No question, there are certain Christian denominations that go the extra mile at trying to “recruit” as many people as possible. And many don’t stop even when it’s clear that all they’re doing is driving people away.
But I have never seen any Christian group demonstrate the sort of bitterness and hostility that some atheists display right here on this forum. And I’m not talking about anyone specifically, this thread has not been bad really.
It seems that part of some atheists “religion” is to belittle whatever religion you choose believe. It’s not enough for them not to believe. For some reason they don’t want you and I to believe either.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No question, there are certain Christian denominations that go the extra mile at trying to “recruit” as many people as possible. And many don’t stop even when it’s clear that all they’re doing is driving people away.
But I have never seen any Christian group demonstrate the sort of bitterness and hostility that some atheists display right here on this forum. And I’m not talking about anyone specifically, this thread has not been bad really.
It seems that part of some atheists “religion” is to belittle whatever religion you choose believe. It’s not enough for them not to believe. For some reason they don’t want you and I to believe either.
If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny.[/quote]
I am a Jew by birth and I have unfortunately encountered really horrible Christians. They exist. They are so judgmental. It is shameful. My mother was spit on as a child for killing Christ. You know Christ was a Jew.
You had to go say Christians are morally superior to atheists who are evil zealots. Can you just not throw stones?
Atheists just don’t like that God is slung about as if there were only one god and there isn’t just one, at least in this world there are just so many religions. Some atheists just want to bow out of the religion thing. I have seen those atheists that want to convert believers and I think that is shameful also. Why would you want to destroy someone’s faith? Why would it concern you or involve an atheist what a Christian, Jew or Hindi believed? So I hear you on that one.
I have my own beliefs and they aren’t Christian in the sense of an organized church.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
pat36 wrote:
You are asserting that there is not one shred of evidence that God exists?
LOL!
I have no burden of proof to show you anything. If you want to know find out yourself, it’s not my problem. I’d start with miricales and move on from there. Those are the most obvious interaction between God and our ability to sense IT. I really don’t give a crap whether your atheist or not.
It’s my assertion that you should not feel superior that you are. And given how poorly reasoned your arguments are, you misuse of logical fallacys and missunderstanding of burden of proof, you certainly need not feel so supirior.
Interesting.
Yep, I think I will go on record as saying I don’t think there is one shred of evidence that proves God exists. There may be ‘circumstantial’ or anecdotal evidence which can be interpreted as in keeping with text from the Bible, or Qur’an, but neither of these forms of argument would hold up in any court of law.
As for your ‘miricales’ - I’m assuming they are the same as what other people call ‘miracles’. I will hand on heart convert to your faith of choice right now if you can show me a miracle (or miricale) that can be shown to have not happened either through naturally occurring events, or was not a case of suggestion, whether conscious or sub-conscious on the part of the witness.
Remember, our brains are programmed to make sense out of chaos - to create recognisable shapes out of disarray. What what is more familiar than a human face? Stare at a cloud for long enough and you’ll see a face. Then show your friend and they’ll see it too.
I would also be extremely interested to gain a greater understanding of your version of the concept of the ‘burden of proof’.
Here’s mine, as I understand it.
1)We start from ground zero.
2)I come to you suggesting a premise. Possibly a premise that might be outlandish enough that immediately you don’t take me at my word.
3)You say I don’t believe you. Prove to me that this premise is true.
4)I show you said proof.
5)You accept said proof, or show that said proof is in fact extremely flimsy.
6) I then either provide incontrovertible proof, or am unable to prove the premise I suggested.
Now, as I understand it there is another version of the ‘burden of proof’ which goes a little like this…
1)We start from ground zero.
2)I come to you suggesting a premise. Possibly a premise that might be outlandish enough that immediately you don’t take me at my word.
3)You say I don’t believe you. Prove to me that this premise is true.
4)I say it was written down 2000 years ago and loads of people, some of them really clever, believed it so it must be true.
5)You are unable to find fault with this erudite presentation and accept that cast-iron argument and we subsequently all live happily ever after believing the premise.
Was I far off?
By the way - ONE MORE TIME!
Don’t forget, YOU are atheist too. With regard to a belief in Allah, Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc…
Why the Christian God over all those, some of which are far older, or in the case of FSM, far cooler?
An accident of birth? Surely had you been born and raised in Basra you would not have been a Christian. And you would have believed just as readily that Allah, peace be upon him, was the one true God and that those who were of the Christian faith were infidels.
Surely you can see that this ‘faith by birthplace’ is not a good enough reason for believing YOUR faith to be the only true one.
So explain to me why Christianity is the one true faith, especially when you take into consideration that the Bible was supposedly written by apostles - Humans - imperfect and full of sin by definition, therefore capable of mistakes or interpretation, just like the King James translation of the Bible introduced at a much later date, whereas the Holy Qur’an is apparently the very word of God Himself, with no room for distortion of His word or message…
I love these chats.
Here’s what you forgot. I relly don’t give a fuck if your an atheist or not. It is you trying to convince me that there is no God therefore the burden of proof lies with you. Prove God does not exist and I’ll follow. There are plenty of unexplainable events and other evidences that God exists.
Whether they hold credibility with you or not is a different story. There is a hell of a lot more evidence as it pertains to God’s existance, then there is evidence of the conclusion that there is no God. If you want to know, do the research yourself. Your not my student, padwan, or intern. The only way I would bother is if you had a vested interest in learning about God, the purpose of religion and Christianity.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely pointing out you cannot disprove the existance of God any more than I can prove it. Hell, I spent to much time with you as it is.[/quote]
Erm… I think this is the first time I have responded to any of your posts. Don’t think we’ve spoken to each other before, have we? Think you may have mistaken me for someone else. Either that or you are really just quite rude.
And I thought I was being nice and polite in asking you to clarify a few things, in what I find a fascinating debate, because funnily enough whilst I do not believe in a supernatural creator, I am absolutely fascinated by every aspect of every religion and want understand them all more fully.
I am not trying to get you to abandon your faith. I was asking from whence it comes, and how you know it is the ONE TRUE FAITH. I didn’t try to convince you there was no God. I responded to a point you had made previously about people not fully comprehending the concept of the ‘burden of proof’ . That is a very different topic than me telling you God doesn’t exist.
But it was you who used the example of ‘miricales’ to prove he existed. Which is why I asked if you could give me an example that would satisfy my own criteria for what would constitute a miracle. In your response, you have yet again mentioned there are plenty of 'unexplainable events and other evidences '(sic) that prove He exists. I would like to know them.
I’m very sorry that you took this to be such a challenge to your beliefs that you couldn’t answer rationally. If it was my little joke about your war on spelling that tipped the balance then I apologise.
And one more time. I really don’t think you fully comprehend the concept of atheism. You as a Christian are by definition an atheist. In order to be a Christian you have to disbelieve in the existence of EVERY SINGLE OTHER GOD but yours. You are ATHEIST with regards to them. That includes everyone from Allah to Zeus and most obviously from your post, includes not only atheism towards but an apparent loathing of the God of Spelling and Grammar.
Atheism is not a community, not a social group - not a way of marking out people who have some wily secret agenda. They are as disparate bunch of human beings as any population of people. The only thing they have in common is the way they set out their belief structures and apply it to their lives. But everybody’s belief structure might be different. There is no universal book of Atheist’s commandments (although many organisations suggest an alternate set of principles to Christian doctrine). In conclusion - The term atheist does not describe a type of person. It describe one tiny aspect of how someone might apply (their interpretation) of logic and reason to particular aspects of their life.
So again, I ask you. Out of a plain, genuine quest for knowledge, what are these miracles and evidences you speak of?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No question, there are certain Christian denominations that go the extra mile at trying to “recruit” as many people as possible. And many don’t stop even when it’s clear that all they’re doing is driving people away.
But I have never seen any Christian group demonstrate the sort of bitterness and hostility that some atheists display right here on this forum. And I’m not talking about anyone specifically, this thread has not been bad really.
It seems that part of some atheists “religion” is to belittle whatever religion you choose believe. It’s not enough for them not to believe. For some reason they don’t want you and I to believe either.
If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny.[/quote]
I posted a response to this but it didn’t come up for some reason. So in short…
Zeb… Did you never think maybe you never witnessed any similar bitterness and vitriol from Christians because YOU ARE ONE? I have seen king-sized arseholes from Jews to Muslims to Christian, agnostics and atheists. I don’t think any particular group of people has the monopoly on that. Although if you have never seen a Christian group behave with bitterness and hostility, may I point you in the direction of the brilliant documentary ‘Louis Theroux meets the most hated family in America’ - the founders and members of the Westboro Baptist Church. That should be just about enough bitterness and hostility in the name of the Christian God to show you just how far some people take it.
Going back to your point though - To be honest I really don’t think the internet is the best place to find representations of what any human being or demographic, is truly like. Nothing like anonymity to bring out the internet hard-man, e-pedant or similar. In real life I’m sure 90% of these angry, argumentative people are pussycats.
Also, whether in speech marks or not, please please please don’t refer to my using (admittedly my own interpretation of ) logic and reasoning to make all my decisions as a religion. Religion is pretty much the ONE thing it is not. I have nothing in common with any other atheist aside from the fact that I imagine they try to apply the same model to their life and decision-making process. So in short, it’s kinda annoying and I know you’re far too nice and polite to deliberately try to annoy someone.
Zeb… Did you never think maybe you never witnessed any similar bitterness and vitriol from Christians because YOU ARE ONE?[/quote]
That thought actually crossed my mind. I’m mainly talking about what I’ve seen on this site in prior threads. And I’ve never seen anyone calling themselves a Christian attack people the way certain people have who call themselves atheists.
Sorry Pack.
Again, talking about this site. I’m well aware of the group you are referring to however. Not good.
Some maybe. Anonymity does bring out the worst in people.
Well, if I have faith that there IS a God and you have faith that there is NOT a God, it seems to me that we both have faith each in his own way.
For you to think that you’ve cornered the market on reason and logic, and you’ve pretty much figured it all out takes a great deal of faith my man. In fact, far more than I or any Christian could ever hope to have.
[quote] I have nothing in common with any other atheist aside from the fact that I imagine they try to apply the same model to their life and decision-making process. So in short, it’s kinda annoying and I know you’re far too nice and polite to deliberately try to annoy someone.
Thanks buddy. [/quote]
I never deliberately annoy anyone. I just tell them my opinion and that seems to annoy them for some reason.
It seems that part of some atheists “religion” is to belittle whatever religion you choose believe. It’s not enough for them not to believe. For some reason they don’t want you and I to believe either.
If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny.[/quote]
Condescension (and it is a two way street), however sincere, is still condescension. That has a habit of getting people’s ire up.
Positioning yourself on moral high ground, as seen by that last comment of yours as well as by your declaration that your faith is the one and only, can be construed as insulting. And then you play your “I’m innocent” card (also seen through your last comment). Is it a wonder such tactics are met with anything other than hostility?
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
pat36 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
pat36 wrote:
You are asserting that there is not one shred of evidence that God exists?
LOL!
I have no burden of proof to show you anything. If you want to know find out yourself, it’s not my problem. I’d start with miricales and move on from there. Those are the most obvious interaction between God and our ability to sense IT. I really don’t give a crap whether your atheist or not.
It’s my assertion that you should not feel superior that you are. And given how poorly reasoned your arguments are, you misuse of logical fallacys and missunderstanding of burden of proof, you certainly need not feel so supirior.
Interesting.
Yep, I think I will go on record as saying I don’t think there is one shred of evidence that proves God exists. There may be ‘circumstantial’ or anecdotal evidence which can be interpreted as in keeping with text from the Bible, or Qur’an, but neither of these forms of argument would hold up in any court of law.
As for your ‘miricales’ - I’m assuming they are the same as what other people call ‘miracles’. I will hand on heart convert to your faith of choice right now if you can show me a miracle (or miricale) that can be shown to have not happened either through naturally occurring events, or was not a case of suggestion, whether conscious or sub-conscious on the part of the witness.
Remember, our brains are programmed to make sense out of chaos - to create recognisable shapes out of disarray. What what is more familiar than a human face? Stare at a cloud for long enough and you’ll see a face. Then show your friend and they’ll see it too.
I would also be extremely interested to gain a greater understanding of your version of the concept of the ‘burden of proof’.
Here’s mine, as I understand it.
1)We start from ground zero.
2)I come to you suggesting a premise. Possibly a premise that might be outlandish enough that immediately you don’t take me at my word.
3)You say I don’t believe you. Prove to me that this premise is true.
4)I show you said proof.
5)You accept said proof, or show that said proof is in fact extremely flimsy.
6) I then either provide incontrovertible proof, or am unable to prove the premise I suggested.
Now, as I understand it there is another version of the ‘burden of proof’ which goes a little like this…
1)We start from ground zero.
2)I come to you suggesting a premise. Possibly a premise that might be outlandish enough that immediately you don’t take me at my word.
3)You say I don’t believe you. Prove to me that this premise is true.
4)I say it was written down 2000 years ago and loads of people, some of them really clever, believed it so it must be true.
5)You are unable to find fault with this erudite presentation and accept that cast-iron argument and we subsequently all live happily ever after believing the premise.
Was I far off?
By the way - ONE MORE TIME!
Don’t forget, YOU are atheist too. With regard to a belief in Allah, Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc…
Why the Christian God over all those, some of which are far older, or in the case of FSM, far cooler?
An accident of birth? Surely had you been born and raised in Basra you would not have been a Christian. And you would have believed just as readily that Allah, peace be upon him, was the one true God and that those who were of the Christian faith were infidels.
Surely you can see that this ‘faith by birthplace’ is not a good enough reason for believing YOUR faith to be the only true one.
So explain to me why Christianity is the one true faith, especially when you take into consideration that the Bible was supposedly written by apostles - Humans - imperfect and full of sin by definition, therefore capable of mistakes or interpretation, just like the King James translation of the Bible introduced at a much later date, whereas the Holy Qur’an is apparently the very word of God Himself, with no room for distortion of His word or message…
I love these chats.
Here’s what you forgot. I relly don’t give a fuck if your an atheist or not. It is you trying to convince me that there is no God therefore the burden of proof lies with you. Prove God does not exist and I’ll follow. There are plenty of unexplainable events and other evidences that God exists.
Whether they hold credibility with you or not is a different story. There is a hell of a lot more evidence as it pertains to God’s existance, then there is evidence of the conclusion that there is no God. If you want to know, do the research yourself. Your not my student, padwan, or intern. The only way I would bother is if you had a vested interest in learning about God, the purpose of religion and Christianity.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely pointing out you cannot disprove the existance of God any more than I can prove it. Hell, I spent to much time with you as it is.
Erm… I think this is the first time I have responded to any of your posts. Don’t think we’ve spoken to each other before, have we? Think you may have mistaken me for someone else. Either that or you are really just quite rude.
And I thought I was being nice and polite in asking you to clarify a few things, in what I find a fascinating debate, because funnily enough whilst I do not believe in a supernatural creator, I am absolutely fascinated by every aspect of every religion and want understand them all more fully.
I am not trying to get you to abandon your faith. I was asking from whence it comes, and how you know it is the ONE TRUE FAITH. I didn’t try to convince you there was no God. I responded to a point you had made previously about people not fully comprehending the concept of the ‘burden of proof’ . That is a very different topic than me telling you God doesn’t exist.
But it was you who used the example of ‘miricales’ to prove he existed. Which is why I asked if you could give me an example that would satisfy my own criteria for what would constitute a miracle. In your response, you have yet again mentioned there are plenty of 'unexplainable events and other evidences '(sic) that prove He exists. I would like to know them.
I’m very sorry that you took this to be such a challenge to your beliefs that you couldn’t answer rationally. If it was my little joke about your war on spelling that tipped the balance then I apologise.
And one more time. I really don’t think you fully comprehend the concept of atheism. You as a Christian are by definition an atheist. In order to be a Christian you have to disbelieve in the existence of EVERY SINGLE OTHER GOD but yours. You are ATHEIST with regards to them. That includes everyone from Allah to Zeus and most obviously from your post, includes not only atheism towards but an apparent loathing of the God of Spelling and Grammar.
Atheism is not a community, not a social group - not a way of marking out people who have some wily secret agenda. They are as disparate bunch of human beings as any population of people. The only thing they have in common is the way they set out their belief structures and apply it to their lives. But everybody’s belief structure might be different. There is no universal book of Atheist’s commandments (although many organisations suggest an alternate set of principles to Christian doctrine). In conclusion - The term atheist does not describe a type of person. It describe one tiny aspect of how someone might apply (their interpretation) of logic and reason to particular aspects of their life.
So again, I ask you. Out of a plain, genuine quest for knowledge, what are these miracles and evidences you speak of?
[/quote]
No, you were being an elitist ass.
I used miricles as an example not as the primary evidence that God exists but as one of many. It’s not a bad place to start, because you have to logically refute each case based on each cases’ merits.
Rather that point out specific ones, read over the Wikipedia link:
It should give you a nice overview, including skeptical views so you can judge for yourself or research even more.
As far as “The one true religion stuff” Most of that stuff is crap. The purpose of religion is a means to estblish communication with God. Which ever way does that the best for you should be what you are.
I am Catholic, but some people may communicate with God better being hindu or buddist or even muslim (though by and large their embracing of hate philosophy drives them further from God, not closer, though that’s another debate).
Think of religion like a cell phone network the connects to God. For some people, Verizon is clearer and more reliable than AT&T, and others Sprint establishes the connection better. That being said, as a group certain sects are clearly better than others at it. Just like some cell phone companies are better than others. But in the end most do the job, people talk to their God and get answers.
Keep in mind that talking about religion and the exixtence of God is a giant leap. Religion is a philosophy where the accepted answer to whether or not God exists is “Yes”, so things move on from there.
There are many reasons I choose for being Catholic but behind it all are these basis facts. Jesus ordained the Apostles and the apostles made the church. Every ordination since then can be traced back directely to an apostle, there are no breaks in the line.
I really like the apostolic tradition, it gives the religion nice deep roots. Also, the basic message is to love your neighbor and love God. All things brach off those basic tenants.Not hurt, kill, power,selfishness, superiority over others, or any of that crap. Just nice basic stuff that works.
Could I be wrong about this stuff? You bet. It’s a gamble I am willing to take. I am a happy, happy person, so if I am wrong, fuck it. If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Condescension (and it is a two way street), however sincere, is still condescension. That has a habit of getting people’s ire up.
I thought thats where the water on the side of you glass comes from…:)[/quote]
If by this you mean how do I have any right to say this, being that I am also guilty… what do you think “and it is a two way street” means? Be that as it may, this was taken out of context. It was specifically said about the “if it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny” statement.
I never claimed anyone as pathetic. I originally said that the god of the Bible doesn’t exist. Then I revised my statement (through much consideration) to say that the god of the Bible is incomplete. There’s also a god of the Qur’an, a god of the Talmud, so on and so on. You said as much with your astute analogy with mobile phone carriers.
I never claimed atheism. I stated that I was agnostic with many buddhist principles. Where is the water and what is the glass of which you speak?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:
Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =
Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.
This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet. [/quote]
There is also the “Theory of gravity” and gravity is a fact.
So is evolution.
It might not happen exactly the way the “Theory of Evolution” describes it, though it more or less does, but so what?
Positioning yourself on moral high ground, as seen by that last comment of yours as well as by your declaration that your faith is the one and only, can be construed as insulting. [/quote]
I guess there’s not much difference between those who believe there is a God and those who do not, when it comes to feeling that they have a lock on the truth.
Both groups are claiming to be right at the expense of all others.
Are we equally insulting?
When an atheist claims there is no God there is no room for movement there huh?
The atheist is saying in essence, “my way is the only way.”
And by the way how come I’ve not read anything from you pointing that out to the atheists?
Never said I was innocent, maybe you need to reread my post. I’m a sinner, and so are you, and the atheists. No difference there.
Furthermore, at what point is hostility called for? According to you it’s warranted rather quickly, but only in the direction of the Christians, never in the direction of the atheists, who always seem to “know” that they’re right too.
Condescension (and it is a two way street), however sincere, is still condescension. That has a habit of getting people’s ire up.
I thought thats where the water on the side of you glass comes from…
If by this you mean how do I have any right to say this, being that I am also guilty… what do you think “and it is a two way street” means? Be that as it may, this was taken out of context. It was specifically said about the “if it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny” statement.
I never claimed anyone as pathetic. I originally said that the god of the Bible doesn’t exist. Then I revised my statement (through much consideration) to say that the god of the Bible is incomplete. There’s also a god of the Qur’an, a god of the Talmud, so on and so on. You said as much with your astute analogy with mobile phone carriers.
I never claimed atheism. I stated that I was agnostic with many buddhist principles. Where is the water and what is the glass of which you speak?[/quote]
I meant nothing by it, it was just a joke. I didn’t even read the rest of the post so I don’t know what your claims are.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
No, you were being an elitist ass.
[/quote]
Elitist? Because I can spell? It really helps to be able to spell the word miracle if you are going to use it to prove anything in an argument.
Aside from that, which I DID apologise for if it had upset you, how was I being elitist when all I did was ask you some questions about you r belief structure that I didn’t/don’t quite understand. My quest for enlightenment strikes you as elitist?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I used miricles as an example not as the primary evidence that God exists but as one of many. It’s not a bad place to start, because you have to logically refute each case based on each cases’ merits.
[/quote]
Now miracles are an interesting thing. Quick question before I begin. Is the burden of proof in relation to miracles the same one applicable to matters of theism, or those applicable to the rest of the world?
What I mean is, do we start from a premise that there was no miracle and then someone has to prove there WAS one, or is the standard thinking on miracles the ‘miracles happen all the time, it’s down to you to prove they WEREN’T miracles’? Just asking.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Rather that point out specific ones, read over the Wikipedia link:
It should give you a nice overview, including skeptical views so you can judge for yourself or research even more.
[/quote]
Seeing as you raised the issue of miracles, are there any inparticular that you feel could justifiably lead someone to believe in the existence of a supernatural creator? If you could point me in the direction of a couple of good ones I will pay particular attention to these ones.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
As far as “The one true religion stuff” Most of that stuff is crap. The purpose of religion is a means to estblish communication with God. Which ever way does that the best for you should be what you are.
[/quote]
That’s a very nice sentiment. However, sure all that ‘thou shalt worship no other god’ thing which is common to many faiths means that in fact the big Man often doesn’t think along those terms. And Islam is a very good example of a religiopn going out of its way to make it very clear what it thinks of other faiths, even if for the most part they are tolerated - they are 100% thought to be wrong wrong wrong.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I am Catholic, but some people may communicate with God better being hindu or buddist or even muslim (though by and large their embracing of hate philosophy drives them further from God, not closer, though that’s another debate).
[/quote]
Did you just call Buddhism a ‘hate philosophy’? Erm? OK I’m gonna leave that one well alone, cos I truly think you can’t seriously have meant that.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Think of religion like a cell phone network the connects to God. For some people, Verizon is clearer and more reliable than AT&T, and others Sprint establishes the connection better. That being said, as a group certain sects are clearly better than others at it. Just like some cell phone companies are better than others. But in the end most do the job, people talk to their God and get answers.
Keep in mind that talking about religion and the exixtence of God is a giant leap. Religion is a philosophy where the accepted answer to whether or not God exists is “Yes”, so things move on from there.
[/quote]
Genuinely, that was a beautiful way of looking at it and very well put. However…
[quote]pat36 wrote:
There are many reasons I choose for being Catholic but behind it all are these basis facts. Jesus ordained the Apostles and the apostles made the church. Every ordination since then can be traced back directely to an apostle, there are no breaks in the line.
[/quote]
Facts that can be substantiated how? I think we have different interpretations of what constitutes a fact. Sorry, carry on…
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I really like the apostolic tradition, it gives the religion nice deep roots. Also, the basic message is to love your neighbor and love God. All things brach off those basic tenants.Not hurt, kill, power,selfishness, superiority over others, or any of that crap. Just nice basic stuff that works.
Could I be wrong about this stuff? You bet. It’s a gamble I am willing to take. I am a happy, happy person, so if I am wrong, fuck it. If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right.[/quote]
I think this last is a very worthy and admirable stance, and I truly respect your feelings and desires on the matter.
However, your last sentence sums everything up in a nutshell to the common garden variety atheist.
‘If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right’.
The thing that simply messes my head up is how people of faith CANNOT FATHOM how people who are not, can come to respect the same ideals and principles as you wrote (I chopped out the God bit) love your neighbor. Not hurt, kill, power,selfishness, superiority over others, or any of that crap.’
That’s me too. That’s how I live my life 100%. Always trying to do right by others and by myself. Always treat people in the way I would like to be treated and so on and so forth. I just reached the conclusions that these were the traits I wished to embody through a different route from you, and free of the God association. But coming back to the ‘If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right’ thing. If you were wrong, why would you not want to know the truth of it and accept it? Do you truly believe that you cannot respect life, people and love unless you believe in a supernatural creator?
Why would you ever prefer live a lie, if it WAS shown that you were wrong?
This is not an attack. Just honest questions. Thanks for taking the time to answer me.
Zeb… Did you never think maybe you never witnessed any similar bitterness and vitriol from Christians because YOU ARE ONE?
That thought actually crossed my mind. I’m mainly talking about what I’ve seen on this site in prior threads. And I’ve never seen anyone calling themselves a Christian attack people the way certain people have who call themselves atheists.
Sorry Pack.
Although if you have never seen a Christian group behave with bitterness and hostility, may I point you in the direction of the brilliant documentary ‘Louis Theroux meets the most hated family in America’ - the founders and members of the Westboro Baptist Church. That should be just about enough bitterness and hostility in the name of the Christian God to show you just how far some people take it.
Again, talking about this site. I’m well aware of the group you are referring to however. Not good.
Going back to your point though - To be honest I really don’t think the internet is the best place to find representations of what any human being or demographic, is truly like. Nothing like anonymity to bring out the internet hard-man, e-pedant or similar. In real life I’m sure 90% of these angry, argumentative people are pussycats.
Some maybe. Anonymity does bring out the worst in people.
Also, whether in speech marks or not, please please please don’t refer to my using (admittedly my own interpretation of ) logic and reasoning to make all my decisions as a religion.
Well, if I have faith that there IS a God and you have faith that there is NOT a God, it seems to me that we both have faith each in his own way.
For you to think that you’ve cornered the market on reason and logic, and you’ve pretty much figured it all out takes a great deal of faith my man. In fact, far more than I or any Christian could ever hope to have.
[/quote]
Haha this site is the worst. Meatheads + testosterone + anonymity + internet + cultural difference + a war going on = terrible representation of modern society.
[i]
Religion
noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
religions, Archaic. religious rites.
[/i]
Baring in mind what I have said about what it means for me to be atheist, which of these definitions applies to me? And rather than ‘cornering any market’ in reasoning and logic, I expressly made it plain that it was not some ‘universal reason and logic’ but my own interpretation of it.
As I said previously, atheists have no ‘universal morality’ other than the broad one dictated by a culture or society. Therefore, it cannot be considered religious in any way.
As much as I love our chats, I tend to disagree with around 99.9 percent of everything you say, and the other 0.1 is just where you sign your name.
As for thinking I have it figured out… Well you read my training logs so you know how far off the mark THAT is
I have stated here on this thread I think that it is the search for answers and explanations that drives me, plus a desire to learn. At no point did I ever suggest that science had all the answers. I do however feel that with every day that passes, it has more of them than it did the previous day. I don’t get the impression that theism holds the same currency.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:
Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =
Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.
This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet. [/quote]
Exactly right! And people who want or need evolution to be fact or proven in absolutes are no different than people who want or need a certain religion to be true or the absolute truth.
Baring in mind what I have said about what it means for me to be atheist, which of these definitions applies to me? [/quote]
I don’t think that I saw any those that fit you totally.
But here’s one that seems to come close:
FAITH:
Noun,
“The act of assenting intellectually to something which is proposed as true.”
Yes, I think that fits your brand of atheism nicely.
You have faith that there is no God.
Your interpretation huh?
Now I’d say that your bordering on religion with that sort of comment. But I’ll stick with the definition of faith.
Having faith in someone or something, or the lack thereof is not religion.
Well, you’re still young. Maybe when you get a little older you’ll have better judgement.
All kidding aside, you cannot get further apart than you and I are in so many ways, culturally, socially, etc. The fact that we can have a discussion without name calling is positive testimony to both of us.
But in time you will have that figured out as well. And hopefully you’ll continue the discipline to carry it out.
So true, as science seems to change on key issues regularly.
Actually, I think it will take some time for science to catch up to the Bible.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I guess there’s not much difference between those who believe there is a God and those who do not, when it comes to feeling that they have a lock on the truth.[/quote] You’re right.
[quote]Both groups are claiming to be right at the expense of all others. [/quote] yup
[quote]Are we equally insulting?[/quote] It is inherent in our nature. To break this cycle could be the next renaissance.
[quote]When an atheist claims there is no God there is no room for movement there huh?
The atheist is saying in essence, “my way is the only way.”
And by the way how come I’ve not read anything from you pointing that out to the atheists? [/quote]
The atheist doesn’t tell me my only chance for salvation is through their beliefs. They’d laugh at my assertions in the metaphysical and maybe call me crackpot, but they wouldn’t damn me for them.
[quote]And then you play your “I’m innocent” card (also seen through your last comment). Is it a wonder such tactics are met with anything other than hostility?
Never said I was innocent, maybe you need to reread my post. I’m a sinner, and so are you, and the atheists. No difference there.[/quote]
Your statement about pathetic and humorous is a declaration of where you are in relation to the statement you responded to – The opposite, being among other things: esteemed, exalted, excellent, magnificent, noble, proud…
and I didn’t speak of sin.
[quote]Furthermore, at what point is hostility called for? According to you it’s warranted rather quickly, but only in the direction of the Christians, never in the direction of the atheists, who always seem to “know” that they’re right too.
[/quote]
Hostility? I do have a penchant for hostility towards authority figures. Those that would call themselves my better.
I guess I can see the atheist way of thinking, being a scientist. They look for proof, and in it’s absence, they believe in nothing. I didn’t consider them “right.” I considered them “minus proof,” be it faith, miracles or a visit from extra-terrestrials (that spaghettigod does seem rather tasty - though right now I’d prefer an icecreamandcookiegod myself).
There’s still a chance. And the best way is to let them find it on their own. The more one applies force, the more force they use to resist. And, to top it off, my beliefs don’t require theirs! They are still “good to go,” even if they don’t believe. Does your faith give them the keys to salvation without their believing like you?
Nothing matters. In the end, we are all turn to dust. This is no theory. This is fact. Of all our works, none is more important than to teach our children kindness. Not to segregate ourselves through beliefs.
Dammit, I’m starting to sound like a hippie. I gotta go hurl.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Sorry, orion, but it is The Universal Law of Gravitation, by Sir Isaac Newton.
Law = proven theory through independent experiments, all coming to the same conclusion.[/quote]
The only problem is that Newton’s “law” is wrong. There are myriad cases where it doesn’t predict the correct results. The current theory for gravity is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The “theory” is better than the “law” in this case. Science has pretty much abandoned the practice of naming anything “laws” anymore.
In science, a “theory” does not mean what most people think “theory” means (ie, “our best guess…”). A theory is pretty much as good as it gets, and as theory goes, there are very few scientific theories that have more support than Evolution does.
