T-Nation Atheists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
312

[quote]ZEB wrote:
obatiger11 wrote:
Religions esp. Christianity are simply fables that have been created by human beings…

2 Peter 1: 16, 17 & 18:

[b]We did not follow cleverly invented fables when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

[/quote]

Are you just sitting there with a giddeons quoting out of it?

313

Try this link. I would have cut and paste it but it does go no.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtml

314

here is an article on The Emptiness of Theology. (Richard Dawkins)

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and “theology.” It remarked that “People want to know as much as possible about their origins.” I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

315

[quote]irishrock wrote:
4) I asked you for historical references to Jesus made by people who lived at the same time he did and instances of Atheist leaders who perpetrated acts of violence- you came up empty on both accounts. [/quote]

Not totally empty he did mention Stalin.

Stalin was a staunch Atheist who push humanity down to being no more than matter to justify his killings. He might have been insane, but he was Atheist.

I personally don’t see how what someone believes has anything to do with the type of person they are. The guys that committed atrocities didn’t need anyone particular belief system/non belief system to be a maniac. The system/non system was really just the tool used to influence the people.

316

[quote]grey wrote:
My my my. This thread has really gone whacky.
I didn’t think it was atheists against christians. Why do those christians bring out the worst in you. What have they done to get some of you so angry?
Spitting and stomping on the bible is just as bad as a bible thumper trying to shove religion down someones throat.
I’m wondering on another point.
What is it stopping any one of us from pistol whipping an old lady? Or raping a child? Or cheating on your friends? Is it fear of being caught?
Is it some type of ingrained moral code?
We instinctively understand when something is wrong. Some of us do not give a shit. These are the evil elements of our society.
I personally am very happy that most of the population of the world believes in some type of god.
Could you imagine what would happen if some of these religious zealots were suddenly let loose on this planet without a creator figure to chastise them for sinning?
God is a good idea. If there was no god and no moral code as a result then it probably would not be a good idea to let me into your house when I come a knockin.
We have not evolved we have devolved into something that the animal kingdom would never recognise as their own.
We kill other animals for the sport of it. We pollute the planet for personal profit. We wage wars in the name of country, religion and greed.
We hate. We lie and decieve.

we are not superior beings but monsters who have been programed to obey certain laws.
Somebody mentioned the book Lord of the flies.
That is who we are. Savages who wear a suit and a tie.

Have you ever noticed how the masks come off people when they can sit behind a keyboard with no chance of being recognised?
If the internet has done one thing then it has given us a peek at the hidden nature of man.
Some are trolls and some are friendly.
I have read the most hatefull stuff from the most anassumming of people.
It’s usually the people who are well balanced that are polite and generous with their posts.
Sorry to go off on a tangent.

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]

God may just make you have a broken leg.

Have a great one. I am jealous. By the time you get back, there is likely to be a revolution.

317

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ren, awesome post. I have hope yet that we as a society can quit bickering about our silly beliefs–whether atheist or not. Modesty keeps me from believing that my opinions are the end-all-be-all of civilization.[/quote]

thanks, I was hoping to nudge this thread back on the right track. Unfortunately some people on both sides have decided to keep the argument here. Personally, keep the evolution/abiogenesis talk to the 2 threads dedicated it, keep your gospel preaching to the christian thread, and let us non-believers talk amongst ourselves in peace about a higher power or lack thereof. And before you ask, no, we don’t wanna hear your viewpoint, why? We’ve all heard it, a thousand times over, if we wanted to talk about the Judeo-christian god we’d make a bloody thread about it and discuss it there.

318

[quote]karva wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Absolutely an atheist. Do you remember tohse poor souls whose men died in the mines. They were all praying and went running to the church saying “its a miracle, its a miracle”. Now i am deeply sorry for their losses, but the sheer stupidity of that situation, the irony so palpable, that it is a snapshot of why anyone with reason cant believe in god.

319

[quote]miniross wrote:
here is an article on The Emptiness of Theology. (Richard Dawkins)

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and “theology.” It remarked that “People want to know as much as possible about their origins.” I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?
[/quote]

one could go a step further and say that at times theology holds us back (dark ages, stem cell research). However, sometimes a by-product of religion has been helpful. We can take for example the monks that spent their lives transcribing literary works before the invention of the printing press. Now one can argue that copying the works was to save literary knowledge, but then if there wasn’t a religion they wouldn’t have been monks in the first place. It gets kinda confusing, but for the most part Dawkins is correct.

320

Irishrock,

I did not come up empty. Do you doubt all historical figures? We have way more evidence for the existence of Jesus then all other ancient figures combined, why hold Jesus to a higher standard? Why accuse me of overwelming you with the evidence, maybe this is because the evidence itself is overwelming and cannot be helped. The above quotes are written by people who lived during Jesus ministry based on the dates given. 37 a.d? How is it a stretch to say someone was alive during 33ad and 37 ad? I dont get your reasoning on this. Like I said earlier it takes more faith to believe Jesus didnt exist then to admit that he existed atleast in a historical sense.

As far as Hitler being an athiest, I came to this conclusion based on his leaning of the teachings of Nietzshe who was an atheist. Either way, who cares? This adds little to the actuall debate and is a side issue and not even relevant to the topic at hand.

I have answered both objections you bring up adequetly. Does this make me right? No, its up to you do come to your own conclusion based on the evidence. I do admire you atleast looking at the issue and having an opinion even if we do disagree. too many people could care less about the debate at hand which is sad.

i cant remember you posted about Flew being a leading atheist but not sure what your arguement is. He was the most popular know debater and was looked upon in the athiestic community as a leader in thought and arguements against thiesm. . .

321

[quote]aslater wrote:
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 [/quote]

The issue of religion and the bible is it is faith. It is faith that the book is wholly correct. If it was written by man, man is known for being fallible, ergo, the bible is fallible.

322

[quote]haney wrote:
.

I personally don’t see how what someone believes has anything to do with the type of person they are. The guys that committed atrocities didn’t need anyone particular belief system/non belief system to be a maniac. The system/non system was really just the tool used to influence the people.

[/quote]

yes, but they usually need a tool and religion lends itself to such purposes so easily.

323

[quote]haney wrote:

Not totally empty he did mention Stalin.

Stalin was a staunch Atheist who push humanity down to being no more than matter to justify his killings. He might have been insane, but he was Atheist.

I personally don’t see how what someone believes has anything to do with the type of person they are. The guys that committed atrocities didn’t need anyone particular belief system/non belief system to be a maniac. The system/non system was really just the tool used to influence the people.

[/quote]

Point well taken. Stalin was an Atheist. I think Pol Pot was as well. Just wanted to know of some specific examples of Atheist leaders.

324

This is a good one.

The Rome-deniers, let’s imagine, are a well-organised group of nutters, implacably convinced that the Roman empire never existed. The Latin language, for all its rich literature and its romance language grandchildren, is a Victorian fabrication.

The Rome-deniers are, no doubt, harmless wingnuts, more harmless than the Holocaust-deniers whom they resemble. Smile and be tolerant. But your tolerance might wear thin if you are a scholar and teacher of Roman history or literature.

And what if Rome-deniers manage to infiltrate the teaching staff of an otherwise reputable school, and energetically promote their inanities to a susceptible new generation? A normally tolerant person could be forgiven for wanting to see those teachers fired.

325

[quote]haney wrote:
irishrock wrote:
4) I asked you for historical references to Jesus made by people who lived at the same time he did and instances of Atheist leaders who perpetrated acts of violence- you came up empty on both accounts.

Not totally empty he did mention Stalin.

Stalin was a staunch Atheist who push humanity down to being no more than matter to justify his killings. He might have been insane, but he was Atheist.

I personally don’t see how what someone believes has anything to do with the type of person they are. The guys that committed atrocities didn’t need anyone particular belief system/non belief system to be a maniac. The system/non system was really just the tool used to influence the people.

[/quote]

and hitler was a catholic rah rah bloody rah. Thuis phenomenological approach to proof is typical of the faithful (miracles etc).

My murdering dictator is better than your murdering dictator.

326

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
aslater wrote:
…

I hear you. But the atheists seem to be saying, “Prove it” and the Christians try to use the Bible. Its pointless.[/quote]

My perception is:

Agnostics say “prove it”.

Athiests believe it has already been disproven.

327

[quote]aslater wrote:
Irishrock,

I did not come up empty. Do you doubt all historical figures? We have way more evidence for the existence of Jesus then all other ancient figures combined, why hold Jesus to a higher standard? Why accuse me of overwelming you with the evidence, maybe this is because the evidence itself is overwelming and cannot be helped. The above quotes are written by people who lived during Jesus ministry based on the dates given. 37 a.d? How is it a stretch to say someone was alive during 33ad and 37 ad? I dont get your reasoning on this. Like I said earlier it takes more faith to believe Jesus didnt exist then to admit that he existed atleast in a historical sense.

[/quote]

I have more belief that Plato, Aristotle , and Pythagoras lived than Jesus in the biblical sense.

328

Religion is not necessarily 100% evil, it did contribute to our culture immensely.

The idea of monogamy,which tamed our society, was enforced via religion.

The idea that all people are to be treated equally by the law is a direct descendent of the idea that all people are equal under God.

If you have seen Rome (the tv series), you know that the roman “constitution” had authority because it was considered to be a religious matter, which did not prevent the romans to develop law as we know it.

329

[quote]Ren wrote:
miniross wrote:
here is an article on The Emptiness of Theology. (Richard Dawkins)

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and “theology.” It remarked that “People want to know as much as possible about their origins.” I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

one could go a step further and say that at times theology holds us back (dark ages, stem cell research). However, sometimes a by-product of religion has been helpful. We can take for example the monks that spent their lives transcribing literary works before the invention of the printing press. Now one can argue that copying the works was to save literary knowledge, but then if there wasn’t a religion they wouldn’t have been monks in the first place. It gets kinda confusing, but for the most part Dawkins is correct.[/quote]

Well, they may not have been monks, but could have been chemists, hairdreesrs or spacemen. We will never know. maybe wone would hev invented the printing press instead of praying every sunday. What religion gave them was the ability to read and write. With that came knowledge, so in that i see your pont, but i doubt their faith in itself drove thier actions.

330

[quote]miniross wrote:
acslater

I did not know you could be a leading atheist…does that mean he used to not believe more strongly than me?

I haven’t found evidence, have you looked? [/quote]

If the dictionary definition of anarchy “is the belief that the rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished” can you be a leading anarchist? Of course you can. Noone is simply apathetic towards views religous or non-religous beliefs as noone is completely apathetic to how they should be governed.

You are implying that atheism is imply an inactive form of an apathetic view. It is active disbelief. Because everyone seeks some sort of purpose in their life, those who do not believe in religion will have very different views about their purpose in life and what gives their lives meaning.
-MAtt

331

This is one, long thread. I think I read almost every reply, except for the ones where the arguments went back and forth on definitions. I am an atheist, because I could never reconcile the idea of an active God, with the things that I have seen and personally experienced. I think we are here, because a particular set of circumstances came together. I don’t think that there is life after death, however I am not afraid to die. I am much more fearful of being stuck in a nursing home, with little or no bowel control.

On a different note, anyone interested in a good book about religion, should check out “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong. Also, the National Geographic Channel has a very interesting series called “The Science of the Bible”.