[quote]grey wrote:
Now i’m off on a ski trip for ten days where I will be in awe of the grandeur that all the combined gods created and will pray to the god of snowboard to let me find my groove. [/quote]
May the Lord of the Bords guide your groove…
[quote]aslater wrote:
How do you explain our souls which dont have matter but obviously exist?[/quote]
Huh? Please demonstrate the existence of that obvious soul.
He later changed his mind back. Sorry to Disappoint, Still an Atheist! [Antony Flew sets the record straight]
Why must believers always use half-facts and distorted accounts of events to back up their faith?
Putting “Anthony Flew” in Google would’ve told you he gave up any “belief” mere months after saying he was considering the existence of God as a definite possibility.
But no, he expresses doubt about his atheism and you all jump on that fact and never follow-up. It’s like time stopped after he made the slightest move towards faith.
As soon as something fits well enough to support your fantasies, you stop looking and fix it in stone.
Maybe that’s why your mental faculties are so often put in question. It might not be stupidity, maybe simple dishonesty explains it better.
You know what I always say, “Thank God for atheists.”
[quote]miniross wrote:
karva wrote:
orion wrote:
Even if all you “theists” are right and that logically you cannot deny that there might be a god, that is still very very far away from “10 commandments/messiah/trinity” Jehova.
The problem cannot be reduced to there is no god OR everything the bible claims is true.
Imagine there is an entity we would, for a lack of a better term, call a god and he just was some sort of prime mover and otherwise does not give a shit.
No heaven, no hell, no weird interest in homosexuality…
Then we heathen atheists would technically be wrong but for all practical purposes be right…
The history of mankind knows different kinds of gods, like the vain bearded guy, about whom the majority seem to be talking about, then there is deus otiosus, the god who gave the original nudge and haven’t interfered since, there’s numinosum, the one who can’t be spoken of since numinosum can be described only with negatives, there’s the panteistic god who recides in every single atom in the universe, there’s the trickster, who really don’t care about anything else but having a good time, there’s pantheism, a splendid show of teamwork like in the greek pantheon…
And then there’s Crom who laughes at you from his mountain.
In a more serious vain, William James’ book “Varieties of Religious Experience” from 1902 is still as fresh as ever. Belief is not about dogma, it’s about experience. Atheism is belief,too.
How is atheism a beilief. It has no framework, structure or the like. It is a matter of saying that there is no effective proof.
It is a common mistake to think of it as such.
I do like the multi god bit though…very interesting.[/quote]
I didn’t want to say that atheism is a belief, I wanted to say that embracing atheism is believing. It is about believing in your own experiences and explanations. If you are pointing out that there is no definitive proof - and remain therefore undecided, you’re an agnostic. If you draw the conclusion that god does therefore not exist, you’re an atheist.
For all of you who mock God, His Bible, and the prophets:
Whoever denies ?that Jesus is the Christ? is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are ?of God;? everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is ?a deceiver and an anti-Christ? 2 John 1:7
Anyone who doesn?t share Paul?s beliefs has ?an evil heart.? Hebrews 3:12
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
To me, being an Atheist or believer in a higher power all boil down to the origin of man, the world, and the universe as we know it. When I look at amazing advances in science and all we can do with technology and then look at the science behind evolution I can’t comprehend the evolution model. I mean, if you were honest you would admit that there are major flaws with the evolutionary model that can’t be explained.[/quote]
Evolution theory is not set in stone. None of science is.
Evolution, as any other scientific theory, gets tested, invalidated or confirmed and evolves (no pun intended). Of course there are flaws with evolution theory; but those flaws are so minuscule when compared to the massive amount of evidence in support of evolution that we know the basics of it are true. As close to a proven fact as you’ll get in science.
Will more flaws be found? Of course. Will evolutionary theory change to explain those flaws? Of course, as soon as better hypotheses are put forth that reconcile all the facts.
You need to read up a little on evolution, and not from any right-wing Christian site.
The lineage of man is fairly well understood. Like I said, it’s all there if you’re really interested.
Excellent question. And here too science has ideas. Of course, testing those ideas is extremely difficult, since we’re stuck inside the universe.
If you want to learn about those ideas, look up texts and books on cosmology. Even String Theory proposes possible solutions to this problem. Again, testing it is very difficult.
But to say that we have “no idea” is simply false. In fact, we have to many ideas; rejecting the wrong ones is probably the main problem we have now.
One thing to keep in mind is that science is not done and over with. We haven’t found explanations for everything, far from it. Somehow, believers always seem to take the stance that science as it is now is the be-all end-all. Just because the Bible is set in stone (loose stones, but still…), doesn’t mean that science suffers the from the same problem.
Who can tell what we’ll understand better in 100 years; or 1000; or ten thousand for that matter.
Why can’t you apply the same logic to God? Or conversely, if you have no problem believing that God always existed, why can’t the universe do the same? Maybe our universe (from the Big Bang) is only one of many others and that the greater “multiverse” is filled with universe beginning, living and dying.
And reasoning you apply to show that a God is required, should also be applied to God Himself. Conversely, any “exception” you allow God might just as well be applied to the universe itself.
Look at it this way. It used to be that men understood nothing of the world around them. So they had gods for everything. A god for the wind, one for rain, one pulling the sun in the sky, etc.
Eventually, as we came to a better understanding of our surrounding reality, we realized that no gods were required, that physical laws governed the universe and that all those phenomenon could be explained by those laws.
Now, what’s to say that we won’t eventually also figure out where universes come from? If we do that and it turns out that there is a non-supernatural explanation for it, where will that leave God?
So if you can’t explain something, it must be God?
Just because we can’t explain it now doesn’t mean we’ll never be able to explain it. You’re just a modern version of a god-of-wind worshipper from thousands of years ago.
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
[quote]Gunitgansta wrote:
For all of you who mock God, His Bible, and the prophets:
Whoever denies ?that Jesus is the Christ? is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are ?of God;? everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is ?a deceiver and an anti-Christ? 2 John 1:7
Anyone who doesn?t share Paul?s beliefs has ?an evil heart.? Hebrews 3:12
[/quote]
I think Conan O?Brian said it best:
I?m a gonna go to hell when I die…
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What can I do against that?
What can man do against madness?
[/quote]
Acts 26:24, 25 & 28, 29
[b]“At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”
"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable.
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”
Paul replied, “Short time or long–I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”[/b]
Not really. I don’t believe that there is a single human alive who has not thought about whether or not there are higher powers. It’s in our genetic wiring. Everyone has a belief about religions and God and whatnot…unless you are just depressed and therefore couldn’t care what happens one way or another.
It’s like saying that not eating food is a hobby…that’s true, it’s called anorexia. We all make decisions about food, but not necessarily about stamps specifically, so the analogy really isn’t applicable.
-MAtt
[quote]pookie wrote:
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”[/quote]
Pookie and massif?
Flew did not change his mind back, Ive got an article that is within the last year that says he holds the same position, do your research.
Massif-Read my post. I never said Flew believed in a christian God, my point was that he looked at the evidence and was honest with himself and wasnt afraid to admit when he was wrong. I didnt use the example as proof for God so again go back and read the context of my post.
As for biblical errors please tell me what verses you have a problem with. I havent found any verse in regards to the crucifiction that arent compatible with other accounts in different books of the bible. Instead of reading some guys article on a website, how about read the accounts yourself in context and see if you can find any errors? Too many people, and I was guilty of this as well, want mistakes to be in the bible and will regurgitate what ever someone else told them. Hope this doesnt sound belittling as like I said I used to do the same thing.
Austin
Irish no offense buddy but Ive seen circular reasoning used by both sides of the arguement throughout this thread. . .
atheism is a religion as it takes faith to say there isnt a god. Humans know less then 1% of all knowledge that can be known and I think most would agree with this, isnt it possible that the evidence for God that would convince you exists in the other 99%+? Now again this isnt an arguement for Gods existence but its to show that you require faith regardless of what side of the arguement you hold to.
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah [until] thou comest to Shur, that [is] over against Egypt.
And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. "
- 1 Samuel Ch. 15: 2-8
“Do not harm little children.”
- The Satanic Bible
[quote]aslater wrote:
Irish no offense buddy but Ive seen circular reasoning used by both sides of the arguement throughout this thread. . .
atheism is a religion as it takes faith to say there isnt a god. Humans know less then 1% of all knowledge that can be known and I think most would agree with this, isnt it possible that the evidence for God that would convince you exists in the other 99%+? Now again this isnt an arguement for Gods existence but its to show that you require faith regardless of what side of the arguement you hold to.
[/quote]
Then I suppose you belong to the religion of “I’m on the Internet Right Now”, since it takes faith to believe that your eyes, ears and other senses are not deceiving you, and that you actually are at a computer, on the internet.
Great thread. I am an Atheist- meaning I am without belief. I reject god, the existence of jesus, the existence of a soul, the supernatural, and every part of the bible. A few random thoughts:
-
For believers and non-believers alike- there is a book called The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. It examines how the books of the new testament were selected. There were, not surprisingly, many schools of thought as to what Jesus’ actual message was- the book provides an interesting look at how the Orthodox dogma won out and thus shaped the future of Christianity.
-
It is difficult for me to read/hear any Biblical quotation that someone cites as ‘proof’ of the existence of a supreme being. Given that the bible was written by men- men who believe in god
-
I can’t reconcile the god of the old testament with the god of the new testament
-
Was Jesus illiterate? He left none of his own writings. Additionally- none of his contemporaries thought enough of him to even mention him. The historical evidence that Jesus ever existed is flimsy, at best
-
I think Atheism is the natural evolution of religious thought. From polytheism came monotheism. From monotheism came atheism. If humans live long enough- I think religion will die.
-
I don’t think religion is necessary to provide us with a moral compass- nor does the fear of eternal damnation motivate me not to do bad things. If going to hell is what keeps you from becoming a murderer- I’d suggest you have some larger issues
-
Life came from non-life. Someone else mentioned that as proof of the existence of a supreme creator. Scientists have now observed that energy can and does exist in a vacuum.
Overall- I am very impressed with this debate- it’s comforting to know that I am not the only one who rejects organized religion.
Finally- my favorite quote about god:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
? Epicurus
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
aslater wrote:
Irish no offense buddy but Ive seen circular reasoning used by both sides of the arguement throughout this thread. . .
I hear you. But the atheists seem to be saying, “Prove it” and the Christians try to use the Bible. Its pointless.[/quote]
I take offense to that! I have not tried to use the Bible to prove any claims of God.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
aslater wrote:
Irish no offense buddy but Ive seen circular reasoning used by both sides of the arguement throughout this thread. . .
atheism is a religion as it takes faith to say there isnt a god. Humans know less then 1% of all knowledge that can be known and I think most would agree with this, isnt it possible that the evidence for God that would convince you exists in the other 99%+? Now again this isnt an arguement for Gods existence but its to show that you require faith regardless of what side of the arguement you hold to.
Then I suppose you belong to the religion of “I’m on the Internet Right Now”, since it takes faith to believe that your eyes, ears and other senses are not deceiving you, and that you actually are at a computer, on the internet. [/quote]
Might as well believe in Mighty Mouse. You can’t prove that he doesn’t exist either. It’s my faith that makes me say there isn’t a Mighty Mouse. It might be proven in the 99.999% of the information that I haven’t seen.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
No, everything in the universe can be described using integers as long as your units are planck units.
[/quote]
Planck units are convention as well, which was my main point.
It seems to be pretty common for the believers to try and “prove” God’s existence thru mechanisms that can equally be applied to just about anything else.
For example,
-
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being who possesses every perfection.
-
Existence is a perfection.
-
Therefore, the FSM exists.
-
Arrr! Bow before your Noodly Creator matey!
You don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Prove he doesn’t exist. If you can’t you must believe in his Saucy Presence.
Is this discussion done yet? Proof v. no proof does not an argument make. First we gather data, then we analyze said data, and then we can argue about said data and said analysis. Until then the point is moot.