Amusing

[Lestat]

I find posts with titles like, "What should we do with atheists" very amusing. What's funny about them is that the term atheist shouldn't even exist. We're not the ones who need a title. Theists however do, because they are the ones who believe in things that no one can see or hear. They are the ones who structure their lives around something with no observable evidence or any other kind of proof whatsoever. And then....

With a presumably straight face and a heavy sigh, they ask: "Whatever shall we do with those who don't believe in our magical hallucinations?". It's really roll on the floor funny.

[LadyWrestler]

Hi!

...On the other hand, I find it sad that there are people who believe in Science, which has not, and can not, even begin to pretend to have withstood the test of centuries and milleniums of time, and yet do not belive in the books of the Bible, which obviously have. Oh well...go figure.

Have a nice day, Lestat! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lestat]

And what sort of test has the bible withstood?

[LadyWrestler]

Re: "And what sort of test has the bible withstood?"

That is an amusing question, and I assume not a serious one, considering your obvious intelligence, level of education, and apparent knowledge of history...

Good one! It made me laugh...and I need a good laugh every now and then. Thanks! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[amirite]

The Bible got a 1590 on the SATs.

[madnak]

Despite numerous proofs to the contrary, the bible is still considered by many as flawless.

That is quite an accomplishment.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite numerous proofs to the contrary, the bible is still considered by many as flawless.

That is quite an accomplishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite numerous proofs to the contrary, science is still considered by many as flawless.

That is quite an accomplishment.

-------

Of course, neither of those groups of words prove anything except that humans can be somewhat clever (?). /images/graemlins/confused.gif Have a great night! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I am going to bed...

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite numerous proofs to the contrary, the bible is still considered by many as flawless.

That is quite an accomplishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it's an accomplishment, but what the heck does that mean?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: "And what sort of test has the bible withstood?"

That is an amusing question, and I assume not a serious one, considering your obvious intelligence, level of education, and apparent knowledge of history...

Good one! It made me laugh...and I need a good laugh every now and then. Thanks! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're laughing at your own jokes, right? Not too becoming.

You claimed the bible has withstood the test of centuries. I ask you to name an example and you make a joke out of it? I guess it's easier for you to laugh it off than to face your ludricrous comment.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
And what sort of test has the bible withstood?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gideon's is thoroughly absorbent. That's gotta pass some test.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I find posts with titles like, "What should we do with atheists" very amusing. What's funny about them is that the term atheist shouldn't even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am no fan of religion, but what you say here is just dumb. most people subscribe to some sort of religion, and can be classified as such (Cathloic, Jew, Muslim, Mormon...whatever.) those who don't are not all that common, and instead of calling them "dudes-with-no-religious-affiliation" they are called often "atheists". i don't see why this is a big deal.

[MidGe]

PokerBob,

In the same way that many people believe in astrology or whatever and there is no need and no name for the categories of people that lack that belief. They are not a grouping per se. That seems reasonable to me, it is after all the believers that differentiate and group themselves.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi!

...On the other hand, I find it sad that there are people who believe in Science, which has not, and can not, even begin to pretend to have withstood the test of centuries and milleniums of time, and yet do not belive in the books of the Bible, which obviously have. Oh well...go figure.



[/ QUOTE ]

.. what?

This test you mean?:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm
http://jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm

[Nielsio]

You filthy a-unichornist

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I find posts with titles like, "What should we do with atheists" very amusing. What's funny about them is that the term atheist shouldn't even exist. We're not the ones who need a title. Theists however do, because they are the ones who believe in things that no one can see or hear. They are the ones who structure their lives around something with no observable evidence or any other kind of proof whatsoever. And then....

With a presumably straight face and a heavy sigh, they ask: "Whatever shall we do with those who don't believe in our magical hallucinations?". It's really roll on the floor funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been said that atheism is not about any belief or hope, but it must be seen that the atheist passionately believes in the non-existence of God. These 'believers' need a name so one has been given, it's not all that funny.

Your talking about the majority of the population and saying their theism is laughable, how bold of you.

The bible's accuracy can be tested personally by applying a teaching and observing the outcome, to me there's only two possiblilites. The bible is God-inspired or just accurate to the point of me not finding any fault in my journeys thus far. No one believes in something that no one can see or hear or structures their life around something with no observable evidence or any other kind of proof whatsoever. All believers have some measure of personal evidences so it's hardly laughable.

[PokerPadawan]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible got a 1590 on the SATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it got extra time since it is a quadruple amputee.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been said that atheism is not about any belief or hope, but it must be seen that the atheist passionately believes in the non-existence of God. These 'believers' need a name so one has been given, it's not all that funny.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of belief was there well before belief, in fact, from all eternity... it is the natural state.

[ QUOTE ]
Your talking about the majority of the population and saying their theism is laughable, how bold of you.


[/ QUOTE ]

The majority is the sheep and it is their preaching that is disdainful. People with no vision, but a ready made myth!

[ QUOTE ]
All believers have some measure of personal evidences so it's hardly laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, some need very little convincing, some are a bit more rigorous, preacher.

[Prodigy54321]

I'd like to hear an example......but I have a feeling that you won't be back..

[miketurner]

The original Theists: What should we do with Atheists? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=462837 4&page=0&fpart=1) was written by an atheist, I’m pretty sure based on the content. Why did you not find it “amusing” until a Christian posted a rebuttal thread of a similar title?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">It has been said that atheism is not about any belief or hope, but it must be seen that the atheist passionately believes in the non-existence of God. </font>

I suppose you're right and that some atheists are very passionate (I think adamant might be a better word), that there are no such things as gods. It's almost as if they are on a mission (similar to many theists). So again, you're right about these people.

But I think (I would hope), that most atheists are not necessarily on any mission. I for one, am on no mission to prove something I don't need to prove. I am an atheist when it comes to any god, in the same way you are presumably an atheist when it comes to Zeuss, or Thor. Do you feel you need a specific label if you don't believe in the god of thunder? Should we call you an "agof" Anti-God-Of-Thunder? How about if you don't believe in astrology? Do you need a name like an anti-astrologian?

It's all very silly really. You don't need a name for NOT believing in something. We're just living in the real world. When someone believes in something that is OUTSIDE the real world, then THEY are the ones who need a label.

[Lestat]

It's a big deal because I don't feel I need a label any more than someone who doesn't believe in Zeuss or the god of thunder needs a label. If someone believes in something outside of the real world, then THEY need the label. Not me.

[LadyWrestler]

You were serious? Wow. I misunderstood yor post, and, apparently, misjudged you as well. Sorry.

As for your question, the attacks on the Bible throughout history are way too numerous for me to list here. Perhaps a visit to your local library could enlighten you. To someone with knowledge of this, your question is similar to asking an astronomer to list the names of every star that can be seen from earth.

If all you want are some recent examples, I could suggest you use the search function in this forum.

I dare say the Bible has been scrutinized, tested, and attacked, more than any other published set of books in history.

My apologies if I offended you in any way!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LadyWrestler]

Wow! Please read my answer to Lestat below.

Perhaps, I really need to adjust my thinking about the levels of education, experience, and intelligence you guys have. Then again, you two may just be using debating tactics you learned in college. If so, I have passed those stages in my life and do not wish to return to them in discussing something this serious to me...perhaps you could play that debating game with some Christian college students (just a suggestion).

My apologies to you, as well, if I have offended your feelings in any way. That was NOT my intention.

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LadyWrestler]

The hardest test of all: time.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The hardest test of all: time.

[/ QUOTE ]
persistence is a measure of fitness not truth. No one doubts that religon is fit.

chez

[Lestat]

So you think that because there are those who still cling to religious dogma that this somehow passes a rigid test?

So if I can round up a bunch of people who still believe in Zeus, then by your logic Zeus becomes infallible and withstands the test of time? Gimme a break...

[LadyWrestler]

You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LadyWrestler]

True! And Science is not even that!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a big deal because I don't feel I need a label any more than someone who doesn't believe in Zeuss or the god of thunder needs a label. If someone believes in something outside of the real world, then THEY need the label. Not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, but how then do you describe them? isn't everything labeled? it seems to me that if one is comfortable with who they are/what they believe, it really shouldn't matter to them what they are labeled. (apart from slurs, of course.)

[LadyWrestler]

Good point!

[Brom]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible has withstood the test of time.
The bible is flawless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously have no idea what these statements are supposed to mean? How can you say such things about fictional works*? What book hasn't withstood the test of time? The same things could be said about any book like The Great Gatsby. It is still "true" and has "withstood the tests of time".

*I'm not saying the events in the bible are exclusively fiction. I'm simply trying to convey the idea that if I wrote a story about good vs. evil, how would anyone be able to say the above sayings weren't true about it? They apply to almost all non-scientific writings.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
True! And Science is not even that!


[/ QUOTE ]
Pleased you agree but the second bit makes no sense.

Science is, religon is, cockroaches are ...

truth has nothing to do with it unless persistence requires truth. The scientific method is an attempt to create this link, argue its merits all you like but there is no similar link with truth for religon.

chez

[LadyWrestler]

Okay. Then, with all due respect to science and you, can you please name for me 66, 1900 years old science books that are still widely read today and widely accepted as truth? 50? 40? 30? 20? 10?

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. Then, with all due respect to science and you, can you please name for me 66, 1900 years old science books that are still widely read today and widely accepted as truth? 50? 40? 30? 20? 10?

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think about it that's due to the success of the link between scientific ideas and truth.

Whereas religous ideas can persist whether true or not.

chez

[Dominic]

nicely put.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so by your argument, if there ar more Muslims in this world than Christians, they are automatically right, correct?

[Lestat]

I admit I'm nitpicking to prove a point. It's not that I'm truly bothered by the term atheist. I'm just saying people who don't believe in imaginary things shouldn't need a special label.

There are also cross-dressers in this world, but if you're not one of them you shouldn't need to be identified as such.

[Prodigy54321]

I think that majority of the theistic community believes that religion is the default for any human....that's what I find amusing....it's always..turning atheist, rather than just being atheist....I was caught up in this a while back when trying to give myself an unbiased chance at deciding what I did and did not believe.... I actually for some reason believed that I should go back the theism and go from there, to make sure that I had made an unbiased choice, but then realized that atheist is indeed the default...I think I'll start a thread about this..and a poll...everyone loves polls.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]


There are also cross-dressers in this world, but if you're not one of them you shouldn't need to be identified as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

this logic is flawed, as cross-dressers are a minority. just as atheists are.

[Bez]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science searchs for the truth by improving on previous theories - unlike religion which is stuck forever with an unchanging, sometimes contradictory doctrine. Which approach is more sensible, changing when you know you're wrong or not?

[hmkpoker]

Hindu Vedic texts have been around for as long as 3,500 years, are much more extensive than the Bible, and are still recognised by hundreds of millions of people today.

So I guess they have passed the most important test of all moreso than the Bible, and therefore have even more credit.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


There are also cross-dressers in this world, but if you're not one of them you shouldn't need to be identified as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

this logic is flawed, as cross-dressers are a minority. just as atheists are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know this for a fact, cuz I'm not so sure. With the exception of the United States, the Middle East, and perhaps Italy, the rest of the world's population has been accepting modern science and moving away from religious dogma. You'd be hard-pressed to find many religious people in Japan, Australia, or the UK for example.

Anyway, my point was that cross-dressers and theists alike are the one's belonging to a group. You don't need to be labeled as someone without diabetes if you don't have the disease.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


There are also cross-dressers in this world, but if you're not one of them you shouldn't need to be identified as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

this logic is flawed, as cross-dressers are a minority. just as atheists are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know this for a fact, cuz I'm not so sure. With the exception of the United States, the Middle East, and perhaps Italy, the rest of the world's population has been accepting modern science and moving away from religious dogma. You'd be hard-pressed to find many religious people in Japan, Australia, or the UK for example.

Anyway, my point was that cross-dressers and theists alike are the one's belonging to a group. You don't need to be labeled as someone without diabetes if you don't have the disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

right. you're called a "healthy" person. EVERYONE has a label. i don't see why this is such a sticking point for you.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So believing is your standard for passing test? Forget logical conjecture of evidence. As long as enough people believe in something for a long enough period, that's good enough for you? No wonder you hate science and view it as a terrible threat.

[LadyWrestler]

In other words, your unwritten answer would be: No, I can't, but that would be admitting something, yes? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Have a good time. I am going to go make some more money. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, your unwritten answer would be: No, I can't, but that would be admitting something, yes? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Have a good time. I am going to go make some more money. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you did actually understand and this conversation is pointless.

Have a good life /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[LadyWrestler]

"So believing is your standard for passing test? Forget logical conjecture of evidence. As long as enough people believe in something for a long enough period, that's good enough for you? No wonder you hate science and view it as a terrible threat."

You could not be more wrong about me! Actually, I LIKE science, but view it as no threat at all! You asked me to name a test the Bible has withstood and I did. There are many more, but it would be pointless to list them for you. Science, on the other hand, has failed the same test. Do you acknowledge that, or is it against Debating101's rules to admit the truth?

I have to go make some money now. Have fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
..On the other hand, I find it sad that there are people who believe in Science, which has not, and can not, even begin to pretend to have withstood the test of centuries and milleniums of time, and yet do not belive in the books of the Bible, which obviously have. Oh well...go figure.


[/ QUOTE ]

One principle of the scientific method is that any theory must be dynamical and, therefore, subject to change. We learn new things everyday and, therefore, gather new data. New or reformed hypotheses are often required to better explian new and expanding data. New hypotheses may be able to better explain old data too, so science leaves little room for unchangeable or unmoldable theories.

Also, nobody believes in science in the way you think. People only believe that you will develope the most reliable predictions, descriptions and consequential value by applying the scientific method. Science is only as good as the models and predictions that are produced. There is no absolute belief in science, but there is a large utility to which smart people employ.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been said that atheism is not about any belief or hope, but it must be seen that the atheist passionately believes in the non-existence of God. These 'believers' need a name so one has been given, it's not all that funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, Atheists (or 'hard atheists', if you will) are believers of faith. Those without belief would be agnostics or 'soft atheists'.



In any case, I don't see a problem with this terminology. It seems to me that you guys worry too much about words and too little about concepts.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible's accuracy can be tested personally by applying a teaching and observing the outcome, to me there's only two possiblilites.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, any religion that survived this long or grew very big, did so by advocating things that cannot be easily falsified. Most things of the bible aren't subject to any testing and those that are, can always be solved by the theist using some tortured rationalization. When you have an omnipotent god as a problem solving tool, running into problems is tough to do.

that, however, doesn't mean people can't show that the bible, while mostly unfalsifiable, is very unlikely to be worthy of any credence.

Regardless to the above, few people have the skills in evidence evaluation to analyze this case anyways. they are more likely to biasely and selectively enter evidence that supports what they already know. thats why we see the phenomenon of ethnocentrism as one example.

Think about poker players. I dont know one freidn of mine, who doesn't know how to play winning poker, who isnt fully convinced that online poker (party and other top sites) is rigged. There is little i can to do convince most of them otherwise and they claim to supposedly see evidence in favor of their argument on a daily basis. The stupidity in their continuing to play, i dont understand, but its easy to see how people would mess up evaluating the evidence. The majority of people who play poker do unimaginably stupid things and have poor skills for evaluating evidence which lead them to adamnatly believe ludicrous ideas. I dont see peopel in the game life as much different from this.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I dare say the Bible has been scrutinized, tested, and attacked, more than any other published set of books in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, after all this scrutinization, testing and attacks, they is still no concensus about it's meaning! How many varieties (sects) of christians are there each claiming authenticity , dozens, hundreds, more?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I dont know one freidn of mine, who doesn't know how to play winning poker, who isnt fully convinced that online poker (party and other top sites) is rigged. </font>

I find it very funny you should say this. I too, have more than a few friends who make the same claim about online poker. Inevitably they'll ask me to *prove* it's not rigged. Of course, there's no way I can do this. At this point I feel very much like I'm debating with a theist. However, there is one difference.... At least my poker playing friends (think) they have observable evidence in seeing 22 to 1 shots hit 1 in 5 times. So I actually understand their rationale more than I do a theist's.

[Double Down]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so by your argument, if there ar more Muslims in this world than Christians, they are automatically right, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


yes, and expanding on that idea, there are more non Christians in the world than Christians. So by your own reasoning, we have to assume that the non-Christians are right.
Agreement does not equal absolute truth.

[Lestat]

I think the definitions of atheist and agnostic are lacking. If not, I am ignorant of their exact definitions. For me personally, I have no faith one way or the other. I simply dismiss the notion of gods the way I do vampires and ghosts. Am I a hard atheist? A soft atheist? Or maybe an agnosic?

This really gets to the whole point of my post. I'm not the one who NEEDS a label! I'm simply living in the real world. If one has a belief in an imaginary existence whether it be a particular religion, astrology, voodooism, etc. then THEY are the ONLY ones who should be labeled by their belief.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
"So believing is your standard for passing test? Forget logical conjecture of evidence. As long as enough people believe in something for a long enough period, that's good enough for you? No wonder you hate science and view it as a terrible threat."

You could not be more wrong about me! Actually, I LIKE science, but view it as no threat at all! You asked me to name a test the Bible has withstood and I did. There are many more, but it would be pointless to list them for you. Science, on the other hand, has failed the same test. Do you acknowledge that, or is it against Debating101's rules to admit the truth?

I have to go make some money now. Have fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that you can never give concrete examples to back up your claims? Its always "it would be pointless" or similar drivel.

I have never seen anything "proven" about the Bible that has any more basis than a historical novel. James Michener could do a very credible job of writing a "Bible" based on a Hawaiian prophet that would sustain the same level of proof that the Bible has.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so by your argument, if there ar more Muslims in this world than Christians, they are automatically right, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


yes, and expanding on that idea, there are more non Christians in the world than Christians. So by your own reasoning, we have to assume that the non-Christians are right.
Agreement does not equal absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is plenty of evidence of that in the number of albums sold and awards won that a mediocre or worse band like U2 can garner.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
James Michener could do a very credible job of writing a "Bible" based on a Hawaiian prophet that would sustain the same level of proof that the Bible has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that Michener's bible would likely have more internal coherence being written by a single author.

[LadyWrestler]

And science?

[LadyWrestler]

"There is no absolute belief in science, but there is a large utility to which smart people employ."

Very good. You get a star! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LadyWrestler]

Okay. You, too.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"So believing is your standard for passing test? Forget logical conjecture of evidence. As long as enough people believe in something for a long enough period, that's good enough for you? No wonder you hate science and view it as a terrible threat."

You could not be more wrong about me! Actually, I LIKE science, but view it as no threat at all! You asked me to name a test the Bible has withstood and I did. There are many more, but it would be pointless to list them for you. Science, on the other hand, has failed the same test. Do you acknowledge that, or is it against Debating101's rules to admit the truth?

I have to go make some money now. Have fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that you can never give concrete examples to back up your claims? Its always "it would be pointless" or similar drivel.

I have never seen anything "proven" about the Bible that has any more basis than a historical novel. James Michener could do a very credible job of writing a "Bible" based on a Hawaiian prophet that would sustain the same level of proof that the Bible has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Concrete examples of what claims?

[LadyWrestler]

Michener would have to write 66 books over a period of about 1500 years...in at least 2 different languages...and then all 66 would have to be best sellers after withstanding at least 1900 years of constant critical attacks from thousands of people at least as intelligent as you are. I sincerely doubt if any human author could accomplish that feat...none have so far.

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

Excuse me,

Which version of the bible to you take.. any?

Is your interpretation of it literal or not?

If not literal which interpretation do you take as correct?

I mean you cannot make a statement about the validitry of the bible resting on an inaccurate picture of what the bible is. For the 1500 years + christians of various denominations have been bickering about those things and things still aren't settled. It seems to proove that the bible is a very contentious, confused and divisive work, to me, rather than some sort of standard that has survived the test of time. To me, it must be the work of a contentious, confused and divisive entity or entities.

[LadyWrestler]

Excuse me,

(Q):Which version of the bible to you take.. any? (A): The 66 books, as written in the original languages.

Q):Is your interpretation of it literal or not? (A): When the language is obviously literal, I take it literally.

(Q):If not literal which interpretation do you take as correct? (A): See above.

I mean you cannot make a statement about the validitry of the bible resting on an inaccurate picture of what the bible is. For the 1500 years + christians of various denominations have been bickering about those things and things still aren't settled. It seems to proove that the bible is a very contentious, confused and divisive work, to me, rather than some sort of standard that has survived the test of time. To me, it must be the work of a contentious, confused and divisive entity or entities.
Human beings are certainly a contentious, confused, and devisive bunch...me included. We always have been. Your statement says more about us humans than it says about the Bible. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]


Science searchs for the truth by improving on previous theories - unlike religion which is stuck forever with an unchanging, sometimes contradictory doctrine. Which approach is more sensible, changing when you know you're wrong or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Changing when you know you are wrong is more sensible.

Have a great day!

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so by your argument, if there ar more Muslims in this world than Christians, they are automatically right, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Have a great day1

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">It has been said that atheism is not about any belief or hope, but it must be seen that the atheist passionately believes in the non-existence of God. </font>

I suppose you're right and that some atheists are very passionate (I think adamant might be a better word), that there are no such things as gods. It's almost as if they are on a mission (similar to many theists). So again, you're right about these people.

But I think (I would hope), that most atheists are not necessarily on any mission. I for one, am on no mission to prove something I don't need to prove. I am an atheist when it comes to any god, in the same way you are presumably an atheist when it comes to Zeuss, or Thor. Do you feel you need a specific label if you don't believe in the god of thunder? Should we call you an "agof" Anti-God-Of-Thunder? How about if you don't believe in astrology? Do you need a name like an anti-astrologian?

It's all very silly really. You don't need a name for NOT believing in something. We're just living in the real world. When someone believes in something that is OUTSIDE the real world, then THEY are the ones who need a label.

[/ QUOTE ]
You make a good point, however I would question whether this is truly the prerequisite for needing a label. I would say that the reason we dont need your term agof but do need the term of atheist is that there is a large group of people defined as theists and a large group defined as atheists. We need the term to discuss one of the similarly sized groups. In the case of agofs - that applies to almost everyone alive today and so becomes less useful.

I agree with what I think is the main thrust of your argument, namely that the onus of proof rests with the theist as we make the claim for an existence of God. You deny the existence of something not readily observable - hardly a controversial position. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Nonetheless, I dont see anything inherently wrong with us defining ourselves and then subdividing the "not-us" group into subcategories (atheist, agnostic, etc)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me,

(Q):Which version of the bible to you take.. any? (A): The 66 books, as written in the original languages.



[/ QUOTE ]

I tought some christians are not in agreement with 66!
Which original language? and which manuscript from those languages?

[ QUOTE ]

Q):Is your interpretation of it literal or not? (A): When the language is obviously literal, I take it literally.


[/ QUOTE ]
How do you define obvious? Miracles etc.. are obviously not literal, right?
[ QUOTE ]

(Q):If not literal which interpretation do you take as correct? (A): See above.


[/ QUOTE ]
?
[ QUOTE ]

I mean you cannot make a statement about the validitry of the bible resting on an inaccurate picture of what the bible is. For the 1500 years + christians of various denominations have been bickering about those things and things still aren't settled. It seems to proove that the bible is a very contentious, confused and divisive work, to me, rather than some sort of standard that has survived the test of time. To me, it must be the work of a contentious, confused and divisive entity or entities.
Human beings are certainly a contentious, confused, and devisive bunch...me included. We always have been. Your statement says more about us humans than it says about the Bible. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say that humans indeed are very confused. If I was a believer in god, I would hold him responsible for the confusion.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so by your argument, if there ar more Muslims in this world than Christians, they are automatically right, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


yes, and expanding on that idea, there are more non Christians in the world than Christians. So by your own reasoning, we have to assume that the non-Christians are right.
Agreement does not equal absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is plenty of evidence of that in the number of albums sold and awards won that a mediocre or worse band like U2 can garner.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what I think is the main thrust of your argument, namely that the onus of proof rests with the theist as we make the claim for an existence of God. You deny the existence of something not readily observable - hardly a controversial position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my! You are the very first theist on here to understand me. I don't even care in the least that you don't agree with me. But you understand! I've got a tear in my eye. I luv ya bunny!

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what I think is the main thrust of your argument, namely that the onus of proof rests with the theist as we make the claim for an existence of God. You deny the existence of something not readily observable - hardly a controversial position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my! You are the very first theist on here to understand me. I don't even care in the least that you don't agree with me. But you understand! I've got a tear in my eye. I luv ya bunny!

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you too. I just thought that you should pick your battles a little better, as this seems of little importance. You later confirmed this with: [ QUOTE ]
It's not that I'm truly bothered by the term atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

I do get hung up on principle sometimes. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I do get hung up on principle sometimes. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Lestat, I fear you've got this principle slightly confused.

A baby doesn't believe in god, a dog doesn't believe in god, Tommy didn't believe in god .... they are not atheists.

Atheists (sometimes called weak or agnostic) are people who understand that:
1) there is no reason to believe in god.
2) they cannot prove there is no god

These are positive cognitive positions worthy of a label, they are not the absense of something.

[That's not quite complete because rational theists also understand that 1) and 2) are true. So its easiest to add:
3) they don't believe in god
now rational theists are distinguished from atheists by:
3a) they do believe in god.]

chez

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do get hung up on principle sometimes. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Lestat, I fear you've got this principle slightly confused.

A baby doesn't believe in god, a dog doesn't believe in god, Tommy didn't believe in god .... they are not atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, some people have no problem classifying babies and dogs as atheists.

If you think this is silly, then here's an alternative system. An atheist is one who:

1) understands the concept "God", at least approximately, and
2) lacks any positive belief that this concept represents a real being

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do get hung up on principle sometimes. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Lestat, I fear you've got this principle slightly confused.

A baby doesn't believe in god, a dog doesn't believe in god, Tommy didn't believe in god .... they are not atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, some people have no problem classifying babies and dogs as atheists.

If you think this is silly, then here's an alternative system. An atheist is one who:

1) understands the concept "God", at least approximately, and
2) lacks any positive belief that this concept represents a real being

[/ QUOTE ]
You can call a potato or my aunties bra an atheist if you like but just as for a dog you're missing the point.

As for the rest, I was refering to the usual idea of atheism. The term is confusing enough without bunging in a new meaning for the word.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> These are positive cognitive positions worthy of a label, they are not the absense of something. </font>

I just disagree chez. You can go through your pantry and label everything that's not a can of peas as, "NOT PEAS" if you want. You can label me an atheist also. You can make anything into a group if you choose. However, not believing in something which isn't readily observable in the first place, does not require it's own seperate lable as far as I'm concerned. And here's the REAL reason why I don't like the label atheist....

By "atheists" accepting their own label on par with theists, I feel we are in a way giving credence to their beliefs. We are legitimizing theism as a rational enough belief to form an opposing view. I do NOT oppose God... I do not oppose that which does not exist in the first place. And I do not need to be labeled as someone who does.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> These are positive cognitive positions worthy of a label, they are not the absense of something. </font>

I just disagree chez. You can go through your pantry and label everything that's not a can of peas as, "NOT PEAS" if you want. You can label me an atheist also. You can make anything into a group if you choose. However, not believing in something which isn't readily observable in the first place, does not require it's own seperate lable as far as I'm concerned. And here's the REAL reason why I don't like the label atheist....

By "atheists" accepting their own label on par with theists, I feel we are in a way giving credence to their beliefs. We are legitimizing theism as a rational enough belief to form an opposing group. I do NOT oppose God... I do not oppose that which does not exist in the first place. And I do not need to be labeled as someone who does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now I'm confused about what you're saying. Are you saying you do not have a rational position about the rationality of believing in god? or are you saying that's not what being an aethiest means?

This is fun, now we're talking about beliefs about beliefs about believing in god /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[godBoy]

First off, the point about bias is a good one. Very valid, people do see what they want to see most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
First, any religion that survived this long or grew very big, did so by advocating things that cannot be easily falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not correct.
The vast majority of the New Testament was written about real people in real places. So many have tried to disprove this 'story' based on the historical events, the closest they've come can be found in fictional novels.
I'd say the New Testament is extremely hard to believe in, a lot of it seems crazy, I've found it much easier to dismiss than prove correct. But...What I have tested has come up always in favor of this 'Jesus theory'.
It's easy to see if the promises made in the bible are true and the same the other way - it's easy to see if the promises are incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

When you have an omnipotent god as a problem solving tool, running into problems is tough to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of a more fitting problem solver.

[Lestat]

When you get down to it EVERYTHING is a belief. It is my belief that you are not being tortured in a Chinese prison camp right now (hope I'm right). At what point does a belief go without saying?

Why shouldn't atheism go without saying as well? Is there some obvious reason I should believe in gods? If not, why do I need a label describing me as a non-believer. As I pointed out earlier, there are people who cross-dress and people who don't. Is it necessary to identify those who don't cross-dress as NON-cross-dressers? We could, and it would be accurate, but it's also unnecessary and silly.

Again, by allowing ourselves to be labeled as non-believers I believe we are by implication, adding credibility to the believer's position. Non-belief in gods is the rational assumption. A non-belief that you're being held captured right now is the rational assumption for me to make. This should go without saying. When there IS a reason to believe something I'll let you know.

[brandofo]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd be hard-pressed to find many religious people in Japan, Australia, or the UK for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
Contrary to what you might think, the majority of people in the world associate themselves with some form of religion and/or God. There is also a large number of people who do not. In order for us to distinguish these different kinds of people, we use labels to decsribe them. I'm sorry if this disturbs you so much, but it happens whether we are describing something religious or scientific or any other type of thing. It has nothing to do with whether we are living in the real world, as you say, or not.

I don't think it would be that hard to find many religious people in the UK, Japan, or Australia, or even any other country in the world.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
When you get down to it EVERYTHING is a belief. It is my belief that you are not being tortured in a Chinese prison camp right now (hope I'm right). At what point does a belief go without saying?

Why shouldn't atheism go without saying as well? Is there some obvious reason I should believe in gods? If not, why do I need a label describing me as a non-believer. As I pointed out earlier, there are people who cross-dress and people who don't. Is it necessary to identify those who don't cross-dress as NON-cross-dressers? We could, and it would be accurate, but it's also unnecessary and silly.

Again, by allowing ourselves to be labeled as non-believers I believe we are by implication, adding credibility to the believer's position. Non-belief in gods is the rational assumption. A non-belief that you're being held captured right now is the rational assumption for me to make. This should go without saying. When there IS a reason to believe something I'll let you know.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems we don't disagree about the rational issues but you claim that the question wasn't worthy of enough consideration (no more than me being tortued by Chinese) and hence unworthy of a label. That may be, but greater minds than ours have spent a long time considering it and so have we. Its rather nice that we can then fully understand the issue and reach a definitive rational conclusion, I don't have any objection with being labeled for it.

Its also useful as the consideration allows us to understand theists better and realise that rational theism is fully possible (and what it is) and to see the mistake being made by irrational theists. All good stuff.

Anyway the point is that atheism does refer to a genuine philosophical position (real philosophy not the way of life stuff) so the label is not false althogh i take your point that if everyone was rational it wouldn't merit mentioning.

If your objection is purely that you think accepting the label gives credence to theism then I disagree but not a lot and it hardly seems important, we will end up back in the ban a word thread /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> That may be, but greater minds than ours have spent a long time considering it and so have we. </font>

Maybe this is relevant. Centuries ago, this might have been true, but do you really think the greatest minds of today are still pondering the existence of a God? While I'm sure there are still a few geniuses wresting with God or no God in college philosophy departments, the leading minds of today are engaged in much more important endeavors.

So I'm not sure I agree. The greatest minds USED to contemplate theology back when it was rational to do, but not any more.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> That may be, but greater minds than ours have spent a long time considering it and so have we. </font>

Maybe this is relevant. Centuries ago, this might have been true, but do you really think the greatest minds of today are still pondering the existence of a God? While I'm sure there are still a few geniuses wresting with God or no God in college philosophy departments, the leading minds of today are engaged in much more important endeavors.

So I'm not sure I agree. The greatest minds USED to contemplate theology back when it was rational to do, but not any more.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you've forgotten someone /images/graemlins/smile.gif

and the only reason its obvious today is when we consider the work of the greatest atheists.

chez

[spaminator101]

personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from

or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from

or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]

This post almost makes me want to become an atheist.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from

or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]
Your laughing at the wrong thing. Nothing you've refered to is implied by being an atheist.

chez

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from
yet it represents the view of a large magority of atheists

not all but most: the same with their arguments about Christians some Christians beleive God created through creation and the big bang

spaminator
or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]
Your laughing at the wrong thing. Nothing you've refered to is implied by being an atheist.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

yet it represents the view of a large magority of atheists

not all but most: the same with their arguments about Christians some Christians beleive God created through creation and the big bang

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from
yet it represents the view of a large magority of atheists

not all but most: the same with their arguments about Christians some Christians beleive God created through creation and the big bang

spaminator
or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]
Your laughing at the wrong thing. Nothing you've refered to is implied by being an atheist.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

yet it represents the view of a large magority of atheists


[/ QUOTE ]
maybe so but its in addition to being an atheist not part of it. Most believe football is better than cricket which is unbelievably silly but nothing to do with them being atheist.

chez

[Fabian]

I swear to god it's almost as difficult to tell if someone's serious in this forum as it is in beats brags &amp; variance.

As for this topic, I kinda agree with Lestat and kinda with Chezlaw. Not much of a disagreement either way.

[Myrmidon]

I like your point. If i must accept the label atheist, monothiests should accept the term uniexceptio atheist.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> These are positive cognitive positions worthy of a label, they are not the absense of something. </font>

I just disagree chez. You can go through your pantry and label everything that's not a can of peas as, "NOT PEAS" if you want. You can label me an atheist also. You can make anything into a group if you choose. However, not believing in something which isn't readily observable in the first place, does not require it's own seperate lable as far as I'm concerned. And here's the REAL reason why I don't like the label atheist....

By "atheists" accepting their own label on par with theists, I feel we are in a way giving credence to their beliefs. We are legitimizing theism as a rational enough belief to form an opposing view. I do NOT oppose God... I do not oppose that which does not exist in the first place. And I do not need to be labeled as someone who does.

[/ QUOTE ]
With regard to your "not peas" example - I think the reason this would be a meaningless distinction is because peas is such a small minority of what is in your pantry. It would be completely sensible to say this is all the food in the pantry and this stuff is not-food. That would be a meaningful label as so much of the pantry contains food.

Similarly, I think theists define such a large group of the population that not-theist (or atheist) is a meaningful term (perhaps I really mean a useful term).

With regard to accepting the label being some sort of legitimising of the theist position - I think this is an historical linguistic phenomenon more than anything else. Theism came first (as it used to be the dominant world-view) even if atheism comes first in an intellectual sense. Thus - we needed a word for all these new crazy people who didnt believe in god and called them not-theists through lack of imagination.

If we were constructing our language logically - it would probably make more sense to go the other way round. That's just not how language evolves though.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
If one has a belief in an imaginary existence whether it be a particular religion, astrology, voodooism, etc. then THEY are the ONLY ones who should be labeled by their belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Merely giving a label to an opposing view does not lend credence to either view.
Theism is the view that X.
Atheism is the view that not X.
Agnosticism is the view that it could be X could be not X and we shouldn't hold a view either way.
X= (god exists)

There has to be a name attached to all views if we are to talk about them in any sort of shorthand way. Which one is positive is irrelevant to which is right. The act of labeling is just that there is no implication therein.

Christianity needs a name if we are to speak of it without saying that religion that believes Jesus is X and did Y.
Atheists believe that its not the case that there is a God. If we don't want to talk about them as those people that believe... then we need a label.

Every metaphysical view needs a name or it would be a big pain in the ass to talk about them. Do you really think naming something lends credence to its opposition!? Both views get names you know.

Further how are we to know a priori who is believing in the imaginary things and who is not. Maybe the theists believe in a real thing and according to you they would not need a label if they happened to be right. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FredBoots]

We are all atheists:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

[ QUOTE ]
I find it sad that there are people who believe in Science, which has not, and can not, even begin to pretend to have withstood the test of centuries and milleniums of time, and yet do not belive in the books of the Bible, which obviously have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the bible, I think there are many things that aren't true like:
- No proof of the flood.
- Our planet obviously older than 10,000 years.
- No way a handful of animals from the ark could reproduce without being totally inbreed and all die.
- No way to actually carry all the animals on the ark.
- Miracles that violate conservation of mass, energy, etc.
- Misunderstandings as to how human reproduction works in the bible.

These are just off the top of my head.

[timotheeeee]

I just want to say that after reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that Lady Wrestler is the worst debator I have seen, ever. Actually, I came to that conclusion right before I read Spaminator's bag of crap, then concluded he was.

Please, if you guys want to debate, do so. If you want only to flaunt your beliefs or deride others for theirs, find a pulpit.

Statements like "the bible has withstood every test" is not an argument, and it is not premise. It's a vacant conclusion.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
We are all atheists:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

[ QUOTE ]
I find it sad that there are people who believe in Science, which has not, and can not, even begin to pretend to have withstood the test of centuries and milleniums of time, and yet do not belive in the books of the Bible, which obviously have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the bible, I think there are many things that aren't true like:
- No proof of the flood.
- Our planet obviously older than 10,000 years.
- No way a handful of animals from the ark could reproduce without being totally inbreed and all die.
- No way to actually carry all the animals on the ark.
- Miracles that violate conservation of mass, energy, etc.
- Misunderstandings as to how human reproduction works in the bible.

These are just off the top of my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention my own personal test with Christianity, where it failed miserably.

Oh, I guess that refutes the "the bible has withstood every test" argument.

[mackthefork]

It would be funny, if it wasn't so serious. Anyway, where did that Catholic guy with the sense of humour go? He used to be cool, I hope he hasn't gone forever.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from

or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]

I know how evolution happened, and why, I know where the matter came from that made everything in the universe, I will explain after they give me my Nobel prize.

Mack

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
personally i laugh at atheist in the same way
you put so much faith in funny ideas like everything in the world came from some stupid explosion of a ball of matter that you have no clue where it came from

or the fact that u beleive in evolution. that light rays somewho caused tiny particles to start life that mutated into complex life forms. heck weve never seen a good mutation before

next time before you post take your time to think about this. laughing at others will sometimes only get you laughed at in return

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]

I know how evolution happened, and why, I know where the matter came from that made everything in the universe, I will explain after they give me my Nobel prize.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. That's why I find people who say there cannot possibly be a God very arrogant.

[Lestat]

... And saying that there HAS to be a God, just because you don't understand something is equally as arrogant.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
... And saying that there HAS to be a God, just because you don't understand something is equally as arrogant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, I don't think there is one but cannot rule it out 100% as I haven't carried out an extensive search. Saying that god does exist is a stance which always gets support, even though it is based on zero evidence.

Mack

[Lestat]

Sorry, I have to reply because I never had a flame next to one of my posts before. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[SomethingClever]

Athiest does not = Agnostic

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Athiest does not = Agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not re-entering that pointless debate. If it bothers you search the archives or read wiki or something.

chez

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Athiest does not = Agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not re-entering that pointless debate. If it bothers you search the archives or read wiki or something.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I didn't know there was a debate. I thought the definition of Athiesm is definitively believing that there is no God of any kind. While Agnostics just say, "Who can know about any of this stuff?"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Athiest does not = Agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not re-entering that pointless debate. If it bothers you search the archives or read wiki or something.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I didn't know there was a debate. I thought the definition of Athiesm is definitively believing that there is no God of any kind. While Agnostics just say, "Who can know about any of this stuff?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly not. Read wiki its fun, I like the agnostic theist bit.

BTW have you heard of the Monty Hall problem, you have to decide whether to switch or not but whichever door you choose you will find Pascals wager behind it, or was that just a dream.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have made my point for me! Can you round up as many people believing in Zeus as those believing in Jesus? Can you round up as many people believing in the Science of 100 AD (about the year the last book of the Bible was written) as those believing in the Bible? As I said in my first sentence: You have made my point for me!

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so by your argument, if there ar more Muslims in this world than Christians, they are automatically right, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually the case, there are actually more people who don't believe Jesus is the son of god than do. There are more Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus than there are Christians. Guess they are all wrong and Christians are right???

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to say that after reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that Lady Wrestler is the worst debator I have seen, ever. Actually, I came to that conclusion right before I read Spaminator's bag of crap, then concluded he was.

Please, if you guys want to debate, do so. If you want only to flaunt your beliefs or deride others for theirs, find a pulpit.

Statements like "the bible has withstood every test" is not an argument, and it is not premise. It's a vacant conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about Godboy?

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
What's funny about them is that the term atheist shouldn't even exist. We're not the ones who need a title. Theists however do, because they are the ones who believe in things that no one can see or hear. They are the ones who structure their lives around something with no observable evidence or any other kind of proof whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find your last sentence very provocative. I haven't read this entire thread yet--first I want to try to respond to this post specifically. I am a Christian, so that is my viewpoint and my bias.

[ QUOTE ]
[Christians] are the ones who structure their lives around [...]

[/ QUOTE ]
This brings up an interesting discussion.

Why do people structure their lives around a particular thing?

My idea is that most people structure their lives around something based on the idea that that is the best way to meet their needs. Their psychological needs like affection and catharsis in addition to their physical needs like shelter and food. The structure of the entire civilized western world is based around convenient access to physical needs. Fast food restaurants, supermarkets, hotels, soup kitchens are everywhere for this purpose. This structure is usually not *decided* upon by a person, but set out for him. So the rest of the structure of his life, the portion that he *chooses*, actively or passively, is probably governed by his psychological needs and his ideas on how to best meet those needs.

So, to view extremes, what leads one person to choose a life structure dedicated to science while another person chooses a life structure dedicated to religion (or spirituality, or whatever you want to call it)?

Of course, it has to do with what's most important to that person. To an atheistic scientist, logic and reason are probably the parts of his humanity he values the most. And that's great--many (most?) theists undervalue these things. To a Christian pastor, logic and reason might not be as important as faith and hope.

Now of course, there are people like me, who value faith, hope, and logic all very highly. In fact I would have a difficult time listing those in exact order of importance to me.

Now, my personal opinion is that whether someone is an atheist or a theist doesn't really indicate their level of intelligence or reasoning ability. It's also very hard to draw conclusions about their psychological profile from this information. We are all people, and we are all extremely complex. There are some insane theists out there as well as some demented atheists.

In conclusion, I agree with you that posts like "What should we do with atheists?" are ridiculous. There is no reason to treat people any differently or draw any immediate conclusions about them based on their theology or lack thereof.

[godBoy]

Ahh, MidGe my arch enemy...

[ QUOTE ]
Lack of belief was there well before belief, in fact, from all eternity... it is the natural state.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is meaningless and impossible to prove.

[ QUOTE ]
The majority is the sheep and it is their preaching that is disdainful. People with no vision, but a ready made myth!

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you are willing to call the majority of the population sheep, your little understanding amazes me.

For a people of 'no vision' They certainly have been extremely lucky in changing the world. Would you say Martin Luther King Jnr had no vision... Jesus Christ. The list of influencial men/women of faith who have changed the world have done so with a vision, it's just silly to think the opposite.

Your claims of superiority over all these 'sponges' around the globe is what is disdainful. You reduce human intelligence to that of a sheeps, you lack sound judgement and understanding.
I believe that people are capable of thought and no-one believes in something without reason. Try to understand something of the rest of the world or stay in your box.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Athiest does not = Agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not re-entering that pointless debate. If it bothers you search the archives or read wiki or something.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” Michael Corleone, Godfather 3 (not sure if it is in the book which, I know, is your only Godfather reference source).

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Athiest does not = Agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not re-entering that pointless debate. If it bothers you search the archives or read wiki or something.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” Michael Corleone, Godfather 3 (not sure if it is in the book which, I know, is your only Godfather reference source).

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif def' not in the good book

[godBoy]

Buddishm is a religion - Japan is Buddist central. But I know buddists don't believe in God.
A Japananese friend of mine just got back from Japan.
She told me all about her church and the youth events she was part of, she didn't find it hard to find believers.

I live in Australia - and contemporary churches are growing fast.

"New churches are being planted across the UK faster than Starbucks is opening new coffee shops - great news for the church, says the Bishop of Maidstone."
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/church/uk.church.growing.faster.than.starbucks./973.htm
http://www.wels.net/wordpress/archives/2005/12/13/is-the-church-growing/

[ QUOTE ]
the rest of the world's population has been accepting modern science and moving away from religious dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the two are at odds. Science done right points towards God - but maybe this should be part of another thread.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I can't believe you are willing to call the majority of the population sheep, your little understanding amazes me. </font>

You do realize that you are NOT in the majority of the population. Even if theists are the majority, Christianity certainly isn't. Also, as I've pointed out numerous times before, it is primarily people of the United States and Middle-East who still cling to religion. Most other parts of the world have moved into the 21st Century.

[Lestat]

I believe most Japanese are atheists. I know there are much fewer people in the UK and Australia who admit to a belief in God, than in the US. There should be a place to get stats on this, but I don't know where. I'm pretty sure I'm right, though.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe you are willing to call the majority of the population sheep, your little understanding amazes me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Especially those that keep on repeating: "because it's in the baaaaa-ble", as if it was a rational or intellectual argument. Apologies to thinking christians.

[godBoy]

Good use of descriptive language like 'cling' It evokes a sense of desperation.
Yes I do realise that Christianity is not the major group of people, the thread was about theism and atheism.

[ QUOTE ]
it is primarily people of the United States and Middle-East who still cling to religion. Most other parts of the world have moved into the 21st Century.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most other parts are the what..16%(non-religious). Give the numbers the weight they are due.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe most Japanese are atheists. I know there are much fewer people in the UK and Australia who admit to a belief in God, than in the US. There should be a place to get stats on this, but I don't know where. I'm pretty sure I'm right, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience living in Japan and studying their culture, most Japanese people simply don't think or talk about religous matters. They usually do some Buddhist and Shinto traditions, but it's only tradition. I don't know if I would call this atheist. I think it's more precise to say that most Japanese people simply avoid the issue altogether.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe most Japanese are atheists. I know there are much fewer people in the UK and Australia who admit to a belief in God, than in the US. There should be a place to get stats on this, but I don't know where. I'm pretty sure I'm right, though.

[/ QUOTE ]



From my experience living in Japan and studying their culture, most Japanese people simply don't think or talk about religous matters. They usually do some Buddhist and Shinto traditions, but it's only tradition. I don't know if I would call this atheist. I think it's more precise to say that most Japanese people simply avoid the issue altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any idea WHY they avoid the issue?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Any idea WHY they avoid the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they know they will get in pointless and never-ending arguments and discusiions devoid of rationality! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

On a more serious note, I think it has to do with post-war era and the linkage between shintoism, the emperor and the war behaviour. They seem to have a ceratin sensitivity about it, altough it is slowly changing.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I know there are much fewer people in the UK and Australia who admit to a belief in God, than in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you are right here. But I would hardly call the other countries atheistic.
But that is because 76.5% of the US are christian according to the first stats I found. You would be dissapointed with 0.4% as the atheist population, granted that was in 2000.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But that is because 76.5% of the US are christian according to the first stats I found. You would be dissapointed with 0.4% as the atheist population, granted that was in 2000.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another miracle... First the multiplication of the fishes and the loaves and now... the changing/loading of stats to suit godboy... /images/graemlins/smile.gif


I'll soon get to believe this way /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

I didn't make the stats or change what I found, it was simply the first thing I found.

Do you care to enlighten me with accurate stats?
I'm sure they will show a very large percentage of christians in the US, and a very small percentage of atheists.
Are you upset because you were born with stubby appendages?
Is this at the core of your immoral God theory?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you upset because you were born with stubby appendages?
Is this at the core of your immoral God theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

The stubbyness or otherwise, of any appendages, I sure;y don't attribute to an "intelligent" designer, but I find it very christaion of you to notice it and refer to it in such a way.

My theory which it isn't, it is a view, is not immoral, but I state that the god of appendages, stubby or otherwise is immoral.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
... And saying that there HAS to be a God, just because you don't understand something is equally as arrogant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to show me where I said that.