point. well made.

That's kind of the thing with atheism, if you don't believe you don't believe and there's really not a lot more to it than that. A couple of cousins of mine went to the big atheist convention in Sydney a year or so ago, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what they did for two days. I asked them when they came back exactly what they talked about, and as it turned out they didn't talk about atheism much at all, instead they just complained about religion.

That's basically the thing, atheism made into a political movement is by its nature an anti-religious movement. It has to be, because atheism by itself means nothing politically. And politics being politics, that means the atheists are going to target the dominant religion in the country, which in Australia, the UK and the US that means targetting Christianity. This makes a little bit of sense in the US, where multiple church groups aim for increasing say in religious matters, but makes exactly zero sense in the UK, where the church is very passive, and very removed from politics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ribon Fox wrote:If anyone eles says anything diffrent then they are ill...

Yeah, someone thinks differently than you on a fundamentally unknowable question, therefore they're 'ill'.

Please stop making our side look bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ribon Fox wrote:I've read (can't remember where before you ask) that the side of the brain in those that are devot (all religons by the way) have the same neuron clusters firing as someone with a mild case of psychosis. That is an illness.

If you love the enlightenment scientific understanding can bring as much as you claim, then you really ought to know the above really, really isn't science.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I think good old Doug was rather missing the point that you can question these things without being a dick about it, as Dawkins frequently was.

Yes, this. Exactly, completely and entirely this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I wonder...

For every outwardly Atheist person... how many reserved, quiet atheists are there?

Between 1 and 5% in most countries, by recollection. Then you get outliers in communist, or formerly communist countries where atheism was overtly encouraged, and there you can get people reporting atheism up to about 20% of the population.

Certainly, the voice of the loudest is heard the most with religion, and it seems to be the same with atheists (and everything). To my knowledge, Atheists 'buck' the abrahamic religions the most, although I'm sure in other countries (like india, for example, atheists oppose the native religion.

Not really, because Hinduism in India really isn't the unified, coherent entity that Christianity is. I mean, you might think Christianity has all kinds of offshoots but the difference is that they're all offshoots that define themselves by their differences on a basic story, and Hinduism doesn't even have that. People have actually called Hinduism a lot of different religions all grouped together.

As a result of this, and likely also because they were controlled by Christian Britain for so long, India has a culture of religious difference that's far more tolerant to other faiths (just not towards the Muslims). This isn't to say India is more tolerant in general, that's a mistake loads of hippies make, because India is nowhere near as progressive on women's rights, or the rights of homosexuals, but when it comes to religion they are. As I said above, India's first Prime Minister Nehru was atheist.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Private_Joker — GMT

I am strongly atheist.

My view is that there was no god or divine force controllling or influencing anything on Earth or the universe for that matter and that nature has randomly pieced us together through a series of coincidental changes.

My other view is that anyone still believing in the bible or text that says otherwise is completely ignorant or uninformed to the abundance of evidence that pokes massive holes in their beliefs. Yet they still don't advance themselves or are too scared to let go of some silly ancient text. Do I judge them for it? No.

They are simply oblivious of change, of something new that their religion doesn't explain. Sometimes I pity them as lesser people stuck in an idea thousands of years old, then I remind myself that they have as much right to believe in what they want as I do. As long as they keep it to themselves and don't push their ideas onto other people I'm completely fine with it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Orlanth wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Church not employing a gay, thats made out as an equal opportunities scandal, wheras if you look at most Islamic views of homosexuality it makes even the hard line churches seem very mild indeed, but no critique is raised.

Yep, that's right folks - he actually said it.

Surely not... no-one is that silly.

Whats the issue here with what I wrote? Anyone want to quantify it.

You claimed that no one critiques Islamic views on homosexuality, despite the existence of multi-million dollar campaigns to raise awareness regarding the poor treatment of homosexuals in Muslim nations.

Fun fact, more sex change operations occur in Iran than anywhere else in the world.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Private_Joker wrote:My view is that there was no god or divine force controllling or influencing anything on Earth or the universe for that matter and that nature has randomly pieced us together through a series of coincidental changes.

My other view is that anyone still believing in the bible or text that says otherwise is completely ignorant or uninformed to the abundance of evidence that pokes massive holes in their beliefs. Yet they still don't advance themselves or are too scared to let go of some silly ancient text. Do I judge them for it? No.

They are simply oblivious of change, of something new that their religion doesn't explain. Sometimes I pity them as lesser people stuck in an idea thousands of years old...

There seems to be a fair bit of judgment in there. IME not judging other people too harshly is often a good policy.

Many educated people still maintain faith and are able to reconcile religion and science. Most religious people, IME, are happy to accept evolution (for example), but may not subscribe to abiogenesis, for example. They may believe that a divine "spark" was needed to trigger than change from inanimate to living matter.

Also, evolution isn't really random. Survival of the fittest posits that adaptive traits will propagate specifically because they help the organism survive and breed. That's not a random process.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

Natural selection and sexual selection aren't random, but mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Private_Joker — GMT

No I meant before human evolution, like the whole process of Earth coming to be sustainable for life was just random and coinsidental. Sorry for the confusion. As to the whole judgement thing I wouldn't hold any of their beliefs against them, just let them get along with their lives.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Fafnir wrote:That said, the burden of proof lies upon the one bringing up the possibility of God.

No, it doesn't. The burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to convince another person that his own ideas are more sensible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Private_Joker wrote:My other view is that anyone still believing in the bible or text that says otherwise is completely ignorant or uninformed to the abundance of evidence that pokes massive holes in their beliefs. Yet they still don't advance themselves or are too scared to let go of some silly ancient text. Do I judge them for it? No.

You can't say someone else is ignorant, and then say you're not judging them.

They are simply oblivious of change, of something new that their religion doesn't explain. Sometimes I pity them as lesser people stuck in an idea thousands of years old, then I remind myself that they have as much right to believe in what they want as I do. As long as they keep it to themselves and don't push their ideas onto other people I'm completely fine with it.

They're allowed to push their ideas, you know. Just as you're allowed to push your ideas. Neither side is allowed (or at least neither side should be allowed) to make people act according to their beliefs, but certainly everyone is allowed to say what their opinion is, if they so choose.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:Natural selection and sexual selection aren't random, but mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are.

Close but not quite. Mutation is random, but which mutation becomes common in the species is defined by natural selection, and therefore not random.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Fafnir wrote:Natural selection and sexual selection aren't random, but mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are.

The mutarions are random, but which ones get passed down are not, because (as you said) natural selection isn't random.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Private_Joker wrote:No I meant before human evolution, like the whole process of Earth coming to be sustainable for life was just random and coinsidental..

Ah, you mean just the initial existence of life itself, and the planet being capable of sustaining it? Prior to that life beginning to evolve? That does seem like a reasonable thing to believe, but as we can't really know, it's hard to say for certain.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Private_Joker — GMT

Well when I say pushing their ideas I mean openly abusing and spitting on my brother who is homosexual, I'm not fine with that. Also preaching in public is getting really annoying. Praise the lord inside your church, not the street or in my face.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Private_Joker wrote:Well when I say pushing their ideas I mean openly abusing and spitting on my brother who is homosexual, I'm not fine with that.

Yeah, that's not cool. Thankfully most churches and religious people don't do things like that, but the ones which do are really offensive. Sorry to hear about that crap being directed toward someone you care about.

Private_Joker wrote: Also preaching in public is getting really annoying. Praise the lord inside your church, not the street or in my face.

I think there are acceptable places and times for it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

sebster wrote:
Fafnir wrote:That said, the burden of proof lies upon the one bringing up the possibility of God.

No, it doesn't. The burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to convince another person that his own ideas are more sensible.

You can't prove the non-existence of something, which is the entire basis of the burden of proof. It lies upon the person suggesting the idea. In this case, the idea is God.

Fafnir wrote:Natural selection and sexual selection aren't random, but mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are.

Close but not quite. Mutation is random, but which mutation becomes common in the species is defined by natural selection, and therefore not random.

Which is exactly what I said. Granted, I never outright said that evolution was not random, but it should be easy to draw that conclusion from what I said.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Fafnir wrote:
sebster wrote:
Fafnir wrote:That said, the burden of proof lies upon the one bringing up the possibility of God.

No, it doesn't. The burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to convince another person that his own ideas are more sensible.

You can't prove the non-existence of something, which is the entire basis of the burden of proof. It lies upon the person suggesting the idea. In this case, the idea is God.

I tend to agree with you here. And this is coming from the only one of the three of us who's not an Atheist.

Fafnir wrote:[
Fafnir wrote:Natural selection and sexual selection aren't random, but mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are.

Close but not quite. Mutation is random, but which mutation becomes common in the species is defined by natural selection, and therefore not random.

Which is exactly what I said. Granted, I never outright said that evolution was not random, but it should be easy to draw that conclusion from what I said.

If that were exactly what you said neither Sebster or I would have corrected you! When you wrote "mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are (random)" you may have meant that the mutations are random but which are passed on are not, but it came across as you saying that which ones are passed on is random.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Relapse — GMT

Private_Joker wrote:Well when I say pushing their ideas I mean openly abusing and spitting on my brother who is homosexual, I'm not fine with that. Also preaching in public is getting really annoying. Praise the lord inside your church, not the street or in my face.

Christians aren't the only ones who preach in public, though. Any number of rallies for different causes proves that.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Well, his experience of Christian groups abusing his brother has obviously colored his perceptions, not unreasonably.

It's sad that there are Christians like this out there, but there do seem to be a disturbing number of them in our society.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

I just stumbled across an interesting little snippet;
http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/were-all-atheists-now.html

It's a link to a video of Alain de Botton talking about the ideas in his new book. He's arguing that religion has many values entirely outside of spiritual belief, and that the rationalist approaches of atheism have been found lacking, and that instead has a lot to offer for how we build a decent society. He goes on to argue this should be the basis for a new, improved kind of atheism.

The bloggers observes that may well be true (I personally think it makes a good bit of sense), but that from his own experience the "flattened, stunted "rationalism" of Atheism 1.0 is exactly how we "do" religion", and that's a point I definitely agree with.

Private_Joker wrote:Well when I say pushing their ideas I mean openly abusing and spitting on my brother who is homosexual, I'm not fine with that. Also preaching in public is getting really annoying. Praise the lord inside your church, not the street or in my face.

Yeah, spitting on someone because your faith says they're immoral is certainly not cool.

But that's a very different thing to being able to preach the faith at all. They really, really are allowed to preach their religion in the town square. They really are allowed to come and knock on your door and ask if you want to hear about Jesus. This is not just something we have to tolerate, it is absolutely a positive for society. You are, of course, always allowed to say you don't want to hear what they have to say, but even if you said yes, is it really so horrible to hear how someone else thinks the world works?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Relapse — GMT

I agree. I despise cowards that gang up on someone in that fashion. It makes it worse in my mind when they go bend a knee on Sunday, convinced of their moral superiority.
The trouble is they hate Satan more than they love God and end up going against Christ's teachings with their actions.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Fafnir wrote:You can't prove the non-existence of something, which is the entire basis of the burden of proof. It lies upon the person suggesting the idea. In this case, the idea is God.

You're utterly mistaken in thinking it's an issue of proof at all. Whatever supernatural things are out there are by definition beyond the natural world, and so looking for natural proof is an exercise in nonsense.

There is, instead, merely belief. The world as I can understand has no God, but there's no rational, logically constructed argument behind that, it's just my intuitive position. It can't be more than that, because anything else would trying to logically deduce the unknowable.

That's the same for everyone.

Which is exactly what I said. Granted, I never outright said that evolution was not random, but it should be easy to draw that conclusion from what I said.

Fair enough if that's what you meant. It's just that this was you sentence;
"Natural selection and sexual selection aren't random, but mutations that are passed down through natural/sexual selection are."

The use of the word 'but' in that sentence means there's an implied 'random' at the end of the sentence, so it sounds like you're saying the mutations that are passed down are random. No biggie, I've typed sentences that were so much worse they weren't just misleading, but completely incoherent.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

rockerbikie — GMT

Religion is a metaphor. /Thread It should not be taken seriously.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

TheRobotLol — GMT

I'm a fairly strong atheist but I don't really do anything. I don't mind relegion at all, exept when they get all up in your face about CONVERT YOU SINNAH! and YO GOIN HELL!!! and GOD WILL SMITE YO!!

Thats why i dislike christianess. And i'm sure other religions do it, its just they haven't to me.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Melissia — GMT

Mannahnin wrote:
Private_Joker wrote:No I meant before human evolution, like the whole process of Earth coming to be sustainable for life was just random and coinsidental..

Ah, you mean just the initial existence of life itself, and the planet being capable of sustaining it? Prior to that life beginning to evolve? That does seem like a reasonable thing to believe, but as we can't really know, it's hard to say for certain.

As an aside, Earth is, all things considered, fairly hostile to life.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

Melissia wrote:As an aside, Earth is, all things considered, fairly hostile to life.

Because of humans? Yes.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Pacific — GMT

Fafnir wrote:How is sentience a point of evidence?

And anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Just because we look at something and aren't entirely sure what it is, or because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean we should immediately leap to the conclusion that "God did it."

That's an interesting point to make.

I think that even though today science and religion (at least in some parts of the world) seem to be diametrically opposed, in some ways they both spring from the desire within human beings to understand the world around us.

Although, religions becoming institutionalised has moved religion from that standpoint - it has now become a bedrock of political viewpoints and power within society, separating its adherents from the norms of scientific rationality in their daily lives, and in fact acts as blinkers in suppressing people's intelligence. People will openly say they do not believe in evolution or the formation of the galaxy and the big bang, yet at the same time drive cars, ride aeroplanes, use computers at work which were built upon the same understanding and principles of science - there is something of a paradox there in terms of how people are able to reason.

The point is however that, as far as the Abrahamic God is concerned, the boundaries of what defines 'God' continue to be pushed back. But, if you make concessions, and allow for certain components of the Bible/Koran/Torah to be ignorned (say perhaps concerning the age of the earth, or creation of man), then for how long can the structural integrity of the belief be maintained?

The likes of what today's scientists have to go up against in terms of religious establishment and power is nothing compared to what the scientists at the dawn of the Enlightenment had to endure, and so you must argue that the discoveries will continue to unfurl our understanding of the universe. That being said, there is a significant political pressure behind a lot of religious groups (specifically in the US) - with the likes of evolution not being taught in schools, or women's freedom laws becoming revoked. Newton said that for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and this is evident in the more militant-sounding atheists which are beginning to appear. Yes, Dawkins can sound overbearing and arrogant at times, but he is an extremely intelligent and principled man, and the level of his scorn for organised religion is a direct result of increasing pressures from religious groups that are desperate to maintain some kind of relevancy and legitimacy in our secular age.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

rockerbikie — GMT

I've noticed Athiests hate Wiccans, Pagans and Magic users more than people of the Abrahamic Religons.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

This is a complicated issue.
Basically if you're not a materialist, you're wrong.
But most people are wrong about some things so have some perspective.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Private_Joker wrote:No I meant before human evolution, like the whole process of Earth coming to be sustainable for life was just random and coinsidental..

Ah, you mean just the initial existence of life itself, and the planet being capable of sustaining it? Prior to that life beginning to evolve? That does seem like a reasonable thing to believe, but as we can't really know, it's hard to say for certain.
As an aside, Earth is, all things considered, fairly hostile to life.

The only planet we know contains life...you think is hostile to it? Awesome.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Orlanth — GMT

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Church not employing a gay, thats made out as an equal opportunities scandal, wheras if you look at most Islamic views of homosexuality it makes even the hard line churches seem very mild indeed, but no critique is raised.

Yep, that's right folks - he actually said it.

Surely not... no-one is that silly.

Whats the issue here with what I wrote? Anyone want to quantify it.

You claimed that no one critiques Islamic views on homosexuality, despite the existence of multi-million dollar campaigns to raise awareness regarding the poor treatment of homosexuals in Muslim nations.

Fun fact, more sex change operations occur in Iran than anywhere else in the world.

I am refering to within the UK.

Your, and perhaps MrDwhitey's, misunderstanding was understandable as Albatross cropped the quote he was mysteriously critiquing which in whole indicate I was refering to the UK. Perhaps Albatross could explain what he is complaining about, if he knows himself.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Corpsesarefun — GMT

I'm all about practicality; if you can prove god exists then I'll believe in him/her/it just like I'll believe in ghosts, nazi moon bases or ancient aliens if I'm given hard evidence for it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LuciusAR — GMT

This topic is always going to be contentious, but I think there is a vast difference between attacking religious people and religions as institutions. I’m not known for my love of religion and nor do I have time for religious privilege but that doesn’t mean that any criticism I make of religion should be taken as a personal attack on individual religious people.

I notice the OP mentioned Jokes. On the subject of humor I’m very much a believer in the philosophy of ‘no sacred cows’, that is to say that no subject, no institution and certainly no system of belief should be above satire. I realize that may result in jokes which people are ‘offended’ by, but all I can say that is tough luck. No one has any right to expect to go through life not being offended.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Corpsesarefun — GMT

LuciusAR wrote:
I notice the OP mentioned Jokes. On the subject of humor I’m very much a believer in the philosophy of ‘no sacred cows’, that is to say that no subject, no institution and certainly no system of belief should be above satire. I realize that may result in jokes which people are ‘offended’ by, but all I can say that is tough luck. No one has any right to expect to go through life not being offended.

This too.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LuciusAR — GMT

rockerbikie wrote:I've noticed Athiests hate Wiccans, Pagans and Magic users more than people of the Abrahamic Religons.

Hate is a strong word, speaking personally I don’t hate wiccans and pagans. I just think they are misguided eccentrics whose beliefs are largely mumbo jumbo.

I’ve got no axe to grind with them but if in conversation their beliefs become the topic, then I’ll happily going to tear such vacuous nonsense apart. That’s not to say I hate them personally, I’m just calling nonsense nonsense.

A bit like this:

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

So, Scientology, eh? What's that all about?

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Skarwael wrote:So, Scientology, eh? What's that all about?

A bit of eastern, New Age, and Sci-fi all rolled into one big burrito and seasoned with a smattering of psychological abuse to get members loyalty and money.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

Most of my atheistic friends do not rule out the possibility of a higher power and so tend to lean toward agnosticism.

Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power... I lump myself in with this camp.

The Abrahamic God is more likely to turn up in our mockery, however, because he's the one that we've been brought up with. I had a CoE education, I know a teensy bit about Islam, a bit more about Judaism, but ask me what the heck Shinto is and I'll stare blankly at you. Eastern religions like Taoism and the like are just so alien in concept to Westerners (in my view at least) in that they don't appear to centre around notions of a creator or a deity, at least not visibly enough for me to notice. I can't tell you where Buddhists think the world came from, for example.

I'm sure that means (western) Atheists are thus open to derision in the eyes of a dedicated theist (that is, someone who is committed to it as a principle, not because of an allegiance to Christianity) as it technically means we've made our conclusions without doing PHD-level research into every religion on the planet...

TL;DR - Atheists that you meet are likely westerners like yourself and thus only familiar with the Abrahamic God.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

I find the whole "You have to provide proof for your belief that an omnipotent deity created everything, but I don't have to provide any evidence that supports a universe existing without any sort of divine intervention" argument pretty dang silly.

True, you can make the argument that "you cannot prove the absence of something" although I feel that argument is flawed itself.

But if I were to be "evangelized" by an Atheist in person, I would ask for evidence that supports the existence of everything as it is today created by completely natural processes free of any divine intervention.

If Atheists can demand proof of a deity, then I should be able to demand proof of everything being created by natural processes.

On the other hand I find that religious people that throw away science are not helping us to be seen as rational folks. I do not feel that evolution being real does anything to discredit a Creator, so having Christians fight evolution just seems silly to me and gives ammunition to the "rational" folks.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

Scientology was started as a drunken bet that L. Ron Hubbard could not come up with a religion that was not revolo9ving around God/Devil as those have so many and their side juncts. also no mention of heaven/hell. Bugger won 5large for it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Henners91 wrote:Most of my atheistic friends do not rule out the possibility of a higher power and so tend to lean toward agnosticism.

Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power... I lump myself in with this camp.

But would you feel that actively trying to "convert" people who do believe in a higher power is/should be part of being an atheist? Or would active promotion of a "higher powers don't exist" position start a slide from atheist to antitheist?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Henners91 wrote:Most of my atheistic friends do not rule out the possibility of a higher power and so tend to lean toward agnosticism.

Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power... I lump myself in with this camp.

But would you feel that actively trying to "convert" people who do believe in a higher power is/should be part of being an atheist? Or would active promotion of a "higher powers don't exist" position start a slide from atheist to antitheist?

It would depend on the the individual whether they want to "convert" people because it's not a religion... Atheists can still be atheists if they don't try and spread their views. If they're opposed to the notion of a god that's what they are.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Skarwael wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Henners91 wrote:Most of my atheistic friends do not rule out the possibility of a higher power and so tend to lean toward agnosticism.

Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power... I lump myself in with this camp.

But would you feel that actively trying to "convert" people who do believe in a higher power is/should be part of being an atheist? Or would active promotion of a "higher powers don't exist" position start a slide from atheist to antitheist?

It would depend on the the individual whether they want to "convert" people because it's not a religion... Atheists can still be atheists if they don't try and spread their views. If they're opposed to the notion of a god that's what they are.

But honestly, the "converting" people to atheism is just something that I never understood. If somebody does not believe in a deity, then why care if the person next to you does?

And this is mostly based from interactions with atheists around me. They are very hostile to the concept of Christians (my religion) evangelizing, but then they turn around and try to tell Christians how wrong they are and how they should give up being Christians. Not saying that this is a goal of atheism, just something that I see around here.

And I am honestly trying to stay away from a "who is right in their belief system" debate. Just never really understood the need for my atheist friends to try to "convert" people.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Henners91 wrote:Most of my atheistic friends do not rule out the possibility of a higher power and so tend to lean toward agnosticism.

Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power... I lump myself in with this camp.

But would you feel that actively trying to "convert" people who do believe in a higher power is/should be part of being an atheist? Or would active promotion of a "higher powers don't exist" position start a slide from atheist to antitheist?

I used to be stupidly militant about atheism because, essentially, if you don't agree with me you're stupid (this was the same time as I was on my wonderful pubescent binge with far-left politics). Personally I've mellowed, so I can see both sides.

I worry that being honest about my opinion might make me seem horrifically patronising, but if there genuinely are people who just need the strength that faith provides - that is, they need that conviction that someone up there cares for them, watches them, that they'll see their loved ones in the next life, that suffering around them happens for a reason, etc. Then, if someone genuinely *needs* that, it's immoral to take it away from them so long as they are doing nobody any harm. Furthermore, one could argue that if someone's personal beliefs are not impacting on anyone else, then there's no reason to make it your business to interfere. I almost felt tempted to describe such people as weak, but I suppose they're just accustomed to drawing their strength from that source... we all find ways to keep ourselves going after all.

However, you get 'predatory' Christians; those that seek to convert others, or perhaps are impacting the world negatively (i.e. the Popes and the AIDS crisis), who do earn my ire. Here at University there was an autistic atheist, he was quite depressed, wasn't making friends, very shy and introverted... I'll admit I hardly knew him and did nothing more than sit on the same table as him at lunch. Anyhoo, the Christians literally pounced on him... invited him to their socials, and now this former atheist has become quite the evangelist; preaching the gospel 'n' all sorts, even got himself baptised. It just looked like a classic case of religious extremists pouncing on the weak; just like political extremists.

So I suppose to sum what I think about evangelical atheists up is to say the following:
-Respect those who keep their religion to themselves - their own views are theirs to have. Debate with them only if they consent and keep it good-humoured.
-Religion, however, does not belong in the public sphere and should not enjoy any kind of immunity from criticism. If people will flaunt their religion, they should be criticised, even if it does offend them, because politics (which I know for a fact one can feel just as strongly about) is not immune from critique - thus religion shouldn't be either. Religion should be kept out of schools; you wouldn't want Commies given the responsibility of teaching your kids, would you?
-With regards to how to promote atheism; be open about it, though don't flaunt it... and I think it's more constructive to simply portray it as the absence of belief rather than a crusade against belief itself. I like humanist approaches to simply celebrating man's achievements. I.E. Don't demolish a Cathedral as a Christian relic, instead step inside and say 'Wow, man built this.. man is great!' I agree with that fellow trying to build an 'Atheist Cathedral' in London.
-Be as polite as your opposition: I get that Dawkins gets a lot of flak from morons. But I couldn't read the God delusion - it came across as so snide, rude and lacking in respect that I can't find it constructive in any way, shape or form. Plus rule 101 of bringing someone over to your side of an argument: Be respectful. A negative tone is just going to anger people and set them against you. I honestly believe the man enjoys his 'badboy' reputation and sort of just revels in his own image at the expense of sensibly promoting atheism.

I'm worried that effectively typing a set of 'Atheist Commandments' might make me look a tad egotistical...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and for the record: said autistic guy started referring to me as 'The Evangelical Atheist' because I got in a helluva lot of arguments with 'the traitor'... I'm not proud of that. Like I said, I used to be a bit of a Dawkins on the subject.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

People slag off all Religions, but the big three affect peoples lives more, so they mention it. You might think Sikhs are wrong, but if you don't know any and none live near you and none affect your life in any obvious way, why bother whinging about Sikhs?

My belief has evolved somewhat over the years. I would have described myself as an atheist once upon a time, but not any more. I just don't care enough about the God question to be bothered enough to be being against the idea of a God, and I think there may well be "something" that is beyond our comprehension, so I could possibly even go from Agnostic to being described as a deist.

I personally loathe some of the actual practitioners of said Religions, not the idea of a God. So does that make me a Theist-hater as opposed to an Atheist?

I'm open to the idea of their being some sort of prime mover if I see some evidence for it and I don't care enough about the answer either way to be an Atheist. But I know that when a radical Muslim goes on TV and says that Sharia law must be implemented in Europe and "Why do you allow your Western women to dress like sluts?!" I want to kick them in the mouth.

I'm not an atheist, I'm an anti-theist!

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a 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 proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes 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 killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

I, personally, think that Atheism is a little absolute. Scientists will be the first to admit that they don't know everything about the universe and how it works. I'm agnostic, so I'm not opposed to the idea of a god in some form. I feel that if a creator does have a plan for everything he/she/it will convince me of their existence at some point in my life. If I die before that happens and burn in hell for all eternity then I won't feel guilty that I wasn't open-minded.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Henners91 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Henners91 wrote:Most of my atheistic friends do not rule out the possibility of a higher power and so tend to lean toward agnosticism.

Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power... I lump myself in with this camp.

But would you feel that actively trying to "convert" people who do believe in a higher power is/should be part of being an atheist? Or would active promotion of a "higher powers don't exist" position start a slide from atheist to antitheist?

I used to be stupidly militant about atheism because, essentially, if you don't agree with me you're stupid (this was the same time as I was on my wonderful pubescent binge with far-left politics). Personally I've mellowed, so I can see both sides.

I worry that being honest about my opinion might make me seem horrifically patronising, but if there genuinely are people who just need the strength that faith provides - that is, they need that conviction that someone up there cares for them, watches them, that they'll see their loved ones in the next life, that suffering around them happens for a reason, etc. Then, if someone genuinely *needs* that, it's immoral to take it away from them so long as they are doing nobody any harm. Furthermore, one could argue that if someone's personal beliefs are not impacting on anyone else, then there's no reason to make it your business to interfere. I almost felt tempted to describe such people as weak, but I suppose they're just accustomed to drawing their strength from that source... we all find ways to keep ourselves going after all.

I understand where you are coming from here. I do draw strength from my faith, and obviously I also think that I am "right". Of course if I go through life with the help of a support system of faith, then I don't do any damage to anybody around me. If I am wrong, and I die and there is nothing, then what harm have I done to people around me.

Henners91 wrote:However, you get 'predatory' Christians; those that seek to convert others, or perhaps are impacting the world negatively (i.e. the Popes and the AIDS crisis), who do earn my ire. Here at University there was an autistic atheist, he was quite depressed, wasn't making friends, very shy and introverted... I'll admit I hardly knew him and did nothing more than sit on the same table as him at lunch. Anyhoo, the Christians literally pounced on him... invited him to their socials, and now this former atheist has become quite the evangelist; preaching the gospel 'n' all sorts, even got himself baptised. It just looked like a classic case of religious extremists pouncing on the weak; just like political extremists.

Yeah, that can be a mixed bag of sorts. I can see the argument that when you are down, you need God more. But I can also see where it can become predatory and extremely opportunistic. I know that evangelizing is a big part of being a Christian, but I would also be worried that predatory evangelism like that would not produce a "true" faith. Is your friend really a Christian now because he believes in a Biblical God? Or is he just a christian because he likes the friendships he made and the feeling of belonging to something? And if he is a christian for the second reason, then I can really see how it would leave a very sour taste in your mouth.

Edited to add: And I don't mean to sound like I am trying to justify what they did or belittle your friends conviction. Behavior like that can be very dangerous and is more akin to cults and relies on feelings of being part of something. In these kind of situations I just try to be there for people, without my religion on the table. If he were to ask me "why do you care?" I would honestly reply "because I feel that being there for one another is something that Christ wants me to do." But that would place the faith and Christianity on me, not on your friend. I think there is a difference between "I am helping you because God says I should" and "believe in my God and I will help you"....if that makes any sense?

Henners91 wrote:So I suppose to sum what I think about evangelical atheists up is to say the following:
-Respect those who keep their religion to themselves - their own views are theirs to have. Debate with them only if they consent and keep it good-humoured.
-Religion, however, does not belong in the public sphere and should not enjoy any kind of immunity from criticism. If people will flaunt their religion, they should be criticised, even if it does offend them, because politics (which I know for a fact one can feel just as strongly about) is not immune from critique - thus religion shouldn't be either. Religion should be kept out of schools; you wouldn't want Commies given the responsibility of teaching your kids, would you?
-With regards to how to promote atheism; be open about it, though don't flaunt it... and I think it's more constructive to simply portray it as the absence of belief rather than a crusade against belief itself. I like humanist approaches to simply celebrating man's achievements. I.E. Don't demolish a Cathedral as a Christian relic, instead step inside and say 'Wow, man built this.. man is great!' I agree with that fellow trying to build an 'Atheist Cathedral' in London.
-Be as polite as your opposition: I get that Dawkins gets a lot of flak from morons. But I couldn't read the God delusion - it came across as so snide, rude and lacking in respect that I can't find it constructive in any way, shape or form. Plus rule 101 of bringing someone over to your side of an argument: Be respectful. A negative tone is just going to anger people and set them against you. I honestly believe the man enjoys his 'badboy' reputation and sort of just revels in his own image at the expense of sensibly promoting atheism.

I'm worried that effectively typing a set of 'Atheist Commandments' might make me look a tad egotistical...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and for the record: said autistic guy started referring to me as 'The Evangelical Atheist' because I got in a helluva lot of arguments with 'the traitor'... I'm not proud of that. Like I said, I used to be a bit of a Dawkins on the subject.

Thank you very much for a very good summary of your position, and almost all of your summary can and should be applied to Christians as well I think. I do realize that evangelizing is a big commandment in "my" religion, but there has to be a way of doing it that doesn't result in me being an asshat and insulting other people. Respectful debates are a big part of that, and not being insulting to other people should be a goal as well. And obviously not being a predator like the people that "got" your friend.

Dawkins, to even talk about that man would require a dedicated thread of its own . He is very polarizing and I think he probably goes past atheism and makes humanism into a full-blown religion with evolution as it's god.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

There are atheists who seek to convert others, just as their are members of religions who do the same.

Personally, I'm not against any belief you may wish to hold. If you want to believe in a god or gods, because they give your life meaning or give you a set of moral principles, more power to you. There is significant evidence that shows that belief in a higher power provides a tangible benefit to many people.

I am pretty strongly opposed to organized religions that imply that because I don't believe in a superior being, I am somehow morally bankrupt. As if I cannot figure out that lying, cheating, stealing or murdering are wrong because they harm someone else. I don't need an invisible sky man to tell me this. I feel no need to attack those who believe in a god for their choice, but when their organizations attack my choices and my principles, I'm more than happy to defend myself.

I'm also strongly opposed to any organized religion that acts in an amoral fashion. The Catholic Church in specific, is, in my opinion, the most dangerous organization on the planet. There are documented cases of child molestation in Catholic churches and schools for over a hundred years, as well as documented evidence that church officials have systematically covered up these abuses and protected the molesters. Multiple Catholic dioceses have gone bankrupt due to lawsuits over these abuses. In my opinion, anyone putting money in a Catholic collection plate is guilty of supporting child abuse, and how any parent could send their children to a Catholic school or church program completely baffles me. The John Jay report, compiled in 2004, and based on the period from 1950-2002, indicated that, in the United States, a full 4% of active Catholic clergy had had sexual abuse claims filed against them. That's like rolling a 20-sided die and on a '1', yeah, that's your priest...

And yet, people are more likely to trust a priest than an atheist...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Redbeard wrote:In my opinion, anyone putting money in a Catholic collection plate is guilty of supporting child abuse ...

That opinion is well and truly ignorant.

There's certainly no denying a systematic attempt by the hierarchy to cover up sexual abuse. And I also won't deny a certain complicity on the part of lay people. The attitude of clericalism should itself be rooted out entirely.

That has little or nothing to do with the collection or how that money is spent.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Orlanth — GMT

mattyrm wrote:

I'm not an atheist, I'm an anti-theist!

You can see this one a lot if you scratch the surface.

A phenomena best described as: I like God, its His fan club I have problems with.

You will find yourself far from alone matty.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Orlanth wrote:I like God, its His fan club I have problems with.

Yeah, this is a pretty common cop-out. It's like saying "I like being generous but I have real problems with charities." It's one thing if one is the type of person who gets involved, sees a problem with an organization, and tries to reform that problem by participation. It's another thing when one's moral critique is just an excuse not to participate.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

Manchu wrote:
Orlanth wrote:I like God, its His fan club I have problems with.
Yeah, this is a pretty common cop-out. It's like saying "I like being generous but I have real problems with charities." It's one thing if one is the type of person who gets involved, sees a problem with an organization, and tries to reform that problem by participation. It's another thing when one's moral critique is just an excuse not to participate.

People just want to be different.
Agnostism is even more despicable than atheism, anyway. At least religious people can say "well my faith transcends reason".
As an agnostic you're saying that the evidence for and against god is roughly even, which is absurd.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Manchu wrote:pretty common cop-out.

"I'm not religious but I'm spiritual."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:As an agnostic you're saying that the evidence for and against god is roughly even

That isn't remotely what agnosticism says.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Albatross — GMT

Orlanth wrote:
I am refering to within the UK.

Your, and perhaps MrDwhitey's, misunderstanding was understandable as Albatross cropped the quote he was mysteriously critiquing which in whole indicate I was refering to the UK. Perhaps Albatross could explain what he is complaining about, if he knows himself.

To suggest that no critique of illiberal Islamic attitudes towards homosexuality is raised in the UK is very, very silly indeed.

Better?

Henners91 wrote:Technically to be an atheist means to rule out any and all possibilities of a higher power...

Actually that isn't true, and unfortunately leads to all sorts of colourful misunderstandings. It means an absence of theistic faith.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

Most atheists are agnostic atheists. As in, they don't believe in God, but don't rule out the existence of one entirely. Ie, if sufficient evidence were discovered that proved God's existence, they'd have no reason to dismiss it. Even Richard Dawkins would accept the existence of God if it was made very clearly and distinctly evident that God existed.

Gnostic atheists dismiss the idea of God entirely. They know God does not exist.

It works the same way for theism as well. Agnostic theists believe in God, or at least er on the side of God existing, but accept the possibility that they may be wrong in their pursuits, and that God may not exist. Gnostic theists know God exists.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Ahtman wrote:"I'm not religious but I'm spiritual."

I have some sympathy with that line. Spirituality seems like a sentiment to me whereas religion is a practice. I think that there are in fact many, many people who have beliefs that don't translate into any sort of behavior. I get that there may be an implicit critique of religion there but the statement (and its context whenever I've heard it sincerely uttered) evinces such shallow understanding of the subject that it's really difficult to take seriously.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
That isn't remotely what agnosticism says.

Yes it is. If you view the world rationally, atheism is the logical conclusion. But they do not use the "faith" card that theists do, therefore they are either being irrational or they are claiming equal validity for the arguments for and against the existence of god.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Manchu wrote:
Redbeard wrote:In my opinion, anyone putting money in a Catholic collection plate is guilty of supporting child abuse ...
That opinion is well and truly ignorant.

There's certainly no denying a systematic attempt by the hierarchy to cover up sexual abuse. And I also won't deny a certain complicity on the part of lay people. The attitude of clericalism should itself be rooted out entirely.

That has little or nothing to do with the collection or how that money is spent.

Sure it does. It's been established over time that the most effective reforms stem from economic boycotts. The threat of boycott has been used to convince numerous businesses to end discriminatory practices. It was boycotts, not moral indignation that ended apartheid. Maybe my ignorance is in not understanding the financial workings of the Catholic church - if their operating budget does not stem from the collection plates, then I'm wrong. The sentiment behind the thought, however, does not change. Whether it is in the form of enrollment fees at schools or Sunday schools, yearly memberships, or some other means by which the members of a congregation support their church, boycotting those fees until the Catholic church unequivocally condemns abuse and actually acts against those priests who commit abuses is the only moral option, and would be the fastest way to bring about that change.

Manchu wrote:
Orlanth wrote:I like God, its His fan club I have problems with.
Yeah, this is a pretty common cop-out. It's like saying "I like being generous but I have real problems with charities." It's one thing if one is the type of person who gets involved, sees a problem with an organization, and tries to reform that problem by participation. It's another thing when one's moral critique is just an excuse not to participate.

You're making the assumption that participation is a good thing, or that non-participation needs an excuse. I choose not to participate in organized religions. I need no excuse for this.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Couldn't they also be rejecting that current human knowledge represents a complete account of the material universe?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

Manchu wrote:Couldn't they also be rejecting that current human knowledge represents a complete account of the material universe?

We don't know every thing yet (not by along old way), but we're working towards it.

"All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of this is our esteem for the senses; for apart from their use we esteem them for their own sake, and most of all the sense of sight. Not only with a view to action, but even when no action is contemplated, we prefer sight, generally speaking, to all the other senses.The reason of this is that of all the senses sight best helps us to know things, and reveals many distinctions."
Aristotle, Metaphysics I 980a 21, tr. by Hugh Tredennick

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Joey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
That isn't remotely what agnosticism says.

Yes it is.

No, it really doesn't. You don't even know what agnosticism is, and yet you think you have such a grasp on what is rational to the point of telling the world how it is wrong for not thinking the way you do. Now that is absurd.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Redbeard wrote:Maybe my ignorance is in not understanding the financial workings of the Catholic church - if their operating budget does not stem from the collection plates, then I'm wrong.

You are wrong on that account in terms of greatly oversimplifying the matter but you are also wrong at a more general level. Collection, generally speaking, is a matter of parish-level funding. When lay people put money into the basket, they are funding a wide array of social programs in their community and beyond. Your idea that the collection plate is the lever by which lay people should pressure hierarchs into cooperating with the civil authorities shows me that you actually have no experience in this matter, despite your passionate (and defamatory) opinions. You're talking about the faithful like they're customers and the Church like it's a company selling something. Honestly, you are very out of touch. A parish should most definitely not de-fund its own life and community to punish sex offenders. It's like advocating that you should stop paying your taxes, which support your local and national infrastructure, because you think the war in Afghanistan is unjust.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:You're making the assumption that participation is a good thing, or that non-participation needs an excuse.

My comments were about folks who believe in the Christian God but reject organized religion. Non-Christians certainly don't need an excuse not to go to church.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ribon Fox wrote:We don't know every thing yet (not by along old way), but we're working towards it.

The notion that human knowledge is capable of apprehending a complete account of the material universe is itself a matter of faith. The motivation to undertake scientific investigation is not inherent to the scientific method itself.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

Religion threads seem to have gotten much nicer during my convalescence, how come nobody has threatened to rape anybody yet?!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote: People just want to be different.
Agnostism is even more despicable than atheism, anyway.

Yeah Im with Ahtman on this one like, your statement makes no sense.

The first half does, if you replace "People" with "Joey"

I mean, even on a topic where 99% of users agree, its always you that tries to be a contrarian, and says something like "Agnostism is even more despicable than atheism"

One is a lack of theistic belief, and the other is simply the view that the truth values of certain claims are impossible to know, how on earth are either of them anywhere near "despicable"

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Morathi's Darkest Sin — GMT

I have no issue with the rejection of organised religion, I know a couple of folks who believe in Jesus, the ideas behid the faith, but feel the church has lost its way, and has been corrupt for a long time, rightly or wrongly.

They prefer to cut out the 'middle man' so to speak, if thats their call I don't really have an issue wih it.

As for me, I'm pretty much agnostic, I believe in something else, but I am not certain it is as clear cut as the texts in a two thousand year old book.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

Manchu wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Maybe my ignorance is in not understanding the financial workings of the Catholic church - if their operating budget does not stem from the collection plates, then I'm wrong.
You are wrong on that account in terms of greatly oversimplifying the matter but you are also wrong at a more general level. Collection, generally speaking, is a matter of parish-level funding. When lay people put money into the basket, they are funding a wide array of social programs in their community and beyond. Your idea that the collection plate is the lever by which lay people should pressure hierarchs into cooperating with the civil authorities shows me that you actually have no experience in this matter, despite your passionate (and defamatory) opinions. You're talking about the faithful like they're customers and the Church like it's a company selling something. Honestly, you are very out of touch. A parish should most definitely not de-fund its own life and community to punish sex offenders. It's like advocating that you should stop paying your taxes, which support your local and national infrastructure, because you think the war in Afghanistan is unjust.

To be fair its not that far of the stretch of the mind for the corporate world to be intertangled with the relgious one. During the dark age it was the relgious factions that dictated whom and what could be sold. They had vast holdings of land all over europe and even started off what was to become the modern business model (dramticly altred but still at its heart the same). The came Henry the 8th and his refomation, personaly I think he should have gone the whole hog and booted them all out of England

Deep down both the corporate world and the relgious world only want one thing, your bum on a set and your money in their pocket.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

I don't think you understood my post, RibonFox.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Manchu wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Maybe my ignorance is in not understanding the financial workings of the Catholic church - if their operating budget does not stem from the collection plates, then I'm wrong.
You are wrong on that account in terms of greatly oversimplifying the matter but you are also wrong at a more general level. Collection, generally speaking, is a matter of parish-level funding. When lay people put money into the basket, they are funding a wide array of social programs in their community and beyond. Your idea that the collection plate is the lever by which lay people should pressure hierarchs into cooperating with the civil authorities shows me that you actually have no experience in this matter, despite your passionate (and defamatory) opinions.

Defamatory? I'm sorry, I've stated nothing defamatory at all, it's all well documented.

And, yes, in the short-term, some church-operated social programs may suffer. But making this out to be a problem that doesn't happen in local parishes is exactly why it continues. It does happen in local parishes, and it probably happens more often than reported. One in twenty active clergy in the Catholic church has been involved, over the last 50 years. This is not a new issue, it's not an issue that only happens somewhere else, it's a systematic problem that's being protected by the upper levels of the hierarchy. And until the lay people get involved and take responsibility for what their organization is doing, it will keep happening.

You're talking about the faithful like they're customers and the Church like it's a company selling something. Honestly, you are very out of touch.

A church is a company, and the faithful are buying something. They're buying membership in a community. If that community is predicated on accepting child-abuse, they're buying into child-abuse. When the lay people get fed up with the corruption of their 'superiors', change takes place. We don't have 100 different varieties of Christianity because people are locked into one faith. Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. etc. all exist because a group of people got upset with the offenses of their church and left it.

You mentioned something before about 'excuses'. That's pretty much what you're offering here. Excuses for why lay people should not take responsibility for ending the abuse of children by church officials.

It's like advocating that you should stop paying your taxes, which support your local and national infrastructure, because you think the war in Afghanistan is unjust.

It's nothing like that at all. The government is a democracy, and I get a vote. I get a voice in the selection of my representative and am entitled to ask him/her to represent my viewpoint. Do you get a vote in who the pope is? In who your archbishop or cardinal is? I don't get a vote in who the CEO of McDonald's is. If I want to influence McDonald's policy, I vote with my wallet. You don't get a vote in who the Pope is, if you want to influence Catholic policy, your options are to vote with your feet or your wallet.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

Not really Manchu, the church is a business, they all are.

They are in the business of selling plots in the sky and making you feel better...(said threw gritted teath)...
The big three monos are particularly guilty of this nasty little trend (the Vatican more so that the other factions), and who knows what pies all the fingers, thumbs and toes the Vatican has are in.

Most of their views are outdated, bigoted and just damn destrutive (i'm talking the organised religions and those that run it, not those good people that have "faith").

Please don't post images like this on Dakka, even using spoiler tags, we don't allow the use of certain words and terms on the site and this includes their inclusion in images as well.

Reds8n

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Wolfstan — GMT

I stumbled across an interesting concept the other week when watching The Question on BBC1. Basically there was a vicar on there who said he had friends that followed the words of Christ, but weren't believers, which I thought was a cool twist.

It makes sense as a lot of what he preached was ok, it helps us all get along together as a society. The good stuff, look out for each other, be kind and such like. Take away his background and it could be any guy 2,000 thousand years ago reflecting on life.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

MajorTom11 — GMT

Joey wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Orlanth wrote:I like God, its His fan club I have problems with.
Yeah, this is a pretty common cop-out. It's like saying "I like being generous but I have real problems with charities." It's one thing if one is the type of person who gets involved, sees a problem with an organization, and tries to reform that problem by participation. It's another thing when one's moral critique is just an excuse not to participate.

People just want to be different.
Agnostism is even more despicable than atheism, anyway. At least religious people can say "well my faith transcends reason".
As an agnostic you're saying that the evidence for and against god is roughly even, which is absurd.

That's not it at all. An agnostic says that although you have seen no evidence of god, you remain open to the idea as likewise you have not seen it definitively disproven either. If I say I've never seen an alien but I have no objections to acknowledging the possibility of their existence, it is not contradictory. Saying you don't believe in things that are not proven, nor are you ardently against the possibility and move on with your life simply living in reality as it presents itself doesn't make you absurd IMHO.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:Not really Manchu, the church is a business, they all are.

They are in the business of selling plots in the sky and making you feel better...(said threw gritted teath)...
The big three monos are particularly guilty of this nasty little trend (the Vatican more so that the other factions), and who knows what pies all the fingers, thumbs and toes the Vatican has are in.

Most of their views are outdated, bigoted and just damn destrutive (i'm talking the organised religions and those that run it, not those good people that have "faith").

Clearly you haven't seen how destructive bad science and bad atheism is...including current times in which its still fairly common to see a journal articles that are complete nonsense...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

Skarwael wrote:I, personally, think that Atheism is a little absolute. Scientists will be the first to admit that they don't know everything about the universe and how it works. I'm agnostic, so I'm not opposed to the idea of a god in some form. I feel that if a creator does have a plan for everything he/she/it will convince me of their existence at some point in my life. If I die before that happens and burn in hell for all eternity then I won't feel guilty that I wasn't open-minded.

Atheism is just expressing an absence of belief.

Personally I don't pretend to be arrogant enough to suggest that I can say, without a doubt, what forged the Universe. A lot of my friends think I am an idiot for saying that I doubt evolution as I know it: I am ignorant and not massively knowledgeable on the subject, but what I do know doesn't convince me. I could seek to learn more if it bothered me sufficiently, but I can live a happy life in self-admitted ignorance. I don't see why people have to be able to answer these grand questions.

I don't find this incompatible with my total rejection of religion or a higher power because, again, I've done it with the information available to me. If God appeared before me right now I'd convert on the spot.

@d-usa

Thanks for the thanking Glad you didn't find anything erringly offensive in there.

As for the guy, I don't know him well enough (and did a good job of ticking him off) to say whether his faith is entirely genuine... but the process was shockingly quick.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

vercingatorix — GMT

I would just like to point to recent political debates about Catholic churches having to provide contraceptives to say that the Catholic church does a lot of good.

roughly 1 in 6 people in the U.S receive medical care from a catholic church and and 1 in 3 low income people receive help from a Catholic church. roughly 100 billion dollars in medical services.

So those people supporting Catholicism are doing a lot of good. I wouldn't be too disparaging of them.
As a disclaimer, I'm not Catholic

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

vercingatorix wrote:I would just like to point to recent political debates about Catholic churches having to provide contraceptives to say that the Catholic church does a lot of good.

I agree that they also do good, but the issue isn't that the church is having to provide birth control, but that church enterprises that are secular have to provide them. St. Ides church doesn't have to, but St. Ides Hospital which is an employer of all sorts of people from all walks, does, and even then they can opt for the insurance carrier to have to cover it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

vercingatorix wrote:So those people supporting Catholicism are doing a lot of good.

I'm sure they are. And yet, that money is also supporting child molesters. I guess it's easy to turn a blind eye to the crimes of the church if you convince yourself (not you, Vercingatorix, but the generic you) that the money you're giving is only going to the good causes. It's not. It's also supporting child rapists. And perhaps they still believe that the sum of your good deeds can outweigh the bad, but I don't believe that. No amount of good deeds, no amount of charitable giving or community projects can outweigh raping a child. And it's been going on for centuries.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

MajorTom11 wrote:
Joey wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Orlanth wrote:I like God, its His fan club I have problems with.
Yeah, this is a pretty common cop-out. It's like saying "I like being generous but I have real problems with charities." It's one thing if one is the type of person who gets involved, sees a problem with an organization, and tries to reform that problem by participation. It's another thing when one's moral critique is just an excuse not to participate.

People just want to be different.
Agnostism is even more despicable than atheism, anyway. At least religious people can say "well my faith transcends reason".
As an agnostic you're saying that the evidence for and against god is roughly even, which is absurd.

That's not it at all. An agnostic says that although you have seen no evidence of god, you remain open to the idea as likewise you have not seen it definitively disproven either. If I say I've never seen an alien but I have no objections to acknowledging the possibility of their existence, it is not contradictory. Saying you don't believe in things that are not proven, nor are you ardently against the possibility and move on with your life simply living in reality as it presents itself doesn't make you absurd IMHO.

Okay I'll try and be patient.
Something does not exist unless there is evidence to prove it exists.
There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist.
An agnostic, however, is saying that there IS some evidence for god, but that it is not conclusive. That seems to me logically bizarre.
Also, I'd like to know what this evidence is.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Catholic parishes are not like businesses in terms of organization, structure, goals, or operation.

Parishes are run by councils and committees made up of lay parishioners and the clergy assigned there. If someone was dissatisfied as to how the parish functioned, nothing (except non-membership in the parish community) would bar them from getting involved in these meetings.

Framing this as a matter of whether feeding, clothing, and giving care and shelter to the impoverished for two thousand years "outweighs" even one incidence of child rape is mere rhetoric and bad rhetoric at that. The issue is whether parishioners who contribute money to their parishes are thereby responsible for allowing/encouraging/covering up sexual abuse.

The obvious answer is no. Even if the parish was like a business, or was a business for that matter, the answer would still be no. Starbucks indirectly donates money to Planned Parenthood. Am I responsible for abortions because I buy a pumpkin spice latte? Any reasonable person would tell you no.

But a person who is evidently emotionally committed to a bad argument and does not have actual knowledge or experience to make better ones would say yes.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Manchu wrote:
The obvious answer is no. Even if the parish was like a business, or was a business for that matter, the answer would still be no. Starbucks indirectly donates money to Planned Parenthood. Am I responsible for abortions because I buy a pumpkin spice latte? Any reasonable person would tell you no.

Any number of boycotts have been organized for just the reason you give. Are people who boycott businesses unreasonable? I don't know any homosexuals who will eat at Chick-Fil-A, because he owner of Chick-Fil-A has very publicly supported anti-gay causes. Does that mean that if you do eat there, you're anti-gay? Not necessarily, you might not care one way or the other. I like tasty chicken, but I'm also in favour of equal rights for gay couples, so I'm kind of torn, personally.

I have no idea how Starbucks contributes to Planned Parenthood. I'm sure there is some right-wing group out there who are attempting to organize a boycott over it though. Is that unreasonable? Target has been boycotted because they donated money to a congressional candidate who opposed same-sex marriage. Is that unreasonable?

Boycotts work because people have alternatives. If I don't want to support Chick-Fil-A, I can go to Popeyes, or KFC, or Brown's. If I don't want to shop at Target, I can go to Walmart. If I don't want to buy Starbucks, I can get coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

The Catholic Church has no monopoly on either Christianity or Philanthropy. What they do have is a proven record of pedophilia and child abuse. How is it unreasonable to suggest a boycott. Surely if people can boycott places over whether two consenting adults can get married they can boycott an organization with a record of covering up child abuse.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

d-usa wrote:I find the whole "You have to provide proof for your belief that an omnipotent deity created everything, but I don't have to provide any evidence that supports a universe existing without any sort of divine intervention" argument pretty dang silly.

True, you can make the argument that "you cannot prove the absence of something" although I feel that argument is flawed itself.

But if I were to be "evangelized" by an Atheist in person, I would ask for evidence that supports the existence of everything as it is today created by completely natural processes free of any divine intervention.

If Atheists can demand proof of a deity, then I should be able to demand proof of everything being created by natural processes.

On the other hand I find that religious people that throw away science are not helping us to be seen as rational folks. I do not feel that evolution being real does anything to discredit a Creator, so having Christians fight evolution just seems silly to me and gives ammunition to the "rational" folks.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Joey wrote:Okay I'll try and be patient.
Something does not exist unless there is evidence to prove it exists.
There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist.
An agnostic, however, is saying that there IS some evidence for god, but that it is not conclusive. That seems to me logically bizarre.
Also, I'd like to know what this evidence is.

Being patient is nice and all, but perhaps not just being completely ignorant of the subject would be better. Everything you typed up there is wrong, and shows an extremely poor grasp of the subject matter at hand. Just as an example, bacteria existed long before we knew about it. Bacteria doesn't exist on the whims of humanity being able to figure out that it exists.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

What they do have is a proven record of pedophilia and child abuse.

As does children's orphanages.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

People tend to forget that Science has no answer to how life started however. Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Redbeard wrote:
Manchu wrote:
The obvious answer is no. Even if the parish was like a business, or was a business for that matter, the answer would still be no. Starbucks indirectly donates money to Planned Parenthood. Am I responsible for abortions because I buy a pumpkin spice latte? Any reasonable person would tell you no.

Any number of boycotts have been organized for just the reason you give. Are people who boycott businesses unreasonable? I don't know any homosexuals who will eat at Chick-Fil-A, because he owner of Chick-Fil-A has very publicly supported anti-gay causes. Does that mean that if you do eat there, you're anti-gay? Not necessarily, you might not care one way or the other. I like tasty chicken, but I'm also in favour of equal rights for gay couples, so I'm kind of torn, personally.

I have no idea how Starbucks contributes to Planned Parenthood. I'm sure there is some right-wing group out there who are attempting to organize a boycott over it though. Is that unreasonable? Target has been boycotted because they donated money to a congressional candidate who opposed same-sex marriage. Is that unreasonable?

Boycotts work because people have alternatives. If I don't want to support Chick-Fil-A, I can go to Popeyes, or KFC, or Brown's. If I don't want to shop at Target, I can go to Walmart. If I don't want to buy Starbucks, I can get coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

The Catholic Church has no monopoly on either Christianity or Philanthropy. What they do have is a proven record of pedophilia and child abuse. How is it unreasonable to suggest a boycott. Surely if people can boycott places over whether two consenting adults can get married they can boycott an organization with a record of covering up child abuse.

Fine, don't be a Catholic. i doubt the 1Bn Catholics give a gak. You will not be missed or even noticed.
Everything you said is frankly just anti-Catholic bigotry under the guise of fake outrage.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
What they do have is a proven record of pedophilia and child abuse.

As does children's orphanages.

Is this the two wrongs making a right argument? Have Children's Orphanages been on record for this for over a century? Do their upper management attempt to cover it up, and move offenders around rather than dismissing them?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

All examples aside, let's just try to see a connection between putting money in a collection plate and being complicit in sexual abuse.

The only connection at all between sexual abuse and parishioner contribution is paying the cost of legal representation. Legal representation is related to sexual abuse because the abuse is a crime. In order to require a lawyer to defend one against a criminal charge, a charge must be made. We are only talking about substantive charges in this case, so we can further assume that there must be a crime. But the crime is not caused by the legal representation. These priests did not sexually abuse anyone because they expected to have a lawyer represent them decades later.

So if you want to talk about parishioner contributions in this regard, the question isn't whether parishioners want to cover up sexual abuse. The issue is whether parishioners think people charged with criminal conduct should have legal representation. There are undoubtedly some people who believe that anyone who is said to be child molester is guilty until proven innocent. Fortunately for everyone, that is only how it works in the press and not how courts operate. And fortunately, the Church is not a democracy: whatever the parishioners think, the bishops agree with our legal culture that the interests of people and institutions charged with crimes are best served by legal representation.

So the very most you could say is that the parishioners who put money in the basket are complicit in providing legal representation to those who have been charged with crimes. That's not quite so controversial, is it?

But I did say that lay people could be complicit in the sexual abuse scandals. The problem is when people treat clergy, especially the hierarchy, as above criticism or question. It's when people think that priests and bishops and even the pope are always right and always know what's best.

The fact is that this attitude does not correlate to contributing money to the parish. People who have actually been involved with parish life know that some of the people who give the most in terms of both time and money are the most critical. The trouble, regarding the charge that Catholics who donate money to their parish are complicit with sexual abuse, is that the charge is made from a position of sheer ignorance.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
What they do have is a proven record of pedophilia and child abuse.

As does children's orphanages.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

People tend to forget that Science has no answer to how life started however. Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Wait hold on a sec there Bro. Are you saying Godzilla DIDN'T do it?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Everything you said is frankly just anti-Catholic bigotry under the guise of fake outrage.

Since when did being opposed to child molestation become bigotry? I suppose, as a non-bigot, you're in favour of molesting children?

Fake outrage? No, this is real outrage, the sort that more people ought to feel. One-in-twenty active Catholic priests. This is not some small outlying event. Diocese have gone bankrupt because of how widespread and endemic this is. And you don't think this is worth outrage?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

purplefood — GMT

I don't believe in a divine force or higher power.
I'm not against those who do (Unless they use that as an excuse to cause harm)
If someone (Or the GMan himself) was proved to exist (scientifically proved) then i would believe... i guess it doesn't count then though right?
Though a sort of topical question: Is the Old Testament overridden by the New Testament?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Redbeard wrote:Any number of boycotts have been organized for just the reason you give. Are people who boycott businesses unreasonable?

That's not the question at issue. This is:

I don't know any homosexuals who will eat at Chick-Fil-A, because he owner of Chick-Fil-A has very publicly supported anti-gay causes. Does that mean that if you do eat there, you're anti-gay?

No it doesn't. It's really that simple. Eating a Chik-fil-a doesn't make you a homophobe. Drinking Starbucks coffee doesn't mean you want people to have abortions. Contributing to your parish collection does not mean you support the cover up of sexual abuse.

How is it unreasonable to suggest a boycott.

Because a parish is a community rather than a business. Ceasing to fund your community does not achieve the intended goal. Participating in your community could do it, by contrast.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Everything you said is frankly just anti-Catholic bigotry under the guise of fake outrage.
Since when did being opposed to child molestation become bigotry? I suppose, as a non-bigot, you're in favour of molesting children?

That's a despicable argument. It's the exact equivalent of Republicans telling me that if I don't support a war in Iraq then I don't support our troops and am Un-American. It's the same thing as pro-lifers telling me that because I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare that I want to murder babies. There's no point in taking this conversation any further.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Redbeard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Everything you said is frankly just anti-Catholic bigotry under the guise of fake outrage.

Since when did being opposed to child molestation become bigotry?

When you conflate membership in the Catholic Church with being a child molester it is certainly bigotry. The odds that someone in the cable company has committed a crime is quite high, but just becuase I have an internet monthly bill doesn't mean that I am complicit in it becuase part of my fees go to pay that persons salary.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

Redbeard wrote:One-in-twenty active Catholic priests.

4% is one in twenty-five, not twenty. The extent of the abuse is absolutely shocking and horrifying. But, try to stick to the real numbers (which are still way too high).

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Tye_Informer — GMT

Henners91 wrote:
Skarwael wrote:I, personally, think that Atheism is a little absolute. Scientists will be the first to admit that they don't know everything about the universe and how it works. I'm agnostic, so I'm not opposed to the idea of a god in some form. I feel that if a creator does have a plan for everything he/she/it will convince me of their existence at some point in my life. If I die before that happens and burn in hell for all eternity then I won't feel guilty that I wasn't open-minded.

Atheism is just expressing an absence of belief.
.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Agnostic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: (Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.)

Atheism is a belief in itself, agnosticism would be an absence of belief.

Frankly, I do not have the faith required to be an atheist. Becoming an atheist would require I throw out evidence that I have and blindly believe that it didn't exist. I prefer a more scientific approach. To quote Spock (or Sherlock Holmes), "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

To get back on topic, I think the reason that vocal atheists go after the big 3, because going after the less popular religions is uncomfortable and not "cool". If you make jokes about Hindus and their thousands of gods, then you are a racist. If you make fun of a Christian or Jew, then you are "cool" and "counter-culture". ( Isn't it funny how the counter-culture-rebel groups all dress and act alike? Express your individuality by doing exactly what all your friends are.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Manchu wrote:Because a parish is a community rather than a business. Ceasing to fund your community does not achieve the intended goal. Participating in your community could do it, by contrast.

Taking your community and disassociating it from the offending overall organization could also do it. It's not unheard of. A community can exist without guidance of a corrupt hierarchy.

Redbeard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Everything you said is frankly just anti-Catholic bigotry under the guise of fake outrage.
Since when did being opposed to child molestation become bigotry? I suppose, as a non-bigot, you're in favour of molesting children?
That's a despicable argument. It's the exact equivalent of Republicans telling me that if I don't support a war in Iraq then I don't support our troops and am Un-American. It's the same thing as pro-lifers telling me that because I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare that I want to murder babies. There's no point in taking this conversation any further.

You're right, my response was over the top. But I responded in kind to someone accusing me of bigotry.

Ahtman wrote:
When you conflate membership in the Catholic Church with being a child molester it is certainly bigotry. The odds that someone in the cable company has committed a crime is quite high, but just becuase I have an internet monthly bill doesn't mean that I am complicit in it becuase part of my fees go to pay that persons salary.

Not at all. First of all, this isn't about the odds that someone committed a crime, this is about the fact that thousands of people, priests, DID commit crimes. There is no speculation involved, it's established fact. Secondly, this isn't even about the fact that people committed crimes, it's about the fact that the church leadership has been complicit in covering up these crimes. That the leaders of the organization chose to protect their errant priests rather than to dismiss them. That's why this is an endemic issue. The Boy Scouts have had troop masters convicted of these crimes - they kick them out and they're never allowed in the organization again. They don't just transfer them to a different troop, to do the same thing again.

This is not a set of isolated incidents. This is an organization that has methodically covered up the crimes of its Community leaders, and that has allowed those criminals to return to work, to molest more children.

But, I guess I'm the atheist, so I can't really have morals, this is all fake outrage and I'm a bigot.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

Tye_Informer wrote:

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Except that it doesn't.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Redbeard wrote:
Manchu wrote:Because a parish is a community rather than a business. Ceasing to fund your community does not achieve the intended goal. Participating in your community could do it, by contrast.
Taking your community and disassociating it from the offending overall organization could also do it. It's not unheard of. A community can exist without guidance of a corrupt hierarchy.

Even assuming the entire hierarchy is uniformly corrupt and of no service to the Church, the parish is the "lowest" level of organization and is the level least associated with the hierarchy -- further weakening the argument that contributing to the collection plate has anything to do with covering up sexual abuse.

But we can't not have bishops because we believe that our Church was founded by Christ according to a divine constitution and further that our Church is historical rather than mythical or psychological. Yes, bishops have done bad things. But they were still bishops. I think you'll find a fair few frescos of popes burning in Hell -- painted on the inside of churches! And fortunately the hierarchy is not really so corrupt. I think you'll find this is especially the case in the United States. The culture of contemporary American Catholicism is not only more open to reporting sexual abuse but also more open to cooperating with the civil authorities in bringing the offenders to justice. And it got that way not because people of good faith simply left the institution to the corrupt -- but rather because they were people of good faith who stayed in good faith to reform their community.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

Tye_Informer wrote:Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Agnostic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: (Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.)

Atheism is a belief in itself, agnosticism would be an absence of belief.

Lack of a belief is not in of itself a belief. I don't believe there is a teapot flying through space fighting aliens who are set on stealing all the socks in the universe. That doesn't mean that I actively go out of my way to believe that this doesn't happen; I simply don't believe it to be the case.

Frankly, I do not have the faith required to be an atheist. Becoming an atheist would require I throw out evidence that I have and blindly believe that it didn't exist. I prefer a more scientific approach. To quote Spock (or Sherlock Holmes), "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

See, I personally have not seen any evidence that god exists (certainly the "god" as portrayed in various religious texts - hell, half of the stories and characters in them are recycled from previous religions and most of the "historical figures and events" have no actual basis in known history). For me to believe in the comforting (I assume it is comforting anyway; can't really see the attraction of an all knowing "god" judging everything I do) existence of a/many god(s) I would have to throw out all the evidence that exists for the universe being able to function 100% god free. Plus, which god(s) would I choose to believe in?!?

To get back on topic, I think the reason that vocal atheists go after the big 3, because going after the less popular religions is uncomfortable and not "cool". If you make jokes about Hindus and their thousands of gods, then you are a racist. If you make fun of a Christian or Jew, then you are "cool" and "counter-culture". ( Isn't it funny how the counter-culture-rebel groups all dress and act alike? Express your individuality by doing exactly what all your friends are.)

I think you will find it has been adequately explained why the big three are "picked on" so much in the first couple of posts in this thread - you are on an English speaking board, mostly frequented by people from Western cultures where their main religious exposure will be to members of the big three. Personally I've only met a handful of people of other religions in any meaningful way and even then I know little about their actual beliefs (possibly because religion in general does not interest me, or impact on my day to day life in any way). In order to make jokes based on their religion I would have to have some knowledge of the religion to make humorous observations.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

I am afraid pretty much the entire field of biology will have to disagree with you on this point.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Tye_Informer wrote:
Atheism is just expressing an absence of belief.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Agnostic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: (Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.)

Atheism is a belief in itself, agnosticism would be an absence of belief.

Frankly, I do not have the faith required to be an atheist. Becoming an atheist would require I throw out evidence that I have and blindly believe that it didn't exist. I prefer a more scientific approach. To quote Spock (or Sherlock Holmes), "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Atheism is as much a belief system as abstinence is a sex position

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
d-usa wrote:I find the whole "You have to provide proof for your belief that an omnipotent deity created everything, but I don't have to provide any evidence that supports a universe existing without any sort of divine intervention" argument pretty dang silly.

True, you can make the argument that "you cannot prove the absence of something" although I feel that argument is flawed itself.

But if I were to be "evangelized" by an Atheist in person, I would ask for evidence that supports the existence of everything as it is today created by completely natural processes free of any divine intervention.

If Atheists can demand proof of a deity, then I should be able to demand proof of everything being created by natural processes.

On the other hand I find that religious people that throw away science are not helping us to be seen as rational folks. I do not feel that evolution being real does anything to discredit a Creator, so having Christians fight evolution just seems silly to me and gives ammunition to the "rational" folks.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

But if you assert that everything was created without a god, then you have a burden to proof your position as well.

That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person. To go into the argument with a mindset of "you have to proof how I am wrong, but I don't have to proof that you are wrong" is a complete double standard and I know notti even engage in any kind of debate with people like that.

You are asserting that "there is no god", so why should you not have to proof that. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that supports a creator. But I would assume that the evidence is not conclusive enough for you.

So there is evidence for a God, but you don't think it is enough. But you don't feel that it is your responsibility to provide any evidence for your position. Your standpoint is this: you don't have to prove that I am wrong, I have to prove that I am right.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Tye_Informer — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Atheism is as much a belief system as abstinence is a sex position

Funny sayings are funny, but that doesn't make them true.

According to Dictionary.com (the link) and the sources Dictionary.com used (go to the link and click "sources", Atheism is, and I quote, "the belief that there is no God."

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

d-usa wrote: But if you assert that everything was created without a god, then you have a burden to proof your position as well.

That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person. To go into the argument with a mindset of "you have to proof how I am wrong, but I don't have to proof that you are wrong" is a complete double standard and I know notti even engage in any kind of debate with people like that

The problem is... when the physicist comes along and shows you the evidence for how matter can come into and out of existence without any "god"... you'll have trouble understanding...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2011-07-31-stephen-hawking-creation-curiosity_n.htm

Stephan Hawking seems to think God isn't needed... but lets be honest.... how many other people on this planet can follow his mathematical proof of concept? maybe 10?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Howard A Treesong — GMT

Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Tye_Informer wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Atheism is as much a belief system as abstinence is a sex position

Funny sayings are funny, but that doesn't make them true.

According to Dictionary.com (the link) and the sources Dictionary.com used (go to the link and click "sources", Atheism is, and I quote, "the belief that there is no God."

yea cause the entire English language/dictionary.com have never been influenced by religion.

Lets also point out that Atheism was once also defined as "immorality"

But I mean if you think a concept as complex as this issue can be fully understood/defined by a one line quote from a book

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

d-usa wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
d-usa wrote:I find the whole "You have to provide proof for your belief that an omnipotent deity created everything, but I don't have to provide any evidence that supports a universe existing without any sort of divine intervention" argument pretty dang silly.

True, you can make the argument that "you cannot prove the absence of something" although I feel that argument is flawed itself.

But if I were to be "evangelized" by an Atheist in person, I would ask for evidence that supports the existence of everything as it is today created by completely natural processes free of any divine intervention.

If Atheists can demand proof of a deity, then I should be able to demand proof of everything being created by natural processes.

On the other hand I find that religious people that throw away science are not helping us to be seen as rational folks. I do not feel that evolution being real does anything to discredit a Creator, so having Christians fight evolution just seems silly to me and gives ammunition to the "rational" folks.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

But if you assert that everything was created without a god, then you have a burden to proof your position as well.

That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person. To go into the argument with a mindset of "you have to proof how I am wrong, but I don't have to proof that you are wrong" is a complete double standard and I know notti even engage in any kind of debate with people like that.

You are asserting that "there is no god", so why should you not have to proof that. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that supports a creator. But I would assume that the evidence is not conclusive enough for you.

So there is evidence for a God, but you don't think it is enough. But you don't feel that it is your responsibility to provide any evidence for your position. Your standpoint is this: you don't have to prove why I am wrong, I have to prove that I am right.

No, I'm asserting that you're assertion is wrong. You asserted something, I disagreed. And you refused to provide evidence, but kept on saying it. So, if I have to prove the Universe wasn't created by God, you need to prove the Universe wasn't created by Godzilla, Alpharius, a gorilla, Xenu and Uranus. And I'm going to call you a heretical bigot the whole time because you're discriminating against my religion.

Secondly, I DONT KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM! But because the Bible doesn't make any fething sense, it isn't that.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

LOL

PZ is a bit harsh sometimes, but he gives a good short and understandable 46 minute lecture on why "irreducible complexity" is just uninformed. Dr Behe from Lehigh university who was the source of "irreducible complexity" in his book Darwins black box even admits his idea was proved wrong.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Redbeard — GMT

Manchu wrote:
But we can't not have bishops because we believe that our Church was founded by Christ according to a divine constitution and further that our Church is historical rather than mythical or psychological.

And this appears to be the crux of the argument. At least until you realize that all the other Christian sects that split from Catholicism all believed the same thing, at least that is, until they didn't.

Luther didn't just split off because he was bored, there were very specific abuses that he was protesting. And, while the selling of indulgences was probably pretty bad, I find it hard to believe that child rape isn't worth similar consideration.

The culture of contemporary American Catholicism is not only more open to reporting sexual abuse but also more open to cooperating with the civil authorities in bringing the offenders to justice. And it got that way not because people of good faith simply left the institution to the corrupt -- but rather because they were people of good faith who stayed in good faith to reform their community.

I thought it got that way because the outside scrutiny increased. While not in America, it was only a few months ago that the man appointed by the pope to head up the Church's internal investigations into these matters was arrested for... you guessed it, child molestation.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Morathi's Darkest Sin — GMT

Joey wrote:
Okay I'll try and be patient.
Something does not exist unless there is evidence to prove it exists.
There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist.
An agnostic, however, is saying that there IS some evidence for god, but that it is not conclusive. That seems to me logically bizarre.
Also, I'd like to know what this evidence is.

Well put another way, Higgs doesn't exist at the moment in scientific terms, but they are getting close to proving it does. I'm not of the mind that Higgs cannot exist, and if it does would welcome what it has to offer us regarding scientific understanding.

My view on faith is the same, I am of the opinion that their is no solid evidence that God exists, its is likely perhaps that he doesn't, but I am open to the ideas of spirituality, and would not have an issue with the world if it was proven that a God did in fact exist.

To call my self Atheist I would be saying I 100% do not believe a God exists, however I cannot hand on heart say that.
Too much is strange in the universe, too much is unknown, how I can sit there and say with 100% certainty that a being of that power or potential doesn't exist, when our own scientists do not fully understand everything around us.
There are factors and posibilities I cannot even grasp to make such a decesion, however I do stress, I do not think 'God' is what we think it is and I do not think a 2000yr book written solidly within and of its time, is a solid gospel for modern life.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

Too many words in this thread, not enough logic. This is the problem with philosophy.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote: But if you assert that everything was created without a god, then you have a burden to proof your position as well.

That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person. To go into the argument with a mindset of "you have to proof how I am wrong, but I don't have to proof that you are wrong" is a complete double standard and I know notti even engage in any kind of debate with people like that

The problem is... when the physicist comes along and shows you the evidence for how matter can come into and out of existence without any "god"... you'll have trouble understanding...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2011-07-31-stephen-hawking-creation-curiosity_n.htm

Stephan Hawking seems to think God isn't needed... but lets be honest.... how many other people on this planet can follow his mathematical proof of concept? maybe 10?

Does physics prove that there is no God? Can you recreate the big bang, or are you relying on the mathematical formulas to calculate how things might have happened. Of course these formulas also rely on constants, and who or what made thistle constants what they are?

On Dawkins: evolution is his god, and he thinks that everything can be explained because of evolution. His position is that evolution made it beneficial to believe in a god. But if you find that evolution can make us delusional enough to think a man in the sky is real, then how do you prove that anything we believe is real?

As to science, I am not an anti-science everything is God-magic and science is the devil person. But even science plays be the rules, and these rules come from somewhere. The question would be this: is science proof that there is no God, or is science showing us traces of the tools God used to create?

You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

d-usa wrote:But if you assert that everything was created without a god, then you have a burden to proof your position as well.

That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person. To go into the argument with a mindset of "you have to proof how I am wrong, but I don't have to proof that you are wrong" is a complete double standard and I know notti even engage in any kind of debate with people like that

"God is in everything"

*grinds up everything into the smallest constituent pieces*

"Ok, there is no god in there... perhaps if we turn matter into energy and try to work things out with mathematical interpretations of how things work - hey! Let's invent entire new areas of physics like string theory"

*calculators come out*

"Ok, so god is apparently not observable in maths either..."

"So, no god in the physical universe... how about the origin of the universe"

*invents radiotelescopes and other cool gizmos and scan the skies for the echos of the big bang... invent yet more branches of mathematics*

"Ok, we have pretty much mapped out what we think happened in the first moments after the creation of the universe until now and can't see any evidence of anything being done by any god(s)... though we don't really have a great deal of information on what caused the big bang and what, if anything came before, though we have some theories..."

Religion: "AH HA! IT WAS GOD!"

*Science shakes its head and moves on to trying to figure out things about the universe rather than trying to constrain the universe within the narrow confines of dogma*

---------------------

And it comes down to what one would accept as "proof" either way... what would you accept as proof that there was no god? What would others accept as proof as no god? What would I accept as proof that there was a god? What would others?

As I mentioned in my previous post - you don't have to have direct evidence that something does not exist if the facts you do have do not support somethings existence in order for it not to exist. If you are claiming something which flies in the face of the body of evidence, then the onus is on you to prove your claims.

But as I say - what you may consider evidence, many would not. Show me a mathematical equation which demonstrates god exists based on some observed occurrence and I will take you more seriously. Show me a particle of "godonium", or a radio telescope return of god's beard... any actual physical evidence that god exists.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

d-usa wrote:That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person.

You're using the presumption that nothingness is the default. That presumption is incorrect. Even if it were correct, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which has plenty of evidence supporting it) shows that entropy is constantly and unstoppably increasing. A universe of nothingness is zero entropy, so for entropy to increase, something would have to exist. So, if you did start with an empty universe, it would immediately devolve into substance.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

d-usa wrote:
You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

I think its been shown already that your sentence above is not logically solid...

Do you believe in a tea pot orbiting Mars? Do you have faith there isn't?

How do you define faith? lets get this down first. What is Faith?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Redbeard wrote:But, I guess I'm the atheist, so I can't really have morals, this is all fake outrage and I'm a bigot.

It has nothing to do with being an atheist or morals. You conflate Catholicism with tacit support of child molestation, which is ridiculous. You can play the victim, and martyr yourself if you like, but that doesn't change that your point is still founded in some pretty specious reasoning. I'm not Christian, let alone Catholic, and I find your conclusion to be both intellectually offensive and ill considered. The Catholic Church certainly needs to address this issue and taken to task for it, but to blame all people of the Catholic faith is pants-on-head silly.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

purplefood — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

I think its been shown already that your sentence above is not logically solid...

Do you believe in a tea pot orbiting Mars? Do you have faith there isn't?

How do you define faith? lets get this down first. What is Faith?

Isn't it believing in something despite no evidence for or against it?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

d-usa wrote:You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

An invisible pink unicorn lives in my basement, where he steals my socks from the laundry. I know this to be true, and you can't prove me wrong.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
d-usa wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
d-usa wrote:I find the whole "You have to provide proof for your belief that an omnipotent deity created everything, but I don't have to provide any evidence that supports a universe existing without any sort of divine intervention" argument pretty dang silly.

True, you can make the argument that "you cannot prove the absence of something" although I feel that argument is flawed itself.

But if I were to be "evangelized" by an Atheist in person, I would ask for evidence that supports the existence of everything as it is today created by completely natural processes free of any divine intervention.

If Atheists can demand proof of a deity, then I should be able to demand proof of everything being created by natural processes.

On the other hand I find that religious people that throw away science are not helping us to be seen as rational folks. I do not feel that evolution being real does anything to discredit a Creator, so having Christians fight evolution just seems silly to me and gives ammunition to the "rational" folks.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

But if you assert that everything was created without a god, then you have a burden to proof your position as well.

That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person. To go into the argument with a mindset of "you have to proof how I am wrong, but I don't have to proof that you are wrong" is a complete double standard and I know notti even engage in any kind of debate with people like that.

You are asserting that "there is no god", so why should you not have to proof that. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that supports a creator. But I would assume that the evidence is not conclusive enough for you.

So there is evidence for a God, but you don't think it is enough. But you don't feel that it is your responsibility to provide any evidence for your position. Your standpoint is this: you don't have to prove why I am wrong, I have to prove that I am right.

No, I'm asserting that you're assertion is wrong. You asserted something, I disagreed. And you refused to provide evidence, but kept on saying it. So, if I have to prove the Universe wasn't created by God, you need to prove the Universe wasn't created by Godzilla, Alpharius, a gorilla, Xenu and Uranus. And I'm going to call you a heretical bigot the whole time because you're discriminating against my religion..

Secondly, I DONT KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM! But because the Bible doesn't make any fething sense, it isn't that.

Well, I would have assumed that this is not your first time having this conversation, so I also assumed that you have be given evidence before and found it lacking. I was working on that assumption and I am sorry if I was wrong

But seeing how you are already yelling, cursing, and made it clear that you would consider me a bigot when talking to you about my religion even though you ate attacking mine...I think there is no point even talking anymore.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Grakmar wrote:
d-usa wrote:That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person.

You're using the presumption that nothingness is the default. That presumption is incorrect. Even if it were correct, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which has plenty of evidence supporting it) shows that entropy is constantly and unstoppably increasing. A universe of nothingness is zero entropy, so for entropy to increase, something would have to exist. So, if you did start with an empty universe, it would immediately devolve into substance.

he's going to come back with the second law of thermodynamics problem now you know... and you'll point where he forgets to define the system... then he'll say "THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!"

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

An invisible pink unicorn lives in my basement, where he steals my socks from the laundry. I know this to be true, and you can't prove me wrong.

Is schrodinger's cat dead or alive?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
d-usa wrote:That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person.

You're using the presumption that nothingness is the default. That presumption is incorrect. Even if it were correct, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which has plenty of evidence supporting it) shows that entropy is constantly and unstoppably increasing. A universe of nothingness is zero entropy, so for entropy to increase, something would have to exist. So, if you did start with an empty universe, it would immediately devolve into substance.

he's going to come back with the second law of thermodynamics problem now you know... and you'll point where he forgets to define the system... then he'll say "THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!"

lol

I look forward to the day when String Theory is complete, and when someone asks: "Then why did the Big Bang happen?" I can just post a long, complex equation and say "That's why."

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

purplefood wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

I think its been shown already that your sentence above is not logically solid...

Do you believe in a tea pot orbiting Mars? Do you have faith there isn't?

How do you define faith? lets get this down first. What is Faith?

Isn't it believing in something despite no evidence for or against it?

So lack of belief in something would be not having faith right?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

An invisible pink unicorn lives in my basement, where he steals my socks from the laundry. I know this to be true, and you can't prove me wrong.

Is schrodinger's cat dead or alive?

If you understand this concept, you know the correct answer is yes.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

purplefood — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
purplefood wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

I think its been shown already that your sentence above is not logically solid...

Do you believe in a tea pot orbiting Mars? Do you have faith there isn't?

How do you define faith? lets get this down first. What is Faith?

Isn't it believing in something despite no evidence for or against it?

So lack of belief in something would be not having faith right?

Yes...
If you don't believe the Gman exists then you do not have faith in his existence...
Though Faith can be applied in other cases than simply philosophical ones...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

d-usa wrote:Is schrodinger's cat dead or alive?

Depends on how long you leave it in a small box without food, water or air, regardless of how long it takes the poison to be released

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:You cannot disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt, just as I cannot prove he exists. Even atheists have to have faith in their position.

An invisible pink unicorn lives in my basement, where he steals my socks from the laundry. I know this to be true, and you can't prove me wrong.

Is schrodinger's cat dead or alive?

Neither, which is why applying the Copenhagen interpretation to macroscale objects is stupid.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
d-usa wrote:That is a problem with your position and makes your argument a complete double standard. Unless you can proof that everything came from nothing, then you rely just as much on faith as a religious person.

You're using the presumption that nothingness is the default. That presumption is incorrect. Even if it were correct, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which has plenty of evidence supporting it) shows that entropy is constantly and unstoppably increasing. A universe of nothingness is zero entropy, so for entropy to increase, something would have to exist. So, if you did start with an empty universe, it would immediately devolve into substance.

he's going to come back with the second law of thermodynamics problem now you know... and you'll point where he forgets to define the system... then he'll say "THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!"

Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Also, as far as demanding proof that God exists: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And again, I don't have a problem with atheists. My problem is with atheists who are preoccupied with helping religious people see the light. You don't like it when people try to shove religion down your throat, but in this thread have no problem telling me that I am a bigot, delusional, and whatnot. Double standard much?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Redbeard wrote:Luther didn't just split off because he was bored ..

And others didn't stay just because we weren't. Some bishops are bad people. That doesn't make the office of bishop less essential to the divine constitution of the Church. As a Catholic, I'm not especially convinced by what Luther did.

Redbeard wrote:I thought it got that way because the outside scrutiny increased.

Just think about this logically. It was Catholics who were abused. In other countries, Catholics who were abused did not report the abuse so prolifically. The problem (i.e., clericalism) underlying the systematic attempt to cover up the abuse is the same one that prevents people from telling anyone that they've been abused. In the United States, people came forward and are coming forward. There would be no public scrutiny of the issue without those 11,000 allegations being made in the first place. The American Church was more open to acting on allegations for the same reason it was more willing to make them. Please note that I use "Church" as a Catholic. When I say Church, I include myself which may puzzle you since you want to think of it as a matter of customers and vendors.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

d-usa wrote:
And again, I don't have a problem with atheists. My problem is with atheists who are preoccupied with helping religious people see the light. You don't like it when people try to shove religion down your throat, but in this thread have no problem telling me that I am a bigot, delusional, and whatnot. Double standard much?

Annnnnd What are you doing in this thread?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

And if we ever meet and want to have a civilized discussion about religion, I will gladly sit down with a beer or coffee and talk to you. I have plenty of these talks with people that do not agree, but they ate civilized and are easier to have in person than on an online forum.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Removal of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that the universe would function entirely differently than it does now. Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

As for evidence of a creator, it would be wonderful if you'd present said evidence for peer review.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And again, I don't have a problem with atheists. My problem is with atheists who are preoccupied with helping religious people see the light. You don't like it when people try to shove religion down your throat, but in this thread have no problem telling me that I am a bigot, delusional, and whatnot. Double standard much?

Annnnnd What are you doing in this thread?

Did you read post #1?

The OP was talking about atheists having a tendency to attack the abrahamic god. It was not about which religion (or lack of) is right, although it appears that the focus of the thread is now to belittle any faith in God.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

d-usa wrote:And if we ever meet and want to have a civilized discussion about religion, I will gladly sit down with a beer or coffee and talk to you. I have plenty of these talks with people that do not agree, but they ate civilized and are easier to have in person than on an online forum.

LOL who in this thread isn't being civil?

You do realize that I went through and read all of this before i started posting... I'll just point something out... firing off a series of questions at someone is the first step to a not civilized conversation. I saw you do that right off the bat and then it seemed like you jumped off the deep end. Slow down and read what people say on here as if there is no emotion... text has little tone.

But more to what you said.... are you suggesting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is flawed? if so... how? and can you suggest a test?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And again, I don't have a problem with atheists. My problem is with atheists who are preoccupied with helping religious people see the light. You don't like it when people try to shove religion down your throat, but in this thread have no problem telling me that I am a bigot, delusional, and whatnot. Double standard much?

Annnnnd What are you doing in this thread?

Did you read post #1?

The OP was talking about atheists having a tendency to attack the abrahamic god. It was not about which religion (or lack of) is right, although it appears that the focus of the thread is now to belittle any faith in God.

ONly changed when people came in preaching. And Rule #1? how am i not being polite? I was pointing out that you're doing exactly the thing you don't like. Are you not? how is what you're doing different?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

purplefood — GMT

Manchu wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Luther didn't just split off because he was bored ..
And others didn't stay just because we weren't. Some bishops are bad people. That doesn't make the office of bishop less essential to the divine constitution of the Church. As a Catholic, I'm not especially convinced by what Luther did.

Can i ask why?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

Laughing Man wrote:Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

Shockingly enough, there's some evidence that the fundamental constants are, in fact, changing slightly over time (something that String Theory supports).

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803165
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04840.x/abstract;jsessionid=8EF37AE878589ECF3D5CBC48B6AC0DE6.d03t04
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i9/e091301

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Removal of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that the universe would function entirely differently than it does now. Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

As for evidence of a creator, it would be wonderful if you'd present said evidence for peer review.

So the laws are constant, as it should be. I see that as evidence that something made sure that the law acts the way it does in order for our existence to be possible. You can see it as evidence of random chance if you want to.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Grakmar wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

Shockingly enough, there's some evidence that the fundamental constants are, in fact, changing slightly over time (something that String Theory supports).

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803165
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04840.x/abstract;jsessionid=8EF37AE878589ECF3D5CBC48B6AC0DE6.d03t04
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i9/e091301

Those Dastardly constants!

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

d-usa wrote:Well, I would have assumed that this is not your first time having this conversation, so I also assumed that you have be given evidence before and found it lacking. I was working on that assumption and I am sorry if I was wrong

But seeing how you are already yelling, cursing, and made it clear that you would consider me a bigot when talking to you about my religion even though you ate attacking mine...I think there is no point even talking anymore.

I'd actually seriously like to see the evidence. And no, I don't consider you a bigot. The part where I said your a bigot if you try to disprove my crazy Alpharius/Godzilla religion wasn't an insult directed towards you, but rather the people who get offended when their beliefs are challenged.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Removal of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that the universe would function entirely differently than it does now. Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

As for evidence of a creator, it would be wonderful if you'd present said evidence for peer review.

So the laws are constant, as it should be. I see that as evidence that something made sure that the law acts the way it does in order for our existence to be possible. You can see it as evidence of random chance if you want to.

Are you attempting to use the "banana fits the hand arguement?"

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Removal of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that the universe would function entirely differently than it does now. Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

As for evidence of a creator, it would be wonderful if you'd present said evidence for peer review.

So the laws are constant, as it should be. I see that as evidence that something made sure that the law acts the way it does in order for our existence to be possible. You can see it as evidence of random chance if you want to.

That's not evidence, that's speculation. Now, if you'd care to actually provide evidence for a deity existing...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Removal of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that the universe would function entirely differently than it does now. Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

As for evidence of a creator, it would be wonderful if you'd present said evidence for peer review.

So the laws are constant, as it should be. I see that as evidence that something made sure that the law acts the way it does in order for our existence to be possible. You can see it as evidence of random chance if you want to.

Are you attempting to use the "banana fits the hand arguement?"

I like that argument. It's so fun to follow it up with the "pineapple is trying to kill you" argument.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

The physical "laws" of the universe can't be claimed as evidence of god - well, I can see how you could think they could be. But really: no. I can create lightning by replicating the conditions that lightning occurs in nature but that doesn't mean that all lightning is caused by some crazy scientist. Natural laws are just that; natural - inherent in how things are. There is zero need for this to have been set up by a god.

By all means, please show me evidence that it was all done by a god. Otherwise I am going to have to disagree with you (besides, we all know that the universe was created when I accidentally spilled my coke on the flux capacitor and caused the big bang to occur in the past... just thank me that I wasn't drinking lemonade!).

Also, as far as demanding proof that God exists: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence in the face of contradictory evidence is evidence of absence.

And again, I don't have a problem with atheists. My problem is with atheists who are preoccupied with helping religious people see the light. You don't like it when people try to shove religion down your throat, but in this thread have no problem telling me that I am a bigot, delusional, and whatnot. Double standard much?

I had a couple of guys knock on my door yesterday (yes, it really did happen ) - guess what they were selling (it comes on a cross and wears a loincloth). In fact I can recall quite a number of people knocking on my door at various places I have lived trying to help us poor deluded atheists to "see the light". I don't recall ever having to answer the door to someone trying to convince me that there is no god, though I've had to sit on a bus for 30 minutes trying to tell some guy to stop bothering me about his imaginary friend(s) and I've had people following me along the street trying to get me to listen to how awesome their super happy fun club is...

That is not to say that I don't get on with religious people - had a friend at university who is very active in his church; running lots of youth programs, attending pretty much every event they do, etc. We got on great, and were able to have plenty of friendly banter over religion/lack of religion if we felt like it.

Not everyone is a tool, even if they play for the other team

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Laughing Man wrote:
I like that argument. It's so fun to follow it up with the "pineapple is trying to kill you" argument.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:And if we ever meet and want to have a civilized discussion about religion, I will gladly sit down with a beer or coffee and talk to you. I have plenty of these talks with people that do not agree, but they ate civilized and are easier to have in person than on an online forum.

LOL who in this thread isn't being civil?

You do realize that I went through and read all of this before i started posting... I'll just point something out... firing off a series of questions at someone is the first step to a not civilized conversation. I saw you do that right off the bat and then it seemed like you jumped off the deep end. Slow down and read what people say on here as if there is no emotion... text has little tone.

But more to what you said.... are you suggesting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is flawed? if so... how? and can you suggest a test?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And again, I don't have a problem with atheists. My problem is with atheists who are preoccupied with helping religious people see the light. You don't like it when people try to shove religion down your throat, but in this thread have no problem telling me that I am a bigot, delusional, and whatnot. Double standard much?

Annnnnd What are you doing in this thread?

Did you read post #1?

The OP was talking about atheists having a tendency to attack the abrahamic god. It was not about which religion (or lack of) is right, although it appears that the focus of the thread is now to belittle any faith in God.

ONly changed when people came in preaching. And Rule #1? how am i not being polite? I was pointing out that you're doing exactly the thing you don't like. Are you not? how is what you're doing different?

I think it was Lone Lictor that already made it clear I am a bigot.

As to the second law, I do think that it is extremely consistent. And to me the consistency, as well as knowing that the universe would be very different if the law would be different, is evidence for a creator.

And I don't think I came into this thread attacking what atheists believe, and I am sorry I it came across this way. I was questioning why so many feel the need to prove Christians wrong (which to me fell under the theme of the OP). I will try harder to keep my responses focused in that.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
d-usa wrote:Well, I would have assumed that this is not your first time having this conversation, so I also assumed that you have be given evidence before and found it lacking. I was working on that assumption and I am sorry if I was wrong

But seeing how you are already yelling, cursing, and made it clear that you would consider me a bigot when talking to you about my religion even though you ate attacking mine...I think there is no point even talking anymore.

I'd actually seriously like to see the evidence. And no, I don't consider you a bigot. The part where I said your a bigot if you try to disprove my crazy Alpharius/Godzilla religion wasn't an insult directed towards you, but rather the people who get offended when their beliefs are challenged.

I think ya missed my post because it was at the end of the previous page, so I'm quickly quoting it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
d-usa wrote:Well, I would have assumed that this is not your first time having this conversation, so I also assumed that you have be given evidence before and found it lacking. I was working on that assumption and I am sorry if I was wrong

But seeing how you are already yelling, cursing, and made it clear that you would consider me a bigot when talking to you about my religion even though you ate attacking mine...I think there is no point even talking anymore.

I'd actually seriously like to see the evidence. And no, I don't consider you a bigot. The part where I said your a bigot if you try to disprove my crazy Alpharius/Godzilla religion wasn't an insult directed towards you, but rather the people who get offended when their beliefs are challenged.

I think ya missed my post because it was at the end of the previous page, so I'm quickly quoting it.

Sorry, I did miss that. Must have jumped from page to page when I typed a response.

And I like to debate things and I don't think I have a problem with having my system challenged. It is just hard to discuss things online with many people at the same time.

My original intend in this thread was honestly to ask the "why do some atheists try to convert religious folk" question. Separate from the "are they right/wrong" question, that is just something that I never understood.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

d-usa wrote:I was questioning why so many feel the need to prove Christians wrong (which to me fell under the theme of the OP).

I don't know about the others here, but I'm not trying to "prove" only Christians (of whatever flavour) "wrong" - I'm trying to get anyone, anywhere, to give any evidence and proof for the existence of god... any god.

You may feel persecuted because most people here will have grown up with Christianity being the biggest religious influence on their life. I know that probably 95+% of the people I know will be in one of three groups - atheist, agnostic or Christian. The other <5% will be a mix of Muslims, Jews and possibly some other assorted religious groupings. This kind of skews the debate as people will talk about what they know.

I would imagine that you would find it hard to argue from the point of view of other religions vis the existence of god, justification of specific beliefs etc... instead you speak as a Christian - because that is what you know, and that is what the vast majority of other people in the debate will know.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

purplefood wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Luther didn't just split off because he was bored ..
And others didn't stay just because we weren't. Some bishops are bad people. That doesn't make the office of bishop less essential to the divine constitution of the Church. As a Catholic, I'm not especially convinced by what Luther did.
Can i ask why?

About Luther? The Catholic Church is the community that descends from the group of Apostles that Jesus himself picked. That's not to say nothing has changed since Jesus walked on Earth or that Jesus foresaw what the Church would be like millennia after his death. But we see ourselves in historical continuity. The two thousand years between us and the gospels aren't empty. What happened in all of that time is meaningful. Luther and the other reformers wanted to root through all of that history and distinguish between "good ideas" and "bad ideas" regardless of historical context. They wanted what was right for all people and for all times. And they failed, as they were bound to. Christianity is not just a set of ideas that float in our minds. Those ideas are inextricably bound up with practices, experiences, human lives.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Howard A Treesong — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
d-usa wrote:Actually, I would ask what makes the second law absolute? For it to apply, and I believe it is valid, we still have to rely on cosmic constants acting the same way every time. Nature has to act a certain way for the law to be valid. I cannot point to God and say "look, there he is", but there is evidence of a creator in what we see around us.

Removal of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that the universe would function entirely differently than it does now. Given that we can see billions of years into the past due to the speed of light, and the laws still apply to those ancient objects, it's irrational to believe that those laws have changed.

As for evidence of a creator, it would be wonderful if you'd present said evidence for peer review.

So the laws are constant, as it should be. I see that as evidence that something made sure that the law acts the way it does in order for our existence to be possible. You can see it as evidence of random chance if you want to.

This is a logical fallacy. For a start we don't know the probability of the universe forming the way it has. Either the requirements are very specific, or universal laws are very flexible for life. But regardless of the odds involved the fact that we are here simply means the event had to successfully occur. We can't observe unsuccessful universes. If the universe hadn't formed then we wouldn't be able to observe the alternative outcome. The fact that we are here to even make the observation requires that it had to happen regardless of the probabilities involved.

Thus you can't claim that the fact we exist is proof that we had to be artificially made, because the only way we can make an observation of the outcome of this improbable event is where it occurs successfully. The odds of a person finding that their own universe is suitable for life is always 1/1. Has to be, it's impossible to find out their own universe doesn't support life because they wouldn't exist.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Totalwar1402 — GMT

In response origional question

Well, yes.

I mean personally I'am not of any real religious conviction at all. Never been to Church, don't follow any of the readings and whilst I think a lot of Christian morality was secularized a long time ago I don't term my morals religious. Since I was baptized I would still accept the identity of Catholic, however lukewarm, simply as a matter of family identity and acknowledging its Irish roots. But in my experience anyone who goes out of their way to proclaim themselves atheist and insist on telling everyone around them how they hate religion is IMO just a cry for attention. This isn't the Eighteenth Century, religion has long been divorced from public life or the state, whilst the writers of the enlightenment already made enough victriolic attacks on Christianity to make any further discussion simply hot air. In fact, I would say that anti-christian feeling is more simply a cover for being Islamophobic since they have a more religious society than in the West and their religion is blamed for extremism. There are much more pressing issues for civil society to concern itself with like poverty, unemployment than declaring yourself atheist and opposing an impotent Church that also can't do anything save hurl its own hot air about. It is a waste of time and breath. I once had a mate who would just go on into loud rants at the table about how religion was and eventually I asked him to stop because I got sick of it causing pointless bickering with those who were religious at the table. When it gets to the point where you can't actually play 40k or an RPG then its just ridiculous to see among otherwise like-minded people.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

SilverMK2 wrote:
d-usa wrote:I was questioning why so many feel the need to prove Christians wrong (which to me fell under the theme of the OP).

I don't know about the others here, but I'm not trying to "prove" only Christians (of whatever flavour) "wrong" - I'm trying to get anyone, anywhere, to give any evidence and proof for the existence of god... any god.

I think to me it would also depend on why we are having this conversation. If it just organically came up, then I would not see a problem with having it. If an atheist comes up to me knowing that I am Christian, and with the sole goal of proving me wrong, then I have a problem. And I think many atheists would feel the same if they were targeted by Christians that way, and I know that many are. But there are atheists that specifically target believers of the other religions, and that is what puzzles me. If that makes sense.

I would imagine that you would find it hard to argue from the point of view of other religions vis the existence of god, justification of specific beliefs etc... instead you speak as a Christian - because that is what you know, and that is what the vast majority of other people in the debate will know.

True.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

d-usa wrote:I think to me it would also depend on why we are having this conversation. If it just organically came up, then I would not see a problem with having it. If an atheist comes up to me knowing that I am Christian, and with the sole goal of proving me wrong, then I have a problem. And I think many atheists would feel the same if they were targeted by Christians that way, and I know that many are. But there are atheists that specifically target believers of the other religions, and that is what puzzles me. If that makes sense.

Sure, it is always a pain to be bothered by people, especially if they are going to try and force their beliefs on you. Outside of the issue being raised I'm happy to live and let live and most people of any stripe seem to be much the same. You will always find someone who wants to rock the boat or make a point at the expense of someone else... even if their point is to reinforce to themselves that "the other side" are close minded idiots who don't listen to their awesome reasoning skillz.

Edit: Fixed quotes

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

flaws Like?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

flaws Like?

What was the 'spark' that started it. How did the first cell get made. We have a theory for it...but no proof.

Evolution is very believable, all thats required is to rectify how it started (much like the universe itself).

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

flaws Like?

What was the 'spark' that started it. How did the first cell get made. We have a theory for it...but no proof.

Evolution is very believable, all thats required is to rectify how it started (much like the universe itself).

Eh, as long as you're not trying to say it doesn't happen...

Spark = lightning or other discharge which naturally occur in nature...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

While yes i Agree we have no clue if this is the exact thing that happened, It is one of several natural means for this to take place... the important thing is it didn't take a "god" to do it

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

flaws Like?

What was the 'spark' that started it. How did the first cell get made. We have a theory for it...but no proof.

Evolution is very believable, all thats required is to rectify how it started (much like the universe itself).

Eh, as long as you're not trying to say it doesn't happen...

Spark = lightning or other discharge which naturally occur in nature...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

While yes i Agree we have no clue if this is the exact thing that happened, It is one of several natural means for this to take place... the important thing is it didn't take a "god" to do it

I studied an Evolutionary Biology course as part of my Parasitology degree. I know how likely the theory is.

however they haven't yet been able to assemble a fully-working proto-cell from using a discharge. Until a journal article is released showing this, it should be discredited. It sounds good in theory, but with no actual cells formed this way, it is sceptical.

Most people forget that current evolution knowledge does leave a possibility that a divine creator was the spark (in the absence of anything to fuel the beginning of life). To disprove this, we need better models.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

flaws Like?

What was the 'spark' that started it. How did the first cell get made. We have a theory for it...but no proof.

Evolution is very believable, all thats required is to rectify how it started (much like the universe itself).

Eh, as long as you're not trying to say it doesn't happen...

Spark = lightning or other discharge which naturally occur in nature...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

While yes i Agree we have no clue if this is the exact thing that happened, It is one of several natural means for this to take place... the important thing is it didn't take a "god" to do it

I'm glad some one said that frgsinwntr.
...Divine Spark...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Ribon Fox wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Evolution is an interesting theory, however it falls apart even in the in-between steps.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

Oh dear. That fact that you drum up the "irreducible complexity" argument with the example of the flagella (makes a slight change from the eyeball I suppose) tells me you don't know much about the subject at all. Seriously, pick up a book.

He uses a bad example, but there are definite flaws in aspects of Evolution that will need to rectified with evidence, even though its the best theory at the moment.

flaws Like?

What was the 'spark' that started it. How did the first cell get made. We have a theory for it...but no proof.

Evolution is very believable, all thats required is to rectify how it started (much like the universe itself).

Eh, as long as you're not trying to say it doesn't happen...

Spark = lightning or other discharge which naturally occur in nature...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

While yes i Agree we have no clue if this is the exact thing that happened, It is one of several natural means for this to take place... the important thing is it didn't take a "god" to do it

I'm glad some one said that frgsinwntr.
...Divine Spark...

You do know what he said isn't correct right? Without the ability to replicate an origin of life in a closed environment, its impossible to confirm if its true or not.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

less serious

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis as the origin of life is unproven (though Occam's Razor makes it tough for us religious folks to make a convincing argument). The process of evolution is as theoretical as gravity.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

I'm looking at the whole picture. I said evolution is as true as we can get. The flaw however is that we don't know how life started with makes evolution a bit pointless in establishing the beginning of life.

Why bother worrying about evolution until we know how it started?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

I agree with Mr. Hyena. Evolution is just a part of the puzzle, not the sole answer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could have also said soul answer.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Yet we're not discussing biology as a whole in the thread. We're discussing the origin of life which is fundamental to one of the main clashes between religion and science.

Now if your going to discuss Micro/Para/Virology, Evolutionary Studies or Zoology as examples, then yes, Evolution is the big cornerstone of biology and origin of life irrelevant.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

purplefood — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Yet we're not discussing biology as a whole in the thread. We're discussing the origin of life which is fundamental to one of the main clashes between religion and science.

Now if your going to discuss Micro/Para/Virology, Evolutionary Studies or Zoology as examples, then yes, Evolution is the big cornerstone of biology and origin of life irrelevant.

I congratulate you on repeating everything Mannahnin said but making it longer...

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:The flaw however is that we don't know how life started with makes evolution a bit pointless in establishing the beginning of life.

Thankfully "How did life begin?" isn't a particularly important question.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Pointless post deserves a pointless answer.

Thankfully "How did life begin?" isn't a particularly important question.

True. Its only important for those who cannot see Science and the idea of a God as currently compatible.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Really? so, for an example, if you had all the parts to make a computer,,,except the processor in the mother board, would that work? clumsy comparison, but look at the body, a collection of chemical minerals same as the planet, the stars etc, and so forth, yet here it is we each thinking and debating in spite of evidence to support we should all just be lumps of the matter or soup with enough water. No one ever seriously looks at that. Based on what has been posted, that assembly of the materials and hitting it with electricity get's no reaction, no life starts, nothing. Because something i missing? and here we have a ongoing process that helps to foster improvements into the life we see, and you discount the origins of how it all began? May as well buy a car w/o a transmission for all that is worth! Things do not exist in a "vacuum"

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

shasolenzabi wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Really? so, for an example, if you had all the parts to make a computer,,,except the processor in the mother board, would that work? clumsy comparison, but look at the body, a collection of chemical minerals same as the planet, the stars etc, and so forth, yet here it is we each thinking and debating in spite of evidence to support we should all just be lumps of the matter or soup with enough water. No one ever seriously looks at that. Based on what has been posted, that assembly of the materials and hitting it with electricity get's no reaction, no life starts, nothing. Because something i missing? and here we have a ongoing process that helps to foster improvements into the life we see, and you discount the origins of how it all began? May as well buy a car w/o a transmission for all that is worth! Things do not exist in a "vacuum"

In your metaphor the CPU is the brain, not the origin of life.
More accurate to say that you don't need to know how a Turing Machine works to program a windows computer. Sure it's interesting, but it's not relevant.
Oh and there are no flaws in the theory of evolution. You don't need to observe every single atom to know that radioactivity occurs, you don't need every single fossil to know evolution happened.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

Well, I did say it was a clumsy analogy at best

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Joey wrote:
shasolenzabi wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Really? so, for an example, if you had all the parts to make a computer,,,except the processor in the mother board, would that work? clumsy comparison, but look at the body, a collection of chemical minerals same as the planet, the stars etc, and so forth, yet here it is we each thinking and debating in spite of evidence to support we should all just be lumps of the matter or soup with enough water. No one ever seriously looks at that. Based on what has been posted, that assembly of the materials and hitting it with electricity get's no reaction, no life starts, nothing. Because something i missing? and here we have a ongoing process that helps to foster improvements into the life we see, and you discount the origins of how it all began? May as well buy a car w/o a transmission for all that is worth! Things do not exist in a "vacuum"

In your metaphor the CPU is the brain, not the origin of life.
More accurate to say that you don't need to know how a Turing Machine works to program a windows computer. Sure it's interesting, but it's not relevant.
Oh and there are no flaws in the theory of evolution. You don't need to observe every single atom to know that radioactivity occurs, you don't need every single fossil to know evolution happened.

But you do need proof to say that the origin of life was not by a divine spark.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
Joey wrote:
shasolenzabi wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Evolution is a cornerstone of biology.

The origin of life, while important to this thread, is practically irrelevant to its importance.

Really? so, for an example, if you had all the parts to make a computer,,,except the processor in the mother board, would that work? clumsy comparison, but look at the body, a collection of chemical minerals same as the planet, the stars etc, and so forth, yet here it is we each thinking and debating in spite of evidence to support we should all just be lumps of the matter or soup with enough water. No one ever seriously looks at that. Based on what has been posted, that assembly of the materials and hitting it with electricity get's no reaction, no life starts, nothing. Because something i missing? and here we have a ongoing process that helps to foster improvements into the life we see, and you discount the origins of how it all began? May as well buy a car w/o a transmission for all that is worth! Things do not exist in a "vacuum"

In your metaphor the CPU is the brain, not the origin of life.
More accurate to say that you don't need to know how a Turing Machine works to program a windows computer. Sure it's interesting, but it's not relevant.
Oh and there are no flaws in the theory of evolution. You don't need to observe every single atom to know that radioactivity occurs, you don't need every single fossil to know evolution happened.

But you do need proof to say that the origin of life was not by a divine spark.

Do you have any proof that it WAS?
Then we can assume nothing about the origin of life.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mr Hyena — GMT

Do you have any proof that it WAS?
Then we can assume nothing about the origin of life.

Exactly. Which means a Deity and Science is compatible, contrary to what many militant atheists think (Though not all athiests).

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

I think that we may wind up finding out that there is a merging somewhere between the two, one thing did the start, the other keeps it propped up and helping make changes in life. Based on some things I have read, we all should just be like a live version of a zombie, wandering about making noise and feeding, nothing more. no designs, no making things, just wandering about eating. Or just not being at all.
The soul is what drives these suits of meat and bone about in my opinion. The brain is the interface between body and soul. Damage that and control is lost. rag doll time.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:

Do you have any proof that it WAS?
Then we can assume nothing about the origin of life.

Exactly. Which means a Deity and Science is compatible, contrary to what many militant atheists think (Though not all athiests).

I've read the Bible. I miss the part where it says "Basically the only thing we beleive is that God created life ages ago". It's not.
People don't blow themselves up in the name of deism.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

shasolenzabi wrote:Well, I did say it was a clumsy analogy at best

The origins of life are not known for sure. But there's an awful tendency of people who don't understand and who oppose evolution to think this means that the mechanisms and evidence of evolution itself are as mysterious and undocumented as the origins of life. When of course evolution is a process we've witnessed and documented in action and is about as much a known factor to any modern understanding of biology as gravity is to any modern sense of astophysics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, just getting briefly back to something from earlier in the thread posted while I was at work:

Wolfstan wrote:I stumbled across an interesting concept the other week when watching The Question on BBC1. Basically there was a vicar on there who said he had friends that followed the words of Christ, but weren't believers, which I thought was a cool twist.

It makes sense as a lot of what he preached was ok, it helps us all get along together as a society. The good stuff, look out for each other, be kind and such like. Take away his background and it could be any guy 2,000 thousand years ago reflecting on life.

Thomas Jefferson makes good company.

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

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

The more I read these threads, I find the problem is that people don't end up arguing so much for atheism or for various religions, but they end up arguing against pluralism. Pluralism isn't just something to put up with, it's a wonderful thing that allows people of all kinds of beliefsets to engage in conversations, and these conversations (the good ones at least) shouldn't just let us know how other people think, they should let a different perspective reveal something about the way we think as well.

We should look to explain our own views, and welcome discussion of various elements of our own belief sets. Instead, unfortunately, we seem more interested in giving arguments why other people are wrong.

Mr Hyena wrote:Why bother worrying about evolution until we know how it started?

Because evolution is of overwhelming scientific importance. Whether or not we know for certain that life began with something like a lightning strike, or even if that is flat out wrong and really was a divine spark from God, we do know that evolution is powerful predictor of the development of species after that. It is essential in predicting and controlling the evolution of drug resistant bacteria, for instance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:But you do need proof to say that the origin of life was not by a divine spark.

Sure, but you don't need to know the origin of life was a purely mechanistic for evolution to be incredibly useful in explaining modern day events.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
True. Its only important for those who cannot see Science and the idea of a God as currently compatible.

And even then only for theists.

Particularly ardent atheists (people who believe there is no God/god) generally aren't concerned with how life, or the universe, began so much as they're concerned with how much they hate a particular religion.

I say particular because, in my experience, very few atheists take offense to Hinduism, Judaism, or anything that isn't Christianity or Islam.

Of course, strictly speaking, "Is there a God?" isn't a very important question either.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

To answer the main question. Hardcore Atheism as we see displayed in western culture rails against the Abrahamic God because this is the God that they are most directly exposed to. I have listened to many of the hard core athiests (Madalyn Murray Ohare', Richard Dawkins,Christopher Hitchins, Dan Barker..etc.etc.) in debates, and most of their arguments boil down to nonscientific, philosophical, emotional rejections of God, where logic is usually lacking. A lot of their arguments relate to the "problem of evil", and their lack of understanding around it.

The bottom line to me is that western culture allows this debate mainly because we are based on Judeo Christian ethics and tolerance for hearing of different ideas(not that we agree all the time). I mean can you see someone like Madelyn Murray Ohare, or Chistopher Hitchens living longer than 10 minutes in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

generalgrog wrote:A lot of their arguments relate to the "problem of evil", and their lack of understanding around it.

Speaking to Hitchens, it isn't that he doesn't understand the problem of evil, its that he rejects all of the replies to it.

generalgrog wrote:
The bottom line to me is that western culture allows this debate mainly because we are based on Judeo Christian ethics and tolerance for hearing of different ideas(not that we agree all the time).

Ah yes, the attempt to claim tolerance as a uniquely Christian value.

The cycle is now complete.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

generalgrog wrote:To answer the main question. Hardcore Atheism as we see displayed in western culture rails against the Abrahamic God because this is the God that they are most directly exposed to. I have listened to many of the hard core athiests (Madalyn Murray Ohare', Richard Dawkins,Christopher Hitchins, Dan Barker..etc.etc.) in debates, and most of their arguments boil down to nonscientific, philosophical, emotional rejections of God, where logic is usually lacking. A lot of their arguments relate to the "problem of evil", and their lack of understanding around it.

Pretty much. I'd recommend just not listening to those people, like I'd recommend not listening to Ken Ham or David Barton. Their basic drive is to force a division between us and them, and I don't think produce any useful dialogue as a result.

The bottom line to me is that western culture allows this debate mainly because we are based on Judeo Christian ethics and tolerance for hearing of different ideas(not that we agree all the time). I mean can you see someone like Madelyn Murray Ohare, or Chistopher Hitchens living longer than 10 minutes in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

There's no Judeo-Christian ethic for freedom of speach. Nor is such a thing unique to countries with Christian backgrounds. As I pointed out earlier, India's first Prime Minister was atheist, and that country has an impressive cultural value of plurality.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

I'd love to hear a non laughable Christian defense of evil. I have one I consider decent, but I've yet to hear a Christian come up with a logically sound defense.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Howard A Treesong — GMT

Failing to explain the origin of life is not a flaw in evolutionary theory because it doesn't address it. Abiogenesis and Evolution are quite different things.

Also Evolution in itself is very important. To say it isn't because we haven't confirmed the origin is just ignorant. Evolution is related to genetics and hereditary and understanding mutation. I've come across the odd person in science who is a creationist and they don't 'get' things like cladistic diagrams and issues in population genetics... it makes things very difficult to discuss any complex issues.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Howard A Treesong wrote:Also Evolution in itself is very important. To say it isn't because we haven't confirmed the origin is just ignorant.

Yeah, it's a bit like saying we haven't proved the Big Bang so do we really need physics.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Private_Joker — GMT

Does anyone even see any future for religion? I mean if you're a politician you surely shouldn't be allowed any of your views to influence the countries best interests. Look at gay marriage in Australia, it has an amazing amount of support but it's being stopped at the political level where members of parliment don't dare to touch the subject for it offends the minority of voters and bench members.

I really want to see a few national votes done on the long standing issues like abortion and homosexual rights. So sick to death of hearing polls of massive support on something then the government does a complete backflip of what the people actually want. Look at what happened with Kevin Rudd for example.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
What they do have is a proven record of pedophilia and child abuse.

As does children's orphanages.

See, here's the thing; just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean God did it. You could just as easily say, "I don't know what happened, so Godzilla did it" or "I don't know what happened, so Alpharius did it". Furthermore, if you assert something, you need to provide evidence. Christians are the ones asserting. They assert, "There's a god." Well, show me evidence. However, if I assert, "There's no evidence" you can't tell me that I have to find evidence for you.

People tend to forget that Science has no answer to how life started however. Evolution is proven to be pretty much as correct a theory as we can get...but we cannot figure out how it started. It is possible there was a 'Divine Spark' but there is just as much evidence for it as any Scientific theory.

Surely it is better just to admit the futility of it all and proclaim ignorance rather than go out on a limb and suggest 'well the cosmos was probably made by *blank, I can't verify this for certain and do not have the means to do it, but I feel qualified to make this statement.'

This applies just as much to scientists, though, admittedly, it's their job to proclaim man knows everything.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Da Boss — GMT

It's my job to proclaim man knows everything now? Really? And here I thought my job was to determine models for explaining phenomena based on carefully evaluated tests designed to give a clear result.

Thanks for clearing that up Henners, your version sounds a lot easier!

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Da Boss wrote:It's my job to proclaim man knows everything now? Really? And here I thought my job was to determine models for explaining phenomena based on carefully evaluated tests designed to give a clear result.

Thanks for clearing that up Henners, your version sounds a lot easier!

Just think of all the extra time you have for converting and painting armies now!

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

Mr Hyena wrote:
You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

I'm looking at the whole picture. I said evolution is as true as we can get. The flaw however is that we don't know how life started with makes evolution a bit pointless in establishing the beginning of life.

Why bother worrying about evolution until we know how it started?

Why bother worrying about any scientific knowledge of any kind whatsoever until we know how it (the universe) started?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

reds8n — GMT

Private_Joker wrote:Does anyone even see any future for religion?

Yes.

I think it's fairly undeniable that the concept "has legs", so to speak.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Albatross — GMT

According to Joey, because we don't know how the universe started, it never did. Or some bollocks.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

reds8n wrote:
Private_Joker wrote:Does anyone even see any future for religion?

Yes.

I think it's fairly undeniable that the concept "has legs", so to speak.

Seems pretty dire here in Western Europe though.

Does faith really exist even among a lot of our theists? So many apathetic types... and amongst the young it seems taboo to me. I have no idea how many people are secretly theists, but there are many agnostics and atheists... definitely weird to out and out proclaim yourself religious.

At least, that's how I've seen it in my short life..

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

reds8n — GMT

Do you not think you might be confusing any waning of the dominance of the Christian church in Western Europe with a decline of religious belief in general.

One would suggest that we see all manner of fringe or somewhat... unusual.. belief systems being espoused by people.

Although I will grant you that, in the UK anyway, religious belief in general is normally expressed in far less bombastic ways than elsewhere in the world.

.. still.. foreigners eh !

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Henners91 wrote:
Does faith really exist even among a lot of our theists? So many apathetic types... and amongst the young it seems taboo to me.

I suspect "apathetic" describes the vast majority of believers of all stripes throughout history, whether religious or not.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

sebster wrote:

There's no Judeo-Christian ethic for freedom of speach. Nor is such a thing unique to countries with Christian backgrounds. As I pointed out earlier, India's first Prime Minister was atheist, and that country has an impressive cultural value of plurality.

Help me out here sebster...are there any outspoken hardecore athiest apologists from India? The only ones I can think of may be some gurus? I could have missed one though.

GG

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Ah yes, the attempt to claim tolerance as a uniquely Christian value.

The cycle is now complete.

As a supposed logistician your logic seems to fail quite a bit. Please logically show how my post posits tolerance as a "uniquely Christian value"

I simply implied that when you compare western cultures attitude of tolerance compared to some cultures, specifically some modern Islamic cultures, tolerance has been influenced by Christianity.

We all are aware that in times past States following Christianity have been less than tolerant and states claiming Islam have been very tolerant.

Please keep in mind I am referring to the modern context.

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

generalgrog wrote:
As a supposed logistician your logic seems to fail quite a bit. Please logically show how my post posits tolerance as a "uniquely Christian value"

I simply implied that when you compare western cultures attitude of tolerance compared to some cultures, specifically some modern Islamic cultures, tolerance has been influenced by Christianity.

We all are aware that in times past States following Christianity have been less than tolerant and states claiming Islam have been very tolerant.

Please keep in mind I am referring to the modern context.

Simple, to be unique is not necessarily to be the only one. You implied that Western tolerance is the characteristic (unique) result of Christian influence. I disagree. I don't consider tolerance of any sort to be related to religion of any kind in any significant manner.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Yak9UT — GMT

Most Atheist myself included don't really care about religion to go parading around and tell everyone else they are wrong.

Richard Dawkins in my oppinion is not a Athiest because of his fanatisism on athieism that he goes around telling people they are wrong for what they believe in.

Personally I don't care for what a person believes in so long as the indvidual isn't doing bad things because of his/her religion (ie killing apostates because they don't belive in thier religion.)

Frankly I do find it odd that alot of schools in Amercia don't teach Evolution because some people don't believe in it.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Manchu — GMT

Are there public schools in the US that don't teach about evolution?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

AustonT — GMT

Manchu wrote:Are there public schools in the US that don't teach about evolution?

There may be, I seem to remember that there was some who ha about in in the Southeast in the none to distant past.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

More from Mr Tim Minchin
Probably NSFW

In fact there NSTW but pertinent to the thread

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

Yak9UT wrote:Frankly I do find it odd that alot of schools in Amercia don't teach Evolution because some people don't believe in it.

I don't know of any public schools that don't teach evolution. In Kentucky, they avoid using the word "evolution" and refer to the concept as "change over time", but they still teach it.

There have been plenty of times when school boards or states have attempted to remove the teaching of evolution, or to teach creationism. But, they typically either get voted out of office immediately after this, or the courts overturn them.

My favorite quote (from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District from a Judge who was a creationist before the case) said "We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents."

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

Albatross wrote:According to Joey, because we don't know how the universe started, it never did. Or some bollocks.

No...
Someone said "We don't know how the universe started therfore god did it"
That's clearly bs and I called it.
End of.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

Joey wrote:
Albatross wrote:According to Joey, because we don't know how the universe started, it never did. Or some bollocks.

No...
Someone said "We don't know how the universe started therfore god did it"
That's clearly bs and I called it.
End of.

Not end of. You wrote...

Joey wrote:Okay I'll try and be patient.
Something does not exist unless there is evidence to prove it exists.
There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist.

Which is ridiculous, and it was the worst use of "therefore" ever, thanks to the fact that every word before it was demonstrably wrong. My nephew would have spotted it and he is 8, thanks to the very simple and obvious fact that we constantly discover things! We didn't know about nylon eating bacteria until the 1970s or something. gak doesn't vanish from existence if we here on planet earth in our own unfashionable corner of the cosmos haven't happened to discover it yet. I think that Alby was referring to that wasn't he?

And he should have, because what you said was absolutism and that's almost always a bit silly. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't think that there is "definitely nothing" out there, he just thinks its very very unlikely!

There must be millions of things that exist and we don't have any evidence for, it doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Life on other planets is a majorly obvious one in my eyes. I mean, there has to be right?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

There is evidence for life on other planets.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

The alternative to nothing being true until it is proven to be true, is...what, exactly? The only sane way of looking at the universe is "absolutist". If we cannot assume untruth from a lack of evidence, how can we assume untruth about anything? Or, for that matter, truth itself about anything?
If it is true that 2+2=4, then it cannot be true that God exists. If you wish to break with this, and say that evidence is not itself a nessesary condition for truth, then of course god's existance becomes possible, but so does everything else, and suddenly nothing is true.
That's my take on it, anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is evidence for life on other planets.

The existance of bacteria on other planetory bodies isn't particularly interesting. Maybe it has some scientific value I'm not aware of.
The existance of developed, large organisations, however, would be incredibly interesting. But it's also very unlikely.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

If proved the value would be that the Earth is not the only place where life has evolved. I.e. it could be all over the place.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:There is evidence for life on other planets.

Indeed, but I was more on about traditional aliens, you know.. intelligent humanoid types like on Star Trek more than bacteria or spores or whatever it was we recently found on mars or in the water on Titan or in asteroids or whatever. Uncountable numbers of planets mean that there pretty much has to be a full blown Spock type somewhere right!?

Joey wrote:The alternative to nothing being true until it is proven to be true, is...what, exactly? The only sane way of looking at the universe is "absolutist". If we cannot assume untruth from a lack of evidence, how can we assume untruth about anything? Or, for that matter, truth itself about anything?
If it is true that 2+2=4, then it cannot be true that God exists. If you wish to break with this, and say that evidence is not itself a nessesary condition for truth, then of course god's existance becomes possible, but so does everything else, and suddenly nothing is true.
That's my take on it, anyway.

Of course, your entitled to your opinion, I was just pointing out the problem with that particular statement.

I don't agree that being an absolutist is the only sane way of looking at things though, you know how aggressively I argue against following the teachings of very old books too dogmatically, but you can follow the evidence that points to a God type entity being very unlikely without drawing a line in the sand and insisting that there is definitely nothing at all out there anywhere and there never ever will be surely?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

mattyrm wrote:
Of course, your entitled to your opinion, I was just pointing out the problem with that particular statement.

I don't agree that being an absolutist is the only sane way of looking at things though, you know how aggressively I argue against following the teachings of very old books too dogmatically, but you can follow the evidence that points to a God type entity being very unlikely without drawing a line in the sand and insisting that there is definitely nothing at all out there anywhere and there never ever will be surely?

If you're saying that then the only real difference in opinion is in personalities - some people express themselves in absolutes, some don't. One of the reasons Richard Dawkins isn't very persuasive is he says things like "There probably is no god". This just sounds weak. Like that atheist bus campaign that had that as its slogan, wasn't to win very many people round.
You can validly say "there is no God" but you can NOT say "God will never be proved to exist", in the same way that you COULD say "Flat Earth Theory will never be proven to be correct". One of them has been disproved by an opposing theory (an allele, if you like), the other hasn't been, and probably never will be.
The only reason this was bought up is because somebody used that (you can't disprove god didn't make the universe therefore he did) in some spurious argument, which is all well and good until you remember that these people run many of our schools. I myself went to a Catholic school and therefore got pretty much naff all sex education, not that we really needed it mind.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Henners91 wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Private_Joker wrote:Does anyone even see any future for religion?

Yes.

I think it's fairly undeniable that the concept "has legs", so to speak.

Seems pretty dire here in Western Europe though.

Does faith really exist even among a lot of our theists? So many apathetic types... and amongst the young it seems taboo to me. I have no idea how many people are secretly theists, but there are many agnostics and atheists... definitely weird to out and out proclaim yourself religious.

At least, that's how I've seen it in my short life..

You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

Frazzled wrote:You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

wikipedia wrote:In the United States[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Not relating to actual growth of religions, but the growth of non-religious groups.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

wikipedia wrote:In the United States[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Not relating to actual growth of religions, but the growth of non-religious groups.

Thats right now. Other populations are growing fast.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Private_Joker wrote:Does anyone even see any future for religion?

Yes. It provides an answer to challenging questions that many find fulfilling.

So sick to death of hearing polls of massive support on something then the government does a complete backflip of what the people actually want. Look at what happened with Kevin Rudd for example.

Stop pretending Kevin Rudd was popular. Go and look at his approval ratings when he was ousted. Seriously, reality matters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Help me out here sebster...are there any outspoken hardecore athiest apologists from India? The only ones I can think of may be some gurus? I could have missed one though.

The point is you wouldn't need an outspoken atheist, because you don't have the same religious culture in India that assumes religious uniformity.

That's not to say India is a wonderfully tolerant utopia, did you see the freakout when Richard Gere kissed that girl in public? Just to say that on religion India has a basic assumption of letting people believe what they want to believe, far more so than in montheistic faiths.

The culture we have produces outspoken atheists (read donkey-caves like Dawkins) and outspoken theists (read donkey-caves like like Ken Ham). Because there is a basic assumption here that someone is right and someone is wrong, and we ought to do battle to figure out who's right. It isn't like that everywhere in the world.

I simply implied that when you compare western cultures attitude of tolerance compared to some cultures, specifically some modern Islamic cultures, tolerance has been influenced by Christianity.

We all are aware that in times past States following Christianity have been less than tolerant and states claiming Islam have been very tolerant.

Please keep in mind I am referring to the modern context.

GG

But looking at purely the modern context ignores the development of liberal ideas (in the old school meaning of liberal) that changed a Christian society that didn't look that different from many Islamic societies of the time. There was nothing particularly Christian in the new calls for tolerance, it just happened to occur there, and not somewhere else.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

I had a couple of guys knock on my door yesterday (yes, it really did happen ) - guess what they were selling (it comes on a cross and wears a loincloth). In fact I can recall quite a number of people knocking on my door at various places I have lived trying to help us poor deluded atheists to "see the light". I don't recall ever having to answer the door to someone trying to convince me that there is no god, though I've had to sit on a bus for 30 minutes trying to tell some guy to stop bothering me about his imaginary friend(s) and I've had people following me along the street trying to get me to listen to how awesome their super happy fun club is...

That is not to say that I don't get on with religious people - had a friend at university who is very active in his church; running lots of youth programs, attending pretty much every event they do, etc. We got on great, and were able to have plenty of friendly banter over religion/lack of religion if we felt like it.

Not everyone is a tool, even if they play for the other team

That gives me an idea, I should dress up like like a scientist (still have my lab coat somewhere, studied chemical science) with a friend and visit religious folk and try and sell science!
That would be fun XD

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

wikipedia wrote:In the United States[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Not relating to actual growth of religions, but the growth of non-religious groups.

Thats right now. Other populations are growing fast.

If I were feeling crass I might ask if there's a correlation between the rise of non-religious types and living standards/education...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

frgsinwntr — GMT

Henners91 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

wikipedia wrote:In the United States[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Not relating to actual growth of religions, but the growth of non-religious groups.

Thats right now. Other populations are growing fast.

If I were feeling crass I might ask if there's a correlation between the rise of non-religious types and living standards/education...

I'd like to "feel" crass too....

But I am interested in how you'd support that claim? is it... that the more religious countries around the world have the lowest gains in standard of living?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Henners91 — GMT

frgsinwntr wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

wikipedia wrote:In the United States[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Not relating to actual growth of religions, but the growth of non-religious groups.

Thats right now. Other populations are growing fast.

If I were feeling crass I might ask if there's a correlation between the rise of non-religious types and living standards/education...

I'd like to "feel" crass too....

But I am interested in how you'd support that claim? is it... that the more religious countries around the world have the lowest gains in standard of living?

Well, if I am told that Christianity is growing, then I have to admit that my mind casts itself to some typical African village somewhere with a soaring population, low standards of education and little in the way of life prospects.

Of course that may be a patronising and ignorant view that comes off the back of very little reading on the subject, but it seems like the strong 'bastions' of Christianity that escape problems of apathy are to be found in the less developed regions.

I don't know if I'd hypothesise that a lack of faith necessarily derives solely from education, there's probably a greater weight towards materialism. Perhaps peoples' needs are sufficiently met that they do not need to appeal to a deity; either as a means of escapism or as smothering their material wants: 'Oh, I need not lament that I do not own a Porsche/iPod because in heaven I shall sleep in a big pile of them.'

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
It's amusing to see creationists attempt to use the scientific method to "disprove" evolution and the big bang, but don't apply the same standards to religion. Of course there was not a camera with 12 scientists standing around to capture the first moments of life on the planet. It happened millions of years ago. But neither is there documented evidence that someone named Jeshua ever rode an ass into Jerusalem, etc, or even ever existed. Stories written by unknown hands decades after the events they supposedly portray and collected by an individual hundreds of years after the supposed events to compile a "bible" isn't evidence of anything other than stories can have a life of their own. But we do have an archeological record for evolution.

There is just as much evidence that there is a Santa Claus as there is for Yahweh. A lot has been written about them both, but no one has ever seen one.

To deny evolution is to deny the entire endeavor of science. You may as well deny airplanes, microwave ovens, and velcro.

There was nothing before the big bang occurred, as there was no time before it occurred. (time stops in the presence of something so massive and dense) Nothing caused it to happen, it just happened. It's also amusing to see creationists that recognize the advances of science but can't reconcile them with what they want to believe declare that their god pushed the Big Bang Now button.

The building blocks of life are prevalent in the universe, so life itself is almost inevitable. Nature took roughly 13.7 billion years to create humans, after a long trail of happy accidents (as far as we are concerned. if things had happened differently, some other creature would be posting on dakka debating ITS origins). I personally get great satisfaction from the knowledge that I am composed of matter left over after the big bang, reorganized by stars that blew their matter across the universe when they came to the end of their lives. I don't need a supposed white-haired grandfatherly type person sitting on a golden throne in a nebulous heaven that supposedly cares about what I do or don't do, or which sports team wins it's championship title.

As for Fox and "ill", perhaps self-delusion would have been a better diagnosis. Because it takes self-delusion to ignore the advances of science to believe in something with no evidence whatsoever instead.

Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

Regards,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

If there is an Abrahamic God, why does he deserve to be worshiped?

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Amaya wrote:If there is an Abrahamic God, why does he deserve to be worshiped?

To give us strength to put up with your posts?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

You were doing so well and then you had to go and show how little know very little about religion. At the very least you are letting your emotions make your view of what religion is and isn't very narrow and ill informed. It is just as bad as the religious people who criticize science but have a very narrow understanding of it. You wield the word like a madman with a cudgel.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

Amaya wrote:If there is an Abrahamic God, why does he deserve to be worshiped?

Because it so far has stopped the spread of hell on earth solely to the existence of Texas? A feat worthy of worship if ever there was one...

*pokes Frazz*

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

No, its a theory.

People that claim otherwise don't understand the distinction.

Of course, it doesn't help that "theory" is on the list of most often misunderstood English words.

Phanatik wrote:
There was nothing before the big bang occurred, as there was no time before it occurred.

Funny, I know physicists that don't exhibit such certainty.

Phanatik wrote:
Because it takes self-delusion to ignore the advances of science to believe in something with no evidence whatsoever instead.

So...much...irony...

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

SilverMK2 wrote:
Amaya wrote:If there is an Abrahamic God, why does he deserve to be worshiped?

Because it so far has stopped the spread of hell on earth solely to the existence of Texas? A feat worthy of worship if ever there was one...

*pokes Frazz*

Or, it prevents the Wiener Dog takeover of the universe. (I for one bow down before our WienerDog overlords.)

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

You were doing so well and then you had to go and show how little know very little about religion. At the very least you are letting your emotions make your view of what religion is and isn't very narrow and ill informed. It is just as bad as the religious people who criticize science but have a very narrow understanding of it. You wield the word like a madman with a cudgel.

Ahtman used "cudgel" in a post.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

You were doing so well and then you had to go and show how little know very little about religion. At the very least you are letting your emotions make your view of what religion is and isn't very narrow and ill informed. It is just as bad as the religious people who criticize science but have a very narrow understanding of it. You wield the word like a madman with a cudgel.

In your eagerness to call me a cudgel wielding madman, you forgot to show how anything you quoted was incorrect, other than your personal denunciation (which I'm certain is treated as the "gospel" in some part of the universe). And, for the record, I don't own a cudgel. I have 1 sword, 1 bayonet-knife, several knives, a pair of nunchaku, and an 117lb Labrador Retriever with large teeth.

Best,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

SilverMK2 wrote:
Amaya wrote:If there is an Abrahamic God, why does he deserve to be worshiped?

Because it so far has stopped the spread of hell on earth solely to the existence of Texas and Australia? A feat worthy of worship if ever there was one...

*pokes Frazz*

Corrected your typo.

Wait does that mean wiener dogs are little demon dogs? It answers so much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Amaya wrote:If there is an Abrahamic God, why does he deserve to be worshiped?

Because it so far has stopped the spread of hell on earth solely to the existence of Texas? A feat worthy of worship if ever there was one...

*pokes Frazz*

Or, it prevents the Wiener Dog takeover of the universe. (I for one bow down before our WienerDog overlords.)

When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannfred wrote:

I had a couple of guys knock on my door yesterday (yes, it really did happen ) - guess what they were selling (it comes on a cross and wears a loincloth). In fact I can recall quite a number of people knocking on my door at various places I have lived trying to help us poor deluded atheists to "see the light". I don't recall ever having to answer the door to someone trying to convince me that there is no god, though I've had to sit on a bus for 30 minutes trying to tell some guy to stop bothering me about his imaginary friend(s) and I've had people following me along the street trying to get me to listen to how awesome their super happy fun club is...

That is not to say that I don't get on with religious people - had a friend at university who is very active in his church; running lots of youth programs, attending pretty much every event they do, etc. We got on great, and were able to have plenty of friendly banter over religion/lack of religion if we felt like it.

Not everyone is a tool, even if they play for the other team

That gives me an idea, I should dress up like like a scientist (still have my lab coat somewhere, studied chemical science) with a friend and visit religious folk and try and sell science!
That would be fun XD

That would be funny, right up until I remembered you were on my lawn. (sound of Remington pumping).

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:...other than your personal denunciation (which I'm certain is treated as the "gospel" in some part of the universe).

So, after personally denouncing a thing, you're going to personally denounce another thing by alluding to the notion that personally denouncing things is bad.

You are Socrates reincarnated, truly.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

You were doing so well and then you had to go and show how little know very little about religion. At the very least you are letting your emotions make your view of what religion is and isn't very narrow and ill informed. It is just as bad as the religious people who criticize science but have a very narrow understanding of it. You wield the word like a madman with a cudgel.

In your eagerness to call me a cudgel wielding madman, you forgot to show how anything you quoted was incorrect, other than your personal denunciation (which I'm certain is treated as the "gospel" in some part of the universe). And, for the record, I don't own a cudgel. I have 1 sword, 1 bayonet-knife, several knives, a pair of nunchaku, and an 117lb Labrador Retriever with large teeth.

Best,

I suppose I could help teach you something any fourth graders knows, mainly that there are a myriad of ways religion expresses itself today and throughout history, and that your statement doesn't begin to show an understanding of that variety, but in all honesty I can't really see the point. With your zealous nature I imagine it would be like trying to convince someone from Westboro Baptist Church that being gay doesn't actually cause hurricanes.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

You were doing so well and then you had to go and show how little know very little about religion. At the very least you are letting your emotions make your view of what religion is and isn't very narrow and ill informed. It is just as bad as the religious people who criticize science but have a very narrow understanding of it. You wield the word like a madman with a cudgel.

In your eagerness to call me a cudgel wielding madman, you forgot to show how anything you quoted was incorrect, other than your personal denunciation (which I'm certain is treated as the "gospel" in some part of the universe). And, for the record, I don't own a cudgel. I have 1 sword, 1 bayonet-knife, several knives, a pair of nunchaku, and an 117lb Labrador Retriever with large teeth.

Best,

Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Frazzled wrote:Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

The dog doesn't know it, but he's going to take the first bullet. After that, the bayonet goes in...

Best,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

The dog doesn't know it, but he's going to take the first bullet. After that, the bayonet goes in...

Best,

What if they have like a repeater, semi, or pump action?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

PhantomViper — GMT

Henners91 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're thinking Christianity. Other religions seem to be growing just fine.

wikipedia wrote:In the United States[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Not relating to actual growth of religions, but the growth of non-religious groups.

Thats right now. Other populations are growing fast.

If I were feeling crass I might ask if there's a correlation between the rise of non-religious types and living standards/education...

There is.

Religion relies on a lack of education to thrive. Its original purpose was after all to explain all the unexplained wonders that surrounded humanity as well as act as some sort of moral guidelines that could be understood by all.

As soon as people get some education they realise that gods work didn't have anything to do with it in the first place and their need for religion drops accordingly.

In African and middle eastern countries where the educational levels are lower, religion is expanding, in western countries where education levels are higher, religion is becoming obsolete. Since in African and Middle Eastern countries the predominant religion is Islam, Islam is growing and since is western countries the predominant religion is Christianity, Christianity is shrinking...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

Frazzled wrote: Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

And, never bring a knife to a fist fight. So, knives are always pretty worthless.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:Religion relies on a lack of education to thrive.

Except that is not true at all. Fanaticism does, but religion in general does not.

PhantomViper wrote:Its original purpose was after all to explain all the unexplained wonders that surrounded humanity as well as act as some sort of moral guidelines that could be understood by all.

Considering the age of religion and the huge differences in religion from area to area (for instance, some aren't worried about morals) it seems odd to try and pretend at a specific origin for all religion. You seem to have a lot of faith in your position to feel so sure of something so complex.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:I suppose I could help teach you something any fourth graders knows, mainly that there are a myriad of ways religion expresses itself today and throughout history, and that your statement doesn't begin to show an understanding of that variety, but in all honesty I can't really see the point. With your zealous nature I imagine it would be like trying to convince someone from Westboro Baptist Church that being gay doesn't actually cause hurricanes.

I never knew that the fourth grade is the threshold to knowledge. I must have been out that day.

Do fourth graders know that what you quoted but denounced could be included in those myriad of ways? I suppose I could have taken the time to express each and every way religion expresses itself to please you, but gee, I don't have the time. The UPS man just delivered a copy of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms, vol. 1" and I'd rather invest my time reading that. B&N is truly Santa Claus!

Regards,

P.S. Everyone knows that George Bush causes hurricanes.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Do fourth graders know that what you quoted but denounced could be included in those myriad of ways? I suppose I could have taken the time to express each and every way religion expresses itself to please you, but gee, I don't have the time. The UPS man just delivered a copy of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms, vol. 1" and I'd rather invest my time reading that. B&N is truly Santa Claus!

So, you said something ill-considered and ironic, and now you're backpedaling to save your own ego.

This is, of course, not any sort of emotional defense mechanism, or "crutch".

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

And, never bring a knife to a fist fight. So, knives are always pretty worthless.

Unless they are Swiss Army knives of course. You never need one util you don't have one.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

The dog doesn't know it, but he's going to take the first bullet. After that, the bayonet goes in...

Best,

What if they have like a repeater, semi, or pump action?

You should see my dog's teeth. Impressive. So large and pearly white, you can read by them at night. In comparison, I'm just a non-threatening puddy-tat. So, why the dog buys the farm, the bayonet goes in. In theory, at least. (hah hah, I said theory in this thread).

Best,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

The dog doesn't know it, but he's going to take the first bullet. After that, the bayonet goes in...

Best,

What if they have like a repeater, semi, or pump action?

You should see my dog's teeth. Impressive. So large and pearly white, you can read by them at night. In comparison, I'm just a non-threatening puddy-tat. So, why the dog buys the farm, the bayonet goes in. In theory, at least. (hah hah, I said theory in this thread).

Best,

My wiener dogs' breath smells like dead bait thats been left on the pier for a few days, and ass. If its Tbone make that old man ass.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I suppose I could help teach you something any fourth graders knows, mainly that there are a myriad of ways religion expresses itself today and throughout history, and that your statement doesn't begin to show an understanding of that variety, but in all honesty I can't really see the point. With your zealous nature I imagine it would be like trying to convince someone from Westboro Baptist Church that being gay doesn't actually cause hurricanes.

I never knew that the fourth grade is the threshold to knowledge. I must have been out that day.

It wouldn't surprise me. I guessed at the general age when kids have a good grasp on the fact that not all things are the same and that there are different people out there, but really I suppose I could have picked any elementary grade.

Phanatik wrote:I suppose I could have taken the time to express each and every way religion expresses itself to please you, but gee, I don't have the time.

You also don't have the knowledge base either, going by the things you say and the way you say them.

Phanatik wrote:The UPS man just delivered a copy of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms, vol. 1" and I'd rather invest my time reading that.

As my Chinese professor said of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, if you aren't reading it in the original language, you aren't really reading it. Afterwards maybe you can read more on physics and religion and come back with more accurate assessments of both.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Frazzled wrote:My wiener dogs' breath smells like dead bait thats been left on the pier for a few days, and ass. If its Tbone make that old man ass.

Would that be considered a biological or chemical deterrent?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Just remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

And, never bring a knife to a fist fight. So, knives are always pretty worthless.

Unless they are Swiss Army knives of course. You never need one util you don't have one.

Who needs a knife in a nuke fight?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My wiener dogs' breath smells like dead bait thats been left on the pier for a few days, and ass. If its Tbone make that old man ass.

Would that be considered a biological or chemical deterrent?

Nuclear.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:Afterwards maybe you can read more on physics and religion and come back with more accurate assessments of both.

Well, as far as physics goes, I'm currently reading:

The Principia (in the original english, which may or may not satisfy your chinese professor)
Celestial Mechanics, The Waltz of the Planets
From Here to Eternity, The quest for the ultimate theory of time
The Grand Design
Constructing Reality, Quantum Theory and Particle Physics
The Elegant Universe and
Why does E=mc(squared)?

I also have an extensive library on religion. I know more about the origins of the christian faith than probably 95% of its practitioners.

I'm sorry if this doesn't do it for you.

Regards,

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My wiener dogs' breath smells like dead bait thats been left on the pier for a few days, and ass. If its Tbone make that old man ass.

Would that be considered a biological or chemical deterrent?

Nuclear.

Would that be: [youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzfN6bI70fE[/youtube]

or

Chekov: [to a street cop] Excuse me, sir! Can you direct us to the naval base in Alameda? It's where they keep the nuclear wessels.
[He pauses, looks at Uhura, and tries again]
Chekov: *Nuclear wessels*

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
I also have an extensive library on religion. I know more about the origins of the christian faith than probably 95% of its practitioners.

So, instead of exhibiting knowledge, you just claim to have it.

How wonderful.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Afterwards maybe you can read more on physics and religion and come back with more accurate assessments of both.

Well, as far as physics goes, I'm currently reading:

Again, if we just go by what you have written, I would say that you are confusing reading those books with having them on your book shelf.

Why would a Chinese History professor approve or disapprove of a non-Chinese text? It doesn't even make any sense. Maybe you misunderstood the context initially.

I do have a question though: did you copy and paste that list of books off of Barnes and Nobles or Amazon?

Phanatik wrote:I know more about the origins of the christian faith than probably 95% of its practitioners.

I don't believe you, nor would any reasonable person. I imagine you know more than some, but no more than 95% of all Christians. I do believe that you believe that, and that you have a need to believe it, for some reason.

Phanatik wrote:I'm sorry if this doesn't do it for you.

What does or does not do things for me isn't really important, but if you must know, Archer, airing Thursdays on FX, does do it for me. That show is hilarious.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

The origin of Christianity and the Torah aren't exactly complex in a broad sense.

Most Christians and Jews operate under the belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch/Torah, when in truth the Documentary Hypothesis is probably correct.

I'm pretty sure the average Christian is blissfully unaware that each of the gospels was written with a specific audience in mind that the author desired to convert instead of being the pure, untainted, WoG.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Afterwards maybe you can read more on physics and religion and come back with more accurate assessments of both.

Well, as far as physics goes, I'm currently reading:

The Principia (in the original english, which may or may not satisfy your chinese professor)
Celestial Mechanics, The Waltz of the Planets
From Here to Eternity, The quest for the ultimate theory of time
The Grand Design
Constructing Reality, Quantum Theory and Particle Physics
The Elegant Universe and
Why does E=mc(squared)?

I also have an extensive library on religion. I know more about the origins of the christian faith than probably 95% of its practitioners.

I'm sorry if this doesn't do it for you.

Regards,

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My wiener dogs' breath smells like dead bait thats been left on the pier for a few days, and ass. If its Tbone make that old man ass.

Would that be considered a biological or chemical deterrent?

Nuclear.

Would that be: [youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzfN6bI70fE[/youtube]

or

Chekov: [to a street cop] Excuse me, sir! Can you direct us to the naval base in Alameda? It's where they keep the nuclear wessels.
[He pauses, looks at Uhura, and tries again]
Chekov: *Nuclear wessels*

Chekov of course, or more preeisly pre-Bester.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Afterwards maybe you can read more on physics and religion and come back with more accurate assessments of both.

Well, as far as physics goes, I'm currently reading:

Again, if we just go by what you have written, I would say that you are confusing reading those books with having them on your book shelf.

Why would a Chinese History professor approve or disapprove of a non-Chinese text? It doesn't even make any sense. Maybe you misunderstood the context initially.

I do have a question though: did you copy and paste that list of books off of Barnes and Nobles or Amazon?

Phanatik wrote:I know more about the origins of the christian faith than probably 95% of its practitioners.

I don't believe you, nor would any reasonable person. I imagine you know more than some, but no more than 95% of all Christians. I do believe that you believe that, and that you have a need to believe it, for some reason.

Phanatik wrote:I'm sorry if this doesn't do it for you.

What does or does not do things for me isn't really important, but if you must know, Archer, airing Thursdays on FX, does do it for me. That show is hilarious.

Sheldon, are you still having trouble with sarcasm?

No, I walked upstairs and grabbed the stack of books next to my bed. I neglected to bring:
The 4% Universe (about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc)
and also non-physics:
The Poetic Edda (in it's non-original english)
Deep Ancestry, Inside the Genographic Project
also:
The Shattering (a WoW book)
Game of Thrones

This is what I have next to the bed for light reading.

Archer, huh? That explains a lot.

Regards,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

All of your opinions are null and void due to the fact you have admitted to acquiring and reading a WoW book.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Frazzled wrote:Chekov of course, or more preeisly pre-Bester.

Sheldon notwithstanding, an excellent sci-fi series.

Mrs. Phanatik gets so mad at Bester when we watch an episode. I remind her it's chekov, it's chekov!

Best,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Chekov of course, or more preeisly pre-Bester.

Sheldon notwithstanding, an excellent sci-fi series.

Mrs. Phanatik gets so mad at Bester when we watch an episode. I remind her it's chekov, it's chekov!

Best,

Nah He's much more insidious as Bester. He plays a nice bad guy.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
...and also non-physics:

I'm wondering why any possible knowledge of physics (which you have not exhibited) has any bearing on any possible knowledge of religion.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

The thing is that either you have actually read all those books and learned absolutely nothing from them, you just have those books and think that alone makes you smart, or you are just making all this up in an attempt to look cool on the interwebs.

And yes, enjoying Archer explains a lot about how awesome my taste in television shows are. You should see my list of favorite places to buy cupcakes.

What happened to you not having time to respond becuase you were so busy opening the delivery box of a book you ordered so you could reference the title in an attempt to appear cultured and erudite?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

PhantomViper — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:Religion relies on a lack of education to thrive.

Except that is not true at all. Fanaticism does, but religion in general does not.

Except that it does. For an actual example I reference you to the actual examples that I provided.

Ahtman wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Its original purpose was after all to explain all the unexplained wonders that surrounded humanity as well as act as some sort of moral guidelines that could be understood by all.

Considering the age of religion and the huge differences in religion from area to area (for instance, some aren't worried about morals) it seems odd to try and pretend at a specific origin for all religion. You seem to have a lot of faith in your position to feel so sure of something so complex.

I don't care if some are worried with morals or not, that was not the main point of that sentence.

The point is: religion was created to explain the unexplainable, as people get more educated and learn about the actual reasons for how things are the way they are, religion looses its main purpose and is dropped.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:Except that it does.

How do account for people who are both educated and religious?

/braces for arbitrary definition of "educated."

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Statistical outliers? Individuals unable to shake off religious indoctrination in youth? Individuals who believe they can logically explain and defend it (such as C.S. Lewis)?
Individuals who use it to control others?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:The point is: religion was created to explain the unexplainable, as people get more educated and learn about the actual reasons for how things are the way they are, religion looses its main purpose and is dropped.

If that is your conviction so be it. That doesn't make it so, but who am I to stand in the way of your pilgrimage to better understanding the world you live in. If you need to have a very narrow understanding of the subject, one that is both broad and as old as humanity, well, I guess we all have doctrines we cling to to get a grasp on this short existence.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

Wow, whodda thunk it, we got bored all those aeons ago, pushed stuff out, and now debates like these a raging all across the place, of course so much safer and less bloody than crusades. Glad I made it to this life level to witness it all.

But what about the bloody wars about how to go about atheism in the future? How to stop the otters and humans from killing each other then?

Well, anyway, can't clean it all up, gotta let it play out as is, and see how things go, After things got going, we had to have some things work out to help the story flow better, evolution, the whole expansion of the Universe, the whole dance of the place the music plays on, and the folks attempt to learn what they can each life-time.

Meanwhile the battle rages between the religions of Religosity/Non-religion/and Science.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:The thing is that either you have actually read all those books and learned absolutely nothing from them, you just have those books and think that alone makes you smart, or you are just making all this up in an attempt to look cool on the interwebs.

And yes, enjoying Archer explains a lot about how awesome my taste in television shows are. You should see my list of favorite places to buy cupcakes.

What happened to you not having time to respond becuase you were so busy opening the delivery box of a book you ordered so you could reference the title in an attempt to appear cultured and erudite?

I said I was currently reading them all, in response to your quip that I needed to read up on physics and religion. I listed them to show that you don't really know what you are talking about, have no clue as to the level of my erudition, and have yet to actually refute a single point I've made. To be honest, I'm re-reading The Grand Design, because it's a really excellent read. As an aside, please point me to this interwebs you speak of. Does it have something to do with spiders?

As for responding, again you didn't comprehend what I typed. I said that I didn't have time to list every way religion expresses itself for you, and that I'd rather spend time with the new book. I suppose in order to not appear to be uppity, but just a regular lunkhead, I could have said it was the new Archer DVDs that were delivered. That would not offend anyone.

Regards,

P.S. If you wish, I'm certain you have these books and more (as I do) no doubt sitting around (next to your The Simpsons and Rugrats DVDs) so feel free to test me on page/paragraph/line/word whenever you like. That would at least prove they are not simply on amazon. well, to everyone but you maybe.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
P.S. If you wish, I'm certain you have these books and more (as I do) no doubt sitting around (next to your The Simpsons and Rugrats DVDs) so feel free to test me on page/paragraph/line/word whenever you like. That would at least prove they are not simply on amazon. well, to everyone but you maybe.

I was dragged by the Wife and Genghis Connie to see the RugRats movie many years ago. Did you know that if you try to choke yourself to death with an improvized noose made fomr a soda straw in the theater:
1. It won't work, you won't even pass out.
2. The Wife however will throw you a serious elbow.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
P.S. If you wish, I'm certain you have these books and more (as I do) no doubt sitting around (next to your The Simpsons and Rugrats DVDs) so feel free to test me on page/paragraph/line/word whenever you like. That would at least prove they are not simply on amazon. well, to everyone but you maybe.

I was dragged by the Wife and Genghis Connie to see the RugRats movie many years ago. Did you know that if you try to choke yourself to death with an improvized noose made fomr a soda straw in the theater:
1. It won't work, you won't even pass out.
2. The Wife however will throw you a serious elbow.

Men give up so much we when agree to get married.
I no doubt have much in store for me, as we have a 3 year old Tyrant. Thanks for the heads-up on that straw thingy. It will save me time.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide.

Sure, if you define religion only as that.

However, it doesn't seem to make sense. Religion and technology have evolved in concert. People were worshiping sky gods while they were lighting fires and drawing bows.

Phanatik wrote:
Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are.

Yes, it is. However, drugs, alcohol, and religion are not the only "crutches". Friendship is one, beliefs are another, really everything and anything is such a crutch. Picking one particular such crutch out from the others is obnoxious to a ridiculous degree.

Phanatik wrote:
Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again.

Not all religious people believe in an afterlife.

This points to your ignorance regarding the topic.

Phanatik wrote:
Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

Sure, but politics functions the same way, so does violence, and really just life.

You don't seem to have considered this very much. Sad, really.

Phanatik wrote:
P.S. If you wish, I'm certain you have these books and more (as I do) no doubt sitting around (next to your The Simpsons and Rugrats DVDs) so feel free to test me on page/paragraph/line/word whenever you like. That would at least prove they are not simply on amazon. well, to everyone but you maybe.

This is priceless in its self-righteousness.

A grown, seemingly married, man posting on a forum about toy soldiers is impugning a fellow poster for watching cartoons.

fething priceless.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

I think he's specifically referring to the "Big Three" Abrahamic religions which do all believe in some form of afterlife.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Amaya wrote:I think he's specifically referring to the "Big Three" Abrahamic religions which do all believe in some form of afterlife.

If that's the case, then he has further indicated ignorance regarding what religion is.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

How so? In the context of the thread all that matters are atheism and Abrahamic religions.

Interestingly, I know a few Christians (including Pastors) who don't consider Christianity a religion.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Amaya wrote:How so? In the context of the thread all that matters are atheism and Abrahamic religions.

He specifically went on a tangent about religion, was called on it, and didn't narrow his argument.

Not that it would have helped.

Amaya wrote:
Interestingly, I know a few Christians (including Pastors) who don't consider Christianity a religion.

Yeah, I know that argument. Christianity isn't a religion, its a relationship.

Its not a good argument.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:have no clue as to the level of my erudition

Actually we have your own words and how you present yourself. See? You don't even know what proof is. I also don't need to test you as already have done a fine job of showing you don't have a mastery of the material.

Phanatik wrote:and have yet to actually refute a single point I've made.

Sure I have, and I'm not the only one. Your baseless narrow minded opinions don;'t really require much in the way of time or energy to see why they are problematic on even a basic level.

Phanatik wrote:As an aside, please point me to this interwebs you speak of. Does it have something to do with spiders?

Humorless to boot? More evidence.

Phanatik wrote:you didn't comprehend what I typed.

Again, back to your need to believe things to be true more it being important than it actually being true.

Phanatik wrote:I suppose in order to not appear to be uppity, but just a regular lunkhead, I could have said it was the new Archer DVDs that were delivered. That would not offend anyone.

It wasn't that something was delivered that was problematic, or even offensive. Though I am not shocked that the point was lost on you. Plus you had to start using children's taunts? Not very sophisticated. In all honesty though I would have nailed you for the type to use the word Luddite becuase you think it makes you sound smarter than others. In the end your just another hobby gamer invested in their own sense of the absolute superior knowledge when in reality they have no earthly reason to think it.

I'm also certain someone professing to be a fan of The Big Bang Theory has much room to criticize what anyone watches. It also doesn't make sense to target the Simpsons either. In it's best seasons it is considered one of the best shows in television history, and outside that one the best loved and longest lasting even when it is somewhat weak. As for Rugrats I couldn't really offer an opinion since I have never seen it but I have heard that it is a decent little cartoon for kids, so it doesn't make sense to bring it up again, unless you are arguing that well made television shows should be watched by other people, which seems an odd thing point to make.

Phanatik wrote: well, to everyone but you maybe.

If that is what you need to feel to get through the day, I heartily endorse it. If in your world it helps to pretend I am just some drooling lunkhead and that is what flicks your bean I think you should embrace that. I wouldn't want you to pain yourself with honest self reflection.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Slavery is a great basis for a relationship.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:I'm also certain someone professing to be a fan of The Big Bang Theory has much room to criticize what anyone watches.

Forgetting the rest of the drivel you've typed, I'm shocked (shocked I say) that you would pooh pooh The Big Bang Theory yet express your fondness for Archer! It must be pathological.

Regards,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Both of those shows are terrible.

Ahtman wins because he quotes TJ every now and again.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Wolfstan — GMT

First Council of Nicaea - AD325. Basically all the main "Christian" groups got together, wheeled, dealed and stabbed each other in the back all in the name of consolidating everything. A few more meetings and they got all the creases ironed out and all agreed to sign from the same hymn sheet... so to speak

I know it's abroad generalisation but how does this make any of the Christian religion believable? A group of ancient power brokers got together and came to an agreement, that's not religion, that's manipulation. I'm dire at remembering the detail, but I'm sure there has been programs that have revealed writings of that time that were ignored as they didn't fit in with the message that wanted to put across.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I'm also certain someone professing to be a fan of The Big Bang Theory has much room to criticize what anyone watches.

Forgetting the rest of the drivel you've typed

And there you go again stooping so low. A smarter, better read person could be so much more creative. This isn't that hard.

Phanatik wrote:I'm shocked (shocked I say) that you would pooh pooh The Big Bang Theory yet express your fondness for Archer!

I didn't make a qualatative statemnt about TBBT, but point out that it isn't a solid base from which one can look down at all other television. I also have to wonder if you've ever actually watched Archer, as you don't seem , like much of what you say, to have a real grasp on how to criticize it other than to assume that since I watch it, that it must be bad somehow.

Phanatik wrote:It must be pathological.

Well now I question your knowledge of Psychology.

The phonetic pronunciation of your name seems very appropriate at the moment.

A Phanatik is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. [attributed to Winston Churchill]

In all fairness I think this line of conversation was played out some responses ago. I have no doubt you'll have a pathological need to get the last word in, and that fine, but I think I will call it a day as far as this little tete-a-tete is concerned.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:I also have to wonder if you've ever actually watched Archer, as you don't seem , like much of what you say, to have a real grasp on how to criticize it other than to assume that since I watch it, that it must be bad somehow.
The phonetic pronunciation of your name seems very appropriate at the moment.

A Phanatik is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. [attributed to Winston Churchill]

I didn't say Archer was bad because you watch it. It's previews during commercial breaks tells me all I need to know about it. I can feel it trying to suck the I.Q. points out of my head. I can imagine someone falling asleep while watching it turning into a vegetable.

Old Winnie isn't really high up on my world statesman list. And, I doubt he was referring to me in any case.

Best,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Grakmar — GMT

Wolfstan wrote:First Council of Nicaea - AD325. Basically all the main "Christian" groups got together, wheeled, dealed and stabbed each other in the back all in the name of consolidating everything. A few more meetings and they got all the creases ironed out and all agreed to sign from the same hymn sheet... so to speak

I know it's abroad generalisation but how does this make any of the Christian religion believable? A group of ancient power brokers got together and came to an agreement, that's not religion, that's manipulation. I'm dire at remembering the detail, but I'm sure there has been programs that have revealed writings of that time that were ignored as they didn't fit in with the message that wanted to put across.

From the religious perspective, that's not at all hard to explain. God manipulated events so that they would eventually all agree to the things God wanted them to.

If you reject that explanation, you're probably also rejecting the idea of a God that interacts with human events, and so you're already pretty closed to the idea of the biblical God.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Wolfstan wrote:First Council of Nicaea - AD325. Basically all the main "Christian" groups got together, wheeled, dealed and stabbed each other in the back all in the name of consolidating everything. A few more meetings and they got all the creases ironed out and all agreed to sign from the same hymn sheet... so to speak

I know it's abroad generalisation but how does this make any of the Christian religion believable? A group of ancient power brokers got together and came to an agreement, that's not religion, that's manipulation. I'm dire at remembering the detail, but I'm sure there has been programs that have revealed writings of that time that were ignored as they didn't fit in with the message that wanted to put across.

I believe at that council they also voted to make Jeshua divine. No self-respecting cult, eh, religion could possibly have as it's center personality a mere mortal. It would lack gravitas.

Regards,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
I didn't say Archer was bad because you watch it. It's previews during commercial breaks tells me all I need to know about it. I can feel it trying to suck the I.Q. points out of my head.

I like how Phanatik went from reading books about physics, and therefore being qualified to discuss religion (while making fundamental errors regarding physics), to being right because his interlocutor watches a TV show he doesn't like.

Truly, a paragon of intellectual integrity.

Phanatik wrote:
I believe at that council they also voted to make Jeshua divine. No self-respecting cult, eh, religion could possibly have as it's center personality a mere mortal. It would lack gravitas.

Yeah, totally, Muslims regard Muhammad as divine, and Mormons see Joseph Smith (and Jesus) the same way.

If you aren't a troll, you are the single least knowledgeable person I have ever encountered, at least with respect to religion. To the point where you don't know what you don't know.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Wolfstan — GMT

Grakmar wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:First Council of Nicaea - AD325. Basically all the main "Christian" groups got together, wheeled, dealed and stabbed each other in the back all in the name of consolidating everything. A few more meetings and they got all the creases ironed out and all agreed to sign from the same hymn sheet... so to speak

I know it's abroad generalisation but how does this make any of the Christian religion believable? A group of ancient power brokers got together and came to an agreement, that's not religion, that's manipulation. I'm dire at remembering the detail, but I'm sure there has been programs that have revealed writings of that time that were ignored as they didn't fit in with the message that wanted to put across.

From the religious perspective, that's not at all hard to explain. God manipulated events so that they would eventually all agree to the things God wanted them to.

If you reject that explanation, you're probably also rejecting the idea of a God that interacts with human events, and so you're already pretty closed to the idea of the biblical God.

I see... win win for religion then. They had this meeting because "God" inspired them to have it. Brilliant, no solid proof either way, win again. If I said that you'd accused me of being terrorist and was abusive to me the mods would want proof of this, however it's ok for religous people to say some thing happen due to Gods intervention, even though there is no solid proof.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

I think this flowchart should help some people in this thread:

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

Amaya wrote:Statistical outliers? Individuals unable to shake off religious indoctrination in youth? Individuals who believe they can logically explain and defend it (such as C.S. Lewis)?
Individuals who use it to control others?

So, anomalies, the brainwashed, the misguided and those who would use it for nefarious purposes.

Sadly predictable.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

After reading the level of ignorance that this thread had sunk to on page 9, I was ready to abandon the thread... and then all of a sudden, we have dogma, ahtman and silvermk2 bringing some sense of redemption back.

Silvermk2 love that flow chart..I think that should be pasted at the beginning of any dakka thread regarding a discussion of religion.

GG

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding education and how it relates to the religious...do I really have to go back a few years ago and paste all of those PHD's world renowned, scientists that claim a belief in God?

It really opened a few eyes on here.. last time I did it.

The point is.. it is a logical fallacy to claim that because it's a fact that some people "lose their religion" upon receiving higher education, that most do. It probably has more to do with the level/lack of religious education they had before entering higher education. I can tell you that higher education(Masters Science in engineering level) has done nothing but enhance my faith. I have heard many stories of former athiests who set out to "prove" the fallacy of religion only to come to know God themselves in the process.

GG

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

d-usa — GMT

Santorum thinks that higher education is bad, because it makes you loose your religion. So you know it has to be a crazy idea.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

SilverMK2 wrote:I think this flowchart should help some people in this thread:

We disagree on something, so just accept this logic and shut up? I think you'll find that's pretty silly.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Monster Rain wrote:
Amaya wrote:Statistical outliers? Individuals unable to shake off religious indoctrination in youth? Individuals who believe they can logically explain and defend it (such as C.S. Lewis)?
Individuals who use it to control others?

So, anomalies, the brainwashed, the misguided and those who would use it for nefarious purposes.

Sadly predictable.

If there is a logically sound argument for Christianity I would love to hear it. Every defense I've heard ultimately falls back onto having 'Faith'.

That said, there is nothing wrong with believing in any given religion or practicing it, unless it requires you to impose your will upon others.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

Amaya wrote:

If there is a logically sound argument for Christianity I would love to hear it. Every defense I've heard ultimately falls back onto having 'Faith'.

That said, there is nothing wrong with believing in any given religion or practicing it, unless it requires you to impose your will upon others.

Fact #1 Jesus Christ was a historical person attested to by local eyewitness accounts of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of St. John, and contemporary (nonChristian) historians
Fact #2 Jesus Christ resurrection as evidenced by, A) Jesus' burial, B) The discovery of his empty tomb, C)His after death appearances, D)His disciples eyewitness accounts and subsequent belief and teaching of his resurrection.

Those are logically sound arguments. You are welcome to disbelieve. But you can't call those arguments illogical.

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

George Spiggott — GMT

generalgrog wrote:Regarding education and how it relates to the religious...do I really have to go back a few years ago and paste all of those PHD's world renowned, scientists that claim a belief in God?

It really opened a few eyes on here.. last time I did it.

Wasn't that a list of creationist 'scientists' not a list of PHD's world renowned scientists that claim a belief in God? Someone having a Ph.D in a (natural?) science plus a belief in god (or God) isn't really terribly surprising.

Eyes were not opened by that list.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

George Spiggott wrote:
generalgrog wrote:Regarding education and how it relates to the religious...do I really have to go back a few years ago and paste all of those PHD's world renowned, scientists that claim a belief in God?

It really opened a few eyes on here.. last time I did it.
Wasn't that a list of creationist 'scientists' not a list of PHD's world renowned scientists that claim a belief in God? Someone having a Ph.D in a (natural?) science plus a belief in god (or God) isn't really terribly surprising.

Eyes were not opened by that list.

Hmm.. so the private messages I received indicating surprise were an illusion created by dakka dakka?

Also wouldn't a creation scientist be a scientist that claimed a belief in God?

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

generalgrog wrote:Also wouldn't a creation scientist be a scientist that claimed a belief in God?

Depends on how we are defining creationist. If you just mean someone that believes god/a god was involved in the creation of the universe in some capacity, then yes. If you mean Creationist as in the pseudo-science then I suppose they do believe in god, but I wouldn't call them a scientist.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

George Spiggott — GMT

Ahtman wrote:Depends on how we are defining creationist. If you just mean someone that believes god/a god was involved in the creation of the universe in some capacity, then yes. If you mean Creationist as in the pseudo-science then I suppose they do believe in god, but I wouldn't call them a scientist.

A fine definition.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

generalgrog wrote:
Amaya wrote:

If there is a logically sound argument for Christianity I would love to hear it. Every defense I've heard ultimately falls back onto having 'Faith'.

That said, there is nothing wrong with believing in any given religion or practicing it, unless it requires you to impose your will upon others.

Fact #1 Jesus Christ was a historical person attested to by local eyewitness accounts of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of St. John, and contemporary (nonChristian) historians
Fact #2 Jesus Christ resurrection as evidenced by, A) Jesus' burial, B) The discovery of his empty tomb, C)His after death appearances, D)His disciples eyewitness accounts and subsequent belief and teaching of his resurrection.

Those are logically sound arguments. You are welcome to disbelieve. But you can't call those arguments illogical.

GG

I really hope you're not serious.

Yes, Jesus was a historical figure.

There is no evidence outside of the Bible that supports your second 'fact'.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Azure — GMT

I think that four separate people, all who wrote independently of each other, should at least give some credence to the fact that Jesus was up to something after he 'died'. Even if it is only mentioned in the Bible, the Bible itself is nothing more then a collection of various historical writings, and so could count as 5 or 6 separate texts to reference for the sightings. (I get the 5-6 based on number of books it's mentioned it)

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Azure wrote:I think that four separate people, all who wrote independently of each other, should at least give some credence to the fact that Jesus was up to something after he 'died'. Even if it is only mentioned in the Bible, the Bible itself is nothing more then a collection of various historical writings, and so could count as 5 or 6 separate texts to reference for the sightings. (I get the 5-6 based on number of books it's mentioned it)

Incorrect, they did not write independently of each other.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Azure — GMT

How so? Mathew and Luke drew some history from Mark, and all three are said to have drawn history from some other fourth source. John, as far as what I've gathered, was supposed to be written from women's viewpoint (though I've only gathered this from reading it, so can't back it up) or rather one that focused more on their view of what he did. And all four wrote during different time periods, though with some overlap

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

There's numerous theories as to their authorship, but they all make use of the same sources to an extent and is quite possible that unique portions of each gospel were made up to fulfill the author's goals. They were written at different times, but are not independent of one another.

Good breakdown of the synoptic gospels.

Spoiler:

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Azure — GMT

So the number of references decreases by two. We'll say Mark can still be in there because he contributed the most, and John seems to be largely independent as well

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Somewhat, the Gospel of John has many unique elements, but such elements in each of the gospels are typically thematic.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Azure — GMT

I fear I don't fully understand what you mean, can you reiterate?

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

For example Matthew includes the magi to help establish Jesus as a "Kingly Messiah."

Luke includes the adoration of the shepherds to help establish Jesus as a savior of the downtrodden. The Gospel of Luke also puts more of an emphasis on women than the other gospels do because he seeks to establish Jesus as savior of all, including foreigners and "sinners".

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Azure — GMT

Well yes, each wrote because he wanted to reach a separate audience. The gentiles and the Jews, and various degrees of establishing his position as the Messiah and as a savior for everyone

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Phanatik wrote:Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Close, but you just missed the mark by enough to be, well, completely wrong.

Yes, evolution is established and well accepted science. But this doesn't make it fact, because science doesn't work with facts. That kind of thinking would lead to rigidity and dogma that science simply doesn't need.

Instead, you have hypothesis, which science looks to verify or disprove through observation and experiment. Science does this until it has enough verified hypothesis to form a coherent body of work, and that is called a theory. Hence theory of gravity, or theory of evolution.

Stories written by unknown hands decades after the events they supposedly portray and collected by an individual hundreds of years after the supposed events to compile a "bible" isn't evidence of anything other than stories can have a life of their own. But we do have an archeological record for evolution.

Not really. We can study accounts, and compare them to other stories, and to any recorded records we have, and to what we know of the age, and make a consideration as to the stories possible accuracy. This is how much of our understanding of history has developed.

To deny evolution is to deny the entire endeavor of science. You may as well deny airplanes, microwave ovens, and velcro.

This I totally agree with, and it is my major problem with the efforts of creationists - to make their case they dismiss the importance of scientific endeavour, and reduce the respect that ought to be granted to people who have studied things and become experts. Simply put, not everyone can have an expert opinion on evolution, but creationism pretends otherwise.

It's that effect that, in part, has allowed so many people to pretend they know better than scientists who've undertaken study into other subjects, like the effects of smoking and global warming.

Religion is primitive man's first attempt to describe things he observed that his level of technology could not provide. Religion is a crutch for people to get through life, just as alcohol or drugs often are. Religion is life after death insurance. Religion is for people that are afraid they will never see dead relatives again. Religion is a tool for people to exert power and influence in a secular existence.

And religion is faith in another world beyond this one. And if people have that faith there's nothing wrong with that.

And what's more, it is beyond science to prove them wrong, because asking for natural proof of the supernatural is bonkers.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Laughing Man — GMT

sebster wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Close, but you just missed the mark by enough to be, well, completely wrong.

Yes, evolution is established and well accepted science. But this doesn't make it fact, because science doesn't work with facts. That kind of thinking would lead to rigidity and dogma that science simply doesn't need.

Instead, you have hypothesis, which science looks to verify or disprove through observation and experiment. Science does this until it has enough verified hypothesis to form a coherent body of work, and that is called a theory. Hence theory of gravity, or theory of evolution.

Actually, evolution is a fact. It indisputably happens. The theory of evolution via natural selection describes the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and is what people refer to when they talk about the theory of evolution.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

Amaya wrote:There's numerous theories as to their authorship, but they all make use of the same sources to an extent and is quite possible that unique portions of each gospel were made up to fulfill the author's goals. They were written at different times, but are not independent of one another.

Good breakdown of the synoptic gospels.

Bolded and underlined for effect.

You have every right to do this of course, but it certainly proves nothing except that you and your sources have an opinion on the matter, as do I.

:-)

GG

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:Religion relies on a lack of education to thrive.

If that were the case then religion would have disappeared in the US at the same rate that it's disappeared in Europe. Given that absolutely hasn't happened, we have to consider the part played by culture, and by the success of religious groups to meet the needs of their populations, and reject such simplistic concepts as 'religion needs a lack of education'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:I also have an extensive library on religion. I know more about the origins of the christian faith than probably 95% of its practitioners.

I'm sorry if this doesn't do it for you.

And yet your first post was so terrible. That's weird.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Yes, it is. However, drugs, alcohol, and religion are not the only "crutches". Friendship is one, beliefs are another, really everything and anything is such a crutch. Picking one particular such crutch out from the others is obnoxious to a ridiculous degree.

Scoring an ego boost by listing books they've read would be another. Pretending to be a tough man that don't need no crutches would be as well.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

generalgrog wrote:
Amaya wrote:There's numerous theories as to their authorship, but they all make use of the same sources to an extent and is quite possible that unique portions of each gospel were made up to fulfill the author's goals. They were written at different times, but are not independent of one another.

Good breakdown of the synoptic gospels.

Bolded and underlined for effect.

You have every right to do this of course, but it certainly proves nothing except that you and your sources have an opinion on the matter, as do I.

:-)

GG

Nonsensical much?

I'm going to assume you know nothing about the authorship of the gospels. Even Christian schools and universities teach discuss the authorship of the Bible and touch on every major hypothesis for them.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

I have a question...why do people think that the gospels have to be 100% exactly alike to be considered the WoG? I mean if you think about what that means, does this view not allow any room for the human element, and that God decided to use humanity to convey His word? Would it really be more plausible if God were to somehow posses the bodies of the writers as they wrote to ensure that things were 100% the same? Isn't that putting God into some box of our choosing?

Classic Christianity isn't like Mormonism where the gospels just dropped out of the sky like for example the golden plates of Joe Smith. Or where many alternate texts of the Koran were burned/destroyed in the 7th century AD, in an effort to create harmony among the Koranic variants (by eliminating the variants).

GG

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

Joey wrote:We disagree on something, so just accept this logic and shut up? I think you'll find that's pretty silly.

No, that's not even close to what the flow chart said. It said that conversation between two people requires each party to accept there may be things for them to learn, that they will stop using arguments they've learned are faulty, and that they will accept more reasoned points in place of less reasoned points.

It's an excellent little flowchart.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Fact #1 Jesus Christ was a historical person attested to by local eyewitness accounts of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of St. John, and contemporary (nonChristian) historians
Fact #2 Jesus Christ resurrection as evidenced by, A) Jesus' burial, B) The discovery of his empty tomb, C)His after death appearances, D)His disciples eyewitness accounts and subsequent belief and teaching of his resurrection.

Those are logically sound arguments. You are welcome to disbelieve. But you can't call those arguments illogical.

GG

They're perfectly reasonable things for someone to believe, but you'd have to agree that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to also believe there is insufficient evidence to say the above happened for certain.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azure wrote:I think that four separate people, all who wrote independently of each other, should at least give some credence to the fact that Jesus was up to something after he 'died'. Even if it is only mentioned in the Bible, the Bible itself is nothing more then a collection of various historical writings, and so could count as 5 or 6 separate texts to reference for the sightings. (I get the 5-6 based on number of books it's mentioned it)

We have several thousand people writing about a character called 'Harry Potter' doing all kinds of amazing stuff, albeit of massively varying levels of quality. It doesn't mean there's any proof of a wizard called Harry Potter.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

Amaya wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Amaya wrote:There's numerous theories as to their authorship, but they all make use of the same sources to an extent and is quite possible that unique portions of each gospel were made up to fulfill the author's goals. They were written at different times, but are not independent of one another.

Good breakdown of the synoptic gospels.

Bolded and underlined for effect.

You have every right to do this of course, but it certainly proves nothing except that you and your sources have an opinion on the matter, as do I.

:-)

GG

Nonsensical much?

I'm going to assume you know nothing about the authorship of the gospels. Even Christian schools and universities teach discuss the authorship of the Bible and touch on every major hypothesis for them.

My point was that theories and possibilities do not = fact. I note that earlier you said this
" Most Christians and Jews operate under the belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch/Torah, when in truth the Documentary Hypothesis is probably correct. "
When you you should have said many people believe the documentary hypothesis to be correct, except you said "In truth" it is "probably correct".

Probably = My/your opinion Not truth.

I suggest you read "Evidence that demands a verdict" for an interesting study on the documentary hypotheses and redactor theory and the JEDP.

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

generalgrog wrote:I have a question...why do people think that the gospels have to be 100% exactly alike to be considered the WoG?

It's a question of proof. If they were exactly 100% alike in every way, then that'd be a hell of an achievement and greater evidence that they are the word of God. That they aren't doesn't mean they aren't inspired by God, but it means they're not evidence of the existance of the WoG either.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

generalgrog wrote:I have a question...why do people think that the gospels have to be 100% exactly alike to be considered the WoG? I mean if you think about what that means, does this view not allow any room for the human element, and that God decided to use humanity to convey His word? Would it really be more plausible if God were to somehow posses the bodies of the writers as they wrote to ensure that things were 100% the same? Isn't that putting God into some box of our choosing?

Classic Christianity isn't like Mormonism where the gospels just dropped out of the sky like for example the golden plates of Joe Smith. Or where many alternate texts of the Koran were burned/destroyed in the 7th century AD, in an effort to create harmony among the Koranic variants (by eliminating the variants).

GG

It's not simply the Gospels, you can't make a logically sound argument that any of the Bible is WoG. The Torah is Hebraic traditions collected down over a roughly 400 year period. The majority of the remainder of the Old Testament was recorded well after the fact and is of questionable historical accuracy. The Gospels were each written to convey the specific message the author wanted to send.

The Bible is the work of man. Canonical works were selected by man and the rest were discarded. It was men who decided what was divinely inspired. Man has show time after time, to be willing to abuse religious power in order to further non religious goals.

If you want to believe that the Bible is the WoG and divinely inspired, fine by me, but you certainly can not prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is the case.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Amaya wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Amaya wrote:There's numerous theories as to their authorship, but they all make use of the same sources to an extent and is quite possible that unique portions of each gospel were made up to fulfill the author's goals. They were written at different times, but are not independent of one another.

Good breakdown of the synoptic gospels.

Bolded and underlined for effect.

You have every right to do this of course, but it certainly proves nothing except that you and your sources have an opinion on the matter, as do I.

:-)

GG

Nonsensical much?

I'm going to assume you know nothing about the authorship of the gospels. Even Christian schools and universities teach discuss the authorship of the Bible and touch on every major hypothesis for them.

My point was that theories and possibilities do not = fact. I note that earlier you said this
" Most Christians and Jews operate under the belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch/Torah, when in truth the Documentary Hypothesis is probably correct. "
When you you should have said many people believe the documentary hypothesis to be correct, except you said "In truth" it is "probably correct".

Probably = My/your opinion Not truth.

I suggest you read "Evidence that demands a verdict" for an interesting study on the documentary hypotheses and redactor theory and the JEDP.

GG

Likewise your theory that it is all WoG does not make it a fact.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Fact #1 Jesus Christ was a historical person attested to by local eyewitness accounts of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of St. John, and contemporary (nonChristian) historians
Fact #2 Jesus Christ resurrection as evidenced by, A) Jesus' burial, B) The discovery of his empty tomb, C)His after death appearances, D)His disciples eyewitness accounts and subsequent belief and teaching of his resurrection.

Those are logically sound arguments. You are welcome to disbelieve. But you can't call those arguments illogical.

GG

They're perfectly reasonable things for someone to believe, but you'd have to agree that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to also believe there is insufficient evidence to say the above happened for certain.
.

Sebby I was just dealing with the statement that no one could make a logical argument for Christianity.

:-)

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

And you've yet to do so. Your second fact is based on second hand accounts written roughly 20-50 years after the fact, collected in volume of works specifically selected to further the religion.

There is concrete evidence from historical texts that there was a Jesus.

There is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the resurrection and attempted arguments to justify the resurrection and Jesus's status as the Son of God all possess at least one major flaw.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

sebster — GMT

generalgrog wrote:Sebby I was just dealing with the statement that no one could make a logical argument for Christianity.

Fair enough.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

generalgrog wrote:
The point is.. it is a logical fallacy to claim that because it's a fact that some people "lose their religion" upon receiving higher education, that most do.

True, but it isn't that simple.

Broadly (in the US), the better your education is, the less likely you are to hold extreme religious beliefs. Church attendance goes up (regarding certain denominations), but strongly held beliefs go down.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Fact #1 Jesus Christ was a historical person attested to by local eyewitness accounts of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of St. John, and contemporary (nonChristian) historians
Fact #2 Jesus Christ resurrection as evidenced by, A) Jesus' burial, B) The discovery of his empty tomb, C)His after death appearances, D)His disciples eyewitness accounts and subsequent belief and teaching of his resurrection.

Those are logically sound arguments. You are welcome to disbelieve. But you can't call those arguments illogical.

Those aren't arguments, they're statements of belief.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Probably = My/your opinion Not truth.

This is also wrong. The probability of any given event, or state of affairs can be the truth.

If X happens 60% of the time, it is a fact that X happens 60% of the time, and that X happens 60% of the time is the truth.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

I've said it many times - I'd love for the vatican (and any other equally old religious establishments) to open its archives to everyone so scholars of all beliefs can have a look at how religion has changed (or not) over time and the documented reasons (if any) behind them.

While not interested in the details I would love to see the trends with selected highlights

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

generalgrog wrote:I have a question...why do people think that the gospels have to be 100% exactly alike to be considered the WoG? I mean if you think about what that means, does this view not allow any room for the human element, and that God decided to use humanity to convey His word? Would it really be more plausible if God were to somehow posses the bodies of the writers as they wrote to ensure that things were 100% the same? Isn't that putting God into some box of our choosing?

Classic Christianity isn't like Mormonism where the gospels just dropped out of the sky like for example the golden plates of Joe Smith. Or where many alternate texts of the Koran were burned/destroyed in the 7th century AD, in an effort to create harmony among the Koranic variants (by eliminating the variants).

First of all, Joseph Smith was a fraud. This is one of the reasons I would never vote for Romney, as politicians suck enough without electing ones with impaired judgement right off the bat.

Secondly, the bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Practitioners want to hold up the Bible as the evidence for their faith. Yet, if you admit that it may not be entirely accurate, how can you use it for evidence? (this works for the warmers/colders/changers, but some people have higher standards) How do you know which parts are accurate? If you admit that some of it's not accurate, you have to admit the possibility that none of it's accurate (outside of perhaps names of towns, etc).

Why would an omnipotent god be so lazy about getting his word out correctly? Just messin' wit us?
Why would Jeshua (possibly an historical figure) found a religion that would then spend the next 2000 years persecuting his own people (the Jews)?
Christianity was really founded by Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus. He never even met Jeshua. The tenets of Christianity were borrowed from previous religions or made up from whole cloth. So where is the validity? Is there enough there to base one's entire life upon?

Going back to earlier discussions about atheism, EVERYONE is an atheist to some extent. If you believe in Yahweh or Allah, do you also believe in Ra? How about Marduk? Quetzalcoatl? The difference is atheists disbelieve in one more god than you.

Regards,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

hotsauceman1 — GMT

dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

No, its a theory.

People that claim otherwise don't understand the distinction.

Of course, it doesn't help that "theory" is on the list of most often misunderstood English words.

Doesnt a theory attemt to explain anything in an entire field. That is non provable but disprovable?
Evolution is nearly concrete and has a wealth of knowledge.
But i remember thi from a teach. God isnt disprovable or provable. So science should just go away and do their science.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

Very true.

The conflict is not between science and religion, though. It is between scientific and religious explanations of how the world works.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
First of all, Joseph Smith was a fraud. This is one of the reasons I would never vote for Romney, as politicians suck enough without electing ones with impaired judgement right off the bat.

Secondly, the bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Practitioners want to hold up the Bible as the evidence for their faith. Yet, if you admit that it may not be entirely accurate, how can you use it for evidence? (this works for the warmers/colders/changers, but some people have higher standards) How do you know which parts are accurate? If you admit that some of it's not accurate, you have to admit the possibility that none of it's accurate (outside of perhaps names of towns, etc).

Why would an omnipotent god be so lazy about getting his word out correctly? Just messin' wit us?
Why would Jeshua (possibly an historical figure) found a religion that would then spend the next 2000 years persecuting his own people (the Jews)?
Christianity was really founded by Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus. He never even met Jeshua. The tenets of Christianity were borrowed from previous religions or made up from whole cloth. So where is the validity? Is there enough there to base one's entire life upon?

Going back to earlier discussions about atheism, EVERYONE is an atheist to some extent. If you believe in Yahweh or Allah, do you also believe in Ra? How about Marduk? Quetzalcoatl? The difference is atheists disbelieve in one more god than you.

Regards,

1) I'm not a member of the LDS church, but I would recommend that if you want people to take you seriously you should tone down your rhetoric. Insulting people will get you know where and makes you sound immature.

2) I agree that there are certain passages in the Bible that I would call difficulties. Only difficult because if you look at the passage with out trying to understand it..it becomes difficult. It's the skeptic that calls them Inaccuracy or contradictions. Let me give an example of one account in the gospels. Matthews gospel says that Jesus rode 2 donkeys while the other gospels say he rode 1. If you look at that superficially and do not try understand why Matthew would have included 2 donkeys, you might conclude that this is an error instead of just a different way to describe an event. Ask a lawyer and they will tell you that, multiple people can look at a traffic accident, and see it differently. Again I ask, why can't God allow for a human being to be human.

The question of "why would God be lazy" in relating to the WoG comes up quite a bit. God is only lazy if you look at it from the point of view of a skeptic. I wouldn't use the term "lazy". Why couldn't God purposefully allow the difficulty? Again, if your standard is 100% harmony, you are putting God into a box of your creating, because you are not willing to accept the possibility that God purposefully used men to convey His message.

3)Paul claimed to have a personal relationship with Jesus and claimed to have directly heard from Jesus on the damascus road. So Paul made the claim that he did indeed meet Jesus.

I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts Phanatik ring of some sound bite you heard or read... and stuff that I have heard from atheists, agnostics many many times. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the other side a fair hearing.

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

generalgrog wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
First of all, Joseph Smith was a fraud. This is one of the reasons I would never vote for Romney, as politicians suck enough without electing ones with impaired judgement right off the bat.

Secondly, the bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Practitioners want to hold up the Bible as the evidence for their faith. Yet, if you admit that it may not be entirely accurate, how can you use it for evidence? (this works for the warmers/colders/changers, but some people have higher standards) How do you know which parts are accurate? If you admit that some of it's not accurate, you have to admit the possibility that none of it's accurate (outside of perhaps names of towns, etc).

Why would an omnipotent god be so lazy about getting his word out correctly? Just messin' wit us?
Why would Jeshua (possibly an historical figure) found a religion that would then spend the next 2000 years persecuting his own people (the Jews)?
Christianity was really founded by Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus. He never even met Jeshua. The tenets of Christianity were borrowed from previous religions or made up from whole cloth. So where is the validity? Is there enough there to base one's entire life upon?

Going back to earlier discussions about atheism, EVERYONE is an atheist to some extent. If you believe in Yahweh or Allah, do you also believe in Ra? How about Marduk? Quetzalcoatl? The difference is atheists disbelieve in one more god than you.

Regards,

1) I'm not a member of the LDS church, but I would recommend that if you want people to take you seriously you should tone down your rhetoric. Insulting people will get you know where and makes you sound immature.

2) I agree that there are certain passages in the Bible that I would call difficulties. Only difficult because if you look at the passage with out trying to understand it..it becomes difficult. It's the skeptic that calls them Inaccuracy or contradictions. Let me give an example of one account in the gospels. Matthews gospel says that Jesus rode 2 donkeys while the other gospels say he rode 1. If you look at that superficially and do not try understand why Matthew would have included 2 donkeys, you might conclude that this is an error instead of just a different way to describe an event. Ask a lawyer and they will tell you that, multiple people can look at a traffic accident, and see it differently. Again I ask, why can't God allow for a human being to be human.

The question of "why would God be lazy" in relating to the WoG comes up quite a bit. God is only lazy if you look at it from the point of view of a skeptic. I wouldn't use the term "lazy". Why couldn't God purposefully allow the difficulty? Again, if your standard is 100% harmony, you are putting God into a box of your creating, because you are not willing to accept the possibility that God purposefully used men to convey His message.

3)Paul claimed to have a personal relationship with Jesus and claimed to have directly heard from Jesus on the damascus road. So Paul made the claim that he did indeed meet Jesus.

I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts Phanatik ring of some sound bite you heard or read... and stuff that I have heard from atheists, agnostics many many times. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the other side a fair hearing.

GG

1) I never claimed that you are with the LDS. I spoke about Romney. If you are related to Romney, than tough. Public figures get criticized all of the time.

2) My fav are the two separate creation stories in Genesis. How do you know it was God that purposefully used men to convey his message? Perhaps it was the devil? Perhaps it's inaccurate and contradictory to confound man into worshiping incorrectly, and so not make it into heaven? You can't prove anyone received divine inspiration, and if so, who provided it.

3) People claim to have seen Elvis at Walmart. Does any claim made by anybody have to been accepted as genuine and true? Perhaps you should market those rose-tinted glasses.

I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts GeneralGrog ring of some things you have read from a book that has no credited author, has been proven to be inaccurate and contradictory on many elements... and stuff that I have heard from people that will believe just about anything. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the correct side a fair hearing.

Regards,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

GG is an excellent example of ...

I have no polite way of saying it, so Ill simply say that he has made his mind up, and it would be utterly impossible to change it regardless of anything at all you could bring to the table, so don't waste your time.

I don't even bother anymore, I think I learned that about 6 months in.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

mattyrm wrote:GG is an excellent example of ...

I have no polite way of saying it, so Ill simply say that he has made his mind up, and it would be utterly impossible to change it regardless of anything at all you could bring to the table, so don't waste your time.

I don't even bother anymore, I think I learned that about 6 months in.

Possibly, but the back and forth exchange keeps everyone sharp and on their toes.

Also, since we no longer get burned at the stake for daring to disagree with the herd, it's nice to just express an opinion.

Regards,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
First of all, Joseph Smith was a fraud. This is one of the reasons I would never vote for Romney, as politicians suck enough without electing ones with impaired judgement right off the bat.

Wait, what?

What makes Joseph Smith a fraud, and all other people claiming divine inspiration not frauds?

And really, if that's your standard for determining who you'll vote for, you aren't going to find many politicians to support; especially among the Republicans. Pretty much every Christian follows the teachings of someone claiming divine inspiration.

Phanatik wrote:
Secondly, the bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Practitioners want to hold up the Bible as the evidence for their faith. Yet, if you admit that it may not be entirely accurate, how can you use it for evidence? (this works for the warmers/colders/changers, but some people have higher standards) How do you know which parts are accurate? If you admit that some of it's not accurate, you have to admit the possibility that none of it's accurate (outside of perhaps names of towns, etc).

This is also a bad argument. There is a difference between admitting that parts of a thing may be inaccurate, and that every part of the thing is wholly inaccurate.

And, more to the point, no evidence is necessarily wholly accurate (even in the hard sciences bad results add to the body of knowledge), but it can still be used as evidence.

Phanatik wrote:
Christianity was really founded by Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus. He never even met Jeshua. The tenets of Christianity were borrowed from previous religions or made up from whole cloth. So where is the validity?

And? The argument you're making has been made thousands of people before you, you borrowed it from them, and seem to have made up, from whole cloth, the idea that using the Aramaic transliteration will give people the impression that you have some special knowledge of Christianity.

Where is the validity there?

Phanatik wrote:
Going back to earlier discussions about atheism, EVERYONE is an atheist to some extent. If you believe in Yahweh or Allah, do you also believe in Ra? How about Marduk? Quetzalcoatl? The difference is atheists disbelieve in one more god than you.

This is also a bad argument (borrowed from Dawkins). Atheists don't get to pick and choose which God/gods they believe in. If you believe a God/god, any God/god, then you're not an atheist.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
I have no polite way of saying it, so Ill simply say that he has made his mind up, and it would be utterly impossible to change it regardless of anything at all you could bring to the table, so don't waste your time.

Strangely, so is Phanatik.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

Phanatik wrote:

1) I never claimed that you are with the LDS. I spoke about Romney. If you are related to Romney, than tough. Public figures get criticized all of the time.

2) My fav are the two separate creation stories in Genesis. How do you know it was God that purposefully used men to convey his message? Perhaps it was the devil? Perhaps it's inaccurate and contradictory to confound man into worshiping incorrectly, and so not make it into heaven? You can't prove anyone received divine inspiration, and if so, who provided it.

3) People claim to have seen Elvis at Walmart. Does any claim made by anybody have to been accepted as genuine and true? Perhaps you should market those rose-tinted glasses.

I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts GeneralGrog ring of some things you have read from a book that has no credited author, has been proven to be inaccurate and contradictory on many elements... and stuff that I have heard from people that will believe just about anything. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the correct side a fair hearing.

Regards,

Seriously?

Why didn't you just say "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo"...it would have had just about as much meaning as what you just typed.

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

PhantomViper — GMT

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Secondly, the bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Practitioners want to hold up the Bible as the evidence for their faith. Yet, if you admit that it may not be entirely accurate, how can you use it for evidence? (this works for the warmers/colders/changers, but some people have higher standards) How do you know which parts are accurate? If you admit that some of it's not accurate, you have to admit the possibility that none of it's accurate (outside of perhaps names of towns, etc).

This is also a bad argument. There is a difference between admitting that parts of a thing may be inaccurate, and that every part of the thing is wholly inaccurate.

And, more to the point, no evidence is necessarily wholly accurate (even in the hard sciences bad results add to the body of knowledge), but it can still be used as evidence.

But the bible is supposed to be the word of god as it was passed on to its followers, how can you say that the word of god is even partially inaccurate and still stick to your "beliefs"? (and to be fair we aren't talking about inaccuracies here, we are talking about big gigantic factual errors).

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:
But the bible is supposed to be the word of god as it was passed on to its followers, how can you say that the word of god is even partially inaccurate and still stick to your "beliefs"? (and to be fair we aren't talking about inaccuracies here, we are talking about big gigantic factual errors).

There's a couple ways, but the most common is to attribute the errors to the humans who actually wrote the Bible. The argument being that its a divinely inspired witness, not the actual "Word of God."

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

blood reaper — GMT

List of error's in the Bible. From the 'Thinking Atheist', they also have a list of bible atrocities. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

Spoiler:

Probably not all of them.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts GeneralGrog ring of some things you have read from a book that has no credited author, has been proven to be inaccurate and contradictory on many elements... and stuff that I have heard from people that will believe just about anything. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the correct side a fair hearing.

That you think there is a "correct side" is hilarious.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

blood reaper wrote:List of error's in the Bible. From the 'Thinking Atheist', they also have a list of bible atrocities. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

Probably not all of them.

I'm not going to go through all of them, but the vast majority of those aren't errors.

The citations of Romans 3:10 caught my eye, though. Here's the whole passage:

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[b]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

PhantomViper — GMT

dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts GeneralGrog ring of some things you have read from a book that has no credited author, has been proven to be inaccurate and contradictory on many elements... and stuff that I have heard from people that will believe just about anything. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the correct side a fair hearing.

That you think there is a "correct side" is hilarious.

He was just quoting generalgrog exact words and using them as an argument against him.

And for the record, when one of the sides is claiming things like that a mystical being of enormous power created the entire universe in 7 days... yes, there is a right side...

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

It's possible that an extremely powerful entity created life on Earth and possibly the universe. You certainly can't disprove or prove it either way.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ketara — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:
dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
I'm sorry but a lot of the stuff I see in your posts GeneralGrog ring of some things you have read from a book that has no credited author, has been proven to be inaccurate and contradictory on many elements... and stuff that I have heard from people that will believe just about anything. And I really believe that you have only listened to one side of the argument, and haven't given the correct side a fair hearing.

That you think there is a "correct side" is hilarious.

He was just quoting generalgrog exact words and using them as an argument against him.

And for the record, when one of the sides is claiming things like that a mystical being of enormous power created the entire universe in 7 days... yes, there is a right side...

Is there? Prove it didn't happen. Prove that 'days' was the exact literal translation. Prove that there is no such thing as a mystical being of tremendous power.

As an agnostic who leans towards atheism, many of the people in this thread who are supposedly on my side make me sad. They're worse than the religious crowd when it comes to making illogical statements and bad arguments.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:
He was just quoting generalgrog exact words and using them as an argument against him.

He substituted "correct" for "other". A simple change that drastically alters the meaning of what was said.

PhantomViper wrote:
And for the record, when one of the sides is claiming things like that a mystical being of enormous power created the entire universe in 7 days... yes, there is a right side...

No, just a side that makes arguments you don't find convincing.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

PhantomViper — GMT

Ketara wrote:
Is there? Prove it didn't happen. Prove that 'days' was the exact literal translation. Prove that there is no such thing as a mystical being of tremendous power.

As an agnostic who leans towards atheism, many of the people in this thread who are supposedly on my side make me sad. They're worse than the religious crowd when it comes to making illogical statements and bad arguments.

You can't prove a negative, that is the only single thing that allows religions to keep insisting that these types of things might be true...

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:
You can't prove a negative, that is the only single thing that allows religions to keep insisting that these types of things might be true...

That's not strictly true, its just much more difficult.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ketara — GMT

PhantomViper wrote:
You can't prove a negative, that is the only single thing that allows religions to keep insisting that these types of things might be true...

There's also the potential adaptation of the philosophical angle, whereby your view of the world and the things that comprise it, are all ultimately subjective and unprovable as well. Which rather neuters the concept of the empirical evidence you require to prove the existence of God, and places you upon an equivalent footing as them when it comes down to proving who's 'right'.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

You can make a strong argument against the value and validity of Christianity without disproving a creator.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

blood reaper wrote:List of error's in the Bible. From the 'Thinking Atheist', they also have a list of bible atrocities. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

In a discussion of this nature, resorting to a copy paste and linking to another website to "prove" your point is the last thing you want to do, because it's equivalent to saying.. LOOK LOOK at what this guy is saying...he said a lot of stuff over there so therefore I must be right, because after all look ALL that stuff he wrote on the subject. He must be an expert!!

You would be much better off taking one example from the list that you feel very strongly about and discussing that. I could do exactly the same thing you just did and link to apologist websites that have an answer for everyone of those supposed errors.

I choose to pick out 1 example that athiests like to bring up, and that was the donkey/donkeys of matthew.

GG

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

Christianity certainly embodies some admirable values such as peacefulness and charity.

I don't see that these are denied by the existence of the more vicious parts of the bible (Old Testament).

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Amaya wrote:It's possible that an extremely powerful entity created life on Earth and possibly the universe. You certainly can't disprove or prove it either way.

And it's possible that your Yahweh is a giant bunny rabbit with pink fluffy ears. Go ahead, prove it isn't so.

It's interesting to see dogma quote me (It's in other people's quotes), but not actually refute me, again (I'm used to that from the past). I've had him on ignore for at least a year, as he's just a tar baby.

Regards,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

My Yahweh? I have no love for religion, but unlike certain posters I can understand that there are limitations to what you can and can not prove.

Whether or not a powerful entity exists is largely irrelevant as Christianity is seriously flawed even if the Christian God does exist.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

Phanatik wrote:And it's possible that your Yahweh is a giant bunny rabbit with pink fluffy ears. Go ahead, prove it isn't so.

It's things like this that lead others to believe you aren't arguing in good faith.

Phanatik wrote:It's interesting to see dogma quote me (It's in other people's quotes), but not actually refute me, again (I'm used to that from the past). I've had him on ignore for at least a year, as he's just a tar baby.

Well, that was petty.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Monster Rain wrote:
Phanatik wrote:And it's possible that your Yahweh is a giant bunny rabbit with pink fluffy ears. Go ahead, prove it isn't so.

It's things like this that lead others to believe you aren't arguing in good faith.

Phanatik wrote:It's interesting to see dogma quote me (It's in other people's quotes), but not actually refute me, again (I'm used to that from the past). I've had him on ignore for at least a year, as he's just a tar baby.

Well, that was petty.

I'm not arguing at all. I'm debating. In this case, I was showing the pointlessness of stating something is true that can't be proved or disproved, and stating "prove it."

Petty? This is... Sparta!

Best,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

For someone of such self professed intellect you are quite illiterate.

Stating that you can neither prove or disprove the existence of a godlike entity is by no means the same as stating that such an entity exists.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

"Debate" and "argument" are synonyms.

Also, logical fallacies and semantic pedantry also don't help your case.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:Christianity certainly embodies some admirable values such as peacefulness and charity.

I don't see that these are denied by the existence of the more vicious parts of the bible (Old Testament).

Of course not, but this is one of the main reasons I've got no time for it!

I mean, I like the Church I was christened into as a baby in many respects (C of E), I like the stories I heard as a kid, who doesnt enjoy Noahs Ark the first few times they hear it? I like their relative tolerance, their willingness to change, their buildings, their village fund raisers and fairs and tea parties.. But, if you have to go through a book (The Bible) and pick and choose which bits to listen to and which to ignore, what's the point in adhering to any of it?

There are some great and moral parables and stories and teachings and such in scripture, and there are most definitely some parts of it that even (usually the more ambiguous ones to be fair) agree with modern Science, I have heard many of them being quoted by Christian Scientists. But there's plenty of genuinely evil gak in there as well, and with regards to what we know about the world and the cosmos, plenty of demonstrably incorrect things too.

That being the case, why bother with any of it? If my pint was 25% beer and 75% Tango, I would throw the fether down the sink!

If I was a practising Christian, I would be asking myself that question.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Excellent post Matty, very similar to my own sentiments in some ways.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
It's interesting to see dogma quote me (It's in other people's quotes), but not actually refute me, again (I'm used to that from the past). I've had him on ignore for at least a year, as he's just a tar baby.

Strangely, I'm about as convinced as I can be that you don't actually hold any the opinions you voice, because the alternative is far less flattering.

In any case, yes, I've refuted you, repeatedly. And not even on the level of information, but the level of argumentative methodology. So have several other people. You don't like it, so you just keep chugging along without supplying any additional information to support your position.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ketara — GMT

dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
It's interesting to see dogma quote me (It's in other people's quotes), but not actually refute me, again (I'm used to that from the past). I've had him on ignore for at least a year, as he's just a tar baby.

Strangely, I'm about as convinced as I can be that you don't actually hold any the opinions you voice, because the alternative is far less flattering.

In any case, yes, I've refuted you, repeatedly. And not even on the level of information, but the level of argumentative methodology. So have several other people. You don't like it, so you just keep chugging along without supplying any additional information to support your position.

This. In a nutshell.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:[
I'm not arguing at all. I'm debating. In this case, I was showing the pointlessness of stating something is true that can't be proved or disproved, and stating "prove it."

Debate is a form of argument, and no, you're not debating; not in the narrow sense where it can be broken out from argument in general.

This another addition to the long list of factual errors you have made in this thread.

And, while that is indeed the argument you have been, broadly, making the manner in which you've gone about it is simply dreadful.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ketara wrote:
dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
It's interesting to see dogma quote me (It's in other people's quotes), but not actually refute me, again (I'm used to that from the past). I've had him on ignore for at least a year, as he's just a tar baby.

Strangely, I'm about as convinced as I can be that you don't actually hold any the opinions you voice, because the alternative is far less flattering.

In any case, yes, I've refuted you, repeatedly. And not even on the level of information, but the level of argumentative methodology. So have several other people. You don't like it, so you just keep chugging along without supplying any additional information to support your position.

This. In a nutshell.

Oh my, like false drama proves or disproves anything.
This. In a seashell.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Oh my, like false drama proves or disproves anything.
This. In a seashell.

You long ago established that you aren't interested in proof. Only either manufactured controversy, or the recitation of a book titles you have supposedly read.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

What did that even mean?

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ketara — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Oh my, like false drama proves or disproves anything.
This. In a seashell.

False drama? My dear sir, I read this thread through, and found your posts to be unconvincing combatative drivel that ignores all valid counter-points, responding to them solely with ad hominems, and then getting hacked off people aren't impressed by how clever you think you are.

If you want people to respect you and your views, please actually engage in constructive debate, rather than mud slinging and self aggrandising.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ketara wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Oh my, like false drama proves or disproves anything.
This. In a seashell.

False drama? My dear sir, I read this thread through, and found your posts to be unconvincing combatative drivel that ignores all valid counter-points, responding to them solely with ad hominems, and then getting hacked off people aren't impressed by how clever you think you are.

If you want people to respect you and your views, please actually engage in constructive debate, rather than mud slinging and self aggrandising.

Wow, 14 pages, I give you props for that. It was only about 9 when I waded through it.

I don't need anyone's respect on the internet. I hold views I've developed over 40 years after much reading, examining human nature, and KISS. Nothing I've seen in this thread would move me one inch from my position. And, it's not an ad hominem attack to point out another's folly in support of an unsupportable position.

You have no idea how terribly clever I am; but yes I do. You may be impressed or not at your leisure. I would like an example of Phanatik drivel though. That should be enlightening.

Your servant sir,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

Phanatik wrote: I would like an example of Phanatik drivel though.

By all means!

Phanatik wrote:I don't need anyone's respect on the internet. I hold views I've developed over 40 years after much reading, examining human nature, and KISS. Nothing I've seen in this thread would move me one inch from my position. And, it's not an ad hominem attack to point out another's folly in support of an unsupportable position.

You have no idea how terribly clever I am; but yes I do. You may be impressed or not at your leisure. I would like an example of Phanatik drivel though. That should be enlightening.

Your servant sir,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Scrabb — GMT

Solomon’s Temple

1 Kings 6:2 The temple that King Solomon built for the LORD was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high. 1 Kings 5:15-16: Solomon had seventy thousand carriers and eighty thousand stone cutters in the hills, as well as thirty-three hundred foremen who supervised the project and directed the workmen.
Why were 153,300 people required to build such a small structure?

Those men were providing for an entire nation's supply of cedar. Read the treaty in the verses before.

1 Kings 6:38 In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it.
Why did it take 7 years to construct?

I don't know.

1 Chronicles 22:14 I have taken great pains to provide for the temple of the LORD a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, quantities of bronze and iron too great to be weighed, and wood and stone. And you may add to them.
Over 7 million pounds of gold and 75 million pounds of silver were required to construct this small structure.

That is the measure of the stockpiles king David prepared for the temple because he had not been allowed to build it himself. The gold and silver could have partially (or even mostly) been used as payment.

Solomon’s Sacrifice

2 Chronicles 7:5 And King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand head of cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the people dedicated the temple of God.

2 Chronicles 7:8-9 So Solomon observed the festival at that time for seven days, and all Israel with him—a vast assembly, people from Lebo [a] Hamath to the Wadi of Egypt. On the eighth day they held an assembly, for they had celebrated the dedication of the altar for seven days and the festival for seven days more.
That’s 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in a single week. That’s about 850 animals an hour, 14 every minute.

http://bible.cc/1_kings/8-62.htm

Can Man Be Righteous?

Genesis 7:1: The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Noah was righteous.

Job 2:3: Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
Job was righteous.

Luke 1:6: Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.
Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

James 5:16: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Some men are righteous, and their prayers are effective.

1 John 3:7: Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous Christians become righteous.

Romans 3:10: As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
No one is righteous.

If you finish the chapter you see that righteousness is given freely to those who have faith in Jesus Christ. And the third verse of the very next chapter we see that “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” So those listed as righteous are those who believed God.

Who Has Seen God?

Genesis 32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Jacob actually wrestled with God and was renamed "Israel" by God at that moment.

God came in the form of a man, just as Jesus did later.

John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.
John the Baptist was denying to the Jews of Jerusalem that he was the Christ.

"....but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." This is the rest of verse 18. From it we can see that the one who has not been seen is the Father.

Numbers 14:14: Thou, Lord, art seen face to face.
Moses was explaining to the grumbling Israelite assembly that God had displayed his presence to free them from Egypt.

Exactly. He wasn't saying he had seen God's face. Since this is the same person who asked to see the Glory of God and was told that if he actually saw God's face he would die I choose to believe Moses was not talking about the same experience as the one on the mountain. This is made more likely by the fact he references the pillars of cloud and fire.

John 6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father.
Jesus was explaining why he is the "bread of life"...God’s proxy here on earth.

That is the important part there. The father. This means no one has seen the father. The Glory of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, (only the back side, I don't know, seen by many) are not the Father.

Who is Punished for Sins?

Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
The penalty of sin is placed upon only the sinner, not the offspring.

Exodus 20:5: I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
The penalty of sin affects generations.

Good one. In that chapter in Exodus it also says God shows love to a thousand generations for those who love him and keep his commandments. A thousand verses three or four. But there it is. There are explanations and interpretations for those two verses but it is a dichotomy.

Does God Keep Anger Forever?

Jeremiah 3:12: ... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.
God pleads with Israel to repent and return to Him.

Jeremiah 17:4: Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
Same book. Also note the previous chapter, where God brings disaster in verse 11: "…it is because your fathers forsook me," generational punishment which again contradicts Ezekiel 18:20

The people he was punishing were living in sin and rebelling against God. Is it not reasonable to say that they had earned their punishment while their anscestors were the necessary link for them to behave as they did? Since Every man is judged according to his own actions but can be affected by the actions of others, would you find it reasonable to say they are where they're at both because of themselves and their fathers?

Who Brought the Capernaum Centurion’a Request to Jesus?

Matthew 8:5: And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him.
It’s the centurion himself who comes.

Luke 7:3: And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
The centurion sends some elders.

Luke 7:6: Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof.
.
The centurion sends friends. Same book, same chapter as "elders."

Two accounts, both of them have the quote "I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." The one that says he sent elders out reads the same as the one where we assume he is speaking to Jesus himself. So maybe Matthew just left out the messengers.

Where Did Jesus Go After Feeding the 5,000?

Mark 6:53: When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there.
Jesus and the disciples went to Gennesaret.

John 6:24-25: Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"
Jesus and the disciples went to Capernaum.

Now I'm not good with geography but why can't Gennesaret be on the opposite side of the lake near Capernaum?

Where Did the Devil Take Jesus?

Matthew 4:5-8: Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: ’He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." Jesus answered him, "It is also written: ’Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ’Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’
Satan took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top.

Luke 4:5-9: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: ’Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here.
Satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple.

Me and my mates went to the movies and ate pizza after. "We ate pizza and saw a movie" is what I tell you happened. "We saw a movie and ate pizza" is what my mate tells you. Maybe I was more excited about the pizza than the movie. Maybe Luke and Matthew placed significance differently in what happened.

How Many Blind Men Did Jesus Heal on the Road from Jericho?

Matthew 20:29: As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"
Jesus healed the two men in verse 34.

Mark 10:46-47: Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
There was only one blind man.

Different gospels have difference emphasis. It is completely possible that the account of Bartimaeus is the same event as the two blind beggars.

Where Did the Anointing of Jesus Take Place?

Matthew 26:6-7: While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
The anointing happens in Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper. An unnamed woman anoints Jesus. Oil is placed on Jesus’ head.

Luke 7:36-37: Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume.
The anointing takes place at the house of a Pharisee in Galilee. Oil is placed not on Jesus’ head, but on his feet.

John 12:3: Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
It isn’t an unnamed woman sinner who anoints Jesus, but Mary who does the honors.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/anointing.html

Where Did Jesus Meet Simon, Peter and Andrew?

Matthew 4:18-19: And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
Peter and Andrew are fishing.

John 1:42-43: And he (Andrew) brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
Andrew was following Jesus, found his brother and brought him to Jesus.

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/where-did-jesus-first-meet-simon-peter-and-andrew

Did Jesus Allow His Disciples to Carry a Staff?

Mark 6:8: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
They’re allowed to bring a staff.

Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Staffs, or "staves," are specifically mentioned as something NOT to bring.

[not my words] In this issue, Matthew is anti-staff and anti-sandal, Mark is pro-staff and pro-sandal, Luke is anti-staff, but sandal-neutral.

One argument you might raise here is that Matthew and Luke are recording Jesus instructions as saying “Don’t go get a staff or sandals” while Mark is saying “Take the staff and sandals you’ve got and go”. These instructions are quite compatible.

But let’s put that to one side and consider the possibility that these accounts actually do contain incompatible packing lists.

Notice first that nothing turns on the discrepancies:

- The usual charge against Matthew that he soups up Mark’s account to make Jesus more impressive doesn’t really fly here.
- There is no obvious error in any of the accounts, so the idea that one account is correcting an obvious error in another is also out.
- None of the accounts involves an Old Testament prophecy or literary form that one of the authors supposedly misunderstood.

In short, the only plausible reason that one or possibly two of these accounts contains an error is that somebody simply copied a list wrong. To put it slightly differently, if you’re going to assume any error here, you can only assume a scribal error.

But there’s no decisive reason to assume that any scribal error was committed by the original author. It is just as reasonable to suppose that damaged manuscripts or early copyist errors are responsible.

Did the Fig Tree That Jesus Cursed Wither Immediately or Overnight?

Matthew 21:19: And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
It happened immediately, and the disciples were amazed.

Mark 11:20: And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
The dried up fig tree was discovered the following morning.

What does "and presently" mean?

Did Jesus Speak at His Hearing Befrore Pilate?

Matthew 27:11: Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, "Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge— to the great amazement of the governor.
Jesus doesn’t answer the charges.

John 18:37: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Jesus answers the charges.

If Jesus was not charged with being a king than the accounts are not contradictory.

What Color Robe Was Jesus Given?

Matthew 27:28: They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him.
Jesus is given a scarlet robe.

John 19:2: The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe.
Jesus is given a purple robe.

http://www.errancy.com/what-colour-robe/

Who Carried Jesus’ Cross?

Mark 15:20b-24a: ... and led him out to crucify him. And they compel one Simon a Cyrennian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus to bear his cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him.
Simon of Cyrene carried the cross

John 19:16-18: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha where they crucified him.
Jesus carried the cross.

Jesus carried the cross until he physically could not and then Simon carried it the rest of the way. Most likely they tried to revive him with wine so his death could be more sporting.

When Was Jesus Crucified?

Mark 15:25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
The third hour, as noted in the Amplified Bible, is 9am

John 19:14-16: And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him over therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
The sixth hour is Noon.

At this point I'm just going to point you to http://www.errancy.com/at-what-time-was-jesus-crucified/ and invite you to have a look at that site.

I understand that these may not be compelling explanations for you and that's fine. But there are a lot of errors in the understanding of those who compiled this list.

Just one more thing.

Should You Answer a Fool?

Proverbs 26:4: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Don’t answer.

Proverbs 26:5: Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Do answer.

This is the one that convinced me the compilers of this list were not acting in good faith.

It is a proverb. The two verses are immediately one after the other. The point is that there is no good way to deal with a fool.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Monster Rain wrote:
Phanatik wrote: I would like an example of Phanatik drivel though.

By all means!

Phanatik wrote:I don't need anyone's respect on the internet. I hold views I've developed over 40 years after much reading, examining human nature, and KISS. Nothing I've seen in this thread would move me one inch from my position. And, it's not an ad hominem attack to point out another's folly in support of an unsupportable position.

You have no idea how terribly clever I am; but yes I do. You may be impressed or not at your leisure. I would like an example of Phanatik drivel though. That should be enlightening.

Your servant sir,

Pathetic.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

I honestly have to wonder if he's a bit touched in the head.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Amaya wrote:I honestly have to wonder if he's a bit touched in the head.

Ketara, would this be considered ad hominem?
I just want to know if we are all playing by the same rules.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:Nothing I've seen in this thread would move me one inch from my position.

I suspect that nothing said anywhere would move you from your position, though really its not your position that's the issue. The issue is your apparently fanatical devotion to it, and the resultant inability to see when the arguments you're using to support it are garbage.

Seriously, general positivism has been around for a long time. If you want to learn how to argue in its favor, there are plenty of texts that can serve as guides.

Phanatik wrote:
You have no idea how terribly clever I am; but yes I do.

I think we have a pretty solid grasp of the concept, though the emphasis is likely on "terribly" rather than "clever".

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

Did I say your argument is flawed because you're a nutter? No.

Your arguments have been proved to be shabby and unsound time and time again and yet you continue to stick with them and fail to refute any opposition.

The only conclusions I can draw from that would be:

1) You're a troll.
2) You have inflated sense of competency.
3) You're a bit touched in the head.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Amaya wrote:I honestly have to wonder if he's a bit touched in the head.

Ketara, would this be considered ad hominem?
I just want to know if we are all playing by the same rules.

If you knew what ad hominem was you know it would only be a fallacy if it were false or unrelated to the argument. Also, there are no policies against the use of ad hominem, though there is Rule 1, which is not the same thing. In this instance your mental state directly reflects on the nature of the discussion. If you were so sensitive about people saying things about you, you might have also done the same, but considering the derision and scorn you have spread out over the thread at those who disagree with you it seems a bit silly to want to go an cry about it now. It isn't surprising, but it is silly.

Phanatik wrote:Nothing I've seen in this thread would move me one inch from my position.

Which just reinforces my initial assessment of comparing you to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

Phanatik...some advice...when people on your team/side call you out, the wise thing to do would be to at least show some humility and respect to their attempts at "talking some sense into you".

I go at it all the time with dogma...but I have admitted int he past and admit now that I appreciate his take on things, at least sometimes. He has even made me do a double take on my point of view a few times.

GG

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote: Also, there are no policies against the use of ad hominem, though

Well, if I used ad hominem attacks, apparently there is a policy against me using ad hominem attacks, because Ketara said so. And Ketara is an honorable man.

Regards,

P.S. For the record, I'm not trying to impress anyone with a shakespearean quote paraphrase. I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

mattyrm wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Christianity certainly embodies some admirable values such as peacefulness and charity.

I don't see that these are denied by the existence of the more vicious parts of the bible (Old Testament).

Of course not, but this is one of the main reasons I've got no time for it!

I mean, I like the Church I was christened into as a baby in many respects (C of E), I like the stories I heard as a kid, who doesnt enjoy Noahs Ark the first few times they hear it? I like their relative tolerance, their willingness to change, their buildings, their village fund raisers and fairs and tea parties.. But, if you have to go through a book (The Bible) and pick and choose which bits to listen to and which to ignore, what's the point in adhering to any of it?

There are some great and moral parables and stories and teachings and such in scripture, and there are most definitely some parts of it that even (usually the more ambiguous ones to be fair) agree with modern Science, I have heard many of them being quoted by Christian Scientists. But there's plenty of genuinely evil gak in there as well, and with regards to what we know about the world and the cosmos, plenty of demonstrably incorrect things too.

That being the case, why bother with any of it? If my pint was 25% beer and 75% Tango, I would throw the fether down the sink!

If I was a practising Christian, I would be asking myself that question.

Yeah but if your fridge contained 6 bottles of beer and 18 bottles of Tango, you would presumably be capable of choosing to drink the beer.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

I have learned that there are some interesting things in life.

There are NO Atheists in a foxhole as the battle rages.

Yet some folks get disillusioned and seek out answers

Atheism IS a religion of anti-religion

Science is a religion of hard cold facts.

Most people confuse a Hypothesis with Theory as one shows that it is a goal set out to make a proof off a theory the theory is the living, ongoing proof that can be tested by fellow scientists.

Or, for a Fantasy setting,
Scientists=Wizard

Priest= Cleric

Atheist=__________(insert class here)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even in fantasy you have those who do not ascribe to the flavor religion of that setting. Mostly Rogues, Assassins, warriors, etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And always remember, in such a setting, when something goes wacko, a Wizard did it!

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Amaya wrote:Your arguments have been proved to be shabby and unsound time and time again and yet you continue to stick with them and fail to refute any opposition.

Proved by you? Please astound me by showing me where anything I said was incorrect, and proven to be so.
The fact that you or anyone disagrees with me, and says so, doesn't prove that what I said was incorrect. Since I said that god doesn't exist, to prove me wrong you'd have to prove god exists. Please astound me again.

I think that when people start resorting to personal attacks is when they realize they are supporting the insupportable. Phrases like nutter, touched in the head, accusations of using ad hominem attacks, etc is evidence of this.

In any case...

Best,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

shasolenzabi wrote:I have learned that there are some interesting things in life.

There are NO Atheists in a foxhole as the battle rages.

Wow, that's a good way to start off your post. Something offensive and obviously false. Here, look at this site to see a big ol' list of atheists in fox holes.

http://militaryatheists.org/

shasolenzabi wrote:Yet some folks get disillusioned and seek out answers

Atheism IS a religion of anti-religion

Science is a religion of hard cold facts.

First off, saying atheism is a religion is like saying abstinence is a sex position. Atheism is this and this only: The lack of belief in a god. Some atheists are scientists. Some atheists believe in magic. Some atheists are afraid of unicorns. The only thing that all atheists have in common is the lack of the belief in a God. They don't have churches and sermons and gospels and saints and holy texts. Plenty of atheists hate each other's guts.

And science is pretty much just a way to collect knowledge and figure out the truth. It isn't a religion either. And I'm gonna ignore the D&D part of your post.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

Ahtman wrote:...but considering the derision and scorn you have spread out over the thread...

What bothers me about you is hypocrisy like this.
Earlier you couldn't refute what I was saying, so you simply said I was wrong and that I should read more about physics and religion.

I then successfully refuted this lame attempt at shutting me down by naming the physics books I'm currently reading on my nightstand.

You then accuse me of not even owning the books, but copying and pasting them from the internet. You also accused me of not having a "mastery" of them.

It's amazing how you are willing to move the bar in an attempt to win the argument.

So, try not to throw those rocks while living in your glass house.

Regards,

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

generalgrog — GMT

bahh unsubscribing...

GG

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

I would, but I can't look away.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
shasolenzabi wrote:I have learned that there are some interesting things in life.

There are NO Atheists in a foxhole as the battle rages.

Wow, that's a good way to start off your post. Something offensive and obviously false. Here, look at this site to see a big ol' list of atheists in fox holes.

http://militaryatheists.org/

shasolenzabi wrote:Yet some folks get disillusioned and seek out answers

Atheism IS a religion of anti-religion

Science is a religion of hard cold facts.

First off, saying atheism is a religion is like saying abstinence is a sex position. Atheism is this and this only: The lack of belief in a god. Some atheists are scientists. Some atheists believe in magic. Some atheists are afraid of unicorns. The only thing that all atheists have in common is the lack of the belief in a God. They don't have churches and sermons and gospels and saints and holy texts. Plenty of atheists hate each other's guts.

And science is pretty much just a way to collect knowledge and figure out the truth. It isn't a religion either. And I'm gonna ignore the D&D part of your post.

Actually the point of my post was that folks need to lighten up. When Atheists get as riled up as Christians or Muslims or Jews it says something. Many people have claimed to be Atheist, but are really not so Atheistic, I had a friend who also claimed so, but when he had a bad acid trip, it was a very religion laced situation where he thought he had died and was in hell, so he said, and we all looked like skeletons with meat hanging off. You reaction was quite reactionary, and proved my point. And Atheists that believe in magic?? if you do not believe in a divine or diabolic entity, how can you believe in magic? I though Atheists were skeptical

My friend with the bad trip was of the belief out loud that when you die that is it, then your corpse rots in the ground, there is no going anywhere.

As for that line to start with, It has been noted that Atheists in a battle have things like "Dear God!" or "Oh God!" with the shells flying, and then prayed.

Now as for not having churches and such, I never said it was that kind of religion of disbelief now did I? I tend to lists such things if I am made aware of any sort of thing

As I said, folks need to sit back and calm down! hence my post.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

This nutter is so obtuse that he can't understand when people are agreeing with him. He just randomly insults everyone and ends his posts like they're a fething letter.

I sincerely hope you're a troll.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Since I said that god doesn't exist, to prove me wrong you'd have to prove god exists.

Not how it works.

If you make a positive statement, you must provide positive evidence. Saying that God does not exist is a positive statement. It would be different if you claimed that there was no evidence of God's existence, and that he cannot therefore be said to exist.

You are really, really bad at this argument.

Phanatik wrote:
Please astound me again.

You've astounded me repeatedly, but not in ways you would enjoy.

Phanatik wrote:
I think that when people start resorting to personal attacks is when they realize they are supporting the insupportable. Phrases like nutter, touched in the head, accusations of using ad hominem attacks, etc is evidence of this.

Which is why you entered this thread, and quickly decided that the television preferences of your interlocutor made his argument invalid.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

shasolenzabi wrote:Actually the point of my post was that folks need to lighten up. When Atheists get as riled up as Christians or Muslims or Jews it says something. Many people have claimed to be Atheist, but are really not so Atheistic, I had a friend who also claimed so, but when he had a bad acid trip, it was a very religion laced situation where he thought he had died and was in hell, so he said, and we all looked like skeletons with meat hanging off. You reaction was quite reactionary, and proved my point. And Atheists that believe in magic?? if you do not believe in a divine or diabolic entity, how can you believe in magic? I though Atheists were skeptical

I've watched The Omen, does that mean I have to believe in god, satan et al even though I profess to be an atheist?

It has been noted that Atheists in a battle have things like "Dear God!" or "Oh God!" with the shells flying, and then prayed.

I regularly take the lord and his kid's name in vain. Mattyrm (who has posted elsewhere in this thread) is an ex-Royal Marine and an atheist. Not sure if he has ever seriously prayed though. But on the subject of praying, I've occasionally said a few words to "anything that might be listening"; you know "please let me win the lottery", or "please get this person to shut up", etc... doesn't mean I actually believe something is listening, in the same way that the majority of people who speak to their cats, fish or other animals do so with the understanding that their animal doesn't understand what they are saying, but talking, even if to no one, is often a comforting activity.

Now as for not having churches and such, I never said it was that kind of religion of disbelief now did I? I tend to lists such things if I am made aware of any sort of thing

As has been pointed out numerous times before in this thread, absence of belief is not belief of absence. I know this has been said a number of times because I myself have said it...

As I said, folks need to sit back and calm down! hence my post.

Your post didn't really make a lot of sense or add anything to the discussion though

Edit: Fixed quotes

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Phanatik wrote:
Earlier you couldn't refute what I was saying, so you simply said I was wrong and that I should read more about physics and religion.

I then successfully refuted this lame attempt at shutting me down by naming the physics books I'm currently reading on my nightstand.

You then accuse me of not even owning the books, but copying and pasting them from the internet. You also accused me of not having a "mastery" of them.

Saying that you own, or have read, a certain set of book doesn't refute the notion that you should read more about their subject matter, or even simply the claimed books more than once.

I read most benchmark texts in philosophy and political science several times before I claimed to have mastery over their content.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Frazzled — GMT

Wow. Someone get a fire extinguisher. This thread is just a raging wildfire isn't it?

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Since I said that god doesn't exist, to prove me wrong you'd have to prove god exists.

Not how it works.

If you make a positive statement, you must provide positive evidence. Saying that God does not exist is a positive statement. It would be different if you claimed that there was no evidence of God's existence, and that he cannot therefore be said to exist.

You are really, really bad at this argument.
interlocutor made his argument invalid.

I'm sorry Dogma but saying that god does not exists is an negative statement, not an positive one...

1. a statement or act of denial, refusal, or negation

[Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negative ]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
You can't prove a negative, that is the only single thing that allows religions to keep insisting that these types of things might be true...

That's not strictly true, its just much more difficult.

Correct, you can prove a negative, depending on the size of the domain, the larger it is, the harder it is to prove.
I can say 4 is not greater then 5, easily proven by 1+1+1+1=4 4+1=5

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Pacific — GMT

mattyrm wrote:

That being the case, why bother with any of it? If my pint was 25% beer and 75% Tango, I would throw the fether down the sink!

Thanks for re-affirming my faith in the OT section!

Correct, you can prove a negative, depending on the size of the domain, the larger it is, the harder it is to prove.
I can say 4 is not greater then 5, easily proven by 1+1+1+1=4 4+1=5

The problem is however, when you are told that 2+2=5 from an early age, then you will tend to believe it. There is a paradox at work between the kind of logical reasoning that everyone (well, some people) apply to every part of their lives, yet fail to apply to anything concerning their spirituality. The reason being that it is old and therefore protected by tradition and culture, and through a lack of knowledge of history and how the Abrahamic religions came about.

As far as Phanatik is concerned, I don't know why you are wasting your time, both in this thread and others he has consistently shown that he is 'read only'. Turning water into wine would be easier, impossible for anyone except Jesus.

Concerning that 'no-atheists in the foxholes' I have always thought of that as a decision made under duress. The fact is that a lot of the time people don't want to acknowledge their own mortality. The concept of a permanent death, of nothingness, is deeply unsettling. In the past this, combined with a poor quality of life and apparent randomness of natural events, was of course one of the prime causes for the creation of organised religion - the rise of its power clearly mapped alongside the onset of civilisation and societal structure that allowed it to form. It's also no surprise that as society has become less dangerous, the wrath of nature less random, that people's belief in a 'greater power' has also receded. Perhaps in one of the few places that people within modern Western society people can be clearly reminded of their own mortality (the foxhole) they again turn for answers to something that they would usually not want to ask themselves under usual circumstances.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Pacific wrote:
mattyrm wrote:

That being the case, why bother with any of it? If my pint was 25% beer and 75% Tango, I would throw the fether down the sink!

Thanks for re-affirming my faith in the OT section!

Correct, you can prove a negative, depending on the size of the domain, the larger it is, the harder it is to prove.
I can say 4 is not greater then 5, easily proven by 1+1+1+1=4 4+1=5

The problem is however, when you are told that 2+2=5 from an early age, then you will tend to believe it. There is a paradox at work between the kind of logical reasoning that everyone (well, some people) apply to every part of their lives, yet fail to apply to anything concerning their spirituality. The reason being that it is old and therefore protected by tradition and culture, and through a lack of knowledge of history and how the Abrahamic religions came about.

2+2 will still be 4! That's what someone misses talkin' bout maths. In our society, we know that 2+2=4 but if , for example, in another world someone says that 2+2=5, in fact that is still 4! It's just another way to indicate the result of an equation. We say "4" because our math is based on a decimal numeration system, but no one is saying that our system is universally right. If for example an ancient population based its numeration system on the number of the islands of its land. So, if they had for example 7 islands, they would count till 7 and then start again with 10 11...
It's like the difference by the decimal and the binary system. In the decimal system we say "2", and in the binar we say"10", but "2"is true an exists the same!

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ketara — GMT

Mannfred wrote:
Pacific wrote:
mattyrm wrote:

That being the case, why bother with any of it? If my pint was 25% beer and 75% Tango, I would throw the fether down the sink!

Thanks for re-affirming my faith in the OT section!

Correct, you can prove a negative, depending on the size of the domain, the larger it is, the harder it is to prove.
I can say 4 is not greater then 5, easily proven by 1+1+1+1=4 4+1=5

The problem is however, when you are told that 2+2=5 from an early age, then you will tend to believe it. There is a paradox at work between the kind of logical reasoning that everyone (well, some people) apply to every part of their lives, yet fail to apply to anything concerning their spirituality. The reason being that it is old and therefore protected by tradition and culture, and through a lack of knowledge of history and how the Abrahamic religions came about.

2+2 will still be 4! That's what someone misses talkin' bout maths. In our society, we know that 2+2=4 but if , for example, in another world someone says that 2+2=5, in fact that is still 4! It's just another way to indicate the result of an equation. We say "4" because our math is based on a decimal numeration system, but no one is saying that our system is universally right. If for example an ancient population based its numeration system on the number of the islands of its land. So, if they had for example 7 islands, they would count till 7 and then start again with 10 11...
It's like the difference by the decimal and the binary system. In the decimal system we say "2", and in the binar we say"10", but "2"is true an exists the same!

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Mathematics can be influenced by cultural factors to an extent. See Massimiano Bucchi's, 'Science in Society: An introduction to Social Studies of Science'. Especially Chapter 3, 'Is Mathematics Socially Shaped?'.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Ketara wrote:
Mannfred wrote:
Pacific wrote:
mattyrm wrote:

That being the case, why bother with any of it? If my pint was 25% beer and 75% Tango, I would throw the fether down the sink!

Thanks for re-affirming my faith in the OT section!

Correct, you can prove a negative, depending on the size of the domain, the larger it is, the harder it is to prove.
I can say 4 is not greater then 5, easily proven by 1+1+1+1=4 4+1=5

The problem is however, when you are told that 2+2=5 from an early age, then you will tend to believe it. There is a paradox at work between the kind of logical reasoning that everyone (well, some people) apply to every part of their lives, yet fail to apply to anything concerning their spirituality. The reason being that it is old and therefore protected by tradition and culture, and through a lack of knowledge of history and how the Abrahamic religions came about.

2+2 will still be 4! That's what someone misses talkin' bout maths. In our society, we know that 2+2=4 but if , for example, in another world someone says that 2+2=5, in fact that is still 4! It's just another way to indicate the result of an equation. We say "4" because our math is based on a decimal numeration system, but no one is saying that our system is universally right. If for example an ancient population based its numeration system on the number of the islands of its land. So, if they had for example 7 islands, they would count till 7 and then start again with 10 11...
It's like the difference by the decimal and the binary system. In the decimal system we say "2", and in the binar we say"10", but "2"is true an exists the same!

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Mathematics can be influenced by cultural factors to an extent. See Massimiano Bucchi's, 'Science in Society: An introduction to Social Studies of Science'. Especially Chapter 3, 'Is Mathematics Socially Shaped?'.

Will have to read that then :-)
But, i can't look at it right now, is it possible do give me some quotes?
(Do you have a link for the book???)

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ketara — GMT

I have a pdf, but unfortunately under the terms which I was given access to it, I'm not permitted to distribute it. Try google books maybe?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

SilverMK2 — GMT

The fundamental basis behind the maths is still the same no matter if you are using base 10 or base 4 or base 60 (see time).

2+2 is still 4, even if you express it differently.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

It has often been argued whether maths is a product of mens' minds or a pre-existing condition of nature that waits to be discovered.

If an invention, it's very possible that social bias could influence the direction of research.

The first written maths is temple storage accounts, for example, rather than geometry or logic.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Pacific — GMT

Mannfred, I was just making the point expressed in '1984', about control of people's minds by a strong central authority, and the nature of power.

People continue to follow religious traditions blindly. If they were to examine them with the same scrutiny that they do other parts of their lives, or measure them in a similar way, then they might question that belief. But people choose not to, either through choice or perhaps because they just don't care.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Pacific wrote:People continue to follow religious traditions blindly. If they were to examine them with the same scrutiny that they do other parts of their lives, or measure them in a similar way, then they might question that belief. But people choose not to, either through choice or perhaps because they just don't care.

People also follow religious beliefs without doing so blindly. Putting their faith under scrutiny often times leads them to strengthen their faith as they better understand themselves. People choose not to believe that, either through prejudice or laziness.

Religion isn't so homogenous that the problem is just that people don't examine their beliefs, or that all religious figureheads/authority are trying to brainwash their followers.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

I feel at some point in everyone's lives, they should doubt everything they believe in, even if only so that through doubt, they may come to understand and reinforce their beliefs further.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Mannfred wrote:
I'm sorry Dogma but saying that god does not exists is an negative statement, not an positive one...

1. a statement or act of denial, refusal, or negation

[Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negative ]

For the purposes of the burden of proof, its a positive statement because it is a claim made in an effective vacuum (independent of any specific notion of what is being negated). In essence, the speaker is advancing an argument, and doing so places the initial onus of the burden of proof on him. If made in denial of an a previous statement, then no evidence is necessarily required as attacks on validity of the initial argument can be made.

The same is true of an initial statement claiming the existence of God.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

dogma wrote:
Mannfred wrote:
I'm sorry Dogma but saying that god does not exists is an negative statement, not an positive one...

1. a statement or act of denial, refusal, or negation

[Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negative ]

For the purposes of the burden of proof, its a positive statement because it is a claim made in an effective vacuum (independent of any specific notion of what is being negated). In essence, the speaker is advancing an argument, and doing so places the initial onus of the burden of proof on him. If made in denial of an a previous statement, then no evidence is necessarily required as attacks on validity of the initial argument can be made.

The same is true of an initial statement claiming the existence of God.

So, when one is saying, There is no god, this is 99.99% of the times not in a vacuum. the term, there is no god is most of the time directed at the religious as an responds that there is a god.

Aka, the burden of proofs still lies on the one making the claim that there is a god.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

Mannfred wrote:
dogma wrote:
Mannfred wrote:
I'm sorry Dogma but saying that god does not exists is an negative statement, not an positive one...

1. a statement or act of denial, refusal, or negation

[Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negative ]

For the purposes of the burden of proof, its a positive statement because it is a claim made in an effective vacuum (independent of any specific notion of what is being negated). In essence, the speaker is advancing an argument, and doing so places the initial onus of the burden of proof on him. If made in denial of an a previous statement, then no evidence is necessarily required as attacks on validity of the initial argument can be made.

The same is true of an initial statement claiming the existence of God.

So, when one is saying, There is no god, this is 99.99% of the times not in a vacuum. the term, there is no god is most of the time directed at the religious as an responds that there is a god.

Aka, the burden of proofs still lies on the one making the claim that there is a god.

Yeah, Mannfred is correct. It goes like this.

Person 1: God is real.
Person 2: No, God isn't real.
Person 1: Prove it!

See, that doesn't make sense. God is impossible to disprove. That's like me asking you to disprove a Unicorn invisible from all senses. So, if I have to disprove God, you have to disprove the invisible, unsmellable, untouchable, unhearable, untasteable Unicorn named "Angry".

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:Yeah, Mannfred is correct. It goes like this.

Except he isn't. This also shows how people say logic all the time but rarely actually use it properly.

Person 1: God is real.
Person 2: No, God isn't real.

In logic this argument would be represented by:

Person 1: P1
Person 2: ~P1

With P being Proposition 1, or "There is a god"

If you reverse the argument this is how it would look.

Person 1: God isn't real.
Person 2: No, God is real.

Which in logic would be represented as

Person 1: P
Person 2: ~P

With P being Proposition 1, or "There is no god"

From there you would expand on it to add arguments and then create a truth chart and so.

P1^q->~P2

Many first year students have the same trouble in that they get to wrapped up in the words and don't look at the actual argument. In this case "There is no god" is still a positive statement becuase it is is the opening proposition making the initial claim.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Yeah, Mannfred is correct. It goes like this.

Except he isn't. This also shows how people say logic all the time but rarely actually use it properly.

Person 1: God is real.
Person 2: No, God isn't real.

In logic this argument would be represented by:

Person 1: P1
Person 2: ~P1

With P being Proposition 1, or "There is a god"

If you reverse the argument this is how it would look.

Person 1: God isn't real.
Person 2: No, God is real.

Which in logic would be represented as

Person 1: P
Person 2: ~P

With P being Proposition 1, or "There is no god"

From there you would expand on it to add arguments and then create a truth chart and so.

P1^q->~P2

Many first year students have the same trouble in that they get to wrapped up in the words and don't look at the actual argument. In this case "There is no god" is still a positive statement becuase it is is the opening proposition making the initial claim.

Scientific claims can be both existence claims and universal claims, and these two types of propositions are proved in different ways. In science the burden of proof in existence claims lies, as in legal claims, with those who make the claim. If they cannot meet the standard of proof, the claim is presumed to be false. With universal claims however (once at least some positive evidence has been provided in support of existence), the burden of proof lies with those trying to show that it is false. In the legal context, a witness who swears to tell the truth is assumed to be always telling the truth, a universal claim. A lawyer who wishes to make the point that a witness is not truthful is the one who is assumed to making an assertion and thus has the burden of proof to show that the witness has lied.

For an example of proof of an existence claim in science, the claim that an entity called an electron exists has to be supported by evidence that shows that an entity with the postulated properties of an electron (such as its mass and charge) has been, or at least can be, detected in experiments. The reason that I say ‘can be’ is that in some cases if there is strong circumstantial evidence in favor of the existence of an entity, a provisional verdict in favor of existence may be granted, pending more direct confirmation. The most famous case of this may the ‘ether’, which was postulated to exist on the basis of circumstantial evidence that it should exist, until it was shown that the theory of relativity undermined all that evidence in its favor and its existence was rejected. The neutrino is example of something that was granted provisional existence and was later directly detected.

The reason for these rules about how to judge the truth of existence and universal claims is simply because without them science would be unworkable. In most cases of scientific interest, it is impossible to prove that an existence claim is false and without these rules we would be swamped with existence claims for non-existent entities. The film Avatar, for example, postulated the existence of a valuable mineral called Unobtainium on another planet called Pandora somewhere in the universe. How could one possibly prove that such a mineral (or even the planet) does not exist? One cannot. Thus originates the scientific rule that to establish that a proposition of existence is true, one has to provide positive evidence in support of it. In the absence of such evidence, a perfectly justifiable scientific conclusion is that the proposition is false and that it does not exist.

This rule is hardly controversial. It is used in everyday life by everyone because would be impossible to live otherwise. To not have such a rule is to open oneself to an infinite number of mythical entities. To allow for the existence of something in the absence of a preponderance of evidence in support of its existence means believing in the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, dragons, centaurs, mermaids, fairies, demons, vampires, and werewolves.

This is why it is perfectly valid to conclude that there is no god. ‘There is a god’ is an existence claim and the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Since no one has produced a preponderance of evidence in support of it, the claim is not to be taken seriously. Religious apologists who try to argue that god exists using logic alone without producing a preponderance of evidence in its favor are not being scientific and have entered the evidence-free realm of theology, in which one starts with whatever one wants to believe and then manufactures reasons for believing in it, even if that same reasoning is not applied to any other sphere of life.
[source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2011/07/21/the-logic-of-science-7-the-burden-of-proof-in-science/ ]

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

It is nice that you went through all that trouble, but your argument didn't address my post, which actually had nothing to do with whether god exists or not, but showed why a proposition is considered 'positive' in logic. I was trying to help explain what Dogma was referring to. Also, since my post made no claims as to whether god exists or not (in fact I posted both versions of the argument) I'm not sure why you quoted me at all to make an argument against the existence of god.

If it helps Descartes had a pretty cool nine step Proof for proving the existence of god, and it had nothing to do with fairies or pixies.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Person 1: God isn't real.
Person 2: No, God is real.

This claims is illogical, how can person 1 start with "God is not real"
He has to have heard of the idea of god (even if he thought of it himself) to disclaim it.

If the idea was not there and he would still say it, person 2 couldnt say that god does excist cause he would not know what the idea of god is.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Mannfred wrote:
Person 1: God isn't real.
Person 2: No, God is real.

This claims is illogical, how can person 1 start with "God is not real"
He has to have heard of the idea of god (even if he thought of it himself) to disclaim it.

If the idea was not there and he would still say it, person 2 couldnt say that god does excist cause he would not know what the idea of god is.

It seems you never studied actual Logic, so I don't think you can, with any validity, say "this claim is illogical". You are still making a year one error of reading the sentence, and not reading the argument.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Ok, then please, explain, cause to me, except when you take your argument into a vacuum it does not make sense.

(for example, why can you turn around the argument?)
(and if you want to know, I studied chemical science)

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Mannfred wrote:
So, when one is saying, There is no god, this is 99.99% of the times not in a vacuum. the term, there is no god is most of the time directed at the religious as an responds that there is a god.

Aka, the burden of proofs still lies on the one making the claim that there is a god.

I disagree. I've found that outside pissing matches (where rules don't really apply anyway), the phrase "there is no God" is used by people directly advancing the claim that there is no God; not by people refuting an argument made in support of the notion that there is a God. Of course, probability doesn't really matter here anyway, what matters is the structure of the relevant dispute.

You have to remember that there is a distinction between critiquing an argument (ie. refuting the relevance of evidence given in support of a claim) and countering a positive claim with another positive claim. This distinction is best illustrated by the phrases "Your arguments in favor of God's existence are unconvincing, or invalid, therefore your statement that God exists is not convincing." and "You arguments in favor of God's existence are unconvincing, or invalid, therefore there is no God." To be specific, the former is perfectly acceptable, the latter is making a further positive statement requiring proof beyond mere argumentative criticism.

Mannfred wrote:
This claims is illogical, how can person 1 start with "God is not real"
He has to have heard of the idea of god (even if he thought of it himself) to disclaim it.

If the idea was not there and he would still say it, person 2 couldnt say that god does excist cause he would not know what the idea of god is.

No one needs to believe that God exists to postulate the existence of a God.

The idea of God is not God.

To take God out of it, I can freely make the positive statement that Unicorns do not exist regardless of whether or not someone has previously claimed that they do.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Hmm ok.. At this moment i cannot give you a counter argument.
So I will give you a raincheck.

Question, Religion claims that there is a god, do you think they give us reliable, testable and repeatable evidence to make this claim true? If not, why is it so wrong to state there is no god. If so, ofcourse, please provide

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

dogma wrote:
No one needs to believe that God exists to postulate the existence of a God.

The idea of God is not God.

To take God out of it, I can freely make the positive statement that Unicorns do not exist regardless of whether or not someone has previously claimed that they do.

Im fething leathered me..

What's going on again?

I'm of to bed..

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Yeah i am of to bed as well.... need my sleep at 2.30 am xD

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

LoneLictor — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
Mannfred wrote:
Person 1: God isn't real.
Person 2: No, God is real.

This claims is illogical, how can person 1 start with "God is not real"
He has to have heard of the idea of god (even if he thought of it himself) to disclaim it.

If the idea was not there and he would still say it, person 2 couldnt say that god does excist cause he would not know what the idea of god is.

It seems you never studied actual Logic, so I don't think you can, with any validity, say "this claim is illogical". You are still making a year one error of reading the sentence, and not reading the argument.

So, instead of refuting his argument (which you can't) you called him uneducated. What a great argument.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Mannfred wrote:
Question, Religion claims that there is a god, do you think they give us reliable, testable and repeatable evidence to make this claim true? If not, why is it so wrong to state there is no god. If so, ofcourse, please provide

No, they don't.

Its wrong to state because "there is no God" is a positive claim without much support.

To make the positivist argument: the absence for evidence for God doesn't mean no God exists, it merely means we have no incentive to treat God as though he does.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

So something that cannot be proven is always an unknown?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Perkustin — GMT

Atheists worship Atheist God.

He hath but two Commandments:

Badger thine foolish Theist friends/aquantances, thou shalt not rest until thou hath henpecked them into sharing thine righteous lack of beliefs. And ye shall smile and lo the smile will be smug...

Thou shalt insist that Zen Buddhism is not a religion for thou are ignorant.

EDIT: Scientifically paraphrasing: 'One cannot irrifutably prove a negative outcome'. Not to mention the parameters are simply not there for a test of god's existance.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

dogma — GMT

Mannfred wrote:So something that cannot be proven is always an unknown?

Essentially, yes.

You'll find that most reasonable theists will differentiate between believing in God, and knowing that God exists.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannfred — GMT

Atheists worship Atheist God.

He hath but two Commandments:

Badger thine foolish Theist friends/aquantances, thou shalt not rest until thou hath henpecked them into sharing thine righteous lack of beliefs. And ye shall smile and lo the smile will be smug...

Thou shalt insist that Zen Buddhism is not a religion for thou are ignorant.

Please tell me you are just trolling......

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

Perkustin wrote:Atheists worship Atheist God.

Even through the haze of an enormous amount of booze this post has leapt from these virtual pages into the realms of abject madness. I'm going to go to bed and then come back and mock this ridiculous gak in 8 hours.

Nighty night.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:So, instead of refuting his argument (which you can't) you called him uneducated. What a great argument.

I already refuted the argument. Dogma then came back and continued so there is no point to reiterate every point.

Pointing out that someone hasn't studied something isn't the same as claiming they are uneducated. I don't think Mannfred is uneducated, nor am I trying to insult him. Most people have never studied formal Logic, and even those that have hadn't either, until they did. I never studied Medicine, so if someone pointed that out I wouldn't think it an insult, but an observation.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Perkustin — GMT

[Looks at Mattyrm's sig and smiles with smug vindication]

No troll, I actually find it funny/hypocritical how pushy Atheists are, if you believe in god, you are seen as stupid and you get some 10 minute speech including such 'gems' as '6000 years old, lolwut?!', 'Why dead babies?', 'Nasty muslims' blahblahblah. Its like some kind of convertion, a 21st century baptism in Dawkins' peepee....

My personal belief in god is Vague and Pragmatic in the extreme [big bang Instigator, nothing more]. However i do absolutely believe in the good religion and religious people can do, how JC was a top bloke and that from reading it, the new testament is as good a guide to being a decent human being as anything else. Son of god? Maybe not, the greatest Human being to have ever lived? Imo, yes

So what i am geting at is that i have no problem with religion it brings alot of people joy and purpose. Some of it's a little silly and insular but a Nasty Person is a Nasty person regardless of whether they are a believer.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Monster Rain — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:So, instead of refuting his argument (which you can't) you called him uneducated. What a great argument.

Since we're adding running commentary, I'd say that Ahtman and dogma have both not only refuted the argument but completely destroyed it.

That's the view from where I'm sitting, anyway.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

rubiksnoob — GMT

Ahtman wrote:

If it helps Descartes had a pretty cool nine step Proof for proving the existence of god, and it had nothing to do with fairies or pixies.

If you are referring to the "existence is perfection, thus it is illogical for a supremely perfect being to not exist" argument, that is a load of jibber-jabber in my unprofessional opinion.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

shasolenzabi — GMT

I am curious, what is the stance of the Atheists regarding "Scientology"?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

rubiksnoob wrote:

If you are referring to the "existence is perfection, thus it is illogical for a supremely perfect being to not exist" argument, that is a load of jibber-jabber in my unprofessional opinion.

It's also completely wrong (incredibly influential, incredibly important, and incredibly interesting, but still wrong).

The most apparent argument against Descartes' Meditations is also the strongest. Having been brought up since the first meditation, but never really explored fairly, the idea of the 'great deceiver' is so powerful that when taken into consideration, utterly invalidates any other claims that Descartes makes. The deceiver is so strong that it buries any argument of Descartes' into a hole so infinitely deep that he cannot possibly argue his way out of. To elaborate, the great deceiver argument is the idea that one is always being lied to by a higher power. Every single idea or perception has the capacity to be false and can be put into question. There is literally no way to counter such an argument, since any reasoning against it could also be machinations of the deceiver. Following such a train of thought leads to an infinite regress with no way out.

Another issue with Descartes' Meditations is the circularity of his argument for the existence of God., and furthermore, the nature of that God. He argues that God must exist because he has a clear and distinct idea of God, a being that could only be of a higher level reality than him. But then he claims that he has clear and distinct ideas because of the existence of God. Of course, this argument wouldn't be circular if Descartes could achieve a clear and distinct thought without the presence of God, but he fails to do so. This issue is brought into further light when Descartes points out that God is no deceiver, in which his argument is that the trait of deception goes against his clear and distinct idea of perfection, which only continues the circular argument in which the deceiver could be deceiving him with this supposedly clear and distinct idea. In this case, the argument continues this way infinitely with no resolution, making it invalid.

Meditation four brings up some more issues with the text, and expands on ones that were made apparent in the third meditation. Descartes argues that he is unable to properly comprehend the infinite nature of God, which even contradicts his idea of a clear and distinct idea of God, which was an important factor in determining that God exists in the first place. If Descartes requires a clear and distinct idea to affirm the existence of God, yet he is unable to comprehend this idea, it cannot possibly be clear or distinct. With this in mind, Descartes' entire argument for the existence and nature of god falls apart. Additionally, Descartes points out that by refraining from making a choice until he has a clear and distinct idea, he can avoid ever falling into error. However, refraining from making a choice is a choice unto itself, as he is choosing to take no action when he has the ability to. Lastly, concerning the issue of perfection, a perfect being should not be incapable of creating perfect things, however, Descartes notes that he himself is imperfect. His reasoning for this is that he is part of a larger, perfect system. However, if something contains imperfect parts, it cannot be wholly perfect. Furthermore, creating something wholly perfect should not be beyond a perfect being's powers, otherwise, the being cannot be perfect.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

shasolenzabi wrote:I am curious, what is the stance of the Atheists regarding "Scientology"?

bs to the highest degree, obviously.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

Perkustin wrote:[Looks at Mattyrm's sig and smiles with smug vindication]

How on earth does a quote from Hitler proving that he was a Christian give a Christian a sense of smug vindication?

I dont get it...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

...I like where this thread is going...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

mattyrm — GMT

shasolenzabi wrote:I am curious, what is the stance of the Atheists regarding "Scientology"?

Atheism has no content, its not a belief system, it's merely a lack of something, so you will have to ask some individuals for their thoughts on the matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:...I like where this thread is going...

Hey don't blame me, I never brought up a total irrelevance!

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Fafnir — GMT

I consider Scientology to be about as credible as any other religion (but several times as awesome, because freakin' aliens!).

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ahtman — GMT

Fafnir wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:

If you are referring to the "existence is perfection, thus it is illogical for a supremely perfect being to not exist" argument, that is a load of jibber-jabber in my unprofessional opinion.

It's also completely wrong (incredibly influential, incredibly important, and incredibly interesting, but still wrong).

I didn't say he was either right or wrong, just that it was interesting, which it is.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Ribon Fox — GMT

NSFW by very funny and relevent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI

No embedding NSFW videos or images. -Mannahnin

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Mannahnin — GMT

Perkustin wrote:So what i am geting at is that i have no problem with religion it brings alot of people joy and purpose. Some of it's a little silly and insular but a Nasty Person is a Nasty person regardless of whether they are a believer.

Good points, here.

Perkustin wrote:[Looks at Mattyrm's sig and smiles with smug vindication]No troll, I actually find it funny/hypocritical how pushy Atheists are, if you believe in god, you are seen as stupid and you get some 10 minute speech including such 'gems' as '6000 years old, lolwut?!', 'Why dead babies?', 'Nasty muslims' blahblahblah. Its like some kind of convertion, a 21st century baptism in Dawkins' peepee....

Isn't this just turning yourself into one of those Nasty People? It appears to be a paragraph full of hypocrisy and nastiness. You seem to be aware that the nasty folks are in the minority, so how can you simultaneously say so while tarring all Atheists with the same brush?

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Phanatik — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Mannfred wrote:
Person 1: God isn't real.
Person 2: No, God is real.

This claims is illogical, how can person 1 start with "God is not real"
He has to have heard of the idea of god (even if he thought of it himself) to disclaim it.

If the idea was not there and he would still say it, person 2 couldnt say that god does excist cause he would not know what the idea of god is.

It seems you never studied actual Logic, so I don't think you can, with any validity, say "this claim is illogical". You are still making a year one error of reading the sentence, and not reading the argument.

So, instead of refuting his argument (which you can't) you called him uneducated. What a great argument.

That is his modus operandi. At some point it reaches critical mass, and there's no point in continuing the discussion with him.

Regards,

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Blackskullandy — GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:It has often been argued whether maths is a product of mens' minds or a pre-existing condition of nature that waits to be discovered.

If an invention, it's very possible that social bias could influence the direction of research.

The first written maths is temple storage accounts, for example, rather than geometry or logic.

How does the mathmatical perfection of honeycomb fit in here? All angles and dimensions consistent to a degree that took man centuries to achieve.
Makes me lean towards a pre existing condition of nature...

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Kilkrazy — GMT

If it were a pre-existing condition of nature, then men would not have taken centuries to achieve such perfection.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

There must be concepts in maths which do not exist in nature, such as infinity, so I think some of it is natural law and some of it is invented.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Blackskullandy — GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:If it were a pre-existing condition of nature, then men would not have taken centuries to achieve such perfection.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

There must be concepts in maths which do not exist in nature, such as infinity, so I think some of it is natural law and some of it is invented.

Good point.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Joey — GMT

This is still going on?
Jesus Christ.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Velour_Fog — GMT

Joey wrote:This is still going on?
Jesus Christ.

I see what you did there.

Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

blood reaper — GMT

Joey wrote:This is still going on?
Jesus Christ.

Ba dum tish.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Amaya — GMT

I'm pretty sure this thread has outlived its usefulness and that most people will agree that a significant portion (if not the majority) of western atheism is primarily against Abrahamic religions, but not because those religions are necessarily better or worse than others, but because they are the ones most westerners are more familiar with.

Re:Atheism= Against Abrahamic God?

Krellnus — GMT

Amaya wrote:I'm pretty sure this thread has outlived its usefulness and that most people will agree that a significant portion (if not the majority) of western atheism is primarily against Abrahamic religions, but not because those religions are necessarily better or worse than others, but because they are the ones most westerners are more familiar with.

Indeed, lets just call it a day and be done with it eh?